----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Gnosticism And The Gnostic Jesus" (an article from the Christian
Research Journal, Fall 1990, page 8) by Douglas Groothuis.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
Popular opinion often comes from obscure sources. Many
conceptions about Jesus now current and credible in New Age
circles are rooted in a movement of spiritual protest which,
until recently, was the concern only of the specialized scholar
or the occultist. This ancient movement -- Gnosticism -- provides
much of the form and color for the New Age portrait of Jesus as
the illumined Illuminator: one who serves as a cosmic catalyst
for others' awakening.
Many essentially Gnostic notions received wide attention
through the sagacious persona of the recently deceased Joseph
Campbell in the television series and best-selling book, _The
Power of Myth._ For example, in discussing the idea that "God was
in Christ," Campbell affirmed that "the basic Gnostic and
Buddhist idea is that that is true of you and me as well." Jesus
is an enlightened example who "realized in himself that he and
what he called the Father were one, and he lived out of that
knowledge of the Christhood of his nature." According to
Campbell, anyone can likewise live out his or her Christ
nature.[1]
Gnosticism has come to mean just about anything. Calling
someone a Gnostic can make the person either blush, beam, or
fume. Whether used as an epithet for heresy or spiritual
snobbery, or as a compliment for spiritual knowledge and
esotericism, Gnosticism remains a cornucopia of controversy.
This is doubly so when Gnosticism is brought into a
discussion of Jesus of Nazareth. Begin to speak of "Christian
Gnostics" and some will exclaim, "No way! That is a contradiction
in terms. Heresy is not orthodoxy." Others will affirm, "No
contradiction. Orthodoxy is the heresy. The Gnostics were edged
out of mainstream Christianity for political purposes by the end
of the third century." Speak of the Gnostic Christ or the Gnostic
gospels, and an ancient debate is moved to the theological front
burner.
Gnosticism as a philosophy refers to a related body of
teachings that stress the acquisition of "gnosis," or inner
knowledge. The knowledge sought is not strictly intellectual, but
mystical; not merely a detached knowledge of or about something,
but a knowing by acquaintance or participation. This gnosis is
the inner and esoteric mystical knowledge of ultimate reality. It
discloses the spark of divinity within, thought to be obscured by
ignorance, convention, and mere exoteric religiosity.
This knowledge is not considered to be the possession of the
masses but of the Gnostics, the Knowers, who are privy to its
benefits. While the orthodox "many" exult in the exoteric
religious trappings which stress dogmatic _belief_ and prescribed
behavior, the Gnostic "few" pierce through the surface to the
esoteric spiritual _knowledge_ of God. The Gnostics claim the
Orthodox mistake the shell for the core; the Orthodox claim the
Gnostics dive past the true core into a nonexistent one of their
own esoteric invention.
To adjudicate this ancient acrimony requires that we examine
Gnosticism's perennial allure, expose its philosophical
foundations, size up its historical claims, and square off the
Gnostic Jesus with the figure who sustains the New Testament.
-------------
*Glossary*
*aeons:* Emanations of Being from the unknowable, ultimate
metaphysical principle or pleroma (see *pleroma*).
*Apostolic rule of faith:* The essential teachings of the
apostles that served as the authoritative standard for orthodox
doctrine before the canonization of the New Testament.
*Demiurge:* According to the Gnostics (as opposed to Plato
and others who had a more positive assessment), an inferior deity
who ignorantly and incompetently fashioned the debased physical
world.
*esotericism:* The teaching that spiritual liberation is
found in a secret or hidden knowledge (sometimes called gnosis)
not available in traditional orthodoxy or exotericism.
*exotericism:* A pejorative term used by esotericists to
describe the mere outer or popular understanding of spiritual
truth which is supposedly inferior to the esoteric essence.
*gnosis:* The Greek word for "knowledge" used by the Gnostics
to mean knowledge gained not through intellectual discovery but
through personal experience or acquaintance which initiates one
into esoteric mysteries. The experience of gnosis reveals to the
initiated the divine spark within. "Gnosis" has a very different
meaning in the New Testament which excludes esotericism and
self-deification.
*Pleroma:* The Greek word for "fulness" used by the Gnostics
to mean the highest principle of Being where dwells the unknown
and unknowable God. Used in the New Testament to refer to
"fulness _in Christ_" (Col. 2:10) who is the _known_ revelation
of God in the flesh.
