Letters of John, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2001 by Yarbrough, Robert W

The Letters of John. By Colin G. Kruse. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, xxii 255 pp., $28.00.

Other commentaries in this series that have appeared so far are Leon Morris's on Matthew and Romans, D. A. Carson's on John, Peter O'Brien's on Ephesians, and Doug Moo's on James. Kruse's on the Johannine epistles is a worthy addition to this impressive line-up.

Kruse opens with about 50 pages of introductory discussion. He concludes that "the fairest way to read the evidence" is that John the son of Zebedee is the author of 1 John (p. 14). Further, the same person wrote 2 and 3 John (pp. 37, 42). On other introductory matters, too, Kruse adopts fairly noncontroversial positions. This is not because he is unaware of modern hypotheses to the contrary, with which he interacts in footnotes. He is simply not always persuaded by them.

In the course of introductory discussion there are helpful compilations of patristic references to John (pp. 11-14) and to "the secessionists" against whom John may have been reacting (pp. 20-26). An appendix collects references to Cain in biblical and extrabiblical literature (missing here, however, are references found in Josephus and Philo).

Kruse's strengths include clarity and economy. He does a good job of boiling down much technical discussion. An example is "A Note on Sinless Perfectionism," one of about 22 concise excurses that pepper the commentary. After laying out the relevant passages from 1 John, Kruse summarizes the views of de la Potterie, Inman, Kubo, Kotze, Brown, Swadling, and Strecker-all in just four pages. His own solution to the tension between 1 John 2:1 and 3:6-9 is to say that there may be no solution at hand. But then he slips in what he thinks the best possibility is: "if we recognize the connection between sin and anomia (rebellion) in 3:1-10, we might say that the sin which distinguishes the children of the devil is the sin of the devil, rebellion or anomia, and it is this sin that is impossible for believers to commit" (p. 132). However one assesses his proposal, his claritas in reaching and articulating it is admirable.

Much is gained by Kruse's directness and simplicity, but there is a price tag. Theological reflection, to say nothing of application, is rare. This is not all bad, because if a commentary will help the reader wrestle with a given text and its possible links with other biblical passages (one of the commentary's fortes), theological reflection and application may readily suggest themselves. But one seldom finds the theological richness of, say, Calvin, or even I. H. Marshall, much less the attempts to make application found in Burge or the homiletical suggestiveness of Stott.

Yet within the parameters Kruse sets, his comments are solid and insightful. If there is any real weakness, it might be the slender connection between OT passages and theology and Kruse's exposition. He is skillful, at times even painstaking, in showing how John's epistles interconnect with each other, with the fourth Gospel, and with other NT writings. But one frequently suspects that John's doctrine and ethics may have had more rootage (via Jesus?) in OT passages that Kruse indicates. More attention to LXX parallels to some of John's locutions might have been fruitful. But then that might have tilted things in a more technical direction than Kruse wished to go.

This points to the fact that while cognizant of recent scholarship, the commentary makes no attempt to match strides with the likes of Brown, Schnackenburg, or Strecker. Readers seeking a full-scale critical treatment must look elsewhere. But for teaching or preaching the Scriptures with an eye to recent scholarly trends Kruse ought to find wide use. I have assigned it myself as the textbook for a seminary English Bible class on John's letters.

Robert W. Yarbrough

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL