Paul, the Gnostic
But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 NASB
Passing away – Gnosticism was a powerful force in the ancient world. The absolute abyss between the true, transcendental God and the corrupt, demonic world had serious implications for those who recognized they were prisoners here, incarcerated in bodies and under the compulsion of societal laws, all designed to prevent them from discovering the God beyond. Gnostics believed that this world held no meaning whatsoever, and that any actions taken in this world were without consequence unless they were actions against the laws that governed the cosmos, i.e., acts that deliberately opposed both moral and social requirements of this world order. Sin was not a violation of the moral code. It was a stand against a world held captive by demonic forces. The reason gnostics could live in opposition to all moral order springing from this world was simple: this world didn’t matter. It was doomed in its attempt to keep men captive to its rules. It was passing away.
If we read these words from Paul in the first century in Corinth, we might draw the conclusion that Paul was a gnostic. Doesn’t he instruct followers to put aside all semblance of the past moral order, to ignore the basic requirements of society, to act contrary to ordinary human mores? Why does he suggest such counterintuitive behaviors? Because, “this world is passing away,” just as the gnostics claimed, and because it is passing away, marriage, grief, joy, accumulation, and the use of this realm mean nothing. All such common human expressions are to be tossed on the ash heap of a world history that is about to be extinct.
“Gnostic doctrine explicates the duality, or rather the feeling underlying it, in its different objective aspects. The theological aspect holds that the divine has no part in the concerns of the physical universe; that the true God, strictly transmundane, is not revealed or even indicated by the world, and is therefore the Unknown, the totally Other, unknowable in terms of any worldly analogies.”[1] “ . . . man by his inner nature is acosmic; to such a one, all the world is indifferently alien.”[2] Gnostic ethics turns morality on its head. The only sin is to continue to live by the rules of the world.
Paul’s expression certainly sounds gnostic, doesn’t it? Do you suppose the Corinthians, seeped in Greek thinking and privy to the powerful opposition of gnosticism would not have recognized the parallel? As Jonas remarks, “The total gnostic view is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but eschatological.”[3] Gnosticism puts all its money on a bet on the future, when the prince of this world will be defeated and the world as we know it will come to an end.
Is it any wonder that some Christian ideas grew out of the soil of gnostic thought? Would you be shocked to discover similarities between the deeply pagan view of gnosticism and the Augustinian idea of Man’s total corruption and enslavement to the body? Would you be surprised to learn that some Christian eschatological views, disparaging the world in anticipation of another realm (heaven) are basically gnostic? Does it concern you to know that contemporary nihilism finds its roots in gnostic thought or that spiritual mysticism appears to model the idea of the Unknown God of gnostic antiquity? And what do we do with Paul? Why does he speak in terms that certainly called forth gnostic roots to the Corinthian audience?
Perhaps we need history lessons far more than we thought. Perhaps the mistaken epistemology that the Spirit leads us directly to the truth without reference to the intellectual history of men is our first mistake.
Topical Index: gnosticism, eschatology, morality, 1 Corinthians 7:29-31
[1] Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p. 251.
[2] Ibid., p. 263.
[3] Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p. 261.
CORRECTION NOTE: 2 days ago I wrote about history and Chronicles. I cited an article but the link was messed up (I don’t know how). Several people called my attention to this and I have corrected the link on the web site, but if you didn’t get the change, here is the CORRECT link.
http://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204&context=asburyjournal
Don’t be so quick to throw out the baby of the Spirit along with the bathwater of human presumption, I beg you! That is a classic dialectic move! Yes, we can realize that the Spirit will be in harmony with the “intellectual history of men”, but it does not need it as a BASIS. Let us start from the Spirit and harmonize from there. “Out of the mouths of babes” is probably an oblique reference to the fact that the Spirit predates any human engagement; the Spirit does not NEED human history and context to be fully effective. Intellectual infants can proclaim the glory of God just fine without ‘guidance’ from other humans, past or present. The Spirit of Truth establishes truth upon the basis of heaven; not earth. I don’t think that means it will be diametrically opposed to revelatory history or even out of harmony with it; it just means that it is not dependent upon it. The Spirit “lists where it wills”.
Now, does that mean that people can just go off into their little corners and start over; just them and the Spirit? Then why would He go to the bother to give us the Word: a stupendous tome of “intellectual history” if we ever got one? The Spirit will always harmonize with that Word, and with all previous revelation in this world, too. People do not build experience in a meaningless vacuum: that would be what gnosticism teaches: not God. Experience is all we have to learn from, and we are given a carefully protected history so that we can learn from it; BUT, without that Spirit, we will never get the point of that “intellectual history”, that’s for sure.
I used to make the mistake of thinking that all I had to do was to figure out what was the bad, and what was the good, and then the choices would be clear. If something was labeled ‘bad’, then EVERYTHING about it was clearly ‘bad’, too. All I had to do then was to just reject it all, and I would be good to go. If gnosticism is ‘bad’, then everything about it would clearly be wrong, and safe to discard. It’s not that simple!
The best lies are Ivory soap;: 99.99% pure. It is not safe to assume that everything that ever came out of a gnostic’s mouth is to be simply disregarded; no, gnosticism, as an opposition to the true followers, was designed to appeal to them by laundering the truth through a prism designed to bend the truth ever so slightly. Subtlety – not bluntness – characterizes the serpent. Gnosticism appeals because it sounds so like the truth, not because it is directly opposite of it. I earnestly pray we step carefully on the serpent’s ground!
Skip, wouldn’t there have to be some serious picking and choosing of his words to think Paul was a Gnostic? Looking at the whole picture of his words and his behavior; upholding Torah in it’s literal application, isn’t it a stretch to interpret his words as gnostic philosophy? Were there Jewish sects of gnostics who were still orthodox in their observation of Torah?
That’s the whole point. You’re right. Paul’s words would have to be radically reinterpreted to view him as a Gnostic, although some interpreters have suggested that. My point is that the use of these phrases can make him sound like a Gnostic until we look deeper. His Jewish heritage would prevent a Gnostic perspective.
Gnosticism affected a great number of people in the Mediterranean world, including some Jews who were leaning toward Hellenism. It affected them either positively (they embraced it) or negatively (they argued against it – as we see in early Christian authors). Either way, the impact was important.
When reading Corinthians it’s almost heartbreaking what Paul had to deal with.most of us would have run for the hills with what we know in hindsight. There’s not a one of us here that would of tackled it.In verse 7:26 he also mentions present distress(massive persecution). Have we not recommended to others, wait on marriage or having children until they mature. Jewish thought is you were sinning if not married.apparently he was bombarded with questions . If you had a assembly in this condition wouldn’t you recommend basically wait on these things until you mature especially in the midst of persecution .I might say the time is short need to get your act together. Paul must of had great love for these people to even bother,.I see great love. Taking one verse and labeling him as a Gnostic is unfair especially in harmony with other verses.
But I’m not labelling him a Gnostic. I don’t think he was in any sense. It’s just that his words were used by others (particularly in ancient times) to claim that his thoughts were Gnostic. I don’t see that at all given the broader context of who he was, but that doesn’t mean we should not examine these phrases and recognize their potential use by Gnostics. Just as John and others wrote against Gnostic heresies, so we need to be aware of the intellectual climate that surrounded Paul.
Hi Skip believe it or not I never thought you to believe Paul Gnostic. Knowing how you teach I figured you would get around to the pt. It was more of a general statement how so many in the hebrew roots and messianic assemblies are beginning to think about Paul. Sorry you took it personally as we all know blogging is a sticky wicket to try to extract what your trying to say. It was a general statement but should of made it clearer?????
Not a problem. I didn’t take it personally and never thought you thought I thought Paul was Gnostic. I just added this for others who read here.
There are instances where Paul, Peter, and John all use gnostic terminolgy to
punch Gnosticism in the nose. Wandering stars, outer darkness, Brute beasts meant to be
caught and killed, were all Gnostic concepts. “Don’t touch, don’t taste” was possibly another
one. Alan Knight’s book Primitive Christianity in Crisis touches on these.
Just as Yeshua jabs the Essenes with the parable of the shrewd steward (“the sons of this age are more
prudent than the sons of the light,”) The apostolic writers use turns of phrase that their hearers (and targets)
would recognize as jibes.
Oh, and the Protestant doctrine that Christians are the Bride of Christ and go to Heaven, while Jews are the wife of YHWH and will dwell on earth is Gnostic as Hell.
Yes, indeed. A lot of Gnostic thoughts were absorbed into Christianity even while the early fathers wrote AGAINST the doctrines. But that is the history of syncretism.
Yeah, blame gnosticism for that, too, because, you know, this is just a general pick-on-gnosticism day. LOL. I mean, would syncretism even be possible if the Greeks had not somehow separated the human experience from what they thought about that experience?