-------------
*MODERN GNOSTICISM*
Gnosticism is experiencing something of a revival, despite
its status within church history as a vanquished Christian
heresy. The magazine _Gnosis,_ which bills itself as a "journal
of western inner traditions," began publication in 1985 with a
circulation of 2,500. As of September 1990, it sported a
circulation of 11,000. _Gnosis_ regularly runs articles on
Gnosticism and Gnostic themes such as "Valentinus: A Gnostic for
All Seasons."
Some have created institutional forms of this ancient
religion. In Palo Alto, California, priestess Bishop Rosamonde
Miller officiates the weekly gatherings of Ecclesia Gnostica
Myteriorum (Church of Gnostic Mysteries), as she has done for the
last eleven years. The chapel holds forty to sixty participants
each Sunday and includes Gnostic readings in its liturgy. Miller
says she knows of twelve organizationally unrelated Gnostic
churches throughout the world.[2] Stephan Hoeller, a frequent
contributor to _Gnosis,_ who since 1967 has been a bishop of
Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles, notes that "Gnostic
churches...have sprung up in recent years in increasing
numbers."[3] He refers to an established tradition of "wandering
bishops" who retain allegiance to the symbolic and ritual form of
orthodox Christianity while reinterpreting its essential
content.[4]
Of course, these exotic-sounding enclaves of the esoteric are
minuscule when compared to historic Christian denominations. But
the real challenge of Gnosticism is not so much organizational as
intellectual. Gnosticism in its various forms has often appealed
to the alienated intellectuals who yearn for spiritual experience
outside the bounds of the ordinary.
The Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, a constant source of
inspiration for the New Age, did much to introduce Gnosticism to
the modern world by viewing it as a kind of proto-depth
psychology, a key to psychological interpretation. According to
Stephan Hoeller, author of _The Gnostic Jung,_ "it was Jung's
contention that Christianity and Western culture have suffered
grievously because of the repression of the Gnostic approach to
religion, and it was his hope that in time this approach would be
reincorporated in our culture, our Western spirituality."[5]
In his _Psychological Types,_ Jung praised "the intellectual
content of Gnosis" as "vastly superior" to the orthodox church.
He also affirmed that, "in light of our present mental
development [Gnosticism] has not lost but considerably gained in
value."[6]
A variety of esoteric groups have roots in Gnostic soil.
Madame Helena P. Blavatsky, who founded Theosophy in 1875, viewed
the Gnostics as precursors of modern occult movements and hailed
them for preserving an inner teaching lost to orthodoxy.
Theosophy and its various spin-offs -- such as Rudolf Steiner's
Anthroposophy, Alice Bailey's Arcane School, Guy and Edna
Ballard's I Am movement, and Elizabeth Clare Prophet's Church
Universal and Triumphant -- all draw water from this same well;
so do various other esoteric groups, such as the Rosicrucians.
These groups share an emphasis on esoteric teaching, the hidden
divinity of humanity, and contact with nonmaterial higher beings
called masters or adepts.
A four-part documentary called "The Gnostics" was released in
mid-1989 and shown in one-day screenings across the country along
with a lecture by the producer. This ambitious series charted the
history of Gnosticism through dramatizations and interviews with
world-renowned scholars on Gnosticism such as Gilles Quispel,
Hans Jonas, and Elaine Pagels.
A review of the series in a New Age-oriented journal noted:
"The series takes us to the Nag Hammadi find where we learn the
beginnings of the discovery of texts called the Gnostic Gospels
that were written around the same time as the gospels of the New
Testament but which were purposely left out."[7] The review
refers to one of the most sensational and significant
archaeological finds of the twentieth century; a discovery seen
by some as overthrowing the orthodox view of Jesus and
Christianity forever.
*GOLD IN THE JAR*
In December 1945, while digging for soil to fertilize crops,
an Arab peasant named Muhammad 'Ali found a red earthenware jar
near Nag Hammadi, a city in upper Egypt. His fear of uncorking an
evil spirit or _jin_ was shortly overcome by the hope of finding
gold within. What was found has been for hundreds of scholars far
more precious than gold. Inside the jar were thirteen
leather-bound papyrus books (codices), dating from approximately
A.D. 350. Although several of the texts were burned or thrown
out, fifty-two texts were eventually recovered through many years
of intrigue involving illegal sales, violence, smuggling, and
academic rivalry.
Some of the texts were first published singly or in small
collections, but the complete collection was not made available
in a popular format in English until 1977. It was released as
_The Nag Hammadi Library_ and was reissued in revised form in
1988.
