Docetism

by peacefulpete 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There are four christologically charged statements in 1 John that are presented as relevant to the apostasy: (1) "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah," 2:22; (2) "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," 4:2; (3) Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God," 4:3; (4) "God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God," 4:15. The first of these (2:22) could be interpreted as referring to the separationist christology of Cerenthus, that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities; it also could refer to the denial of Jesus being the Messiah or the promised Christ. However (2) does not address Cerenthian christology because it does posit Jesus as the fleshly vessel of the Christ, and is thus thought to apply to the kind of docetism attacked by Ignatius and Polycarp. Griffith's point is that this too could simply refer to a denial that the Christ/Messiah has come. He says that his proposal is attractive in terms of simplicity because one would not need to posit two separate heresies that the author was attacking.

    In support of the messianic interpretation of 2:22, Griffith points out that the term Messias in all the NT occurs only in John 1:41 and 4:25, where it is specified as the equivalent of Khristos (thus it was not a foreign concept to the Johannine community), and he also says that in 1 John 2:22 ho Khristos appears to be titular (that is, not a personal name) and the subject of the einai clause since it contains an article whereas Iesous does not (e.g. "that the Christ/Messiah is Jesus"). The big weakness I think of this is that it unnecessarily attributes too much of the "Messiah" notion to the Asia Minor Johannine community which otherwise did not develop it in their high christology. But I think I might agree that Christ more naturally is titular and that the passage more likely refers to those as rejecting Jesus as being (in the role of) Christ, whatever the title Christ might mean in the Johannine community. The arguments against the docetic interpretation of 4:2 seem to be a bit less tenuous. Griffith points out that the phrase "come in the flesh" or "appeared/manifested in the flesh" quite commonly refers to the fact of the incarnation and not its manner (e.g. non-docetic incarnation) in early Christian writings:

    "But [Jesus] himself submitted, in order that he might destroy death and demonstrate the reality of the resurrection of the dead, because it was necessary that he be manifested in the flesh (en sarki edei auton phanerothenai). Also, he submitted in order that he might redeem the promise of the fathers and while preparing the new people for himself prove, while he was still on earth (epi tes ges on), that after he has brought about the resurrection he will execute judgment.... For if [Jesus] had not come in the flesh (me elthen en sarki), men could in no way have been saved by looking at him. For when they look at merely the sun they are not able to gaze at its rays, even though it is the work of his hands will eventually cease to exist. Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh (en sarki elthen) for this reason, that he might complete the full measure of the sins of those who persecuted his prophets to death" (Barnabas 5:6-7, 10-11).

    Here "coming in the flesh" refers to Christ's entrance into the human sphere and his work therein (cf. especially the phrase epi tes ges "while on earth"); there is no "christological axe to grind here", the focus is soteriological. Barnabas even uses this phrase "in the flesh" to criticize Jews who reject Jesus as the Christ (e.g. Messiah), just the usage that Griffith posits for 1 John:

    "Observe again that it is Jesus, not a son of man but the Son of God, and revealed in the flesh (en sarki phanerotheis) by a symbol. Since, however, they were going to say that the Messiah (Khristos) is the Son of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the error of sinners, prophesied: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" ' " (Barnabas 12:10).

    Quite far from being anti-docetic, the above passage appears to even question a human paternity of Jesus as a "son of man" and "the Son of David" (the latter being a mainstay of Jewish Messianic thought). It also uses Khristos in a titular sense, as the Christ that the Jews expect. A use of epi ges "on earth" in connection with the phrase "in the flesh", similar to Barnabas 5:6-11 above, also appears in a Christian interpolation into the Testament of Benjamin, which also criticizes Jews who rejected the Messiah:

    "The king of heaven appeared on earth (ton epi ges phanenta) in the form of a man of humility.... And the Lord will judge Israel first for the unrighteousness done to him, because they did not believe that God appeared in the flesh (paragenamenon theon en sarki) as a deliverer. And then he will judge all the Gentiles as many as did not believe him when he appeared on the earth (epi ges phanenti)" (Testament of Benjamin 10:7-8)

    The proto-gnostic Gospel of Thomas also has Jesus declaring: "I took my place in the midst of the world (en meso tou kosmou), and I appeared to them in the flesh (en sarki ophthen)" (28:1). One final example of "in the flesh" being paralleled with "on the earth" appears in the Epistle to Diognetus:

    "They [Christians] are in the flesh (en sarki), but they do not live according to the flesh. They live on the earth (epi ges), but their citizenship is in heaven.... Christians dwell in the world (en kosmo), but are not of the world" (Diognetus 5:8-9, 6:3)

    The frequent connection between an appearance or manifestation "in the flesh" and the same "on the earth" shows that the former signifies one's presence in the earthly sphere and not the corporeality of one's body. 1 Timothy 3:16 also appears to use the phrase "appeared in the flesh" as shorthand to refer to Christ's earthly life altogether. Similarly, it is used to refer to the apostles' own earthly lives in Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:22, 24; 1 Peter 4:2. Ignatius, Ephesians 1:3 refers to Onesimus as "your bishop in the flesh (en sarki episkopo)", and a similar use of en sarki occurs in 2 Clement 8:2 where it is paralleled with en kosmo "in the world". Finally, we read in the Protevangelium of James that "it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit that [Simeon] should not see death (me idein thanatou) until he had seen in the flesh (en sarki), the Christ" (24:4). The contrast again clearly shows that "in the flesh" is an idiom for one's earthly life.

    In view of the use of the phrase in proto-gnostic writings (i.e. Gospel of Thomas) and writings alluding directly to the descent of God in human form (e.g. Testament of Benjamin), its use in polemic that has nothing to do with high christology (e.g. Barnabas), and it's existence as an idiom simply denoting one's earthly life, the expression "come in the flesh" doesn't sound specifically anti-docetic to me. A more clearly anti-docetic expression is the use of eis "into" instead of en "in" (i.e. entry into flesh), and this formation is what is used in the clearly anti-docetic 3 Corinthians:

    "What [Simon and Cleobius] say and teach is as follows ... that the Lord has not come into the flesh (eis sarka elthen ho kurios).... our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary of the seed of David, the Holy Spirit being sent forth from heaven from the Father into her, that he might come down into this world and redeem all flesh by his flesh, and raise us up from the dead in the flesh.... For by his own body Jesus Christ saved all flesh, that he might show forth the temple of righteousness in his body.... Since therefore the Lord has had mercy on us, that while you are still in the flesh (en sarkei) we may hear these things again from you" (3 Corinthians 1:6, 14; 3:16-17)

    This text is overtly anti-heretical, emphasizes repeatedly the role of Jesus' flesh and "his own body" in the redemption and uses a more precise expression with eis "into" for the incarnation. But interestingly, it still uses "in the flesh" in 1:6 to refer to the existence of Christians in the earthly sphere. One of the few anti-docetic texts that clearly does use en sarki "in the flesh" as an anti-docetic device is Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 3:1 where he says "I know and believe that he was in the flesh (en sarki) even after the resurrection". But the passage in which this phrase occurs is also studded with many anti-docetic devices that leave no doubt as to what is meant, including the repeated use of altheos "truly", the specific word dokein "appearance", the phrase en anthropo theos "God in man", the compound sarkophoren "bearing flesh", and even a logion from Jesus directly refuting the concept. If we go back to 1 John, is there any other similar independent evidence aside from the phrase en sarki that docetism is specifically meant? Griffith suggests that "Jesus Christ come in the flesh" is one of several expressions in 1 John that refer to Christ's former existence in the earthly sphere: (1) "the Son of God was revealed" (3:8; cf. 1:2; 3:5); (2) "God sent his only Son into the world" (4:9; cf. 4:14); (3) "the Son of God has come" (5:20). By extension, the naysayers would be those denying that the Son of God was revealed, sent into the world, and had come. Griffith also observes two more things about 1 John 4:2-3. First, 4:2 embeds the reference to the flesh within a participle modifying "Jesus Christ" and not as a clause in its own right with its own emphasis. In other words, we should read "every spirit that confesses Jesus-Christ-came-in-the-flesh is from God". If the polemic was targeted against docetism, we would better expect an infinitive clause, e.g. "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ came (inf.) in the flesh". In fact, the Codex Vaticanus (alone of the codices) admended the text specifically with the infinitive eleluthenai "to have come" to achieve a more anti-docetic reading, and curiously the same form occurs in the quotation in Polycarp (Philippians 7:1) as well. Second, the anti-confession in 1 John 4:3 specifically omits the words en sarki eleluthota "came in the flesh", suggesting that what matters is confession of Jesus (cf. "God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God," 4:15) and not the mode of his incarnation.

