What Is the Mystery of Iniquity?

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed . . . even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9.

Part II: Gnostic Roots of the Heresy on the Nature of Christ

To better understand what was being addressed by John we need briefly to examine the Gnostic philosophy. Gnosticism is founded on the Greek principle of a dualistic existence that separates matter from spirit, the first being inherently evil, and the latter being divine. It assumes that all material things came into being through a fallen semi-god who ruled the imperfect world, that by its very existence, is antagonistic to the divine spirit. However, according to this belief there occasionally enters into the constitution of some men a divine spark that, through gnosis and practice of special rites, can be developed. Through gnosis, this special individual could escape the material world and become entirely "spiritual." This is a counterfeit sanctification, being really no sanctification at all, out of which arises the heresy of holy flesh.

Since the early church did not have a doctrine on the nature of Christ, the Gnostic concept being circulated among the early congregations in Asia went largely unchallenged by most who were exposed to it. However, John made it crystal clear that he was refuting this heresy when he told the people that Jesus was "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1 John 1:1). John here mentions three of the human senses which positively validated that Jesus was truly a human being—sight, hearing, and touch. You could not "handle" the Gnostic "spirit" being, a mere ghost of reality, that was being declared as "Christ" in the early churches.

Gnosticism's view that matter and spirit are completely separate spheres of existence is the root of the heresy that developed into the idea that Christ could not have assumed the fallen nature of mankind in His incarnation. It culminates in the assumption that if Christ had taken upon His sinless nature our sinful nature then He, too, would have been contaminated with sin and in need of a saviour Himself. How then could He have been our Saviour? From this has arisen a major theological debate over the very nature of sin: Is it nature (what we are); or is it actions (what we choose to do); or is it both? From what are we saved through the atonement of Christ? (see separate chart for more information)

Nature of Christ Intimately Tied to the Atonement

For the Gnostic Christian, the function of Christ was not to come as Saviour to redeem from sin, but to enter this evil world and bring gnosis to mankind. As a divine being, Gnosticism taught that Jesus could not have assumed a body of fallen flesh nor a body that was subject to death. He was "divine" in the sense that He was removed from all contamination of evil matter, and thus totally separate from fallen human beings. As such, He could only "redeem" from sin through teaching others how to attain god-likeness through knowledge (gnosis).

From the Biblical perspective, the broken law demands the death of the transgressor ("the soul that sinneth, it shall die"; "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"; Ezekiel 18:20; Genesis 2:17). He who sins must satisfy the demands of the broken law, and recompense by forfeiting his life. Under such conditions, the individual would lose his life and cease to exist. The law of God has nothing in it that permits forgiveness for transgression; it is the standard of perfection and can not yield. If we had only the law which condemns us, then we would be in a most miserable condition. However, the Author of that law is also the giver of life and grace and mercy.

If Christ came in a nature which was not subject to all the temptations we under which we suffer (internal as well as external), and which was not subject to death, then in reality He came no closer to us than if He had not come to earth at all. His "atonement" would be a sham, a pretense, and would have accomplished nothing so far as the broken law is concerned.

A second challenge on the nature of Christ, this time His divine nature, later would come through Arius (a presbyter from Alexandria) and result in the first ecumenical church council. Both of these heresies—that Christ was separate from those He came to save, having taking the unfallen nature of Adam; and the false doctrine of the trinity—have come down through the centuries, and still challenge us as we face the final movements of earth’s history.

From this we learn that what Paul was referring to in his letter the Thessalonians included the truth that there would arise a religious power that denied the truth of the incarnation of Christ. This power was "already in the world" at the time Paul wrote his letter, but was being restrained somehow by another power which would soon wither.

What was that "which letteth" but which was going to be removed? [coming soon]

[page 1 of Part II]

Home | About Questions on Doctrine | History of Christianity | Points of Interest

Issues on Religious Freedom | American Heritage | America in Prophecy