The Meaning and Function of the Archon
The word archon is a Greek noun (ἄρχων), masculine in form, and rooted in the verb archein, meaning “to rule,” “to begin,” or “to have authority.” In its most basic sense, the term signifies a ruler, chief, or one who exercises authority over others. In Greek society, the archons were principal magistrates, men entrusted with governing civic life, administering justice, and maintaining order within the polis. Their authority was not symbolic but active, expressed through law, judgment, and administration. Thus, from its earliest usage, the word archon conveys the idea of structured authority within an ordered system.
The definition of archon extends naturally from this civic context into broader usage. It signifies “a ruler, governor, leader, leading man; with the Jews, an official member (a member of the executive) of the assembly of elders.” The term is also applied to civil magistrates and government officials in general, as seen in the New Testament: “archon is also applied to civil magistrates and government officials in general. (Ac 16:19, 20; Ro 13:3).” In these passages, the word refers not to abstract authority but to concrete individuals who wield power within human institutions.
A corresponding concept appears in Hebrew usage. The Hebrew word seghanim, translated as “rulers” (KJ), “deputies” (Ro), or “deputy rulers” (NW), refers to subordinate officials under imperial authority. These figures operated under larger governing powers such as the Persian Empire and are referenced in passages like Nehemiah 2:16 and 5:7. The same term is also used for those holding authority under the kings of Media, Assyria, and Babylon (Jeremiah 51:28; Ezekiel 23:12, 23). Thus, both Greek and Hebrew traditions recognize a structured hierarchy of rulership, in which authority is distributed across levels—from supreme rulers to subordinate governors.
In the New Testament, the term archon takes on an expanded and more complex meaning. It is not confined to human rulers but is also applied to spiritual authorities. The phrase “ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων” (“the ruler of the demons”) appears in Matthew 9:34, Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22, and Luke 11:15, referring to the chief over evil spirits. Likewise, the expression “ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου” (“the ruler of the world”) appears in John 12:31, John 14:30, and John 16:11. Here, the term denotes a governing power over the present order of human society, particularly in its opposition to righteousness.
These usages show that archon is not limited to political authority but extends into the structure of the cosmos itself. It signifies ruling powers that govern systems—whether civic, religious, or cosmic. The term therefore bridges visible and invisible realms, applying equally to earthly magistrates and to higher governing forces.
Within Valentinian sources, the concept of the archon is developed further and placed within a structured cosmology. Here, the universe is depicted as an ordered system of powers, divided into distinct categories. According to these sources, the Demiurge dwells above the seventh heaven and rules over the planetary angels, who are themselves formed of soul. Beneath this structure lies the domain of the material world, which is ruled by the Devil and his archons. These archons are not abstract forces but rulers—governing powers that exercise authority within their respective domain.
The texts emphasize a continual conflict between opposing orders of authority. On one side stands the Demiurge and the powers of the “right”; on the other side stand the Devil and the archons of the “left.” This opposition is not passive but active, characterized by ongoing struggle. As it is written: “They are the ‘wrath which fights against them (the evil ones) and the turning away from them’ (Tripartite Tractate 130:16-17).” The powers are thus engaged in a dynamic conflict, each seeking to assert dominance according to its nature.
This division of powers is further clarified in the Excerpts of Theodotus: “the powers are of different kinds: some are benevolent, some malevolent, some right, some left” (Excerpts of Theodotus 71:2). The distinction is not merely moral but structural. It reflects two opposing orders within the cosmos, each governed by its own rulers. The archons belong to the “left,” associated with opposition, disorder, and the material condition. The powers of the “right,” under the Demiurge, are aligned with order and governance but are not themselves ultimate.
The imagery used to describe these opposing powers is vivid and concrete. Theodotus writes: “the Demiurge and those on the right are ‘like soldiers fighting on our side as servants of God’ while the Devil and the powers of the left are ‘like brigands’ (Excerpts of Theodotus 72:2).” The archons, therefore, are depicted as hostile rulers—figures who exercise authority in a destructive or oppositional manner, in contrast to the more orderly governance of the Demiurge and his angels.
Yet the authority of the Demiurge and the powers of the right is limited. Their role, though protective, is insufficient for complete deliverance. Theodotus explains this limitation in a striking passage:
“Now because of the opponents who attack the soul through the body and outward things and pledge it to slavery, the ones on the right (the Demiurge and his angels) are not sufficient to follow and rescue and guard us. For their providential power is not perfect like the Good Shepherd's but each one is like a mercenary who sees the wolf coming and flees and is not zealous to give up his life for the sheep” (Excerpts of Theodotus 73:1-2).
This statement highlights a key aspect of the Valentinian understanding of authority. Not all rulers possess equal power or effectiveness. Even those aligned with order and governance—the Demiurge and his angels—are limited in their ability to protect and save. Their authority is real but incomplete, lacking the fullness required to overcome the opposing powers entirely.
The archons, by contrast, are persistent adversaries. They operate through the material condition, attacking through the body and external circumstances. Their rulership is expressed through influence over the visible and tangible aspects of existence. In this sense, the term archon retains its original meaning: a ruler who governs a domain. The difference lies in the nature of that domain and the character of the rule exercised within it.
The symbolic representation of these opposing orders is illustrated in the account of Cain and Abel. In Valentinian interpretation, these figures are not merely historical individuals but archetypes representing two distinct kinds of being. Cain represents the material order, associated with the “left,” while Abel represents the soul-dominated order, associated with the “right.”
The Tripartite Tractate states that the material order, represented by Cain, “belong to a nature of falsehood” (Tripartite Tractate 82:18). This indicates that the domain governed by the archons is characterized by instability and opposition to truth. It is a realm in which authority exists but is misdirected or corrupted.
By contrast, the soul-dominated order, represented by Abel, is described as “more honored than the first ones” (Tripartite Tractate 83:36-84:1). This suggests a hierarchy within creation, in which different levels of being correspond to different forms of governance. The archons, as rulers of the material domain, occupy a lower position within this hierarchy, despite their active authority.
The conflict between Cain and Abel is thus understood as a symbolic representation of the broader cosmic struggle. As the Tripartite Tractate explains: “As they brought forth at first according to their own birth, the two orders assaulted one another, fighting for command because of their manner of being” (Tripartite Tractate 84:6-11). This passage captures the essence of the archonic role: they are rulers engaged in a struggle for dominance, asserting authority within a divided and contested system.
The concept of the archon, therefore, encompasses several key elements. First, it denotes authority—real, operative, and structured. Whether in Greek civic life, Hebrew administration, or New Testament usage, the term consistently refers to those who govern. Second, it implies hierarchy. Archons are not isolated figures but part of an ordered system, whether earthly or cosmic. Third, it involves conflict. In Valentinian thought, the archons are not neutral administrators but participants in an ongoing struggle between opposing powers.
At its core, the idea of the archon reflects the existence of order within multiplicity. Authority is distributed, exercised, and contested across different levels of existence. The term captures both the structure of governance and the dynamic tension within that structure.
In conclusion, the word archon carries a rich and layered meaning. From its origins in Greek civic life as a title for magistrates, it expands into a broader concept of rulership that encompasses both human and cosmic domains. In the New Testament, it is applied to spiritual rulers, including the “ruler of the demons” and the “ruler of the world.” In Valentinian sources, it becomes a central term for understanding the structure of the cosmos, particularly the role of opposing powers within the material domain.
The archons are rulers—chiefs who govern, exert influence, and participate in the ongoing struggle for authority. Their role is defined not only by power but by position within a larger system. Whether as civil magistrates, subordinate deputies, or cosmic rulers, they embody the principle of governance within an ordered yet contested reality.
The Archons
The mythology of ancient Greece presents a structured vision of reality populated by gods, daemons, and heroes. Within this framework, authority is not absent but fundamental. The idea of ruling powers appears even within philosophical developments, as seen in the expression “Θεοὶ ἄρχοντες (ruling gods)” in the subsequent philosophy of Plato. Here, divine beings are not merely symbolic figures but rulers—governing intelligences that preside over ordered systems. This establishes an early connection between divinity and rulership, a connection that later becomes central to the concept of the archons.
The term archon itself means “ruler,” “chief,” or “governor,” and it consistently denotes authority exercised within a structured domain. This meaning is not confined to Greek mythology or philosophy but extends into historical and political realities. In the first century, Palestine existed under a dual system of governance. It was subject to the overarching authority of the Roman Empire while also maintaining internal administration through Jewish rulers. The chief governing body among the Jews was the Great Sanhedrin, a council of seventy elders entrusted with limited authority over Jewish affairs.
Within this structure, rulers were recognized as legitimate authorities. The Gospel accounts refer to these figures directly: “It is to the Jewish rulers that reference is made at John 7:26, 48; Nicodemus was one of these. (Joh 3:1).” Nicodemus is specifically identified as a ruler, illustrating how the term archon applies to individuals within a defined governing body. Likewise, leadership within local communities followed the same pattern: “A presiding officer of the synagogue was called an arkhon. (Compare Mt 9:18 and Mr 5:22.)” The concept of rulership was therefore embedded at multiple levels—imperial, national, and local.
