The earliest enemies of the gospel were those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. They claimed that the eternal Son could not have entered a body, because matter was beneath divinity. They imagined salvation as a release from the physical realm into a higher spiritual state. These teachers were not simply mistaken; they carried the spirit of antichrist. John wrote that every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which does not is not from God. He insisted that this error was more than a minor defect. It was the presence of a hostile spirit that corrupted the church and threatened the very essence of the gospel.

For more than fifteen hundred years, theologians have congratulated themselves for defeating Gnosticism. They reserve the term for one of the worst insults in their vocabulary. They use it against anyone who appears to spiritualize the incarnation or the atonement, accusing them of gnostic tendencies. Yet they are guilty of the very thing they condemn. They insist on the incarnation in the flesh, but they deny the healing of the flesh. They declare that Christ came bodily, but they claim that his promises of healing apply only figuratively. They treat his words and miracles as symbols of inward comfort rather than declarations of what he accomplishes in the body. If the ancient heresy denied that Christ entered the flesh, the latter version denies that Christ heals the flesh. Both exhibit the same suspicion: that God is too holy to concern himself with the body, and that it is unworthy of man to expect physical healing from him.

This exposes their hypocrisy. For centuries they have hurled the label of Gnosticism at others whenever they judged a teaching to thin out the bodily reality of the incarnation or the atonement, yet they themselves commit the same treachery with respect to healing. They condemn others for spiritualizing Christ’s incarnation, but they spiritualize his healing works as if they were metaphors for inner peace and renewal rather than realities of the body. By their own rule they stand condemned, guilty of the very heresy they claim to have defeated. They style themselves defenders of orthodoxy, but in practice they preserve the spirit of Gnosticism, stripping the promises of God of their physical meaning and effect. The result is a gospel mutilated and confined to the inward realm, a message that never touches human sickness or relieves human pain. They parade their error as orthodoxy, but it is the same philosophy of contempt for the body that animated the ancient heresy.

The testimony of Scripture stands against them. Isaiah announced that the Servant would bear our sicknesses and carry our pains. Matthew applied this directly to Christ’s healings. Peter wrote that by his wounds we have been healed. The same passage addresses both the spiritual and physical. The atonement does not merely rescue the soul while leaving the body abandoned. It redeems man in his entirety. The cross addresses the consequence of sin in all its forms, including sickness and death. To separate forgiveness from healing is to sever what God has joined. To reduce healing to metaphor is to follow the same mystical philosophy that denied the incarnation. The gospel is not a collection of symbols but an accomplished reality, and it touches the body as well as the soul.

The apostle commanded his readers to test the spirits. The question was whether the spirit confessed that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. That test still applies, but it also extends to the benefits of Christ’s work. We must now ask whether the teaching confesses that Jesus Christ has healed us in the flesh. If the answer is no, then the same antichrist spirit is present. It has changed its form but not its essence. In one age it said that Christ could not come in the flesh. In another it says that Christ will not heal in the flesh. In both cases it denies the extent of God’s redemptive work and confines the gospel to the spiritual realm.

This subject demands more than polite exchange or scholarly debate. The ancient church treated Gnosticism as heresy rather than a harmless opinion. The same judgment is required today. Teachers who deny healing stand as antichrists who oppose the work of Christ, not as mistaken brothers. Their message carries the influence of demons rather than the voice of the Spirit. Patience or deference toward them insults the cross. They have already wasted centuries repeating the same error in new terms. The gospel demands rejection of error, drives it into the open for exposure, and pronounces condemnation without indulgence.

At the same time, believers do not need to fear these teachers. John reminded his readers that they had overcome the false prophets, because greater is the Spirit who is in them than the spirits that are in the world. The same assurance holds today. The Holy Spirit testifies in us that the work of Jesus includes healing. He does not only bear witness to forgiveness but also confirms that by the wounds of Christ we are healed. He gives life to the mortal body and demonstrates that redemption is not confined to the spiritual. Against this testimony the voices of unbelief cannot prevail. The Spirit of God in us is greater than the anti-healing demons and teachers that surround us.

The label of Gnosticism belongs to them. They hate the term because it reminds them of one of the most disgraceful errors in church history. Yet it fits their own doctrine more than the targets they accuse. They have become what they despise. They accuse others of spiritualizing, while they themselves strip the promises of God of their bodily reality. They condemn Gnosticism in words, but in practice they promote the same philosophy. They are the modern representatives of the very heresy they claim to oppose.