They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Book 177)

By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in 1 John did not have to do with a later complex Christological issue such as docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of the historical life/death of Jesus, but rather concerned the foundational belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, a tenet the secessionists had renounced in order to return to the Jewish synagogue. He critiques the common maximalistic mirror-reading approach to the letter as misguided, and contends that the letter is primarily pastoral, meant to comfort and reassure the community rather than to argue against the secessionists. Streett’s main contributions are his detailed examination of the ancient historical evidence (especially the Patristic evidence) for the Johannine opponents, and his in-depth and innovative exegesis of the key opponent passages (1 Jn 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 Jn 4–11). Foreword 7 Table of Contents 9 Introduction 19 Chapter 1: Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John 23 I. The Basic Questions 23 II. Five Views of the Opponents 24 III. Ultra-Johannine Opponents 26 A. The Role of the Johannine Community Hypothesis 29 B. Reconstructions of the Community’s History 31 C. Weaknesses of the Ultra-Johannine Theory 34 IV. Gnostic Opponents 37 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Gnostic Opponents 38 B. Weaknesses with the Theory of Gnostic Opponents 40 1. Dating Issues 40 2. Methodological Issues 41 3. Gnostic Use of 1 John 42 4. The Definition Debate 43 a. Methods of Definition 45 b. The Messina Definition 46 c. Two Recent Contributions 47 d. Earlier Challenges 50 e. Incipient Gnosticism? 51 C. Conclusion 53 V. Docetic Opponents 53 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Docetic Opponents 55 1. Explicitly Anti-Docetic Passages 55 2. Implicitly Anti-Docetic Passages 56 B. Types of Docetism 56 1. Monophysite Theories 56 a. Marcion and Saturninus 57 b. The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch 58 c. The Acts of John 62 d. Other Texts 63 2. Ouranosarkic Theories 64 3. Replacement Theories 65 C. Origins of Docetism 66 1. Greek Dualism 67 2. High Christology 67 3. Christological Prophecy 68 D. Weaknesses with the Theory of Docetic Opponents 68 VI. Cerinthian Opponents 71 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents 72 B. Ancient Evidence for Cerinthianism and Johannine Anti-Cerinthianism 74 1. Epistula Apostolorum 74 2. Irenaeus 75 3. Hippolytus 77 4. Pseudo-Tertullian 78 5. Victorinus 79 6. Dionysius of Alexandria 80 7. Eusebius 81 8. Epiphanius 81 C. Scholarly Reconstructions of Cerinthus 83 1. Cerinthus the Chiliast 83 2. Cerinthus the Gnostic 84 3. Cerinthus the Jewish Gnostic 85 D. Weaknesses of the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents 86 1. The Dearth of Reliable Ancient Evidence 87 2. The Questionable Relevance of the Ancient Evidence 90 3. Other Possible Separationist Opponents 92 VII. Opponents Who Devalue Jesus 95 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus 97 1. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction 97 2. Urban Von Wahlde’s Reconstruction 100 B. Weaknesses of the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus 104 1. Weaknesses of Brown’s Proposal 104 2. Weaknesses of Von Wahlde’s Proposal 107 VIII. Jewish Opponents 108 A. The Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Jewish Opponents 109 B. Previous Contributions to the Jewish Apostate View 110 1. Alois Wurm 110 2. J. C. O’Neill 112 3. Hartwig Thyen 114 4. Dietrich Rusam 114 5. Terry Griffith 115 6. Birger Olsson 116 7. Ben Witherington 118 C. Objections to the Jewish Apostate View 120 1. The Opponents are “Christians” 120 2. The Non-Jewish Context of the Epistles 122 3. The Lack of Scriptural Citations 125 IX. Conclusion 128 Chapter 2: The Methodology of Mirror-Reading 130 I. The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach 131 A. Kenneth Grayston’s Reconstruction 131 B. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction 132 C. The Interpretive Logic of Maximalist Mirror-Readings of 1 John 134 II. An Alternative Approach 136 A. The Limited Role of the Secession in the Letter 136 B. The Generalized Nature of the Warnings 137 C. Pastoral Discourse in 1 John 2:18–27 138 D. The Preventative Nature of the Warnings in 1 John 4:1–6 140 E. The Reassuring Rhetoric of 1 John 5:6 141 F. The Pastoral Intent of the Ethical Instruction 141 G. The Illegitimacy of the Schlagwörter Approach 144 H. The Use and Misuse of Historical Parallels 146 I. A Call for Restraint and Realism 147 III. Conclusion 149 Chapter 3: 1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah 150 I. Major Interpretations of this Passage 151 A. Anti-Cerinthian 151 B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian View 152 C. Anti-Docetist 154 D. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetist View 155 E. Against Devaluation of Jesus 156 F. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View 157 G. Anti-Ebionite 158 H. Weaknesses of the Anti-Ebionite View 159 II. An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates 160 A. The Eschatological Setting of the Secession (v. 18) 160 B. The Secession and its Purpose (v. 19) 164 C. Anointing and Knowledge (vv. 20-21) 168 1. Reassurance of the Audience’s Status 168 2. The Anointing from the Holy One 169 D. The Antichrists’ Denial (vv. 22-23) 173 1. Truth and Falsehood in the Eschatological Crisis 173 2. Proper Relation to the Father Depends upon Confession of the Son 174 3. The Main Issue: Jesus’ Messiahship 175 E. Maintaining the Original Message (vv. 24-25) 184 1. The Nature of the Message 185 2. The Beginning 186 F. Further Reassurance (vv. 26-27) 187 G. Summary 189 III. Conclusion 189 Chapter 4: 1 John 4:1-6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh 191 I. Opposing Overspiritualized Christianity 192 II. Opposing Anti-Sacramentalism 194 III. Opposing Cerinthian Christology 194 A. Not Confessing “Jesus” 196 B. The Text-Critical Question in 1 John 4:3 196 C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Interpretation 198 1. The Meaning of Xqictoc 198 2. Could a Cerinthian Confess Inaoüv Xqictov èv aaQKi eAnAuGoxa? 199 3. Does the Perfect Tense Indicate Permanence? 199 IV. Opposing Docetic Christology 201 A. Early Anti-Docetic Interpretation of 1 John 4:2 203 1. Polycarp 203 2. Tertullian 205 3. Third Corinthians 206 B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation 207 1. Grammatical Issues 207 2. The Use of “Jesus” in 4:3 210 3. Methodological Issues 211 4. The Value of Early Interpretations of 1 John 4:2 212 5. The Brevity, Lack of Elaboration, and Obscurity of the Confession 214 6. Docetist Confessions of the Flesh of Jesus Christ 216 a. Ways of Affirming the Incarnation Docetically 216 b. The Excerpta ex Theodoto 217 c. The Gospel of Philip 218 d. The Tripartite Tractate 218 e. The Treatise on the Resurrection 219 f. The Trimorphic Protennoia 219 g. The Gospel of Thomas 220 7. A Possible Response 221 8. Non-Polemical Parallels to 1 John 4:2 222 a. Romans 1:3–4 222 b. Romans 8:3 224 c. Romans 9:5 225 d. First Timothy 3:16 225 e. First Peter 3:18, 22 229 f. Other NT Texts 230 g. ? Psalmic Source? 231 h. The Epistle of Barnabas 232 i. The Testament of Benjamin 233 j. Gnostic Texts 234 k. “In Flesh” as Simple Presence 234 l. Conclusion 235 V. Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus 236 A. The Meaning of “Flesh” 236 B. The Meaning of “Coming” 237 C. Not Confessing Jesus 237 D. The Johannine Origins of the Opponents’ Error 238 1. Overemphasis on Pre-Existence 238 2. Overemphasis on the Spirit 239 E. The Ethical Byproduct of Devaluing Jesus 239 VI. Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus 240 A. “Coming in the Flesh” as Death 240 B. Overemphasis on Jesus’ Baptism 241 C. Ethical Implications 242 D. Relationship of 1 John 4:2 to Other Opponent Passages in the Letter 242 E. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View 243 1. An Unlikely Interpretation of “Coming in Flesh” 243 2. “Coming in Flesh” Does Not Refer to Jesus’ Death 244 3. A Johannine Origin for the Opponents’ View? 244 4. Is 1 John 4:2 an Expanded Confession? 245 5. The Use of “Jesus” in 1 John 4:3 245 VII. An Alternative Interpretation 246 A. The Immediate Context 246 B. Testing the Spirits (v. 1) 247 1. Testing the Spirits in Other Early Christian Texts 248 2. The Apocalyptic Setting 249 3. The Mission of the False Prophets 249 4. The OT Background of Testing the Prophets 250 C. The Criteria of Testing (vv. 2-3) 252 D. Assurance of Victory (v. 4) 253 E. The World’s Reception of the False Prophets (vv. 5-6) 254 F. The Confession of 4:2-3 in Context 256 1. The Confession Deals with the Foundational Belief of the Community 256 2. The Confession is the Community’s Original Confession 257 3. The Confession is Materially the Same as That of 2:22 257 G. The Grammar of the Confession 258 1. The Use of Χριστός 259 2. Χριστός as a Title 259 3. The Lack of the Article 261 a. John 9:22 261 b. Other Anarthrous Parallels 262 c. Second-Century Evidence 262 d. Evidence from Ancient Titulature 263 e. The Compressed Character of Confessions 264 4. Where is the Emphasis? 264 a. The Participial Grammar 265 b. The Confession of “Jesus” 265 c. The Role of èv craoKL 266 5. The Confessional Character of 1 John 4:2 266 6. The Primitive and Catholic Character of 1 John 4:2 267 7. The Confession of the Coming Messiah in the Fourth Gospel 268 H. The Identity of the Opponents in 1 John 4:1-6 268 1. Methodological Caution in Mirror-Reading 1 John 4:1-6 269 2. The Opponents as Visiting Jewish Prophets 269 3. Are the False Prophets Secessionists? 271 4. The Reuse of the Fourth Gospel’s Polemic 272 VIII. Conclusion 273 Chapter 5: 1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah 274 I. Against Docetism 276 A. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Birth 276 1. Water and Blood in Ancient Reproductive Science 276 2. A Variation: “Water” = Physical Birth 278 B. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Death 279 C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation 281 1. Problems with the Mandaean Parallel 281 2. Problems with the Parallel in the Acts of John 282 3. Blood and Water in Other Docetic Texts 283 4. Lack of Evidence for “Water and Blood” as Birth 284 5. Anti-docetism and John 19:34–35 284 6. The Role of the Spirit 285 7. Water and Blood as Witnesses 286 II. Against Anti-Sacramentalism 286 A. The Symbolic Use of Water and Blood for the Sacraments 288 B. Polemic against Anti-Sacramentalism 288 C. Water-only Eucharists in the Early Church 289 D. Weaknesses of the Sacramental Interpretation 290 1. The Role of the Spirit 290 2. The Witnessing Function 291 3. Are Sacraments an Issue in the Secession? 291 4. Grammatical Problems 292 5. Blood as the Eucharist? 292 6. Invalid Historical Parallels 293 III. Against Cerinthianism 294 A. D. A. Carson’s Proposal 294 B. Does 1 John Partially Support Cerinthus? 295 C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Reading 297 1. Does First John Affirm Adoptionism? 298 2. Problems with Carson’s Proposal 299 3. The Witness Motif 300 4. History of Interpretation 301 5. The Brevity of the Passage 302 IV. Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death 302 A. The Relationship between Baptism and Death 303 B. Brown’s Ultra-Johannine Opponents 304 1. The Author’s Response to the Opponents 305 C. Jesus as Baptizer 306 1. The Opponents’ Baptismal Triumphalism 307 2. The Author’s Reponse to the Opponents 308 D. Problems with the Anti-Devaluation of Death View 308 1. Was Jesus’ Death the Central Issue of the Secession? 