|
|
In the second century the church struggled for her identity. She
was being persecuted by Roman authorities, challenged by Jewish
and pagan opposition, and was increasingly faced with the internal
problem of Gnostic modification. These Gnostic sects arose, often
not in direct opposition to Christianity, but with a syncretistic
approach, picking and choosing the Christian elements they liked,
and discarding the ones they did not. In his classic and important
work, Against Heresies: A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge
falsely so called,[1] Irenaeus documents for us the numerous breeds
of this "Christian" Gnosticism by examining its doctrines
in comparison to those of the catholic church. One of his arguments
in fact is that the uniformity of the church's teaching is in
sharp contrast with the varying views of Gnostic teachers such
as Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, Saturninus, or the views of
the Simonians, Nicolaitans, and Carpocratians. But even in light
of the many varieties of Christian Gnosticism accounted for us
by the careful work of Irenaeus, one can nevertheless detect many
common themes, if not one over-arching diabolical thrust. In short,
Irenaeus seems to be arguing that in these sects, the orthodox
faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" has
not merely been modified, but has been replaced with its exact
opposite. These men, Irenaeus argues, extend to their hearers
not the received doctrines of Christianity, but "the bitter
and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy"
(1.27.4). While he agnowledges that "there are as many schemes
of 'redemption' as there are teachers of these mystical opinions,"
he nevertheless is compelled to conclude that these teachers "have
been instigated by Satan...thus to a renunciation of the whole
[Christian] faith" (1.21.1).
Before we proceed it is important that we should be careful not to so stress the multiplicity of doctrines among the Gnostics that we fail to acknowledge the basic fact that there are a number of commonalities with all forms of the Gnostic heresy, otherwise we could not categorize them under the heading of Gnostic. In all of the schools critcized by Irenaeus we see for example an inherent dualism between spirit and matter, and a separation of the creator God (Demiurge) from the pure, unknowable and ulimate diety. The way these systems are worked out differ from sect to sect, which Irenaeus is all to happy to point out, but they each start with these metaphysical assumptions. Another element these movements shared in common was the tendency to secrecy. Christianity was open to all, was to be preached to all, was historical in nature, whereas, of the Gnostic schools Irenaeus comments, "It is not at all fitting to speak openly of their mysteries" (1.24.6). Where Christianity proclaimed a free message to whoever would receive it, Gnostic movements charged money for their teachings and kept things mysterious. In fact, in summing up their teachings, Irenaeus writes, "They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them" (1.31.3).
Gnostic Ethics
When it comes to Gnostic ethics however, more varied approaches
are evidenced. For example sects such as the Saturnites and Encratites
were very ascetic and legalistic in their lifestyles, whereas
the Carpocratians, Nicolaitans, and the Ophites were antinomian,
and indulged in sensual pleasures and licentiousness. Each of
these ethical systems stem from the Platonic dualism inherent
in the Gnostic metaphysic. The ascetic tendency is a result of
the following line of reasoning: because our world has been thrown
into chaos by the Demiurge (being encased in matter) we are to
live our lives as spirit beings, not giving into the desires of
the flesh. Whereas the antinomian Gnostics argued as follows:
since the created order is inherently or ontologically corrupt,
the only thing that really matters is pure spirit. Therefore nothing
one does with one's body really matters.
Irenaeus, however criticized both of these approaches. The ascetic types he accused of Judiazing, "They...repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law...they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God" (1.26.2). It is interesting that he mentions their repudiation of Paul, as it was this Apostle who charged the Judiazers in the Epistle to the Galatians with preaching an entirely different gospel. Perhaps Irenaeus was making a similar point here. He also argues that such a harsh asceticism is an attack on God himself, "...those who are called Encratites (self-controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race" (1.28.1). In the words of Phillip Schaff, "Instead of hating sin only, which God has not made, they hated the world, which he has made." [2]
On the other hand, Irenaeus is quick to attack the antinomian ethic as well,
So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practise them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion. They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of action...in order that, as their writings express it, their souls, having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their departure, not be wanting in any particular (1.25.4).
He writes therefore that they do not keep themselves even from heathen feasts, bloody gladiator fights, and all kinds of sexual licentiousness (1.6.3). But if it is true that the soul must have experiences of every kind,Irenaeus asks why it is that they have not been found "striving to do those things which wait upon virtue...for example, every kind of music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, ...the whole study of medicine, and the knowledge of plants, ...the art of painting and sculpture, brass and marble work, and the kindred arts." In other words, he showed their own teaching to be hollow, and was merely a justification to pursue, "voluptuousness, and lust, and abominable actions." He concludes therefore that "they stand self-condemned when they are tried by their own doctrine" (2.32.2). The net result was that "their manner of acting is one and the same with the demons" (2.31.3).
