The Gnostic Priesthood
or
Do Gnostics Need Priests?
Introduction: Liberating Gnosis from the Chains of Intermediaries
In the vast tapestry of spiritual exploration, Gnosticism stands as a unique thread, woven with threads of direct personal experience, self-discovery, and the pursuit of inner enlightenment. Gnosticism is often seen as a departure from traditional religious paradigms, encouraging individuals to seek gnosis – a profound knowledge that transcends dogma and societal constructs. One of the key distinctions that emerges from this departure is the question of whether Gnostics require priests or a priesthood to navigate the realms of the divine and the unknown.
Gnostic thought champions the sovereignty of individual consciousness, emphasizing direct communion with the divine spark within. As we delve into the heart of Gnostic philosophy, we encounter a perspective that challenges the traditional roles of intermediaries and priests. In this exploration, we will delve into the reasons behind the assertion that Gnostics do not need priests, examining the Gnostic worldview, historical context, and the centrality of personal experience on the path of gnosis.
Gnosticism, with its emphasis on personal revelation and transcendence, raises a crucial inquiry: Does the Gnostic journey necessitate the presence of intermediaries, such as priests, to facilitate the connection between the individual and the divine? As we journey through the corridors of Gnostic thought, we shall explore the reasons why the Gnostic path aligns with the conviction that the spark of divine knowledge resides within each seeker, rendering intermediaries obsolete. This exploration invites us to question established norms, to discern the essence of Gnostic principles, and to venture into the territory of an individual's direct relationship with the divine source.
Redefining Priesthood: A Shift from Old Testament Paradigm to New Testament Truth
Since the Jewish priesthood is referred to in some texts of the Nag Hammadi we should look at the Jewish priesthood normally referred to as the the Levitical priesthood
The concept of priesthood, deeply rooted in the pages of the Old Testament, has played a significant role in shaping religious practices and beliefs. From the Levitical priesthood of ancient Israel to the transformation brought about by the advent of Christianity, the idea of priesthood has evolved, inviting a reconsideration of its relevance in light of New Testament teachings.
Old Testament Foundations: A Divine Mandate for the Levitical Priesthood
In the annals of the Old Testament, we encounter the establishment of a sacred order known as the Levitical priesthood. Guided by divine commandments, this priesthood was entrusted with the solemn responsibility of facilitating the connection between humanity and the divine through rituals and sacrifices. The role of priests was intertwined with the offering of animal sacrifices, serving as a means of atonement and thanksgiving for the people of Israel.
Christ as the Ultimate High Priest: A New Covenant
The arrival of Christ heralded a transformative era in the spiritual landscape, ushering in a new covenant that redefined the role of priests and intermediaries. Jesus, often referred to as the High Priest, became the ultimate mediator between God and humanity. His sacrificial act on the cross, epitomized by the offering of himself, nullified the need for animal sacrifices and redefined the concept of priesthood.
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ch 2 v 5 AV )
"Consequently he is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. ch 7 v 25 RSV)
The book of Hebrews serves as a cornerstone of this transition, emphasizing the eternal efficacy of Christ's role as a High Priest. "He is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25, RSV). The apostle Paul's assertion in his letter to Timothy further reinforces this perspective, underscoring that Christ is the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5, AV).
A Departure from Conventional Hierarchy: Early Christian Ecclesiology
The landscape of early Christian communities starkly contrasts the established hierarchy of the Levitical priesthood. The New Testament paints a picture of shared leadership and mutual accountability, where the term "priest" takes on a radically different meaning. Acts chapter 3 verse 46 portrays believers gathering in houses, sharing meals, and praising God in a spirit of fellowship.
Later on in time, Paul writing to the church in Corinth said that:
". . . . God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,. third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues". ( 1 Cor. ch l2 v 28 NIV )
He makes no mention of the need for priests.
