NT Doctrine -- 2 Peter 2

[Ed Hurst]

Peter describes the state of the Gnostic heresy as it was at the time. Israel had to contend with false prophets and so will the churches. They infiltrated and brought their false teaching into every church they could find. Things had drifted to the point they were even denying Christ Himself, the Lord who sacrificed His life to purchase them from slavery to the flesh. While many of them bore a strong charisma, they were morally wretched and self-serving. In due time, God would pour out His wrath on them.

Peter is confident that God's wrath would not fail. The fallen elohim did not escape the Abyss, and their foul progeny -- the Nephilim -- did not escape dying in the Flood. Meanwhile, God kept Noah and his household alive. Just so, when the time was ripe, Sodom and Gomorrah were buried under volcanic ash while Lot's household was preserved. Peter notes how Lot was tormented by the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Thus, those who indulge the flesh will be destroyed, while those who seek God's favor will find it, despite their trials and sorrows. These filthy Gnostics even went so far as to insult the powers of the Unseen Realm. Contrast that to the angels of God who were very careful how they addressed these higher authorities in the Lord's name. The arrogant Gnostics were just begging for wrath. They had invested a lot of effort in learning how to prey on unsuspecting church folks.

They followed the teaching of Balaam. That ancient scholar was a genuine expert in what God had revealed up to that point but was motivated by personal greed to use that knowledge for evil. It took an onager speaking with a human voice to correct him and awaken humility. These Gnostics were no better than dry springs or clouds without rain, promising blessings they could not deliver. Their message claims to deliver the pagans from sorrow, but once they make a convert, he's only worse off. They rant on and on about freedom while walking in slavery to their fleshly lusts.

Finally, Peter makes it clear that these filthy men were once followers of Christ. Having climbed up the mountain of God's Presence, they have slipped to a place far below where they started. They learned the truth only to corrupt it and abuse its power, traitors who knowingly turned to Darkness. Peter offers two parables showing how disgusting these creatures are: dogs returning to eat again their own vomit, and pigs who went to the trouble to bathe only to immediately return to the smelly filth.

[jaybreak]

Do you think the gnostics Peter was talking about had any overlap with the Judaizers or Talmudists of the day, or were they completely separate with their own specialization in the ungodly?

[Ed Hurst]

Gnosticism had already been around for a long time, developing like any other man-made religion. It is not strictly Plato, but somewhat platonic, with a mixture of Zoroastrian philosophy, and a religious fervor in favor of gnosis. It spread in multiple branches. Historically, you don't get Hellenism without Gnosticism. The basic ideas seem to have taken root about the same time Hellenism came to Palestine. It was a primary influence in Pharisaism and what became Judaism. It didn't become a self-conscious movement called "Gnosticism" until later, from what I've read.

The specific problem the Apostles in general faced was that the Gnostic dualism -- the strict separation between the physical and spiritual -- echoed the Talmudic rejection of the Messiah. This is the emphasis in the New Testament. Some Judaizers would use the dualism argument to reject Jesus. It's not a clear-cut distinction between the two, except that by John's time there was a proliferation of schools of thought that became large and popular. There were threads of Gnosticism that were pagan, some half-way secular, some Judaic, and some more Christian, and some that were eclectic. We can pick out the threads of ideas, but actual organizations were entangled in dualism in different ways. If you read the history of Gnosticism, you'll usually find references to how Gnosticism was pulling one way, and Judaizers another, but their combined influence on the gospel message shared some common threads.

If you looked up the Gnostic heresy within church history (it still exists today as a movement) you'll be shocked at some of their teachings. I sometimes wonder if the reason Paul and the other apostles didn't say much about the broader East versus West problem is because all their time was consumed in dealing the very specific problem of the Gnostic influence. I recommend this: Gnosticism.

[jaybreak]

Thanks for that info and recommendation. I'll read it later today.