Although many of these documents had been referred to and
denounced in the writings of early church theologians such as
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, most of the texts themselves had been
thought to be extinct. Now many of them have come to light. As
Elaine Pagels put it in her best-selling book, _The Gnostic
Gospels,_ "Now for the first time, we have the opportunity to
find out about the earliest Christian heresy; for the first time,
the heretics can speak for themselves."[8]
Pagels's book, winner of the National Book Critics Circle
Award, arguably did more than any other effort to ingratiate the
Gnostics to modern Americans. She made them accessible and even
likeable. Her scholarly expertise coupled with her ability to
relate an ancient religion to contemporary concerns made for a
compelling combination in the minds of many. Her central thesis
was simple: Gnosticism should be considered at least as
legitimate as orthodox Christianity because the "heresy" was
simply a competing strain of early Christianity. Yet, we find
that the Nag Hammadi texts present a Jesus at extreme odds with
the one found in the Gospels. Before contrasting the Gnostic and
biblical renditions of Jesus, however, we need a short briefing
on gnosis.
*THE GNOSTIC MESSAGE*
Gnosticism in general and the Nag Hammadi texts in particular
present a spectrum of beliefs, although a central philosophical
core is roughly discernible, which Gnosticism scholar Kurt
Rudolph calls "the central myth."[9] Gnosticism teaches that
something is desperately wrong with the universe and then
delineates the means to explain and rectify the situation.
The universe, as presently constituted, is not good, nor was
it created by an all-good God. Rather, a lesser god, or demiurge
(as he is sometimes called), fashioned the world in ignorance.
The _Gospel of Philip_ says that "the world came about through a
mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable
and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire."[10] The
origin of the demiurge or offending creator is variously
explained, but the upshot is that some precosmic disruption in
the chain of beings emanating from the unknowable Father-God
resulted in the "fall out" of a substandard deity with less than
impeccable credentials. The result was a material cosmos soaked
with ignorance, pain, decay, and death -- a botched job, to be
sure. This deity, nevertheless, despotically demands worship and
even pretentiously proclaims his supremacy as the one true God.
This creator-god is not the ultimate reality, but rather a
degeneration of the unknown and unknowable fullness of Being (or
pleroma). Yet, human beings -- or at least some of them -- are in
the position potentially to transcend their imposed limitations,
even if the cosmic deck is stacked against them. Locked within
the material shell of the human race is the spark of this highest
spiritual reality which (as one Gnostic theory held) the inept
creator accidently infused into humanity at the creation -- on
the order of a drunken jeweler who accidently mixes gold dust
into junk metal. Simply put, spirit is good and desirable; matter
is evil and detestable.
If this spark is fanned into a flame, it can liberate humans
from the maddening matrix of matter and the demands of its obtuse
originator. What has devolved _from_ perfection can ultimately
evolve _back into_ perfection through a process of
self-discovery.
Into this basic structure enters the idea of Jesus as a
Redeemer of those ensconced in materiality. He comes as one
descended from the spiritual realm with a message of
self-redemption. The body of Gnostic literature, which is wider
than the Nag Hammadi texts, presents various views of this
Redeemer figure. There are, in fact, differing schools of
Gnosticism with differing Christologies. Nevertheless, a basic
image emerges.
The Christ comes from the higher levels of intermediary
beings (called aeons) not as a sacrifice for sin but as a
Revealer, an emissary from error-free environs. He is not the
personal agent of the creator-god revealed in the Old Testament.
(That metaphysically disheveled deity is what got the universe
into such a royal mess in the first place.) Rather, Jesus has
descended from a more exalted level to be a catalyst for igniting
the gnosis latent within the ignorant. He gives a metaphysical
assist to underachieving deities (i.e., humans) rather than
granting ethical restoration to God's erring creatures through
the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
*NAG HAMMADI UNVEILED*
By inspecting a few of the Nag Hammadi texts, we encounter
Gnosticism in Christian guise: Jesus dispenses gnosis to awaken
those trapped in ignorance; the body is a prison, and the spirit
alone is good; and salvation comes by discovering the "kingdom of
God" within the self.
One of the first Nag Hammadi texts to be extricated out of
Egypt and translated into Western tongues was the _Gospel of
Thomas,_ comprised of one hundred and fourteen alleged sayings of
Jesus. Although scholars do not believe it was actually written
by the apostle Thomas, it has received the lion's share of
scholarly attention. The sayings of Jesus are given minimal
narrative setting, are not thematically arranged, and have a
cryptic, epigrammatic bite to them. Although _Thomas_ does not
articulate every aspect of a full-blown Gnostic system, some of
the teachings attributed to Jesus fit the Gnostic pattern. (Other
sayings closely parallel or duplicate material found in the
synoptic Gospels.)
