Day: August 26, 2020

August 26: 1 Corinthians 2:13

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous day’s note dealt with 2:12]

1 Corinthians 2:13

“…which we also speak not in words taught of [i.e. by] (hu)man wisdom, but in (words) taught of [i.e. by] (the) Spirit, judging spiritual (thing)s together with/by spiritual (word)s.”

It must be emphasized that this verse, along with much that follows in vv. 14-15, is difficult to translate accurately into English, for a variety of reasons. Here, especially, translation and interpretation go hand-in-hand. To begin with, verse 13 builds upon (and concludes) the declaration in v. 12 (cf. the prior note). The relative pronoun form a% (“which”) refers back to the concluding expression of v. 12: “the (thing)s under God given as a favor to us”. In the note on v. 12, I pointed out the parallel between this expression and “the deep (thing)s of God”, and connected both to the “wisdom of God” mentioned previously—and especially at the beginning of verse 6. This is confirmed by Paul’s language here at the start of v. 13:

    • “we speak (the) wisdom [of God]” (vv. 6-7)
    • “which (thing)s we also [kai/] speak” (v. 13)

The particle kai/ should be regarded as significant here, since it may be intended to draw a distinction between what it is that “we” speak in vv. 6-7 and 13, respectively. There are two ways to place the emphasis:

    • “these things also we speak“—as it is have been given to us to know them, so also we speak/declare them
    • “these things also we speak”—not only the Gospel do we proclaim, but all the deep things of God given to us by the Spirit

Most commentators opt for the first reading, according to the immediate context of vv. 12-13; however, the overall flow and structure of Paul’s argument in vv. 6-16 perhaps favors the second. More important to the meaning of the verse is the continuation of the comparison/contrast between worldly/human wisdom and the wisdom of God. Here Paul formulates this with a specific expression: “in words of… [e)n…lo/goi$]”. I have regularly been translating lo/go$ as “account” (i.e. oral, in speech); but here it is perhaps better to revert to a more conventional translation which emphasizes the elements or components of the account (i.e. the words). Earlier, in 1:17 and 2:1ff, Paul uses lo/go$ in the sense of the manner or style of speech used (in proclaiming the Gospel); here he seems to be referring to the actual content (the words) that a person speaks. The contrast he establishes is as follows:

    • “in words taught of [i.e. by] (hu)man wisdom” (e)n didaktoi=$ a)nqrwpi/nh$ sofi/a$ lo/goi$)
    • “in (word)s taught of [i.e. by] (the) Spirit” (e)n didaktoi=$ pneu/mato$ [lo/goi$])
      Note: I include lo/goi$ in square brackets as implied, to fill out the comparison, though it is not in the text

The contrast is explicit—”not [ou)k] in… but (rather) [a)ll’] in…” Especially significant too is the use of the adjective didakto/$ (“[being] taught”, sometimes in the sense “able to be taught”, “teachable”), rare in both the New Testament and the LXX. The only other NT occurrence is in the discourse of Jesus in John 6:45, citing Isa 54:13, part of an eschatological prophecy where it is stated that the descendants of God’s people (“your sons/children”) “…will all (be) taught [didaktou\$] by God”. This same reference is certainly in the background in 1 Thess 4:9, where Paul uses the unique compound form qeodi/dakto$ (“taught by God”). This passage is helpful for an understanding of Paul’s thought here:

“And about the fondness for (the) brother(s) [i.e. fellow believers] you hold no occasion [i.e. there is no need] (for me) to write to you, for you (your)selves are taught by God [qeodi/daktoi] unto the loving of (each) other [i.e. to love one another].”

If we ask how believers are “taught by God”, apart from Paul’s written instruction, there are several possibilities:

    • The common preaching and tradition(s) which have been received (including the sayings/teachings of Jesus, etc)
    • The common witness and teaching of the believers together, in community
    • The (internal) testimony and guidance of the Spirit

Probably it is the last of these that Paul has primarily in mind, though not necessarily to the exclusion of the others. For a similar mode of thinking expressed in Johannine tradition, cf. 1 John 2:7-8, 21, 24; 3:10ff; 4:7-8ff, and the important passages in the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel. Here, in 1 Cor 2:13, it is clear that Paul is referring to the work of the Spirit. That the Spirit would give (“teach”) believers (and, especially, Christian ministers/missionaries) the words to say was already a prominent feature of the sayings of Jesus in Gospel tradition (Mark 13:11 par, etc), depicted as being fulfilled with the first preachers of the Gospel in the book of Acts (2:4ff; 4:8, 29ff; 6:10, etc). However, the underlying thought should not be limited to the (uniquely) inspired preaching of the apostles, but to all believers. Paul’s use of “we” in this regard will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming note (on 1 Cor 2:16).

Particularly difficult to translate is the verb sugkri/nw in the last phrase of verse 13. A standard literal rendering would be “judge together” or “judge [i.e. compare] (one thing) with (another)”. However, in the case of this verb, it is sometimes better to retain the more primitive meaning of selecting and bringing/joining (things) together. Paul’s phrase here is richly compact—pneumatikoi=$ pneumatika\ sugkri/nonte$. He (literally) joins together two plural forms of the adjective pneumatiko/$ (“spiritual”), one masculine, the other neuter. The first is in the dative case, but without any preposition specified, indicating a rendering something like “spiritual (thing)s with/by spiritual (one)s”. However, given the expression e)n…lo/goi$ (“in words of…”) earlier in the verse, it is probably best to read this into the context here as well. I would thus suggest the following basic translation:

“bringing together spiritual (thing)s in spiritual (word)s”

I take this to mean that the “spiritual things” are given expression—and communicated to other believers—through “spiritual words”, i.e. words given/taught to a person by the Spirit. The “spiritual (thing)s [pneumatika]” almost certainly refer to “the deep (thing)s of God” and “the (thing)s under God” in vv. 10 and 12, respectively. The Spirit “searches out” these things and reveals or imparts them to believers. This is especially so in the case of ministers—those gifted to prophesy and teach, etc—but, according to the view expressed throughout chapters 12-14, in particular, all believers have (or should have) gifts provided by the Spirit which they can (and ought to) impart to others. This allows us to draw yet another conclusion regarding the “wisdom” mentioned in verse 6a: it is “taught” by the Spirit to believers, and is to be communicated (“spoken”) to others in turn. It is also worth noting that all throughout the discussion in verses 9-13, there is no real indication that this “wisdom” is limited to the proclamation of the death/resurrection of Jesus. We should perhaps keep an eye ahead to Paul’s discussion of the “spiritual (thing)s” in chapters 12-14.

Tomorrow’s note will examine verses 14-15.

“Gnosis” in the NT: 1 Corinthians 13:12

1 Corinthians 13:12

Chapter 13 (12:31b-14:1a) in 1 Corinthians contains several occurrences of the verb ginw/skw (“know”) and the related noun gnw=si$ (“knowledge”), and is instructive for demonstrating a distinctly Christian orientation regarding knowledge which, especially as found in Paul’s letters to believers, serves to counteract certain gnostic (or Gnostic) tendencies. It follows upon the discussion in chapters 8-12, and serves as a fitting climax, with poetic and hymnic qualities, beauty and power, which have made it justly famous. Indeed, it is a veritable hymn to Love—that is, love according to the Christian ideal and teaching—which has as its basic theme the superiority of love over all spiritual gifts (including knowledge) and other Christian actions or virtues. Spiritual gifts are dealt with comprehensively in chapter 12, while knowledge is addressed in the discussion of chaps. 8-10 (on the question of food that had been consecrated in a pagan religious setting). Verses 1-3 of chapter 8 formulate the basic instruction which Paul restates in chapter 13:

“And about the (food)s slaughtered (as offering)s to images, we have seen [i.e. known] that ‘we all hold knowledge’. Knowledge blows up [i.e. inflates], but love builds up—if any(one) considers (himself) to have known any(thing), he does not (yet) know as it is necessary (for him) to know; but if any(one) loves God, this (person) is known under [i.e. by] Him.”

The priority (and superiority) of love is clearly stated, and is expressed, in practical terms, through the remainder of chaps. 8-10 and on into 11-12. The importance of love as a guiding principle for Christian thought and behavior takes on special significance in Paul’s letters in light of his teaching regarding the Old Testament/Jewish Law (Torah). For believers in Christ, the Law no longer has the same binding authority it previously had for Israelites and Jews; in its place, Christians are now to be guided primarily by two different sources: (1) the presence of the Holy Spirit, and (2) the example (and teaching) of Jesus. It was Jesus himself who first formulated the so-called “love command” or love-principle (Mark 12:28-34 par; John 13:34-35, etc) and gave it prominence for the Christian community. Paul builds upon this in his letters—Rom 12:9-10; 13:8-10; 14:15; 1 Cor 16:14; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 5:6, 13-14; Phil 1:9; Col 2:2; 3:14; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9; cf. also Eph 4:15-16; 5:2; 1 Tim 1:5; and is likewise found elsewhere throughout the New Testament and early Christian writings (e.g., James 2:8; 1 Pet 1:22; 4:8; 1 John 2:7-11, etc).

Before preceding to an examination of 1 Cor 13:12 itself, it will be helpful to view it within in the structure of 12:31b-14:1a:

    • 12:31b: Introduction to the way of love
      • 13:1-3: The superiority of love—contrast with other spiritual gifts (Current time)
        —Such gifts without (being guided by) love are of little value
        • 13:4-7: The characteristics of Love
      • 13:8-13: The superiority of love—contrast with other gifts (Eschatological/teleological–in the End)
        —All such gifts will pass away, love is one of the only things which remain
    • 14:1a: Exhortation to the way of love

The references to knowledge are found in the two sections (13:1-3, 8-13) which describe the contrast between love and the other gifts. Indeed, there are two parallel points of contrast between love and knowledge (cf. 8:1-3):

    • 13:2—”if…I (can) see [i.e. know] all the secrets and (hold) all knowledge…but I do not hold love, (then) I am nothing”
    • 13:8b-9ff: “…and if (there is) knowledge, it will cease working. For we know (only) out of a part…but when th(at which is) complete [te/leio$] comes, th(at which is only) out of a part will cease working…”

It is important to note that Paul does not refer here to profane or ‘ordinary’ human knowledge, nor to some kind of false or ‘pseudo’ knowledge. The context clearly indicates that he is referring to special knowledge granted to believers through the presence and work of the Spirit (i.e. as a spiritual gift). In both references knowledge (gw=nsi$) is connected closely with prophecy—that is, a message communicated to believers by God through the Spirit. Even this sort of special (prophetic) knowledge must be guided by love, and, eventually, will cease working. There is considerable interpretive debate as to just when, or in what circumstances, Paul envisions such knowledge to cease. Those who believe that the spiritual gifts experienced by the Pauline churches, along with the miracles performed by the apostles, etc., were a temporary phenomenon limited to the early Church, might claim that they have already ceased. However, this is not what Paul has in mind; almost certainly his thinking is eschatological—prophetic knowledge and revelation will cease with the end of the present Age. From the early Christian standpoint, the end of this Age is marked by the sudden return of Christ to earth and the final Judgment by God, along with the resurrection/transformation of believers (ch. 15) and their entry into eternal life. Along with this, however, Christians also held a “realized” eschatology—believers in the present, through the Spirit, experience something of the reality of what waits for us in the end. This mode of belief informs Christian (ethical) instruction—we are to live and act according to the ideals which will be realized fully in the Age to Come.

This brings us to verse 12, and the reference to knowledge in 12b, which follows two brief illustrations given by Paul that expound upon his declaration in vv. 8-10:

    • The growth and development of a human being (v. 11)—the adult ceases to think and act the way he/she did as a child; partly this takes place by conscious choice (“I ceased working [i.e. doing] the infant[ile] things”), which serves as a implicit exhortation to believers.
    • The mirror (v. 12a)—ancient mirrors were normally made of metal, tending to be not nearly so clear as modern day glass-mirrors; moreover, they required polishing, which again suggests the ethical/spiritual intent and ‘work’ required by believers.

The first illustration emphasizes the temporary nature of knowledge, that it passes away; the second emphasizes it limitation, i.e. it is only partial and incomplete. The limitation is intrinsic to the created, material human nature. Even the believer who possesses the Spirit cannot always see clearly, all the more when one is still under the influence of sin and the flesh. Only at the end, the completion (te/lo$) of things, will we be able to see things clearly. Here sight and knowledge are joined as metaphors, as they often are in the Greek of the New Testament; this is expressed neatly in verse 12:

“For now we look through a (glass one) gazes into [i.e. a mirror], in(to) (an) obscure (image), but then (clearly,) face toward face; now I know (only) out of a part, but then I will know (completely), even as I was known (completely).”

There is here a dual contrast between now (a&rti) and then (to/te):

    • Now
      —We look into an obscure (i.e. cloudy, unclear) mirror
      —I know only incompletely, in part
    • Then
      —We see clearly, as if seeing another person face-to-face
      —I know completely

The same expression e)k me/rou$ (“out of a part”, i.e. partly, in part) to indicate the (human, natural) limitations for believers in the present Age, was used previously in vv. 9-10. The main difference in verse 12, in my view, is that Paul has moved from the work of the Spirit (the spiritual ‘gifts’), to the presence of the Spirit. It is through the Spirit that one is able to see and know God, but in the present time our experience of the Spirit, is, due to our very nature, necessarily imperfectly realized and often mysterious. Note how, in the language Paul uses, the verse itself seems to gain greater clarity: “we look…I know”. Even more striking is the symmetry of what is to come (note the alliteration):

pro/swpon pro\$ pro/swpon
prosœpon pros prosœpon
“face toward face”
lit. “toward-the-eye toward toward-the-eye”
i.e., “eye to eye”

In terms of the mirror illustration, we would be seeing our own face clearly; but Paul’s application assumes something deeper—it is God’s face we see, our own ‘face’ being transformed into His likeness (that of Christ), as he expresses memorably in 2 Cor 3:18. And so we come to the beautiful and simple symmetry of language that closes the verse:

e)pignw/somai kaqw\$ kai/ e)pegnw/sqhn
epignœsomai kathœs kai epegnœsth¢n
“I will know even as I was (also) known”

Again the phrase is highly alliterative, with symmetry marked at two levels:

    • I will know (e)pignw/somai)
      —even as (kaqw$)
      —also/indeed (kai)
    • I was known (e)pegnw/sqhn)

Two forms of the same verb separated by two particles in tandem, create a comparative join. The sense of “knowledge” here has changed slightly—instead of knowledge as a prophetic/revelatory gift from God (through the Spirit), it now refers more directly to knowledge of God Himself. It is a different verb as well; instead of ginw/skw (“know”) it is the compound verb e)piginw/skw (with the prefixed preposition/particle e)pi). This verb generally refers to gaining knowledge about something (or someone), but often carries the nuance of recognition, acknowledgement, understanding. It can also have an intensive meaning, i.e. to know something (or someone) thoroughly, completely, intimately, etc.; and this latter sense is in view here—”I will know (completely)”. The passive form (“I was [completely] known”) should be read as a so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum), where God is the implied subject. Believers as “known” by God assumes the basic idea of election—of our being chosen beforehand, according to the will and consideration of God. This will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming article. It is possible, though not certain (or even necessary), that the aorist form of the verb used here specifically indicates election or predestination—i.e., as action which took place at a specific time in the past (before our coming to faith). At any rate, we have here in 13:12b, two fundamental aspects of knowledge in the New Testament—believers’ knowledge of God and His knowledge of us. This dual aspect will be explored further in the remaining articles of the series “Gnosis and the New Testament”.

“Gnosis” in the NT: Romans 11:33

This note will briefly examine Paul’s use of the word gnw=si$ (gnœ¡sis, “knowledge”) in Romans 11:33.

