Tags
There is heresy in the New Testament. Galatian, Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, 1 John and Revelation are the places we find heresy. The bad news for those who argue that ‘orthodoxy’ was a late development is that the heretics are denounced by the writers of those epistles, because heresy appears only to be condemned; you can only condemn something if you have an orthodoxy which defines its as unorthodox.
St Paul rebukes the Galatians for listening to those who preached ‘another Gospel’. It seems they had been promoting the idea that Gentile converts should be circumcised. They had been putting forward the idea that it was vital to observe Old Testament Law. These Judaisers may well, as some have speculated, have been from the Jerusalem Church, and have been ‘James’ men’. Either way, it took the first council of Jerusalem to rule on the issue. You might argue that this set the model for the future. SOmeone came along to a church claiming something which the Apostle who founded it had never said; it caused a ruckus; the Church decided what was and was not orthodox.
We don’t quite know what the ‘Colossian heresy’ was. In his epistle, Paul mentions circumcision, food laws, Sabbath and purity regulations, but whilst there may have been elements of ‘Judaising’ there were other element involved. Paul mentions words such as ‘pleroma’ (fullness), ‘philosophia’, and ‘gnosis’ (knowledge), all of which, along with the rest of the letter, suggest elements of gnosticism – that is the idea that there was some hidden knowledge, and legions of intermediaries between God and man.
In Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy, Paul roundly condemns heretical teaching. Again it looks as though there was a mixture of Judaising and gnostic speculations. None of this should be surprising. It was natural that many converting Jews would bring with them their own practices, and that converting Gentiles would do the same.
It may have been similar sorts of teaching against which Jude was warning when he writes about false teachers who do not ‘have the Spirit.’ These self-seeking, unreliable and unstable shepherds were roundly condemned. It may be that like those mentioned in 2 Peter, their ‘cunningly devised fables’ about the date of the Second Coming, and justified indulgence in fleshly sins on the back of it.
We can see in 1 John that, as In Colossus and Galatia, some of the heretics had been part of the church, but had ended up preaching a different Gospel, in John’s case this seems to have been a denial that Jesus had come truly in the flesh – an early form of what became known as Docetism.
Revelation is a feast of examples of heresies: the Nicolaitans (who seem to have urged believers to take part in pagan rituals); a Jezabel, who led believers into idolatry, and the ‘depths of Satan’, another set of idolaters.
Against all of this was set the message which Paul and the Apostles had received, what Jude called the ‘faith once delivered to the Apostles’. There was, as we shall see, a diversity of orthodox belief and practice, but there was, from the beginning, a very clear idea of what lay outside the sphere of what Christians could believe and remain Christian.
Completely clear that the orthodoxy was already there – for example, in the Acts, when Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch, the Ethiopian asks ‘who is this man?’ he does not ask ‘what does this mean?’ – the meaning is already known.
LikeLike
…. apologies …. pressed the ‘post’ button too quickly. The orthodoxy was already understood from the prophet Isaiah.
LikeLike
Indeed it was. Some of that 1970s stuff was pretty poor exegesis – indeed, probably eisegesis.
LikeLike
Spot on Jock.
LikeLike
“SOmeone came along to a church claiming something which the Apostle who founded it had never said;”
Uh, brother Geoff, i was under the impression that jesusu founded his church, which i simply the body of the saved. He runs it today and is still the cornerstone. We are just foot soldiers. By the way, what is this orthodox stuff? I came to Jesus for rest, i just follow behind him.
LikeLike
StBosco – ‘orthodox’ in this context simply means accepting what God says, believing the Word of God and not trying to twist it.
For example, if Holy Scripture says (2 Chronocles 36 v21, 22) ‘… until the seventy years were completed, *in fulfilment of the word of the Lord spoken to Jeremiah*’ it is orthodox to accept this and it is unorthodox heresy to suggest that Scripture is mistaken, that only 69 years were completed, and give some wacky interpretation of the 70th year (as somebody on this blog did not so long ago).
LikeLike
Spot on JOck. Bosco, look up the word ‘eisegesis’.
LikeLike
Jock’s given a good response on orthodoxy. Of course Christ is the foundation stone and the Apostles acted in His name, but when Paul talks about founding churches, he is talking about the exertions of individual Apostles.
LikeLike
One needs to be careful in the handling of the word “heresy” (Gk hairesis) in the New Testament. Strong’s cites 9 occurrences and of these 2 (in Acts 5 and 15) refer to “factions” among the Jews, 2 (in Acts 24) refer to accusations against Paul and the “Nazerenes”, 1 (in acts 26) is Paul referring to himself, another (in Acts 28) refers to all followers of Christ, and 2 (1 Cor 11 and Gal 5) refer to division within the church without reference to who is right and who wrong. That leaves only 1 (in 2 Peter 2) that clearly identifies “hairesis” (the having of strong personal opinions) with being wrong as against a different (correct) view.
My conclusion from this is that the general use of “heresy” to mean opinions in contradiction to a generally understood correct doctrinal teaching is indeed later than the New Testament witness.
LikeLike
That depends on your taking the view that 2 Peter is very late indeed – which then requires you to make sense of what Clement and Polycarp have to say in their letters.
If you are saying that there was no concept of their being ‘another Gospel’ in the NT writings, which is the implication of what you say, then St Paul shows that not to be so.
LikeLike
I didn’t intend to say that 2 Peter was any later than anything else. I’m merely pointing out that the meaning of the word “hairesis” in the NT writings appears to be “strong personal opinion” with no necessarily negative connotation. There clearly is the idea of “other gospels” in Paul’s (very early) writings but I don’t believe that “heresy” is a clear and technical term as it would later become.
LikeLike
I would agree with that. But at this stage that was because it did not need to be, surely?
LikeLike
Which brings us to the real question of “what is orthodoxy” and in particular whether it can ever be solidified into a single set of tautly defined doctrines against which to test for “heresy”.
I would suggest that “orthodoxy” is best understood as “those beliefs not defined as heretical”, which means that “heresy” emerges first and “orthodoxy” later (as a “negative space” to borrow a term from sculpture).
For a (slightly) more extended reflection on these matters see here http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/orthodox-biblical-what-makes-a-person-action-or-idea-christian/
LikeLike
An interesting take, and better than some modern takes. I would put it another way. Initially there is orthodoxy, then some smart alek starts telling everyone that what they have always accepted from the beginning is not so. That requires someone to tell said smart alek and those who believe as he does that they are wrong – vide Marcion in this respect.
LikeLike
Not so sure about that. Does orthodoxy include the agreed canon? That can’t have been present at the beginning since not all the texts were written. What about Chalcedonian two-natures Christology? One can argue that it is implied but that would mean that all truth would be present from the beginning of time. What is “true” (in God’s mind) and what is present as known (including by the authors of scriptural texts) can never be identified. Further the presence of either truth in the text is ambiguous otherwise we wouldn’t need the inspiration of the Spirit (for a Reformed Christian like myself) or the authority of the Magisterium (for a Roman Catholic) to guide our interpretation.
LikeLike
The Church received the Apostolic deposit. When the activities of the smart aleks like Marcion made it necessary to declare what was and was not canonical, that was done. The Church merely recognised what it had received. I would say the same thing about the Chalcedonian definition.
I agree that we need to know how to interpret that text, and that there was a Church before there was a text.
LikeLike
Pingback: Dialogue with a Muslim friend: other objections | All Along the Watchtower