Thank you for contributing. Let's see what the text says:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:17-18).
So the cross is of the preaching of the powerful rather than of the fools.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:22-24).
So Christ crucified is true power and wisdom, but to Jews and Greeks scandal and foolishness.
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
So Christ crucified contrasts with human wisdom.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory (1 Cor. 2:6-7).
The message of wisdom in mystery to the perfect is not separated from the message of Christ crucified, since the two have already been identified together (1:23-24); Paul's purpose in shifting focus from human wisdom to divine wisdom is to emphasize how the divine is spiritually discerned, not to deprecate the cross that he has just been exalting.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 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 judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16).
Paul invites his readers into the "we" that have Christ's mind, that are spiritual and not just natural men, that speak spiritual teaching and not just human wisdom. Spiritual wisdom is given freely by the Spirit, not inaccessible.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
Finally Paul distinguishes that the mark of the immature was and is division (strife), not the message of Christ crucified. Paul then explains why the cross is preached to the simple:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is (1 Cor. 3:11-13).
All wisdom is founded on Jesus Christ, whether it is of the foundation, or of precious metals and jewels.
Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's (1 Cor. 3:21-23).
The contrast to the message of division, which must be the message of mature wisdom, is that all things are Christ's; and thus the foundation of the cross informs all true wisdom.
The hidden wisdom is not "secret" in the sense of guarded, but it is not received except by the "perfect" defined as those "of the Spirit of God". The sense in which secrets exist in Christianity is not best described by Clement's and Origen's principle of "reserve" (secrets that it is believed harmful to share), but in the sense of Paul's principle that secrets can be shared freely because only the mature will receive them, which echoes Jesus:
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:26-28).
Therefore the dispute between Irenaeus and Valentinus was not a matter of politics ("a dispute over who was authorized"), but a matter of which esoteric teaching was gold, silver, gems, and which was wood, hay, stubble, a matter that was and is publicly decidable.
The fact that Valentinus treats Scripture "not as a literal account of supernatural events, but as a symbolic and transformative narrative describing the human condition", shows that Valentinus stood outside Jesus's tradition that not a letter or serif would depart from Scripture but that all would be fulfilled, that Adam and Noah and Abraham were real people with real covenants, and that Christ crucified was the culminating historical event demonstrating the succession of literal truths transmitted as the foundation of hidden spiritual wisdom about unity in Christ. Valentinus actually teaches, according to Irenaeus, that "the anointed (Christ) was not emitted from the aeons within the fullness. Rather, he and a shadow were engendered by the mother, according to her memory of the superior realm, while she was outside (of the fullness)." This is contrary to the literal recognition that the Christ was conceived of the virgin at a verifiable historical moment, and thus only one system can be golden wisdom, not both.
To say that Valentinus achieves salvation not through "belief in historical propositions, but through recognition—an awakening to one’s true identity", is to substitute one set of competing propositions for another, allowing the external judgment of which propositions are stubble. Valentinus's core teaching as cited in Irenaeus is: "There was a duality, of which one member is called the ineffable and the other is called silence .... Then from this duality a second duality was emitted, of which one member he calls the parent and the other he calls truth. The quartet yielded: the Word; life; the human being; the church. This is the first octet. And—he says—from the Word and life ten powers were emitted, as I already said. And from the human being and the church twelve powers were emitted." None of this has to do with any Pauline or Biblical tradition, and even if we were to take it as most charitable it would only be a systematization of divine attributes that does not yield either useful indications of proper divine or human activity or judgment about any historical testimony; therefore it meets the category of building stubble on the foundation, upon which no man can be supported.
According to Tertullian, Valentinus did perceive himself as a rebel: "Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith."
It is very true that "Jewish precedents for non-literal engagement with sacred texts were already well established prior to and during the first century." These are exceptionally well-attested in the prophets, the Mishnah, the New Testament, the Essenes, and the patristics. The difference between this continuous covenant strand and Valentinus is that Valentinus rejected literal teaching about Christ while the covenantalists built upon literal teaching with their spiritual applications. For instance, it was a canon of statutory construction that, no matter what allegorical meaning had been drawn, one must always return to the question, "But what is the plain meaning (pshat, literal)?"
The fact that Ebionites upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets is identical to the fact that the Jerusalem Council (c. 50, before most Pauline theology) also upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets, and is explained by the fact that both the Council's audience and the Ebionites were largely Gentiles and had not been inducted into Jewish traditions but only those Messianic traditions that applied to both Jew and Gentile.
Thus there is no evidence that in the covenant people "spiritual discernment was privileged over literalism", but rather spiritual discernment supplemented literalism. (Similarly, in the modern church, literalism should not be privileged over discernment but must supplement it.)
TLDR: While much useful background appears herein, the central issue to be taken from Valentinus's case is whether spiritual wisdom contradicts or supplements historical truths. That can only be judged by actual statements that reject historical truths, and not from statements that draw spiritual applications without rejecting the historical truth basis, because such applications were commonly drawn by many without rejecting the history, as Paul clearly taught about the symbolic meaning of Sarah and Hagar. The only group of this period that clearly rejected literal teaching as a group was the Sadducees, which ceased to exist by the 70s AD. Therefore to the degree that Valentinus was quoted as rejecting literality he was unique and unsupported in Christian tradition, and to the degree that his teachings do not explicitly reject literality they cannot be used to support that practice, even as spiritual wisdom is to be commended.
