Sermon 3 --- The Gospel of Philip 2

Sermon #3  --- The Gospel of Philip 2

Two weeks ago we introduced The Gospel of Philip with these words from Wikipedia:

“Although it may seem similar to the Gospel of Thomas, scholars are divided as to whether it is a single discourse or a collection of Valentinian sayings. . . . . Many of the sayings are identifiably Gnostic, and often appear quite mysterious and enigmatic.”

Several commentators insist that the work is a catechesis, a religious instruction given to a person in preparation for Christian baptism or confirmation, typically using a catechism. 

A catechism is a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.

Whether we will discover a unifying thread in Philip remains to be seen, but certainly the first eight verses are one unit: they are concerned with displaying an overview of a cosmographical hierarchy involving definitions of proselyte as opposed to a Son of God, (a Man of Truth), and deploring the perishable over the imperishable. This theme is carried on and developed over the next twenty-six verses.

Last week we left off at a consideration of God the True Father and God the Mother. This was an extension of the pairs of spiritual qualities we have been discussing since the first verse of Philip. Going on, the author compares the proselyte level of spiritual enlightenment to winter, and Divine Sonship to Summer.

“7. Those who sow in winter reap in summer.

The winter is the earthly, but the summer is another

eon. Let us sow on the Earth in winter so that we may

reap the harvest in summer!

Therefore, we should not pray to God for the winter,

because the winter is followed by the summer.

But the one who tries to reap in winter will not really

reap but only pluck out the sprouts.”

The metaphor of the preceding section is explicated in the following commentary:

“In warm regions, people sow in winter, not in spring as it is done in cold regions.

The Greek word eons denotes spatial dimensions; among them are those called hell, paradise, the abode of the Creator.

In “winter”, i.e. while we are on the Earth, we have to

work in order that in “summer” we live in sufficiency and bliss of the highest eons.”

It is interesting how the metaphors of Heaven and Earth are mixed with Summer and Winter—Winter is the time of hardship and struggle, but also the time of planting, preparation for the fruition of summer—birth into new life, on Earth as flowering crops, in Heaven as flowering spirituality. In this light the Christmas celebration can be thought of like this: the SEED of the Christ consciousness comes into the world at its darkest hour in preparation for the harvest of summer deeds and events in the Fields of Elysium. Is it any accident that Jesus is said to have been born in Winter and died in the Spring? Does it matter if His body was actually born in Winter or not?

The author goes on to exhort:

“8. The one who does not follow this — will not reap

the harvest. Moreover, such one will not only be without the harvest, but will have no strength in the Sabbath.”

Another mixed metaphor appears here, as Summer and Harvest are equated with the Sabbath—the day of rest. Remember that in Hebrews the author had much to say about Rest in the Lord. The poetry of this section is rich in a complicated overlay of radiant images, each shining through the last.

To summarize this first foray into The Gospel of Phillip, just let me say that the cosmological hierarchy presented in these first few verses represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the complex mystical doctrines we will encounter in this very deep, very enigmatic book. I look forward to sharing more of this material in weeks to come. For now let us cherish this one thought: to be born of the Truth is to be born of the Spirit—to the author of Phillip Truth and Spirit are one and the same. Let us cleave to the Abode of God-the-Father, and claim His estate as the birthright of a Son of God.

Moving on in a different vein, the author reflects on the role of Jesus in creating the Holy Family:

“9. Christ came to “ransom” some: to liberate, to

save. He “ransomed” strangers making them His own.

Afterwards, He set apart His own — those whom He

ransomed by His will.

He laid down Himself (on the Path of sacrificial service) when He Himself willed it — not only when He revealed Himself to people, but from the very day of the Creation of the World, He laid down Himself.”

[Sidebar: The idea of the predestined sacrifice of the Christ from the beginning of the world is an ever recurring motif in all the gospels, and it is crucial to understanding how a Son may bring others to the Abode of the Father, thus creating more Sons. Remember from the opening of Philip:

“Those Who came from the Truth are as They were initially.”

Which is not too far from John 1:1-5

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Thus having established Jesus’s precedent established before time began, the sacrifice is spelled out. Back to Philip:]

“He was embodied, and afterwards He — when He

willed — withdrew Himself. He was in the hands of robbers and was taken captive. He liberated Himself and saved also those who were regarded as good and bad in this world.”

After this brief acknowledgement of Jesus’ participation in terrestrial life, we move on to another discussion of the polar opposites with which we were concerned at the beginning of the chapter: proselyte vs Man of Truth, slave vs Son, Winter vs Summer, etc..

“10. Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people). Because of this, among them — the good are not good, the bad are not bad, and their life is not life, and their death is not death. So, one should begin with separating all these in oneself. Those who have detached themselves from everything worldly become whole, eternal.” 

