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 Father is the Tree of Life The Tripartite Tractate

Your document with fixed spacing issues:  

---

**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways: Apocalyptic and Mystic Christianity, where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**  

# **The Tree of Life in the *Tripartite Tractate***  

The expression “tree of life” appears in various biblical and early Christian texts, symbolizing wisdom, divine knowledge, and the eternal relationship between God and creation. In Proverbs, wisdom itself is called a tree of life:  

*"She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who hold her fast."* (Proverbs 3:18)  

This passage presents wisdom as a personification of God’s mind or an aspect of divine thought. The *Tripartite Tractate*, a Valentinian Gnostic text from the *Nag Hammadi Library*, expands upon this concept by describing divine emanation as a branching tree, with the Father as the root of the Totality. This idea echoes other Valentinian texts, such as *A Valentinian Exposition*, which uses similar imagery to explain the hierarchical emanation of divine principles.  

## **The Father as the Root of the Tree**  

The *Tripartite Tractate* begins with a discussion of the Father, describing Him as the singular source from which all divine manifestations arise:  

*"As for what we can say about the things which are exalted, what is fitting is that we begin with the Father, who is the root of the Totality, the one from whom we have received grace to speak about him."* (*Tripartite Tractate*)  

Here, the Father is likened to a root, hidden and unseen, yet the source of all growth. This aligns with the Valentinian belief that *Bythos* (Depth) is the first principle, from which the Aeons and the Pleroma emerge. This root extends into branches, fruit, and ultimately, a complete tree:  

*"The single one, who alone is the Father, is like a root, with tree, branches, and fruit."* (*Tripartite Tractate*)  

This metaphor reflects the hierarchical emanation of divine aspects from the unknowable Father down to the visible world.  

## **The Limbs of the Ineffable**  

Another non-Valentinian Gnostic text, *Pistis Sophia*, describes divine emanations as the “limbs of the inexpressible”:  

*"There is a multitude of limbs but only one body. For this cause, he who has found the words of those mysteries is like unto him."* (*Pistis Sophia*)  

This idea resonates with the *Tripartite Tractate*, where the Father’s emanations unfold like the branches of a great tree, each extending further into the structure of the divine order.  

## **The Tree as a Model of Emanation**  

Valentinian cosmology describes a structured unfolding of divine principles, mirroring the growth of a tree. This structure can be understood as follows:  

1. **The Root** – The hidden source, the Father (*Bythos*).  

2. **The Secondary Root** – The Holy Spirit (*Sigē*, Silence, or *Charis*, Grace), an emanation of the Father.  

3. **The Base of the Tree (Stump)** – *Nous* (Mind) and *Aletheia* (Truth), the first emanation, the Son Monogenes representing divine comprehension and reality.  

4. **The Trunk and Primary Branches** – emanating from the Son (*Logos* and *Zoe*, Word and Life), the visible foundation of divine revelation.  

5. **The Secondary Branches** – The further emanations, including *Anthropos* (Man) and *Ecclesia* (Church).  

6. **The Fruit** – The final manifestations of divine wisdom, the offspring of the Aeons, representing the fullness (*Pleroma*).  

### **The Tetrads of Emanation**  

*A Valentinian Exposition* follows a structured hierarchy of divine emanation:  

*"That Tetrad projected the Tetrad which is the one consisting of Word and Life and Man and Church."* (*A Valentinian Exposition*)  

This passage describes how the first four Aeons—Bythos (Depth), Sigē (Silence), Nous (Mind), and Aletheia (Truth)—serve as the model for subsequent emanations. From this divine foundation, another Tetrad emerges, consisting of Logos (Word), Zoe (Life), Anthropos (Man), and Ecclesia (Church). The process of emanation continues, reflecting the structured unfolding of divine attributes within the Pleroma.  

*"The Uncreated One projected Word and Life. Word is for the glory of the Ineffable One while Life is for the glory of Silence, and Man is for his own glory, while Church is for the glory of Truth."* (*A Valentinian Exposition*)  

Each Aeon serves a distinct role within the divine order, reflecting different aspects of the Father's emanation. Logos (Word) manifests the glory of the Ineffable Father, Zoe (Life) expresses the radiance of Sigē (Silence), Anthropos (Man) exists for his own realization, and Ecclesia (Church) embodies the glory of Aletheia (Truth). This structured unfolding of divine attributes illustrates the harmonious relationships within the Pleroma, where each Aeon contributes to the fullness (*plerōma*) of divine reality.  

## **The Fruit of the Aeons**  

*A Valentinian Exposition* also speaks of the Aeons producing fruit, reinforcing the tree metaphor:  

*"Moreover, it is the one from the Triacontad of the Aeons who bear fruit from the Triacontad. They enter jointly, but they come forth singly, fleeing from the Aeons and the Uncontainable Ones."* (*A Valentinian Exposition*)  

This suggests that divine emanation is both unified and individual, with each aspect of God’s mind unfolding uniquely while still belonging to the totality (*Pleroma*).  

### **The Will of the Father and the Production of Fruit**  

*A Valentinian Exposition* further clarifies that the Aeons are meant to produce and bear fruit, much like branches of a tree:  

*"Again, the will of the Father is: always produce and bear fruit. That she should suffer, then, was not the will of the Father, for she dwells in herself alone without her consort."* (*A Valentinian Exposition*)  

This passage refers to *Sophia* (Wisdom), one of the Aeons, who experiences a form of separation from the divine order. However, the Father’s ultimate will is that all divine aspects continue to produce and manifest their nature.  

## **Conclusion: The Tree as the Divine Structure**  

The *Tripartite Tractate* and related Valentinian texts present a profound vision of divine emanation as a tree. This tree metaphor helps illustrate the emanation of the Aeons. Each part of the tree plays a role in expressing divine attributes culminating in the fullness of the *Pleroma*.  

Through this model, the *Tripartite Tractate* reveals a structured yet organic vision of divine reality—one in which every emanation originates from the unknowable *Bythos*, spreads out as living branches, and ultimately bears fruit in the divine order. This cosmic tree stands as a symbol of the interconnectedness of divine wisdom, true knowledge, and the realization of the Father's will...

The expression “tree of life” is used with regard to true wisdom, the fruitage of the righteous, the realization of a thing desired, and calmness of the tongue; it is also associated with the crown of life. (Pr 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; Re 2:7, 10

. God’s word or message is like “seed,” which, if planted in good soil, brings forth much fruitage (Lu 8:11-15); his sayings are also said to ‘run with speed.’—Ps 147:15

Wisdom is called the tree of life in the book of Proverbs see Proverbs 3:18

She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast.
wisdom is a personification of God or an aspect of God

The tree of life is used with regard to true wisdom, God’s word or message is like “seed,” which, if planted in good soil, brings forth much fruitage (Lu 8:11-15).

As for what we can say about the things which are exalted, what is fitting is that we begin with the Father, who is the root of the Totality, the one from whom we have received grace to speak about him.

2. The Father

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.  Yet he is not like a solitary individual. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a "father," the name "son" follows. But the single one, who alone is the Father, is like a root, with tree, branches and fruit.

The Tripartite Tractate, is an explanation of the limbs of the ineffable

Of the Limbs of the Ineffable."

AND those who are worthy of the mysteries which abide in the inexpressible, which are those which have not gone forth,--these exist before the First Mystery, and to use a likeness and similitude, that ye may understand it, they are as the Limbs of the inexpressible....There is a multitude of limbs but only one body.....For this cause he who hath found the words of those mysteries, is like unto him.....[sc. the First, i.e. the inexpressible], Pistis Sophia

Moreover it is these who have known him who is, the Father, that is, the Root of the All, the Ineffable One who dwells in the Monad. He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility since, after all, he was a Monad and no one was before him. He dwells in the Dyad and in the Pair, and his Pair is Silence. And he possessed the All dwelling within him. And as for Intention and Persistence, Love and Permanence, they are indeed unbegotten. God came forth: the Son, Mind of the All, that is, it is from the Root of the All that even his Thought stems, since he had this one (the Son) in Mind. For on behalf of the All, he received an alien Thought since there were nothing before him. From that place it is he who moved [...] a gushing spring. Now this is the Root of the All and Monad without any one before him. Now the second spring exists in silence and speaks with him alone. And the Fourth accordingly is he who restricted himself in the Fourth (The Nag Hammadi Library A Valentinian Exposition)

Let me explain this in this manner........ A Tree that grows Multiple Fruit is as the limbs of the inexpressible, let us begin at the root, there is the main root that remains hidden is the very source of the tree = The Father- The Bythos:

There also the First extensions of the root that spreads out from the main root Bythos, is called = Holy Spirit - sigē or charis (Grace), which has extensions from it, this secondary root has two emanations which are aspects or attributes, Nous Νοΰς (Nus, Mind) and Aletheia Άλήθεια (, Truth) Nous and Aletheia make up the androdinous emanation of the son the Monogenes

While these things are due to the Root of the All, let us for our part enter his revelation and his goodness and his descent and the All, that is, the Son, the Father of the All, and the Mind of the Spirit; for he was possessing this one before [...]. He is a spring. He is one who appears in Silence, and he is Mind of the All dwelling secondarily with Life. For he is the projector of the All and the very hypostasis of the Father, that is, he is the Thought and his descent below. (The Nag Hammadi Library

A Valentinian Exposition)

Now we move on to the base of the tree/stump, or base which is called = Logos (the Word; Logos Λόγος) and Zoe (the Life; Zoe Ζωή) which is the visible beginning part of the tree, the inner most part is call = Zoe-Logos, and he also has extensions called= Anthropos Άνθρωπος (Homo, Man) and Ecclesia Έκκλησία[5

That Tetrad projected the Tetrad which is the one consisting of Word and Life and Man and Church. Now the Uncreated One projected Word and Life. Word is for the glory of the Ineffable One while Life is for the glory of Silence, and Man is for his own glory, while Church is for the glory of Truth. This, then, is the Tetrad begotten according to the likeness of the Uncreated (Tetrad). And the Tetrad is begotten [... ] the Decad from Word and Life, and the Dodecad from Man, and Church became a Triacontad. (The Nag Hammadi Library A Valentinian Exposition)

The body- which is the children, the church we are called = Pleroma: 'that which fills' - we fill the space between Christ and the remaining 22 aeons

on to the Limbs which is called Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture)

Ageratos (Never old) and Henosis (Union)

Autophyes (Essential nature) and Hedone (Pleasure)

Acinetos (Immovable) and Syncrasis (Commixture)

Monogenes (Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness)

The Branches- are the emanations of Paracletus (Comforter) and Pistis (Faith)

Patricas (Paternal) and Elpis (Hope)

Metricos (Maternal) and Agape (Love)

Ainos (Praise) and Synesis (Intelligence)

Ecclesiasticus (Son of Ecclesia) and Macariotes (Blessedness)

Theletus (Perfect) and Sophia (Wisdom)

And last the fruit - is the emanations of they that were emanated by the aeons.

Moreover, it is the one from the Triacontad of the Aeons who bear fruit from the Triacontrad. They enter jointly, but they come forth singly, fleeing from the Aeons and the Uncontainable Ones. And the Uncontainable Ones, once they had looked at him, glorified Mind since he is an Uncontainable One that exists in the Pleroma.I deserve the things (passions) I suffer. I used to dwell in the Pleroma putting forth the Aeons and bearing fruit with my consort" And she knew what she was and what had become of her.Again, the will of the Father is: always produce and bear fruit. That she should suffer, then, was not the will of the Father, for she dwells in herself alone without her consort. Let us [...] another one [...] the Second [...] the son of another [...] is the Tetrad of the world. And that Tetrad put forth fruit as if the Pleroma of the world were a Hebdomad. And it entered images and likenesses and angels and archangels, divinities and ministers. (The Nag Hammadi Library A Valentinian Exposition)

The aeons are not persons or primordial beings controlled by the Father they are aspects of the mind of God or mental powers, unfolding or expanding from its thought to become an idea

the gnostic tree of life has 12 not 10 structures as in kabbalah in the gnostic tree of life logos is the lowest level

the 12 structures or levels are

1 light

2 fire

3 love

4 Beloved

5 Grace

6 Truth

7 Wisdom

8 understanding

9 perception

10 perfection

11 peace

12 logos

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.

Vision of fire and judgement

 An apostolic man who [was] in Asia saw some [people whose house was on fire]. And instead of extinguishing it, they [fanned the flames, sending] air into the fires [lying before them] and [pouring] water into the fire. And they said to them [as though they were gods], yet [they had no] power to save [them according to] their will. They received [death as a] punishment, this which is called [the outer] darkness. [The enemy comes] out of water and fire."

### **Commentary on the Passage**  

This passage from the *Gospel of Philip* presents a vision in which an apostolic man sees people trapped in a burning house. Instead of putting out the fire, they **fan the flames** and even **pour water into the fire**, making it worse. They also appear to **worship the fire**, treating it as though it had the power to save them. However, their misplaced faith leads to destruction, and they end up in what is called **the outer darkness**.  

### **Symbolism and Interpretation**  

1. **The Burning House** – Fire in early Christian and Gnostic texts often represents **both purification and destruction**. Here, the fire appears to be **a consuming force**, and those inside the house are actively making it worse rather than escaping. This could symbolize people who are **trapped in false beliefs or misguided practices** that lead to their downfall.  

2. **Pouring Water into the Fire** – This is an interesting image because water usually **extinguishes** fire. However, in some cases, **water can intensify a fire**, especially when poured on an oil-based blaze. If baptism and chrism (fire and water) are being referenced symbolically, then this might suggest **a distortion of sacred rites**, where people misuse these spiritual elements instead of properly receiving enlightenment.  

3. **Saying to the Fire ‘as though it were gods’** – This could represent **idolatry or misplaced trust in religious institutions, rituals, or leaders** instead of true spiritual knowledge. If these people are calling upon the fire as if it were divine, they are engaging in **a corrupted form of worship** that leads to destruction rather than salvation.  

4. **The Outer Darkness** – This phrase appears in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 8:12) and typically signifies **exclusion, separation, or a state of ignorance**. In a Valentinian context, this could mean that those who lack true knowledge (**gnosis**) are left in darkness, cut off from divine understanding.  

5. **The Enemy Comes from Water and Fire** – This phrase is intriguing because in *Gospel of Philip*, **water and fire usually represent baptism and chrism**, which are positive initiatory sacraments. However, if misused or misunderstood, they might lead to **spiritual corruption**. This could suggest that **false teachers or misguided religious leaders emerge from within the very systems meant to enlighten people**.  

---

### **Could This Refer to Jerusalem in 70 AD?**  

Yes, this could very well be an allusion to **the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD**.  

1. **Jerusalem as the Burning House** – The city was literally **set on fire** by the Romans after a brutal siege, leaving the Temple and much of Jerusalem in ruins. The image of people inside a burning house who fail to put out the fire could reflect **the Jewish factions within the city**, who fought among themselves instead of uniting against the Romans.  

2. **False Worship and Misplaced Faith** – Many Jewish groups at the time, particularly the Zealots, believed they were fighting a **holy war** and that God would save them. However, their actions **only escalated the destruction**, much like the people in the vision **fanning the flames** rather than stopping the fire. If this interpretation is correct, then the passage critiques **a mistaken belief in divine intervention**, which ultimately led to disaster.  

3. **The Outer Darkness as Exile** – After the fall of Jerusalem, **many Jews were exiled or killed**, and the Temple—the center of worship—was destroyed. This could be seen as the **outer darkness**, a state of being **cut off from their religious and national identity**.  

4. **The Enemy Coming from Water and Fire** – The Romans surrounded Jerusalem with **siege engines and fire**, while many Jewish defenders died of **thirst** (water) due to the siege cutting off supplies. In a symbolic sense, **the destruction of the city and its leaders could be seen as emerging from their own internal conflicts, as well as the fire and water of their misguided resistance**.  

---

### **Conclusion**  

If this passage does refer to **Jerusalem in 70 AD**, it would be a critique of **misplaced faith and false expectations of divine salvation**. The *Gospel of Philip*, with its Valentinian perspective, often emphasizes **true knowledge (gnosis) as the key to escaping destruction**. Those who rely on **corrupted religious systems or misunderstand spiritual truth** will only find themselves in **destruction and darkness**.  

This interpretation aligns with other early Christian and Gnostic perspectives, which often saw the **Temple’s destruction as a sign that physical institutions were not the path to salvation**—instead, spiritual enlightenment and knowledge were the way to escape judgment.  

A messenger in a vision saw people locked up in a house of fire and bound with fiery chains, lying in a flaming ointment. He asked them, “Why can’t they be saved?” “We did not desire it,” they told the messenger, “but we got this place of punishment. It is the outer darkness, and we are in it.”

### **Commentary on the Passage**

This passage describes a vision in which an **apostolic man** sees people trapped in a **house of fire**, bound by **fiery chains**, and lying in **flaming ointment**. The apostolic man asks why they cannot be saved, to which they reply that they did not desire salvation, and as a result, they ended up in **the outer darkness**, a place of punishment.

### **Key Symbolism and Interpretation**

1. **House of Fire** – The **house of fire** could symbolize **a state of spiritual bondage**, where the people are trapped in their own **false beliefs** or **misguided actions**. The **fire** is often symbolic of judgment or destruction in Gnostic and early Christian texts. In this context, it could represent the **purifying yet destructive fire of ignorance or sin** that consumes the soul when it is not guided by true knowledge (gnosis). 

2. **Fiery Chains** – Chains in ancient texts often represent **bondage** or **captivity**. The **fiery chains** suggest that these individuals are not just physically bound but are **trapped by their own spiritual ignorance**, which burns and harms them. It may also indicate that they are in a **state of judgment**, where their own actions have led them into an unbreakable situation.

3. **Flaming Ointment** – The **flaming ointment** is a striking image. Ointment or oil can be associated with **anointing** and **blessing**, but here, it is **burning** and **tormenting** them. This may symbolize how **spiritual practices or rites** (which should bring healing and illumination) are being **misused** or **distorted**, causing further suffering. It could be a **critique of corrupted religious rituals**, such as false interpretations of sacred rites, that do not lead to spiritual freedom but instead contribute to spiritual entrapment.

4. **Outer Darkness** – The phrase **"outer darkness"** is used in early Christian texts, particularly in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 8:12), to refer to a **state of separation from God** or **ignorance**. It suggests a condition of **spiritual exile**, where the person is outside the light of divine truth and understanding. In Gnostic thought, it often represents those who are **cut off from true gnosis**, trapped in ignorance or falsehood.

5. **Their Admission** – The people in the vision admit they **did not desire salvation**. This is crucial because it indicates that the inability to escape their condition is not due to a lack of divine will but due to their **own refusal** to seek knowledge or change. This is a reflection of the Gnostic belief that salvation is not about divine intervention alone but also about the **individual’s willingness to embrace gnosis**. If they reject the possibility of salvation, they remain in **darkness and punishment**.

### **Potential Connection to the Destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD)**

Yes, this vision could indeed be interpreted as a **critique of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD**, where many people met violent ends within the city, especially in the **Temple**, which was set on fire by the Romans.

1. **Locked in the House of Fire** – Jerusalem, particularly the **Temple**, was **burned down** by the Romans. Many of those inside, including priests and zealots, were trapped and perished in the flames. The **fire** could symbolize this **destruction**, with the people unable to escape their fate. The **fiery chains** might represent the **entrapment of those who were caught in their own resistance or false beliefs**. The people who worshipped in the Temple with distorted expectations of divine salvation (e.g., Zealots believing God would deliver them) were ultimately **trapped by their own actions**.

2. **Punishment and the Outer Darkness** – The concept of **outer darkness** could be a reference to the **spiritual state of Jerusalem** in that time. The city's leaders, in particular, were **blinded by false beliefs**, expecting a military or political Messiah rather than a **spiritual one**. Their refusal to accept the **gnosis** or knowledge of Christ left them in **darkness**, leading to the physical and spiritual **destruction** of the city. The **punishment** of the outer darkness here could signify **both their physical demise and their spiritual separation** from the truth.

3. **Flaming Ointment and Misused Rites** – The **Temple rituals**, which were meant to bring people into alignment with God, were perverted by the leaders of the city. The burning ointment could represent the **sacred oils used in rituals** that, rather than bringing healing, **consumed and destroyed** those involved. In this sense, it reflects the **misuse of religious rites** during the siege, where the false expectations and corrupt practices led to a **spiritual and physical conflagration**.

4. **Desire for Salvation** – The people in the vision admit that they did not desire salvation, echoing the **rejection of Christ’s teachings** by many in Jerusalem before the fall. Despite numerous warnings, many were unwilling to **repent** or **seek spiritual enlightenment**. This rejection of salvation can be seen in the **spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders** who failed to recognize the Messiah when He came, resulting in their ultimate destruction.

### **Conclusion**

This vision in the *Gospel of Philip* offers a profound commentary on spiritual blindness, rejection of gnosis, and the consequences of **misguided beliefs**. If we connect it to the **destruction of Jerusalem**, it becomes a **critique of those who rejected the message of Christ** and **misinterpreted religious practices**, ultimately leading to their downfall. The **fire**, **chains**, and **outer darkness** become symbols not only of physical destruction but also of **spiritual separation** from divine truth. In Gnostic terms, this passage stresses that **salvation is a matter of knowledge and desire for truth**, and when people refuse to embrace enlightenment, they remain **bound in spiritual chains**, even as they face **earthly ruin**.

Would you like to explore how this interpretation connects with other Gnostic texts, or any other themes in this vision?

Churches are Bazaars of Mahuzzims John 2:13-16

*Churches are Bazaars of Mahuzzims

**Revelation 11:1-2** (KJV):

*"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."*

The measuring of the temple, while the outer court is excluded, signifies a distinction between true worship and what has been profaned by the nations. This parallels Jesus' cleansing of the temple, where He expelled the merchants and money changers who had turned a house of worship into a Bazaar.

### **Bazaars in the Temple**

**Matthew 21:12 (BSB):**

*"Then Jesus went into the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves."*

**John 2:13-14:**

*"Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those selling cattle and sheep and doves and the money brokers in their seats."*

**John 2:15-16:**

*"So, after making a whip of ropes, he drove all those with the sheep and cattle out of the temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. And he said to those selling the doves: 'Take these things away from here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!'"*

### **Heracleon's Commentary on John 2:13-16**

Heracleon, one of the earliest commentators on John, interpreted this event symbolically:

**Fragment 13:**

*"Those who are found in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting there represent those who give nothing away out of charity, but regard the entrance of strangers to the temple as an occasion of trade and profit-making, and who provide the sacrifices for the worship of God for their own gain and love of money."*

Heracleon connects the merchants in the temple with religious leaders who exploit worship for material gain. The presence of sellers and money changers reflects a system where spiritual access is commodified, rather than freely given.

**Fragment 13 (continued):**

*"And the whip which Jesus made of small cords and did not receive from another is an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit which blows away the wicked. The whip and the linen and the napkin and all such things form an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit... The whip was tied to a piece of wood, and this wood is a type of the Cross. On this wood the merchants who were intent on gain, and all wickedness was nailed up and done away... Out of these two substances was the whip made, for he did not make it of dead leather, but in order that he might make the Church no longer a den of robbers, but the house of his Father."*

Heracleon sees the whip as a symbol of divine authority, tied to the Cross, signifying the judgment of those who corrupt worship. The action of driving out the merchants represents a purification of the spiritual community.

### **The Merchandisers of Religion**

Those engaged in the selling of sacrifices and currency exchange within the temple courts symbolize the commercialization of faith. They were not merely providing a service; they were exploiting worshippers for financial gain. This pattern continued beyond the temple period, manifesting in the corruption of religious institutions that turned worship into a Bazaar.

**Revelation 18:13** describes the merchants who trade in “the bodies and souls of men,” reflecting the spiritual commerce that dominates institutional religion. The outer court  had become a **Bazaar**—a place of traffic, where faith was reduced to transactions.

### **Bazaars as Mahuzzims**

The book of Daniel describes a religious system that venerates Mahuzzims—strong guardians, or spiritual intermediaries:

**Daniel 11:37-39 (paraphrased):**

*"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the lawful desire of women in matrimony, nor any God, but shall magnify himself above all. And in his seat, he shall honor Mahuzzims, that is, strong guardians, the souls of the dead; even with a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honor them, in their Temples, with gold and silver, and with precious stones and valuable things."*

Mahuzzims represents the veneration of saints and relics, the institutionalization of religious commerce, and the rise of monasticism, which emphasized celibacy and the worship of the dead. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Latin Church, through councils and decrees, turned places of worship into **Bazaars**, where spiritual power was traded, and salvation was marketed.

### **The Final Judgment on the Bazaars**

The cleansing of the temple foreshadows the coming judgment upon false religious systems. Just as Jesus drove out the merchants, Revelation prophesies the fall of Babylon—the great religious and economic system that profits from spiritual deception.

The temple, measured by the reed in Revelation 11, represents true worship, while the outer court, given to the nations, signifies a corrupted religious order. The distinction between the true temple and the Bazaar remains critical in discerning authentic worship from systems that trade in spiritual merchandise.

The Bazaar is not merely a physical market but a structure of deception where faith is commodified, and salvation is put up for sale. But just as Jesus cleansed the temple, a greater purification is coming—one that will restore the house of the Father to its rightful state.

Matthew 21:12 ►,Berean Study Bible

Then Jesus went into the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves.

John 2:13 Now the passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 
14 And he found in the temple those selling cattle and sheep and doves and the money brokers in their seats.

Heracleon: 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). 

This is a similar to a description of the Temple in the Gospel of Philip

The Gospel of Philip The Temple in Jerusalem

There were three structures for sacrifice in Jerusalem. One opened to the west and was called the holy place; a second opened to the south and was called the holy of the holy; the third opened to the east and was called the holy of holies, where only the high priest could enter. The holy place is baptism; the holy of the holy is redemption; the holy of holies is the bridal chamber. Baptism entails resurrection and redemption, and redemption is in the bridal chamber. The bridal chamber is within a realm superior to [what we belong to], and you cannot find anything [like it…. These] are the ones who worship [in spirit and in truth, for they do not worship] in Jerusalem. There are people in Jerusalem who [do worship] in Jerusalem, and they await [the mysteries] called [the holy] of holies, the curtain [of which] was torn. [Our] bridal chamber is the image [of the bridal chamber] [70] above. That is why its curtain was torn from top to bottom, for some people from below had to go up.
John 2:15 So, after making a whip of ropes, he drove all those with the sheep and cattle out of the temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 

16 And he said to those selling the doves: “Take these things away from here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!”

Heracleon: Fragment 13, on John 2:13-16 Those who are found in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting there represent those who give nothing away out of charity, but regard the entrance of strangers to the temple as an occasion of trade and profit-making, and who provide the sacrifices for the worship of God for their own gain and love of money.

Heracleon: Fragment 13, on John 2:13-16 (In John 2:15-16, “And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, ‘Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade.’”) And the whip which Jesus made of small cords and did not receive from another is an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit which blows away the wicked. The whip and the linen and the napkin and all such things form an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. . . The whip was tied to a piece of wood, and this wood is a type of the Cross. On this wood the merchants who were intent on gain, and all wickedness was nailed up and done away. . . Out of these two substances was the whip made, for he did not make it of dead leather, but in order that he might make the Church no longer a den of robbers, but the house of his Father.

All who were buying and selling there, are the receivers, and servitors of the rulers of the Religious World

the "Names and Denominations" of "the Religious World" are a miserably executed counterfeit of the true, and current only with such as are indifferent to, or ignorant of the truth.

the rulers of the Religious World are merchandisers of souls the house of the Father was turned into Bazaars, or places of traffic in spiritual merchandise, and in "the bodies and souls of men!" (Rev 18:13). 

The Limitations of Using the Zodiac: A Gnostic Perspective

 The Zodiac

**The Limitations of Using the Zodiac: A Gnostic Perspective**

In the Gnostic tradition, the use of the zodiac and its connection to fate, providence, and the ordering of the universe is critically examined. While ancient cultures such as the Babylonians and the Greeks saw the zodiac as a means of understanding the cosmos and human destiny, Gnosticism, particularly in texts such as *Eugnostos, the Blessed*, rejects these frameworks as incomplete and misleading. The Gnostic perspective is rooted in the belief that true knowledge of God and the divine order transcends worldly systems of thought, including astrology.

### The Zodiac in Ancient Texts

The term "zodiac" is often associated with the twelve signs that make up a band of the heavens along which the sun, moon, and planets appear to move. The Hebrew word for zodiac is *mazzaroth* (also translated as “constellations of the zodiac”), found in scriptures such as 2 Kings 23:5 and Job 38:32. In these passages, the zodiac is linked with worship practices that were condemned in ancient Israel. Kings like Josiah sought to eliminate foreign god worship, which included veneration of the celestial bodies like the sun, moon, and the signs of the zodiac.

2 Kings 23:5 specifically mentions the actions of foreign priests making sacrificial offerings "to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac and to all the army of the heavens." This reference places the zodiac in the context of idolatrous worship, condemning the idea of celestial bodies as divine powers influencing human destiny. 

In Job 38:32, the term *mazzaroth* appears once more, but it is framed differently as a reference to the constellations in their proper course. The verse, "Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth constellation in its appointed time?" questions human ability to control or understand the divine orchestration of the cosmos. This passage highlights the celestial phenomena as part of God's domain, outside human understanding or manipulation.

### The Gnostic Rejection of the Zodiac

For Gnostics, the belief that celestial bodies or constellations could influence human fate or control the destiny of individuals was considered a false and incomplete understanding of the divine. In texts like *Eugnostos, the Blessed*, Gnostic thought directly challenges such ideas.

In the text, Eugnostos states:

*"Rejoice in this, that you know. Greetings! I want you to know that all men born from the foundation of the world until now are dust. While they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, they have not found him. The wisest among them have speculated about the truth from the ordering of the world. And the speculation has not reached the truth. For the ordering is spoken of in three (different) opinions by all the philosophers; hence they do not agree."*

Eugnostos critiques the common philosophical explanations of the world. He presents three views about the ordering of the universe: self-direction, providence, and fate. However, he dismisses all of them as flawed. He argues that these views are ultimately human speculations, leading nowhere near the truth of the divine. In Gnostic thought, the material world and its celestial mechanics, including the zodiac, are not responsible for human fate or the divine order.

The Gnostic rejection of astrology is profound. Eugnostos continues:

*"For some of them say about the world that it was directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of the three voices I have just mentioned, none is true. For whatever is from itself is an empty life; it is self-made. Providence is foolish. Fate is an undiscerning thing."*

Eugnostos refutes these views by explaining that real truth cannot be found through the lens of fate, providence, or self-governance. According to Gnosticism, such ideas are superficial and inadequate explanations of the divine order. The true nature of the world is not bound by celestial forces or predestination.

### The Gnostic Path to Knowledge

For Gnostics, knowledge of the divine truth is the path to immortality, not adherence to the stars or the ordering of the material world. Eugnostos emphasizes the importance of seeking knowledge of the true God, transcending the limits of human speculation and celestial influence:

*"Whoever, then, is able to get free of these three voices I have just mentioned and come by means of another voice to confess the God of truth and agree in everything concerning him, he is immortal dwelling in the midst of mortal men."*

This Gnostic principle stresses that true salvation and immortality come through direct knowledge of the divine, not through the understanding or manipulation of the cosmos. The human quest for truth, in this sense, is about transcending the physical realm and understanding the divine light that lies beyond the stars.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the Gnostic perspective on the zodiac underscores a fundamental difference between traditional interpretations of the cosmos and Gnostic spirituality. While ancient cultures and some religious traditions used the zodiac to explain fate and divine order, Gnosticism emphasizes the inadequacy of such methods in understanding the true nature of the divine. As Eugnostos teaches, true knowledge comes not from the stars, but from transcending the false systems of the world and connecting with the God of truth.

2 Kings 23:5 And he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had put in that they might make sacrificial smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, and also those making sacrificial smoke to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac and to all the army of the heavens

Job 38:32 Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them?

Zodiac meaning: a belt of the heavens within about 8° either side of the ecliptic, including all apparent positions of the sun, moon, and most familiar planets. It is divided into twelve equal divisions or signs (Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces).

The zodiac is the name given by people of old to an imaginary band passing around the heavens, wide enough to include the circuits of the sun and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and Saturn. It is just a convenient method of reference to the position of the stars. Animal figures and outlines were chosen to represent these stars, and their relative position in the heavens, for animistic reasons

The Hebrew word for Zodiac is Mazzaroth or mazzalohth

“The Mazzaroth constellation.” Hebrew, Mazzarohth´; Greek, Mazouroth´ (as in 2Kings 23:5 where it is translated “constellations of the zodiac”);

The Aramaic Targum equates Mazzaroth with the mazzalohth´ of 2 Kings 23:5, “constellations of the zodiac,” or “twelve signs, or, constellations.” Some believe that the word is derived from a root meaning “engird” and that Mazzaroth refers to the zodiacal circle.

-Or, the signs of the Zodiac. The Heb. is mazzaloth, probably a variant form of mazzaroth (Job 38:32). The word is used in the Targums, and by rabbinical writers, in the sense of star, as influencing human destiny, and so fate, fortune, in the singular, and in the plural of the signs of the Zodiac (e.g., Ecclesiastes 9:3; Esther 3:7). It is, perhaps, derived from 'azar, "to gird," and means "belt," or "girdle;" or from 'azal, "to journey," and so means "stages" of the sun's course in the heavens.

The constellations or signs of the zodiac are, no doubt, intended (comp. Job 38:32, where the term מַזָּדות may be regarded as a mere variant form of the מַזָּלות of this passage). The proper meaning of the term is "mansions;" or "houses," the zodiacal signs being regarded as the "mansions of the sun" by the Babylonians (see 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. 3. p. 419). And to all the host of heaven

2 Kings 23:5 And he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had put in that they might make sacrificial smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, and also those making sacrificial smoke to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the zodiac and to all the army of the heavens

Beyond Fate

Unlike the Pharisees, says Josephus, the Sadducees denied the workings of fate, maintaining that an individual, by his own actions, was solely responsible for what befell him. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 172, 173 [v, 9]) 

Like the Sadducees some Gnostics rejected the ideas of "self governed", "Fate", and "Providence"  

Eugnostos, the Blessed, to those who are his.

Rejoice in this, that you know. Greetings! I want you to know that all men born from the foundation of the world until now are dust. While they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, they have not found him. The wisest among them have speculated about the truth from the ordering of the world. And the speculation has not reached the truth. For the ordering is spoken of in three (different) opinions by all the philosophers; hence they do not agree. For some of them say about the world that it was directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of three voices that I have just mentioned, none is true. For whatever is from itself is an empty life; it is self-made. Providence is foolish. Fate is an undiscerning thing. (Eugnostos, the Blessed)

Whoever, then, is able to get free of these three voices I have just mentioned and come by means of another voice to confess the God of truth and agree in everything concerning him, he is immortal dwelling in the midst of mortal men. (Eugnostos, the Blessed)

The Savior said to them: "I want you to know that all men are born on earth from the foundation of the world until now, being dust, while they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, have not found him. Now the wisest among them have speculated from the ordering of the world and (its) movement. But their speculation has not reached the truth. For it is said that the ordering is directed in three ways, by all the philosophers, (and) hence they do not agree. For some of them say about the world that it is directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of the three voices I have just mentioned, none is close to the truth, and (they are) from man. But I, who came from Infinite Light, I am here - for I know him (Light) - that I might speak to you about the precise nature of the truth. For whatever is from itself is a polluted life; it is self-made. Providence has no wisdom in it. And fate does not discern. But to you it is given to know; and whoever is worthy of knowledge will receive (it), whoever has not been begotten by the sowing of unclean rubbing but by First Who Was Sent, for he is an immortal in the midst of mortal men." (Eugnostos, the Blessed)

Eugnostos starts by refuting three propositions about the nature of the world which to him represent the basic shortcomings of contemporary philosophy, or perhaps of philosophy as such: (1) the world is governed by itself, (2) by a providence, or (3) is subject to predestination. His refutation is neither philosophical in the proper sense of that word, nor does it deal with the implications of these propositions in detail: That which is from itself leads an empty life, providence is foolish, and that which is subject to destiny or fate is something that does not attain knowledge. According to Eugnostos, real insight is not reached through philosophy; what matters is to be able to refute the propositions of philosophy and by means of another proposition to gain access to and reveal the god of truth. The attainment of this, he says, means to be immortal amidst the mortals