Pastoral Musings

Here are a few quotes from the Justin and Irenaeus on the subject of sin.

While they certainly aren’t as precise as Augustinian and Reformed statements, and possibly not always confining themselves to the idea of original sin, these quotes do show that there was an awareness that Adam plunged humanity into sin and that we inherited it from him.

Justin Martyr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit. [1]

I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus.[2]

they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive.[3]

Wherefore also “the first Adam was made” by the Lord “a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit.” As, then, he who was made a living soul forfeited life when he turned aside to what was evil, so, on the other hand, the same individual, when he reverts to what is good, and receives the quickening Spirit, shall find life.[4]

Wherefore also “the first Adam was made” by the Lord “a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit.” As, then, he who was made a living soul forfeited life when he turned aside to what was evil, so, on the other hand, the same individual, when he reverts to what is good, and receives the quickening Spirit, shall find life.[5]

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, “Go to Siloam, and wash;” thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know] Him who has conferred upon him life.[6]

 

He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.[7]

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel.”[8]

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin With Trypho, a Jew”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 243 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). chap. lxxxviii.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 446 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 3.18.1

[3] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 527 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.1.3

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 538 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.12.2

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 538 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.14.1-2

[6] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 543 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.15.3

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 544 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.16.3

[8] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 548 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.21.1

We are told these days that we should read Genesis through “Ancient Eyes”. I agree.

With that in mind, I present to you this reading of Genesis from Irenaeus, who followed closely on the heels of the Apostles and was well informed of their teaching and preaching. Remembering that the Apostles taught the teachings of Jesus, who taught the truth of Scripture, fulfilling the promises of God made in the Scriptures; we find that we have good reason to believe that these ancient eyes take us back to the original intent of the writer of the Genesis Creation Account. Not only so but, Jesus being the very Word of God, we have every reason to believe that He spoke truly concerning Genesis and the Creation.

We find Irenaeus walking in Jesus’ footsteps and believing in a literal creation, a literal Adam, a literal paradise, and a literal fall.

For in Adam the hands of God had become accustomed to set in order, to rule, and to sustain His own workmanship, and to bring it and place it where they pleased. Where, then, was the first man placed? In paradise certainly, as the Scripture declares “And God planted a garden [paradisum] eastward in Eden, and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” And then afterwards when [man] proved disobedient, he was cast out thence into this world. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, chapter  5.1, Schaff, Philip. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000.

When we follow the train of truth from Irenaeus to the Apostles, and back to the Word of God- Jesus Himself- we find ourselves reading Genesis with the most ancient of eyes.

Related articles

• Jesus, Objective Truth, And Inerrant Scripture(pastoralmusings.com)

  ---

• Irenaeus On God’s Word(pastoralmusings.com)

  ---

• Clement on Inerrancy(pastoralmusings.com)

  ---

since the writings (literae) of Moses are the words of Christ, He does Himself declare to the Jews, as John has recorded in the Gospel: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, neither will ye believe My words.” He thus indicates in the clearest manner that the writings of Moses are His words. If, then, [this be the case with regard] to Moses, so also, beyond a doubt, the words of the other prophets are His [words], as I have pointed out.

Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 2.3

There are many today who hold that Scripture contains errors. They will point to phenomenological language, poetic language, or figures of speech and declare that God used the erroneous ideas of men to convey truth.

Did God accommodate the errors of the ancients and use those errors to somehow convey truth? Irenaeus answers negatively.

Neither did His disciples make mention of any other God, or term any other Lord, except Him, who was truly the God and Lord of all, as these most vain sophists affirm that the apostles did with hypocrisy frame their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, and gave answers after the opinions of their questioners, – fabling blind things for the blind, according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dullness; for those in error according to their error. And to those who imagined that the Demiurge alone was God, they preached him; but to those who are capable of comprehending the unnameable Father, they did declare the unspeakable mystery through parables and enigmas: so that the Lord and the apostles exercised the office of teacher not to further the cause of truth, but even in hypocrisy, and as each individual was able to receive it!

Such [a line of conduct] belongs not to those who heal, or who give life: it is rather that of those bringing on diseases, and increasing ignorance; and much more true than these men shall the law be found, which pronounces every one accursed who sends the blind man astray in the way. For the apostles, who were commissioned to find out the wanderers, and to be for sight to those who saw not, and medicine to the weak, certainly did not address them in accordance with their opinion at the time, but according to revealed truth. For no persons of any kind would act properly, if they should advise blind men, just about to fall over a precipice, to continue their most dangerous path, as if it were the right one, and as if they might go on in safety. Or what medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient’s whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare saying, “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” How then shall the sick be strengthened, or how shall sinners come to repentance? Is it by persevering in the very same courses? or, on the contrary, is it by undergoing a great change and reversal of their former mode of living, by which they have brought upon themselves no slight amount of sickness, and many sins? But ignorance, the mother of all these, is driven out by knowledge. Wherefore the Lord used to impart knowledge to His disciples, by which also it was His practice to heal those who were suffering, and to keep back sinners from sin. He therefore did not address them in accordance with their pristine notions, nor did He reply to them in harmony with the opinion of His questioners, but according to the doctrine leading to salvation, without hypocrisy or respect of person.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, 5.1,2; Schaff, Philip. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000.

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof

Irenaeus compiled a list of apostolic succession, including the immediate successors of Peter and Paul'' (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him. As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light, but the presence of the one shuts out that of the other. Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies…

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, 5.1; Schaff, Philip. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000.

Irenaeus, contending against the Gnostics, speaks of the tradition that was in the church as being synonymous with the Scriptures. As he does so, he also mentions that Jesus is objectively true and that there is no lie in Him.

Irenaeus’ affirmation of the absolute truth of Christ is also an affirmation of the existence of absolute, objective truth. Considering that a lie is the antithesis of truth, we also see an affirmation of the law of non-contradiction. Christ is true and no lie is in Him.

Irenaeus also tells us that the apostolic writings of the New Testament are also true and above falsehood. Notice that he said first of all that the apostles furnished us with Scriptural proof in the Gospels in which they recorded the doctrine of Christ. He then declares that these apostles, i.e. their writings in Scripture, are above all falsehood. Thus Irenaeus affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture.

Not only did Ireneaus affirm the inerrancy of Scripture here, but his statement also shows us that Scripture is objectively true.

It is quite easy for folks to read misread a post with which they disagree. It seems that happens quite often.

Marv gets it, however.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Jason has come across an interesting and quite valid parallel.

Irenaeus objected to people in his day who thought so much of a prevailing non-Scriptural school of thought about the way the cosmos is constructed and how it all works that they saw fit to fold the constructs of their philosophy into the Scriptural narrative. The result is, rather than the profound simplicity of the Divine Sovereign who says to this one go and he goes and to that one do this and he does it (though it be mystery beyond our ken, even in that “simplicity”)–they posited intermediary entities–unknown to Scripture–through which the creation was effected. One can hear them now: “I’m not denying that Yahweh created the universe, only who’s to say he didn’t use a demiurge and angelic beings to do it?”

Now Jason is not telling us that Irenaeus ever heard of Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking. But a current practice not all that far removed from what the Gnostics of old were up to is rampant today. To wit: some wish to posit intermediary entities–unknown to Scripture–between the Divine Sovereign and His creation: “Who’s to say that God didn’t use blah, blah, blah, blah?” And all for the sake of blending in pet philosophy (diginified and Canonized by borrowing for it–illegitimately–the name Science).

Thus the creation reveals not God’s eternal power and divine nature–but the eternity of matter and the regularity of ongoing natural processes.

It’s bad enough when heretics like the Gnostics endeavored to steal glory from God. Must it be done by those who self-identify as Evangelicals?

 

Related articles

• Irenaeus, ANE Gods, Gnosticism, And Evolution (pastoralmusings.com)

Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” is quite the tome to wear one out. Much of what he deals with simply bores me due to the fact that so much of it seems irrelevant. My reading has been to learn, and I have profited much by seeing the already established orthodoxy of his day. Beyond that things did not seem very relevant to me.

As I read Book 2 today, suddenly the information provided began to become relevant to today.

Ireneaus’ contention against the Gnostic sects is manifold. He overwhelms the reader with information. His attention to detail, however, has provided us with much of our knowledge of Gnosticism; so we have reason to be grateful that Irenaeus was so verbose as he was.

What does all of this have to do with ANE gods, Gnosticisim, and evolution? Much.

You see, the ANE myths consistently present us with a polytheistic worldview. So does Gnosticism.

Evolutionary theory presents us with life going through gradual change with the inferior and defective elements being weeded out via natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Gnosticism presents us with good and bad gods who were active in creating.

Here are Irenaeus’ words.

   God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land – on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them – while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies.
For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] “For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world – these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all.” I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?

Philip Schaff, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

Irenaeus contends that God created by command rather than by using inferior agents or means which were ignorant of him. He tells us that God formed each thing so that it would fit in the environment where it was placed.

He specifically tells us that this is reflective of God’s preeminence, or His glory. God chose to create by His Word rather than any other means so that His infinite greatness as the God who is all-sufficient would be displayed.

Irenaeus then reminds us that Moses gave to us an account of creation that tells us of a succession of events (six days, as we read in Genesis), and that even angels or other gods had no hand in the matter of creating.

Today, however, we find that people are trying to present the Genesis account of creation as simply a different form of Ancient Near Eastern myth. They tell us that there is actually no historical narrative in Genesis chapters one through three, but that it is theological, polemical, myth that shows that YHWH is the one true God. They tell us that modern evolutionary science has forced us to reexamine the Genesis creation account and , that Genesis is another ANE myth that does not contradict the theory of evolution. In so doing, they present to us God creating through evolution’s natural selection, or through powers that are greatly inferior to Himself, ignorant of Him, as well as defective and ignorant.

Sadly, this viewpoint has more in common with Ancient Near Easter paganism and Gnosticism than it has common with biblical Christianity.

Irenaeus calls it blasphemy.

if it was formed such as it really is, then He made it such who had mentally conceived of it as such; or He willed it to exist in the ideality of the Father, according to the conception of His mind, such as it now is, compound, mutable, and transient. Since, then, it is just such as the Father had [ideally] formed in counsel with Himself, it must be worthy of the Father. But to affirm that what was mentally conceived and pre-created by the Father of all, just as it has been actually formed, is the fruit of defect, and the production of ignorance, is to be guilty of great blasphemy. For, according to them, the Father of all will thus be [regarded as] generating in His breast, according to His own mental conception, the emanations of defect and the fruits of ignorance, since the things which He had conceived in His mind have actually been produced.

Philip Schaff, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

So, too, should we.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, A.H. 3.1.1

1.  Matthew: Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome…

2. Mark: After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.  (Note that it is while Peter and Paul were in Rome that Matthew wrote, while it is after they departed that Mark wrote.)

3.  Luke: Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.  (This is somewhat ambiguous, because he doesn’t give us a time frame.  Luke is probably viewed as third in order due to his being listed in that manner.)

4.  John: Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1

What is important for us to know about Irenaeus is the fact that he lived and wrote only one century after the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels.

Not only was Irenaeus not far removed from the events and writings of the NT Gospels, he knew Polycarp who knew, and was a disciple of the apostle John.   It is both possible and probable that the information given above comes from his communing with Polycarp and learning from him that which he had learned as one who was acquainted with at least one of the apostles.

When placing this alongside the subjective opinions of those who think that they “see” a source (Q) behind the Synoptics, or speak of the Gospels being written in the second century AD, I cannot help but give credence to one who has a much more substantial case….Irenaeus.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chp 1)

Let’s remember that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who knew John, who walked with Jesus. (See biographical sketch here.)  In other words, he was not at all far from the time of Christ and the apostles.
Irenaeus would have had the opportunity to have learned from one who learned from the apostles.

This being so, though we should understand that he was not inspired, we should take his words seriously and give them much weight.

Why, when Irenaeus presents us a Matthean priority, do people reject that in favor of an unseen “Q” and Markan priority?