The Fall in the Tripartite Tractate

The Logos in the Tripartite Tractate

The Tripartite Tractate view of the Fall

# **The Tripartite Tractate View of the Fall**  

## **The Logos and the Fall**  

The *Tripartite Tractate* presents a distinct perspective on the Fall, attributing it not to Sophia but to the Logos. This sets it apart from other Gnostic traditions, which often describe the Fall as originating from Sophia's misguided desire. Instead, the *Tripartite Tractate* portrays the Logos as the Aeon responsible for the disordered creation and subsequent fall.  

### **The Fall in the Tripartite Tractate**  

The *Tripartite Tractate* describes how the Logos acted outside of his proper bounds, leading to the disorder and fragmentation of creation:  

> "The intent, then, of the Logos, who is this one, was good. When he had come forth, he gave glory to the Father, even if it led to something beyond possibility, since he had wanted to bring forth one who is perfect, from an agreement in which he had not been, and without having the command.  

> This aeon was last to have <been> brought forth by mutual assistance, and he was small in magnitude. And before he begot anything else for the glory of the will and in agreement with the Totalities, he acted, magnanimously, from an abundant love, and set out toward that which surrounds the perfect glory, for it was not without the will of the Father that the Logos was produced, which is to say, not without it will he go forth." (*Tripartite Tractate* 100.21-30)  

The Logos, attempting to bring forth perfection without proper authorization, initiated a process that resulted in disorder. The text continues:  

> "For, he was not able to bear the sight of the light, but he looked into the depth and he doubted. Out of this there was a division—he became deeply troubled—and a turning away because of his self-doubt and division, forgetfulness and ignorance of himself and <of that> which is." (*Tripartite Tractate* 100.21-30)  

This passage directly links the Fall to the Logos, depicting his doubt and ignorance as the cause of division and fragmentation in creation.  

### **Irenaeus on Sophia and the Fall**  

In contrast, Irenaeus rejects the idea that Sophia, as an Aeon of Wisdom, could experience ignorance and passion:  

> “How can it be regarded as otherwise ridiculous, that (wisdom) was involved in ignorance, corruption, and passion? For these things are alien and contrary to wisdom, nor can they ever be qualities belonging to it. For wherever there is a lack of anything beneficial and an ignorance of knowledge, there wisdom does not exist.” (*Against Heresies* 1.2.2)  

Irenaeus argues that Wisdom (Sophia) cannot suffer from ignorance, reinforcing the *Tripartite Tractate’s* perspective that the Fall was not Sophia’s doing but rather the consequence of the Logos’ misguided action.  

### **The Logos in Biblical Usage**  

The Greek term *logos* (λόγος) has a variety of meanings in Scripture, including:  

- **Reason, thought, or account** (*Matthew 22:15*, *Luke 16:2*).  

- **A decree or order** (*Acts 19:40*).  

- **Divine expression (John 1:1-3)*.  

For instance, in *John 1:1-3*:  

> “In the beginning was the Word (*Logos*), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made.”  

The *Tripartite Tractate* differentiates between the divine Logos of John and the Logos responsible for the Fall, showing that *logos* can be used generically for Aeons rather than referring solely to the Son of God.  

### **The Fall and Adam in Scripture**  

In contrast to the Gnostic Sophia myth, the Bible attributes the Fall to Adam rather than Eve:  

> “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (*Romans 5:12*)  

Eve was deceived, but Adam willingly disobeyed (*1 Timothy 2:13-14*), much like the Logos in the *Tripartite Tractate*. The Fall, then, is a result of deliberate action, not of ignorance or accident.  

### **The Logos and the Demiurge in Valentinian Thought**  

Valentinian teacher Heracleon viewed the Demiurge positively, describing him as the agent of the Logos in creation:  

> “All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge) to make the world, that is it was not the Word 'from whom' or 'by whom,' but the one 'through whom (all things were made).'” (*Heracleon on John 1:3*, *Commentary on John*)  

This aligns with the *Tripartite Tractate*, which describes the Logos as the organizing force behind the cosmos.  

### **Conclusion**  

The *Tripartite Tractate* offers a unique perspective on the Fall, attributing it to the Logos rather than Sophia. This differs from other Valentinian texts and Gnostic traditions that place responsibility on Sophia. The text portrays the Logos as acting beyond his limits, leading to disorder, a view supported by Irenaeus’ rejection of Sophia’s involvement in ignorance. Additionally, the Logos’ role aligns with biblical teachings on Adam’s responsibility for sin. Heracleon’s description of the Demiurge further reinforces that the *Tripartite Tractate’s* Logos is not identical with the divine *Logos* in *John 1:1-3*, but a distinct Aeon who caused creation’s fragmentation.

First a quote from the Tripartite Tractate

The intent, then, of the Logos, who is this one, was good. When he had come forth, he gave glory to the Father, even if it led to something beyond possibility, since he had wanted to bring forth one who is perfect, from an agreement in which he had not been, and without having the command.
This aeon was last to have <been> brought forth by mutual assistance, and he was small in magnitude. And before he begot anything else for the glory of the will and in agreement with the Totalities, he acted, magnanimously, from an abundant love, and set out toward that which surrounds the perfect glory, for it was not without the will of the Father that the Logos was produced, which is to say, not without it will he go forth. But he, the Father, had brought him forth for those about whom he knew that it was fitting that they should come into being.
The Father and the Totalities drew away from him, so that the limit which the Father had set might be established - for it is not from grasping the incomprehensibility but by the will of the Father, - and furthermore, (they withdrew) so that the things which have come to be might become an organization which would come into being. If it were to come, it would not come into being by the manifestation of the Pleroma. Therefore, it is not fitting to criticize the movement which is the Logos, but it is fitting that we should say about the movement of the Logos that it is a cause of an organization which has been destined to come about.
The Logos himself caused it to happen, being complete and unitary, for the glory of the Father, whom he desired, and (he did so) being content with it, but those whom he wished to take hold of firmly he begot in shadows and copies and likenesses. For, he was not able to bear the sight of the light, but he looked into the depth and he doubted. Out of this there was a division - he became deeply troubled - and a turning away because of his self-doubt and division, forgetfulness and ignorance of himself and <of that> which is.

What does Irenaeus say about the Fall of Sophia

Irenaeus against heresies: How can it be regarded as otherwise ridiculous, that (wisdom) was involved in ignorance, corruption, and passion? For these things are alien and contrary to wisdom, nor can they ever be qualities belonging to it. For wherever there is a lack of any thing beneficial and an ignorance of knowledge, there wisdom does not exist. Let them therefore no longer call this suffering Aeon, Sophia, but let them give up either her name or her sufferings. And let them, moreover, not call their entire Pleroma spiritual, if this Aeon had a place within it when she was involved in such a tumult of passion. For even a vigorous soul, not to say a spiritual substance, would not pass through any such experience.
the tripartite tractate contens an early form of Christian Gnosticism which differs complets from other Gnostic texts when it comes to the Fall

Now let's a look at the bible's use of Logos 

3056 λόγος logos log’-os 

some of the meanings of the word 

 its use as respect to the MIND alone 
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating 
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration 
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score its use as respect to the MIND alone 
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating 
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration 
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score

decree, mandate or order reason, cause, ground, 


Mt 5:32  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause <3056> of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mt 22:15  Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk <3056>.

Lu 16:2  And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account <3056> of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

60 ¶  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying <3056>; who can hear it?
66  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Act 19:40  For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account <3056> of this concourse.

Looking at these Bible quotes we can see that there are many uses of the word logos not all of them referring to the divine logos

The tripartite tractate associate the fall with logos and not with Sophia.  In fact, the fallen aeon is not called Sophia at all, but simply a logos, or word (logos being used as a generic name for the aeons).

I've always felt it wrong that sophia (wisdom) in Gnosticism is the bad guy that created sin that's just really absurd and it complete doesn't make any sense at all

In the Bible Eve is not responsible for sin Adam is, we see this in Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam. Compare tripartite tractate 107.20–108.12

“And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

This gives no indication that Eve deceived Adam or seduced him into eating.  In fact, Adam is partially blaming God for the woman's presence.  At the same time he was trying to place the responsibility on Eve for HIS disobedience.  Yet there is NOT ONE accusation against Eve throughout the scriptures, except to state that she, being deceived, was in the transgression (1 Timothy 2:13-15 “For Adam was First formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”)

Eve was deceived by the Serpent, but “Adam was not deceived,” says the apostle Paul. (1Tim 2:14) With full knowledge Adam willfully and deliberately chose to disobey and then as a criminal he tried to hide. When brought to trial, instead of showing sorrow or regret or asking for forgiveness, Adam attempted to justify himself and pass the responsibility off on others, even blaming God for his own willful sin. “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate.” (Gem 3:7-12)

Tri. Trac. 107.20–108.12: This is the expulsion which was made for him, when he was expelled from the enjoyments of the things which belong to the likeness and those of the representation. It was a work of providence, so that it might be found that it is a short time until man will receive the enjoyment of the things which are eternally good, in which is the place of rest. This the spirit ordained when he first planned that man should experience the great evil, which is death, that is complete ignorance of the Totality, and that he should experience all the evils which come from this and, after the deprivations and cares which are in these, that he should receive of the greatest good, which is life eternal, that is, firm knowledge of the Totalities and the reception of all good things. Because of the transgression of the first man, death ruled. (Romans 5:17) It was accustomed to slay every man in the manifestation of its domination, which had been given it as a kingdom because of the organization of the Father's will, of which we spoke previously.

Therefore since sin came by one man it stands to reason that Sophia is not responsible for the fall the Logos is

The account in the Gospel of Truth is also extrememly relevant here. The opening paragraphs of the Gospel of Truth describe the Fall. It contains no explicit references to mythological figures familiar from other Valentinian texts (e.g. Sophia, the demiurge, etc.). However, these passages do refer to a semi-personified "error."

Both Error and Logos fail in their quest to find the Father.

"He is the lord of all of them, that is, the countenance which the logos (i.e. Error) brought forth in his thought as a representation of the Father of the Totalities. Therefore, he is adorned with every name which is a representation of him, since he is characterized by every property and glorious quality. For he too is called 'father' and 'god' and 'demiurge' and 'king' and 'judge' and 'place' and 'dwelling' and 'law'" (Tripartite Tractate 100:21-30).


Ptolemy interprets the same passage in terms of the Aeons in the Fullness (pleroma) in his Commentary on the Prologue of John quoted in Irenaeus Against Heresies1:8:5 (cf also Excerpts of Theodotus 6:4). In this case, Ptolemy interprets the passage to refer to the Aeon Word (logos) who, along with his partner Life (zoe), is the one who is responsible for the creation of all subsequent Aeons

Heracleon a Valentinian teacher describes the the demiurge in relatively positive terms as the logos's agent and hence ultimately the Father's agent in creation 

Fragments from a Commentary on the Gospel of John by Heracleon Fragment 1, on John 1:3 (In John 1:3, “All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.”) The sentence: "All things were made through him" means the world and what is in it. It excludes what is better than the world. The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word. . . “Without him, nothing was made” of what is in the world and the creation. . . "All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge) to make the world, that is it was not the Word “from whom” or “by whom,” but the one “through whom (all things were made).”. . . It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, for "through whom" means that another made them and the Word provided the energy. 

The Father the single One created the universe 52.4-6 It is, then, only the Father and God in the proper sense that no one else begot. As for the Totalities, he is the one who begot them and created them. He is without beginning and without end.

However, the perpetuation of the cosmos through the creation of physical bodies is accomplished through the logos



Now this Logos is different than the Son. or this first thought in the tripartite tractate
the Gospel of John the logos and the Son of God are one and the same

The point made may be a distinction between the logos as willed by the Father and as originating in him, cf. 75:23-24.

The Logos is an Angel

The Logos is an Angel







**The Logos as an Angel**


**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways, apocalyptic and mystic Christianity, where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**


The concept of the *Logos* as an angelic being is deeply embedded in ancient Jewish and Hellenistic  thought, particularly in the writings of Philo  of Alexandria. Philo describes the *Logos* as a mediator between God and the world, an intermediary power that functions as God’s messenger and creative agent. In this framework, the *Logos* takes on characteristics commonly associated with angels, particularly in its role as the divine Word, the great archangel, and the ruler of Israel.




### **Philo’s Description of the Logos as an Angel**


Philo of Alexandria explicitly refers to the *Logos* as an angelic being. In *On the Confusion of Tongues* 146, he writes:


> “And even  if there  be not as yet anyone who is worthy to be called  a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according  to His first-born word (*Logos*), the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority, and the name of God, and the word (*Logos*), and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel.”


Here, the *Logos* is directly called “the eldest of His  angels” and “the great archangel.” This passage highlights  the *Logos* as the firstborn of God’s heavenly host,  emphasizing its function as a divine messenger and ruler over Israel.


In *On Dreams* 1.215, Philo further describes the *Logos* as the angelic presence of God:


> "For God, as Shepherd and King, leads all things according to justice; and the divine Word (*Logos*) is the divider of all things, and the captain and pilot of the universe, and the law by which all things are directed. But some say that He is Himself a man, and that he is called 'the Being' (*ho ōn*), and that he is the eldest of the angels, both the ruler of Israel and the visible Lord, who, being the eldest of all, is called the Archangel."


Philo’s description aligns with the Jewish belief that God communicates with the world through angelic intermediaries. The *Logos*, as the highest angelic being, functions as God's visible manifestation and ruler of Israel, similar to the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Scriptures.


### **The Logos and the Angel of the Lord**


The *Logos* shares attributes with the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible, who speaks on behalf of God and is often identified with God’s presence. For example, in Exodus 3:2-6, the Angel of Yahweh appears in the burning bush, yet the text later states that it was God speaking. This duality mirrors Philo’s conception of the *Logos* as both distinct from and unified with God.


Additionally, Exodus 23:20-23 describes an angel sent to guide Israel, stating that “my name is in him.” This aligns with Philo’s description of the *Logos* as “the name of God” and suggests that the *Logos* was understood as an angelic manifestation of the divine will.


### **The Logos in Relation to the Aeons and Emanations**


The Valentinian tradition later incorporated a similar understanding of the *Logos* as an emanation from the divine. According to the followers of Valentinus:


> “The Angel is a Logos having a message from Him who is. And, using the same terminology, they call the Aeons Logoi.”


Here, the angelic function of the *Logos* is emphasized in relation to divine emanations, reinforcing the idea that the *Logos* serves as a divine intermediary, much like the angelic host in Jewish cosmology.


### **The Logos and the Role of Angels in Creation**


The Book of Jubilees describes the angels as God’s agents in creation:


And the angel of the presence spoke to Moses according to the word of Yahweh, saying: Write the complete generations of the creation, how in six days Yahweh Elohim finished all his works and all that he created... For on the first day he created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which minister before him; the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification..."


