1 John and Church Abandonment: A Personal Journey

The first post in this series can be found here.

August 6, 2022.

The worst day of my life.

After almost two years of marriage and three previous moves within that same time frame, my wife and I are unpacking boxes from a fourth move and wrangling a nine-month old when an email notification pops up. It is supposed to be a happy time. We had been in our new apartment for a week—an apartment we will not have to worry about leaving for a year—but the subject line of the email guts me. If not for my wife and son, I am not convinced I would still be alive today.

“Letter of Excommunication”

I was not excommunicated for unrepentant sin. I was excommunicated in the name of Titus 3:9–10. I was excommunicated from the church that discipled me for a decade; confirmed my calling to ministry; paid for my first semester’s textbooks at Bible college before commissioning my educational journey in front of the congregation with prayer. I was excommunicated by pastors who I regularly prayed for, went to bat for on Twitter, and longed to fellowship with every day I spent in Missouri working on my undergrad. And ultimately, they are the reason I moved back to California in 2017, after graduation. But they excommunicated me, which included a no-contact order to the rest of the congregation.

In order to understand why, I need to back up a few months:

June 2021 = A good friend of mine and fellow member of the church is up for excommunication at the next member’s meeting if he does not start attending faithfully again before then. The other members are urged to reach out, and I make a mental note to do so. (This announcement reminded me why I had initially parted ways with this church for a while;¹ he would be the third committed Christian guy my age–who I had been close with before going to college–who was excommunicated for failing to “faithfully” attend church.)

September 2021 = The same friend is excommunicated. I had not called him, and I was kicking myself for it. I had just started an internship at the church for one of my seminary classes, but when the church voted, “Yay!” to excommunicate my friend—I lost it. I wanted to yell about how unloving² they were being; but instead, I leave my pregnant wife sitting there and walk out to the parking lot to cry. That display of emotion costs me my internship and that class (along with tuition money) and ultimately my M.Div.³

October 2021 = I spend my week of fall break researching everything I possibly can about church discipline: biblically, historically, theologically, even psychologically. It was during this study that I discover the Donatists. Throughout this time, I am in conversations with church leadership to clear my name and be reinstated as an elder intern. My son is born in November. The church welcomes me to preach on February 2, 2022 and May 4, 2022 (though they later deleted these recordings from their SermonAudio account).

March 2022 = I am finally sitting down to spend several hours reading a bunch of library sources for a seminary paper when my phone rings. I look at the caller ID. Bryce is calling.⁴ He had been excommunicated several years prior for failing to faithfully attend church. On the one hand, I can ignore his call:

1. I am not supposed to communicate with him unless I am calling for him to reconcile with the church by starting to attend again.
2. I am working on homework.
3. Our conversations have been limited to “happy birthday” and “merry Christmas” for the past several years.

Or I can answer his call:

1. We have known each other since at least age ten (2002).
2. He played a crucial role in bringing me back to faith after high school (2010).
3. I was the best man at his wedding (2016).

I choose to answer. This was the fork in the road that changed the whole course of my life.

Bryce proceeds to tell me that his marriage is hanging on by a thread, that it is all his fault, and that he does not know what to do. He walks me through his marriage chronicle over the course of the next six hours. I end up buying dinner for him and his kids; going over to his house; reading scripture with him; and praying for him, his marriage, and his future. Over the next nine months, I text and call him regularly to make sure he is not in any danger of falling back into destructive patterns.

August 6, 2022 = I receive my excommunication email. The only prior warning I’d had of this potential reality was in June when the pastors had asked to sit down with me about some of my social media posts. They explicitly stated, though, that I was not in any danger of discipline; the only reason the meeting ever actually happened was because I reminded the pastors they wanted to meet (still trying to completely clear my name from the prior September). But within a few hours of receiving my excommunication letter, Bryce’s sister texts me. She thanks me for my influence on her brother, regardless of what the church is saying. Several months later, Bryce’s mom spots me in a Starbucks and thanks me for my commitment to his wellbeing. Their words were God’s words to me that I’d made the right decision.