Paul's correspondence to the Corinthian church emphasizes the diversification of spiritual gifts and functions within the community, with no explicit mention of a priestly role (1 Cor. 12:28, NIV). This underscores the transition from a priestly paradigm to a dynamic community of believers, each contributing their unique gifts to the collective well-being.
Redefining Priesthood: A Call to Shared Ministry
The evolution from the Levitical priesthood to the New Testament paradigm invites reflection on the essence of priesthood in the Christian context. Christ's role as the High Priest and ultimate mediator necessitates a departure from hierarchical structures and an embrace of shared ministry. The priesthood of all believers emerges as a powerful concept, wherein each individual is called to embody the principles of service, intercession, and communal support.
As believers navigate the tapestry of faith, it is paramount to recognize the transformative impact of Christ's sacrifice and mediation. The emphasis shifts from an exclusive priestly class to a collective priesthood, where believers are called to offer themselves as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1) and engage in acts of love and service. In this redefined priesthood, the intercession of Christ remains central, while the notion of human intermediaries gives way to a shared ministry that embodies the essence of Christ's teachings.
The Evolution of Ecclesiastical Roles: Revisiting Early Christian Leadership
8 “But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
In the tapestry of early Christianity, the roles and responsibilities within the community were defined by a sense of spiritual fellowship and mutual service. These roles were neither hierarchical nor priestly in nature, reflecting the essence of a community united in faith. As we delve into the annals of history, we encounter a paradigm shift that altered the landscape of Christian leadership, giving rise to the emergence of hierarchical structures and the concept of clergy. This transformation warrants a retrospective exploration to comprehend the evolution of ecclesiastical roles and its impact on the Christian community.
Shepherds Among Equals: Elders and Their Role
In the earliest Christian congregations, the term "elder" held a significance deeply rooted in the pastoral metaphor of a shepherd. These spiritual overseers, sometimes referred to as "bishops," fulfilled a role akin to shepherds, ensuring the well-being and spiritual nourishment of the community. Their responsibilities extended to the realm of spiritual guidance, offering solace and guidance to fellow believers. It's crucial to acknowledge that these elders did not assume the role of intermediaries between humanity and the divine, ascribed to priests in conventional religious frameworks.
Deacons: Guardians of Physical Well-being
Complementing the spiritual nurturing provided by elders, "deacons" took on the mantle of attending to the practical needs of the community. Their role encompassed addressing the physical well-being of the congregation, mirroring the holistic nature of Christian care. While the focus of elders was directed towards spiritual matters, deacons embraced the task of tending to the physical needs of their fellow believers. This duality of responsibilities, guided by the principles of mutual service, fostered a sense of unity and camaraderie within the Christian community.
The Absence of a Clergy Class: Early Christian Equality
A striking feature of early Christian congregations was the absence of a distinct clergy class. The teachings of Jesus emphasized the equality of believers, with a singular leader, the Christ. This principle resonated throughout the community, leading to a model of shared leadership and mutual accountability. No single individual was designated to occupy a position of supreme authority, nor were they vested with the exclusive role of intercession or mediation. Instead, the ethos of brotherhood prevailed, unifying believers as equals on their spiritual journey.
The Shift towards Hierarchy: Unraveling Apostolic Warnings
As the pages of history turned, a transformation began to take shape within the Christian landscape. The emergence of hierarchical structures and the delineation of clergy roles marked a departure from the early communal spirit. Apostolic warnings against 'lording it over' the congregation took on an increasingly poignant relevance as the apostasy unfolded. The egalitarian ethos that once defined Christian communities gradually gave way to the ascendancy of hierarchical leadership, altering the essence of fellowship and shared responsibility.
A Glimpse into the Past, a Call for Reflection
Exploring the evolution of early Christian leadership invites us to reflect on the dynamics of ecclesiastical roles and their evolution. The transition from a communal model of shared service to hierarchical structures carries profound implications for the nature of Christian fellowship. As we revisit the principles that underpinned the original blueprint of Christian leadership, we are beckoned to consider the significance of unity, mutual service, and the absence of an intermediary clergy class. In a world that often echoes with the voices of hierarchy, the echoes of the early Christian ethos remind us of the power of collective spiritual endeavor and the intrinsic worth of every believer.
The Evolution of Christian Authority: Valentinianism and the Challenge to Orthodox HierarchyThe early centuries of Christianity witnessed a transformative journey from a fluid, egalitarian approach to an established hierarchical structure. The emergence of an organized Christian institution, marked by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, signified a departure from the diverse and decentralized early Christian communities. This shift is illuminated in Elaine Pagels' book "The Gnostic Gospels," where the evolution of authority and the divergence of Gnostic thought, particularly Valentinianism, are explored.
By the year A.D. 200, Christianity had undergone a significant transformation, with a hierarchical structure firmly in place. Bishops, priests, and deacons assumed roles of authority within the organized church, asserting themselves as the custodians of the "true faith." This institutionalization marked a departure from the earlier ethos of communal brotherhood and spiritual exploration that characterized early Christian communities.
Elaine Pagels highlights a critical perspective on this development, particularly through the lens of Gnostic thought. Gnosticism, including the followers of Valentinus, challenged the conventional interpretation of apostolic teachings and the authority vested in church officials. While some Gnostic groups did not fundamentally oppose the roles of priests and bishops, they viewed the church's teachings and hierarchy as insufficient for those who had attained gnosis – a profound, experiential knowledge of the divine.
In the Gnostic view, gnosis transcended the authority of the church's hierarchy. Gnosis offered a theological justification for individuals to question and even resist obedience to bishops and priests. Gnostics saw these church leaders as earthly representatives of the demiurge, the lower deity responsible for the material world. This perception detached the gnostic from the authoritative control of the church officials, as the initiate believed they had been "redeemed" from the limitations of the material world and its rulers.
According to Tertullian, "Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood." ( Tertullian Against the Valentinians 1) He goes on to relate that even women could take the role of bishop, much to his horror.
Einar Thomassen's insights shed light on the organization of the Valentinian church, providing a deeper understanding of the movement's distinct approach to hierarchy and leadership. Valentinian congregations convened on Sundays, engaging in liturgical practices that fostered a high level of member participation. This participatory ethos was reflected in the rotational nature of liturgical tasks, allowing different members, regardless of their status, to assume different roles. Tertullian's commentary, cited in Thomassen's work, emphasizes the fluidity of roles within Valentinian communities, where a person could transition from being a bishop one day to a layman or a reader the next. Even women could take on leadership roles, illustrating the movement's disregard for traditional gender limitations.
The Valentinian perspective, as elucidated by Pagels and Thomassen, challenges the prevailing orthodox hierarchy by promoting a more dynamic and inclusive approach to leadership. The Valentinians' emphasis on gnosis, personal transformation, and the autonomy of individual experience positions them in stark contrast to the institutionalized structure of the broader Christian church. This divergence speaks to the diverse currents of thought within early Christianity and the multiplicity of interpretations that shaped the evolving religious landscape.
In conclusion, the evolution of Christian authority from early communal brotherhood to an institutional hierarchy marked a significant shift in the early Christian movement. Gnostic thought, particularly exemplified by Valentinianism, offered a unique perspective that questioned the ultimate authority of bishops and priests, emphasizing individual experience and gnosis as sources of spiritual insight. Valentinian congregations, with their participatory liturgical practices and fluid leadership roles, presented an alternative model that challenged the orthodox ecclesiastical structure. These diverse interpretations reflect the rich tapestry of early Christian thought, with Valentinianism standing as a testament to the dynamic evolution of religious authority and practice.
The Jew Priesthood in Gnostic Gospels Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Priesthood: Unraveling Religious Dynamics
The religious and social landscape of ancient Judea was marked by intricate dynamics among various Jewish sects and groups. Among these, the Pharisees and Sadducees held distinct roles and perspectives, often reflecting the broader social and religious tensions of their time. Their interactions with the concept of priesthood provide valuable insights into the intricate tapestry of religious practices and beliefs during this era.
The Pharisees: A Voice of the People
The Pharisees emerged as a prominent Jewish religious party known for their adherence to religious traditions and interpretations of the Law. Their name is derived from the Hebrew word "perushim," meaning "separatists" or "devoted ones." Josephus, a Jewish historian, noted that the Pharisees garnered substantial support and goodwill from the common people. They emphasized personal piety, the observance of ritual purity, and the study of the Law.
In the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John, references to the Pharisees underscore their presence as a religious and social force during the time of Jesus. These references provide glimpses into the interactions between Jesus and the religious authorities of his day, including the Pharisees.
The Sadducees: Guardians of Priestly Privileges
Contrasting the popular influence of the Pharisees were the Sadducees, an elite and aristocratic Jewish sect. The Sadducees were closely associated with the priestly class and controlled the Temple in Jerusalem. Their authority was rooted in the priestly privileges established since the time of Solomon, with Zadok, their ancestor, officiating as High Priest.
The word priest is used in the gospel of Philip in relation to the Jewish priesthood:
If some are in the tribe of the priesthood, these shall be permitted to enter within the veil (of the Temple) with the High Priest. Therefore the veil was not torn at the top only, else it would have been opened only for those who are above; nor was it torn at the bottom only, else it would have been revealed only to those who are below. But rather it was torn from the top to the bottom. Those who are above opened to us who are below, in order that we shall enter into the secret of the truth. (Gospel of Philip)
The Gospel of Philip and the Second Apocalypse of James evoke the imagery of the priesthood, particularly in relation to the inner sanctum of the Temple. The Gospel of Philip uses the concept of the veil torn from top to bottom as a metaphorical representation of a revelation accessible to both those "above" and "below." This imagery invokes a connection between the priesthood and divine revelation.
The Gospel of Philip employs this symbolism to highlight the transformative nature of Christ's redemptive work. By tearing the veil, Christ is portrayed as opening a direct pathway to divine revelation and spiritual communion for all believers, irrespective of their position "above" or "below." This concept aligns with the notion of the priesthood of all believers, wherein each individual has direct access to God's presence without the need for hierarchical intermediaries.
This shift in access to divine revelation is integral to understanding the teachings of Christ and the implications of his sacrifice. The torn veil signifies the dismantling of the exclusive priestly role in mediating between God and humanity. Instead, Christ himself becomes the ultimate High Priest, granting believers immediate and unrestricted access to the mysteries of God.
In this new paradigm, the veil's tearing becomes a metaphorical representation of the removal of spiritual barriers, inviting believers into a deeper relationship with God. The concept of the veil being torn underscores the transformational nature of Christ's ministry, which emphasizes direct communion, divine knowledge, and personal revelation for all who follow his teachings.
The Role of Priests and Scribes
In the Second Apocalypse of James, the figure of Mareim, identified as a priest and scribe, gains prominence as the recorder of the words of James the Just. This sheds light on the role of scribes and priests in preserving and transmitting religious teachings. The interactions and discussions among these figures provide insight into the religious debates and dialogues of their time.
A Complex Tapestry of Beliefs and Practices
The references to Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, and scribes in ancient texts reflect the complexity of religious beliefs and practices during the period. These interactions highlight the diverse perspectives that shaped the religious landscape of the time of Jesus and the early Christian era.
While the concept of the priesthood was deeply intertwined with the Temple and its rituals, the emergence of Christianity brought about a significant paradigm shift. The role of Christ as the ultimate High Priest, as expounded in the New Testament, transformed the understanding of priesthood and mediation. As a result, the hierarchical priestly system gave way to the priesthood of all believers, emphasizing direct access to God through Christ.
Priest or Holy Man
114 The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?
In the Coptic the word "priest" is not used, the word used is a "holy man" or a "saint" it is a dishonest translation to use the word "priest" it changes the meaning of the text. The Valentinians did not have a priesthood.
The correct word to be used is "holy man" or "saint" this is seen from the translations by Thomas Paterson Brown and R. McL. Wilson:
The holy man is holy altogether, down to his body. For if he has received the bread he .will make it holy, or the cup, or anything else that he receives, purifying them. And how will he not purify the body also? (Gospel of Philip R. McL. Wilson Translation)
The ancient texts of Gnosticism hold within their verses a treasure trove of insights into the nature of existence, the divine, and the human experience. Yet, like any ancient wisdom, the meanings of these texts can be elusive, requiring careful consideration and accurate translation. Among these texts, one verse has been a source of intrigue and contemplation – a passage that mentions the term "priest" in the context of consecration and holiness. However, as we delve deeper into the historical context and linguistic nuances, it becomes evident that the term "priest" has been inaccurately attributed, casting a shadow on the true essence of the Valentinian perspective.
Diverging Paths: The Misinterpretation of "Priest"
The verse in question reads: "The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?" At first glance, the term "priest" appears to align with established religious conceptions, conjuring images of intermediaries between the divine and humanity. Yet, within the intricate tapestry of Gnostic thought, a different truth beckons to be uncovered.
The key to unraveling this mystery lies within the Coptic language itself. A careful examination reveals that the word "priest" is conspicuously absent, replaced instead by the terms "holy man" or "saint." This linguistic shift is far from arbitrary; it is a conscious choice that resonates more harmoniously with the essence of Gnostic philosophy. To employ the term "priest" in translation is to introduce an unintended distortion, altering the true intention of the text and veiling the Valentinian perspective.
Rediscovering Authenticity: The Gnostic Path of Personal Holiness
In essence, the Valentinian tradition did not adhere to the conventional concept of priesthood. It sought to illuminate the individual's innate capacity for direct spiritual connection and personal transformation. The translations by Thomas Paterson Brown and R. McL. Wilson offer a glimpse into this profound truth, articulating that the holy man, in the purity of his being, possesses the power to sanctify elements and purify his own body. This understanding reaffirms the Gnostic belief in the inherent potential of every individual to channel divine energy and consecrate the mundane, transcending the need for a priestly intermediary.
The Historical Context: Valentinian Congregations and Autonomy
Delving further into the historical context, the words of Tertullian provide a crucial perspective. He astutely notes, "Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood." This observation unveils a fundamental truth about Valentinian congregations – they were structured autonomously, devoid of a rigid priestly hierarchy.
This autonomy underscores the essence of Gnostic philosophy, which champions the direct relationship between the individual and the divine. The absence of a fixed priestly class allows each seeker to engage with the spiritual journey uniquely, unencumbered by external intermediaries.
Some Gnostic texts refer to the Catholic Priesthood:
The Gospel of Judas
THE DISCIPLES SEE THE TEMPLE AND DISCUSS IT They [said, “We have seen] a great [house with a large] altar [in it, and] twelve men— they are the priests, we would say—and a name; and a crowd of people is waiting at that altar, [until] the priests [… and receive] the offerings. [But] we kept waiting.” [Jesus said], “What are [the priests] like?” They [said, “Some …] two weeks; [some] sacrifice their own children, others their wives, in praise [and] humility with each other; some sleep with men; some are involved in [slaughter]; some commit a multitude of sins and deeds of lawlessness. And the men who stand [before] the altar invoke your [name], [39] and in all the deeds of their deficiency, the sacrifices are brought to completion […].” After they said this, they were quiet, for they were troubled.