The connection between the Logos and the angelic hosts aligns with the idea that divine intermediaries execute God's will. Psalm 33:6 states:


> “By the Word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6).


The *Logos* is often associated with the creative power of God, acting as the agent through which the heavens and earth were formed. Genesis 1:3 states, “Let there be light,” and it was the *Logos*—as the divine Word—that brought light into being. This creative role aligns with Philo’s depiction of the *Logos* as a mediator between the transcendent God and the material world.


The Emanation of the Logos and the Angels
In Jewish and early Christian thought, angels are often understood as emanations of the divine, extending God's presence into the world while maintaining His transcendence. Philo expresses this view when he describes the Logos as an "emanation" or an "offspring" of God, similar to how angels are portrayed.


The Logos is thus not separate from God but a direct extension of His will. As Philo states in On the Migration of Abraham (6):For it was impossible that anything mortal should be formed in the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but it could only be made in the likeness of the second God, who is the Word (Logos) of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it as an impression of the Word, since the Word is the eldest-born image of God."


While Philo calls the Logos the "second God," he does not mean an independent deity but rather a divine emanation fulfilling the role of the highest angelic being.


### **Conclusion**


Philo’s descriptions of the *Logos* align closely with the Jewish concept of an angelic mediator. As “the eldest of the angels” and “the great archangel,” the *Logos* functions as the divine Word, the visible Lord, and the ruler of Israel. The *Logos* shares characteristics with the Angel of Yahweh, serves as God’s agent in creation, and acts as the mediator between the transcendent God and the material world.


This understanding of the *Logos* influenced later Christian thought, particularly in the Gospel of John, which identifies Jesus as the *Logos* made flesh. However, within Philo’s framework, the *Logos* remains an angelic power, the highest of God’s messengers, revealing divine will to humanity.

Who is the Demiurge? Hebrews 11:10

Who is the Demiurge?

Or 

What is the Demiurge? 

Hebrews 11:10

### The Demiurge in Valentinian and Biblical Contexts

The term "Demiurge," derived from the Greek *dēmiourgos* (craftsman or builder), holds a nuanced place in ancient religious and philosophical thought. While it is not explicitly used in the Bible outside of the Greek translation of Hebrews 11:10, its conceptual framework resonates within both biblical and Valentinian contexts.

#### The Demiurge in Valentinian Tradition

In Valentinian Gnosticism, the Demiurge is seen in a positive light, contrasting with the negative portrayal of Yaldabaoth in Sethian Gnosticism. For Valentinians, the Demiurge is not a malevolent creator but an entity that reflects the divine. As stated in the *Excerpts of Theodotus* (47:1-3), the Demiurge is described as "an image of the Father." Similarly, the *Tripartite Tractate* (100:21-30) identifies the Demiurge as "the lord of all of them," bearing titles like "father," "god," "demiurge," and "judge," signifying his role as a representation of the divine attributes.

This perspective aligns with Basilides’ exalted description of the Demiurge: “He is more ineffable than ineffables, more potent than potencies, wiser than the wise, superior to every excellence that one can name” (*Fragments of a Faith Forgotten*, p. 253). Such depictions emphasize the Demiurge's role as a craftsman who orders the material universe, reflecting the divine will.

#### The Demiurge in Biblical Texts

In Hebrews 11:10, the term *dēmiourgos* is translated as “builder” or “maker,” applied to God as the architect of a city with foundations, symbolizing the Heavenly Jerusalem. The verse states: “For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker (*dēmiourgos*) is God.” This reference underscores the providential role of God as the ultimate craftsman, shaping a transcendent reality that surpasses the material world.

This concept finds echoes in apocryphal and early Christian texts. For instance, *Wisdom of Solomon* 13:1 reflects on humanity’s failure to recognize the "craftsman" (*technitēs*) behind creation while marveling at the works of the universe. Similarly, 1 Clement 20:11 speaks of the Creator who "ordered" the cosmos in harmony, emphasizing the divine wisdom and intentionality behind creation.

#### Fragment 13 and Hebrews 11:10

Fragment 13 of Valentinian tradition offers a spiritual interpretation of John 2:13-16, where Jesus ascends to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple. This ascent is seen as symbolic of the transition from the material realm to the animate (psychic) place, an intermediate state that mirrors Jerusalem. The “sanctuary” represents the Holy of Holies, reserved for the spiritual, while the outer courts symbolize those who achieve salvation outside the Pleroma.

Connecting this to Hebrews 11:10, the "city with foundations" can be interpreted as the spiritual reality beyond the animate realm. Just as the sanctuary signifies the Holy of Holies accessible only to the spiritual, the Heavenly Jerusalem represents the ultimate dwelling place for those who transcend the material and psychic realms. The Demiurge, as the builder of the material universe, serves as an intermediary step in the divine plan, crafting the visible world as a precursor to the ultimate spiritual fulfillment in the Pleroma.