Dualism sets a perfect stage for the bipolar exercise we see in that history. I think it allows us to say one thing and to do another (which is the secret dream of all humans, anyway, right?). I think gnosticism gives us a way to give the truth lip service without having to go through the transformational changes the conviction of that truth presses upon our consciences. A perfect scenario for a dead person (stuck in trespasses and sins) who doesn’t want to go through the pain (change) of waking up (salvation). I think gnosticism must have been tailor-made for people who understand the truth of what life should be here and now, but don’t want to live it.
Or maybe it was a way to ignore responsibility in this world since nothing here mattered even to God. He was in another realm, far removed. And therefore I could do anything I wanted to do here and search for a way out.
Ouch, you said the “r” word. Responsibility.
When I see false religion I am learning to look for what makes that particular belief system attractive, and, don’t you know, we seem to be attracted to anything that gives us a way to pass the buck. I think it is because it is impossible to take responsibility without being able to backtrack our own poor choices. No false religion gives us a real way in real time to start over. Repetition (and hope you do better next time), bury the blame (or better yet: blame somebody else); or oblivion is the best any of them have been able to come up with.
I was thinking about what Mark said on a previous blog.People come but don’t stay.most of us that follow this blog understand how you teach.You help us to think.If someone came to this blog today I could see how they would not return.You bring up a pt. but then you don’t follow through with what your really trying to convey unless you finally comment. In a fellowship setting or even a video it would be a joy . Sounds silly but sometimes when I am upset with your short word of the day,or don’t agree I put on a video of you and than I see a heart of love deep compassion and tenderness.Unfortunately this does not show on a blog .Maybe you could do more short videos.
I think it’s going on a year now and I’m still here no I don’t say much I’m in it to win it so we press on for the upward calling of YHWH in Yeshua
I am off work today must be on a roll today?? I was thinking . I get concerned when people leave this blog. If we didn’t hear from laurita it would be very very sad and we would know something is wrong. If I died tomorrow nobody would know ( this is not pity just a fact). Is there anyway to keep in touch with others on a more personal basis. Where’s Richard Gambino, Jerry and lisa, Craig and many others . I know people have reasons that I am not privy too. I miss them and have no way of knowing their okay.. so if they read this you are truly missed!!!!
Amen Pam, it’s the often controversial bantering that helps us think different about our understanding of things. As hard as it is to engage in, it’s very nessecary!
One thing about me is I am loyal even when I strongly disagree. Got the thumbs down record a few days ago. I deserved it not so much what was said but I need to be reminded my tone needs to be watched.This is not my only source of community but my fellowship consists of mostly those that need milk. I would count it an honor and a privilege to fellowship with anyone on this site even more glorious a face to face .What a sweet thought. Thanks for all you guys who have long suffered with me and continually stimulate my thinking. We are such a throw away society even on this blog.We need to stop it it’s become to pervasive to the pt.of rebellion. Love you all and others come back and hang in here.
Pam, you know, we were made to sing in harmony: not a score written for us, but one we make up as we go. I am ‘out of tune’ if you are not contributing your piece of the score, no matter how ‘well’ I am singing. None of us can speak for another: we were all given the responsibility to do that for ourselves. We owe it to each other to give, like the little drummer boy, of ourselves, for that is what we need most from each other. I, like you, miss each and everybody who is silent, the same as I miss myself, for that is the same thing. This is why we need each other! Incidentally, if you don’t like the way somebody else is singing, it may be because they are trying to cover your absence. The best way to change somebody’s ‘tune’ is to contribute your part of the score. They will adjust accordingly.
Thank you for being you and being present and being transparent and for giving us a chance to be closer to you. You are on the prayer list! Thank you!
Love, Laurita
For what it’s worth, Pam, my wife and I have become acquainted with more than one person from this blog. Our lives are all the richer for it. I will leave my email address here. Write me, and I can give you my telephone number. Unless you live near northeast Iowa (our home), telephone fellowship will have to do…or unless you pass by and can visit, as Dawn and Gene McLaughlin did. Wonderful people! Equally fascinating are the people I’ve “met” only by phone. Skip’s website is invaluable in more ways than one.
stillhaveniowa(at)alpinecom.net
(Link edited by Mark) Sorry, Thomas but we can’t have direct links posted.
Pam humans are deeply relational. Yet words particularly written words are not. They carey only aboutv 17% of communication cues. The balance; tone, inflections, gestures, attitudes are masked in written words. The reality is digital community can not nor will ever meet our needs for real personal community. But it is a place we can connect withe like minds and sympathetic hearts. The rest us up to us. I’d love to share with you or any others that follow T.D. W on my blog worksofwordsdotcom. I can be reached personely at markatideastudiosdotcom.