The text begins: "These are the secret sayings which the
living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. And
he said, 'Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will
not experience death.'"[11] Already we find the emphasis on
secret knowledge (gnosis) as redemptive.
*JESUS AND GNOSIS*
Unlike the canonical gospels, Jesus' crucifixion and
resurrection are not narrated and neither do any of the hundred
and fourteen sayings in the _Gospel of Thomas_ directly refer to
these events. Thomas's Jesus is a dispenser of wisdom, not the
crucified and resurrected Lord.
Jesus speaks of the kingdom: "The kingdom is inside of you,
and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then
you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who
are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know
yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that
poverty."[12]
Other Gnostic documents center on the same theme. In the _Book
of Thomas the Contender,_ Jesus speaks "secret words" concerning
self-knowledge: "For he who has not known himself has known
nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time
already achieved knowledge of the depth of the all."[13]
Pagels observes that many of the Gnostics "shared certain
affinities with contemporary methods of exploring the self
through psychotherapeutic techniques."[14] This includes the
premises that, first, many people are unconscious of their true
condition and, second, "that the psyche bears within itself the
potential for liberation or destruction."[15]
Gilles Quispel notes that for Valentinus, a Gnostic teacher
of the second century, Christ is "the Paraclete from the Unknown
who reveals...the discovery of the Self -- the divine spark
within you."[16]
The heart of the human problem for the Gnostic is ignorance,
sometimes called "sleep," "intoxication," or "blindness." But
Jesus redeems man from such ignorance. Stephan Hoeller says that
in the Valentinian system "there is no need whatsoever for guilt,
for repentance from so-called sin, neither is there a need for a
blind belief in vicarious salvation by way of the death of
Jesus."[17] Rather, Jesus is savior in the sense of being a
"spiritual maker of wholeness" who cures us of our sickness of
ignorance.[18]
*Gnosticism on Crucifixion and Resurrection*
Those Gnostic texts that discuss Jesus' crucifixion and
resurrection display a variety of views that, nevertheless,
reveal some common themes.
James is consoled by Jesus in the _First Apocalypse of
James:_ "Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been
distressed. And this people has done me no harm."[19]
In the _Second Treatise of the Great Seth,_ Jesus says, "I
did not die in reality, but in appearance." Those "in error and
blindness....saw me; they punished me. It was another, their
father, who drank the gall and vinegar; it was not I. They struck
me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on
his shoulder. I was rejoicing in the height over all....And I was
laughing at their ignorance."[20]
John Dart has discerned that the Gnostic stories of Jesus
mocking his executors reverse the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke where the soldiers and chief priests (Mark 15:20) mock
Jesus.[21] In the biblical Gospels, Jesus does not deride or mock
His tormentors; on the contrary, _while suffering from the
cross,_ He asks the Father to forgive those who nailed Him there.
In the teaching of Valentinus and followers, the death of
Jesus is movingly recounted, yet without the New Testament
significance. Although the _Gospel of Truth_ says that "his death
is life for many," it views this life-giving in terms of
imparting the gnosis, not removing sin.[22] Pagels says that
rather than viewing Christ's death as a sacrificial offering to
atone for guilt and sin, the _Gospel of Truth_ "sees the
crucifixion as the occasion for discovering the divine self
within."[23]
A resurrection is enthusiastically affirmed in the _Treatise
on the Resurrection:_ "Do not think the resurrection is an
illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more
fitting to say that the world is an illusion rather than the
resurrection."[24] Yet, the nature of the post-resurrection
appearances differs from the biblical accounts. Jesus is
disclosed through _spiritual_ visions rather than _physical_
circumstances.
The resurrected Jesus for the Gnostics is the spiritual
Revealer who imparts secret wisdom to the selected few. The tone
and content of Luke's account of Jesus' resurrection appearances
is a great distance from Gnostic accounts: "After his suffering,
he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs
that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty
days and spoke about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).
By now it should be apparent that the biblical Jesus has
little in common with the Gnostic Jesus. He is viewed as a
Redeemer in both cases, yet his nature as a Redeemer and the way
of redemption diverge at crucial points. We shall now examine
some of these points.
*DID CHRIST REALLY SUFFER AND DIE?*
As in much modern New Age teaching, the Gnostics tended to
divide Jesus from the Christ. For Valentinus, Christ descended on
Jesus at his baptism and left before his death on the cross. Much
of the burden of the treatise _Against Heresies,_ written by the
early Christian theologian Irenaeus, was to affirm that Jesus
was, is, and always will be, the Christ. He says: "The
Gospel...knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who
also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the
passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of
God, and that this same suffered and rose again."[25]
Irenaeus goes on to quote John's affirmation that "Jesus is
the Christ" (John 20:31) against the notion that Jesus and Christ
were "formed of two different substances," as the Gnostics
taught.[26]
In dealing with the idea that Christ did not suffer on the
cross for sin, Irenaeus argues that Christ never would have
exhorted His disciples to take up the cross if He in fact was not
to suffer on it Himself, but fly away from it.[27]
For Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a
disciple of the apostle John), the suffering of Jesus the Christ
was paramount. It was indispensable to the apostolic "rule of
faith" that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross to bring salvation
to His people. In Irenaeus's mind, there was no divine spark in
the human heart to rekindle; self-knowledge was not equal to
God-knowledge. Rather, humans were stuck in sin and required a
radical rescue operation. Because "it was not possible that the
man...who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform
himself," the Son brought salvation by "descending from the
Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and
consummating the arranged plan of our salvation."[28]
This harmonizes with the words of Polycarp: "Let us then
continually persevere in our hope and the earnest of our
righteousness, which Jesus Christ, "who bore our sins in His own
body on the tree" [1 Pet. 2:24], "who did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth" [1 Pet. 2:22], but endured all things
for us, that we might live in Him."[29]
Polycarp's mentor, the apostle John, said: "This is how we
know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us" (1
John 3:16); and "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he
loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"
(4:10).
The Gnostic Jesus is predominantly a dispenser of cosmic
wisdom who discourses on abstruse themes like the spirit's fall
into matter. Jesus Christ certainly taught theology, but he dealt
with the problem of pain and suffering in a far different way. He
suffered for us, rather than escaping the cross or lecturing on
the vanity of the body.
*THE MATTER OF THE RESURRECTION*
For Gnosticism, the inherent problem of humanity derives from
the misuse of power by the ignorant creator and the resulting
entrapment of souls in matter. The Gnostic Jesus alerts us to
this and helps rekindle the divine spark within. In the biblical
teaching, the problem is ethical; humans have sinned against a
good Creator and are guilty before the throne of the universe.
For Gnosticism, the world is bad, but the soul -- when freed
from its entrapments -- is good. For Christianity, the world was
created good (Gen. 1), but humans have fallen from innocence and
purity through disobedience (Gen. 3; Rom. 3). Yet, the message of
the gospel is that the One who can rightly prosecute His
creatures as guilty and worthy of punishment has deigned to visit
them in the person of His only Son -- not just to write up a
firsthand damage report, but to rectify the situation through the
Cross and the Resurrection.
In light of these differences, the significance of Jesus'
literal and physical resurrection should be clear. For the
Gnostic who abhors matter and seeks release from its grim grip,
the physical resurrection of Jesus would be anticlimactic, if not
absurd. A material resurrection would be counterproductive and
only recapitulate the original problem.
Jesus displays a positive attitude toward the Creation
throughout the Gospels. In telling His followers not to worry He
says, "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or
store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them"
(Matt. 2:26). And, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet
not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of
your Father" (Matt. 10:29). These and many other examples
presuppose the goodness of the material world and declare care by
a benevolent Creator. Gnostic dualism is precluded.
If Jesus recommends fasting and physical self-denial on
occasion, it is not because matter is unworthy of attention or an
incorrigible roadblock to spiritual growth, but because moral and
spiritual resolve may be strengthened through periodic abstinence
(Matt. 6:16-18; 9:14-15). Jesus _fasts_ in the desert and
_feasts_ with His disciples. The created world is good, but the
human heart is corrupt and inclines to selfishly misuse a good
creation. Therefore, it is sometimes wise to deny what is good
_without_ in order to inspect and mortify what is bad _within._
If Jesus is the Christ who comes to restore God's creation,
He must come as one of its own, a _bona fide_ man. Although
Gnostic teachings show some diversity on this subject, they tend
toward docetism -- the doctrine that the descent of the Christ
was spiritual and not material, despite any _appearance_ of
materiality. It was even claimed that Jesus left no footprints
behind him when he walked on the sand.
From a biblical view, materiality is not the problem, but
disharmony with the Maker. Adam and Eve were both material and in
harmony with their good Maker before they succumbed to the
Serpent's temptation. Yet, in biblical reasoning, if Jesus is to
conquer sin and death for humanity, He must rise from the dead in
a physical body, albeit a transformed one. A mere spiritual
apparition would mean an abdication of material responsibility.
As Norman Geisler has noted, "Humans sin and die in material
bodies and they must be redeemed in the same physical bodies. Any
other kind of deliverance would be an admission of defeat....If
redemption does not restore God's physical creation, including
our material bodies, then God's original purpose in creating a
material world would be frustrated."[30]
For this reason, at Pentecost the apostle Peter preached
Jesus of Nazareth as "a man accredited by God to you by miracles,
wonders and signs" (Acts 2:22) who, though put to death by being
nailed to the cross, "God raised him from the dead, freeing him
from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to
keep its hold on him" (v. 24). Peter then quotes Psalm 16:10
which speaks of God not letting His "Holy One see decay" (v. 27).
Peter says of David, the psalm's author, "Seeing what was ahead,
he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned
to the grave nor did his body see decay. God raised Jesus to
life" (vv. 31, 32).
The apostle Paul confesses that if the resurrection of Jesus
is not a historical fact, Christianity is a vanity of vanities (1
Cor. 15:14-19). And, while he speaks of Jesus' (and the
believers') resurrected condition as a "spiritual body," this
does not mean nonphysical or ethereal; rather, it refers to a
body totally free from the results of sin and the Fall. It is a
spirit-driven body, untouched by any of the entropies of evil.
Because Jesus was resurrected bodily, those who know Him as Lord
can anticipate their own resurrected bodies.
*JESUS, JUDAISM, AND GNOSIS*
The Gnostic Jesus is also divided from the Jesus of the
Gospels over his relationship to Judaism. For Gnostics, the God
of the Old Testament is somewhat of a cosmic clown, neither
ultimate nor good. In fact, many Gnostic documents invert the
meaning of Old Testament stories in order to ridicule him. For
instance, the serpent and Eve are heroic figures who oppose the
dull deity in the _Hypostasis of the Archons (the Reality of the
Rulers)_ and in _On the Origin of the World._[31]
In the _Apocryphon of John,_ Jesus says he encouraged Adam
and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,[32]
thus putting Jesus diametrically at odds with the meaning of the
Genesis account where this action is seen as the essence of sin
(Gen. 3). The same anti-Jewish element is found in the Jesus of
the _Gospel of Thomas_ where the disciples say to Jesus,
"Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and all of them spoke in
you." To which Jesus replies, "You have omitted the one living in
your presence and have spoken (only) of the dead."[33] Jesus thus
dismisses all the prophets as merely "dead." For the Gnostics,
the Creator must be separated from the Redeemer.
The Jesus found in the New Testament quotes the prophets,
claims to fulfill their prophecies, and consistently argues
according to the Old Testament revelation, despite the fact that
He exudes an authority equal to it. Jesus says, "Do not think
that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17). He
corrects the Sadducees' misunderstanding of the afterlife by
saying, "Are you not in error because you do not know the
Scriptures..." (Mark 12:24). To other critics He again appeals to
the Old Testament: "You diligently study the Scriptures because
you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the
Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39).
When Jesus appeared after His death and burial to the two
disciples on the road to Emmaus, He commented on their slowness
of heart "to believe all that the prophets have spoken." He
asked, "Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then
enter into glory?" Luke then records, "And beginning with Moses
and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all
the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).
For both Jesus and the Old Testament, the supreme Creator is
the Father of all living. They are one and the same.
*GOD: UNKNOWABLE OR KNOWABLE?*
Many Gnostic treatises speak of the ultimate reality or
godhead as beyond conceptual apprehension. Any hope of contacting
this reality -- a spark of which is lodged within the Gnostic --
must be filtered through numerous intermediary beings of a lesser
stature than the godhead itself.