The reason the church excommunicated people for failing to attend was the unrepentant sin of “church abandonment,” practicing exegetical gymnastics on Matthew 18:15–17 and most of 1 John to conclude that these “former” (rather: “never”) Christians were in sin. Excommunication (as it is historically understood) declares someone to not be a Christian, which means that you believe their eternal destiny will be hell if no repentance occurs.⁵ Shunning them and refusing to interact with them guarantees that anticipated eternal destiny.⁶ And since my friends’ only stated “sin” was “abandoning” a specific, local church, shunning them reiterates that they made the right choice by not attending. If we want those who’ve left the Church to return (“repent”), then we must go out of our way to love them.

Instead of hearing me, they treated me exactly the same way.

But the fact is: I chose people over an institution, and the institution burned me for it.⁷ The way of Jesus is not popular; people prefer the way of power. But these two ways are antithetical to each other. I would make the same decision again.

I have long hesitated to share this in print for two reasons. First, it is something I am passionate about, and I worry that sharing my story will open the floodgates, resulting in my constantly harping on this subject. Second, I still hope to be called as a pastor/professor someday, and I know that people scour candidates’ websites to know what they believe. However, I believe it will be cathartic to share, and I firmly believe that telling people about the consequences of my stance for God’s heart cannot hinder God’s calling me to pursue ministry employment.

This is especially the case because I know that many others have been hurt in the name of religion—specifically Christian religion. I am here to say, “You are not alone and there is hope. I truly hope your church hurt has not destroyed your faith.” I am writing this commentary to encourage people to give faith another try (or a first try). We’re not all power hungry monsters, but it does nothing to deny their existence.

First John is a manual for handling church abandonment. I wrote last time specifically about Saint Augustine’s background and how he is relevant to this discussion. Now you know why this discussion is important to me. In what follows today, I want to discuss the other sources I will be utilizing to keep this project from becoming merely a list of grievances. Other scholars can also be seen as supporting this understanding of the book, even if their stated understanding is not worded the same way as mine.

Sources for this Study

The primary source for this study is the Greek New Testament, specifically the book of 1 John.⁸ Each chapter’s introduction will be followed with my translation of the text under consideration. When turning to the Old Testament—if necessary⁹—I will consider both the Hebrew Bible¹⁰ and the Septuagint,¹¹ noting any differences between the two; again, I will provide my own translations. However, in order to better grasp the meaning of the Scripture, I have conversed (by reading) with multiple commentators.

My decisions in this regard depend on several factors, which will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. I want this study to be ecumenical¹²—a five-dollar word that means “multiple denominations”—one benefit of which is protection from churches who think too highly of themselves. If other faith traditions are accepted as legitimate voices, it limits the possibility of shouting “Heresy!” and shunning those who differ from us. For this reason, I have chosen at least one commentator from each of the major traditions: Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist.

The following chart summarizes all the commentaries I looked at for this study. It highlights my primary conversation partners and notes their professional qualifications: pastor,¹³ professor, both, or other:

	Name	Denomination	Professional	Year	Series
>	Augustine	Catholic	Pastor	407	n/a
>	Martin Luther	Reformer	Both	1527	n/a
	John Calvin	Reformer	Pastor	1551	n/a
	Matthew Henry	Puritan	Pastor	1721	n/a
	B F Westcott	Anglican	Both	1883	n/a
	Alan Brooke	Anglican	Both	1912	ICC
>	Rudolf Bultmann	Lutheran	Professor	1967	Hermeneia
	I Howard Marshall	Methodist	Professor	1978	NICNT
	James Boice	Presbyterian (PCA)	Pastor	1979	n/a
>	Raymond Brown	Roman Catholic	Both	1982	AYB
>	Stephen Smalley	Anglican	Pastor	1984	WBC
	Rudolf Schnackenburg	Roman Catholic	Both	1984	HTKZNT
	John Stott	Anglican	Pastor	1988	TNTC
>	Georg Strecker	uncertain	Professor	1989	Hermeneia
	Gary Burge	Presbyterian (PCUSA)	Professor	1996	NIVAC
	Colin Kruse	Anglican	Professor	2000	PNTC
>	Daniel Akin	Southern Baptist	Other	2001	NAC
	John MacArthur	Non-denominational	Pastor	2007	n/a
>	Robert Yarbrough	Presbyterian (PCA)	Professor	2008	BECNT
>	Judith Lieu	Methodist	Professor	2008	NTL
>	Karen Jobes	Presbyterian (EPC)	Professor	2014	ZECNT