Regarding the written word carrying only 17% of communication cues (I was not aware the percentage was this low), tell that to the ‘social media’ generation(s). To think they are ‘socializing’ when they are merely reading and interacting with another’s Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc…
Pam, thanks for your concern. As for me, I’ve always been a sporadic contributor; but, now my time is much more constrained.
Thanks for all your comments on this thread, Pam.
I feel your pain but, that disconnect is pretty much going to be a given if we don’t know each other on a face to face basis. It’s hard to say why someone wouldn’t be commenting anymore. It’s true someone could pass and we not know. They could have gotten offended and decided not to participate further. They could have misunderstood a post or comment and opted out. They may very well have even become attached to a physical community due to some of the positive interaction and encouragement from here as well. Very hard to know if we don’t know them personally or if someone who does know them or they themselves don’t let people here know. I think that’s just a reality of not having relationship with those we communicate with, on a face to face level as well as a written one.
In regards to the comment, you left above, referring to the “video” of Skip you watched. Funny you should mention that. Skip and I was just talking, 2 days ago, about much of what you said, and what I had said in a prior comment. One thing to keep in mind. Often times Skip doesn’t have an internet connection while he’s travelling that allows for him to send me videos to be edited and posted. But, he did tell me he would work on getting out some more. We’ve also been tossing around a few ideas on how to better communicate, with a first time visitor to the website especially, a brief message or introduction as to what the intention and purpose of Skip’s “journey” is here. In hopes to better prepare them and not scare them off by coming into the middle of a conversation without having a pretext or context.
Much gratitude Mark thanks. It will be most helpful to us and others.
Hi Mark & Skip,
Regarding your comment on first time visitors to this website, when I first started reading here I sometimes found it frustrating when there was a lot of talk regarding words I was not familiar with. A new reader may have NO any idea what or who, for example, yetzer hara, yetzer hatov, chesed, HaSatan, Tanakh, Torah, Septuagent, Ekklesia, Yeshua, YHWH, Christ/Messiah, Messianic and currently, what gnostic, exactly means. Yes, we can do a search on them within the site but that is time consuming and probably not something a new casual reader is going to bother with (and lose interest in this site.) Perhaps there could be a page of definitions that could easily be jumped to for the benefit of new (and regular) readers.
Another small issue I have noticed in very long threads is, exactly who is someone replying to? As a random and recent example, David Hankins is replying in the “Big Ten” to a “Sister” somewhere above but it is at least a little difficult to figure out who. I am pretty sure it is Laurita but her comments are 3 pages above. I don’t know if I am over thinking this but perhaps if the indents were labelled A, B, C, etc. it would make it plain.
Just a couple thoughts. Thanks for all the both of you do.
Lucky for google dictionary it helps me a lot to follow…
A facinating discussion Skip, thanks. What I inferred from this was not that Paul was a Gnostic; rather the intelectual atmospher, the thought air he inhailed , was saturated with this perspective. Yet let us not forget Paul was a premier Rabbi, a disciple of Gammaliel and of Yeshua. He would have reconized any violation of the Rebbinic code. He had taken another “stand against a world held captive by demonic forces”. Because he had also met the Messiah who came “in the fullness of time…full of Grace and truth” Two of Heschels thoughts are germane . “The purpose of the Torah is to bring life to Isreal, in this life and the world to come” I belive Paul knew that this was absolutely true. The creation is Sacred, beautiful, wonderfully made, it is we that corrupt it; unless our time, our thoughts and actions are devoted to God. Paul would not beeen distracted otherwise. Yet since YHVH is the God of time and as Heschele writes in The Sabeth (Prologue pg. 7) “To understand the teaching of the Bible, one must accept as its premise that time has a meaning for life which is at least equal to that of space.” He infers in fact the Sabeth is a construct of ” sacred time”. Time changes things and God is at the very heart of and present, purposefully working in OUR times and thoughts . Paul was the mid wife of the Church . He in fact also helped birth what we now define as “Messianic Judieism” This because as Laurita so clearly said of the Gnostics was true then and now of Rabbinic Judism. Rabbinic Judism then and now stands in a marked contrast to Mossaic Judaism. And could also be described as “doomed in its attempt to keep men captive to its rules. It was (IS) passing away” as is the “church ” (Rev. 11;1,2.) and in that time through Paul and the apostles “The Spirit of Truth establishes truth upon the basis of heaven; not earth. ” God used the gnostic thoughts that alined with reality and truth as he usese ours to inform one another of his reality. I agree with Laurit as well ” I don’t think that means it will be diametrically opposed to revelatory history or even out of harmony with it; it just means that it is not dependent upon it. The Spirit “lists where it wills”. As Laurtia also says “No false religion gives us a real way in real time to start over.” But God does. He provided the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all truth if we are wiling to follow…
Mark is this anywhere to the tune of wind focuses in Acts to the unknown God?
Brett I am not clear on your question. ..
Skip Moen; I have different view about Paul, gospels and Jesus. I have written a book “Israel is the Messiah – truth hidden in the gospels revealed”. If I send you its pdf would you please read it and write your comments?
Sure. Send it.
Skip,
Your quotes of Jonas well explain Gnostic dualism. What I’d like to see is a Jonas quote to fully support your assertion that this dualism was well-known in AD 50-60, as exemplified in the following: “…the Corinthians, seeped in Greek thinking and privy to the powerful opposition of Gnosticism…”. In other words, does Jonas specifically state that these gnostic tenets were practiced as Gnosticism and widely known in mid-1st c. Corinth? On “The Great Divide” TW, I’d already mentioned my stance regarding “the Unknown god”: Do you have a Jonas quote in which he asserts that “the Unknown god” was a doctrine adhered to by Gnostics in Corinth, Athens, or any other Greek city at this time?
I will agree that Gnostics would view Paul’s words here to be in line with their own worldview, but my contention is that this would not have happened until late 1st c. by proto-Gnostics.
I’ll do my best to provide you with Jonas’ material. I’m a bit stretched at the moment, but this week for sure.
OK, Jonas spends some time looking at the works of Philo Judaeus, who was contemporary with Paul. Review his analysis on pp. 278-281 where he cites many of the texts from Philo and shows their gnostic elements and influence. So here we have a recognized writer of the same period as Paul who shows that gnostic thought was already a part of the intellectual environment.
Skip, I hope you will be able to spend a little time on the Nicolaitans too. They were also a big headache.
But, Philo, a Jew, lived in Alexandria, Egypt; so, we must question how much his works would have influenced Athens, Corinth, etc. Though certainly influenced by Hellenism, His works are not really Gnostic, as I see it. Much has been written about Philo’s logos, which has what might be construed as proto-gnostic elements, however, importantly, and quite contrary to your major point here in this TW, Philo did not dichotomize matter as evil and spirit as good. Such a notion that matter was inherently evil would go directly against his Jewish upbringing.
Kurt Rudolph’s Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (© 1977 Koehler & Amelang; transl [from German] of 2nd, rev and expanded version © 1984 T&T Clark Ltd, Edinburgh; New York: HarperCollins, 1987) contains references both to Hans Jonas and to Philo; so, I’ll quote a bit here. First, towards the point I made in the first paragraph above is Rudolph describing matter as in “Anonymous Treatise” from Nag Hammadi, a work dated ca. (2nd?) 3rd century:
Thus, Rudolph implies that Philo is not “Gnosis”. Of Jonas’ The Gnostic Religion, Rudolph writes:
This dualism was certainly evident in the Orient, but what is yet to be demonstrated is that this idea was known in 1st c. Athens, Corinth, etc. Absent any proof of such, we’re left with mere speculation. I referenced Rabbi Samuel Sandmel’s “Parallelomania” before on this site, noting his caution in assessing Philo and other works. Sandmel’s article is available online, and very much worth reading:
biblicalstudies(dot)org(dot)uk/pdf/parallelomania_sandmel.pdf
I don’t have Jonas’ book to reference, so I must ask what you mean by “gnostic elements” and, especially, “[gnostic] influence”. I think in a way we are talking past one another because we have different definitions of Gnosticism/Gnosis. My understanding of Gnosticism in the ME (specifically excluding the Orient here) is that it’s strictly a 2nd century and later phenomenon, in part because it was a reaction to Christianity. Thus, I term all ideas leading to the various known sects of Gnosticism “proto-gnostic”.
I just don’t think the Mandeans (or Philo) influenced the Greeks in mid-1st c. Corinth, Athens, etc., and I’d be surprised if Jonas is of that opinion or makes that specific assertion. But, perhaps he does. Does he explicitly?
Thanks for the feedback. Thomas I live in mn. Metro area so definitely see a get together.I know 3 of us who would make the trip. Here is my email pamjam1007(at)gmail.com. Hi Craig and Ruby and thanks Mark.