JESUS OFFERS AN ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION OF THE TEMPLE Jesus said to them, “Why are you troubled? Truly I say to you, all the priests who stand before that altar invoke my name. Again I say to you, my name has been written on this […] of the generations of the stars through the human generations. [And they] have planted trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner.” Jesus said to them, “Those you have seen receiving the offerings at the altar—that is who you are. That is the god you serve, and you are those twelve men you have seen. The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray [40] before that altar. […] will stand and make use of my name in this way, and generations of the pious will remain loyal to him. After him another man will stand there from [the fornicators], and another [will] stand there from the slayers of children, and another from those who sleep with men, and those who abstain, and the rest of the people of pollution and lawlessness and error, and those who say, ‘We are like angels’; they are the stars that bring everything to its conclusion. For to the human generations it has been said, ‘Look, God has received your sacrifice from the hands of a priest’—that is, a minister of error. But it is the Lord, the Lord of the universe, who commands, ‘On the last day they will be put to shame.’” [41] Jesus said [to them], “Stop sac[rificing …] which you have […] over the altar, since they are over your stars and your angels and have already come to their conclusion there. So let them be [ensnared] before you, and let them go [—about 15 lines missing—] generations […]. A baker cannot feed all creation [42] under [heaven]. And […] to them […] and […] to us and […]. Jesus said to them, “Stop struggling with me. Each of you has his own star, and every[body—about 17 lines missing—] [43] in […] who has come [… spring] for the tree […] of this aeon […] for a time […] but he has come to water God’s paradise, and the [generation] that will last, because [he] will not defile the [walk of life of] that generation, but […] for all eternity.” (Gospel of Judas)
The Apcapsel of Peter
And as he was saying these things, I saw the priests and the people running up to us with stones, as if they would kill us; and I was afraid that we were going to die.
And he said to me, "Peter, I have told you many times that they are blind ones who have no guide.
If you want to know their blindness, put your hands upon (your) eyes - your robe - and say what you see."
But when I had done it, I did not see anything. I said "No one sees (this way)."
Again he told me, "Do it again."
And there came in me fear with joy, for I saw a new light greater than the light of day. Then it
came down upon the Savior. And I told him about those things which I saw.
And he said to me again, "Lift up your hands and listen to what the priests and the people are
saying."
And I listened to the priests as they sat with the scribes. The multitudes were shouting with their voice.
When he heard these things from me he said to me, "Prick up your ears and listen to the things they are saying."
And I listened again, "As you sit, they are praising you".
And when I said these things, the Savior said, "I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge." (The Apcapsel of Peter)
The Gnostic Critique of the Catholic Priesthood: Insights from Ancient Texts
Gnostic texts from the early centuries of Christianity provide a fascinating glimpse into the movement's perspectives on the established Catholic priesthood. These texts, such as "The Gospel of Judas" and "The Apocapsel of Peter," offer a critical and challenging view of the religious authorities of their time. By examining these texts, we can gain insights into the Gnostic critique of the Catholic priesthood and its hierarchical structure.
"The Gospel of Judas" presents a vivid description of a temple vision in which the disciples witness a scene with priests performing various ritualistic acts. The text portrays the priests as individuals who engage in questionable practices, including sacrifices, immoral behavior, and a range of sins. This depiction serves to highlight the perceived corruption and moral deficiencies within the priesthood.
The character of Jesus in "The Gospel of Judas" responds to the disciples' observations by revealing a deeper, allegorical interpretation of the vision. Jesus suggests that the priests' actions are symbolic of the broader spiritual condition of humanity. He identifies the priests with the flawed, earthly rulers and powers who mislead and deceive. This interpretation reflects the Gnostic belief in the material world's fallen nature and the influence of lower, ignorant deities.
Furthermore, the passage indicates that those with true gnosis – a profound spiritual knowledge – transcend the authority of the priests and their earthly rituals. Gnostics are encouraged to rise above the limitations imposed by the priests' teachings and practices, embodying a more authentic and spiritual understanding of their existence.
"The Apocapsel of Peter" similarly critiques the spiritual blindness and ignorance of the religious authorities. The text describes a scene where Peter, a disciple of Jesus, is shown the people's response to the Savior's teachings. The priests and multitudes react with hostility and praise, reflecting the dual nature of human perception. The Savior's response indicates that these authorities are "blind and deaf," incapable of comprehending the deeper truths he imparts.
This Gnostic critique of the Catholic priesthood can be understood in several ways:
Corruption and Deception: Gnostic texts suggest that the priesthood is tainted by corruption, moral compromise, and misguided practices. This aligns with the Gnostic belief in the material world's inherent flaws and the influence of deceptive cosmic powers.
Hierarchy and Control: The Gnostic critique challenges the hierarchical authority of the priests, asserting that those with true gnosis are beyond their control. This undermines the conventional idea of priests as mediators between humanity and the divine.
Spiritual Blindness: Gnosticism emphasizes the importance of inner spiritual awakening and knowledge. The priesthood, as depicted in these texts, is characterized by spiritual blindness, ignorance, and a lack of true understanding.
Transcendence and Authenticity: Gnostic texts encourage believers to rise above the limitations imposed by external religious authorities and rituals, seeking a more direct and authentic connection to the divine.
In conclusion, Gnostic texts such as "The Gospel of Judas" and "The Apocapsel of Peter" offer a unique perspective on the Catholic priesthood and its role within the broader context of spirituality. These texts highlight concerns about corruption, spiritual blindness, and the limitations of hierarchical authority. The Gnostic critique underscores the movement's emphasis on personal gnosis, inner transformation, and a deeper understanding of the mysteries of existence.
The Priesthood of the New Covenant
On Pentecost day of the year 33 C.E., the Law covenant came to an end and the “better covenant,” the new covenant, was inaugurated. (Heb 8:6-9) On that day God made manifest this change by the outpouring of holy spirit. The apostle Peter then explained to the Jews present from many nations that their only salvation now lay in repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ. (Ac 2; Heb 2:1-4) Later, Peter spoke of the Jewish builders rejecting Jesus Christ as the cornerstone and then said to Christians: “But you are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession.’”—1Pe 2:7-9. (Watchtower)
Peter explained also that the new priesthood is “a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1Pe 2:5) Jesus Christ is their great High Priest, and they, like Aaron’s sons, make up the underpriesthood. (Heb 3:1; 8:1) Yet, different from the Aaronic priesthood, which had no part in kingship, kingship and priesthood are combined in this “royal priesthood” of Christ and his joint heirs. (Watchtower)
Wisdom summons you in her goodness, saying, "Come to Me, all of you, O foolish ones, that you may receive a gift, the understanding which is good and excellent. I am giving to you a high-priestly garment which is woven from every (kind of) wisdom." What else is evil death except ignorance? What else is evil darkness except familiarity with forgetfulness? Cast your anxiety upon God alone. Do not become desirous of gold and silver, which are profitless, but clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe; put knowledge on yourself like a crown, and be seated upon a throne of perception. For these are yours, and you will receive them again on high another time. (The Teachings of Silvanus)
In the Teachings of Silvanus from the Nag Hammadi Library we find the author speaking about a "high-priestly garment" which is "woven from every kind of wisdom."
Let Christ alone enter your world, and let him bring to naught all powers which have come upon you. Let him enter the temple which is within you, so that he may cast out all the merchants. Let him dwell in the temple which is within you, and may you become for him a priest and a Levite, entering in purity. (The Teachings of Silvanus)
Revelation 7:7 12,000 from the tribe of Levi,
In the list of 12 tribes in Revelation 7 Joseph replaces Ephraim, suggesting that it is the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), and not natural Israel, to which reference is made. Levi is listed as possessing a tribal inheritance whereas under the Law he had none, suggesting that the Melchizedek priesthood has replaced the Levitical (Ezek. 44:15; Rev. 5;9-10).