The introductions that follow are limited to those marked ( > ) in the leftmost column.

I discussed Saint Augustine in some detail last time, so I will direct you to that post for additional details on him.

Martin Luther was a Catholic who became convinced—whether rightly or wrongly—of the deadness of the medieval Catholic system. He had belonged to the Augustinian monastic order,¹⁴ and held the chair of theology at the University of Wittenberg until his death, even though his theological views and pursuit of reformation resulted in his excommunication from the Catholic Church (including the monastic order) in 1521. He published his commentary on 1 John in 1527, six years after his excommunication, and his study is worth noting, especially since the Reformers were often labelled Donatists for their insistence that the Catholic Church had disqualified itself.¹⁵ As such, Luther’s understood purpose for 1 John is especially interesting and worth considering: “To teach faith in opposition to the heretics, and true love in opposition to those who are wicked.”¹⁶ James Atkinson argues that if we are ever to reach the Christian unity envisioned by Jesus, we must all—Catholic and Protestant together—pay attention to Martin Luther:

[Luther] has a great deal to say for the healing of the nations and for the mending of the churches. As there is more of the Gospel in Paul than in the Gospels in that it is so incisively expressed, so there is more Gospel in Luther (the second Paul) than in any other Church Father or doctor. And just as Paul divided men into Judaisers [sic] and believers, and yet has the secret to unite them (Rom. 9-11), so Luther, who divided Christendom, will yet prove the ground of its unity.¹⁷

When we put these together—Luther’s understanding of 1 John with Atkinson’s high view of Luther’s importance—and realize that Luther was heavily influenced by Augustine,¹⁸ it makes it clear that Luther’s voice must be heeded in this study. How does he (or does he at all) foresee and deal with the coming charge of Donatism on his movement? How does this affect our ecumenical pursuits?

Rudolf Bultmann was a German Lutheran, who was a professor of New Testament at Marburg University. He wrote his commentary on 1 John in 1967, and it was translated to English and published in the Hermeneia series in 1973. He is convinced that “none of the attempts to demonstrate unity and a sequence of thought is satisfactory,” arguing that everything following 2:27 is rehashing what was already discussed.¹⁹ However, in his commentary on both 1:3 and 5:13, he identifies the dual purpose of the book.²⁰ His work is especially useful as many later commentators refer to him.

Raymond Brown was a Catholic Priest and professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary. His commentary came out in 1982, and it is the magnum opus of commentaries on 1 John.²¹ His working thesis is summarized clearly in his earlier book, The Community of the Beloved Disciple. His thesis is built on the debated premise that each gospel addresses a specific situation in a certain church.²² First John was written to clarify confusion arising from misinterpretations of John’s gospel that had resulted in schism. In Brown’s scheme, 1 John failed to bring anyone back: The schismatic bunch were absorbed by the second-century Gnostics, and the faithful were incorporated into the Catholic Church.²³ Brown’s thesis has parallels with Augustine’s historical background (link), which is another reason why Brown receives a place in my inner circle.

