In early Christianity there were many alternative views that
claimed to have authority over one another. Hundreds of rival
teachers all claimed to teach the “true doctrine of Christ” and
denounced all others as frauds. All claimed to represent “the
authentic tradition”. Jesus himself was the only authority they
all recognized.1 One of these alternative views was Gnostic
Christianity, which gained popularity in the second century.
The term Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning
‘knowledge’. This knowledge is knowledge of participation,
knowledge of union and salvation. It is existential knowledge in
contrast to scientific knowledge.2 Gnosticism was influenced by
Oriental dualism and Greek philosophies. In this dualism the
Gnostics believed that the creation of the world was bad and
that its creator, Yahweh, the Old Testament God of the Jews, was
an evil being. The God of Gnostic Christianity was a benevolent
and loving being, superior over Yahweh.3 This God was God the
Father, Jesus’ Father, the “real” God. Paul Tillich said that
Gnosis is used in three ways: as knowledge in general terms; as
mystical communion; as sexual intercourse.4 This article will be
concerned with the second as it applies to the Resurrection.
The theory that Jesus rose from the dead is the fundamental
element of the Christian faith. The idea that this event
occurred in one unique historical moment is a central theme to
the orthodox position. What makes this so ordinary is not the
claim that Jesus’ friends had seen him after his death, but that
they saw a human being. The orthodox position states that as
Christ rose bodily from the grave, so every believer should
anticipate the resurrection of the flesh. 4 Some New Testament
accounts insist on this literal view of the resurrection and the
orthodoxy of the second century insisted on it as well,
rejecting all others as heretical. Luke 24:34 states that “the
Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon Peter!”
Whatever the truth of this claim, in all honesty we can’t verify
or disprove it on simply historical grounds – we were not there
to see it happen. All we can say is that Peter claimed that the
resurrection happened and generations after him continued to
believe him, and still do.
For the Gnostic Christian, however, the person who experiences
the resurrection does not meet Jesus raised back to life in
physical form. He encounters Christ on a spiritual level, such
as dreams, ecstatic trances, visions, and spiritual
illumination. 5 The Gnostic Christian rejected Luke’s theory.
According to them, the literal view of the resurrection was
argued to have occurred in the past and because of this it was
called the “faith of fools”. 6 The Gnostics insisted that the
resurrection symbolized how Christ’s presence could be
experienced in the present. To them, it was not literal seeing
that mattered; rather, it was spiritual vision. This spiritual
vision of the resurrection, in whatever form it took, was the
moment of enlightenment – a person could be “resurrected from
the dead” right now. Christians could “receive the resurrection
while they live”. 7 Gnostics believed that taking the literal
view was ignorant.
What interested these Gnostics far more than past events
attributed to the “historical Jesus” was the possibility of
encountering the risen Christ in the present. They alleged that
the risen Christ continued to reveal himself to certain
disciples, representing how Christ’s presence could be
experienced individually in the present moment. For Christians
who wanted to know and experience Christ now, in there own
individual present moment, this belief probably seemed like a
quick fix. But I beg to differ.
It may be true that Christ’s resurrection is central to
Christianity, but I want to take it further and say, putting our
faith in the occurrence of the resurrection is actually more
central that simply stating it happened. Anyone is capable of
saying it happened; not everyone is capable of believing it
happened. There is significant difference between the two. One
requires faith, the other doesn’t. Here is where I believe the
Gnostics should not be considered Christian. In truth, we were
not there two thousand years ago to see the resurrected Christ;
the reality of the issue says that we honestly do not know if
the event occurred or not. But isn’t this what our faith is all
about, believing in something not seen? This is why the
Christian faith is so beautiful. The mystery of it gives us hope
of salvation and eternal paradise. The Gnostic Christians were
adamant about experiencing Christ’s resurrection in the present
moment, as opposed to relying on the belief that it happened in
the past, a belief that requires the central theme of
Christianity: Faith. If a person experiences something in the
present moment, they don’t need to have faith that it happened
because they were there to experience it. If the Gnostics did
not need faith, then I argue against their Christianity, for
they did not find use for the essential driving force behind a
Christian’s whole existence. I believe that the proof of their
heresy lies in the fact that Christian Orthodoxy, despite its
evolution into many different denominations and doctrines, is
still practiced by millions of people, whereas Gnosticism died
out long ago. Although people in the modern world did not
witness Christ’s bodily resurrection they still, two thousand
years later, put their faith in the hope that it did. And
sometimes, a simple hope is all a person needs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. The Gnostic Gospels, Pg 7 2. A History of
Christian Thought, Pg. 33 3. Exploring Christianity, Pg. 40 4.
The Gnostic Gospel, Pg. 4 5. Ibid, Pg. 5 6. Ibid, Pg. 11 7.
Ibid, Pg. 12
REFERENCES 1. Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought.
Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 1968.
2. Monk, Robert, and Joseph Stamey. Exploring Christianity: An
Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.
3. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Random House:New York.
1979.
|