The Law itself affirmed the legitimacy of such authority: “The Law commanded respect for rulers. (Ac 23:5).” Authority was not inherently corrupt but part of an ordered system intended to maintain structure and governance. However, this same system could become distorted. The texts note that “the Jewish rulers became corrupt and are mentioned as the ones on whom the chief blame rested for Jesus Christ’s death.—Lu 23:13, 35; 24:20; Ac 3:17; 13:27, 28.” Thus, the concept of the archon includes both rightful authority and the possibility of its misuse.
This duality—authority as both necessary and potentially corrupt—becomes more pronounced when the concept of archons is extended beyond human governance into cosmic structures. In the framework of the lower aeons, the archons are described as rulers of a defined cosmic region. These are not abstract principles but governing powers associated with the structure of the heavens.
“The rulers of the Lower Aeons” are identified with a specific system: seven heavenly archons associated with the seven planetary heavens. This system is often referred to as the Hebdomad, a term denoting the number seven. The Hebdomad corresponds to the sevenfold structure of the heavens, each level governed by a distinct ruling power. These rulers are also identified with the seven archangels, indicating a structured hierarchy in which authority is distributed across levels.
In this cosmological model, each archon is connected to one of the seven classical planets. Their role is not passive but active: “the archons are rulers, each related to one of seven planets; they prevent souls from leaving the material realm.” This function defines their authority. They act as gatekeepers, maintaining the boundaries of their domain and restricting movement beyond it. Their rulership is therefore expressed through control, limitation, and enforcement.
This idea is not unique to one system but appears in multiple traditions. In Manichaeism, for example, the archons are described as rulers within a realm of darkness: “In Manichaeism, the archons are the rulers of a realm within the ‘Kingdom of Darkness’, who together make up the Prince of Darkness.” Here again, the archons are not symbolic but functional rulers, governing a specific domain characterized by opposition and constraint.
The multiplicity of titles attributed to the archons further illustrates the nature of their role. They are “also called rulers, governors, authorities, guards, gate keepers, robbers, toll collectors, detainers, judges, pitiless ones, adulterers, man-eaters, corpse-eaters, fishermen.” Each of these terms highlights a different aspect of their function. As rulers and governors, they exercise authority. As guards and gatekeepers, they control access and enforce boundaries. As toll collectors and detainers, they impose restrictions and extract from those under their control. As judges, they administer decisions, often without mercy, as suggested by the term “pitiless ones.”
The more severe descriptions—“robbers,” “man-eaters,” and “corpse-eaters”—emphasize the oppressive or destructive aspects of their rule. These terms are not to be understood superficially but as symbolic expressions of their function within the system. They consume, restrain, and dominate, maintaining control over the realm they govern. The image of “fishermen” is particularly striking, suggesting the act of capturing and holding, reinforcing the idea that souls are caught within their domain.
The presence of such imagery leads to an important observation: “there is a lot of mythology that is attached to the archons.” These descriptions are often conveyed through symbolic language, narratives, and parables. However, this does not imply that the concept itself is unreal. Rather, it indicates that the truth is communicated in a coded form. As stated, “sometimes parables and mythologies are a code to hide the truth,” and again, “mythology is a code to hide the truth.”
This perspective suggests that mythological language functions as a veil, concealing deeper structures of reality. The archons, therefore, are not merely figures of imagination but representations of governing powers expressed through symbolic narratives. The use of myth allows complex ideas about authority, structure, and opposition to be communicated in a form that is both memorable and layered with meaning.
When viewed in this way, the various descriptions of the archons—whether as planetary rulers, cosmic authorities, or oppressive forces—can be understood as different expressions of the same underlying concept. They are rulers within a structured system, exercising authority over a defined domain. Their role is to govern, to control, and to maintain the order of the realm they inhabit.
At the same time, the tradition consistently emphasizes the limitations and distortions of their rule. Just as human rulers can become corrupt, so too can cosmic rulers exercise authority in ways that restrict and oppress. The archons embody this tension. They are necessary for the structure of the system, yet they also represent the constraints imposed within that system.
In conclusion, the concept of the archons unites several strands of thought—Greek philosophy, historical governance, and cosmological structure—into a single framework centered on the idea of rulership. From the “Θεοὶ ἄρχοντες” of philosophical tradition to the rulers of the Sanhedrin, and from the planetary governors of the Hebdomad to the powers of the Kingdom of Darkness, the archons are consistently defined by their authority.
