The Gnostic Redeemer Myth

And The Incarnation of the Son of God

Kelly P. Gallagher

As we investigate the truth of the Bible, we must: 1) let the scriptures interpret themselves, 2) know the context and history of the men and places where the words were written and 3) know the origin of interpretation of the words in the Bible.

By combining knowledge of the original languages, the context, the other witnesses of scripture and most of all, the leading of the Holy Spirit, we can approach the real sense of the scriptures as the mind of both the Holy Spirit and the writer, would have communicated to us if they were standing in front of us.  Indeed, one of these, the Holy Spirit is closer than in front of us, if regenerated, He is IN US.

As the previous books, Church in the Wilderness and Apostasy: The Demonization of Today’s Church, this book also is an attempt, with God’s help to come fully out of Babylon; its teaching, practices and ways. 

No stone will be left unturned, no doctrine unexamined.  For any doctrine accepted by Christians can surely withstand close scrutiny.  The very Bible is the word of God that has been “purified seven times”.  It is only the additions and amalgamations of sinful man to the Bible and the corrupt texts from Egypt that have ruined the church. 

Bultmann believed that the idea of incarnation originated in the gnostic redeemer myth: “The individual selves of the ‘pneumatics’ are none other than the parts or splinters of that light-person.  Hence, in their totality they constitute that person - who is frequently called Primal Man - and for whose Redemption they must be released and ‘gathered together’…Redemption comes from the heavenly world.  Once more a light person sent by the highest god, indeed the son and ‘image’ of the most high, comes down from the light-world bringing gnosis.  He ‘wakes’ the sparks of light who have sunk into sleep or drunkenness and ‘reminds’ them of their heavenly home.” 1

Is it possible that gnosticism, so fiercely battle by the “orthodox” church, actually won out in what is generally accepted by most Christians today? 

Earlier in this work, we discussed the amalgamation and corruption of Justin Martyr in 150 A.D. (not long after Revelation was written).  He believed in the “Logos Spermatikos” or that every man has a spark of the Logos/Reason in him.  Surely, this idea is extra-biblical, as is the idea of a second God/Logos, which Justin also taught.  The Logos spark in every man is definitely gnostic.  Gnostics were around even in the days of Paul.  The gnostic redeemer myth could have influenced the early church councils in their interpretation of scripture.  How much of this has invaded the mind of the average Christian is difficult to measure, but this writer believes that it has deeply penetrated the thinking of almost every Christian and is another root of Babylon that needs to be uprooted. 

Bultmann believed that Paul himself was influenced by this gnostic redeemer myth in writing Philippians 2:6-11 and II Cor 8:9.  This, if true, would deny the inspiration of the scriptures.  The Holy Spirit can’t be deceived, therefore Paul wasn’t.  What is certainly true is this:  Paul was not speaking of a gnostic Redeemer here, neither did John, or any other biblical writer.  What happened was that later “orthodox” church fathers, already blending neo-Platonism and Grecian philosophy with Christianity, imported gnostic thinking into their interpretation of the text. 

In fact, gnostic gospels taught this.  Gospel of Phillip taught a contrast between a heavenly Adam and the earthly Adam.  The Origin of the World, a gnostic gospel, taught a heavenly man as an angel.  The Jehovah’s witnesses believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael. 

The Apocalypse of John II.15.9-13 speaks of Adam as made, “according to the likeness of the first, perfect Man.”  2

In addition, Philo, the Jewish teacher at Alexandria, Egypt, who amalgamated Old Testament Judaism with Grecian philosophy, did a similar thing in interpreting Genesis 1-2:

“There are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other an earthly.  The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the other was compacted out of ‘clay’” (leg.All.I.31)  Moreover, Philo, in one treatise he seems to identify the heavenly man with the Logos (Conf. 41,62f., 146f).  …  the Nag Hammadi tractate On the Origin of the World (‘the first Adam of the light is spiritual…the second Adam is soul-endowed…the third Adam is earthly..’ II.117.28-31) 3

Also, the “Ascension of Isaith (10:7-15, 11:23-32) describes the gnostic idea that “when the Son descended into the world for the incarnation he was unrecognized by the angels; but when he ascended to the right hand of the Father, he displayed his glory and received angelic homage.”  4

James Dunn believes that Paul may have written I Corinthians 15:45-47 AGAINST SUCH HERESY by proving that the first Adam is of the earth and the later/last Adam is from heaven. 

Dunn goes on to explain that “Christ’s role as second man, as last Adam, does not begin either is some pre-existent state, or at incarnation, but at his resurrection.”5

Murphy-O’Connor believes that “the common belief that Phil 2:6-11 starts by speaking of Christ’s pre-existent state and status and then of his incarnation is, in almost every case, a presupposition rather than a conclusion.” 6

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Chapter 2

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Do the above verses teach pre-existence?  Specifically pre-existence of a “heavenly man” who became incarnated as a divine person in a human body? 

The “form of God” that Jesus was “in” is certainly the image of God, not nature of God, as the new versions translate.  In context, however, Adam is the type of Christ, who is the antitype and fulfillment of the type of Adam.  Adam was created in the “image of God”.  Adam lost that image and glory by sin.  Jesus was without sin, so retained that “image of God” that Adam lost. 

In Hebrew thought, the visible form of God is HIS GLORY.  Jesus retained that glory throughout His life (i.e. the mount of transfiguration) but chose to humble himself and actually give up that glory and become the “form of a servant”.  He took on the likeness of Adam’s “form” or diminished glory as a sinful man.  I do not believe that Christ took on a sinful nature, as some insist.  But he took on, but self-limitation and obedience, the humble ROLE of lost Adam. 

“Thought it not robbery to be equal with God” - verse 6.  Equality with God not something to be “grasped” is the way some translations but this.  The Adam  story again, clears up the meaning of this.  Adam did try to rob or grasp equality with God, by inordinate seeking of knowledge.

“Snatching at the opportunity to enhance the status he already had, he both lost the degree of equality with God which he already enjoyed and was corrupted by that which he coveted.” 7

Therefore, Paul is not speaking of some pre-existent equality with God, but a similar equality with God that Adam enjoyed, before the fall. 

He made himself “of no reputation” or powerless of his rightful power as an unfallen Adam.  Taking the form of a slave, becoming in the very likeness of men.  Jesus chose to appear, not as uncorrupted Adamic flesh, but as sinful flesh, diminished/post-fall flesh.  His powers as Adamic flesh he chose not to use. 

The idea of kenosis, therefore, is totally out of the question, if the Adam type is followed consistently in interpreting this passage and others that seem to speak of a pre-existent “heavenly man” divesting himself of God like powers and attributes to become a man.  It is much less confusing to follow the Adam type.  Whatever power Jesus had as the second Adam, he chose not to use.  The Divine powers that flowed through him were not His own, but “the Father doeth the works”.  He also was filled with the Holy Spirit. 

Notice that Jesus was becoming in the form of men, not a man. 

“made in the likeness of MEN”.  He took on the appearance of all sinful humanity, as a REPRESENTATIVE MAN, AS ADAM WAS.              

At the end of the Phillippian quote above, Jesus is the one whom every knee shall bow.  Yet Isaiah 45:2,3 says this: “for I am God, and there is none else.  I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness that unto Me (God) evey knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear.”

It is UNTO ME that every tongue shall swear.  Yet AFTER THE RESURRECTION, Jesus is the One whom all bow the knee and swear to.  “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow.”  What this verse, in combination with Isaiah 45:2,3 is saying is this:  Jesus, AFTER THE RESURRECTION, is the One God and the name of Jesus Christ is the name of that One God. 

Clearly, then, Paul is giving a statement of the post-resurrection Deity of Christ.  NOT A SECOND DEITY, OR BEGOTTEN GOD BUT THE ONE TRUE GOD, JEHOVAH.  No other explanation is possible.  We don’t need the first verses to prove the Deity of Christ as some pre-existent God/man.  This is gnostic heresy.  God did not incarnate in Christ as a heavenly redeemer made man.  Rather, Christ, at the resurrection, was exalted to the glory of being God Himself.  On earth, God was “in Christ”.  Christ was the temple of God, “Destroy this temple and in three days I (not God) will raise it up.” 

After the resurrection, Jesus became omnipotent (Matt 28:19,20), omnipresent (Rev. 3:20) and omniscient (having all power is having all knowledge).  He became God.  He was not a heavenly Adam, but pre-existed as the Wisdom/Word of God and by process poured himself into the man Jesus.  At the resurrection, the process was finished.  This is the theology of Antioch.  The gnostic redeemer myth was from Alexandria, through Philo and Clement and Origen. 

