Stumbling Blocks on the Gnostic Path
July 19, 2026 – 4:39 amSuppose that we have justified a Gnostic cosmology and cosmogony of the usual form: hierarchical heavens presided over by a more or less tripartite God and its Aeons and Luminaries and so on, a material world existing as the failed creative effort of a Demiurge, humans containing particles of divinity seeking to escape that world, and a redeeming Christ figure who brings knowledge which will allow that escape. Still, there are details that require to be filled in.
- How does knowledge bring about liberation?
The role of knowledge is inspired by Neoplatonic philosophy, as is the idea that by some sort of intellectual enlightenment the divine soul can be reunited with the One (achieving ἕνωσις/henosis.) In the Neoplatonic system (to speak generally) this is possible because the human soul in contemplation participates in Nous (Intelligence, the first emanation of the One) because it is simply a reflection of Nous’ own activity, and this in turn is simply a reflection of the One’s Being, so that human contemplation has an essential identity with the One that ‘simply’ requires intellectual effort to realise. The rather cruder metaphysics of the Gnostics does not allow this form of ascent (known in Neoplatonism as ἐπιστροφή/epistrophe,) because the divine spark in Man is not so derived.
Instead, the idea is that since ignorance (of the One?) is the cause of the defectiveness of the world created by the demiurge, supplying that knowledge eliminates the effect – at least, in the knower. Since the writers must have been aware that even those who did have ‘propositional’ knowledge of the true nature of the world (like themselves) were not ipso facto liberated, the knowledge would have to be of some other kind, and if the propositional knowledge was nevertheless important then that other kind would have to be somehow dependent upon it. Again, by appeal to the Neoplatonists, it would be natural to assume that some kind of immediate experiential ‘knowledge’ was in question (and in support of this, γνωσις/gnosis is the word used for that sort of thing,) but then, what could be the contribution of the propositional knowledge so copiously imparted in their writings? Presumably, by directing the knower toward the real God and away from the Demiurge, whatever conscious efforts might be made towards achieving spiritual union with God could at least hope for some effect.
- Why is this liberating knowledge secret?
The Gnostics find a role for Christ as a redeemer by claiming that the liberating knowledge cannot be achieved without divine revelation. His role then is to make this revelation and show us the way to achieve liberation. This knowledge, however, is restricted in availability and appears in secret traditions and oral transmissions rather than in the explicit texts concerning Christ’s teachings. Reasons given for this, and they are not many, are pretty unconvincing. It is claimed, for example, that the demiurge is jealous and desires no one to adore another God in his stead – he commands this of us in first Commandment of the Decalogue – and therefore these teachings are to be kept secret so that He will not destroy them, and His archons in command of the various worlds collaborate in this suppression.
In fact, it is more likely that the explicit reasons for secrecy are merely ad hoc explanations for a thing that was already preferred or existent. The Gnostic sects arose in a time when the general cultural influence and prestige of ancient mystery religions (such as those of Eleusis, Cybele, Orpheus, Isis, Mithras and many others) was very great and the tradition of secret knowledge being imparted by inspired teachers and (divine) sages was widespread (Apollonius of Tyana etc.) It would have been quite natural for the Gnostics to have adopted the forms and tendencies of the religious traditions about them, amongst those being the idea of secret doctrines, initiations, and being part of an elite of spiritually privileged souls. Hermeticism, one of the earliest pre-Christian ‘esoteric’ sects, which arose in Egypt (an early centre of Gnosticism,) and that is thought to have influenced the development of Gnosticism, was a semi-mystery religion; and Christianity itself from its beginnings had many of the elements of a mystery cult: Jesus was accepted to have had deeper teachings for his apostles than those he gave in parables to the general public, the baptism constituted an initiation without which full participation in the community was impossible, and so on.
- What does this all mean for our sins?
In the usual view, we are sinful by nature because we are in rebellion against the will of God. This is either illustrated by the story of the Fall or that event is taken to taint the posterity of Adam; but in the Gnostic cosmology the God of this world is merely the Demiurge, and we do no wrong by defying His will. It is well known, in fact, that many Gnostic sects reinterpret the story of the Fall itself to make the God of this world its villain, rather than the serpent or ourselves. Moreover, since the Gnostics insist that without Christ or some other revelator of the Truth we cannot know of the true God, we cannot be said to sin by denying His will for we can have no knowledge of His will. It’s not even clear that the One has willed anything for us. It is hard, then, to see why we should be thought to have a sinful nature at all.
One problem this creates is that because Christ does not come to redeem our sins by his death his passion becomes a problem for the theorists and adds to the Christological chaos of the Early Christians. Another is that lacking any guidance to behaviour from the One True God, there seems to be no moral law at all – at least in the way that the moral law was understood by Christians of the time. The licence to immoralism that this provided was further supported by the Gnostic’s dismissive attitude to the physical world that the ‘moral agent’ inhabited, and, no doubt, by a desire to flaunt their disregard for the rules that bound those who were their spiritual inferiors. We may doubt the atrocity stories told by the heresiologists who accused them of every form of immoralism – not excepting cannibalism – but the danger of libertinism is very real.
Tags:
