| This dissertation addresses the central question regarding the historical context of 1 John: the identity of the opponents. The majority of Johannine scholars believe that the Fourth Gospel addresses a Jewish situation characterized by tension with the synagogue over the issue of Jesus' messiahship. Thus, the main point of the Gospel is expressed in John 20:31: "Jesus is the Messiah." When it comes to the Johannine Epistles, however, most scholars believe that by the time of 1 John the Johannine community had entered a new phase of its existence. The synagogue conflict had ended, and the community encountered a new challenge in the form of internal opponents: progressive schismatics propagating a Christological heresy that either denied or downplayed the "flesh" of Jesus Christ. This error is often identified as gnostic in character because of its docetic tendencies. Sometimes it is thought to have arisen from a specific theological reading (perhaps "ultra-Johannine") of the Johannine tradition itself.;There are three dominant theories about the opponents. The first holds that they are pure docetists; that is, they deny the physicality of Jesus, and thus the reality of his death. A second view holds that the opponents are not truly docetic, but rather Cerinthian. They do not deny Jesus' physicality but rather posit a separation or distinction between the human being, Jesus, and the impassible spirit-being, the divine Christ. The third view proposes that the opponents are neither docetic nor Cerinthian but have rather devalued or downplayed the salvific importance of Jesus' humanity and ministry, especially his death. By focusing on the divine Son's pre-existence and portraying Jesus primarily as a revealer and giver of the Spirit, the opponents have stripped Jesus' death of its crucial role as an atoning sacrifice. Advocates for each of the three views often theorize that, in addition to a Christological error, the opponents also propounded aberrant ethical views. The opponents' ethics---usually described as libertine or perfectionist---are often thought to have flowed from their Christology.;The method by which the dominant views are arrived at can be described as a maximalist application of the technique of mirror-reading. In a maximalist mirror-reading, the purpose of the Epistle is understood to be thoroughly polemical; virtually every statement, therefore, can be read as a rebuttal or refutation of the opponents' views.;In contrast to the dominant approach, this dissertation proposes a more restrained method of historical reconstruction. First John should be read primarily as a work of pastoral encouragement and exhortation, not as a polemical refutation of threatening schismatics. It should also be understood as addressing basically the same situation as the Fourth Gospel. That is, the key issue in the polemical passages is not docetism, separation-Christology, or a devaluation of Jesus' death, but rather the basic confession of the Johannine community and of early Christianity, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah. In order to demonstrate this, a chapter is devoted to exegesis of each of the four foundational passages. The first, 1 John 2:18-27, is seen to speak of apostates who have reneged upon their initial confession of Jesus as the Messiah and have left the community, most likely to return to the Jewish synagogue whence they came. The second passage, 1 John 4:1-6, does not describe the secessionists, but rather warns the audience about the possible arrival of itinerant Jewish prophets who do not affirm the basic confession of the community and should therefore not be allowed to prophesy or teach in the Johannine churches. The confession which the false prophets do not affirm---that Jesus Christ has come in flesh---should not be understood as emphasizing the "flesh" of Jesus Christ in response to some kind of docetizing threat. The same incarnational language is ubiquitous in early and catholic Christian confessions that show no evidence of having been composed with anti-docetic intent.;The third passage, 1 John 5:6-12, should not be understood as a polemical refutation of teachers who teach that Christ came "in water only." Rather, the author draws on the Jewish legal tradition, where two or three witnesses are used to establish every fact. He assures his audience that Jesus' messiahship has been attested by God at two key points in Jesus' ministry: his baptism by John ("in water") and his sacrificial death ("in blood"). In addition to these, a third witness, the Holy Spirit, presently testifies by its presence in the community that Jesus is the mediator of eternal life. Finally, the fourth passage, 2 John 7-11, speaks of the same issues as 1 John and warns against "departing from" (pirhoo a&d12; gammaepsiloniotanu) the community as a result of being swayed by the message of visiting prophets who do not confess the messiahship of Jesus. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)... |