#### The Architect and the Divine Plan

The language of Hebrews 11:10 and Fragment 13 highlights the duality of creation as both material and spiritual. The Demiurge, as an image of the Father, fulfills a critical role in ordering the cosmos, making the material world a reflection of divine harmony. This ordered creation, in turn, points toward the ultimate reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem, a city not built by human hands but by God as the true Demiurge.

In Valentinian thought, this progression aligns with the journey of the soul (understood here as the physical body and animate being) from ignorance to knowledge, from material existence to spiritual communion. The sanctuary and the Holy of Holies represent stages in this ascent, mirroring the believer's journey toward the Pleroma.

#### Conclusion

The concept of the Demiurge, as understood in Valentinian tradition and hinted at in biblical texts, underscores the interconnectedness of creation and divine purpose. In Hebrews 11:10, God as the *dēmiourgos* points to the ultimate fulfillment of creation in the Heavenly Jerusalem. Fragment 13 complements this by illustrating the spiritual ascent through the temple’s symbolism. Together, they provide a profound vision of a cosmos ordered by the divine craftsman, leading humanity toward its ultimate destiny in the fullness of the Pleroma.

### Etymology of Demiurge

The word *demiurge* originates from the Greek *δημιουργός* (*dēmiourgos*), a compound of *dēmos* (a unified group of people) and *ergon* (work). Initially, it denoted a craftsman or artisan who worked for the public, gradually expanding to mean a producer or creator. Strong's Concordance (1217) defines *dēmiourgos* as a workman, builder, or framer, emphasizing the public or collective aspect of their labor. In classical texts, the term often referred to God as the cosmic craftsman, as seen in Plato's works and later in early Christian writings like *1 Clement* and *Wisdom of Solomon*.

In Hebrews 11:10, the term *dēmiourgos* is used to describe God as the "builder and maker" of the city with foundations, referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem. This highlights God's role as the divine architect who designs and actualizes a transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.

---

### Connection Between Demiurge and Arche

The word *archē* (ἀρχή) in Greek, meaning "beginning," "principle," or "rule," shares an etymological and conceptual relationship with *dēmiourgos*. Strong's Concordance (746) defines *archē* as "first in order," derived from the root *arch-* (to rule). It is also linked to *archon* (758), meaning "ruler" or "leader." Thus, *archē* implies both an origin point and authority, tying the concept of creation to governance or rulership.

In the Gospel of John 1:1-3, *archē* is used to introduce the Word (*Logos*):

> "In the beginning (*archē*), was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him, nothing was made that has been made."

This passage emphasizes the *Logos* as the origin (*archē*) and intermediary of creation. Ptolemy’s commentary on John further elaborates that the *Logos* emanates from the Father as the principle (*archē*) of all things. The *Logos*, in turn, energizes the Demiurge, enabling him to fashion the material cosmos.

---

### The Demiurge as the First Archon

The connection between *archē* and *archon* (ruler) becomes significant when considering the Demiurge as the "first archon." In Valentinian tradition, the Demiurge is often portrayed as the craftsman working under the authority of the *Logos*. Heracleon, in his commentary on John 1:3, clarifies that "all things were made through him," meaning the *Logos* caused the Demiurge to create the world. The Demiurge operates as an agent or intermediary, crafting the material realm on behalf of the *Logos*.

This intermediary role aligns with the broader usage of *archē* to denote both origin and rule. For instance, in Colossians 1:16, Christ is described as the head of all principalities (*archai*):

> "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers (*archai*) or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

The Demiurge, as the first *archon* from the *archē*, serves as a subordinate ruler within this hierarchy.

---

### Architect and the *Logos*

The term *dēmiourgos* can also be translated as "architect," derived from *archē* (beginning) and *tektōn* (craftsman). In this sense, the Demiurge functions as the cosmic architect, shaping the material universe according to the blueprint provided by the *Logos*. Heracleon’s commentary emphasizes this dynamic:

> "It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, but the one 'through whom' all things were made."

Here, the *Logos* energizes the Demiurge, providing the creative power and design necessary for the material cosmos. The Demiurge, while a creator, is ultimately subordinate to the *Logos*, working "on behalf of" the higher divine principle.

---

### Conclusion

The etymology of *dēmiourgos* and its connection to *archē* reveals a layered understanding of creation and authority. In Valentinian theology and the Gospel of John, the Demiurge is portrayed as an agent of the *Logos*, functioning as the first *archon* who shapes the material realm. This relationship highlights the interdependence between the *Logos* as the origin (*archē*) and the Demiurge as the craftsman (*dēmiourgos*), working together to fulfill the divine plan.

Thus, the Demiurge, while an artisan and ruler, remains subordinate to the *Logos*, whose emanation from the Father represents the true beginning and principle of all things. This layered cosmology underscores the harmony between creation, governance, and divine purpose.

### The Demiurge as the Personification of the Elohim  

The term *Demiurge*, derived from the Greek *dēmiourgos*, originally meant "craftsman" or "artisan." It signifies someone working on behalf of others, a concept reinforced in Strong’s Concordance (1217), which describes the *dēmiourgos* as someone laboring for a unified group or community. In the biblical sense, this aligns with the Elohim of Genesis, a collective term that represents "mighty ones" or divine beings who act under a singular guiding principle—the Spirit of God.