Romans 11:33

This verse begins the doxology (vv. 33-36) that concludes the famous section of Romans spanning chapters 9-11. I have discussed the theme and structure of this section in an earlier article, along with a special note on Rom 11:26 in context. This analysis may be summarized in the following outline:

The opening verses of each section, with their personal and moving tone, lead into a presentation of arguments. The main issue at hand is how the Israelite/Jewish people relate to the new Christian identity.

Romans 9

9:1-5—Paul’s personal address: Israel (“they are Israelites…”, vv. 4-5)
9:6-13—Argument: Not all Israel is the true Israel.
9:14-33—Exposition: Three arguments, each beginning with a rhetorical question:

    • Vv. 14-18—”What then shall we declare [ti/ ou@n e)rou=men]?…”
    • Vv. 19-29—”You will therefore declare to me [e)rei=$ moi ou@n]…?”
    • Vv. 30-33—”What then shall we declare [ti/ ou@n e)rou=men]?…”

Romans 10

10:1-4—Paul’s personal address: The Law and justice/righteousness (vv. 3-4)
10:5-13—Argument: Justice/righteousness is realized in Christ.
10:14-21—Exposition: The Proclamation of the Gospel, and Israel’s response to it, in three parts:

    • The proclamation of the Gospel (vv. 14-15)
    • Israel’s response to the Gospel—not all have faith (vv. 16-17)
    • Evidence of this in the Scriptures (vv. 18-21)

Romans 11

11:1-12—Paul’s address (and argument): The People of God (“His people”, vv. 1ff)
11:13-32—Exposition: A Two-fold address to Gentile believers:

    • Vv. 13-24—Illustration of the olive tree and its branches
    • Vv. 25-32—Discourse on the (eschatological) salvation of Israel

11:33-36—Doxology on the wisdom and knowledge of God

An important theme running through these chapters is the election of the people of God, which takes place according to God’s own sovereign but mysterious will. This is one aspect of knowledge (i.e. God’s knowledge of his People, etc) here in this section, and it is emphasized in chapters 9 and 11. The second aspect—the people’s knowledge of God and his truth, the promises made, etc.—is addressed primarily in chapter 10, and expounded again in the second half of chap. 11. Note the structure in this regard:

    • Chap. 9: God’s knowledge of his people (Israel)—their election
      • Chap. 10: The people’s knowledge of God, in two respects:
        (a) The failure of many Israelites to accept the revelation in Jesus and the Gospel message (cf. vv. 2-4)
        (b) The acceptance of the Gospel, on the other hand, by many non-Israelites (Gentiles) (vv. 18-21)
    • Chap. 11: God’s knowledge of his people (the true Israel, all Israel)—the election of Jews and Gentiles both

For many of the non-Jewish Christians in Paul’s audience—as for many today—the main difficulty lay in the idea that Israelites and Jews would eventually accept Christ, though they may refuse (or be unable) to do so at the present. Though some had ‘fallen away’, a large percentage, presumably, in Paul’s mind, would (soon) respond to the Gospel, as the end drew near. This point is made reasonably clear in verses 11-16, followed by his famous illustration of the olive tree, in which Jews and Gentiles both come to be “grafted in” to the holy tree of the People of God—the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ, being a principal theme of the entire letter, is given dramatic and climactic expression here. In verses 25-32 Paul powerfully states again two great points:

    • Israelites and Jews, collectively, will come to faith, and the current “hardening” of their hearts and minds will be removed
    • They will be united (in Christ) with the Gentile believers who have come to faith before them

This two-fold dynamic is expressed in the declaration: “and so all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). Paul refers to this as a secret (musth/rion), which he is making known to believers in his letter; and there can be no doubt that he also has this in mind when he opens the concluding doxology in v. 33:

“O the deep(ness) of the wealth and wisdom and knowledge of God!—how unsearchable (are) his judgments, and (how) untrackable (are) his ways!”

A citation of Isaiah 40:13 follows in vv. 34-35; it is a passage which Paul also quotes in 1 Cor 2:16 (cf. my note on this verse), specifically as part of his argument contrasting human wisdom with the wisdom of God. As Paul uses the Scripture, it is meant to show how far the “mind of God” surpasses and transcends our limited human understanding. In 1 Corinthians, the quotation is followed by the positive statement which applies to believers, somewhat paradoxically: “and (yet) we (do) hold the mind of Christ“. This last point is not emphasized in Romans, except perhaps implicitly, based on Paul’s line of discussion in the prior chapters, as well as in the basic idea that the “secret(s)” of God, hidden away from the world, are now made known to believers through: (a) the proclamation of the Gospel, and (b) the presence and work of the Spirit.

For the purpose of this series of articles, Romans 11:33 is especially instructive, within the context of Rom 9-11, in that it ties together several significant themes which will be discussed in some detail as we proceed:

    • The connection between the knowledge of God and salvation
    • That the (secret) will and knowledge of God is revealed, at least in part, to believers, and
    • That the knowledge of God is closely connected with the idea of the predestined/predetermined election of believers (i.e the people of God)

“Gnosis” in the NT: Luke 10:22 par

This is the first in a set of notes that are supplemental to the current series “Gnosis and the New Testament”. These notes, to begin with, will treat select verses where the words gnw=si$, ginw/skw, and other related terms, are used.

Luke 10:22 (par Matt 11:27)

The saying of Jesus in Luke 10:22 (with its parallel in Matt 11:27) is unique, and especially significant as being one of the few Synoptic sayings which appears to be closely aligned with the language used by Jesus in the Gospel of John. Here is verse 22 in translation:

“All things were given along to me under my Father, and no one knows who the Son is if not [i.e. except] the Father, and who the Father is if not [i.e. except] the Son, and the (one) to whom the Son should wish to uncover [i.e. reveal] (it)”.

As mentioned above, this sort of reciprocal relationship between Father and Son (and believer) is common in the Gospel of John, but rare by comparison in the Synoptics. The section Lk 10:21-24 represents a sequence of three (or four) sayings by Jesus which are also found in Matthew (but not Mark); as such, they are part of the so-called “Q” material. That they were originally separate sayings is indicated by the fact that vv. 23-24 occur in a different location in Matthew (13:16-17). However, it is possible that vv. 21 and 22 also reflect distinct sayings which were joined together at the earliest levels of Gospel tradition (by thematic “catchword” bonding). The sayings of Lk 10:21-24 all share the common theme of God (the Father) revealing things (and Himself) specially to the followers of Jesus:

    • v. 21: The Father has hidden things away from the wise and learned (of the world) and uncovered (i.e. revealed) them for the “infants”—that is, to Jesus’ followers, many of whom come from the lower (and relatively uneducated) segments of society.
    • v. 22: Only the “Son” knows the Father, and uncovers (reveals) the Father to those whom he wished (i.e. the followers of Jesus).
    • v. 23: The followers of Jesus are happy/blessed (maka/rio$) to have seen these things.
    • v. 24: The mighty/great persons of the world (“kings and prophets”) were not able to see/hear these things, however much they may have wished to do so.

In Luke, this unit is structured carefully enough to function as a chiasm:

    • Hidden away from the wise/learned of the world (v. 21)
      —Uncovered/revealed by the Son to those whom he wishes/chooses (v. 22)
      —Jesus’ followers see and hear, and so are greatly blessed (v. 23)
    • Kept away from the mighty of the world, who had longed to experience such a blessing (v. 24)

The two parts each have a common keyword:

    • Vv. 21-22: The verb a)pokalu/ptw (apokalúptœ)—lit. “remove the cover from”, i.e. “uncover, reveal”
    • Vv. 23-24: The verb(s) ble/pw/ei&dw—”see, look, perceive,” etc

Within the wider Lukan context, these verses also contain two basic themes which run through the section spanning 9:51–18:34, set during Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem:

    • The nature and requirements of discipleship, of following Jesus, and
    • The revelation of Jesus (the Son [of Man]) as the Anointed One and Chosen (Son) of God, which will occur following his death and resurrection

The two themes blend together neatly in 10:21-24. If we consider the Matthean form of the saying in v. 22 (Matt 11:27), there are two small but significant differences worth noting: (a) the use of the compound verb e)piginw/skw instead of ginw/skw, and (b) an apparently simpler form of the saying without the repeated element ti/$ e)stin (“who…is”) found in Luke:

“All things were given along to me under my Father, and no one has knowledge about the Son if not [i.e. except] the Father, and n(either does) any (one) have knowledge about the Father if not [i.e. except] the Son, and the (one) to whom the Son should wish to uncover [i.e. reveal] (it)”

The compound verb e)piginw/skw (epiginœ¡skœ) literally means “to know (or have knowledge) upon [e)pi/] something”, in the fundamental sense of “looking upon” it (and understanding), i.e., perceiving, recognizing, gaining knowledge, etc. The preposition can also serve as an intensive element—i.e. to know something (or someone) completely, thoroughly, intimately, etc. It is possible to interpret the verb here in three ways: (i) the intimate knowledge the Father and Son have of each other; (ii) an emphasis on recognition, especially that of the disciples recognizing the Father in the Son (Jesus); and (iii) and emphasis on gaining knowledge, particularly that of the disciples coming to know the Father (through Jesus). Luke uses the simpler verb ginw/skw (ginœ¡skœ), and this version of the saying also makes clear the nature of the knowledge: “who (the Son/Father) is” (ti/$ e)stin). In this regard, the version of the saying in Matthew is presumably closer to an original (Aramaic) form, which would not have included a specific verb of being corresponding to Greek e)stin (ei)mi). Interestingly, Matthew still has one occurrence of the indefinite pronoun (ti/$), but used rather differently, in the sense of “whoever, any (person) who”.

There has been some question among commentators as to whether the historical Jesus would have used the (absolute) expression “the Son” (o( ui(o/$). While this occurs rather frequently in the Gospel of John (some 15 times) it is hardly found at all the Synoptic Gospels; apart from the passage under discussion, it occurs only in Mark 13:32 (par Matt 24:36) and the baptismal formula in Matt 28:19. In the Synoptics, Jesus almost always refers to himself as “(the) Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). The title “Son of God” is applied to Jesus, but by others (Mk 3:11; 5:7; 14:61; 15:39 and pars; Matt 4:3, 6 par; 14:33; 16:16; 27:40, 43; Lk 1:32, 35), never by Jesus himself (but note Matt 27:43). Though admittedly rare in the Synoptics, the fact that the expression “the Son” occurs in two distinct sayings, transmitted, apparently, through different lines of tradition—the Synoptic (Markan) tradition (Mk 13:32 par), and the double tradition of Matthew-Luke (“Q”)—argues for its historicity. Indeed, this is strengthened by the Johannine usage (a third line of tradition), and its similarities with the very saying under discussion here (cf. below).