They are rulers, governors, and enforcers of order within their domain. They act as gatekeepers, maintaining boundaries and restricting movement. They are described through a wide range of titles, each reflecting a different aspect of their function. And through myth and parable, their role is conveyed in a coded form, preserving deeper truths beneath symbolic language.
Thus, the archons stand as figures of authority within a structured and contested reality—rulers whose power defines the limits and conditions of the realm they govern.
ARCHONS
The archons are consistently presented in ancient texts as rulers—governing powers who exercise authority within a structured system. Yet their rule is not described in simple political terms alone. Rather, a wide range of symbolic images is used to describe their function, each revealing a different aspect of their activity. These images—toll collectors, judges, governors, robbers, and more—are not random but form a coherent portrayal of how authority operates within the lower order.
One of the most striking descriptions presents the archons as toll collectors stationed along a journey. In this imagery, ascent is not free or open but obstructed by powers that demand passage. As it is written: “...three of them will seize you - they who sit (there) as toll collectors...” (First Apocalypse of James). Likewise, another text states: “The toll-collector who dwells in the fourth heaven replied, saying...” (Apocalypse of Paul). These passages depict the archons as stationed at specific levels, each exercising authority over a boundary. Their role is to intercept, question, and detain. The image of toll collection implies not only control but also extraction—something must be given, or passage is denied.
Closely related to this is the role of the archons as judges. Judgment is an expression of authority, particularly in determining guilt and administering consequences. The fear associated with such judgment is evident in the prayer of James at the moment of death: “Do not give me into the hand of a judge who is severe with sin!” (First Apocalypse of James). Here, the archons are not neutral arbiters but severe authorities, whose judgments are harsh and unforgiving. This reinforces the idea that their rule is characterized by strict enforcement rather than mercy.
The archons are also described in more administrative terms, as governors and officials who manage and oversee their domain. As it is written: “The governors and the administrators possess garments granted only for a time, which do not last.” (Dialogue of the Saviour). This passage introduces an important limitation: their authority is temporary. Though they appear to hold power, it is not permanent or inherent. Their “garments”—a symbol of office and authority—are granted for a time and will eventually be removed. This suggests that their rulership is contingent and dependent, not ultimate.
Another image portrays the archons as robbers. This description emphasizes the idea of deception and imposition. The text states: “This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man.” (Apocalypse of John). Here, the act of robbing is not merely taking but also imposing—clothing the man with something that binds him. The “bond of forgetfulness” indicates that the archons’ rule involves obscuring knowledge and imposing limitation. Their authority is exercised through concealment and constraint.
The severity of their nature is further expressed in the description of them as pitiless ones. This title conveys the absence of compassion in their rule. As it is written: “I have broken the gates of the pitiless ones” (Sophia of Jesus Christ), and similarly, “the secure gates of those pitiless ones I broke” (Trimorphic Protonoia). The archons are thus associated with gates—barriers that restrict movement—and their pitiless nature indicates that these barriers are enforced without mercy. The breaking of these gates represents a liberation from their control.
The relationship between the archons and the soul is described in deeply personal terms through the image of adultery. The text states: “she (the soul) had given herself to wanton, unfaithful adulterers” (Exegesis on the Soul). In this imagery, the archons are depicted as those who draw the soul into unfaithfulness, leading it away from its proper alignment. This is not merely external control but internal corruption, where the soul becomes entangled through its own actions. The archons’ influence is thus both external and internal, operating through desire as well as force.
A more vivid and forceful image presents the archons as man-eaters and fishermen. The text declares: “For man-eaters will seize us and swallow us, rejoicing like a fisherman casting a hook into the water.” (Authoritative Teaching). This description combines two ideas: consumption and capture. As man-eaters, the archons devour; as fishermen, they ensnare. The act of casting a hook suggests deliberate strategy, while the act of swallowing indicates total domination. The archons are therefore portrayed as actively seeking to capture and consume.
This idea is extended further in the description of them as corpse-eaters. The text explains: “This world is a corpse-eater. All the things eaten in it themselves die also. Truth is a life-eater. Therefore no one nourished by truth will die...” (Gospel of Philip). Here, the archons are associated with a system that consumes what is already dead. The contrast between corpse-eaters and life-eaters establishes two opposing modes of existence. The archons belong to the former, consuming what is perishable and reinforcing the cycle of decay.
The nature of the archons is also defined by what they lack. They are said to possess soul but not spirit. As it is written: “they (the Archons) could not lay hold of that image, which had appeared to them in the waters, because of their weakness - since beings that merely possess a soul cannot lay hold of those that possess a spirit” (Hypostasis of the Archons). This distinction establishes a limitation in their being. They are capable of perception and action, but they lack the capacity to grasp what belongs to a higher order. Their authority is therefore restricted by their nature.
Because of this deficiency, their existence is not complete or enduring. The Tripartite Tractate describes their ultimate fate: “their end will be like their beginning: from that which did not exist (they are) to return once again to that which will not be.” This statement emphasizes the transient nature of their existence. They arise within a certain condition and will eventually pass out of it. Their rule, therefore, is temporary, bounded by both origin and end.
The same text further describes their nature in terms of imitation and reflection: “(The Archons) are their (the Pleromas') likenesses, copies, shadows, and phantasms, lacking reason and the light (...). In the manner of a reflection are they beautiful. For the face of the copy normally takes its beauty from that of which it is a copy.” (Tripartite Tractate). This passage provides a comprehensive description of their ontological status. They are not original but derivative. Their appearance of beauty is borrowed, not inherent. They reflect something higher but do not possess its substance.
This idea of imitation explains both their authority and their limitation. As copies, they retain a form that allows them to govern within their domain. However, as shadows and phantasms, they lack the fullness and clarity of what they imitate. Their rule is therefore real but incomplete, effective within a limited sphere but ultimately dependent on what lies beyond them.
Taken together, these descriptions form a unified picture of the archons. They are rulers who govern through control, restriction, and enforcement. As toll collectors, they regulate passage. As judges, they administer harsh decisions. As governors, they manage their domain with temporary authority. As robbers, they impose limitation and forgetfulness. As pitiless ones, they enforce barriers without mercy. As adulterers, they draw the soul into unfaithfulness. As man-eaters and fishermen, they capture and consume. As corpse-eaters, they participate in a system of decay.
At the same time, they are defined by their limitations. They possess soul but not spirit, and therefore cannot grasp what belongs to a higher order. Their existence is temporary, returning to non-existence as described: “from that which did not exist (they are) to return once again to that which will not be.” They are copies and reflections, lacking the fullness of what they imitate.
These descriptions are often conveyed through symbolic language, yet they consistently point to the same underlying reality: the archons are governing powers within a lower order, exercising authority that is real but limited, structured yet deficient. Their rule defines the conditions of that order, shaping the experience of those within it.
Thus, the archons stand as rulers whose authority is marked by control and constraint, whose nature is defined by deficiency, and whose existence is bounded by both origin and end. Through the imagery of toll collectors, judges, robbers, and more, the texts reveal a complex and layered understanding of rulership—one that is both functional and symbolic, conveying the structure and tension of the system in which the archons operate.
Archons are False Religious Leaders Referring to Bishops and Deacons the Clergy
The concept of the archons, understood as rulers, governors, and authorities, takes on a deeper and more pointed meaning when examined through the lens of religious structures. While the term originally denotes those who hold power, its application within certain texts reveals a specific kind of rulership—one that operates through deception, control, and the manipulation of truth. In this framework, the archons are not merely cosmic rulers but are reflected in earthly institutions, particularly in religious leadership. They appear as false religious leaders—figures who outwardly claim authority over sacred matters but inwardly distort and conceal truth.
A central passage from the Gospel of Philip provides a clear and direct description of the activity of the rulers:
“The rulers wanted to fool people, since they saw that people have a kinship with what is truly good. They took the names of the good and assigned them to what is not good, to fool people with names and link the names to what is not good. So, as if they were doing people a favor, they took names from what is not good and transferred them to the good, in their own way of thinking. For they wished to take free people and enslave them forever.”
This passage establishes the defining characteristic of the archons: deception through language. They do not merely oppose truth directly; rather, they manipulate it. By taking the names of what is good and applying them to what is not good, they create confusion. The deception is subtle, operating not through open denial but through misrepresentation. The result is that people are misled not by ignorance alone but by a distortion of what appears to be truth.
This misuse of names is not incidental but essential. As the text explains elsewhere, truth itself requires names to be communicated: “divine truth ‘brought names into the world for our sake, since it was not possible to show (or: teach) truth without (names)’ (54.15-16).” Names are therefore the medium through which truth is revealed. By corrupting this medium, the archons undermine the very possibility of understanding. Language becomes a tool of concealment rather than revelation.
This distortion extends into religious practice itself. The text indicates that even sacred rites can be subverted. Because the archons have “switched the names,” the terminology used in instruction and initiation may deceive rather than enlighten. Thus, what is presented as instruction in truth may actually bind individuals more deeply into error. The rulers do not reject the forms of religion; they appropriate them.
This is further emphasized in the statement that “the archons plan to use the very media of redemption in order to ‘take the free man and enslave him to themselves forever.’” Here, the most striking element is that the instruments of liberation are turned into instruments of bondage. What is meant to free becomes a means of control. This inversion lies at the heart of the archonic system.
The same text reinforces this idea in another formulation:
“The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.”
This passage highlights both the method and the intention. The method is deception through reversal—calling what is good evil and what is evil good. The intention is enslavement. The archons recognize that human beings have a kinship with what is truly good, and it is precisely this potential that they seek to suppress. By redirecting that inclination toward false representations, they bind individuals to what is not good while giving the appearance of guiding them toward what is good.
This pattern can be understood in relation to religious leadership structures. Those who hold positions such as bishops, deacons, scribes, and Pharisees are entrusted with teaching and guiding others. However, when these roles are occupied by those who distort truth, they function as archons. They become rulers who govern not through genuine understanding but through manipulation and control.
The identification of such figures is reflected in the observation: “[the archons Pharisees and scribes, later Bishops and deacons who did not know their left from their right].” This statement connects the concept of the archons directly to historical and institutional religious authorities. The issue is not the existence of leadership itself but the nature of that leadership. When those in authority lack true understanding, their rulership becomes a source of confusion rather than clarity.
The same idea is reinforced in the critique of their character: “[the ‘rulers’ although having some knowledge of the truth had no love for their brothers and kept it for themselves in selfish pride and covetness].” Here, the problem is not complete ignorance but partial knowledge combined with selfishness. The archons possess some awareness of truth but do not use it for the benefit of others. Instead, they withhold it, using it to maintain their own position and authority.
This aligns with the broader pattern described in the texts: the archons operate by controlling access to knowledge. They position themselves as intermediaries, claiming authority over truth while simultaneously distorting it. In doing so, they create dependence. Those under their authority are led to rely on them for understanding, even as that understanding is corrupted.
The imagery of “beasts” further reinforces this idea. The texts state that “the beasts (θῆρια) are identified with both the things being sacrificed, and the things being sacrificed to,” suggesting that religious systems can become self-serving. The same system that demands sacrifice also benefits from it. In this context, the archons are both the recipients and the enforcers of the system.
This is contrasted with a different kind of reality: “A bridal chamber is not for the beasts, nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women; but it is for free men and virgins.” This statement establishes a clear distinction between two orders. On one side are the beasts—associated with the archons and their system. On the other side are the free. The archonic system is characterized by bondage, while the alternative is characterized by freedom.
The operation of the archons within religious structures can also be understood through the concept of binding. Religion, in this context, becomes a means of binding individuals to systems of control. This is described as “the very nature of ‘religion’, to bind and rebind people to do according to their will which is in opposition to the will of the Father.” The emphasis here is on repetition and reinforcement—binding and rebinding—indicating a continuous process of control.
This process is further associated with the imposition of traditions and doctrines. By adding layers of interpretation and regulation, the rulers create a framework that must be followed. These traditions are presented as authoritative, yet they serve to maintain the power of those who enforce them. The result is a system in which individuals are shaped according to the will of the rulers rather than guided toward truth.
The desire “to ‘lord it over’ men” is identified as a defining characteristic of this system. Authority is exercised not as service but as domination. This aligns with the broader portrayal of the archons as rulers who seek to control and dominate rather than to guide and support.
The statement that they aim to make individuals “become as one of us” further reveals their intention. This phrase suggests the creation of a closed system in which those under authority are gradually conformed to the same pattern. Rather than leading individuals toward what is truly good, the archons reproduce their own condition in others.
This entire structure can be understood as a form of “spiritual thievery.” The rulers take what belongs to others—freedom, understanding, and alignment with what is good—and replace it with something else. They do not create truth but appropriate it, altering it for their own purposes. In doing so, they maintain control over those who depend on them.
The Gospel of Philip presents this system as deliberate and calculated. The rulers “saw that people have a kinship with what is truly good” and acted accordingly. Their actions are not accidental but intentional. They recognize the potential within individuals and seek to redirect it.
At the same time, another passage introduces an important dimension: “The rulers thought they did all they did by their own power and will, but the holy spirit was secretly accomplishing all through them by the spirit’s will.” This statement indicates that the actions of the rulers, while deceptive and controlling, do not exist outside a larger framework. Even their actions are ultimately encompassed within a greater purpose.
This does not negate their role but places it within a broader context. The archons act according to their nature, exercising authority through deception and control. Yet their actions do not operate independently of the larger order. This introduces a tension between their apparent power and their ultimate limitation.
