Here in the West, it’s been said that the pronoun *YOU* is the most powerful word in the English language. The main reason is that “you” is often used in a more personal, direct, intimate, or commanding way when compared to other pronouns, such as he or she, which tend to me used more indirectly or with somewhat less emphasis.
The word *truth* is also right up there as a powerfully influential word. Think about the contentious issues that Western society is facing right now: all of them boil down to who has the “correct truth.”
Such was also the case with Christianity’s roots in the first few centuries AD. Studying how Christianity first developed – especially during its first three centuries — is like the Olympics for mental gymnastics: Was Jesus God? Was he only the son of God and not God incarnate? Was he both God and man? Was he only a spirit who manipulated people into thinking he was human? Was the Holy Spirit part or not part of the Trinity? Did Jesus exist always exist alongside God the Father? Did God the Father become Jesus, or did Jesus become the Father? Was Jesus the savior of both Jews and Gentiles? Or was he a “good God” who came to defeat the “evil Old Testament God” who spawned a corrupt creation? And the questions go on and on.
One of the roots for this confusion is Gnosticism. This movement not only stands out because of its abstract, near-wild departure from the gospel that most Christian evangelists had been preaching at the time, but it’s also yet another rollercoaster ride of determining who has the “correct truth.” It seems that, just like the 2000-year-old struggle Christians have had with serving God versus serving the world, so has been the case with pinning down the truth that all Christians accept with faith and as objectively correct.
Even today, the argument lingers on – whether it be various denominations accusing each other of misinformation, or new age ideas that redress Jesus into a mystical teacher or part of some grand, cosmic consciousness. It’s as if Deepak Chopra invented time travel, went back to the second century to hang out with the Gnostics, and then came back to modern day to regurgitate the same word salad of ideas.
Or it’s as if modern new age movements absorbed The Second Treatise of the Great Sith, which is the epitome of word salad (and more on that later). First, here is an overview of Gnostic belief, to help illustrate the point: In general, Gnostics drew heavily on Hellenistic philosophies and then married them with ideas from Judaism, a wide variety of gospels, and supposed revelations their teachers had received (Irvin and Sunquist 115). Although Gnostics did claim that, like their Catholic counterparts, their beliefs traced back to the first apostles, they upped the ante by claiming the apostles had been privy to secret knowledge that transcended the basic message in the gospels. (Irvin and Sunquist 88, 89). Gnostics claimed to have a path to that knowledge, or what they would have considered as their *truth*.
But it’s not just the jigsaw puzzle of ideas that Gnostics mixed around to flex their intellectual muscles; they had also dispensed a gospel that went off the rails from the message most familiar to early Christians. In short, per Valentinus’ and Basilides’ instruction, God is a not just a complex mystery, but includes orders of “Aeons” whose divine attributes embody both males and females. The Aeons include God the Father; Sophia, a mother figure; and Christ as the savior of an inherently corrupt world created by an evil God. And ironically, although Gnostics did borrow some ideas from Jewish beliefs, they apparently weren’t a fan of the Hebrew God, whom they blamed for the mess created in the first place (Irvin and Sunquist 116).
This God, with the indirect help of Sophia, purposely forced his creation into corruption, so that Jesus could come down and save the day. Moreover, the crucial difference between the Gnostic view of Jesus and the Catholic view was that Gnostics did not believe Jesus was directly incarnated into human form (Irvin and Sunquist 116, 117).
This leads to The Second Treatise of the Great Seth: This document fleshes out the gospel that the Gnostics had been purporting. And if the wild spin on the gospel isn’t enough, Jesus is proclaimed as the author of the document (par. 20, 24).
But wait, there’s more: Jesus is a spirit who “visited a bodily dwelling” (The Second Treatise par. 4) – though it was more like a bait-and-switch, with Jesus casting out a prior spirit and then operating the human form sort of like puppet strings. Jesus’ core mission is to save humanity from its attachments to the material world, due to the sinister plan that Cosmocrator had hatched, and which Sofia – whom Jesus lovingly (tongue-in-cheek) calls a whore (The Treatise par. 3)) – unwittingly helps cause, leading to Adam and Eve’s transgression (The Treatise, par. 6; Irvin and Sunquist 116). In other words, Sophia coincidentally influences both the disease and the cure.
Overall, the Second Treatise breaks down its view of the corruption perpetuated throughout human history, primarily through the Biblical patriarchs (par. 15, 16). Enter Irenaus, who is not having it with Gnosticism. In his work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus first sets the record straight by refuting the Gnostic version of the gospel (Ch. 1). Then, he explains how the apostles not only preached the gospel he is reiterating, but that they had also formed a clear line of apostolic succession, beginning with Peter and then carrying on through Linus, Clement, Polycarp, etc. (Ch. 2, 3). Then, Irenaeus quotes numerous Hebrew scriptures, as well as the apostles, to show that the God of the Jews is the same God who commissioned Jesus as savior. Further, Jesus as Son has always existed (Ch. 6, par. 1, 2).
Lastly, Irenaeus breaks down the many issues with Gnostic and other heresies not squaring with the four (canonical) gospels. He outright dismisses any gospels other than the common four – he likens them to four zones of the world – and that other heresies are essentially perverting the gospels, or clinging to a single gospel, to fit their beliefs (Ch. 11).
All that said – and whether he was spot on about his views on Gnosticism and other heresies – Irenaeus does a solid job of trimming the fat of nonsensical ideas. Case in point: In the gospels, Jesus himself quotes from Hebrew Scriptures, follows Jewish traditions, shows reverence for the patriarchs and prophets, and even meets with Moses and Elijah in Luke 9:28-36. Meaning that if the God of the Jews was not the same God who sent Jesus, Jesus is either a trickster or has some major explaining to do.
Simply put, Irenaeus restates the obvious about the original gospel, thus negating its fringe-like competitors. Even if some Christians may not agree with his tying together apostolic succession, he is on-point when he mirrors the gospel story that traces back to the canonical gospels, Paul’s letters, and subsequent documents in Church history.
Works Cited
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Coakley, John W., and Andrea Sterk. Readings in World Christian History, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. New York: Orbis Books, 2004.
Against Heresies. Coakley, John W., and Andrea Sterk. Readings in World Christian History, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. New York: Orbis Books, 2004.
Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.
Ignatius Press. Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. Ignatius Pr, 2016.
Reply to Thread