Though *Elohim* is plural, it is frequently paired with singular verbs, suggesting unity in purpose and action. For example, in Genesis 1:1, "Elohim created the heavens and the earth," portrays a coordinated effort of the heavenly host under the influence of God's Spirit (Genesis 1:2). This plurality united by a single divine will mirrors the role of the Demiurge as a craftsman working under the direction of a higher authority, the Logos or Word of God.


---


### The Archangel Michael as a Demiurge


The Archangel Michael, described in Scripture as the chief of angels, exemplifies the concept of the Demiurge as an agent of the Divine Will. The Book of Daniel (10:13, 12:1) presents Michael as a protector and leader of God's people, acting as an intermediary between God and creation. In this role, Michael administers the commands of the Deity to the angels below him, orchestrating their actions in harmony with the divine purpose.


Early Christian and Jewish traditions often depict Michael as the foremost among the Elohim, embodying the qualities and intentions of the Creator. This portrayal aligns with the understanding of the Demiurge as a craftsman who fashions the material world on behalf of the Supreme Deity. As described in *Excerpts of Theodotus* (33:4), the Demiurge, while possessing divine authority, is distinct from the uncreated and eternal God, functioning as an intermediary rather than the ultimate source of creation.


---


### The Demiurge as a Collective of Angels


The Elohim, described as God’s “family in heaven” (Ephesians 3:15), operate collectively as the Demiurge. These angels, emanations of the Divine Spirit, act as instruments of the Father’s will. Psalm 103:19-22 emphasizes their role:
> "Bless the Lord, all His hosts, you ministers of His, who do His will."


This portrayal of the Elohim as a unified body under the direction of God aligns with the Demiurge’s role as a craftsman working on behalf of a greater power. Genesis 1:2 further supports this idea, where the Spirit of God directs the creative actions of the Elohim, who collectively shape the material cosmos.


---


### Distinction Between the Demiurge and the Supreme Deity


While the Demiurge holds a vital role in creation, it is not synonymous with the Supreme Deity, the Uncreated and Eternal Spirit. Instead, the Demiurge is a divine agent or representative—often equated with the highest angelic being or a collective of angels. This distinction is crucial in understanding the relationship between the Creator and creation.


The Supreme Deity manifests His will through the angels, who serve as embodiments of His attributes and execute His purpose in the material world. These angels, collectively the Demiurge, reflect the Father's presence without being the Father Himself. This harmonizes with the Gospel of John 1:3, which attributes the creation of all things to the *Logos* ("through whom all things were made").


---


### The Demiurge and Yaldabaoth


Unlike Gnostic traditions that portray the Demiurge as the malevolent *Yaldabaoth*, the biblical and Hebraic concept of the Demiurge emphasizes its benevolence and alignment with divine justice. The Demiurge is not an evil spirit or a false god but an agent of the Creator, executing divine justice and facilitating prophecy.


As the Archangel Michael and the Elohim administer the will of the Supreme Deity, they embody the role of the Demiurge in crafting the material world. They are not autonomous or adversarial but operate in harmony with the divine purpose, serving as instruments of God's creative and redemptive plan.


---


### Conclusion


The Demiurge, understood through the lens of biblical theology, represents the Elohim, a collective of angels led by the Archangel Michael, who act under the authority of the Supreme Deity. Far from being a false god or malevolent force, the Demiurge embodies divine craftsmanship, executing the will of the Eternal Spirit through the *Logos*.


This framework maintains the distinction between the uncreated God and His agents, emphasizing their role as intermediaries who shape creation according to the divine plan. Whether seen as a single archangel or a collective body, the Demiurge is a real and benevolent force, fulfilling the Creator's purpose in the cosmos.


















The concept of the demiurge originates from the understanding that the Deity is not the immediate creator of the physical universe.


First it should be noted that Valentinians do not use the term Yaldabaoth. It should also be noted that Basildians and Valentinians speak about the Demiurge with positive terms unlike the Sethians who speak very negatively about Yaldabaoth:

Basilides: "After this, from the universal Seed and conglomeration of seed-mixture there burst forth and came into existence the Great Ruler, the head of the sensible universe, a beauty and magnitude and potency that naught can destroy." This is the demiurge; but let no mortal think that he can comprehend so great a being, "for he is more ineffable than ineffables, more potent than potencies, wiser than the wise, superior to every excellence that one can name. (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 253 by G.R.S. Mead )


According to Valentinian tradition, the Demiurge is formed as an "an image of the Father"(Excepts of Theodotus 47:1-3). A similar description occurs in the Tripartite Tractate: "He is the lord of all of them, that is, the countenance which the logos brought forth in his thought as a representation of the Father of the Totalities. Therefore, he is adorned with every name which is a representation of him, since he is characterized by every property and glorious quality. For he too is called 'father' and 'god' and 'demiurge' and 'king' and 'judge' and 'place' and 'dwelling' and 'law'" (Tripartite Tractate 100:21-30). Because he is seem as the image of the true God and Father, Valentinians have no problem using the terms "Father" and "God" to describe him (cf. also Against Heresies 1:5:1, Valentinian Exposition 38).




Is the word demiurge used in the Bible?


Yes in Hebrews 11:10




In Hebrews chapter 11:10 we get the only Biblical reference to the word Demiurge

Heb 11:10  For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker <1217> is God.

This is used as a prophecy about the Heavenly Jerusalem

The Greek word is used in the apocrypha 

Wisdom 13:1 For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;

and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists,
nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works;

1Clem 20:11

All these things the great Creator and Master of the universe ordered to be in peace and concord, doing good unto all things, but far beyond the rest unto us who have taken refuge in His compassionate mercies through our Lord Jesus Christ

Notice that clement says the creation was "ordered" 

2Mac.4:1 This Simon now, of whom we spake afore, having been a betrayer of the money, and of his country, slandered Onias, as if he ha terrified Heliodorus, and been the worker of these evils.

The language here applied to God as the "architect" or framer of the universe is often used in the classic writers.

Heb 11:10  For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker <1217> is God.

Fragment 13, on John 2:13-16 The ascent to Jerusalem signifies the ascent of the Lord from material realm things to the animate (psychic) place, which is an image of Jerusalem. (In John 2:14, “In the sanctuary he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business.”) The words, "In the sanctuary, he found” and not "in the temple" are used so that it may not be thought to be the mere “calling” (animate), apart from the Spirit, which elicits help from the Lord. The sanctuary is the Holy of Holies, into which only the High-Priest enters, into which the spiritual go. The temple courtyard, where the Levites also enter, is a symbol of the animate ones who attain a salvation outside the Fullness (Pleroma).

The Demiurge is the maker of the psychic and material realms

Etymology of Demiurge

The word "demiurge" is an English word derived from demiurgus, a Latinised form of the Greek δημιουργός or dēmiourgos. It was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually came to mean "producer", and eventually "creator". 

strong's concordance 1217 δημιουργός demiourgos day-me-oor-gos’ 

from 1218 and 2041; n m; TDNT-2:62,149;  {See TDNT 182 } 

AV-maker 1; 1 

1) a workman for the public 

2) the author of any work, an artisan, framer, builder 

dēmiourgós (from 1218 /dḗmos, "a unified group of people" and 2014 /epiphaínō, "work") – properly, someone working on behalf of a group of people (used only in Heb 11:10).

God is called ὁ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δημιουργός in Plato, rep. 7, p. 530 a.; ὁ δημιουργός τῶν ὅλων in Josephus, Antiquities 1, 7, 1, and often in ecclesiastical writers from Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 20, 11 [ET]; 26, 1 [ET]; 33, 2 [ET] on; (cf. Philo, de mut. nom. § 4; de opif. mund., Muller, edition, p. 133; Piper, Einl. in monument. Theol. § 26; Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word). In the Scriptures, besides, only in 2 Macc. 4:1 κακῶν δημιουργός). (Cf. Trench, § cv.)

The Gospel of John Chapter 1

The Gospel of John 1:1  ¶  Originally (746 ἀρχή), was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
2  The same, was originally (746 ἀρχή), with God.
3  All things, through him, came into existence, and, without him, came into existence, not even one thing: that which hath come into existence, (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)

Ptolemy's Commentary on The Gospel of John Prologue:

Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God." [Jn 1:1] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. Then he unites them: (Logos [Word], Theos [God], and Arche [beginning] are one) this is to show forth both the emanation of the latter two, i.e. the Son and the Word, and their union with one another, and simultaneously with the Father. For the beginning was in the Father and from the Father; and the Word was in the beginning and from the beginning. Well did he say, "The Word was in the beginning", for it was in the Son. "And the Word was with God." So was the beginning. "And the word was God"; reasonably so, for what is engendered from God is God. This shows the order of emanation. "The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made." [Jn 1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aeons that came after it.  (Ptolemy's Commentary on The Gospel of John Prologue)

The Greek term translated "word" is Logos. It signifies the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine.

John is teaching that in the beginning, God's purpose, wisdom or revelation had been in evidence. It was "with God" in that it emanated from him; it "was God" in that it represented Him to mankind and it became the motive power of all that God did, for all was made with it in mind, and it presented the hope of life to mankind (see John 1: 3-4).

The logos is the cause of the forming and origination of Pleroma not the physical universe this can be seen from Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John 1:3

The Demiurge in Ptolemy's Commentary is the beginning or Arche

Beginning

What does he mean by beginning? You see some can argue that he means beginning as in God forever and eternal past. But if that’s the case, there really is no beginning with God others might argue well beginning in the sense that when God conceived of creating the perfect sons and daughters of God the human beings. Whatever other beings he might have created in the universe that was the beginning and the son was there from the beginning.