Now, II Corinthians 8

9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich,  yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

In context of the Adam type, this passage is not saying that Jesus was rich as a god-man before birth, but as a man he was rich, because he had not fallen as Adam.  Yet, for our sake (in context of redemption) he became poor.  The Grace of Christ is always in context of sacrifice.  The contrast is between spiritual wealth and physical poverty.  Death on the cross “Riches buy off judgment, and the poor are condemned to the cross”. 7

The Adamic close communion with God was Jesus’ price to give up, especially on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”.  Jesus gave up, by his life’s choices, the riches of Adamic perfection and communion with God for the poverty of solidarity with sinful man, to save those who would believe in Him. 

In Apostasy, we looked at Phil 2:6,7 as a possible indication that Jesus was “in” the Word of God (the form of God) since the Word of God is visible as the glory of God manifested in the Old Testament.  Jesus was a child of Wisdom/Word.  However, by keeping the Adam type throughout this hymn of Paul in Philippians 2:6-11, a greater simplicity is found, a less complex interpretation is needed, therefore, it is the superior interpretation.  This passage is not needed to prove the pre-existence of Christ, but could easily be misinterpreted to prove the gnostic Redeemer myth, and has been so misinterpreted throughout church history.    

The Book of Zechariah, Chapter 2

10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

The verses above have actually been used to prove that “one Jehovah is represented as sending another”

Incarnation depends entirely upon a pre-existent PERSON. 

“It is not possible to speak of the incarnation of one who had no previous existence.” L. Berkof.

“The birth of Jesus was not, as in ordinary births, the creation of a new personality.  The person - already existing - entering on this new mode of existence.” - James Orr. 

“He is the second man, the Lord from heaven, the Son of Man who is also the Son of God incarnate for us men and for our salvation.”  Carl F. H. Henry

“If Christ had been generated by man, He would have been born a human person, included in the covenant of works, and as such would have shared the common guilt of mankind.  But now that His subject, His ego, His person, is not out of Adam, He is not in the covenant of works and is free from the guilt of sin.”  L. Berkof, Systematic Theology, p. 336.

It was Origen who believed in the pre-existence of souls that influenced the Christology of the Church with his idea of the “pre-existent” man

“he (John the Baptist) did not know that ‘this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire,’ when he had seen ‘the Spirit descending and remaining on him.’  John did not know, however, that he (Jesus) was a ‘man’ and the first man.” 9

Origen also believed that the HUMAN nature of Jesus pre-existed his incarnation.  “But in addition to these things a ‘man’ is mentioned who comes after John, who existed before him and who was before him, that we might learn also that the human nature of the Son of God which was united with his divinity antedates his birth from Mary.” 10

Because Origen taught the ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON, he denied that Jesus was really the first and the last.  Therefore the gnostic Redeemer is a begotten “god” who was incarnated as a human.  This incarnate pre-existent Redeemer is not the first or the last.

“God the Word transcends the higher order of these gods, himself being transcended by ‘the God’ of the universe.” 11

“The Savior says in his prayer to the Father, ‘That they may know you the only true God’.  On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be ‘the God’, but ‘God’.  To be sure, his ‘firstborn of every creature,’ inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him…

By being with THE God, he always continues to be ‘God’.  But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father…God the Word is the minister of deity to all the other Gods.” 12

Origen, mistranslating Phil 2:6,7 says, “he had considered being equal to God robbery.”  Origen denies that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.  “In addition to these names [we must consider] how he is described in the Apocalypse as the ‘first and the last’.  As first, he is different from the alpha and the beginning, and as last, he is not the same as the omega and the end.” 13

1. R. Bultmann, Theology, p. 166

2. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 1980, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., pp. 99-100.

3. Ibid, p. 100.

4. Ibid, p. 108

5. Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews 1-8, William Lane, Word Books, Dallas, Texas , 1991, p. 28

6. Murphy, “Christological Anthropology in Phil. 2.6-11”, 1976, Revue Biblique 83, pp. 30f, 38, 3,45,46f.

7. Dunn, Christology, p. 116.

8. Hengel, “Crucifixion” p. 60.

9. Origen, Commentary on John, Book 1, p. 82, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.

10. Ibid, p. 81.

11. Ibid., p. 102

12. Ibid., pp. 99-99

13. Ibid, p. 75