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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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]
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
*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.)
*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.
{ Back To The Top }
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.
{ Back To Previous
Page }