Notice that William Blake’s Theory of Contraries is here reprised in the sentence, “Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people).” Blake, among others, has maintained that life is made up of the harmonious blending of light and dark, good and evil—both are necessary for existence. HOWEVER Blake did not attached the qualifier, 

“(in worldly people)”—

Blake gives the impression that good and bad go together ad infinitum, but Philip clearly indicates that life and death are brothers of one another IN WORLDLY PEOPLE, implying that other-worldly people, or, you might say, SUPER-worldly people have transcended this dualistic dichotomy, detached themselves from earthly concerns, and live in an holistic, eternal world, in which the tension between opposites does not exist. 

We are discussing two different levels here. The author of Philip seems determined to drive home the point that two levels of consciousness are residing side by side, and the sanctified Christian resides in the higher of the two abodes.

One commentator has paraphrased the section like this:

“The one who has entered on the spiritual Path has to separate in oneself the true, eternal, and valuable for life in the highest eons — from the false, which belongs only to this world. Then one has to cultivate in oneself the first and get rid of the second.

Those Who have accomplished this become eternal in the Divine eons.”

This is a hard lesson to take in, when so many of us spend our

lives struggling to strike a balance between the light and the

dark. So many of us are transfixed by the false sense of

self-importance the world reflects back upon our efforts at

self-recognition; too easily we get convinced that all our

conflicts and compromises are real, when one trip into the Cloud

of Unknowing would make plain the folly of all this to our

hearts and to our minds as well.

The next passage refers to earthly things as a great DELUSION.

This expression is reminiscent of the Hindu term “maya” which

stands for the ILLUSION of material reality. The expressions

are precisely analogous and interchangeable.

Notice, also the opposite pairing, transient vs eternal. The author

of Philip is determined to press home the point that on Earth we

have two possible reference points, the lower and the higher, and

that we ought always to focus our attention on the higher.

Remember, also, that if this were such an easy thing, we would

not have to be reminded of it so often:

“11. The importance attached to earthly things is a great delusion, for they divert our thoughts from the One Who is eternal to that which is transient. And in this case, the one who hears about God does not perceive (behind this word) the Eternal, but thinks about the transient. In the same way, behind the words the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection, and the Church — people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience). These words are only misleading to worldly people. If they were in the (Divine) eons, they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.” 

There are two red-letter sentences here that I want to emphasize. The first is this:

“people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience),” 

In this sentence, two expressions stand out: “cognized the eternal”, and “through personal experience”. 

The word “cognize” is of extreme interest because it refers to a special type of understanding. The dictionary does not give an especially tricky definition: to know, to understand; but the sentence the dictionary uses to illustrate the word implies a special nuance: 

“The philosopher claims that we can never cognize—in a fundamental sense—anything.”

I think the expression “in a fundamental sense” should be appended to the definition of the word cognize: to understand in a fundamental sense. Thus, to “cognize” the eternal means not merely to understand in literal terms, the eternal, (a feat which would be manifestly impossible), but to achieve an internal apprehension, an identification, a taking in of the resonance of the eternal, to understand in a way that transcends the word “understand”. To cogitate refers to an activity of the BRAIN, but to cognize in a fundamental sense means to mobilize energies in our perceptual apparatus which operate beyond the powers of the brain to contain or comprehend.

And how do we cognize the eternal? Through PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I have said this many, many, many, many times: the ultimate index of spiritual truth is personal experience. Personal experience cancels out every power of the brain to articulate, verbalize, to prove, or otherwise approximate what we know. Thus, to repeat the paragraph from Philip:

“people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience)”

People—which people do not perceive the Eternal? The people who have not already had a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of the Eternal. In other words, no amount of dogmatic training can create in the person a cognition of the Eternal—only the birth of the individual INTO the Eternal can do that.

The second red-letter section I wanted to emphasize is:

“These words are only misleading to worldly people. If they were in the (Divine) eons, they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.”

“These words (ANY WORDS, especially words like Eternal, and God) are only misleading to worldly people.” This brings us back to the idea of “PARABLE”; worldly people (the peasants, the pagans) cannot be ministered to with the same vocabulary as the initiated because these words, without the reference point of personal experience, mean totally different things to the uninitiated. As William James says,

“As there is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it, so reasonable arguments, challenges to magnanimity, and appeals to sympathy or justice, are folly when we are dealing with human crocodiles and boa-constrictors.”

I don’t think Jesus would refer to the people as crocodiles and boa-constrictors, but I think you get the point-- language makes slaves of us by leading our minds into misinterpretations which lead our bodies into wrong action.  For instance, some people confuse the attitude of “pride” for the attitude known as “self-respect”. How can we have self-love without self-respect, you say? I say, again, the word “respect” is often based on outward signs, definitions, requirements, and, moreover, the conditioning of our attitudes toward ourselves by social (moral?) conventions, conventions which may have once been based on truth, but which have often become perverted traditions whose vitality has been drained out, over the centuries, by false pictures of the self—pictures generated by mundane concepts which are no longer illuminated by personal spiritual truth. Thus, self-respect is nothing more than PRIDE parading around in a dinner jacket. Moreover, self-respect often does not come from a sense of self, but from an outer false ego formulation that is defined by society, not by an inner self perception.