It is significant that use of “the Son” in the Gospels virtually always occurs in direct connect to a reference to God as “the Father”, both in John (Jn 3:35-36; 5:19-27; 8:36ff; 14:13; 17:1ff) and the rare Synoptic sayings. I think it likely that the idea (and idiom) behind the usage is the general illustration of a son (“the son“) and his relationship to his father (“the father“), especially in the sense of a dutiful son who learns (as a pupil or apprentice, etc) by following the example of his father, imitating what he says and does. This is certainly the case in the Gospel of John, where Jesus states repeatedly that he (the Son) is only doing and saying what he sees/hears his Father doing and saying. Almost certainly, this is also the background of the illustrative language in Luke 10:22 par. The verb paradi/dwmi (“give along[side]”) is often used for the transmission of traditional teaching and instruction, etc, from one generation to the next; it occurs frequently in this sense in early Christianity (Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23a; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3), along with the related noun para/dosi$ (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, etc).

If this line of interpretation is correct, then it also helps to clarify the meaning of the pronouns pa/nta (“all [thing]s”) and tau=ta (“these [thing]s”) in vv. 21-22—they are (all) the things which the Son (Jesus) has learned from the Father, including the working of miracles, but especially in respect to the Father’s revelation of Himself (i.e. who He is). Through the Son (Jesus), the Father has now revealed these to the chosen ones (believers, followers of Jesus) as well—”all things” is a comprehensive term, but it is centered specifically in the knowledge of God. The saying in Mark 13:32 par is noteworthy in that Jesus emphasizes that there is at least one thing (the time of the end and the Last Judgment) which the Son has not learned from the Father, i.e. which the Father has not (yet) revealed to him.

The similarity of language and idiom between Luke 10:22 par and the Gospel of John has been noted several times above. The main passages to consider in a comparative study are: John 3:35; 6:65; 7:29; 10:15; 13:3; 14:7-11; 17:2ff, 25; and also 20:21 (cf. Mark 9:37 par). The common wording/phrases and concepts can be seen by a literal translation of several of these passages (note the italicized portions):

    • Jn 3:35: “The Father loves the Son, and all things [pa/nta] have been given in(to) his hand”
    • Jn 7:29: “I see/know Him [i.e. the Father], (in) that I am (from) alongside [para/] (of) Him, and that One has se(n)t me forth from (Him)”
    • Jn 10:15: “Even as the Father knows [ginw/skei] me, (so) I also know [ginw/skw] the Father…”
    • Jn 14:7: “If you have/had known me, you would/will [have] know[n] the Father also; but from now (on) you know him and have seen him”
    • Jn 17:2: “Even as You [i.e. the Father] gave [e&dwka$] him [i.e. the Son] (the) authority/ability o(ver) all flesh, (so) that (for) every (one) th(at) You have given [de/dwka$] to him [i.e. the Son], he might give [dw/sh|] to them Life of-the-Ages [i.e. eternal life]”
    • Jn 17:25: “O just/righteous Father, (indeed) the world did not know you, but I knew you, and these [i.e. Jesus’ followers] have (come to) know that you se(n)t me forth from (you)”

Jn 10:15 and 17:2 are the closest to the Synoptic saying.

Gnosis and the New Testament: Introduction

Gnosis is an English transliteration of the Greek word gnw=si$ (gnœ¡sis), meaning “knowledge”. This series of articles and notes will approach the New Testament from the standpoint of the relationship between (early) Christianity and gnosticism. This approach is useful and important for several reasons:

    1. It helps to bring into focus several aspects of early Christianity which cannot be explained entirely from the background of the Old Testament and Israelite/Jewish tradition.
    2. It brings greater clarity as well to the religious-cultural background of the New Testament, both from a Jewish and Greco-Roman viewpoint. The importance of a proper view of the ancient way of thinking, as opposed to assumptions based on a modern-day mindset, for interpreting Scripture, must always be stressed.
    3. Much of the religious self-identity of early Christians was formed in the context of disputes involving gnostic (and/or Gnostic) ways of understanding Scripture and religious tradition. This can be seen, to some extent, and at various points, already in the New Testament writings—especially the later texts from c. 60-90 A.D.

To begin with, it is important to consider the term “gnosticism”, one of the most problematic and ill-defined in Christian and religious studies (on this, see especially my earlier article). The word itself is, of course, derived from gnosis (gnw=si$). “Gnostics” (gnwstikoi/, gnœstikoí) are literally the “ones who know, knowing ones”, i.e. those possessing knowledge, or who have come to be so. Much of the confusion surrounding the terms “Gnostic, Gnosticism,” etc, stems from the fact that there are, properly, two fundamental ways they can be used or understood: (1) as a phenomenon of religion, or (2) as a specific historical religious development in the first centuries A.D.

In 1966, an important scholarly conference (the Messina Colloquium) was held which specifically addressed the subject of “Gnosticism”. It was deemed advisable to use the term “Gnosis” for the wider religious phenomenon (1), while reserving “Gnosticism” for the historical phenomenon of the 1st-2nd century (2). In the subsequent decades, a number of scholars have retained this distinction; it is useful enough, from a practical standpoint, and is part of the reason I have used the word “Gnosis” in the title of this series. However, as I discussed in my earlier article, I believe it is better (and more precise) to distinguish between the more general and specific senses of the word “gnosticism” itself. Indeed, I prefer to make the distinction with lower and upper case letters—”gnosticism” (little g) for the general religious phenomenon, and “Gnosticism” (big G) primarily when referring to the (heterodox/heretical) quasi-Christian groups and beliefs from the first centuries A.D.

Definition of Terms

Drawing from my earlier article, here is the basic definition I will be using in this series—gnosticism is:

A set of beliefs or tendencies which emphasize salvation, as well as other fundamental aspects of religious identity or status, in terms of knowledge.

Often this will take the place of, or take priority over, ceremonial, ritual or cultic means. As such, it is similar in certain respects to the phenomena of mysticism and spiritualism. There are two main components, or aspects, to this knowledge:

    1. A person comes to know or realize his/her true nature (religious/spiritual identity), of which, in ignorance, he/she had previously been unaware or only glimpsed in part.
    2. This knowledge (salvation) comes only through special revelation not normally accessible to people at large.

With regard to this last point, special (divine) revelation is typically considered necessary due to the evil/fallen condition of the world around us, with the result that humanity has been ‘lost’ in ignorance. The presence of a “savior figure”—a divine being or representative—is required to bring knowledge.

Perhaps the most common and distinctive aspect of gnostic (and Gnostic) thought is the way it is expressed in markedly dualistic language and vocabulary, emphasizing conflict or contrast—light vs. darkness, true vs. false, knowledge vs. ignorance, mind/spirit vs. body/flesh, etc. In gnosticism, such basic religious pairings become more prominent, used with greater consistency, often reflecting a particular worldview or cosmology. For more on a definition and explanation of the term “dualism”, cf. the associated article here.

The Gnosticism which is attested in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., as reported by (proto-orthodox) Christian authors, as well as found in a number of surviving texts, may be defined this way:

Groups, individuals, and writings which reflect strongly gnostic beliefs and/or a gnostic worldview (cf. above), and which are characterized by a blending of Christian and other religious/philosophical components; this syncret(ist)ic character results in a (heterodox) form of Christianity which differs in many respects from the theology, tradition, and interpretation of Scripture found in the (proto-)orthodox writings of the period.

The Issue of Salvation

The above definition of gnosticism emphasizes soteriology—that is, salvation in terms of knowledge (gnosis). This is one of the key topics that will be discussed in this series. However, by way of introduction, it may be helpful to consider the basic understanding of “salvation” assumed by early Christians. In modern times, when Christians speak of being “saved”, it is typically understood in terms of individual, personal salvation, specifically a person’s fate after death. A careful reading of the New Testament, however, shows that this was not a major component of what early Christians had in mind when using the words sw/zw (sœ¡zœ, “save”) and the related noun swthri/a (sœt¢ría, “salvation”). The relevant passages will be discussed in an upcoming article (Part 2 of this series), along with several supplemental notes, but the results of this study may be previewed here, as indicating two main aspects of the early Christian understanding; fundamentally, salvation relates to:

    • Being saved from the end-time Divine Judgment that is about to come upon the world (and humankind)
    • Being delivered from the sin and evil that dominates and controls the world (and humankind)

The first aspect was more or less inherited from Jewish eschatology of the period, but sharpened among early Christians (as in the Community of the Qumran texts) with their distinctive religious identity. It gained special prominence with the belief that Jesus Christ, as the Anointed One (Messiah) and “Son of Man”, was God’s end-time representative who will appear to usher in the Judgment. The belief that this Last Judgment was imminent—about to occur within the lifetime of most believers—was shared by nearly all Christians at the time, as the New Testament writings amply attest. Only at the end of the New Testament period (c. 80-100 A.D.) does this strong eschatological emphasis begin to disappear somewhat.

The second aspect is best known from Paul’s letters, frequently described in terms of release and freedom from bondage—that is, bondage to sin, and the power of evil. His unique handling of the relation of believers to Judaism and the Old Testament/Jewish Law resulted in a parallel formulation: freedom from bondage to the Law—for believers the normative, guiding religious principles now come from the presence of the Holy Spirit and the example of Christ. Occasionally, in both Pauline and Johannine thought, we also find the wider idea of believers being transferred from one domain or kingdom (that of darkness and evil) to another (of God, light and truth, etc). This particular way of describing salvation is, on the whole, closer to the Gnostic approach.

Outline of Topics

Here is an outline of the articles for this series:

    • Part 1: The word gnwsi$ and related terms in the New Testament
    • Part 2: Knowledge and Salvation
    • Part 3: Revelation
      • Special Study: Knowledge and Revelation in the Johannine Writings
    • Part 4: Tradition and Religious (Christian) Identity
    • Part 5: Predestination: Christians as the Elect Community
    • Part 6: Dualism

Dualism

The term dualism is perhaps best defined generally, as follows:

A system or tendency of thought which attempts to explain (and interpret) reality (or an existing situation) in terms of two principles, which are usually understood as being opposed to each other or in conflict.

Many different sorts of dualistic structures are attested in religion and philosophy; however, from the standpoint of an ancient worldview or way of thinking, as being most relevant to early Christianity and the New Testament Scriptures, there are four in particular which may be isolated:

1. Cosmological—There are two opposing principles which control and govern the world. In terms of the phenomenology of religion, this is expressed as two beings (deities), or groups/classes of beings—that is, the divine powers, personified or understood as persons. Frequently in cosmological and theological myths, the basic world order and structure of the universe is given shape by way of conflict (and battle) between deities; often such conflict is thought to continue, in some form, throughout time and history—whether during the natural seasons and cycles, or in a progression of world history. For Western students of myth and religion, the Theogony by the Greek writer Hesiod contains what is probably the best known account of cosmological conflict. Typically the classical Persian (Zoroastrian) religious cosmology is cited as the most obvious system expressing a theological dualism—perennial opposition between Ahura Mazda (Spenta Mainyu, the good Spirit) and the Angra Mainyu (evil Spirit). Later Jewish tradition contains a somewhat similar kind of theological dualism (YHWH and the Angels vs. Satan, etc, and the ‘fallen’ Angels) which early Christianity inherited. The Community of the Qumran texts (cf. especially the “Community Rule” [1QS] and the War Scroll) expresses a strong dualistic worldview which is closely tied to their own group identity—as the “sons of light” vs the “sons of darkness”, etc.

2. Metaphysical—There two contrasting (and opposing) principles which make up the structure of the universe. Usually this is understood as a (sharp) contrast between physical matter/material (evil) and immaterial soul/spirit/mind (good). Not surprisingly, such a worldview tends to be more common in philosophical and wisdom traditions with a strong ethical (and ascetic) emphasis (cf. below). When scholars and writers refer to “dualism” in the context of early Christianity and “Gnosticism”, typically a form of metaphysical dualism is meant. According to the basic gnostic approach, the immaterial (divine) soul is trapped within the evil/fallen world of matter, and must be “rescued” or freed, by a combination of knowledge and a strict moral/ethical mode of behavior. However, it should be noted, that much that is associated with “Gnostic” dualism is commonly found in ascetic philosophy and religious tradition worldwide, from the Greco-Roman milieu (i.e. Platonism and the ‘Mystery’ cults, etc) to Hinduism/Buddhism in the East, and beyond. Early Christianity generally was cautious in this regard, and the New Testament writers (as well as later Proto-Orthodox authors) took care to check and moderate metaphysical and ascetic tendencies; even so, they occasionally made use of the same sort of dualistic language.

3. Anthropological—The human being is made up of two contrasting principles. In many ways, this sort of dualism is closely aligned with the metaphysical (cf. above); however, it is often found even in philosophical and religious traditions which do not especially emphasize a contrast between the immaterial (mind/soul/spirit) and evil matter. Early Christians, of course, inherited the basic Old Testament (and Jewish) view that the world (i.e. Creation), as the work of God, was fundamentally good. It was not so much the world (i.e. physical matter) itself that was fallen and corrupt, but the created beings (whether human or Angel) which were under the control of sin and evil. This view tended to focus the contrast (and conflict) within the person—the body vs. the soul/mind/spirit, or occasionally, the corrupted mind/soul vs. the ‘higher’ divine element. This contrast is best known in the New Testament from Paul’s letters—the opposition between “Spirit” and “flesh”, but occasionally formulated in other ways as well.

4. Ethical—The human being chooses (and must choose) between two contrasting/opposing principles. Here the common pairs—good vs. evil, true vs. false, light vs. darkness, above vs. below, et al—in dualistic thinking and expression are applied specifically in terms of human behavior. There are “Two Ways” for the person to follow: one leads to life, the other to death. The religious/philosophical standard and ideal, of course, emphasizes the “good”. Nearly all religions and philosophical traditions contain some form of ethical dualism; early Christianity made frequent use of this manner of expression.

To these four types of dualism, I might suggest a fifth:

5. Religious—Within a particular religious tradition, there are understood to be two contrasting modes of existence. Sectarian religion and religious group-identity often emphasizes the characteristics of ‘true’ and ‘false’ adherents and forms of the religion, etc. A rather different, special form of religious dualism could be termed spiritual (or spiritualist[ic]), which finds unique expression in certain strands of Christian tradition, due to the emphasis on the presence and work of the (Holy) Spirit. In this mode of thinking, the (inward) role of the Spirit is set in contrast to the outward, external aspects of religion (organized group setting, ritual, priesthood and ministerial office, etc), with the Spirit taking priority and precedence, occasionally to the exclusion of outward forms.

There are two other kinds of dualism which are sometimes discussed in modern philosophy and treatments of the subject, and which are perhaps worth mentioning here:

    • Epistemological—A fundamental contrast between a situation or object as understood by the human mind as opposed to its “real” status and nature.
    • Existential/sociological—A basic contrast between order and chaos, the rational vs. irrational, etc, as an underlying (if often unconscious) principle and ideal in the structuring and management of human society.

These various definitions and explanations should be useful for readers today, since terms such as “dualism” and “dualistic” are often used carelessly, especially when applied (and assumed) in a pejorative or negative sense. Christian readers may end up taking offense when one suggests that there may be “dualism” found in the New Testament Scriptures, if it is not clear just what is meant by the term as it is used in context.

For more on the specific kind of dualism associated with Gnostic thought and practice, cf. my recent article on “Gnosticism”, as well as the current series on “Gnosis and the New Testament”.