Another argument against Wurm’s thesis is that from John’s testimony, John’s opponents claim to be a superior enlightened class that has a higher knowledge of God than ordinary Christians can attain. But how is this an argument against Wurm’s idea that the opponents are Jews? Wouldn’t they claim to have a superior knowledge of God than Gentile Christians? Read more

Another argument against Wurm’s thesis is that from John’s testimony, John’s opponents claim to be a superior enlightened class that has a higher knowledge of God than ordinary Christians can attain. But how is this an argument against Wurm’s idea that the opponents are Jews? Wouldn’t they claim to have a superior knowledge of God than Gentile Christians? Read more

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Wurm’s thesis that John’s opponents were Jewish Christians, but concludes that “the antithesis of John and Cerinthus, unlike that of Paul and Cerinthus (Epiph. Haer. xxviii.), is too well based in the tradition of the early Church to be dismissed as a later dogmatic reflection, and the internal evidence of this manifesto corroborates it clearly.” But that assumes that Cerinthus was not Jewish, an assumption contradicted by the very source that the Encyclopedia cites –... Read more

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Wurm’s thesis that John’s opponents were Jewish Christians, but concludes that “the antithesis of John and Cerinthus, unlike that of Paul and Cerinthus (Epiph. Haer. xxviii.), is too well based in the tradition of the early Church to be dismissed as a later dogmatic reflection, and the internal evidence of this manifesto corroborates it clearly.” But that assumes that Cerinthus was not Jewish, an assumption contradicted by the very source that the Encyclopedia cites –... Read more

In his commentary on the Johannine epistles, I. Howard Marshall notes A. Wurm’s thesis that John’s opponents were Jews. John’s opponents claim to know the Father, but deny Jesus is the Christ, a position that is certainly compatible with Judaism. Marshall dismisses Wurm’s thesis because John treats his opponents as people who had been members of the Christian community (citing 2:19), and therefore cannot be non-Christian Jews. Which makes sense, perhaps (though Marshall’s treatment of 2:19 is open to question).... Read more

In his commentary on the Johannine epistles, I. Howard Marshall notes A. Wurm’s thesis that John’s opponents were Jews. John’s opponents claim to know the Father, but deny Jesus is the Christ, a position that is certainly compatible with Judaism. Marshall dismisses Wurm’s thesis because John treats his opponents as people who had been members of the Christian community (citing 2:19), and therefore cannot be non-Christian Jews. Which makes sense, perhaps (though Marshall’s treatment of 2:19 is open to question).... Read more

Brown suggests that the structure of John’s gospel sets the pattern for the first epistle. His outline of the gospel is: A. Prologue, 1:1-18. B. Book of Signs, 1:19-12:50. C. Book of Glory, 13:1-20:29. D. Epilogue, ch. 21. And the first epistle: A. Prologue, 1:1-4. B. Part 1, 1:5-3:10 (God is light, and we must walk in light). C. Part 2, 3:11-5:12 (We must love one another as God loved us). D. Conclusion, 5:13-21. On the epistle, he notes that... Read more

Raymond Brown notes that a number of scholars have identified the adversaries of 1 John as “Jews who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.” He finds this implausible since it’s hard to see how Jews could be “looked on as people who placed little emphasis on avoiding sin, keeping the commandments, and acting justly.” Even if these descriptions could be applied to Jews, it is hard to explain why John doesn’t engage his opponents with Scripture,... Read more

Raymond Brown notes that a number of scholars have identified the adversaries of 1 John as “Jews who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.” He finds this implausible since it’s hard to see how Jews could be “looked on as people who placed little emphasis on avoiding sin, keeping the commandments, and acting justly.” Even if these descriptions could be applied to Jews, it is hard to explain why John doesn’t engage his opponents with Scripture,... Read more