There are so many words like “Pride”, “Allegiance”, “Freedom”, “Justice”, etc., which may be turned, by the verbal pyrotechnics of Satan, into the most hideous deformities. To the uninitiated, words which refer to Eternal identities are misrepresentations; and to the initiated, all such words are not even part of their working vocabulary:

“they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.”

Going on, Philip gives us an idea of the kind of vocabulary the initiated would use—or NOT use:

“12. One name is not uttered among that which is

worldly — it is the name that the Father grants to a Son. It

is above all. This name is the Father. The Son would not

have gotten this name if He had not become the Father.

Those who bear this name know this, but They do not

speak about this. But those who do not bear this name do

not know Them.

Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.

The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One

through love for Multitude.”

I love this section because it reiterates a point I have made time and time again: the use of words to articulate spiritual reality is a game destined for failure, but we do it anyway because:

“Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.”

It is not possible to COGNIZE the Truth without names, and yet it is not possible to EXPERIENCE the Truth with them. Words occupy a kind of Limbo position in the cosmography—we can’t live with them, we can’t think without them. Thus, words must be thought of as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness —MEDIATORS between the false and the True. Again:

“The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One

through love for Multitude.”

The word “Multitude” has a special meaning, explained here:

“This sentence speaks about the United We — the Totality of All the Perfect Ones Who flowed into the Primordial Consciousness and Who represent Its Essence.”

As C.S. Lewis reminds us, when we surrender our own will to God’s Will, we become more ourselves—HERE, the totality of the Primordial Consciousness is comprised of a MULITITUDE of Perfect Ones who have flowed TOGETHER in to a SINGLE CONSCIOUSNESS. What is the tie that binds us all together?We must give the only answer we know—LOVE.

Notice how cognition always precedes love in this spiritual declension: thus do Aquinas' and C.S. Lewis' both affirm that "Right reason" is an important component of spiritual progress. This passage is not saying that there is no Truth expressed in words, it is saying that words are an important preliminary to nonverbal understanding. 

I've often contemplated the humanity of words. Words are essentially abstract because they represent something in an ideal or an archetypal way—in the mind; but they also are refer to things out there in the physical universe, the material universe. Hence, the expression “Word of God Incarnate” is such a power-packed concept because it leads us to contemplate the union of spirit and flesh, synthesized in the divine personality of Jesus.

The images expressed in painting, poetry, and dance, almost universally refer to physical realities. Pictures (even imaginary pictures, if they are seen with physical eyes), and words (even abstract words like soul and God, if they are understood with the lower, literal mind), must have material referents or they would not exist. It is the WORDS involved in reading that feed the left brain’s appetite for truisms, and promotes self-centered behavior in the service of the ego, that is not even ultimately in service of the self. At the spiritual level, verbal structures no longer serve the intellect—higher mind must take over—a mind state where words can no longer signify a verbal referent; in this mind state, object has become subject, literal consciousness has become self-consciousness.

We have spoken many times of the deception of words: words so often engender cases of mistaken identity--lies disguised as truth, sent by Satan to distract us from the real truth clothed in the Cloud of Unknowing. But we need words to create apprehendable mental images--to cognize them- to share partial knowledge with our worldly brothers(multitude). Still, the goal line, in the race toward spiritual enlightenment, is the dissolution of verbal structures in the Cloud of Unknowing. You might call the Cloud of Unknowing what Philip calls it: the Bridal Chamber. It is really necessary to enter this rarefied environment to experience Divine Love. The beauty is that our minds can somehow hold onto the big toe of rationality, while losing most of itself in the Cloud. Thus it is that Reason reports back to our sequential, literal understanding, (memories In Time),  events that truly unfold Outside Time.

Reason is an aspect of human consciousness that has one foot in the carnal, by virtue of the material referents that all words must have, and one foot in the Eternal by virtue of the abstractions which are the stock in trade of any reasoning process. Screwtape expounds on the role of ARGUMENT in the process of COGNIZING Spirit:

“It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that. 

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless." Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result! Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real."”

The role of REASON in spiritual evolution is complex. We know we cannot trust our thoughts, but we cannot achieve any cognitive apprehension without them. C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy tells how it was a train of reasoning that led to his Christian conversion, and yet he repeatedly warns us not to take our verbalized thoughts too seriously. I think one of the hardest things for intelligent people to give up is the assurance that their thoughts mean something. When Socrates declares that the wise man admits he knows nothing, he is making an intensely difficult statement. It is REALLY HARD to know nothing.

The next passage from Philip mentions the fact that false Truths can be used to lead the people down a wrong path—that false Truths can be used to enslave the people:

“13. The earthly rulers wanted to deceive people,

since they understood that people have the same origin

with the really worthy. They took good names and gave

these names to bad things in order to deceive people and

bind them to the bad in this way. And now these earthly

rulers suggest to people that they keep away from the

“bad” and cling to the “good”. These earthly rulers strive

to make formerly free men slaves forever.

14. There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them). People, wishing to be saved, made sacrifices. But a reasonable one (understands clearly that) sacrifices are not necessary and animals should not be offered to deities.

In fact, those who offered animals as a sacrifice

were themselves like animals (by the level of their development)…When a sacrifice was made (animals were offered to deities). Though animals were offered alive, they died. But the one who offers oneself dead to God — (verily) will live.”

These sentences, 

“There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them).” 

refers to the public propaganda machine that all governments have used, since time immemorial, to keep the people in line and obedient to the status quo. Recently we talked about various types of group PRIDE. In instilling group pride, institutions employ various types of self-aggrandizing phraseologies which are meant to promote parochial loyalties which are socially defensive, and do not operate in service of the self. You may be sure that Satan is at the bottom of a lot of this stuff.

Commenting on this last section concerning animal sacrifice:

The issue of animal sacrifice is related to the larger issue of false gods. We read in Hebrews about the weakness of animal sacrifice, when Jesus' sacrifice was of his blood. I have been reading, in St. Augustine's The City of God, about all the plethora of Latin gods that were prayed to by a population whose attention was divided between a vast number of minor gods whose provinces extended from the weather to the left toenail. Indeed, this might be the worst aspect of polytheism: that seeking gods in everything, may obscure the focus on the Christ Consciousness, and thus make God visible in nothing. I think there is little wrong with seeking little corners of sanctity in our daily duties, like doing the laundry, but let us not miss the big picture

Here, the last paragraph needs to be commented on:

“When a sacrifice was made (animals were offered to deities). Though animals were offered alive, they died. But the one who offers oneself dead to God — (verily) will live.”

The fact is that man is not a body. Man is a consciousness,

a soul. So, it is wrong to say that man is dead if the body has died. It is the body that died, but the man did not.

One can also consider death of man (as a soul, i.e. spiritual

death) in the sense implied by the words of Jesus: “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead!” (Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60).

But in this part of His Gospel, Philip means another death

— the death of one’s lower individual “I” implies the

realization of the Higher I, i.e. Mergence of the developed consciousness with the Creator. Such a person attains the Eternal

Life in the Abode of the Creator in Mergence with Him.

Back to Philip:

“15. Before Christ came, there was no bread of Heaven.

It was like in paradise at the time of Adam: there

were many trees — food for animals, but no wheat — food

for man. Man used to feed like animals. But when a Christ — Perfect Man — comes, He brings the bread from Heaven so that people may eat human food.”

Interesting expression—human food—the implication is that human is not of this world—to become human (as opposed to animal, another dichotomous pairing) is to become divine. People without the true knowledge about their predestination and the Path, live a life quite comparable to the life of animals. God, through a Christ, gives them spiritual food appropriate to humans.

“16. The earthly rulers thought that what they did they

did by their own power and will. But in reality the Holy

Spirit in secret accomplished all that through them — accomplished as He considered appropriate.

They also sow everywhere the true knowledge, which

existed since the beginning. And many people see it while

it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by

the time of the harvest.”

Commentary: 

“The Holy Spirit directs the acts of people when necessary, but people usually are not aware of this. He, among other things, creates — through vicious people— difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live.

The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psychoenergetical. And our Teacher is God. Diligent students, after graduating from this School, are invited by the Father, if they are worthy of this, to His Abode to merge there with Him forever. But remedial students remain forever “repeaters”, become slaves of this world.

The time of the “harvest” is the end of the world: the

School is closed, the worthy students move to the Abode of

God-the-Father, enriching Him with Themselves; the lot of the rest is the outer darkness: destruction, death of the souls.

… A special comment has to be made concerning the use of the pronoun They with regard to the Holy Spirit in this fragment. This is not an error: the Holy Spirit is indeed an aggregate of former humans who attained in their development the right to be in the Highest eons.”

To summarize the main points of this section of Philip, we saw that:

“Christ came to “ransom” some: to liberate, to

save. He “ransomed” strangers making them His own.

Afterwards, He set apart His own — those whom He

ransomed by His will.”

“Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people).”

“People do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience).” 

“One name is not uttered among that which is

worldly — it is the name that the Father grants to a Son. It is above all. This name is the Father. The Son would not have gotten this name if He had not become the Father. Those who bear this name know this, but They do not speak about this. But those who do not bear this name do not know Them.

Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.

The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One through love for Multitude.”

“There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them).” 

Thus, as a catechesis, in preparation for holy baptism, this section of Philip encourages the proselyte to engage his higher self and enter the abode of the Father through reason, and avoid the false truths of institutional propaganda (meanwhile proclaiming a Christian brand of propaganda that is ultimately equally false). Only personal spiritual experience is legitimately true—only personal spiritual experience enables us to join with the MULTITUDE.

Let us pray:

Jesus, these knotty questions occupy our minds with trivial pursuits, while the Love of God reaches out to us with enfolding hands. Let us continue fighting for understanding in this losing battle, because at the end of strife there is rest in the Lord. Amen.

Sermon 2 --The Gospel of Philip --1

^{Sermon #2 --The Gospel of Philip --1}

^{Call to Worship:}

Mathew 13:10-16:

^“10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

¹¹ He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 

¹² For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 

¹³ Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Last week we introduced The Gospel of Philip with these words from Wikipedia:

“Although it may seem similar to the Gospel of Thomas, scholars are divided as to whether it is a single discourse or a collection of Valentinian sayings. . . . . Many of the sayings are identifiably Gnostic, and often appear quite mysterious and enigmatic.”

Whether we will discover a unifying thread in Philip remains to be seen, but certainly the first eight verses are one unit: they are concerned with displaying an overview of a cosmographical hierarchy involving definitions of proselyte as opposed to a Son of God, (a Man of Truth), and deploring the perishable over the imperishable. This theme is carried on and developed over the next twenty-six verses.

Last week we also suggested that the probable inspiration for The Gospel of Philip in Valentinianism, placed it within the pedagogical jurisdiction of the Apostle Paul; thus, even if he did not write it himself, the influence he had on his many students must have shaped much of the material. We also suggested that in some of the Gnostic scriptures, the less dogmatic, the more mystical side of Paul is given voice, through him directly or through his students. We further suggested that this mysticism may be the very reason the Church Fathers, of the 325 Nicean Council, rejected certain texts, from various sources, which read a lot like the Gospel of Philip. Finally, last week, it was suggested that the image of the sacred bridal chamber was going to play a pervasive role in the over-arching concept of the author. Specific mention of the “Bridal Chamber” is not made until fairly late in the book, but its mention, in its proper place, is the crowning rational image of the book.

Thus, having prepared the stage, let us begin at the beginning with the first few verses of scripture. The remarkable thing about this opening is it gives a complex description of a cosmic hierarchical structure which has been of some interest to us here at the Basin Bible Church. The author here introduces an hierarchical cosmographic model consisting of two distinct levels of consciousness, the lower being born of earth the other being born of heaven. The model is metaphorically represented by several different symbolic pairs, the first earthbound, the second heavenly: 

1. as proselyte vs Man of Truth, 

2. as slave vs Son, 

3. as perishable vs the imperishable,

4. as pagan vs those who have accepted the Truth,

5. as winter planting vs summer harvesting

and including my own extension to the list of declensions,

6. as those who are spoken to in parables, vs those who are

told the whole truth, and finally

7. as the saved vs the sanctified.

We will find these pairings of intense interest as we explore the complexities and significance of this cosmographic model. This exploration will yield a template for all analogous positive/negative pairings, from Slave vs Son to Planting vs Reaping.

So here is the opening of The Gospel of Philip:

“1. A Hebrew makes a Hebrew, and such a person is

called a proselyte. But a proselyte does not make a proselyte.”

[Sidebar: This confusing opening states: Hebrews may go around converting other people to be Hebrews, but such a convert does not then go around converting more other people to be Hebrews—only people who were originally Hebrews can do that; the reason why is revealed a few lines down the page—we’ll get to that presently. Some commentaries indicate that this is a slam against the inconstant Romans, but I believe another implication here is kind of like the idea of Xerox copies—each succeeding generation is less faithful to the original. Hence,

“Those Who came from the Truth are as They were initially.

And They beget other Men of Truth. The latter

need only to be born (in It).”

Thus, those born of the spirit may give birth to others born of the spirit, but this event is not on the same energy level as the process of creating a proselyte, a person defined by a mundane national or social identity, and his adoption of specific allegiances to a social entity, like the Hebrews or the Samaritans, or the Romans; to be born of the spirit is an event of a higher vibrational intensity than any such terrestrial identifications. Those born of the spirit give birth to others born of the spirit by leading them to the Abode of God-the-Father, the entrance into which constitutes a “birth”. 

Isenburg, an enlightened translator of Philip has made this comment about the opening:

“We know from the central argument of this ‘Sermon on the Mirrored Bridal Chamber’ that the author is trying to convince those under Roman influence of the efficacy of the sacrament of the Bridal Chamber.  The author makes in the first paragraph an argument key to winning his case that the Romans are like proselytes in not adhering to their Samaritan-Sethian-Hebraic roots.  This is replayed in the slave-son analogy of paragraph 2, the gentile slight of paragraph 3 and the father-mother reference there as well.  The Romans are just proselytes or beginners in not going on to the sacrament of the Bridal Chamber.”

This is all quite significant when we consider the implication of this passage, that there is a celestial hierarchy consisting of different levels of soul evolution-- the different levels arranging themselves into an harmoniously balanced cosmic choir. I believe this bears upon the idea that all are one, but all are unique. As we continue through The Gospel of Philip, our position in the cosmic choir will concern us more and more.

Going on with Philip:

“2. A slave can hope only to become free. A slave cannot

      expect to inherit the estate of the master.

Yet a Son is not only a Son, but also a Co-owner of His

Father’s estate.”