In conclusion, the archons, when understood in this framework, are not merely distant cosmic rulers but are reflected in earthly systems of authority, particularly within religious leadership. They are rulers who manipulate language, distort truth, and use the structures of religion to maintain control. Through the misuse of names, the subversion of sacred practices, and the imposition of doctrines, they bind individuals to systems that appear good but are not.
Their defining characteristic is the desire to enslave: “For they wished to take free people and enslave them forever.” This intention is carried out through subtle and sophisticated means, making their influence difficult to recognize. Yet the texts consistently expose their methods, revealing a pattern of deception, control, and imitation.
Thus, the archons stand as false rulers within religious structures—figures who claim authority over truth while distorting it, and who use that authority to bind rather than to free. Their presence is not limited to myth but is reflected wherever authority is exercised in a way that conceals truth and restricts freedom.
The Gospel of Philip - NHC II,
The Rulers
The rulers wanted to fool people, since they saw that people have a kinship with what is truly good. They took the names of the good and assigned them to what is not good, to fool people with names and link the names to what is not good. So, as if they were doing people a favor, they took names from what is not good and transferred them to the good, in their own way of thinking. For they wished to take free people and enslave them forever.
The Rulers and the Holy Spirit
The rulers thought they did all they did by their own power and will, but the holy spirit was secretly accomplishing all through them by the spirit’s will.
The word archon is a Greek Noun, Masculine. In Greek socitiy the archons, were principal magistrates
Definition: ruler, chief
Usage: a ruler, governor, leader, leading man; with the Jews, an official member (a member of the executive) of the assembly of elders. archon is also applied to civil magistrates and government officials in general. (Ac 16:19, 20; Ro 13:3)
Noted The Hebrew word seghanim´, translated “rulers” (KJ), “deputies” (Ro), “deputy rulers” (NW), is used with reference to subordinate Jewish rulers under the Persian Empire (Ne 2:16; 5:7), also of ones holding authority under the kings of Media, Assyria, and Babylon.—Jer 51:28; Eze 23:12, 23;
of the devil, the prince of evil spirits: (ὁ) ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων, Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15; ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, the ruler of the irreligious mass of mankind, John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11
According to Valentinian sources, the Demiurge dwells above the seventh heaven and rules over the planetary angels who are also formed of soul. The material world is ruled by the Devil and his archons (rulers). The texts emphasize the constant struggle of the Demiurge against the forces of evil. The Demiurge and the powers of the "right" are said to be in a state of constant warfare with the archons (rulers) of the "left" i.e. the Devil and his archons. They are the "wrath which fights against them (the evil ones) and the turning away from them" (Tripartite Tractate 130:16-17). As Theodotus says, "the powers are of different kinds: some are benevolent, some malevolent, some right, some left" (Excerpts of Theodotus 71:2). The Demiurge and those on the right are "like soldiers fighting on our side as servants of God" while the Devil and the powers of the left are "like brigands" (Excerpts of Theodotus 72:2).
The aid of the Demiurge and those on the right is not sufficient to save the individual from sin. As Theodotus says, "Now because of the opponents who attack the soul through the body and outward things and pledge it to slavery, the ones on the right (the Demiurge and his angels) are not sufficient to follow and rescue and guard us. For their providential power is not perfect like the Good Shepherd's but each one is like a mercenary who sees the wolf coming and flees and is not zealous to give up his life for the sheep" (Excerpts of Theodotus 73:1-2).
Cain and Abel are considered to be the archetypal representatives of the material ("left") and the soul-dominated ("right") beings respectively (see Valentinian Exposition 38, Tripartite Tractate 83:6-84:23 cf. Genesis 4:1-24). The material, represented by Cain, was created first during the fall and "belong to a nature of falsehood" (Tripartite Tractate 82:18). The soul, represented by Abel, was created second during Sophia's repentance and is "more honored than the first ones" (Tripartite Tractate 83:36-84:1 cf. Genesis 4:4-5). The strife between Cain and Abel symbolizes the strife between the powers of the "left" (the archons) and those on the "right" (the Demiurge and his angels). As it says in the Tripartite Tractate, "As they brought forth at first according to their own birth, the two orders assaulted one another, fighting for command because of their manner of being" (Tripartite Tractate 84:6-11 cf. Genesis 4:5-8)
The Archons
The mythology of ancient Greece knew gods, daemons, and heroes. Θεοὶ ἄρχοντες (ruling gods) appear in the subsequent philosophy of Plato
Palestine was under the dual rule of the Roman Empire and the Jewish rulers, the chief body of the latter being the Great Sanhedrin, a council of 70 elders to which the Roman government granted limited authority over Jewish affairs. It is to the Jewish rulers that reference is made at John 7:26, 48; Nicodemus was one of these. (Joh 3:1) A presiding officer of the synagogue was called an arkhon. (Compare Mt 9:18 and Mr 5:22.) The Law commanded respect for rulers. (Ac 23:5) However, the Jewish rulers became corrupt and are mentioned as the ones on whom the chief blame rested for Jesus Christ’s death.—Lu 23:13, 35; 24:20; Ac 3:17; 13:27, 28
The rulers of the Lower Aeons
Seven heavenly Archons are associated with the seven planetary heavens. also called the Hebdomad
the hebdomad is the seven archangels
there is a lot of mythology that is attatched to the archons
the archons are rulers, each related to one of seven planets; they prevent souls from leaving the material realm. In Manichaeism, the archons are the rulers of a realm within the 'Kingdom of Darkness', who together make up the Prince of Darkness.