The Temple, the naos, only priests could lawfully enter. Both the individual believer (1 Cor. 6:19), as well as
the Ecclesia (Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16) are treated as the Temple, or naos.In the Valentinian Exposition from the Nag Hammadi Library Jesus is the "true High Priest" and "the one who has the authority to enter the Holies of Holies"
When he willed, the First Father revealed himself in him. Since, after all, because of him the revelation is available to the All, I for my part call the All 'the desire of the All'. And he took such a thought concerning the All - I for my part call the thought 'Monogenes'. For now God has brought Truth, the one who glorifies the Root of the All. Thus it is he who revealed himself in Monogenes, and in him he revealed the Ineffable One [...] the Truth. They saw him dwelling in the Monad and in the Dyad and in the Tetrad. He first brought forth Monogenes and Limit. And Limit is the separator of the All and the confirmation of the All, since they are [...] the hundred [...]. He is the Mind [...] the Son. He is completely ineffable to the All, and he is the confirmation and the hypostasis of the All, the silent veil, the true High Priest, the one who has the authority to enter the Holies of Holies, revealing the glory of the Aeons and bringing forth the abundance to <fragrance>. The East [...] that is in Him. He is the one who revealed himself as the primal sanctuary and the treasury of the All. And he encompassed the All, he who is higher than the All. (A Valentinian Exposition)
According to Herakleon, the Fullness is "the Holy of Holies, into which only the High-Priest enters, into which the spiritual go" (Herakleon Fragment 13). The Gospel of Philip links the opening provided by Christ with the tearing of the veil at the time of Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51). According to Philip,
"If others belong to the order of the priesthood they will be able to enter within the veil with the High Priest. For this reason the veil was not torn at the top only, since it would have been open only to those above; nor was it torn at the bottom only, since it would have been revealed only to those below. But rather it was torn from top to bottom. The upper realm was opened to us in the lower realm, in order that we may enter into the hidden realm of Truth....The Holies of the Holies was uncovered, and the Bridal Chamber invites us in. " (Gospel of Philip 105).
It's evident from the statements and discussions you've provided that there is a wide range of opinions and perspectives within the realm of modern Gnosticism. This diversity reflects the complexity of Gnostic thought and its interpretation in contemporary times. Here are some key points that emerge from these statements:
Diversity and Misconceptions: Many individuals express concerns about the authenticity of modern Gnosticism and the presence of individuals who may not fully understand or represent its core principles. Misconceptions about Gnosticism's true nature, practices, and teachings appear to be prevalent, and some feel that certain groups or individuals may be distorting Gnostic ideas for various purposes.
Variety of Paths: The statements suggest that there are various interpretations and practices within modern Gnostic circles. Some individuals highlight the diverse array of groups, teachers, and teachings that claim the Gnostic label. This variety often leads to debates and disagreements about what constitutes true Gnosticism.
Relationship with Established Religions: The discussions often touch upon the relationship between Gnosticism and established religions, particularly Roman Catholicism. Some express reservations about the overlap between Gnostic and Catholic practices, while others emphasize the distinctiveness of Gnostic thought and its departure from traditional religious norms.
Skepticism of Leaders and Teachers: There seems to be skepticism toward certain Gnostic leaders, teachers, and figures. Some express concerns about potential motivations, commercialization, and the genuineness of their teachings. Critical examination of leaders and their teachings is encouraged to ensure a sincere and accurate understanding of Gnostic principles.
Individual Exploration and Self-Knowledge: Many emphasize the importance of self-knowledge, personal exploration, and direct experience as central to Gnostic practice. The notion that Gnosis is about understanding and connecting with higher truths through individual experience is emphasized by various individuals.
Rejection of Traditional Structures: Some express skepticism toward the need for traditional religious structures, such as priests or intermediaries. The idea that personal gnosis negates the need for external authority is a recurring theme in the discussions.
Positive Potential of Gnosis: Despite differing viewpoints, there is an acknowledgment of the transformative potential of Gnostic insights. Some believe that Gnosis has the power to bring about positive change, both individually and collectively, by illuminating higher truths and breaking away from societal norms.
In conclusion, these statements illustrate the complexity and diversity within modern Gnostic circles. While some individuals express concerns about the authenticity and motivations of certain groups or figures, others highlight the potential for positive transformation through genuine Gnostic exploration. The discussions underscore the importance of critical thinking, discernment, and a nuanced understanding of Gnostic principles in navigating this spiritual terrain.