308 2. The Testimonial Role of the Water and Blood 309 3. Does Water Symbolize Baptism in the Holy Spirit? 309 4. Is the Spirit at Issue in the Secession? 310 5. Problems with Brown’s View of the Secession 310 6. Problems with Boer’s View 311 V. Against Followers of John the Baptist 312 A. The Existence of a Baptist Sect 313 B. John Baptized “In Water” 314 C. Was Messianic Status Claimed for John the Baptist? 315 D. The Witness Motif and John the Baptist 315 E. Problems with the Anti-John the Baptist View 316 1. The Weakness of the Evidence from Acts 19 316 2. The Lack of Any Explicit Reference to John the Baptist in 1 John 317 VI. A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal 318 A. Non-Polemical 318 1. The Lack of Polemical Features 319 2. Amplificatio in 1 John 5:6 319 3. Its Jewish Legal Context 320 a. Two or Three Witnesses in 1 John 5 321 b. Two or Three Witnesses in John 8 321 4. The Non-Polemical Reception of 1 John 5:6 322 B. The Purpose of the Witnesses 323 1. A Contextual Reading of the Blood and Water 323 2. Water, Blood and Spirit as Pointers to Jesus as Messiah 324 3. The Connection to the Fourth Gospel’s Confessional Core 325 4. The Witness Motif in the Fourth Gospel 326 5. The Witness Motif in 1 John 327 C. The Meaning of the Water, Blood and Spirit 328 1. A Strategy for Understanding Their Reference 328 2. The Meaning of the Water 329 a. The Baptism of Jesus or the Baptism by Jesus? 329 b. The Important Role of Jesus’ Baptism by John 330 3. The Meaning of the Blood 332 a. Blood as a Reference to Death 332 b. “Blood” as Sacrificial Death 333 c. Sacrificial Imagery in John 19 335 d. Jesus as Priest in the Fourth Gospel 337 e. Blood and Water in Jewish Midrash 339 4. Jesus’ Sacrificial Death as a Witness to his Messiahship 340 a. Messianic Titles and Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel 340 b. Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus’ Sacrificial Death 341 c. Messiah and Sacrifice Elsewhere in the NT 343 d. Water and Blood as the Termini of the Messianic Mission 344 5. The Role of the Spirit 346 a. The Spirit in First John 346 b. The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel 348 c. The Witnessing Spirit in the Rest of the NT 350 6. The Contrast Between Human and Divine Testimony 351 a. The Three Witnesses as Human Testimony 351 b. Blood and Water as Human Testimony, Spirit as Divine Testimony 352 c. Water as Human Testimony, Blood and Spirit as Divine Testimony 352 d. The Three Witnesses as Divine Testimony 353 VII. Conclusion 354 Chapter 6: 2 John 4-11: The Teaching about the Messiah 356 I. The Love Commandment (vv. 4-6) 357 II. The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7) 358 A. “Going Out” 359 B. “Not Confessing” 360 C. The Meaning of the Present Tense ἐρχόμενον 361 1. A Chiliastic Controversy? 361 2. A Present or Future Reference? 362 3. Interchangeable with the Perfect Tense 363 4. Formulaic Phraseology 364 5. Evidence of Translation 365 III. The Need to Abide (vv. 8-9) 366 A. The Meaning of ô προάγων 367 1. “Progressive” 367 2. Problems with the “Progressive” Reading 368 3. Other Possible Interpretations 370 B. ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 372 1. What Christ Taught 372 2. The Teaching about the Messiah 373 IV. Instructions Concerning Visiting Teachers (vv. 10–11) 374 V. Conclusion 375 Conclusion 376 Bibliography 379 Index 459 Subjects 459 Modern Authors 461 Ancient Sources 465 Most interpreters of 1, 2, 3 John believe that the author's opponents (called "antichrists", "deceivers", and "false prophets") advocated gnostic or progressive doctrines that denied or downplayed the humanity of Jesus Christ and the importance of ethical behaviour, and eventually split the Johannine community. Against this consensus, Streett argues that the opponents are former Jewish-Christians who have left the community to return to the synagogue after renouncing their belief that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.