I'm in an apologetics group at my school, and weekly the officers (myself included) and chapter director will come together at a table to advertise the group, talk with other Christians, and evangelize non-Christians. While we were talking with a regular, we got on the topic of early church heresies, namely Nestorianism, which I have discussed elsewhere (1 2). When I explained the problematic views Nestorius held to, the chapter director was confused, because they seemed pretty reasonable. Me and the Roman Catholic regular tried to explain the problems, but he wasn't really getting it. By the grace of God, that evening we had a guest presenting on the Gnostic origins of Islam's claims about Christ, namely His fictional death and resurrection. In said presentation, we looked at the Gnostic claims, and the following helped the chapter director and another friend really understand the problems with the Nestorian claims, and warning: it's a very long quote:
"When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me...And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame." And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree...And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed. And he said to me, "Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell, of Elohim [the Demiurge], of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma, which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit." - from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, emphasis mine
I don't blame you if this was a difficult passage to understand, many of the Gnostic books like the pseudo-gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc. are very strange. In this one, however, we see a scene very reminiscent of the Nestorian heresy. This is from the perspective of St. Peter, who has a vision of Christ's crucifixion. In this vision, he sees Christ supposedly being crucified, but the Lord makes a distinction between the "Living Jesus" and His "fleshly part." The latter is being killed, and thus they think they are destroying Him, but the living Jesus tells Peter that they are simply destroying His human part, which is worthless, made by an evil false god, and even "the home of demons." Thus, He laughs at them, who kill his "substitute" and free his spirit. This is a very gnostic view, in which the body is merely a corrupt hunk of matter, piloted by our souls, who are also imprisoned. Then, after we die, our souls will be freed as our bodies are destroyed. In the context of Christ, then, the incarnation is anathema to them, as it shows God uniting Himself to fleshly matter. This is why the Gnostic must come up with explanations about how this can be.
The reason I bring this up is that this is directly related to a claim made by Nestorius, who said that one "should not think that it was the godhead of the Son that was recently killed but the flesh which was joined to the nature of the godhead." In other words, just as one cannot call Mary "the Mother of God," so too can you not call the Atonement "the death of God." This is the same claim made by these Gnostics, and all for the same purpose: preserving the glory of the divine nature, not letting God stoop to the glory of "dying."
Something especially fascinating to note here is that to my knowledge, Nestorius' reasoning was that the divine nature can't die, since immortality is key to divinity. However, if we look to a later controversy, which I have argued is very related to the Nestorian controversy, we see the radical reformers coming much closer to this Gnostic model. Straight from Calvin himself:
“The promise to which they appeal, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," is not to be applied to the body…Secondly, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them.” "Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere…Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgement." Selections from Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion, 4.17.30, emphasis mine
In Calvin's view, also expressed well by Gavin Ortlund here, we see that the divine nature is united to the human nature of Christ, but based on the doctrine of the extra calvinisticum, the divine nature overflows outside of the human nature. This seems to also be the case for the Gnostic model, in which the divine spirit dwells in human flesh but dwells above and laughs while His "fleshly part" suffers. While not the same, since Calvin would presumably affirm the unity between the divine nature and the human flesh, the idea of Christ's dwelling in omnipresence outside of the flesh is very problematic, because it's difficult to explain how Christ's presence is not divided in the same way. In other words, the author of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter directly affirms the extra calvinisticum, so I guess theology can make for some strange bedfellows.
Comments