part0029

P tolemy was Valentinos’s disciple and apparently succeeded him in the school sometime after 160. He was called the greatest systematic theologian of the school. He was also an allegorical exegete of the Gospel of John. Ptolemy’s letter is addressed to “dear sister Flora,” Flora presumably being an educated Christian woman who will receive the theologian’s lessons on questions of Mosaic law. After the salutation, however, there is no indication that Flora is a real person. She may represent the Christian church in Rome or simply individual Christian readers who may be persuaded by the broader speculation of a Valentinian gnostic.

The letter speaks, especially at the beginning, as a fellow Christian making distinctions between the validity of the law in the Hebrew Bible—originally designed for the Jews, who could not abide by pure law—and the New Testament. Eventually the path of instruction leads to a strong endorsement of the gnostic perfect god over his biblical adversary, who is the maker of the universe and the demiurge. The savior came to earth, it becomes clear, to complete his spiritual regeneration. He was not a messenger of the creator god but an emanation of the father of all. Throughout the persuasive letter, however, the author presents Valentinian gnostic ideas as completely concordant with Christianity.

Ptolemy tells Flora that the law in the five books of Moses has three parts by three authors. There is the pure law of god in the form of the ten commandments (which the savior came to fulfill, not to destroy); Moses’ own additions to the law; and the additions by the elders. The latter two parts were mixed with impure and evil law, which was a compromise necessary to control the people before the advent of New Testament rigor. These lapses in law were made with regard to “hard-hearted divorce,” revenge killing, and all other injustices. For his part, the savior Jesus altered the commands on offerings, circumcision, fasting, and the Passover unleavened bread. The new law takes commands to a spiritual level. Following Paul, one should have circumcision not of the flesh but of the spiritual heart.

Ptolemy’s exegesis of Christian law was certainly already clear in Paul’s changes and the New Testament itself, but now it is presented in a way to show that pure law derives not from the perfect god but from the demiurge, the creator god of the Bible. The god of the Bible, however, is presented not entirely as a narrow, angry god of the Jews, but as a middle deity between the perfect, ungenerated god and the devil. That god of the law, who is still in the Christian province, is the arbitrator of justice, which depends on him. But he is inferior to the perfect god, as his justice is lower. His world is corruption, darkness, and the material, while the god of all is incorruption and self-existent light. Finally, the savior is with the perfect god. We read, “The substance of the latter [the god of all] produced a double power, while the savior is an image of the greater one.”

At the conclusion, the writer of the didactic letter returns to the reader, telling her personally, “These points will be of great benefit to you in the future, if like fair and good ground you have received fertile seeds and go on to show forth their fruit.” The Letter to Flora is a letter to convert. It speaks for the power of Valentinian thought to address significant issues, concerning god and law, in a creative and thoughtful manner.

Some say that it is legislation given by god the father of all; others, taking the contrary course, maintain stubbornly that it was ordained by the opposite, the devil who causes destruction, just as they attribute the fashioning of the world to him, saying that he is the father and maker of this universe. Both are completely in error; they refute each other, and neither has reached the truth of the matter. For it is evident that the law was not ordained by the perfect god the father, for it is secondary, being imperfect and in need of completion by another, containing commandments alien to the nature and thought of such a god. On the other hand, one cannot impute the law to the injustice of the adversary, 2 for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the savior. “For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand,” declared our savior. 3

Furthermore, the messenger 4 says that the creation of the world is due to him, for “everything was made through him and apart from him nothing was made.” 5 Thus he takes away in advance the baseless wisdom of the false accusers and shows that the creation is due not to a god who corrupts but to the one who is just and hates evil. Only unintelligent people have this idea, people who do not recognize the providence of the creator and have blinded not only the eye of the soul but also the eye of the body.

From what has been said, it is evident that these persons entirely miss the truth; each of the two groups has experienced this, the first because they do not know the god of justice, the second because they do not know the father of all, who was revealed by him alone who came and who knew him.

It remains for us who have been counted worthy of the knowledge of both of these to provide you with an accurate explanation of the nature of the law and of the legislator by whom it was ordained. We shall draw the proofs of what we say from the words of the savior, which alone can lead us without error to the comprehension of reality.

First, you must learn that the entire law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator, I mean, not by god alone; some commandments are Moses’, and some were given by men. The words of the savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to god himself and his legislating, the second to Moses—not in the sense that god legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas—and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the savior.

In some discussion with those who disputed with the savior about divorce, which was permitted in the law, he said, “Because of your hardheartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for god made this marriage, and what the lord joined together, man must not separate.” 6 In this way he shows that there is a law of god, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from her husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hardheartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of god; for joining is contrary to not joining. But if we examine the intention of Moses in giving this legislation, it will be seen that he did not give it arbitrarily or of his own accord, but by necessity because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was given. Since they were unable to keep the intention of god, according to which it was not lawful for them to reject their wives, with whom some of them disliked to live, and therefore were in danger of turning to greater injustice and thence to destruction, Moses wanted to remove the cause of dislike, which was placing them in jeopardy of destruction. Therefore because of the critical circumstances, choosing a lesser evil in place of a greater, he ordained, of his own accord, a second law, that of divorce, so that if they could not observe the first, they might keep this and not turn to unjust and evil actions, through which complete destruction would be the result for them. This was his intention when he gave legislation contrary to that of god. Therefore it is indisputable that here the law of Moses is different from the law of god, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.