    Those are most of Griffith's arguments, but he goes into more detail on the allusions to "idolatry" in the epistle and how they may relate to Judaizing apostasy.

    Link
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    "Observe again that it is Jesus, not a son of man but the Son of God, and revealed in the flesh (en sarki phanerotheis) by a symbol. Since, however, they were going to say that the Messiah (Khristos) is the Son of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the error of sinners, prophesied: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" ' " (Barnabas 12:10).

    This reminds me of Matt 22:41-45 where Jesus is contrasted with the Christ in that the Christ is not the son of David but the Lord of David. I wonder tho if Barny was not likewise sewn together from disaparate sources and subject to biased editing so as to carry both Docetic and antidocetic wording.

    Link
  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    To me the so-called "titular" use of Christos is worth quoting in its context (which I think is very very far from Judaism or Judeo-Christianity):

    Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. But you have been anointed (lit. "you have anointing", chrisma) by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing (chrisma) that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing (chrisma) teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him.

    1) The christos title is not taken in its external, exoteric sense as the Jewish Messiah, but in relation to the Johannine community experience / practice expressed as chrisma. The same must be true of its antonym antichristos.

    2) I don't feel the text is written from a proto-Catholic perspective (pace PP): "you need no teacher" is quite the opposite of the proto-Catholic hierarchy and magisterium (on this see the commentary of R.E. Brown).

    Link
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I don't feel the text is written from a proto-Catholic perspective (pace PP): "you need no teacher" is quite the opposite of the proto-Catholic hierarchy and magisterium (on this see the commentary of R.E. Brown).

    Narkissos, that makes sense.

    I know this may be a stupid question but is there some connection between these lines?

    Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

    Is the 'son' Jesus and the 'Father' the Christ?(emanation of the Father) Is this some antiMarcionite polemic? Marcion denied that the Christ had any connection to the Creator.

    Link
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God," 4:3;

    This statement doesn't necessitate any Jewish denial of Jesus as the Messiah either as "denying Jesus" would mean any number of things depending upon the prejudices of the author. Cognate to Catholics charging JWs with not believing in (denying) Jesus for not accepting the Trinity doctrine.

    Link
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Then theres the varient 1John 4:3 about "dividing (or loosing) the Christ" that was an apparent antiSeparationist addition. How many ajendas are we trying to fit into a single theme in the Johannine epistles? Trying to deconstruct this mess is like putting a puzzle together with a lot of pieces missing and the rest having been trimmed to fit where the were not intended.

    Link
  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    Docetism? Is that when people worship me?

    Link
  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    The heresy arose in a Hellenistic milieu and was based on a Dualism which held that the material world is either unreal or positively evil. Tendencies to spiritualize Christ by denying his real humanity were already present in New Testament times.

    The Johannine Epistles addressed the problem several times (1 John 4:2 - 3; 2 John 7). Docetic teachings were also advanced by the 2d - century proponents of Gnosticism and were combatted by the 2d - century church fathers, especially by Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus. The fathers based their defense of the true Incarnation of the Son of God on the Old Testament doctrine of creation, according to which the material world is neither unreal nor evil but basically good.

    Link
  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    But if the Khristos is thought in terms of khrisma, that goes along with my suggestion that the meaning of Khristos as a title may be quite different in the Johannine community than Griffith suggests, but that the antichrist denial is still not necessarily addressing a separationist (i.e. Christ inhabiting a Jesus vessel) christology but more naturally denying that Jesus is the source/giver/etc. of khrisma and "life". That too fits.

    I think what makes determining the sitz im leben so maddingly difficult is the dense, symbol-laden language, just as in the Qumran sectarian documents which are also maddingly opaque as to their own appropriate historical setting. PP....The variant you refer to is just like the Codex Vaticanus variant I mentioned which also makes the current heresy more explicit. But the later alteration of course doesn't mean that the earlier version was addressing the same thing. What do you both think about the evidence relating to the phrase "in the flesh"? I think Griffith has a good case there. The phrase really isn't specifically anti-docetic, considering the usual sense of living or appearing in the earthly sphere, and it certainly isn't emphasized -- appearing as a participle that is just tacked on to "Jesus Christ" and omited in the actual anti-confession of the antichrists. I think these are good arguments. I always thought about it in a docetic sense myself but understanding the antichrist denial as simply denying that Christ came into the world (the usual sense of the expression "in the flesh") makes everything else much more simplified. Because if you deny that there was a Christ in the first place, that there was a Revealer who appeared and who gave the Spirit and so forth, then the whole faith is lost -- much, much more than if you simply deny that Jesus' body was real. And this is the emphasis of the whole homily: "that the Son of God was revealed" (1 John 3:8), that "God sent his only Son into the world" (4:9), that "the Son of God has come" (5:20), that he "was made visible" (1:2), that "he appeared in order to abolish sin" (3:5), that "the Father sent his Son as savior of the world" (4:14), that "the Son of God has come" (5:20), and so forth. Denying that "the Son of God was revealed" in Jesus, that "Jesus is the Christ", that Jesus Christ is the one who "has come in the flesh" would then all mean very similar things. Those denying such things would be Jews as well as Christians revoking their faith in Jesus Christ in order to return to the synagogue. The author of 1 John would not need any polemic against the laws of the Pharisees, the observances and holidays of the Jews, etc. etc. because the whole issue would've boiled down to one thing only -- that such people are denying their faith in Jesus Christ. Attacking that one issue only is more than sufficient as polemic and it is devastatingly simple. If you deny that the Revealer of the Father came, you deny that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Father was made known. You deny the experience of the Spirit, of the in-dwelling of the Son, and the granting of eternal life which was made possible through the Son. The sacraments would become meaningless and so you would deny them too. Denying Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God would essentially deny the Johannine Community's whole experience of God. Such a theme unifies the homily as a whole and makes it seem much less like a pastiche of totally unrelated things. So in terms of elegance, Griffith's idea is quite compelling to consider.

    Link
  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    As further evidence that there were problems in the churches of Asia Minor with the Jews and synagogues around A.D. 100 or so, consider also the statements to the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia:

    "I know the trials you have had, and how poor you are -- though you are rich -- and the slanderous accusations that have been made by the people who profess to be Jews but are really members of the synagogue of Satan....I [Jesus Christ] know all about you and now I have opened in front of you a door that nobody will be able to close -- and I know that though you are not very strong, you have kept my commandments (cf. 1 John 3:22-24) and not disowned my name (cf. "the name of his Son Jesus Christ" in 1 John 3:23) Now I am going to make the synagogue of Satan, those who profess to be Jews but are liars, because they are no such thing, I will make them come and fall at your feet and admit that you are the people that I love" (Revelation 2:9; 3:9)

    This text implies that "members of the synagogue of Satan", "those who profess to be Jews but are liars" are those who have "disowned the name" of Jesus Christ, i.e. denied themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. This comes very close to what Griffith claims is the main apostasy addressed in 1 John. Ignatius of Antioch also addresses a Judaizing heresy in Asia Minor and refers both to those who "profess Jesus Christ and practice Judaism" and "disobedient ones" who were not "fully convinced that there is one God who revealed himself through Jesus Christ his Son" (Magnesians 8:2; 10:3). Even more to the point is the following passage:

    "If anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear about Christianity from a man who is circumcised than about Judaism from one who is not. But if either of them fail to speak about Jesus Christ (peri Iesou Khristou me lalosin), I look on them as tombstones (stelai) and graves of the dead, upon which only the names of men (onomata anthropon) are inscribed" (Ignatius, Philadelphians 6:1)

    First, there is an mention of Gentile converts to Judaism (or Judaizing Christianity), so it is not merely a case of ethnic Jews adopting more Jewish practices. But second there is the specific mention of those who "fail to speak about Jesus Christ" in connection with the Judaizing heresy, again we face here those who do not confess Jesus Christ.

    But what is even more interesting about this passage is its intertextuality. In this passage in his epistle to the Philadelphian church, Ignatius plays on the words of Revelation 3:12 that were also addressed to the church in Philadelphia. In Revelation, those who resist the influence of those "who profess to be Jews" are promised to be "made into pillars [stulon] in the sanctuary of God, and they will stay there forever; I will inscribe [grapho] on them the name of God [onoma tou theo]." Ignatius playfully changes the wording to declare those who deny Christ by adopting Judaism as tomb epitaphs: "If anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him....But if either of them fail to speak about Jesus Christ, I look on them as tombstones [stelai] and graves of the dead, upon which only the names of men [onomata anthropon] are inscribed [gegraptai]" (IgPhil 6:1). This suggests that Revelation, Ignatius, and possibly 1 John were all addressing the problem in Asia Minor where Christians were renouncing their faith in Christ in order to still attend the synagogues.

    Link

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit