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.
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).
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.