The savior also makes plain the fact that some traditions of the elders are interwoven with the law. “For god said,” he states, “‘Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you.’ But you have declared,” he says, addressing the elders, “that what help you might have received from me is a gift to god; and you have nullified the law of god through the tradition of your elders.” 7 Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, teaching precepts that are the commandments of men.” 8

Therefore it is obvious that the whole law is divided into three parts; we find in it the legislation of Moses, of the elders, and of god himself. This division of the entire law, as made by us, has brought to light what is true in it. This part, the law of god himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation not mixed with evil, which is properly called law, which the savior came not to destroy but to complete 9 —for what he completed was not alien to him but needed completion, for it did not possess perfection—next, the legislation interwoven with inferiority and injustice, which the savior destroyed because it was alien to his nature; and finally, the legislation that is exemplary and symbolic, an image of what is spiritual and transcendent, which the savior transferred from the perceptible and phenomenal to the spiritual and invisible.

The law of god, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on two tables, forbidding things not to be done and enjoining things to be done. These contain pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the savior. There is also the law interwoven with injustice, laid down for vengeance and the requital of previous injuries, ordaining that an eye should be cut out for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and that a murder should be avenged by a murder. The person who is the second one to be unjust is no less unjust than the first; he simply changes the order of events while performing the same action. Admittedly, this commandment was a just one and still is just, because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was made so that they would not transgress the pure law. But it is alien to the nature and goodness of the father of all. No doubt it was appropriate to the circumstances, or even necessary. For he who does not want one murder committed, saying, “You shall not kill,” commands a murder to be repaid by another murder, and so he has given a second law, which enjoins two murders although he had forbidden one. This fact proves that he was unsuspectingly the victim of necessity. This is why, when his son came, he destroyed this part of the law while admitting that it came from god. He counts this part of the law as in the old religion, not only in other passages but also where he said, “God said, ‘He who curses father or mother shall surely die.’” 10

Finally, there is the exemplary part, ordained in the image of spiritual and transcendent matters; I mean the part dealing with offerings and circumcision and the Sabbath and fasting and Passover and unleavened bread and other similar matters. Since all these things are images and symbols, when the truth was made manifest they were translated to another meaning. In their phenomenal appearance and their literal application they were destroyed, but in their spiritual meaning they were restored; the names remained the same, but the content was changed. Thus the savior commanded us to make offerings not of irrational animals or of incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our neighbors. He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil. 11 Among us external fasting is also observed, since it can be advantageous to the soul if it is done reasonably, not for imitating others or from habit or because of a special day appointed for this purpose. It is also observed so that those who are not yet able to keep the true fast may have a reminder of it from the external fast. Similarly, Paul the messenger shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven”—by leaven he here means evil—“but may be a new batch of dough.” 12

Thus the law of god itself is obviously divided into three parts. The first was completed by the savior, for the commandments, You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely, are included in the forbidding of anger, desire, and swearing. The second part was entirely destroyed. For an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, interwoven with injustice and itself a work of injustice, was destroyed by the savior through its opposite. Opposites cancel out. “For I say to you, do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek.” 13 Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols that represent other things were good as long as the truth had not come; but since the truth has come, we must perform the actions of the truth, not those of the image.

The students of the savior and the messenger Paul showed that this theory is true, speaking of the part dealing with images, as we have already said, in mentioning the Passover for us and the unleavened bread; of the law interwoven with injustice when he says that “the law of commandments in ordinances was destroyed” 14 ; and of that not mixed with anything inferior when he says that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.” 15

I think I have shown you sufficiently, as well as one can in brief compass, the addition of human legislation in the law and the triple division of the law of god itself.

It remains for us to say who this god is who ordained the law; but I think this too has been shown you in what we have already said, if you have listened to it attentively. For if the law was not ordained by the perfect god himself, as we have already taught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot possibly make, the legislator must be someone other than these two. In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is between them, he is rightly described as intermediate.

And if the perfect god is good by nature, as in fact he is, for our savior declared that there is only a single good god, his father whom he manifested; 16 and if the one who is of the opposite nature is evil and wicked, characterized by injustice; then the one situated between the two, neither good nor evil and unjust, can properly be called just, since he is the arbitrator of the justice that depends on him. On the one hand, this god will be inferior to the perfect god and lower than his justice, since he is generated and not ungenerated; there is only one ungenerated father, from whom are all things, 17 since all things depend on him in their own ways. On the other hand, he will be greater and more powerful than the adversary, by nature, because he has a substance and nature different from the substance of either of them. The substance of the adversary is corruption and darkness, for he is material and complex, while the substance of the ungenerated father of all is incorruption and self-existent light, simple and homogeneous. The substance of the latter produced a double power, while the savior is an image of the greater one.

Do not let this trouble you for the present in your desire to learn how from one first principle of all, simple, and acknowledged by us and believed by us, ungenerated and incorruptible and good, were constituted these natures of corruption and the middle, which are of different substances, although it is characteristic of the good to generate and produce things that are like itself and have the same substance. For, if god permit, you will later learn about their origin and generation, when you are judged worthy of the apostolic tradition that we too have received by succession. We too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the savior.