Stephen Smalley was an Anglican who served as Dean Emeritus of Chester Cathedral, in England. His 1984 commentary was ultimately overshadowed by that of Brown, but he is worth hearing because his position was not greatly influenced by Brown.²⁴ When Smalley appears to agree with Brown, his conclusions should be especially heeded, or carefully argued against. Smalley understands the author’s purpose as “Primarily an appeal to the faithful: to strengthen the faith and resolve of true believers in the Johannine community by encouraging them to maintain the apostolic gospel. … It was no doubt aimed, in particular, at the prevention of further error and secession, and thus at the preservation of unity in the church.”²⁵

Smalley ousts the other potential Anglicans, including the later Kruse, due in part to the fantastic review written by Michael Holmes:

If (as they surely are) Brown and Smalley are correct in their general reconstruction of the situation—namely, that the divisions within the larger community involve different interpretations of the same authoritative tradition—then the historical situation behind the Johannine letters is a close parallel to contemporary situations in which divisions within churches are at root differences about how to interpret Scripture.²⁶

Georg Strecker was professor of New Testament at the University of Göttingen, and his commentary was published in German in 1989. The English translation followed in 1996 and replaced Bultmann’s in the Hermeneia series. Strecker’s work spans 214 pages, whereas Bultmann only dedicated 88 pages to 1 John. Strecker understands the book as a “homily in the form of a letter,”²⁷ and while polemics certainly play a greater role than some commentators admit, the whole letter should be understood as coming from “the author’s affection for the Christian community.”²⁸

Daniel Akin is President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and was greatly influenced by Brown’s: their outlines are very similar. He published his commentary in 2001, for the New American Commentary series, a specifically Southern Baptist series. I am especially curious to see how an SBC seminary president reinterprets the Catholic Brown for evangelicals. He understands the letter as having a dual purpose: “to combat the propaganda of the false teachers” and “to reassure believers.”²⁹ Akin holds to the “tests” perspective: “John provides his readers with tests or criteria by which they can evaluate the claims of those who have left the fellowship and ‘with which they could reassure themselves that they were in the truth (1 John 1:5–2:2; 2:3–11; 3:7–10, 14–15; 4:4–6, 7–8, 13–15; 5:13, 18–20).’ ”³⁰

Robert Yarbrough is professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He is a Presbyterian (PCA), and his 2008 commentary understands the book’s purpose as seeking “to affirm and reinvigorate doctrinal direction, ethical urgency, relational integrity, and a forward-looking faith in God.”³¹ His—as his outline demonstrates—is one of the most thorough works on 1 John from an evangelical perspective.

Judith Lieu was formerly a professor of Divinity at University of Cambridge and belongs to the Methodist denomination. Her commentary was published in 2008, and she takes issue with Brown’s understanding of 1 John: “Such an exercise of reconstructing a situation for the letters and then interpreting them in its light involves a degree of circularity that may prove sterile.”³² Since I am applying this letter to a similar situation (Augustine’s translated to the present), I must converse with Lieu in order to stay honest about the validity of my project. Her understanding of 1 John’s purpose is interesting: “The letter brings ‘you’ into that fellowship with ‘us’ that was its initial avowed intent (1:3); to read the letter is to accept this process.”³³

Karen Jobes is the most recent of commentators I have for 1 John. Her commentary was released in 2014, and she understands the letter’s purpose: “To convince his readers to continue in their faith in Jesus Christ despite the disruption and confusion caused by members of the community who have left the church.”³⁴ Jobes is a Presbyterian (EPC) and serves as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society; she was previously professor of Greek/Greek Exegesis at Wheaton College.

My primary conversation partners span the years of 1967–2014 (Augustine is from 407 and Luther is from 1527), six different church affiliations, and several different understood purposes, ranging from “tests,” to polemics, to a call to persevere, to Christian love/fellowship.

As the chart shows, I have—to this point—looked at a number of other commentaries as it relates to understanding the background and importance of 1 John. I will not read all of them in their entirety for every exposition that follows (probably true even of the ones discussed above), but I list them to explain their potential appearance in footnotes throughout this study. There are a number of other sources I may utilize as well, most notably:

• Baylor’s handbook on the Greek text of 1 John (BHGNT)³⁵
• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG)³⁶
• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT)³⁷
• Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (DLNTD)³⁸
• Dictionary of New Testament Background (DNTB)³⁹
• New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDNTTE)⁴⁰
• Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD)⁴¹

In addition to these, I will make use of a variety of journal articles and other books where applicable.⁴² All of this will demonstrate that 1 John is a book of assurance, but according to John, true assurance is impossible apart from the Church. But John does not enforce this reality with a heavy hand. We must pay close attention to his message so that we do not disparage the name of Christ or his Bride.