The message here is that God has everything in mind from the beginning. Whatever he produces from the beginning and as the Brethren of that beginning Christ is the eternal forever in the past or at the beginning at the time of which he conceived the concept of the son as being part of the story of humankind. This does not really matter because for us humans from our perspective it is the beginning of everything anyway and that’s really all we need to know and we’ll probably likely ever know anyway.

The Greek word ἀρχή arche translated beginning has a connection to the word ruler or Archon

746 ἀρχή arche ar-khay’ 

from 756; n f; TDNT-1:479,81;  {See TDNT 102 } 

AV-beginning 40, principality 8, corner 2, first 2, misc 6; 58 

746. ἀρχή arche ar-khay’; from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank): —  beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule. 

BEGINNING: "Archee"; signifying "first in order", from the root "arch, archon" = a ruler. 

strong's concordance 756 ἄρχομαι archomai ar’-khom-ahee middle voice of 757

strong's concordance 757. ἄρχω archo ar’-kho; a primary verb; to be first (in political rank or power): —  reign (rule) over. 

NASB Translation

began (62), begin (7), beginning (8), begins (2), begun (1), proceed (1), rule (1), rulers (1), starting (2). 

This brings us to the next Greek word 758 ἄρχων archon

strong's concordance 758 ἄρχων archon ar’-khone 

present participle of 757; n m; TDNT-1:488,81;  {See TDNT 102 } 

AV-ruler 22, prince 11, chief 2, magistrate 1, chief ruler 1; 37 

1) a ruler, commander, chief, leader 

Archon (historical, Ancient Greece) The title of a magistrate in a number of states of Ancient Greece, and in the city states (poleis) of the Achaean League.

Archon (Greek: ἄρχων, árchon, plural: ἄρχοντες, árchontes) is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem αρχ-, meaning "to rule", derived from the same root as monarch and hierarchy. 

The Greek word Archon is connected to the Greek word Archee (Beginning) 

In the Gospel of John the Demiurge is the first archon from the Greek word Archee translated beginning Archee 746 ἀρχή it is also translated principality or principalities in Eph 1:21 Eph 3:10 Eph 6:12 Col 1:16

Christ the head of all Principalities {#Eph 1:21 Col 1:16 2:10 } 

Demiurge can be translated Architect from Arche (Gr. "beginning") 

Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John: 

John 1:3, “All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.”) The sentence: "All things were made through him" means the world and what is in it. It excludes what is better than the world. The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word. . . “Without him, nothing was made” of what is in the world and the creation. . . "All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge) to make the world, that is it was not the Word “from whom” or “by whom,” but the one “through whom (all things were made).”. . . It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, for "through whom" means that another made them and the Word provided the energy (Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John)

The Demiurge is working on behalf of someone else that is the word or logos 

The Demiurge is a personification of the Elohim

Though Elohim is in the plural, and signifies "mighty ones," it is most frequently used with a verb in the singular number, as in Gen. 1:1. This suggests that the Elohim, though constituting a great number of immortal beings, are being motivated by a single power, "the spirit of God" (Gen. 1:2). The Elohim, therefore, comprise a great company united as one, and obeying in unison the motivating power of the great Increate. The Psalmist declared: "Yahweh hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all. Bless Yahweh, ye His angels, that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word. Bless ye Yahweh, all ye His hosts; ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure. Bless Yahweh, all His works in all places of His dominion" (Psalm 103:19-22).

Yahweh is spirit (John 4:24), and His angels are spirit beings (Psalm 104:4; Heb. 1:7). They are "His family in heaven" (Eph. 3:15), being emanations of Him, and doing His will through His all-pervading spirit (Gen. 1:2). Thus they act as a unit, though being innumerable in number.

The Archangel Michael is the highest of all the angels as stated before, the angels are emanations of the uncreated and eternal spirit or Deity, Michael relays the commandments and orders of the Deity to all the angels below him, being the highest of all. So in a way, he could be seen as Hebraic religious idea of a "Demiurge" who fashioned the world for God.

See the post Yahweh is the head angel in the Old Testament

The Archangel Michael could be seen as the "Demiurge" who fashioned the world for the Deity.-spiritual nature. In comparison with the true God he is rather "coarse" or "rough" (Excerpts of Theodotus 33:4).

The term "demiurge" does not refer to the One True Deity, though the demiurge may very well be seen as a god, angel or elohim. The Demiurge is simply the craftsman of the universe, but is not the Supreme Intelligence of the universe the Uncreated and Eternal Spirit. In other word, whether the Demiurge is a god or not, it is not God or "THE One True Deity."

The Deity manifests himself through his angels, these angels are ever present, embodiment of the qualities of the Father, and thus manifesting the Father's will and presence in this world, without being the Father Deity themselves. These angels are always serving the Father and creating by his will and collectively are the Demiurge of the world through whom the Father administers his will.


The Demiurge is never referred to has Yaldabaoth 

The Demiurge is a real god, not a "false god".

The Demiurge is an elohim or angel

The Demiurge is not Satan, he is not a demon, and he is not an evil spirit or the personification of evil .The Creator or archangel Michael implements the Father's will and administers justice.

After all, he rendered the prophecies and reality of the Saviour.