The difference between a slave and a son is here equivalent to the difference between a proselyte and one born of the Truth. A slave achieves an elevation in rank by becoming free, but the son achieves an elevation in rank by virtue of a pre-existing transcendental relationship to the Father. This sketch of the cosmic hierarchical structure in not unrelated to the idea of the parable, by virtue of its two-level structure. In Matthew 13:10-16 we read:

^“10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

¹¹ He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 

¹² For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 

¹³ Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

¹⁴ And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, 

And seeing you will see and not perceive; 

¹⁵ For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing,

And their eyes they have closed,

Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

So that I should heal them.’

¹⁶ But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 

¹⁷ for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

Remember that Jesus said to His disciples, “to them I speak in parables, but to you I speak the truth.” This is because once you have heard the truth you become responsible for the truth, and not everybody is ready to take on such a heavy responsibility. Thus, the author of The Gospel of Phillip is warning us that the knowledge of a proselyte or a slave is lower than the knowledge of a Man of Truth, or a Son. Furthermore, a slave may ascend to a Sonship, but a Son may not descend to the level of a slave without doing irredeemable damage to his soul. This is a paradox we will discuss later.

The concept of being born into the family of God bears on certain of our ideas of predestination, because the Son, co-essential to the Father and co-owner of His property, is related to the Father by a blood connection forged OUTSIDE time; and yet it is stated that Sons of God can lead others to become Sons of God. Thus, by reversing time, a Son of God may transform a proselyte into a Son from the beginning of always. 

Isenburg makes this comment:

“The slave seeks only to be free, but he does not hope to acquire the estate of his master. But the son is not only a son but lays claim to the inheritance of the father. Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more.

(What do you mean ‘heirs to what is living?’)

The idea of the slave plays off the sense of being a slave or servant of Christ which is the crucified Christ rather than the living Christ referenced in the Gospel of Thomas as ‘the Living Jesus’.  The slaves are ‘dead’ in comparison to those of the Bridal Chamber and later on we will find the word ‘slave’ being used in reference to be a slave of the body and of sexuality.”

Now, let us dwell for a moment on the mention of BLOOD. 

“Yet a Son is not only a Son, but also a Co-owner of His

Father’s estate.”

The term “church family” is not a designation to be taken lightly. According to these texts, Sons of God are of the Family of God; so what family member is not related to all his other family members except by BLOOD? 

In Hebrews 2: 11-18 we read:

“11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 

12 He says, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises." 

[Sidebar: Later on the author(s) of Philip will revisit the idea of “brother”.]

In Hebrews 9:11-14 we read:  

“11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 

12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” 

You will remember that Rudolf Steiner was crucial to my coming to understand the significance of the blood. His lecture, The Etherisation of the Blood, Basle, October 1, 1911, goes very deeply into the actual mechanics of divine identity being transmitted through the blood. I have read this before, but it bears repeating:

“Just as in the region of the human heart the blood is continually being transformed into etheric substance, a similar process takes place in the Macrocosm. We understand this when we turn our minds to the Mystery of Golgotha — to the moment when the blood flowed from the wounds of Jesus Christ.

This blood must not be regarded simply as chemical substance, but by reason of all that has been said concerning the nature of Jesus of Nazareth it must be recognised as something altogether unique. When it flowed from His wounds, a substance was imparted to our Earth, which in uniting with it, constituted an Event of the greatest possible significance for all future ages of the Earth's evolution — and it could take place only once. What came of this blood in the ages that followed? Nothing different from what otherwise takes place in the heart of man. In the course of Earth evolution this blood passes through a process of “etherisation.” And just as our human blood streams upwards from the heart as ether, so since the Mystery of Golgotha the etherised blood of Christ Jesus has been present in the ether of the earth. The etheric body of the Earth is permeated by the blood — now transformed — which flowed on Golgotha. This is supremely important. If what has thus come to pass through Christ Jesus had not taken place, man's condition on the Earth could only have been as previously described. But since the Mystery of Golgotha it has always been possible for the etheric blood of Christ to flow together with the streamings from below upward, from heart to head.

Because the etherised blood of Jesus of Nazareth is present in the etheric body of the Earth, it accompanies the etherised human blood streaming upwards from the heart to the brain, so that not only those streams of which I spoke earlier meet in man, but the human blood-stream unites with the blood-stream of Christ Jesus. A union of these two streams can, however, come about only if a person is able to unfold true understanding of what is contained in the Christ Impulse. Otherwise there can be no union; the two streams then mutually repel each other, thrust each other away. In every epoch of Earth evolution understanding must be acquired in the form suitable for that epoch. At the time when Christ Jesus lived on Earth, preceding events were rightly understood by those who came to His forerunner, John, and were baptised by him according to the rite described in the Gospels. They received baptism in order that their sin, that is to say, the karma of their previous lives — karma which had come to an end — might be changed; and in order that they might realise that the most powerful Impulse in Earth evolution was about to descend into a physical body. But the evolution of humanity progresses and in our present age what matters is that people should recognise the need for the knowledge contained in Spiritual Science and be able so to fire the streams flowing from heart to brain that this knowledge can be understood.”

