Sunday, 14 June 2020

The Valentinian Trinity and the origins of the Cosmos and the three Natures



The Valentinian Trinity and the origins of the Cosmos and the three Natures

Whereas the orthodox Trinity was concerned with developing a theological creed out of Matthew 28:19, the Valentinian Trinity was concerned with bringing a system of meaning and structure to the wider universe. The Valentinian Trinity began with the notion of a primary dualism. The Valentinians generally believed that our universe originated from the primeval intermingling of two realms of Light and Darkness, or Spirit and Matter. The intermingling of these two substances gave birth to the Soul which is composite in nature and lives in a perpetual state of conflict. On the basis of this idea it was held that the universe was comprised of these three substances: Spirit, Matter and Soul. 

The Gnostic traditions vary on how these substances came to commingle and form the cosmos. But the underlying theme is the same: Our universe is derived from a mixture of pure light and pure darkness, and that the soul is a mixture of the two. The soul of the Demiurge, and all the souls of the celestial deities and of angels and human beings, all originate from the original Soul substance.

Among the Ophite sects, the Archontics, who believed in the reality of the celestial rulers, seem to have taught of an original trinity of Light, Spirit, or Ruach, and Darkness; the former they held to be completely pure. Spirit both pure and impure, and the latter, the completely impure basis of the material world.

The Sethians of whom we are treating begin with a trinity; Light, Spirit and Darkness. The Spirit is not, however, to be thought of as a breath or wind, but as it were a subtle odour spreading everywhere. All three principles then are intermingled one with another. And the Darkness strives to retain the Light and the Spirit, and imprison the light-sparks in matter; while the Light and the Spirit, on their side, strive to raise their powers aloft and rescue them from the Darkness.

The basic logic behind the trinity goes like this: The Spirit or Light represented the highest and finest substance that originated from the essence of the highest and most sublime God. Matter represented death and evil, and everything that was opposed to God. The Soul is a composite substance comprised of both spiritual and material essences. 


In Gnostic doctrine the very cosmos and the souls of humanity, and their flawed, paradoxical natures exist because at some point that which is perfectly good has combined with that which is perfectly evil. Out of these fundamental essences comes the tragically flawed reality where evil things happen to good people. It also explains why people who are in theory “good” are capable of committing evil acts. It also explains why a “God” who is supposed to be good, and just, is yet the Creator of a world that is filled with evil and injustice.

This idea of opposing elements intermingling is conveyed in numerous Gnostic myths, in different ways, but the underlying theme is always the same. The following primitive motif is attributed to Nicolaus, who is named among the earliest Christians in Acts chapter 6.

“A brother heretic emerged in Nicolaus. He was one of the seven deacons who were appointed in the Acts of the Apostles. He affirms that Darkness was seized by a lust, a foul lust, for the Light: out of this permixture…were born, moreover, daemons and gods and [the] spirits seven, and other things sufficiently sacrilegious… Enough it is for us that this heresy of the Nicolaitans has been condemned by the Apocalypse of the Lord…” (Against All Heresies, 1; from Tertullian or Victorinus, included with the writings of Tertullian; see Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 650)

This basic concept of dualism also appears in the system of Mani and of the later Cathars, which maintain that our universe originates from a mixture of two primeval realms of Light and Darkness; and that all living souls, of gods, angels and men, originate from this combination. Man achieves redemption by rejecting the darkness and seeking the Light.

Other Gnostic systems maintain that the realm of Spirit and Light existed first; and that Darkness and Matter emerged as the result of a breach in the primal order. This concept is conveyed in the myth of the fall of Sophia. In Valentinian myth Sophia is a twelfth generation descendant from the supreme Being. But she forms a wrong conception of the Father within herself (an enthymesis) and this passes out of her as an aborted fetus (ectroma). In summary, Sophia’s miscarriage is an impure mixture comprised of her own spiritual nature, but is combined with material substance which represents her grief and fear, and also a soul substance, which represents her desire for repentance. Our cosmos is therefore comprised of a combination of the three elements that, according to myth, originate from Sophia’s downfall: spirit, matter and soul. Spirit comes from Sophia’s primeval nature. Matter comes from her error and grief. Soul is a combination of the two which constitutes the capacity for duality, and also the capacity for repentance. Sophia’s desire for repentance is the origin of the soul in both gods and men.

Unfortunately no Valentinian treatises survive from antiquity which set forth these ideas first hand. But the Catholic Fathers do provide plausible summaries. Irenaeus gives the following report on Sophia’s passions following her downfall from the realm of Light:

“This collection of passions they declare was the substance of the matter from which this cosmos was formed. From her desire of returning (read: repentance) every soul belonging to this world, and that of the Demiurge himself, have its origin. All other things owed their beginnings to her terror and sorrow. For from her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed; from her smile all that is lucent; and from her grief and perplexity all the corporeal elements of the cosmos.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.4.2)

And then regarding the origin of the three natures, Irenaeus writes:

“These three kinds of existence then, having been formed—one from passion, which was matter; a second from conversion, which was animal (soul); and the third, that which she herself brought forth, which was spiritual.” (ibid. 1.5.1)

The Sethians give a different version of the Sophia myth. While agreeing on many points, they maintain that Sophia’s miscarriage emerged directly as the misshapen and demonic Demiurge, which Sophia gave the name Yaldabaoth. Yaldabaoth is in turn the sum both of Sophia’s spiritual nature and also her misguided passion. In the Apocryphon of John the dual nature of the Demiurge is described this way:

“When light mixed with darkness it made the darkness shine. When darkness mixed with light it dimmed the light, and it became neither light nor darkness, but rather gloom. This gloomy archon has three names: the first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Sakla, the third is Samael” (Apocryphon of John, 11:52; quoted from Marvin Meyer, Nag Hammadi Scriptures, HarperCollins, pg. 116).

In the Apocryphon of John the soul of mankind originates from Yaldabaoth and is of like nature to himself (15). Sophia’s spirit is breathed into Adam and he then becomes a superior nature to his Creator (19f.). The material body is created for Adam and his descendants so that they might be weighed down and lulled into ignorance (21). The soul has the capacity for either salvation or condemnation (26). The three natures are not described explicitly as dogma, but the theme is clearly evident as the structure beneath the text. Sophia’s primal nature is pure spirit. Yaldabaoth’s nature is a synthesis of Sophia’s pure spirit and wrong passions. Adam’s “psychical” (soul) body is of the same nature as the Demiurge. The material body is created for Adam in order to keep him and his descendants from choosing salvation. The conflict between light, darkness and the soul originate from a conflict within the nature of Sophia. (Note: all number citations are from the original codex page numbers which appear in the English translations in bold type. All secondary numbers refer to specific lines in a text and appear to the right of the page number, e.g. 11:52 means page 11, line 52.)

In another Valentinian treatise The Tripartite Tractate we learn that the three-fold order emerges as the result of a certain fallen “Logos” which obviously corresponds to Sophia in other traditions. The Logos makes an attempt to grasp the incomprehensible Father and this causes him to lapse into self-doubt and confusion. The text itself gives this account of the fall of the logos:

“The Logos himself caused it to happen… 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… His self-exaltation and his expectation of comprehending the incomprehensible became firm for him, and was in him. But sicknesses followed…having come into being from self-doubt, namely from the fact that he did not [reach] the glories of the Father.” (Tripartite Tractate, 77)

The result of this failure is that the Logos caused a realm of chaos to come into existence which was the product of his abortive thoughts.

“The Logos was a cause of those who came into being and he continued all the more to be at a loss and he was astonished. Instead of perfection, he saw a defect; instead of unification, he saw division; instead of stability, he saw disturbances; instead of rests, tumults. Neither was it possible for him to make them cease from loving disturbance, nor was it possible for him to destroy it. He was completely powerless, once his totality and his exaltation abandoned him.” (ibid. 80; see J. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, HarperCollins, pp. 73, 74)

The Logos then repents of his wrong thoughts and condemns that which has emanated from him (81). As part of this repentance the Logos must bring the chaos into order. This order is divided into three: the “Spiritual”, the “Psychic” (soul) and the “Hylic” (material). (96–98) The Spiritual level represents all the purely righteous thoughts of the Logos that existed in the beginning, and which reflects the Pleroma above. The Psychic or soul level belongs the Logos’ conversion, memory (of the Pleroma) and judgments against the wrong thoughts and emanations. The Hylic level belongs to the Logos’ thoughts and emanations of “fear and despair, oblivion, confusion and ignorance” (98).

This is the primeval template for the cosmic order that the Logos will later create through his instrument, the Demiurge (100:20). This leads to the eventual creation of the three-fold human race “the spiritual, the psychic (soul), and the material” (118:15ff). In the Tripartite Tractate the purpose of the Human race is to reveal the fulfillment of all that is good and evil on behalf of the hierarchies above—and to reveal the consequences of ignorance (126). But then again this is only one Gnostic’s theory of the Trinity as this regards the three-fold nature of Man.

The theological structure of the Valentinian Trinity

The Valentinian Trinity mandates that there are three theological principles that correspond to the three natures: Spirit, Soul and Matter. The spiritual God is the supreme Being, the Secret God of the Valentinians. The Soul God is the Demiurge. This is the God of justice, the Creator, that was revealed in the Bible. 


And then the material God was identified with Satan, and was referred to by some Gnostics as the “Cosmocrator” or “World-Ruler.” Each God was the governor of its peculiar domain, whether of Spirit, or of the Soul, or of the material world, where all power falls into the hands of predators. Irenaeus gives a concise statement of this theological order according to the Valentinians who maintained that three theological orders emerged from Sophia’s nature:

“The Demiurge they describe as owing his origin to [Sophia’s] conversion… And on this account, he (the Demiurge), being incapable of recognizing any spiritual essences, imagined himself to be God alone, and declared through the prophets ‘I am God, and besides me there is none else.’

They further teach that spirits of wickedness originate from [Sophia’s] grief. Hence the devil, whom they call the Cosmocrator (world-ruler), and the demons and angels…found the source of their existence.

They represent the Demiurge as being the son of that mother of theirs, and the Cosmocrator as a creature of the Demiurge. … Their Mother dwells in that place which is above the heavens…the Demiurge in the heavenly place, that is, the Hebdomad; but the Cosmocrator in this, our world.”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.4.)

If Irenaeus can be trusted then we have a concise statement here of the three-fold Valentinian theology as this applies to our cosmos. Sophia-Achamoth is a proxy for the spiritual God and she resides in the realm above the seven heavens; hence she is identified as the “Ogdoad” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.2–3). The Demiurge is the god of this cosmos, and is the Creator and Lawgiver as mentioned in the Old Testament. The Demiurge is a god of soul because he originates from the substance of Sophia’s repentance or “conversion.” The “devil” is the Cosmocrator. His rule signifies the law of the jungle and of all people who have no godly capacity at all. The Valentinians believed that all material substance, and evil, originated from Sophia’s grief.

In extant Sethian texts this three-fold theological order can be seen, e.g., in the Reality of the Rulers (Hypostasis of the Archons). In this text Sophia is the proxy for the spiritual order. Yaldaboath is the devil who is cast into tartaros (the lowest level of hell). And his son Sabaoth repents and sings praises to Sophia. The fates of Sabaoth and Yaldabaoth signify the duality of the soul and the capacity of the soul to choose either salvation (the spirit) or condemnation (the material).

In the Tripartite Tractate, the Logos is the proxy for the spiritual God. The Demiurge is the Psychic God, and is the product of the Logos’ repentance and judgment (and does not know of the existence of the Logos or the spiritual realm, cf. 101; “…for he was ignorant that the movement within him came from the spirit…” and “…produced things that were greater than is own nature”). The Hylic power in this treatise is personified by the “serpent” in the garden of Eden, who is said to be “more cunning than all the evil powers” (107).


The Valentinians also believed that this basic trinity of natures was reflected in three types of humans: the Spiritual, the Natural (Soul), and the material (or fleshly). The Spiritual human was identified as such because he supposedly possesses some seed or essence from the Spiritual God above. The Spiritual human is by nature good and is predestined for salvation. The Natural human is purely a man of soul. The fate of the Natural human is determined by free will, because the Natural man has the capacity for either good or evil. The Material human is by nature evil, and cannot be changed or saved.

Irenaeus gives this account of the Valentinian doctrine of the trinity of man and the three natures:

“They conceive, then, of three kinds of men, spiritual, material, and animal (soul), represented by Cain, Abel and Seth. These three natures are no longer found in one person, but constitute various kinds of men. The material goes as a matter of course into corruption. The animal, if it choose the better part, finds repose…in the intermediate place; but if [choosing] the worse, it too shall pass into destruction. …

But they assert that the spiritual principles which have been sown by [Sophia], being disciplined and nourished here from that time until now in righteous souls…at last attaining perfection, shall be given as brides… (referring to the Bridal Chamber), while the animal souls rest of necessity with the Demiurge in the intermediate place (referring to the Valentinian notion of the repentance and salvation of the Demiurge).

And again, subdividing the animal souls themselves, they say that some are by nature good, and others by nature evil. The good are those who become capable of receiving the spiritual seed; the evil by nature are those who are never able to receive the seed” (Against Heresies, 1.7.5).

And here again Irenaeus describes the three natures and the types of men who receive them:

“There being three kinds of substances, they declare all that is material, which they also describe as of the ‘Left hand’, that it must of necessity perish, inasmuch as it is incapable of receiving any afflatus of incorruption.

As to every animal existence, which they denominate as of the ‘Right hand’, they hold that, inasmuch as it is a mean between the spiritual and the material, it passes to the side to which inclination draws it. (ibid. 1.6.1)

Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things; such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith, while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are these persons. Wherefore also they maintain that good works are necessary for us, for that otherwise it is impossible that we should be saved.

But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual in nature. For, just as it is impossible for material substance should partake of salvation…so again it is impossible that spiritual substance…should ever come under the power of corruption.” (ibid. 1.6.2)

The Tripartite Tractate also refers to the three-natures and types of men:

“Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material, conforming to the triple disposition of the Logos, from which were brought forth the material ones and the psychic ones and the spiritual ones. Each of the three essential types is known by its fruit. And they were not known at first but only at the coming of the Savior, who shone upon the saints and revealed what each was.

The spiritual race, being like light from light and like spirit from spirit, when its head appeared, it ran toward him immediately. It immediately became a body of its head. It suddenly received knowledge in the revelation.

The psychic race is like light from a fire, since it hesitated to accept knowledge of him who appeared to it. (It hesitated) even more to run toward him in faith. Rather, through a voice it was instructed, and this was sufficient, since it is not far from the hope according to the promise, since it received, so to speak as a pledge, the assurance of the things which were to be.

The material race, however, is alien in every way; since it is dark, it shuns the shining of the light, because its appearance destroys it. And since it has not received its unity, it is something excessive and hateful toward the Lord at his revelation.

The spiritual race will receive complete salvation in every way. The material will receive destruction in every way, just as one who resists him. The psychic race, since it is in the middle when it is brought forth and also when it is created, is double according to its determination for both good and evil.” (Tripartite Tractate, 118)

Notice the remarkable similarities between the words above and what is reported by Irenaeus. Both sources affirm a three-fold principle that provides a structure and explanation for the origins of nature, theology and human nature. A similar doctrine was also taught by the Naaasenes as recorded by Hippolytus in the so-called Naassene Sermon (Refutation of All Heresies, book 5). Here the Naassene source offers the following definition of “gnosis.” Hippolytus explains that this gnosis is rooted in the knowledge of the three-fold nature of the primal man:

“For they say, of this man, that one part is rational, another psychical, another earthly. And they suppose that the knowledge of this is the originating principle of the knowledge of God, expressing themselves thus: ‘The originating principle of perfection is the gnosis of Man, while the gnosis of God is absolute perfection.’ … All of these qualities—rational, psychical (soul) and earthly—have all descended into one man at once: Jesus, who was born of Mary. And these three men (meaning the three natures) speak through Jesus according to their own separate natures. For, according to the [Naassenes], there are three kinds of existent things—angelic, psychical, earthly; and there are three churches: angelic, psychical, earthly; and the names of these are Elect, Called and Captive.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 5:1)

The three natures mentioned above correspond to the three natures of the Valentinian Trinity. The Naassenes believed that the knowledge of these three natures is the key to salvation. If one reads through the Naassene Sermon that person will ultimately find that this knowledge meant understanding the difference between the elements and focusing on the spiritual. This is to unlock the greater Mysteries:

“For they who obtain their share of the greater Mysteries receive greater portions. For this is the gate of Heaven, and this is the house of God, where the good God alone dwells. And into this gate no unclean man shall enter, no ‘man of soul’ or carnal. But it is reserved for the spiritual only. And those who go there must cast off their clothes and become bridegrooms, made thoroughly male through the virgin Spirit. For this is the virgin who carries in her womb, and conceives and brings forth a son, not animal (soul), not corporeal (material), but blessed forever more.” (Hippolytus, ibid., 5:3)




The New Testament and the origins of the Valentinian Trinity

Irenaeus rejected the Valentinian Trinity of man and substance as having no basis in the Apostles. It is true that no New Testament writer refers specifically to a “trinity” of natures—anymore than these writers refer to any “orthodox” trinity. On the other hand, some of these writers do express profound ideas regarding a division of natures which has subsequently been suppressed and ignored in “orthodox” tradition. The Valentinian Trinity is an attempt to organize these ideas into a system; but at the same time is a later organization of earlier ideas that are found in the Letters of Paul (and to a lesser extent in the Gospel of John).

On the historical record Paul is the first known writer to express these ideas of varying natures, which are expressed in terms of the spiritual, the natural (soul) and the fleshly or carnal—and which appear later in the Valentinian Trinity of natures. These ideas appear most prominently in 1 Corinthians 2. In this passage Paul writes as a mystagogue, and he reveals certain details of a “mystery” and a “hidden wisdom” which are spoken of only among the “perfect” (teleiois: initiates). Paul reveals that men have different natures, and that this applies even in the Church. The “mystery” itself is described as a “wisdom” which is revealed by the “Spirit of God.” And the only way that a man can receive this spiritual wisdom is if he himself has received the “Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:6–7, 10–13). Paul then explains to his readers:

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things…” (1 Cor. 2:14–15)

In this passage Paul makes a distinction between the spiritual man (pneumatikos) and the natural man (psychikos). In 1 Corinthians 3:1–3 Paul goes on to describe the third category, the “fleshly” man (sarkikos). This is the nature that Paul actually condemns. The fleshly man is consumed by jealousy and strife (1 Cor. 3:3). Paul warns his readers that they are showing themselves to be “fleshly” when they allow themselves to be divided by factionalist disputes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11–12). It is a well-known point of Paul’s doctrine that he regarded the “flesh” as the root of all the ills and evil in man’s nature (cf. Romans 7:18, 25; Galatians 5:19–23). Paul even insists that Jesus appeared only in the “likeness” of “sinful flesh” and that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven” (Rom. 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:50).

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul gives more detail as to the larger cosmic order of the natures. Paul explains that there is a “soul” body and a “spiritual” body; and that all men are sewn in soul bodies but will be transformed into spiritual bodies. And Paul also states “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; neither can corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Cor. 15:42–50) A very important point here is that Paul never affirms the “orthodox” dogma that Man was created in the image of God and then fell. Paul says that only Christ represents the image of God (the “heavenly”) whereas Adam is a living soul of the earth, “earthy.” This means that Paul believed that Adam sinned because it was his earthly nature to do so [10].

10] In Romans 5:12 Paul says that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” In these words orthodox theologians see an affirmation of the doctrine of “original sin.” But Paul nowhere affirms that Adam was created in the image of God and then fell. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul actually denies that Adam was ever created in the image of God, and that this image was born alone by Christ. Thus Paul implies that Adam was created with the capacity for sin; and that from the beginning his body was created from the “earth” and was “earthy” in nature. This means that Adam was by nature weak and limited.

 And in Paul’s statement there is a relationship in concepts between Paul’s use of the words “fleshly” and “earthy.” And clearly Paul is basing his creation of man on the creation account in Genesis 2:7 where the “Lord” creates Adam from the earth: whereas a different creation of man is described in Genesis 1:26f., where “God” creates man in his own image “male and female.” No “dust” is mentioned. Again, Paul’s ideas are in reference to the second account and not the first.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul’s statements have theological implications as this applies both to Genesis and 1 Corinthians 2. The Valentinians recognized these monumental implications whereas, it seems, the orthodox crowd wanted to avoid giving themselves a headache (as Tertullian wrote “…for a controversy over the Scriptures can produce no other effect than to upset either the stomach or the brain”)[11].

11] Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 16.

 In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul does not affirm that Adam was created in the image of God. This means that Paul made a distinction in the Genesis creation accounts (as Philo did) and that Paul did not assign Adam’s origin to the supreme Being as described in Genesis 1:26. Paul refers only to Genesis 2:7, and he affirms accordingly that Adam is a living soul of the earth, earthy. When Paul refers to the “Spirit” of God and that which is “spiritual” he refers to elements of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 a “spirit” of God is mentioned, whereas no such “spirit” is mentioned in Genesis 2. From these two ideas, of “spirit” and “soul”, we may gather that there are two separate creations, two creations of man, two creators, and two natures: of Spirit and Soul. The third nature is the dust of the ground, the earth; from which Adam’s fleshly body was created. Paul believes that the “soul body” can be transformed to a “spiritual body” but he insisted that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.” In Paul’s thought flesh is equated with evil and cannot be saved.

In Paul it is possible to see the roots of the Valentinian Trinity of natures and its theological structure. Moreover I should point out that there are no writings or evidence before Paul’s writings that show these unique ideas and the contrast between spiritual, natural and material or fleshly substance. The only other source I know of that contains a Trinitarian theme is in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who was an older contemporary of Paul. I’ll summarize Philo’s doctrine in brief. Philo believed that that there were three forms of God (one reality and two manifestations). 

These three forms of God corresponded to three types of men. Philo did not employ terms such as spiritual and natural as Paul and the later Valentinians, but he conveyed a similar theme. Philo maintained that only the truly enlightened man could attain the “vision” of the true living God, whereas less enlightened men could only know the vision of God as manifest in the scriptures. The better among the less enlightened were still capable of knowing the better of the two: this was good “God” as described in Genesis 1. The still less enlightened, in turn, were only capable of knowing God in the image of his royal or governing power. This referred to the “Lord God” who carried a sword and resorted to violence in scripture. Of note is that Philo also referred to the latter two types of men as of the “right” and of the “left.” This shows some possible connection with the later Valentinian Trinity and its notion of the right and left as mentioned both by Irenaeus and in the Tripartite Tractate (cited above).

Here are some quotations from Philo which show his concepts of the three natures:

“There are three different classes of human dispositions, each of which has received as its portion one of the aforesaid visions. The best of them has received that vision which is in the centre, the sight of the truly living God. The one which is next best has received that which is on the right hand, the sight of the beneficent power which has the name of God (Theos, Gn. 1:1f.). And the third has the sight of that which is on the left hand, the governing power, which is called lord ” (Kurios, Gn. 2:4f.).

And also:

“…and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God [Theos], for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord [Kurios], for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind… a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three…” (On Abraham, 121f., 124)

Philo’s notion of three natures and three corresponding visions of God is certainly a cornerstone in the foundation of later Valentinian tradition, and the Valentinian Trinity. Of course we have no direct evidence that ancient Valentinians studied Philo, at least not in their writings. But the fact that Clement of Alexandria does mention Philo indicates that the Valentinians of Alexandria surely were aware of him as well (Clement, Stromata, 1:5).

Getting back to Paul, he set the basic precedent in that he was the first on the historical record to begin defining men as either “spiritual” or “natural” or “fleshly” (or also “earthy”). Where Paul got these ideas is a total mystery for scholars. But undoubtedly this is the source of the later Valentinian Trinity and all its theological implications. And indeed the Valentinians recognized that Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 2 had theological implications. For Valentinians Paul’s words meant that there was a spiritual God, and there was a natural God (and likewise a fleshly God, viz. Satan; cf. 1 Cor. 5:5). The reason is because Paul states that the Natural man cannot receive spiritual wisdom (1 Cor. 2:14). This means that the Natural man cannot know the spiritual God, but can only know a lesser form of god after the nature of the soul. In Valentinian tradition this lesser god is the Demiurge.

In the Nag Hammadi fragment The Prayer of the Apostle we can see a prime example of the link between Valentinian theology and Paul’s concept of natures:

“I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages; give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the Spirit, the Paraclete of truth. Give me authority when I ask you; give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace—reveal him to my mind!

Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modelled) after the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have faith and hope. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness, the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and ever. Amen.”

In these quotations both the three natures and the threefold theology of the Valentinian Trinity are evident: and it may be seen how these ideas were carried over from Paul. First note the reference to “Jesus Christ” who “pre-existed in the name which is above every name.” The writer asks Jesus, through the “Spirit”, to “redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit.” Note here that the “Spirit” is identified with Jesus and with the “name which is exalted above every name.” The latter passage is taken from Ephesians 1:21 where “Paul” writes that Jesus has been lifted to the right hand of the Father “Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this aeon, but also in that which is to come.” This passage inevitably refers to a name and a place far above “Jehovah” whose Name is known as the ruler of this aeon and dominion. In the Prayer quoted above, this is meant to show that Paul appeals to the highest Godhead, which is Spiritual in essence, and is not known to this world.

Next this writer makes a request based on Paul’s interpolation of Isaiah 64:4 as preserved in 1 Corinthians 2:9. In another article I point out how that Paul’s quotation is an inversion of the original passage (and which other biased theologians and scholars have tried to connect with a non-existent passage from the Apocalypse of Elijah). The original passage refers to YHWH’s plan which has been announced to the prophets and which has never been heard from any other God. Paul quotes this passage so as to refer to a Plan which no man has known, and which “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man…” The author of the Prayer quotes these words so as to refer to the “psychic God.” Hence: “Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modelled) after the image of the psychic God.” The writer here refers to the spiritual ignorance of the Demiurge who has dominion over the realm of the soul.

The Prayer of the Apostle is the one surviving text which shows direct evidence that Valentinians understood the implications of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 2 as this regards theology and the several natures. Again the Valentinian Trinity is a later exposition and organization of these ideas. To ignore the Valentinian Trinity is to ignore the spiritual heart of earliest Gnostic Christianity and its unique Wisdom. —

Thursday, 28 May 2020

Is God a Holy Trinity?

Is God a Holy Trinity?



Is there a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the trinity?

Yes there is a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the catholic trinity

The Ogdoad is a group of 8 aeons which make up the primal emanations of the Pleroma or Godhead

The Trinity is a group of 3 divine beings or persons all claiming to be the same Person at the same time which makes up the Catholic Godhead

The emanations are all aspects of the One Deity 


The Deity has male and female aspects. However the 3 persons of the Catholic  Trinity are all male 

He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is singular while being many, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. (The Tripartite Tractate Einar Thomassen Translation)

It is not "One God in three Gods," and "Three Gods in One;" but one Deity in a countless multitude revealed in the memorial name, and set forth in the mystery of godliness.


This multitudinous manifestation of the one Deity - one in many, and many in one, by His spirit - was proclaimed to the Hebrew nation in the formula of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O lsrael, YAHWEH our ELOHIM is the ONE YAHWEH;" that is, "He who shall be our Mighty Ones is the One who shall be."

There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and "a multitude which no man can number." The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.


Is God a Holy Trinity?

No God is not Trinity the reason why it is called the Holy Trinity is because there are many pagan Trinitis

Valentinian tradition rejects the teaching of the trinity

Marcellus was a contemporary of the Church historian Eusebius and he was present with the latter at the Council of Nicea (c. 325). Marcellus claimed a connection between the Trinity and the teachings of the great Gnostic sage, Valentinus (c. 85–150 AD).

“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” (B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 232)

To understand the meaning of Marcellus’s statement it must be seen against the background of the time in which it was written. Both Marcellus and Eusebius lived in an age where the Catholic Church had achieved total dominance; and had received recognition and support from the Roman emperor. In this period the Church was split between two theological factions. One of these factions (the “orthodox”) believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three distinct persons who shared one nature or essence (homoousion). This was the position of the majority of the Catholic clergy. In opposition was the heretical faction led by an Egyptian priest named Arius (c. 250–336), who led a rebellion against the bishop of Alexandria. Arius and his followers insisted that the Father and Son had separate natures [1]. (This controversy was probably based on the paradox between Matthew 19:17 and John 10:30.) In the fragment above Marcellus is crediting the notorious heretic Valentinus with being the originator of the separate natures position as taken by the followers of Arius. I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. (In a similar manner Arius claimed in his Confession of Faith that the doctrine of one nature originated from the teachings of Valentinus and the Manicheans.[3])

Ironically Marcellus was later condemned by the Catholic Church for going too far toward the Monarchian position (Sabellianism) in his fanatical opposition to the Arians. Thus while Marcellus affirmed the shared essence of the Trinity, he did so to the point of denying the reality of their separate persons. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09642a.htm

In extant ecclesiastical literature the first use of the word homoousion in theology first appears in the doctrine of Valentinus as reported by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.1.; see B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 290, footnote b. Of significance is that Irenaeus never used this word in his own doctrine, just as he never used the word “trinity.”

The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Valentinian text that shows a connection of this sort. Valentinian texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Valentinian sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Valentinian tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Valentinians, referred to something entirely different and unique.

The report of Marcellus above may be compared with the reports of the early Latin Father, Tertullian of Carthage. Tertullian lived at least 50 years before Marcellus and his writings are especially important because they show the origin and development of the word “trinity” in early Christian thought [4].


4] In extant ecclesiastical literature the notion of a three-person Godhead first appears with Justin Martyr, Athenagorus, and Irenaeus (Justin, 1 Apology, 6, 60; Athenagorus, A Plea for the Christians, 12; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.4). These writers never use the word “trinity” but the three-fold idea is emerging in their thoughts. Most important is that these writers do not derive their three-fold ideas from any theological consensus in the NT. At best these writers refer to certain ideas that appear infrequently in certain NT passages, i.e. Mt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14. But again, there is no consensus in the NT that the Godhead is comprised of three persons. If there is any consensus at all in the NT, then the evidence most often shows that the Godhead is comprised of two figures, Father and Son (cf. Col. 2: 1–3, Jn. 1:1–3, 10:30). It is also notable that, in their polemics against heretics, neither Justin nor Irenaeus refer to any “trinity”; nor do they labor repeatedly on the notion that the godhead is ‘three-fold’ or is comprised of ‘three persons.’ This particular form of dogmatic opinion began with Tertullian (and the Montanists) and no one else (i.e. Tertullian, Against Praxeas).

Historically, Tertullian was the first Catholic writer to begin using the word “trinity” in reference to a systematic dogma.

The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Valentinian doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinians. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:

“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)

Tertullian’s description of the Valentinian “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Valentinian doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Valentinians of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Valentinian tradition, and which provided the structure by which Valentinians defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature

Photinus taught that Jesus was the sinless Messiah and redeemer, and the only perfect human son of God, but that he had no pre-human existence. They interpret verses such as John 1:1 to refer to God's "plan" existing in God's mind before Christ's birth;

Many Gnostic traditions held that the Christ is a heavenly Aeon but not one with the Father.

Nontrinitarianism was later renewed by Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries:

Yet another movement got started in the 12th century in the south of France—the Albigenses (also known as Cathari), named after the town of Albi, where they had many followers. They had their own celibate clergy class, who expected to be greeted with reverence. They believed that Jesus spoke figuratively in his last supper when he said of the bread, “This is my body.” (Matthew 26:26, NAB) They rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, hellfire, and purgatory. Thus they actively put in doubt the teachings of Rome. Pope Innocent III gave instructions that the Albigenses be persecuted. “If necessary,” he said, “suppress them with the sword.” (mankind's search for god watchtower)

The Bogomils ("Friends of God") or Bulgars were a Gnostic Christian sect that flourished in Thrace and Bulgaria in the 10th Century. Their beliefs spread throughout Europe: to Italy, Northern Spain, the Languedoc, France, Germany, and Flanders. Bulgars rejected the Trinity and the sacraments, denied the Catholic Church's teachings on images, infant baptism, saints, and the virgin birth, and held that matter is inherently evil. A derivative sect which came to be known as Cathari flourished in the Languedoc (now Southern France) and Northern Italy . They followed a life of severe asceticism and found little difficulty in attracting the bulk of the population who were, according to Church records, sated with the corruption of the local clergy.


Those groups with early Unitarian or Socinian Christology such as Christadelphians and the Church of God General Conference identify the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament much as Jews do, simply as angels. Early Christadelphians, notably John Thomas (Phanerosis 1869): The Bible doctrine of the manifestation of God upon earth in the angels, in the Lord Jesus Christ, and hereafter in
"the manifestation of sons of God" Birmingham 1929) integrated angelic theophanies and God as revealed in his various divine names into a doctrine of God Manifestation which carries on into a Unitarian understanding of God's theophany in Christ and God being manifested in resurrected believers.

Tuesday, 26 May 2020

Hope N Faith




Hope (Elpis) and Faith (Pistis) in the Nag Hammadi Library

The Greek terms pistis (faith) and elpis (hope) provide an important way of examining the spirituality of the Nag Hammadi Library. Yet they must be approached with considerable care. The Nag Hammadi Library is not a single theological treatise, nor does it represent one unified religious system. It is a collection of fourth-century Coptic manuscripts preserving more than fifty tractates representing a variety of early Christian, Valentinian, Sethian, Hermetic, and related traditions. Consequently, neither pistis nor elpis possesses one fixed meaning throughout the collection.

In some writings, faith and hope function as positive spiritual dispositions. They provide the conditions in which a person begins and continues a process of spiritual development. In other texts, faith or hope can be criticized when they are reduced to external religious observance, verbal confession, ritual baptism, or an expectation of salvation that is not accompanied by transformation and knowledge. Elsewhere, particularly in mythological material, Hope can even appear as a heavenly reality associated with Sophia.

This diversity is important because the Nag Hammadi writings cannot accurately be reduced to the simple formula that orthodox Christianity possesses “faith” while Gnostic Christianity possesses “knowledge.” The evidence is considerably more complicated. The texts frequently place faith, hope, love, and knowledge into a developmental relationship. Rather than necessarily opposing faith to knowledge, several Nag Hammadi writings portray faith and hope as stages or conditions through which the seeker advances toward spiritual understanding.

A further clarification concerns the famous title Pistis Sophia. Pistis Sophia is not one of the tractates contained in the Nag Hammadi codices. It is a separate Coptic Gnostic work preserved in manuscripts outside the Nag Hammadi collection. Nevertheless, the concepts represented by the Greek words pistis and sophia, as well as elpis, are found within Nag Hammadi literature. The distinction between the Pistis Sophia text and the Nag Hammadi Library is therefore essential when discussing faith, hope, wisdom, and knowledge.

Faith and Hope as Foundations of Spiritual Growth

One of the clearest positive treatments of faith and hope occurs in the Gospel of Philip. The text presents spiritual development through an agricultural metaphor. Four elements are required for divine “farming”: faith, hope, love, and knowledge.

“God’s farming likewise has four elements—faith, hope, love, and knowledge. Faith is our earth, that in which we take root. And hope is the water through which we are nourished. Love is the wind through which we grow. Knowledge, then, is the light through which we ripen.”

— Gospel of Philip

This passage is particularly significant because it places faith and hope alongside knowledge rather than simply against it. The metaphor describes four complementary conditions of spiritual development.

Spiritual elementAgricultural metaphorFunction
Faith (pistis)EarthProvides the ground in which the seeker takes root
Hope (elpis)WaterNourishes and sustains spiritual growth
LoveWindEnables and carries the process of growth
Knowledge (gnosis)LightBrings the seeker toward maturity

Faith is therefore compared with the earth. Earth provides stability. A plant cannot grow without being rooted somewhere, and the same image is applied to spiritual existence. Faith gives the seeker a foundation from which development can begin.

This is important because faith in this passage is not presented as an intellectual substitute for knowledge. The text does not say that knowledge is unnecessary because faith is sufficient. Nor does it say that faith becomes meaningless once knowledge has been acquired. Instead, faith belongs to the entire process of spiritual growth.

Hope has a different but equally necessary function. It is compared with water. Water does not provide the soil itself, but it nourishes what has been planted in the soil. Consequently, elpis can be understood as an expectation directed toward something still being brought to fulfilment. Hope keeps the spiritual life alive while development remains incomplete.

The metaphor also prevents knowledge from being isolated from the other three elements. Knowledge is the light through which the plant finally “ripens,” but the plant has already required earth, water, and wind. Knowledge is therefore the culmination of a process rather than an isolated intellectual possession.

The agricultural metaphor provides perhaps the strongest correction to the simplistic idea that Gnostic spirituality simply rejected faith. In the Gospel of Philip, faith is explicitly described as essential. Hope is also explicitly described as essential. Love is essential. Knowledge is essential. The four operate together.

The sequence can therefore be understood developmentally:

faith provides rootedness → hope provides nourishment → love enables growth → knowledge brings maturity.

This does not establish one universal Nag Hammadi doctrine, but it does demonstrate that at least one major text regards faith and hope as positive spiritual realities.

Faith and Hope in the Prayer of the Apostle Paul

A similarly positive use occurs in the Prayer of the Apostle Paul, preserved as the opening tractate of Codex I. Here the language is devotional rather than agricultural or mythological.

The speaker addresses the transcendent God and seeks redemption, revelation, mercy, healing, and spiritual illumination. The prayer expresses confidence that divine revelation can be received and explicitly associates this expectation with faith and hope:

“…since I have faith and hope.”

— Prayer of the Apostle Paul

The statement is short, but its significance is considerable. Faith and hope occur within a prayer directed toward divine revelation. They are not presented as obstacles to knowledge. Instead, they are part of the disposition through which the petitioner seeks divine illumination.

The context is therefore important. The speaker is not merely expressing belief in a set of propositions. The prayer seeks transformation. It asks for redemption, revelation, healing, and participation in the divine reality.

Faith can consequently be understood here as trust in the transcendent God and in the possibility of divine revelation. Hope represents expectation that this revelation and redemption can actually be received.

The relationship between faith, hope, and knowledge therefore becomes complementary. Faith provides confidence that the divine can be approached. Hope anticipates the divine gift. Revelation then supplies the knowledge toward which the prayer is directed.

This differs from a purely passive understanding of hope. Hope is not simply waiting for a reward after death. It is connected with a present spiritual movement toward revelation and transformation.

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul therefore demonstrates another aspect of pistis and elpis: they can function as conditions of receptivity. The person approaches the divine with faith and hope precisely because the person expects something to be revealed.

When Faith and Hope Become External

The Nag Hammadi material also contains a sharp criticism of forms of faith that remain merely external. The Testimony of Truth is particularly important in this regard.

The tractate criticizes people who identify themselves with Christianity but whose religion consists principally in external confession and ritual. It discusses baptism and describes the expectation attached to it as:

“a hope of salvation,” which they call the “seal.”

— Testimony of Truth

The criticism should not be interpreted as a rejection of hope itself. The author is attacking what is understood as an inadequate form of religious confidence. The problem is that a person can possess the outward signs of religion without possessing the inward knowledge that, according to the author, brings genuine liberation.

The text therefore directs attention away from external identification and toward self-knowledge and knowledge of the God of truth.

This creates an important distinction between hope as spiritual expectation and hope as a substitute for transformation.

A person may hope for salvation while remaining ignorant of the truth. A person may receive baptism while failing to understand its spiritual significance. A person may confess Christ verbally while remaining controlled by ignorance and the powers of the material world.

For the author of the Testimony of Truth, such external religion does not constitute the fullness of salvation.

This is why the text's criticism should not be summarized as “faith is bad” or “hope is useless.” Its argument is more precise. Faith and hope become inadequate when they are disconnected from the knowledge and transformation that the author regards as necessary.

The tractate's damaged condition also requires caution. The surviving manuscript is fragmentary, and important portions of the argument have been lost. At one point the author asks:

“What, then, is this faith?”

The surviving text does not preserve the complete subsequent discussion. Consequently, the tractate should not be treated as though it gives us a complete systematic theory of faith.

Nevertheless, its surviving argument clearly distinguishes external religious identity from genuine spiritual knowledge.

The contrast can be represented as follows:

external faith → confession, ritual, expectation

versus

transformative faith → self-knowledge, knowledge of God, liberation, spiritual life.

The second is what the author considers spiritually effective.

This is an important feature of Nag Hammadi spirituality more generally. The problem is frequently not the existence of faith but faith without awakening.

Knowledge Does Not Necessarily Cancel Faith

The Testimony of Truth is therefore especially useful when placed beside the Gospel of Philip. The two texts approach faith differently, but neither supports the simplistic conclusion that knowledge and faith must always be opposites.

The Gospel of Philip positively incorporates faith into the process leading toward knowledge.

The Testimony of Truth attacks faith when it remains merely external and fails to produce knowledge.

These two approaches can coexist within a diverse collection because the Nag Hammadi Library does not represent one single theological author.

The difference is therefore between faith as a living spiritual reality and faith as an empty external designation.

The same distinction can be applied to hope. Hope can be spiritually productive when it nourishes growth. But hope can become inadequate when it means merely expecting salvation without undertaking the transformation that the text demands.

The recurring concern is consequently not simply whether someone has faith, but what that faith produces.

Does it produce knowledge?

Does it produce self-understanding?

Does it produce freedom?

Does it lead the person away from ignorance?

Does it result in participation in divine life?

These questions are much closer to the concerns expressed by the Nag Hammadi writings than the simple opposition between “faith” and “gnosis.”

Hope as a Heavenly Reality

A particularly interesting development appears in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Here “hope” is used in a mythological context rather than simply describing an emotion or spiritual attitude.

The text speaks of:

“…they flee from him who had fled from the throne to the Sophia of hope…”

— Second Treatise of the Great Seth

This passage is significant because “Hope” appears within a cosmological setting associated with Sophia. The term is no longer merely something that a human being possesses. Instead, Hope appears capable of functioning as a designation for a heavenly reality.

A scholarly annotation of the tractate identifies Hope as a heavenly being associated with Sophia. In this context, Hope is connected with the heavenly order and with the spiritual race.

This illustrates an important characteristic of ancient mythological language. Abstract concepts can become personified or incorporated into descriptions of divine realities. Wisdom, Truth, Life, Mind, Grace, and other concepts can function both as theological concepts and as names or characteristics associated with heavenly beings.

This should not be generalized into the claim that every Nag Hammadi author believed Hope was a separate divine goddess or aeon. The collection contains different mythological systems and theological traditions. The significance of the passage is narrower: it demonstrates that Hope could be represented cosmologically, rather than only psychologically.

This is a substantially different use of elpis from the statement in the Prayer of the Apostle Paul:

“…since I have faith and hope.”

In the prayer, hope describes the disposition of the worshipper.

In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, “Sophia of hope” occurs within a heavenly myth.

The same Greek concept can therefore operate at different theological levels.

Faith, Hope, and the Spiritual Race

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth is also concerned with the distinction between the heavenly spiritual race and the rulers associated with the lower cosmic order. Within that framework, Hope belongs to a mythological structure in which revelation, identity, and salvation are associated with heavenly realities.

This helps explain why words such as faith, hope, wisdom, truth, and life can sometimes appear to function differently in Nag Hammadi texts from the way they function in later Christian theological systems.

The vocabulary is inherited from wider Jewish and Christian traditions, but it can be placed into new cosmological frameworks.

Hope can therefore mean:

  1. expectation of salvation;

  2. confidence in divine revelation;

  3. nourishment of spiritual growth;

  4. a condition of continued spiritual development;

  5. or, in mythological language, a heavenly reality associated with Sophia.

There is no contradiction in these uses because the collection is not a dictionary with one fixed definition for every theological word. Meaning depends upon context.

Faith, Hope, Love, and Knowledge

The fourfold structure of the Gospel of Philip deserves particular attention because it provides perhaps the most coherent model for understanding the relationship between pistis, elpis, love, and gnosis.

Faith is earth.

Hope is water.

Love is wind.

Knowledge is light.

The metaphors imply that spiritual development requires more than intellectual understanding. Knowledge by itself does not constitute the whole agricultural process. A seed needs somewhere to grow and something to nourish it before it can mature.

The metaphor therefore challenges the idea that “gnosis” means simply possessing secret information.

Knowledge is the light through which the person “ripens.” The image suggests maturation. It is transformative knowledge rather than information accumulated for its own sake.

Faith and hope consequently belong to the same spiritual ecology.

Faith provides the ground.

Hope sustains.

Love causes growth.

Knowledge illuminates.

The four terms describe different aspects of one movement toward spiritual maturity.

This is perhaps the most useful framework for understanding why Nag Hammadi texts can simultaneously criticize ordinary religious faith and preserve positive language about faith and hope.

They are not necessarily rejecting every form of pistis. Rather, they distinguish between uninformed or external belief and a faith that participates in a deeper process of transformation.

The Relationship Between Faith and Gnosis

The relationship between faith and knowledge is therefore better described as developmental than simply oppositional.

Faith can be the beginning.

Hope can sustain the journey.

Love can transform the person.

Knowledge can bring illumination and maturity.

This does not mean that every Nag Hammadi text follows this precise sequence. It means that the Gospel of Philip provides a particularly clear example of a model in which these concepts cooperate.

Other texts modify the relationship.

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul emphasizes prayerful trust and expectation.

The Testimony of Truth emphasizes the inadequacy of external religious confidence without knowledge.

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth uses Hope within a heavenly mythology.

Together these texts demonstrate why it is misleading to speak of “the Gnostic view of faith” as though there were one uniform position.

Conclusion

The Nag Hammadi Library presents a diverse range of approaches to faith (pistis) and hope (elpis). They cannot be reduced either to a later orthodox Protestant model of salvation by faith alone or to the claim that Gnostic spirituality simply regarded faith as useless.

The Gospel of Philip offers the clearest positive synthesis:

“Faith is our earth, that in which we take root. And hope is the water through which we are nourished. Love is the wind through which we grow. Knowledge, then, is the light through which we ripen.”

Here faith and hope are genuine spiritual necessities. They are not enemies of knowledge. They provide the foundation and nourishment through which spiritual maturity becomes possible.

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul likewise speaks positively of the petitioner:

“…since I have faith and hope.”

Faith and hope here represent trust and expectation directed toward divine revelation, redemption, and transformation.

The Testimony of Truth, however, warns against an externalized religious hope:

“a hope of salvation,” which they call the “seal.”

Its criticism is directed toward a form of religion in which baptism, confession, and expectation of salvation remain external and are not accompanied by self-knowledge and knowledge of the God of truth.

Finally, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth presents Hope in mythological language:

“…they flee from him who had fled from the throne to the Sophia of hope…”

Here Hope is associated with a heavenly reality connected with Sophia, demonstrating that elpis could function within cosmological mythology as well as ordinary devotional language.

The evidence therefore points toward a multifaceted understanding of faith and hope.

Faith can mean rootedness, trust, fidelity, or the beginning of spiritual development.

Hope can mean nourishment, expectation, confidence in divine revelation, or the anticipation of liberation.

Knowledge or gnosis can represent illumination, self-knowledge, recognition of the divine, and spiritual maturity.

The decisive issue in many of these texts is not simply whether a person possesses faith or hope, but whether those qualities remain external or become transformative.

The Nag Hammadi writers who criticize faith are often criticizing faith without knowledge, just as they can criticize hope without transformation. Their concern is with a religious existence that stops at words, ritual, expectation, or external identity.

By contrast, the positive passages present faith and hope as parts of a living process.

The Gospel of Philip therefore provides an especially useful image: faith is the soil, hope is the water, love is the wind, and knowledge is the light. The mature spiritual life requires the whole process.

The Nag Hammadi Library should consequently be understood not as a single creed but as a collection in which inherited Christian vocabulary is repeatedly transformed and interpreted within different theological systems. Pistis, elpis, agape, gnosis, sophia, and related terms can operate at devotional, ethical, psychological, mystical, and cosmological levels.

The central pattern that emerges from the passages examined here is therefore not a simple opposition between faith and knowledge. It is a movement from rootedness toward nourishment, from nourishment toward growth, and from growth toward illumination.

Faith provides the ground.

Hope provides nourishment.

Love produces growth.

Knowledge brings the process toward maturity.

In that sense, the Nag Hammadi material does not simply ask whether one has faith. It asks what faith becomes when it is genuinely lived, what hope produces when it is genuinely possessed, and whether both ultimately lead the seeker beyond ignorance toward self-knowledge, truth, freedom, transformation, and participation in divine life.

Primary Texts

Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi Codex II.

Prayer of the Apostle Paul, Nag Hammadi Codex I.

Testimony of Truth, Nag Hammadi Codex IX.

Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Nag Hammadi Codex VII.

Important Terminological Clarification

The Nag Hammadi Library should not be confused with the separate text known as the Pistis Sophia. The latter survives outside the Nag Hammadi codices. The presence of pistis and elpis within Nag Hammadi writings nevertheless demonstrates that faith and hope were important concepts within several of the traditions represented by the collection.

The diversity of these writings is precisely why their vocabulary must be interpreted individually and contextually rather than treated as though every tractate subscribed to one uniform “Gnostic” theology.

Think

Test Everything Trust in the Father

Tuesday, 19 May 2020

Joy and Redemption The Gospel of Truth

The Gospel of Truth








Ode 8:8 
Hear the word of truth, and receive the knowledge of the Most High.

In some texts the first sentence contains the total substance of the work in a nutshell. this is certainly true of the prologue to the gospel of truth where we find the great central concepts which will subsequently be elaborated 

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.



those of the middle
The "all" is used collectively of the body of Christ the church, here in the Gospel of Truth I think the term is first used for the nation of Israel and secondly for the believers 

In the "All" there is a group called "those of the middle" it is the same group of people described as "those who have not known the Father" it is this group which can be deceived and taken captive which needs redemption. 


Joy


He was nailed to a tree.  He became a fruit of the knowledge of the father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery.

This fruit eternally will be at hand, providing insight, reunion and joy for those who eat it.

the fruit that brought joy is the crucified Jesus

those who eat the fruit that Jesus became are filled with joy.

Truth's good news generates joy in those who have received from the father the gift of knowing him.
  1. To the blessed ones the joy is from their heart, and light from Him who dwells in them;
  2. And the Word of truth who is self-originate,
  3. Because He has been strengthened by the Holy Power of the Most High; and He is unshaken for ever and ever.
    Hallelujah.

Redemption 
Redemption is a Jewish and Christian technical team meaning to buy back it is linked to the word ransom

In modern usage, if you are ransomed it means that you have been captured and imprisoned as a hostage and that someone has paid to have you released.


In the gospel of truth the words "captive" " in chains" or "in bonds" is used to describe "those of the middle" who can be enticed and beguiled. These people are captured by Error into ignorance by means of fears and forgetfulnesses:


(The Gospel of Truth) She was preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle  and to make them captive.


(The Gospel of Truth) Having made punishments and tortures cease - for it was they which were leading astray from his face some who were in need of mercy, in error and in bonds - he both destroyed them with power and confounded them with knowledge. 


Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1, 2, applying it to himself as sent by the Father “to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind.” (Lu 4:16-21) 


Eph 4:8;  Wherefore he says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts [in] men


Christ led a host of captives out of the bondage of spiritual Egypt


2Cor 10:5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ


“If anyone is meant for captivity, he goes away into captivity.”—Re 13:10


captivity is a state of bondage to mental confusion


The release or the ransom to escape the captive of Error is knowledge people are redeemed by knowledge

Redemption means the transformation of ignorance into knowledge this is what the gospel is about  


Col 3:10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

The inner, spiritual man is redeemed through knowledge, and it suffices to have knowledge of all things: this is the true redemption

Therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. 

knowledge is the means of achieving redemption 


discovery of those who seek him


The last words of the prologue speak about discovery and seeking or searching "since it is the discovery for those who are searching for him"