In the _Gospel of the Egyptians,_ the ultimate reality is
said to be the "unrevealable, unmarked, ageless, unproclaimable
Father." Three powers are said to emanate from Him: "They are the
Father, the Mother, (and) the Son, from the living silence."[34]
The text speaks of giving praise to "the great invisible Spirit"
who is "the silence of silent silence."[35] In the _Sophia of
Jesus Christ,_ Jesus is asked by Matthew, "Lord...teach us the
truth," to which Jesus says, "He Who Is is ineffable." Although
Jesus seems to indicate that he reveals the ineffable, he says
concerning the ultimate, "He is unnameable....he is ever
incomprehensible."[36]
At this point the divide between the New Testament and the
Gnostic documents couldn't be deeper or wider. Although the
biblical Jesus had the pedagogical tact not to proclaim
indiscriminately, "I am God! I am God!" the entire contour of His
ministry points to Him as God in the flesh. He says, "He who has
seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). The prologue to John's
gospel says that "in the beginning was the Word (Logos)" and that
"the Word was with God and was God" (John 1:1). John did not say,
"In the beginning was the silence of the silent silence" or "the
ineffable."
Incarnation means tangible and intelligible revelation from
God to humanity. The Creator's truth and life are communicated
spiritually through the medium of matter. "The Word became flesh
and made his dwelling place among us. We have seen his glory, the
glory of the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace
and truth" (John 1:14). The Word that became flesh "has made Him
[the Father] known" (v. 19). John's first epistle tells us: "The
life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim
to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has
appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and
heard..." (1 John 1:2-3).
Irenaeus encountered these Gnostic invocations of the
ineffable. He quotes a Valentinian Gnostic teacher who explained
the "primary Tetrad" (fourfold emanation from ultimate reality):
"There is a certain Proarch who existed before all things,
surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature" whom he called
"Monotes" (unity). Along with this power there is another power
called Hentotes (oneness) who, along with Monotes produced "an
intelligent, unbegotten, and undivided being, which beginning
language terms 'Monad.'" Another entity called Hen (One) rounds
out the primal union.[37] Irenaeus satirically responds with his
own suggested Tetrad which also proceeds from "a certain
Proarch":
But along with it there exists a power which I term
_Gourd;_ and along with this Gourd there exists a power
which again I term _Utter-Emptiness._ This Gourd and
Emptiness, since they are one, produced...a fruit,
everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which
fruit-language calls a _Cucumber._ Along with this
Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which
again I call a _Melon._[38]
Irenaeus's point is well taken. If spiritual realities
surpass our ability to name or even think about them, then _any
name under the sun_ (or within the Tetrad) is just as appropriate
-- or inappropriate -- as any other, and we are free to affirm
with Irenaeus that "these powers of the Gourd, Utter Emptiness,
the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining
multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus."[39]
Whenever a Gnostic writer -- ancient or modern --
simultaneously asserts that a spiritual entity or principle is
utterly unknown and unnameable and begins to give it names and
ascribe to it characteristics, we should hark back to Irenaeus.
If something is ineffable, it is necessarily unthinkable,
unreportable, and unapproachable.
*ANCIENT GNOSTICISM AND MODERN THOUGHT*
Modern day Gnostics, Neo-Gnostics, or Gnostic sympathizers
should be aware of some Gnostic elements which decidedly clash
with modern tastes. First, although Pagels, like Jung, has shown
the Gnostics in a positive psychological light, the Gnostic
outlook is just as much _theological_ and _cosmological_ as it is
_psychological._ The Gnostic message is all of a piece, and the
psychology should not be artificially divorced from the overall
world view. In other words, Gnosticism should not be reduced to
psychology -- as if we know better what a Basilides or a
Valentinus _really_ meant than they did.
The Gnostic documents do not present their system as a
crypto-psychology (with various cosmic forces representing
psychic functions), but as a religious and theological
explanation of the origin and operation of the universe. Those
who want to adopt consistently Gnostic attitudes and assumptions
should keep in mind what the Gnostic texts -- to which they
appeal for authority and credibility -- actually say.
Second, the Gnostic rejection of matter as illusory, evil,
or, at most, second-best, is at odds with many New Age sentiments
regarding the value of nature and the need for an ecological
awareness and ethic. Trying to find an ecological concern in the
Gnostic corpus is on the order of harvesting wheat in Antarctica.
For the Gnostics, as Gnostic scholar Pheme Perkins puts it, "most
of the cosmos that we know is a carefully constructed plot to
keep humanity from returning to its true divine home."[40]
Third, Pagels and others to the contrary, the Gnostic
attitude toward women was not proto-feminist. Gnostic groups did
sometimes allow for women's participation in religious activities
and several of the emanational beings were seen as feminine.