sometimes parables and mythologies are a code to hide the truth
mythology is a code to hide the truth
Also called rulers, governors, authorities, guards, gate keepers, robbers, toll collectors, detainers, judges, pitiless ones, adulterers, man-eaters, corpse-eaters, fishermen
ARCHONS - ALTERNATE NAMES
- As judges: James prays as he dies: “Do not give me into the hand of a judge who is severe with sin!” (First Apocalypse of James)
- As governors and administrators: “The governors and the administrators possess garments granted only for a time, which do not last.” (Dialogue of the Saviour)
- As robbers: “This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man.” (Apocalypse of John)
- In the sense of man-eaters, the Archons are also corpse-eaters. They eat the dead (the non-Elect) while the angels of the Upper Aeons, as truth, eat the living (the Elect) as they ascend: “This world is a corpse-eater. All the things eaten in it themselves die also. Truth is a life-eater. Therefore no one nourished by truth will die...” (Gospel of Philip)
- Archons have souls, but no spirit: “they (the Archons) could not lay hold of that image, which had appeared to them in the waters, because of their weakness - since beings that merely possess a soul cannot lay hold of those that possess a spirit” (Hypostasis of the Archons)
- Since they have no fullness, they are deficient. Though they exist at present, they will return to their state of non-existence: “their end will be like their beginning: from that which did not exist (they are) to return once again to that which will not be.” (Tripartite Tractate)
- They are likenesses, copies, imitations, shadows, phantasms and distorted reflections of the Upper Aeons: “(The Archons) are their (the Pleromas') likenesses, copies, shadows, and phantasms, lacking reason and the light (...). In the manner of a reflection are they beautiful. For the face of the copy normally takes its beauty from that of which it is a copy.” (Tripartite Tractate)
[false religious leaders]
In these two passages, the beasts (chrion; Gk. θήριον; pl. θηρία) are identified with both the things being sacrificed, and the things being sacrificed to, suggesting that the earthly Temple cult is performed in the service of the beasts, the demiurge and his archons, by those who come from them and are consubstantial with them. Hence, Gos. Phil. says of the true heavenly Temple cult, “A bridal chamber is not for the beasts (Nchrion), nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women; but it is for free men and virgins.”
In these passages, the “beasts” are unequivocally identified with the demiurge and his archons
. But Philip attributes not to demons but to the archons a far more sophisticated form of deception. According to Philip, the archons subvert the sacrament by stealing the language that forms an essential element of Christian sacraments and Christian teaching. For, Philip explains, divine truth “brought names into the world for our sake, since it was not possible to show (or: teach) truth without (names)” (54.15-16
baptism. Because the archons have “switched the names,” the very terminology of Christian instruction, instead of enlightening catechumens, may deceive them
But according to Philip, the archons plan to use the very media of redemption in order to “take the free man and enslave him to themselves forever”
The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good [the “rulers” although having some knowledge of the truth had no love for their brothers and kept it for themselves in selfish pride and covetness]. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good [they crated images or "personas" of people whom are loyal to the deception in order to confuse people “they themselves are not going in and they are hindering those who are from doing so”], so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good [this is the very nature of "religion", to bind and rebind people to do according to their will which is in opposition to the will of the Father, this is the Nicolaitan spirit which loves to “lord it over” men by binding them not only to the “letter” but also their own “traditions” and doctrines that they might “become as one of us” (false gods) for these are still in their carnal and depraved state]. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good [who are actually good] and place them among those that are good [who are actually not good]. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever [this is the very definition of “spiritual thievery” and the “rulers” throughout history have certainly done a bang up job of it!] (Philip 9).
[the archons Pharisees and scribes, later Bishops and deacons who did not know their left from their right].
[the “rulers” although having some knowledge of the truth had no love for their brothers and kept it for themselves in selfish pride and covetness].
