On the Gnostic Trinity
(revised)
By James M. West. Copyright © January
19; revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
Gnostic tradition has its own peculiar
rhetoric which resembles an “orthodox” Trinity doctrine. On the surface
Gnostics can be shown to have used language based on the words attributed to
Jesus in Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.” An
example may be seen in the Gnostic text, The Gospel of Philip, where we
read that anyone who does not have the name of the “Father, Son and Holy
Spirit” will also have the name “Christian” taken away (67:15ff.; see M. Meyer,
Nag Hammadi Scriptures, pg. 173).
Our next example is from the Tripartite
Tractate; where there is an obvious reference to the baptismal creed of
Matthew 28:19.
“There
is no other baptism apart from this one alone, which is the redemption into
God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—when confession is made through faith in those
names.” (127:26ff.; see J. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, pg. 150)
Whether or not these passages are solid
evidence of a “trinity” dogma is an open question. Again, both passages seem to
resemble “orthodox” rhetoric. The message here seems to be that if you don’t
confess the three persons of the Trinity then you’re not a real Christian, and
your baptism was not a true baptism.
On the other hand, anyone who is
familiar with Gnostic writings or reports from the Catholic Fathers will
realize that the passages quoted above actually represent rare references to
the trinity in Gnostic tradition. The fact is, Gnostic tradition is not
distinguished by any systematic Trinity doctrine involving the “Father, Son and
Holy Spirit.” The Gospel of Philip may refer to a trinity dogma—or this
passage may be a mockery, or caricature, of “orthodox” dogma. The obscure
language makes it difficult to determine what exactly is being said. The
passage from the Tripartite Tractate above represents the one clear
reference. But this passage in turn has no internal connection or relevance to
the description of the godhead as presented at the beginning of the treatise
(51–60). In all the tedious language that is used to describe the godhead there
is not one reference or mention of the three persons of the trinity “Father,
Son and Holy Spirit.” In comparison we can note the supposed trinity as stated
in the Trimorphic Protennoia “Father, Mother, Son” (37:22). Again we are
confronted with the problem of a systematic dogma. How does this statement
compare with the Tripartite Tractate in which no female principle or
“mother” is mentioned? Nowhere in the Trimorphic Protennoia is the
Father/Mother/Son connected with the three persons of Matthew 28:19.
Indeed when it comes to evidence of a
conventional “Trinity” dogma in Gnostic tradition (viz. Mt. 28:19) the extant
Gnostic texts are like shifting sand. Most texts make no reference to a
“Trinity” at all; and the few references there are, as mentioned above, are
obscure and represent the rare exception rather than the rule. Consistent with
this evidence is that the Catholic Fathers do not mention any such dogma where
Gnostics are concerned. The Catholic reports more often show that the Gnostics
were concerned with organizing their “Aions” into sets of four and eight,
thereby constituting the holy Ogdoad of Gnostic tradition (e.g.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.1.1–3; 1.8.5; 1.11.1; 1.12.3; 1.15.1–2;
Tertullian, Against Valentinians, 7; Hippolytus, Refutation of All
Heresies, 5.29).
The passages cited above are of reports
showing the Gnostics organizing their Godhead into primary sets of four and
eight. The one Catholic writer who breaks ranks in this regard is the defrocked
cleric Marcellus of Ancyra (c. 300–374). 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
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
Gnostic text that shows a connection of this sort. Gnostic 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 Gnostic
sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Gnostic 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 Gnostics, 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].
Historically, Tertullian was the first
Catholic writer to begin using the word “trinity” in reference to a systematic
dogma. Of note however is that Tertullian never used the word “trinity” in his
own “rule of faith” as articulated in his own Catholic/apologetic writings
(e.g. On Prescription Against Heretics; c. 200 AD) [5]. He began using
the term in reference to his own dogma only after joining the Montanist “New
Prophecy” movement. Tertullian’s first confession of the “trinity” appears in
his treatise “Against Praxeas” which was a polemic against the
Monarchian theologians who dominated the Catholic Church at that time (c. 210
AD) [6]. The Monarchians believed that while God could appear in three forms,
there was, nonetheless, only one God. Tertullian insisted that the Godhead was
in fact three distinct persons, but that these persons shared the same essence
[7]. (Obviously the later “orthodox” creed had its origins among the
Montanists, and was later adopted by Catholic theologians and formalized in the
Nicene Creed.)
The irony is that when Tertullian first
used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used
in reference to Gnostic 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 Valentinian Gnostics. 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 Gnostic “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons
but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What
Tertullian actually describes is a Gnostic 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 Gnostics 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 Gnostic
tradition, and which provided the structure by which Gnostics defined their
concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature (see below).
Whether or
not the “orthodox” Trinity was actually inspired by the Gnostics we can never
know for sure. But it is interesting to see the way that the word “trinity”
crept into Tertullian’s writing. He first mentioned this word in reference to
Gnostic doctrine and jargon (“trinitas”). But later Tertullian began using the
word in reference to his own doctrine (Against Praxeas). And it is
a fact that Tertullian was the first known Christian to begin articulating the
concept of a “trinity” doctrine that “orthodox” Christians would recognize—as
compared with the “trinity” of Valentinus.
Inevitably we
must dispense with the notion that the Gnostic Trinity revolves around the
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as found in the baptismal creed in Matthew 28:19.
This connection is really based on an orthodox view of history and doctrine.
From this point of view some Gnostic texts appear to refer to the “orthodox”
Trinity as I have shown above; but the connection is superficial. The essential
Gnostic Trinity was something entirely different. And, indeed, when Tertullian
was young, the word “Trinity”, when spoken among Christians, referred to
something that was taught by the Gnostics.
The Gnostic 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 Gnostic Trinity was concerned with bringing a system of
meaning and structure to the wider universe. The Gnostic Trinity began with the
notion of a primary dualism. Early Gnostics 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.
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 Gnostic 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, 1.4.3)
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,
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.
In another
Gnostic 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
The
theological structure of the Gnostic Trinity
The Gnostic
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 Gnostics. 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.” [9]
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
Gnostic/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 Gnostic Trinity of Man
The Gnostics
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, 5:2)
The three
natures mentioned above correspond to the three natures of the Gnostic 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)
According to
Gnostic tradition Jesus was the one who revealed the occult economy or Trinity.
Although in terms of actual evidence, the origin of this trinity can be most
easily traced to the ideas of Paul. Paul of course would claim to have learned
his ideas from Jesus.
The New Testament and the
origins of the Gnostic Trinity
Irenaeus
rejected the Gnostic 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 Gnostic 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
Gnostic 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.
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]. 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 Gnostics 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]. 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 Gnostic 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 Gnostics, 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 Gnostic 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 (quoted from
my article Gnostics and the Old Testament):
“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 Gnostic tradition, and the Gnostic
Trinity. Of course we have no direct evidence that ancient Gnostics studied
Philo, at least not in their writings. But the fact that Clement of Alexandria
does mention Philo indicates that the Gnostics 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 Gnostic Trinity and all its
theological implications. And indeed the Gnostics recognized that Paul’s
statements in 1 Corinthians 2 had theological implications. For Gnostics 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.
In the Nag
Hammadi fragment The Prayer of the Apostle we can see a
prime example of the link between Gnostic 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 Gnostic
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 aion, 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 aion 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 Gnostics understood the implications of Paul’s statements in 1
Corinthians 2 as this regards theology and the several natures. Again the
Gnostic Trinity is a later exposition and organization of these ideas. To
ignore the Gnostic Trinity is to ignore the spiritual heart of earliest Gnostic
Christianity and its unique Wisdom. —jw
Notes
1] A basic
description of the Arian controversy is provided at the following links:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm
2] An example of Marcellus’s
smear tactics may be seen in the quotation below in which he links the
followers of Arius—called “Ariomaniacs”—with Valentinus.
“Now
with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of
God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch
first invented in the book entitled by him On the Three Natures. For he
was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and
Plato.”
I acknowledge my
debt to Wikipedia for its excellent article on Valentinus and for the
quotation above, which is from A.H.B. Logan, “Marcellus of
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
3] See link http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-6 Note the mention of Valentinus and the
Manicheans in verse 3.
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.
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).
5] Cf.
Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 7, 13; Against Praxeas,
11. Note that in the earlier treatise Tertullian uses the word “trinity” in
reference to Valentinus (7), but does not use the word in his own “rule of
faith” (13). Whereas in the latter treatise the word “trinity” has become part
of Tertullian’s “rule of faith.” (See note #8, link.)
6] Monarchianism is
also known as “Modalism” or “Sabellianism.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
7] Tertullian, Against
Praxeas, 11. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm
8] Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul,
21. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 201. The English translation of
this obscure passage is as follows:
“Now, if the soul possessed this uniform and simple
nature from the beginning in Adam, it is not rendered multiform by such various
development, nor by the triple form predicated of it in the Valentinian
trinity, for not even this nature is discoverable in Adam.”
(Note: I have pared down the wording of this passage so that it follows
the original Latin as closely as possible. To see the entire passage as
translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, click on
the following link and scroll down to chapter 21, first sentence. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm
)
The Latin passage appears like this:
“Quodsi uniformis natura animae ab initio in Adam
ante tot ingenia, ergo non multiformis, quia uniformis, per tot ingenia, nec
triformis, ut adhuc trinitas Valentiniana caedatur, quae nec ipsa in Adam
recognoscitur.” ( http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0746/_PM.HTM )
In the above
passage Tertullian refers to the Valentinian doctrine that Adam embodied the
three natures, and which appeared later in three separate types of men as
symbolized by Cain, Abel and Seth (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
1.7.5).
9] Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 1.5.4.
10] In Romans
11] Tertullian, On
Prescription Against Heretics, 16.
By James M. West.
Copyright © January 19; revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com