Nevertheless, even though _Ms. Magazine_ gave _The Gnostic
Gospels_ a glowing review[41], women fare far worse in Gnosticism
than many think. The concluding saying from the _Gospel of
Thomas,_ for example, has less than a feminist ring:
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women
are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make
her male, so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. For every woman who will make
herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."[42]
The issue of the role of women in Gnostic theology and
community cannot be adequately addressed here, but it should be
noted that the Jesus of the Gospels never spoke of making the
female into the male -- no doubt because Jesus did not perceive
the female to be inferior to the male. Going against social
customs, He gathered women followers, and revealed to an outcast
Samaritan woman that He was the Messiah -- which scandalized His
own disciples (John 4:1-39). The Gospels also record women as the
first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection (Matt. 28:1-10) -- and
this in a society where women were not considered qualified to be
legal witnesses.
Fourth, despite an emphasis on reincarnation, several Gnostic
documents speak of the damnation of those who are incorrigibly
non-Gnostic[43], particularly apostates from Gnostic groups.[44]
If one chafes at the Jesus of the Gospels warning of "eternal
destruction," chafings are likewise readily available from
Gnostic doomsayers.
Concerning the Gnostic-Orthodox controversy, biblical scholar
F. F. Bruce is so bold as to say that "there is no reason why the
student of the conflict should shrink from making a value
judgment: the Gnostic schools lost because they deserved to
lose."[45] The Gnostics lost once, but do they deserve to lose
again? We will seek to answer this in Part Two as we consider the
historic reliability of the Gnostic (Nag Hammadi) texts versus
that of the New Testament.
*NOTES*
1 Joseph Campbell, _The Power of Myth,_ ed. Betty Sue Flowers
(New York: Doubleday, 1988), 210.
2 Don Lattin, "Rediscovery of Gnostic Christianity," _San
Francisco Chronicle,_ 1 April 1989, A-4-5.
3 Stephan A. Hoeller, "Wandering Bishops," _Gnosis,_ Summer
1989, 24.
4 _Ibid._
5 "The Gnostic Jung: An Interview with Stephan Hoeller," _The
Quest,_ Summer 1989, 85.
6 C. G. Jung, _Psychological Types_ (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1976), 11.
7 "Gnosticism," _Critique,_ June-Sept. 1989, 66.
8 Elaine Pagels, _The Gnostic Gospels_ (New York: Random House,
1979), xxxv.
9 Kurt Rudolph, _Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism_
(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 57f.
10 James M. Robinson, ed., _The Nag Hammadi Library_ (San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 154.
11 Robinson, 126.
12 F. F. Bruce, _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 112-13.
13 Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_ (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1987), 403.
14 Pagels, 124.
15 _Ibid.,_ 126.
16 Christopher Farmer, "An Interview with Gilles Quispel,"
_Gnosis,_ Summer 1989, 28.
17 Stephan A. Hoeller, "Valentinus: A Gnostic for All Seasons,"
_Gnosis,_ Fall/Winter 1985, 24.
18 _Ibid.,_ 25.
19 Robinson, 265.
20 _Ibid.,_ 365.
21 John Dart, _The Jesus of History and Heresy_ (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1988), 97.
22 Robinson, 41.
23 Pagels, 95.
24 Robinson, 56.
25 Irenaeus, _Against Heresies,_ 3.16.5.
26 _Ibid._
27 _Ibid.,_ 3.18.5.
28 _Ibid.,_ 3.18.2.
29 "The Epistle of Polycarp," ch. 8, in _The Apostolic Fathers,_
ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 35.
30 Norman L. Geisler, "I Believe...In the Resurrection of the
Flesh," _Christian Research Journal,_ Summer 1989, 21-22.
31 _See_ Dart, 60-74.
32 Robinson, 117.
33 _Ibid.,_ 132.
34 _Ibid.,_ 209.
35 _Ibid.,_ 210.
36 _Ibid.,_ 224-25.
37 Irenaeus, 1.11.3.
38 _Ibid.,_ 1.11.4.
39 _Ibid._
40 Pheme Perkins, "Popularizing the Past," _Commonweal,_ November
1979, 634.
41 Kenneth Pitchford, "The Good News About God," _Ms. Magazine,_
April 1980, 32-35.
42 Robinson, 138.
43 _See The Book of Thomas the Contender,_ in Robinson, 205.
44 _See_ Layton, 17.
45 F. F. Bruce, _The Canon of Scripture_ (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1988), 277.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0040A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Gnosticism And The Gnostic Jesus"
release A, March 21, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for
information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.