The Format of this Study

Each chapter will follow the same pattern:

• Translated text
• Jump menu
• Textual Variants
• Exegetical details
• Exposition and Application
• Saint Augustine Assessment
• Gospel Plea
• Great Commandment Plea
• Reflection questions

I repeat this here because I have added a new section to the discussion. After the Exposition and Application I will put each section of text that Augustine discusses through an assessment. Since his controversy with the Donatists resulted in some unfortunate historical realities,⁴³ we need to be careful how we hear him today. For this reason, I will point out anything potentially problematic that occurred in his exposition that week.

The assessment will follow this format:

• Did Augustine write anything potentially problematic throughout this section of text?
  • If no, move on to Gospel Plea; If yes, continue.
• Does the potential problem belong in the “ecclesiology” (love) subcategory?
  • If no, move on to Gospel Plea (and maybe write something else about it another time); if yes, continue.
• Assess the potential problem with these questions:
  • What was problematic?
  • How can we understand it as graciously as possible?
  • How did Church History understand it?
  • What should we do instead?

There is a lot more I could say related to 1 John,⁴⁴ but it’s time to jump into the text. The first sermon I ever wrote was on 1 John 4:15–17 (2012),⁴⁵ and now, thirteen years later, I’m finally expositing the whole book. God has brought me through the ringer since then, but I’ve also been able to learn from great Christians throughout the history of the Church. I believe God will speak to his Church through this study!

A Prayer

Lord Jesus,

I offer this project to you. Take it and multiply it like only you can. May it encourage those who need encouragement, comfort those who need to be comforted, convict those who need conviction, and restore those who need restoration. Reform your Church, we pray!

In your powerful name we pray. Amen!

---

Thanks for reading!

In this with you!

• Threads
• Bluesky
• X
• Facebook

---

Notes and References

1. At present, I have a very hard time agreeing with the last sentence of the linked paragraph. God is working on my heart though. ↩︎
2. If someone stops attending your church, the answer isn’t to shun them, but to love them and show them it’s a welcoming, loving place; fighting fire with fire is forever foolish. ↩︎
3. I finished a Master of Theological Studies in 2023, but I have not yet had the opportunity to do an internship (required for the M.Div. program). ↩︎
4. Bryce stars as one of the main characters in my fictionalized memoir: Stranded: Awakening, book 1 (2017). This book only covers the first eighteen years of my life. I’m presently working on the sequel. ↩︎
5. This is why John Huss (1369–1415) wrote, “Whoever excommunicates another for temporal gain or chiefly for his own honor or to revenge an injury against himself or without any known cause of criminal offence this man excommunicates himself” (De Ecclesia [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915], 272, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Ecclesia._The_Church/Chapter_22). Emphasis added. See also Martin Luther, “The Keys,” trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Church and Ministry II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, LW 40(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 321–377. ↩︎
6. As Newton’s first law of motion states: “An object in motion (or at rest), continues in motion (or at rest) unless acted upon by an outside force.” ↩︎
7. I actually spoke about this situation with the President of my seminary who reassured me that this is not normally how “church discipline” is practiced. His words reassured me that the whole denomination was not opposed to me, even though one local institution and “all likeminded churches in the area” (of varying denominations) had shunned me. Unfortunately, it was not my first time seeing these sorts of practices in churches. ↩︎
8. Kurt Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012). ↩︎
9. See discussion in D. A. Carson, “John, Letters of,” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds., G. K. Beale, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 400–403. ↩︎
10. K. Elliger, W. Rudolph, and Gérard E. Weil, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003). ↩︎
11. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979). ↩︎
12. Contra Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 177–178. It is too myopic a position to only emphasize the local church, “like-minded churches,” or even denominational conventions. And it is unfortunate that “evangelicals have been suspicious and critical of [trans-denominational] ecumenical efforts” (footnote 47). ↩︎
13. Priest/Bishop is included in the chart under the idea of “Pastor.” ↩︎
14. See Joshua Wingerd, “Augustine’s Disciple” (2022), https://www.academia.edu/119701199/Augustine_s_Disciple. ↩︎
15. See Robert Bellarmine, “On the Church Militant Diffused Throughout the World,” in On the Church, Vol. I, trans. Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017); and Robert Bellarmine, “On the Marks of the Church,” in On the Church, Vol. I, trans. Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), chapter 7, page 385. The charge lies just beneath the surface throughout both works, but the final sentences of “Marks of the Church,” chapter 7 are especially clear. ↩︎
16. Martin Luther, “Lectures on the First Epistle of St. John,” trans. Walter A. Hansen, The Catholic Epistles, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, LW 30 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 219. ↩︎
17. James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 45 n. 1. ↩︎
18. Atkinson, Martin Luther, 57 n. 8: “His close study of Augustine.” See also Wingerd, “Augustine’s Disciple,” https://www.academia.edu/119701199/Augustine_s_Disciple. ↩︎
19. Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, trans. R. Philip O’Hara, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1973), 2. ↩︎
20. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 12, 83. ↩︎
21. Michael Holmes, “1, 2, 3 John by Stephen S. Smalley,” JETS 29, no. 1 (1986): 71: “R. E. Brown’s magisterial and massive volume … which at 840 pages overshadows anything else ever written on these epistles in any language.” ↩︎
22. For a helpful counter-argument, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). It is a downside of this book that in 217 pages spanning eight chapters (including an introduction) by six authors, there are only seven references to Brown’s work. However, this might be because of the “hypothetical character of his view of the historical situation,” which “so dominates the commentary that the latter stands or falls on the basis of B.’s understanding of the secessionist position” (J. Terence Forestell, “The Epistles of John by Raymond E. Brown,” CBQ 45 [1983]: 681). But it still would have been nice for Bauckham and company to actually demonstrate where his hypothesis falls short. ↩︎
23. See Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979). On Gnosticism, see pp. 15–16, 24, 145–155. ↩︎
24. Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1984), xi: “The extent to which in this study I have entered into the labors of other commentators on John’s letters will be obvious, as will the fact that Raymond Brown’s magisterial volume on The Epistles of John, in the Anchor Bible series, did not appear until I had almost completed my own commentary.” ↩︎
25. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxviii. Emphasis in original. ↩︎
26. Holmes, “1, 2, 3 John,” 72. Emphasis added. ↩︎
27. Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, trans. Linda Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 2. ↩︎
28. Strecker, The Johannine Letters, xliii–xliv. ↩︎
29. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 29–30. ↩︎
30. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 30, quoting Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 3. ↩︎
31. Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 21. ↩︎
32. Judith M. Lieu, I, II, III John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 29. ↩︎
33. Lieu, I, II, III John, 15. ↩︎
34. Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 37. ↩︎
35. Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004). ↩︎
36. William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). ↩︎
37. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1973). ↩︎
38. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997). ↩︎
39. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). ↩︎
40. Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014). ↩︎
41. David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992). ↩︎
42. One specific one that may make multiple appearances later in this study is Matthew Barrett, Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023). As of February 12, 2025, I have not yet had a chance to start it, but I can’t imagine it not being pertinent to this discussion at multiple points. ↩︎
43. Most clearly the Inquisition, though a case could be made that one could draw a line from Augustine’s later treatment of the Donatists to Luther’s perspective on the Jews  to the Holocaust (see Wingerd, “Augustine’s Disciple” (2022), 16, https://www.academia.edu/119701199/Augustine_s_Disciple). ↩︎
44. This is not exactly an official commentary introduction, as that would include a discussion on authorship, genre, date, and provenance. When I transform this into a commentary for publication, I will include that conversation, but next time we dive into 1:1–4. ↩︎
45. I revised the original sermon in 2018 and preached it again. ↩︎