Thank you for contributing. Let's see what the text says:
So the cross is of the preaching of the powerful rather than of the fools.
So Christ crucified is true power and wisdom, but to Jews and Greeks scandal and foolishness.
So Christ crucified contrasts with human wisdom.
The message of wisdom in mystery to the perfect is not separated from the message of Christ crucified, since the two have already been identified together (1:23-24); Paul's purpose in shifting focus from human wisdom to divine wisdom is to emphasize how the divine is spiritually discerned, not to deprecate the cross that he has just been exalting.
Paul invites his readers into the "we" that have Christ's mind, that are spiritual and not just natural men, that speak spiritual teaching and not just human wisdom. Spiritual wisdom is given freely by the Spirit, not inaccessible.
Finally Paul distinguishes that the mark of the immature was and is division (strife), not the message of Christ crucified. Paul then explains why the cross is preached to the simple:
All wisdom is founded on Jesus Christ, whether it is of the foundation, or of precious metals and jewels.
The contrast to the message of division, which must be the message of mature wisdom, is that all things are Christ's; and thus the foundation of the cross informs all true wisdom.
The hidden wisdom is not "secret" in the sense of guarded, but it is not received except by the "perfect" defined as those "of the Spirit of God". The sense in which secrets exist in Christianity is not best described by Clement's and Origen's principle of "reserve" (secrets that it is believed harmful to share), but in the sense of Paul's principle that secrets can be shared freely because only the mature will receive them, which echoes Jesus:
Therefore the dispute between Irenaeus and Valentinus was not a matter of politics ("a dispute over who was authorized"), but a matter of which esoteric teaching was gold, silver, gems, and which was wood, hay, stubble, a matter that was and is publicly decidable.
The fact that Valentinus treats Scripture "not as a literal account of supernatural events, but as a symbolic and transformative narrative describing the human condition", shows that Valentinus stood outside Jesus's tradition that not a letter or serif would depart from Scripture but that all would be fulfilled, that Adam and Noah and Abraham were real people with real covenants, and that Christ crucified was the culminating historical event demonstrating the succession of literal truths transmitted as the foundation of hidden spiritual wisdom about unity in Christ. Valentinus actually teaches, according to Irenaeus, that "the anointed (Christ) was not emitted from the aeons within the fullness. Rather, he and a shadow were engendered by the mother, according to her memory of the superior realm, while she was outside (of the fullness)." This is contrary to the literal recognition that the Christ was conceived of the virgin at a verifiable historical moment, and thus only one system can be golden wisdom, not both.
To say that Valentinus achieves salvation not through "belief in historical propositions, but through recognition—an awakening to one’s true identity", is to substitute one set of competing propositions for another, allowing the external judgment of which propositions are stubble. Valentinus's core teaching as cited in Irenaeus is: "There was a duality, of which one member is called the ineffable and the other is called silence .... Then from this duality a second duality was emitted, of which one member he calls the parent and the other he calls truth. The quartet yielded: the Word; life; the human being; the church. This is the first octet. And—he says—from the Word and life ten powers were emitted, as I already said. And from the human being and the church twelve powers were emitted." None of this has to do with any Pauline or Biblical tradition, and even if we were to take it as most charitable it would only be a systematization of divine attributes that does not yield either useful indications of proper divine or human activity or judgment about any historical testimony; therefore it meets the category of building stubble on the foundation, upon which no man can be supported.
According to Tertullian, Valentinus did perceive himself as a rebel: "Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith."
It is very true that "Jewish precedents for non-literal engagement with sacred texts were already well established prior to and during the first century." These are exceptionally well-attested in the prophets, the Mishnah, the New Testament, the Essenes, and the patristics. The difference between this continuous covenant strand and Valentinus is that Valentinus rejected literal teaching about Christ while the covenantalists built upon literal teaching with their spiritual applications. For instance, it was a canon of statutory construction that, no matter what allegorical meaning had been drawn, one must always return to the question, "But what is the plain meaning (pshat, literal)?"
The fact that Ebionites upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets is identical to the fact that the Jerusalem Council (c. 50, before most Pauline theology) also upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets, and is explained by the fact that both the Council's audience and the Ebionites were largely Gentiles and had not been inducted into Jewish traditions but only those Messianic traditions that applied to both Jew and Gentile.
Thus there is no evidence that in the covenant people "spiritual discernment was privileged over literalism", but rather spiritual discernment supplemented literalism. (Similarly, in the modern church, literalism should not be privileged over discernment but must supplement it.)
TLDR: While much useful background appears herein, the central issue to be taken from Valentinus's case is whether spiritual wisdom contradicts or supplements historical truths. That can only be judged by actual statements that reject historical truths, and not from statements that draw spiritual applications without rejecting the historical truth basis, because such applications were commonly drawn by many without rejecting the history, as Paul clearly taught about the symbolic meaning of Sarah and Hagar. The only group of this period that clearly rejected literal teaching as a group was the Sadducees, which ceased to exist by the 70s AD. Therefore to the degree that Valentinus was quoted as rejecting literality he was unique and unsupported in Christian tradition, and to the degree that his teachings do not explicitly reject literality they cannot be used to support that practice, even as spiritual wisdom is to be commended.
Literally you