Modern Gnostics don’t like the label. At least, I have never heard anyone call themselves a ‘Gnostic’. Heard someone call themselves a ‘Deist’ once, but never a ‘Gnostic’.
Instead modern Gnostics like the word ‘Modest’. Which they have invented a new and unBiblical meaning for. Biblical modesty means something like this:
MOD'ESTY, noun [Latin modestia.] That lowly temper which accompanies a moderate estimate of one's own worth and importance. This temper when natural, springs in some measure from timidity, and in young and inexperienced persons, is allied to bashfulness and diffidence. In persons who have seen the world, and lost their natural timidity, modesty springs no less from principle than from feeling, and is manifested by retiring, unobtrusive manners, assuming less to itself than others are willing to yield, and conceding to others all due honor and respect, or even more than they expect or require.
2. modesty as an act or series of acts, consists in humble, unobtrusive deportment, as opposed to extreme boldness, forwardness, arrogance, presumption, audacity or impudence. Thus we say, the petitioner urged his claims with modesty; the speaker addressed the audience with modesty
3. Moderation; decency.
4. In females, modesty has the like character as in males; but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. In this sense, modesty results from purity of mind, or from the fear of disgrace and ignominy fortified by education and principle. Unaffected modesty is the sweetest charm of female excellence, the richest gem in the diadem of their honor.
But modern ‘modesty’, as its practitioners use it, means something much more like ‘The body=yuck’. I recently had a woman, in a discussion about breastfeeding and the sexual attraction of the breasts to the husband, bleep out much of the word. She wrote ‘br****’. When I asked her why she had done that, she said ‘modesty’.
When I pointed out that we were literally discussing Scripture passages which used the word ‘breasts’, written out, without bleeps, she said something about ‘modern sensibilities’.
Which is, in a word, nonsense. At least if she means regular secular sensibilities. Does one ask for a ‘br***’ of chicken at Church’s chicken? Or buy a packet of ‘ chickn br****’ at HEB?
No, what she means is modern, conservative, Christian Gnostic sensibilities.
Gnosticism
Now when I say ‘Gnostic’, I am referring to a very old philosophy:
GNOS'TIC, noun nostic. [Latin gnosticus; Gr. to know.]
The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity, who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated their interpretations of scripture. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy.
GNOS'TIC, adjective nostic. Pertaining to the Gnostics or their doctrines.
But when I say ‘modern Gnostic’ I am saying it is dressed up in a very modern garb. Our modern age, particularly the modern church, has invented for itself some bizarre rules about sex and the body and pretended that they are what Scripture teaches.
Let me give you an example. There once was a pastor preaching on ‘modesty’. The importance of covering the body. Nothing in Scripture supported his thesis, but that didn’t stop him. And then he made an absolutely amazing statement…
He said that Adam and Eve were sinning when they walked around naked in the garden. He said that when they ate the apple (yes, I know it wasn’t an apple, as did he) and their eyes were opened… they realised that they had been sinning the whole time.
So even though God created them naked, and gave them no clothes. Even though God Himself brought Eve to Adam while they were both naked… their being naked was a sin. All of this made up from whole cloth, without a shred of Biblical cover. (Puns fully intended)
The second example is like unto it, only different. That theory goes that when Adam and Eve made clothes for themselves, they didn’t follow God’s rules for how much should be covered. So God made them ‘coats’ which covered more. And this from a possible definition of one word, no shred of command form, no hint of rebuke…without a square inch of linguistic cover.
That Evil Body
One of the core tenets of gnosticism is that the body, and everything associated with it is evil. Or, at the very least, so dramatically non-spiritual it might as well be evil. It is quite possible that Paul was addressing Gnosticism when he wrote,
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
I Corinthians 7:1
That would be the Gnostic view… sex is bad, women are nothing but sexual temptation. But he goes on to say:
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
I Corinthians 7:2
and makes it clear that this includes a lot of sex:
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Over a whole range of issues the church (and not just the modern church) has rejected the physical aspects of the faith, substituting a vague spirituality. Even where they keep the form, they eviscerate the function.
The Temple
And they shall put upon it all the vessels thereof, wherewith they minister about it, even the censers, the fleshhooks, and the shovels, and the basons, all the vessels of the altar; and they shall spread upon it a covering of badgers' skins, and put to the staves of it.
And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation.
And to the office of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest pertaineth the oil for the light, and the sweet incense, and the daily meat offering, and the anointing oil, and the oversight of all the tabernacle, and of all that therein is, in the sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof.
Numbers 4:14-16
How important was the physical setting of the temple? Did God just care about the spiritual nature of those who put it up?
The obvious answer if you have read the Old Testament… is no, God didn’t just care about their spiritual state. He wrote a good deal about the physical environment. Including the death penalty for violations of the physical environment.
Circumcision
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Genesis 17:10-14
H226 (Strong)
אוֹת
'ôth
oth
Probably from H225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.: - mark, miracle, (en-) sign, token.
If you wish to blow the mind of a modern Christian Gnostic, have them do a word study on the meaning of the Hebrew word translated, ‘token’ here. And by word study, I mean, go and see how it is used everywhere else in scripture. The word means that which is seen by everybody and so everybody knows about this thing. It’s used for the sun and moon, as signs to tell us when days and seasons are, the mark on Cain, so everyone would know not to kill him, and the rainbow… God’s promise that He wouldn’t flood the Earth again.
And then remind them what this particular passage is talking about.And that it is God, who said it would be a token. Something everyone would see.
Partial Conclusion
This is a partial conclusion, because it is a partial post. I have not yet begun to address all of the issues in Scripture where God uses physical means to address spiritual questions. I haven’t even gotten through the Old Testament, let alone started with the New Testament.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Well done.