Authentic Christianity
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 53, No. 2 – Spring 2011
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Robert W. Yarbrough. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. 434 pages. Hardcover, $39.99.
Robert Yarbrough is Professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He is also one of the main editors for the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament to which he contributes this volume on 1–3 John. In his preface, Yarbrough provides six areas that would set his commentary apart from other recent commentaries on John’s epistles. In my reading, two of the six areas have especially significant and beneficial effects on his commentary. First, he reads the epistles of John as works of John the apostle and eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry. As a result, Yarbrough is attentive to connections between John’s epistles and the teachings of Jesus, as well as connections to the Gospel of John (ix–x). Second, he uses a variety of interpreters, ancient and modern, to inform his study of John’s epistles. His work therefore points us to insights from previous interpreters and gives a sense that he has not isolated himself in the midst of contemporary scholarship.
Yarbrough fails to note a third area that sets his commentary apart from others in the field. This third area is his engagement with biblical and systematic theology. Such engagement adds a helpful and welcome dimension to his treatment of John’s teachings at certain points. For instance, John makes some confident assertions in 1 John 5:14–15 that might sound like Christians can expect to receive whatever they ask for when they pray. Yarbrough proceeds to interpret these verses with an eye on the immediate context and on relevant biblical teachings on prayer (300–03). A second example occurs with respect to 1 John 2:2. This verse speaks about Jesus as “the propitiation for our sins” and those of “the whole world” (71). Yarbrough notes that 1 John 2:2 is often quoted in the theological debate over the extent of the atonement. He goes on to provide brief comments that provide his perspective on the significance of 1 John 2:2 for this debate (80–81).
In the comments above, I have already noted some of the positive distinguishing features of Yarbrough’s commentary. I would add another feature that could be a plus or a minus depending on the reader. In a number of cases, Yarbrough attends to matters of Greek syntax that would be helpful for those with training in Greek. Most of his comments can be deciphered for someone with access to an intermediate Greek grammar, like Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. In general, someone with little or no knowledge of Greek may be intimidated by these syntax comments and by the quantity of quotes from the Greek text throughout the commentary. I would add here that Yarbrough sometimes uses common Latin phrases in his discussion without translation or explanation. These may be challenging for some readers.
In terms of his treatment of specific points, readers will want to consider Yarbrough’s comments about 1 John 3:4, 6. In these challenging verses, John asserts something to the effect that true believers do not sin. Unlike others, Yarbrough thinks the solution to the difficulty does not rest upon the tense or verbal aspect of the Greek verbs used to speak about sinning (183). Rather, John must be limiting his conception of sin in some way. The sins in view could involve “heinous rebellion” against God and be related to the “sin unto death” of 1 John 5:16 (182). I would not agree with Yarbrough here, but his arguments are worthy of consideration alongside of the cases for other solutions.
In my assessment, Yarbrough’s commentary is a useful and welcome addition for those who appreciate his emphases. His work is clearly in the evangelical camp. It provides good examples of interpretive work that resists isolation from theological concerns and from the helpful contributions of a range of previous interpreters.