Thus, Steiner declares that all Christians are members of one family by virtue of a common ability “to unfold true understanding of what is contained in the Christ Impulse”, and by virtue of the etherised blood of Jesus which we have taken into ourselves and made our own.

Philip’s hierarchical model of Slave to Son will play an integral role in an upcoming discussion, but at this point the author leaves that subject in order to go on and reiterate ideas that are more familiar to us from other writings of Paul. 

“3. There are those who inherit the perishable. They

belong to the perishable, and thus they inherit the perishable.

Those Who inherit the Imperishable are imperishable.

They become owners of both the Imperishable and the

perishable.”

You will note a close similarity of this passage to large sections of text we pondered in Hebrews. For instance in Hebrews 12:22-27, we encounter the opposition of the Earthly to the Heavenly, and the opposition of that which can be shaken to that which cannot be shaken:

Hebrews 12:22-27

^“22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

²³ To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

²⁴ And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

²⁵ See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

²⁶ Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

²⁷ And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.” 

And, of course the discussion of the perishable vs the imperishable bears a remarkable resemblance to this seminal verse from Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:54-57 

“When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

You will recall the C.S. Lewis quote: 

“Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.”

Back to Phillip:

“People of the perishable inherit (really) nothing. Because

what can a perishable man inherit?

If the one who leaves the body inherits the True Life,

it means that such One is not dead but will live.”

4. A pagan does not die because this person has not

(really) lived. So, there is no point in speaking about a pagan’s death.

But those who have accepted the Truth begin to live,

and there is a danger of dying for them because they live.”

[Sidebar: Repeat: 

“A pagan does not die because this person has not (really) lived.”; 

Thus, one who has not been born of spirit cannot die of the spirit, but one born of the spirit may lose the anointing. Indeed, the unforgivable sin is more a danger to the initiate than the uninitiated.

This is also why Jesus could say, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” The pagan, who is not born of the spirit, has no concept of spirit, so he cannot commit the unforgivable sin. Thomas Aquinas points out that many sins are committed in ignorance, so the sinner is not held accountable. 

This idea of the innocent sinner is a real brain twister: it is the idea that, at the lower levels, slaves are only capable of imagining a certain kind of future, while on the other hand, those initiated into the higher levels can imagine something more; the Son can imagine being One with the father, but the slave cannot. Thus the entirety of creation exists on different levels all at once, each with a different quality. Some of the people Jesus taught were unable to hear the word of God except in parables, because they were only capable of imagining a certain thing, whereas the disciples could imagine a higher thing because their starting point was higher to begin with. 

In the last analysis, I don’t think the higher TRUTH Jesus gave His disciples was any more the WHOLE Truth than the Parables He told to the people were the WHOLE TRUTH—because belief and understanding must always fail in this physical dimension, incarcerated as they both are in the prison of WORDS. This also has to do with the idea that those who have get more, and those who have not, will have taken away from them even what they had.

Does writing for the PEOPLE, ministering to the PEOPLE always involve a compromise? Did Jesus really come to save EVERYONE? Is an appropriate level of literacy of TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS, necessary to adequately express universals, even possible when expressed in language of the lowest class? Or will the best TRUTH be a TRUTH that can be TRUE for the Aristocrats and the Commoners at the same time? What difference does it make what you BELIEVE, REALLY? Is there such a thing as an innocent sinner?

In C.S. Lewis’ Scewtape Letters we read:

“Let us therefore think rather how to use, than how to enjoy, this European war. For it has certain tendencies inherent in it which are, in themselves, by no means in our favour. We may hope for a good deal of cruelty and unchastity. But, if we are not careful, we shall see thousands turning in this tribulation to the Enemy, while tens of thousands who do not go so far as that will nevertheless have their attention diverted from themselves to values and causes which they believe to be higher than the self. I know that the Enemy disapproves many of these causes. But that is where He is so unfair. He often makes prizes of humans who have given their lives for causes He thinks bad on the monstrously sophistical ground that the humans thought them good and were following the best they knew.”

From a not unrelated perspective we read the confession of the soldier of Tash in The Last Battle:

“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” 

Thus, we must be tempted to conclude that ignorance is an adequate defense against Hellfire, as long as the proselyte remains a proselyte—a beginner. Once the light has illumined the soul and Sonship is achieved, there is no going back.

Going on to the 4th Verse of Philip, Isenburg comments:

“A Gentile does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is alive.”

Thus with a birth comes the possibility of death by what would amount to a denial of the experience of the Bridal Chamber.”

Mark 3:22-30 states:

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebub,’ and, ‘By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.’ …‘Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;’ because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”

In this verse, it is asserted that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Why should this sin be any more irreconcilable than any other sin? Perhaps it has to do with the idea that a Son of God who has turned away from God has committed an act that cannot be undone, initiated an inertia that cannot be reversed. We have agreed that acts of pride (the root of all sins) take tremendous will power—the act of rebellion performed by Satan must have consisted of a gargantuan act of will—such that the quantum leap away from the Center of the Universe sufficient to deny the sanctity of the Holy Spirit had to be an irreversible ejaculation of negative energy. We want to believe in an all-loving, all-forgiving God, but we also must believe in a universe that makes sense; and an act of Holy Rejection such as is required to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (this must be in deed not in word, to be sure) must be classed as an un-undoable act. Again, the slave who knows no better cannot blaspheme against the Holy Spirit because he does not know the Holy Spirit—a Son of God who turns away from God must be held accountable for his actions, and must be aware, in advance, of the gravity of his negative act.

