Could the concept of Jesus as the Word in the introductory poem to the gospel of John have originated from a sect of Christianity distinct from Pauline Christianity? If 1 Corinthians 4:18 is interpreted as “not the Word of those who are puffed up, but the Power. For the kingdom of God is not in Word but in Power”, then Paul did not believe that Jesus was the Word, but rather a different aspect of God.
Perhaps Apollos – “a native of Alexandria” (Acts 18:24) – was familiar with Philo of Alexandria’s harmonization of Jewish religion with Stoic Platonic philosophy and composed the Christ-Poem in the gospel of John because he believed something similar to Philo’s Word as “the image of God, His Angel” and “His First-born Word, the Oldest Angel, who is as though it were the Angel-chief, of many names; for he is called Dominion, and Name of God” (Mead. Thrice-Greatest Hermes I, 161-2).
Born roughly a generation before Jesus, “Philo speaks of the “Logos” (“De Vita Mosis,” iii., § 14) as the “Paraclete” who is to procure for the high priest forgiveness of sins, just as he uses the term “paraclete” elsewhere in the sense of “advocate” and “intercessor” (“In Flaccum,” §§ 3, 4; “De Opificiis Mundi,” § 6: “God is in no need of an ‘intercessor,'” i.e., a helper).” [1] The usage of the word Paraclete can only be found in the gospel of John (in the section attributed to the Book of Glory) at John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and in 1 John 2:1.
Based on 1 Corinthians 4:18, it looks like Paul viewed Jesus as the Power (Dunamis) and not the Word (Logos), although Paul’s Power was also “an angel of God, as Jesus Christ” (Galatians 4:14) using the 2nd Temple era usage of the term angel as something like an independent emanation of an aspect of God and not the winged beings of the 21st century.
Although the Church Fathers condemned heretics for “suppos[ing] names for the Dominions and Principalities, and says there are different heavens, and sets forth Powers for each firmament and heaven, and tricks them out with barbarous names” (Epiphanius. Contra Hæreses, ii. 4), it sure looked like Paul was familiar with at least a “third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2). Paul also appears to be fairly heavily Hellenized as he believed in heavenly entities more commonly found in Greek philosophy: “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height (in Greek philosophy, the sublime), nor depth (the profound), nor any other creation, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).
Elsewhere, “the exceeding greatness of His Power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty Power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named [there’s a lot of specialized names in Greek philosophy, far beyond just the Word and the Power] (Ephesians 1:19-21).
Apart from the theophilosophical difference between the Word and the Power, there is another critical difference between Paul’s theology and that found in the Christ-Poem of the gospel of John. Paul believed Jesus Christ came “in the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man” (Philippians 2:7-8) while the author of the poem believed that the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14) and not just in “likeness”. This is an issue of bodily substance of composition. Adam being made “in the likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1) did not mean Adam possessed the glory of God (in Hebrew, the effervescent celestial body of God), only a likeness or similarity in appearance to it. The Docetic belief that Christ came down as a phantasmal or celestial substance likely originated from Paul. Paul confessed a Christ that came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3) – during baptism if the Valentinians can be trusted to have preserved Paul’s true teachings – and that “[t]he gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14:11), but Paul did “not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the (substance of) flesh” (1 John 4:3). A very subtle difference, but one that generated tremendous theological warfare back in Christianity’s infancy.
[1]https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11899-paraclete
Valentinian did claim discipleship to Theudas, a direct disciple of Paul. They had a distinctly non-Catholic interpretation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus:
“The Valentinian tradition draws a sharp distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Jesus. The human Jesus was born the true son of Mary and Joseph…When he was thirty years old, he went to John the Baptist to be baptized. As soon as he went down into the water, the divine Savior, referred to as the “Spirit of the Thought of the Father”, descended on him in the form of a dove. This is the true “virgin birth” and resurrection from the dead, for he was reborn of the virgin Spirit…
The divine Jesus experienced all of the emotions of human being including grief, fear and confusion in the Garden of Gethsemene. However, only the human Jesus suffered pain and died on the cross. His divine aspect transcends physical suffering and death. When his physical body died, his non-corporeal spiritual body rose up from it.”[1]
This kind of theology does maintain a fleshly human form at birth while maintaining that Christ ‘came down’ as a celestial being instead of “in the flesh”.
[1]http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm
Well, Valentinian did almost become the bishop of Rome, so his theology could not have been that far off of relatively commonly accepted doctrine for his time period. One does have to consider the possibility that the earliest Gnostics may have legitimate reasons to have claimed to be the theological descents of Paul. Looking at Philippians 2:5-8: “Let this Mind be in you which is also in Jesus Christ, who existing in the form of God, did not consider it something to be grasped to be considered equal with God, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men and having been found in appearance as a man”, the Docetists do have textual ground to stand on if they wished to argue that Christ came down only in appearance and the likeness of man and not in flesh.
It’s not as if this pre-existent celestial being that “exist[ed] in the form of God” (Philippians 2:5) was known or worshipped around the world until after the crucifixion. Being “highly exalted” (Philippians 2:9) could just mean that Christ was bumped up the heavenly ranks.
When flesh is transform into divinity, Paul tends to use the term glorified in lieu of exalt.
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son…Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
(Romans 8:29-30 NKJV)
In this scenario, Paul equates “conformed to the image of His Son” with “glorified”. (Not to be confused with other usages of the word glory such as to boast in other areas of his epistles.)
Based on 1 Thessalonians, one could argue that Paul expected Jesus (at the time of his Second Coming) would come in the form of an archangel, based on “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel” (I Thessalonians 4:16). I’m not sure if Paul’s Jesus’ post crucifixion ‘form of god’ is any more divine than what the celestial Jesus started out with prior to visiting the earthly realms or if Jesus had attained Godhood on par with God in the fullest sense or had just been promoted from an angel to an archangel.
That could be Paul’s interpretation, but there’s too many early Christianities to get a definitive lock on his original theology. I agree that it’s too much to assume Trinitarianism, but it’s pretty close to a full Godhead.
I date the Christ-Poem of the gospel of John significantly earlier than most scholars do purely because of the historical accounts of Simon Magus and Cleobius: “Two men have come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, who pervert the faith of many through pernicious words…What they teach is as follows…Creation is not God’s work…The world is not of God but the Angels” (3 Corinthians 1:2-8).
The apocryphal Acts of Paul has an almost identical rendition of Simon Magus and Cleobius’ heretical teachings so either these 2 sources both shared the same earlier origin source or one gleaned information off the other.
Historically speaking, Cleobius inevitably ends up on heresy lists but without any biographical details. I’m assuming that’s because the source material combined the heresies of ‘Simon Magus’ and ‘Cleobius’ with no distinction between the two and later heresiologists just toploaded everything onto Simon the Magician’s biography.
The Johanine poem claims that all things were made through the Word and that without the Word nothing was made. Given that the Word was viewed to be an angel within Hellenic Jewish circles by the 1st century CE, one can definitely argue that either ‘Simon Magus’ or ‘Cleobius’ proposed that creation was effected by the Word – an angel – and not by God directly. That would make the poem a solid target for the heresy that “Creation is not God’s work…The world is not of God but the Angels” (3 Corinthians 1:2-8).
Given that Simon was noted by Epiphanius as “the first heresy” (Contra Hæreses, ii. 1), that would make the theology of the Christ-Poem of John very old indeed and ranked among the most serious heretical beliefs by the earliest, presumably Jewish Christians.
No, I do not believe Simon and Cleobius were their real names. That ancient, pre-proto-orthodox heresiologist probably was not in a position to name his adversaries outright as his opponents were probably too popular to contest directly. If I had to guess Simon and Cleobius should be stand-ins for Paul and Apollos, although with the limited information on Apollos that’s going to always be up for debate.
Within the list of Simon and Cleobius’ litany of heresies, the belief that “There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only” (Acts of Paul VII 1.7) is distinctly Pauline.
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”
(I Corinthians 15:50)
“So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption (perishable), it is raised in immortality. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory (celestial body). It is sown in weakness, it is raised in Power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (I Corinthians 15:42-44)
“And everyone who competes for the prize exercises self-control in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown (of life), but we for an imperishable crown.” (I Corinthians 9:25)
Paul’s opponents anticipated a resurrection into an earthly body while Paul and his followers expected a resurrection into a spiritual body.