Christ and His
Cross
Another one of the teachings that characterized all Gnostic camps
was the tendency to docetism. This resulted in many varied accounts
of the veiw that Jesus came to Earth only appearing to be human.
A good case can be made in support of the fact that the first
epistle of John the Apostle was a polemic directed against the
docetic doctrine. "That which was from the beginning, which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning
the Word of life." Notice the emphasis on the physical. This
was not something spiritually seen, as in a vision, but rather
it was seen with the eyes. It was heard and it was touched. Similarly,
John writes in the first chapter of his gospel narrative that
the "Word was with God," (distinct from the Father),
the "Word was God" (sharing in divinity) and this "Word
was made flesh," a clear argument for both the divinity and
humanity of Jesus. Cognizant of this, Irenaeus warns us of those
who speak of Christ as merely passing "through Mary just
as water flows through a tube" (1.7.2). Sounding much like
an opponent of modern liberal theology, he criticizes Cerinthus
because he "represented Jesus as having not been born of
a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to
the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless
was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men" (1.26.1).
Irenaeus also identifies in some of the Gnostic schemes, the teaching
that in addition to his only "appearing" to be human,
Jesus' suffering on the cross was also and illusion, "[Jesus]
had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and
assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he
might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man;
and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judaea, when
he had not suffered" (1.23.3).
In another version, Irenaeus describes the diabolical nature of these Gnostic passion narratives, "Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them" (1.24.4). In this narrative, Jesus is not the one being crucified, and he is represented as a worker of deceitwhat some today refer to as the "Laughing Savior." [3] Irenaeus concludes the accounting of this Gnostic heresy by showing just how far this is from the orthodox faith, "If any one, therefore, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father" (1.24.4). In contrast to all this, the ancient church father brings us back to our senses. "The Gospel," Irenaeus writes, "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" (3.16.5). He then brings the warnings of the Apostle John regarding those who deny that Jesus has come in the flesh (2 John 1:7) to bear on this discussion, with the direct implication that these Gnostic teachers are servants of the Antichrist.
The God of Creation
As if all this wasn't enough to prove that the Gnostic doctrine
was, as Paul put it, "didaskalias daimonion"
things taught by demons (1 Tim. 4) Irenaeus
proceeds to point out how the various Gnostic schemes project
venom at God himself. "Impious indeed, beyond all impiety,
are these men, who assert that the Maker of heaven and earth,
the only God Almighty, besides whom there is no God, was produced
by means of a defect, which itself sprang from another defect,
so that, according to them, He was the product of the third defect"
(1.16.3). Irenaeus also accounts for us how some taught that God
"in ignorance formed those powers which are inferior to himself
angels, and firmaments, and all things earthly"
(1.29.4). And in the opinion of Saturnius, "Christ came to
destroy the God of the Jews, but to save such as believe in him;
that is, those who possess the spark of his life" (1.24.2).
Such hostility toward the God of creation is an element that can
be seen in just about any branch of the Gnostic heresy. As historian
David Christie-Murray argues, the "Gnostic rebellion against
the Jewish God and the Law...and [its] violent rejection of creation."
is in fact to be seen as one of the "basic principles of
classic Gnosticism." [4]
Fingerprints of
Satan
Thus far Irenaeus has shown us the heretical nature of the various
Gnostic schools. But because he quotes these heretics at such
a great length, one begins to see not merely a theology that is
"other" than Christian orthodoxy, but rather, one starts
to see the fingerprints of Satan himself. For example, Irenaeus
exposes Satanic doctrines in the writings of Marcion,
In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil...that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them...were saved by the Lord....But the serpent which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation (1.27.3).
Similarly he reports that in the doctrine of the Cainites, Judas the traitor "was thoroughly acquainted with [their mysteries], and that he alone, [knew] the truth as no others did (1.31.1). [5] So in these schemes, the enemies of God's Kingdom in the history of redemption are applauded, while the faithful are designated as the reprobate.
Irenaeus also shows us how this Satanic doctrine in makes itself evident in the various Gnostic accounts of the creation and fall of man. He points out, for example, that Valentinian Gnostics believed the shape of man's intestinal track revealed something about human nature, "For some of them assert that...our internal configuration in the form of a serpent reveals our hidden generatrix" (1.30.15). He also reveals in the doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians that,
Adam and Eve previously had light, and clear, and as it were spiritual bodies...but when they came to this world, these changed into bodies more opaque, and gross, and sluggish...This continued until Prunicus, moved with compassion towards them, restored to them the sweet savour of the besprinkling of light, by means of which they came to a remembrance of themselves, and knew that they were naked, as well as that the body was a material substance, and thus recognised that they bore death about with them (1.30.9).