We first encounter the idea of the unforgivable sin in Hebrews 6:4-6:

“4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 

5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 

6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

And again in Hebrews 10:26-31:

“26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 

28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 

29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 

30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 

31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 

There is food for contradiction here because in one place it says that the penitent who backslides into sin is unredeemable, and yet here in Hebrews 10:1-2 it says:

“10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. ² Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.” 

Which Henry’s Commentary explains like this:

“Could they have satisfied the demands of justice, and made reconciliation for iniquity,—could they have purified and pacified conscience,—then they had ceased, as being no further necessary, since the offerers would have had no more sin lying upon their consciences. But this was not the case; after one day of atonement was over, the sinner would fall again into one fault or another, and so there would be need of another day of atonement, and of one every year, besides the daily ministrations. Whereas now, under the gospel, the atonement is perfect, and not to be repeated; and the sinner, once pardoned, is ever pardoned as to his state, and only needs to renew his repentance and faith, that he may have a comfortable sense of a continued pardon.”

So how can the sinner, so pardoned, ever fall out of grace with the Father? We encounter this type of contradiction whenever we try to understand the cosmic machine in the terms of the human concept of justice. Clearly the new law has loopholes built into it which blur the lines of Karmic clarity into swatches of question marks. The questions are answered through faith, a faith that legitimately allows us to dismiss certain logical contradictions as trivial; faith gives us the license to believe and yet not understand. 

All this talk of higher and lower spiritual levels reminds me of some of the Nazarene dogma I learned as a boy: in the Nazarene church, (and many other fundamentalist denominations, I think) you have to make two public trips to the altar. The first trip is to get “saved”—I believe this trip would be analogous to freeing the slave, or becoming a proselyte. The second trip is to get “sanctified”; this trip is nail down your entry into the Abode of God-the-Father. The idea is that when you first get “saved” you can “backslide”, slip back to your worldly ways, but when you get “sanctified” you cannot backslide ever again. Of course, when a newly sanctified Christian eventually backslid into sin anyway, it was explained they weren’t really sanctified after all—very neat. Nevertheless, the mystery of conversion must never be trivialized, and the possibility of eternal damnation must not be rejected just because God is Good—we must also remember that God is Just, and as above so below, you get what you pay for.

Going back to Phillip:

“5. Since the day of Christ’s incarnation, the prosperity

came, the cities revived, the death moved away.

6. When we were Hebrews, each of us had only a

mother. But since we became Christians, we have both

the Father and mother.”

Isenburg translates:

“Since Christ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians, we had both father and mother.  

(What do you mean ‘A Gentile ….has never lived?)

“The world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out” can refer to the new visionary modalities Christ brought which created ecstatic, spiritual communities which buried the dead past.  To be more specific, the Bridal Chamber sacrament opened up the world in a visionary way.”

It must be remembered that Jesus brought a new perspective to World Religion. A not insignificant contribution was the way He integrated the Hebrew concept of the Father God with the polytheistic concept of the Mother God. As we have seen, many of the religions of the surrounding regions relied heavily on polytheism, with abounding plethoras of Gods associated with every human activity imaginable, from coronations, to marriage, to dish-washing and fish-gutting. In these religions the Mother God was a central figure in the pagan cosmography. Thus, Jesus took the Jewish idea of a Father God one step further, by claiming Sonship. 

[There is a joke in Philip some distance down the text where the idea of a virgin impregnated by a virgin is made fun of. It is not a trivial issue to confront.] 

One aspect of the Father God is that He has a PERSONALITY—a focus in the Christ Consciousness—a spiritual modality that cannot be mistaken for any other quality than MALE. I do not know how I know this, but my sense of the the cosmic personality is that there are varying shades of light and dark in the spiritual universe which correspond to qualities of gender. In C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra the spirits of Mars and Venus stand side by side, each a radiant archetypal representation of gender, Mars/male, Venus/female.

In the commentary on Philip we read the following statement:

“In the Judaic tradition, God was called Father. And Jesus

suggested to His followers that they call only God — Father, not the earthly parent.

Philip says that the true followers of Christ now have the

True Father.”

This reference to the True Father will play a part in the Gnostic doctrine that the author(s) of Philip are constructing. In the meantime, let us consider the world of opposites and ask ourselves what is from Heaven and what is not.

Let us pray: Jesus, we always shrink before the magnanimous roar of Heavenly Truth in our puny terrestrial ears, but we trust that your gentle hands will bring us safely into that abode where all are brothers in love and light. Amen.