I would say 3 Corinthians and the Acts of Paul are later productions, but the biographical section concerning Simon and Cleobius likely came from an older source. The heretical theology that Simon Magus taught that the world was created by angels is old: you see mentioned of it in the writings of church heresiologists as far back as Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, whose Contra Haereses is generally dated to around 175-185 A.D.: “in the manner that the Angels who made the world… by such precepts enslaving men” Irenæus (Contra Hæreses, I. xxiii. 1-4). Text: Opera (edidit Adolphus Stieren); Lipsiæ, 1848.
Later heresiologists repeat the accusation:
Philastrius: “And he also dared to say that the world had been made by Angels” (De Hæresibus, i). Text: Patres Quarti Ecclesiæ Sæculi (edidit D.A.B. Caillau); Paris, 1842.
Hippolytus: “For, he says, the Angels who made the world” (Philosophumena, vi. 7-20). Text: Refutatio Omnium Hæresium (ediderunt Lud. Duncker et F.G. Schneidewin); Gottingæ, 1859.
Epiphanius: “If, therefore, the maker of heaven and earth is naturally God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, all that the slanderer Simon says is vain; to wit, the defective production of the world by the Angels” Epiphanius (Contra Hæreses, ii. 1-6). Text: Opera (edidit G. Dindorfius); Lipsiæ, 1859.
I started to suspect 1 Corinthians 4:19-20 meant “not the Word of those who are puffed up, but the Power. For the kingdom of God is not in Word but in Power” because the heresiologists wouldn’t stop frothing at the mouth about how Simon Magus kept claiming he was some highest Power.
The Jewish Christian author of the Clementine Homilies makes the important distinction that Simon Magus was making these claims for Jesus and not for himself: “If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you…then I ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake (alive)?’ And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances” (Homily 17 Chapter XIX).
“But there was a certain man called Simon…This man is the great Power of God.” (Acts 8:10)
“to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the Power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24)
“your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the Power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:5)
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18)
“by the word of truth, by the Power of God” (2 Corinthians 6:7)
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the Power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16)
“He, therefore, was glorified by many as a god; and he taught that it was he himself who, forsooth, appeared among the Jews as the Son, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the nations he came as the Holy Spirit. That he was the highest Power, to wit, the Father over all, and that he allowed himself to be called by whatever name men pleased.” Irenæus (Contra Hæreses, I. xxiii. 1-4). Text: Opera (edidit Adolphus Stieren); Lipsiæ, 1848.
“that he himself was the Power which is over all” [Hippolytus (?)] (Philosophumena, vi. 7-20). Text: Refutatio Omnium Hæresium (ediderunt Lud. Duncker et F.G. Schneidewin); Gottingæ, 1859.
“For the former (Simon) pretended he was the Power of God, which is called Great, and the latter that he too was the Son of God. For nowhere in the world do the Simonians any longer exist.” Origenes (Contra Celsum, i. 57; v. 62; vi. ii). Text (edidit Carol. Henric. Eduard); Lommatzsch; Berolini, 1846.
“Simon’s declaration: “I say that there are many gods, but one God of all these gods [presumably lesser emanations of God like the Word, Wisdom, Power, etc.]” (Clementine Recognitions II. xxxviii); “My belief is that there is a Power of immeasurable and ineffable Light, whose greatness is held to be incomprehensible, a power which the maker of the world [in the gospel of John, the Word] even does not know, nor does Moses the Lawgiver, nor your master Jesus [the Jesus of the Jewish Christians]” (Clementine Recognitions II. xlix).
The Deutero-Isaian monotheism doesn’t seem to have succeeded everywhere, at least not until considerably later in some places.
Good point. Some scholars even go so far as to claim that the sort of monotheism a Sunni Muslim would recognize never really did exist in Second Temple Judaism.
Also, it’s very interesting to go through Paul’s authentic letters and track down every reference to angels. Whether Paul was an incipient Merkabah mystic or not, he clearly had a thing about the subject. One of the most welcome efforts in modern Pauline studies has been the effort to peel off the dead hands of the Reformers from Pauline interpretation.
The Christology of the Valentinians that draws a distinction between the human Jesus and divine Christ is not unique to the Valentinians. It’s a fairly close match for the Christology of Cerinthus who’s dated to the mid to late first century. Valentinian may have received some genuine transmission of Pauline teachings from Theudas. I’m not saying it was preserved perfectly intact, just better preserved than the proto-orthodox with their four gospels.
Irenaeus Adversus Haereses I.26
“Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)