Notice that in addition to the antimaterialism embedded in this creation account, there is the supposition that the way to restoration was to be found in the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (the besprinkling of light), by which they discovered their nakedness (i.e., their materiality). In other words, Satan's temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit is seen as the way of salvation. Irenaeus also tells us of others who regarded the tree of knowledge of good and evil "Gnosis itself" (1.29.3). This is a good example of why historians such as, Roland H. Bainton have concluded that although Gnosticism absorbed much of the tradition of the Hebrews, it nevertheless "completely reversed their values." [6] Irenaeus is pointing out that because Gnosticism is the cult of secret knowledge (what Christians must regard as knowledge, falsely so called 1 Tim 6:20), Satan's ploy in the garden must be viewed by Gnostics as a liberating force in the history of mankind. [7] "The devil," Irenaeus concludes, "as he is the apostate angel, can only go to this length, as he did at the beginning, [namely] to deceive and lead astray the mind of man into disobeying the commandments of God, and gradually to darken the hearts of those who would endeavour to serve him, to the forgetting of the true God, but to the adoration of himself as God" (4.24.3).
Conclusion
Indeed was Irenaeus correct, "simply to exhibit their sentiments,
is to obtain a victory over them." Perhaps the Gnostics cherished
secrecy because they knew if their demonic doctrines were set
forth in the light of day, they would be exposed for what they
really were (see John 3:19-20). Christianity on the other hand
flourished not in secret societies, but in the open marketplace
of ideas. Regarding Gnostic ethics, Irenaeus demonstrated that
they were either guilty of Judiazing heresy or were completely
pagan. With regard to Christ, Gnostics believed that he did not
come in the flesh and proved themselves to be antichrists. Regarding
the cross, certain Gnostics considered it slavery to confess the
crucified one, which is a little different from the Apostle Paul
who refused to know anything but "Christ and him crucified"
(1 Cor. 2:2). While they regard God as the fruit of a defect,
Judas, Cain and the Sodomites are saints and inheritors of the
kingdom. And in the estimation of these heretics, Adam and Eve
did not sin when they ate from the forbidden tree, but rather,
they were liberated by pure "Gnosis." In each of these
cases, Irenaeus is showing us that Christianity has been completely
overturned. It has not merely been modified, it has been converted
to anti-Christianity. As Mary Ann Donovan expresses it, Irenaeus
came to the basic conclusion that Gnostic exegesis was an utter
betrayal of the Christian Faith. [8]
The Gnostic religion therefore is a dangerous poison indeed. By cloaking itself in religious terminology, and by using Christian garb, many men have traded the doctrines of Christ for the "doctrines of demons." But, as Irenaeus remarks, "Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself" (1.1.2).
Notes:
1. Hans Jonas, in his widely respected book, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Hill, 1958), points out that in reality, "there were only a few groups whose members expressly called themselves Gnostics, 'the Knowing ones'; but already Irenaeus in the title of his work, used the name 'gnosis' (with the addition 'wrongly so called') to cover all those sects that shared with them that emphasis and certain other characteristics." He concludes that it is in this sense that "we can speak of gnostic schools, sects, and cults, of gnostic writings and teachings, of gnostic myths and speculations, even of gnostic religion in general" (p. 32).
2. Schaff, Phillip, History of The Christian Church Vol. II (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910; reprinted by Eerdmans, 1994), p. 457.
3. See for example John Dart, The Laughing Savior (New York; Harper & Row, 1976).
4. Christie-Murray, David, A History of Heresy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 26. Interestingly enough, this author concludeswith a point a little out of the scope of this paperthat "Echoes of Gnosticism are to be heard in a number of sects down to the theosophical movement of the last hundred years, and the Gnostic spirit is to be found in some very orthodox pews" (p. 31).
5. Stuart Holroyd in his book The Elements of Gnosticism (Rockport, MA: Element Inc., 1994) points out that many of the views of the Cainites and Carpocratians, such as the esteeming of Cain and Judas, "were to the orthodox mind perverse and wicked in the extreme" (p. 47). He also goes so far as to suggest that the teachings of these particular Gnostic sects exerted a "profound and extreme influence in the future, furnishing the philosophy underlying some of the practices of ritual magic and 'Satanism', and influencing literary works from the Faust legend to the transgressive fantasy fictions of the Marquis de Sade" (p. 49).
6. Bainton, Roland H., Christianity (New York: American Heritage, Inc., 1964). p. 67.
7. Elaborating on his claim that Gnosticism is not merely a modification but a reversal of Hebrew teaching, Bainton writes that in the Gnostic scheme, "The serpent, who told Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was a redeemer, for the knowledge of good and evil is precisely the saving gnosis" (p. 67).
8. Donovan, Mary Ann, One Right Reading: A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), p. 17.