On Apostolic Preaching chapter 10

This chapter deals with glory. First the glory continually given to the Father by the Son and the Spirit and the glory ascribed to God from all creation. Of the Trinity he writes:

Now this God is glorified by His Word who is His Son continually, and by the Holy Spirit who is the Wisdom of the Father of all: and the powers of these, that is of the Word and Wisdom, which are called Cherubim and Seraphim, with unceasing voices glorify God.

I believe this is what Irenaeus believes was transpiring before the creation of the world. The Son and the Spirit, the Cherubim and Seraphim, ever praising the father. This, by the way, seems to imply that the Cherubim of the mercy seat (Ex 25:17-22) were symbolic of the Son and the Spirit.

But Irenaeus does not speculate too much on God’s activity prior to creation. The notions of Praise and worship seem to satisfy him. But it is with this praising picture that Irenaeus begins his account of the creation of the world and salvation history.

He by His Word has created the whole world, and in the world are the angels; and to all the world He has given laws wherein each several thing should abide, and according to that which is determined by God should not pass their bounds, each fulfilling his appointed task.

It is notable that Irenaeus has a strong view of providence. God has created the world. All things in the world abide by “laws” given by God’s own determination. These creatures will not pass beyond these laws. Furthermore, they will instead fulfill the task appointed to them on behalf of God. 

This kind of picture provides us with a beautiful understanding of the aesthetically balanced view of creation in Irenaeus. Creatures have tasks ordained by God and these tasks are conditioned by “laws.” Now does this make Irenaeus a determinist? Well, the short answer is no, because he also emphasizes the freedom of the will. But we will have to move down the path of salvation history to understand how this plays out in Irenaeus’s thought.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 9

Chapter 9 of AP involves cosmology. We should recognize that it is not necessarily a cosmology to which moderns can ascribe. In addition, he performs some strange biblical analysis based upon this cosmology, that demands a little attention. We must preface this discussion with the reminder that more broadly Irenaeus is framing the relationship between the creation and the Creator. A relationship that unfolds throughout the biblical witness. 

So he begins:

Now this world is encompassed by seven heavens, in which dwell powers and angels and archangels, doing service to God, the Almighty and Maker of all things: not as though He was in need, but that they may not be idle and unprofitable and ineffectual.

The teaching on the seven heavens goes back to Jewish cosmology expressed in the Talmud and book of enoch, among others (Origen, Hipp0lytus). For Irenaeus, the heavens are where the angels and archangels dwell in the service of God. (Heb 1:14). But Irenaeus wants to be clear; God does not need them. God stands in need of nothing. He is the Creator and not dependent upon creation. This is the first point of the rule of faith. But in order that they don’t just lounge around in the heavens, God gives them stuff to do.

But then, in a odd fashion, Irenaeus connects the seven heavens to the seven spirits of Is 11:2: 

The Spirit of God, he says, shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, (the Spirit of knowledge) and of godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him.

Irenaeus make this connection explicit saying:

Now the heaven which is first from above, and encompasses the rest, is (that of) wisdom; and the second from it, of understanding; and the third, of counsel; and the fourth, reckoned from above, (is that) of might; and the fifth, of knowledge; and the sixth, of godliness; and the seventh, this firmament of ours, is full of the fear of that Spirit which gives light to the heavens.

First off, we should note that for Irenaeus, the first heaven in the dwelling of God and the seventh is the lowest or the “firmament. This is the reverse of the traditional Jewish accounting of the seven heavens, where the seventh is the highest is immediately above. But this pattern is also the pattern for the lamp-stand in the tabernacle. 

The question arises, did Irenaeus believe that this is the structure of the cosmos? I suspect so, but we should make some observations about the nature of this ordering. First, it is deeply metaphysical. Irenaeus is taken by a worldview that affirms the reality of a spiritual realm. Second, it is aesthetically pleasing. The cosmos is coherent, fitting, ordered, and balanced. One should also note that the ordering of the cosmos corresponds to scripture. The pattern of things in the tabernacle represent the pattern of the cosmos. So while we may not adhere to the scientific perspective of Irenaeus, we should note that his views are distinctly scriptural.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 8

 Chapter eight presents a more extended discussion of the nature of God. The only exlicit citation is of Rom 2:4-6, which we will discuss in a below. But leading up to this citation Irenaeus summarizes much of the content he will expand upon later in ch. 9-42.

This is his summary of the OT and his view of the Law. He says:

To them that believe He is as Father, for in the end of the times He opened up the covenant of adoption; but to the Jews as Lord and Lawgiver, for in the intermediate times, when man forgat God and departed and revolted from Him, He brought them into subjection by the Law, that they might learn that they had for Lord the maker and creator, who also gives the breath of life, and whom we ought to worship day and night: and to the Gentiles as maker and creator and almighty

He uses the language of “covenant of adoption” which is clearly built upon Pauline language.  But we should also note the structure “Ends of times” and “intermediate times.” For Irenaeus the Law was implemented in the “intermediate times” so that the Jews might know and worship their creator. In the end of times, that is in Christ, all have received the covenant of adoption whereby Christians too have know to know their Father, Creator and sustainer. 

But then Irenaeus moves from his summary of the law and new covenant to the judgment. Thus, when Irenaeus uses the language “end times” he is not necessarily speaking temporally, but Christologically (this is a common phrase in Irenaeus). In Christ the reign of sin, death, and the devil have come to an end. For Irenaeus to speak of the “end times” is to talk of Christ.

But now what awaits, both Jew and Gentile is the last judgment. For this he turns to Rom 2:4-6:

Not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance; but according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every man according to his works

The emphasis for Irenaeus is that “every man” will be judged. In his desire to not leave anyone out, he even throws angels into the mix. He also includes the language of “believe who has sinned” that seems to revel the early Christian struggle with post-baptismal sins. Thus Irenaeus qualifies this passage saying:

for none shall escape and be delivered from His judgment, neither Jew nor Gentile, nor believer that has sinned, nor angel: but they who now reject His goodness shall know His power in judgment

Therefore, God has dealt with the Jews through the Law and Christians through the covenant of adoption, but all people shall know his power in judgement.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7

With chapter 7 we move from the regula fidei to baptism. This is important because it establishes the close connection between baptism and faith in Irenaeus. In deed he even calls it the baptism of regeneration (Titus 3:5). In Irenaeus’s words:

And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit.

But i get the feeling reading this chapter that the succession of three points developed from the baptismal formula in Mat 28:19. This raises the question of what it means to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Spirt?

It seems that Irenaeus believes this means that the Father bestows upon the faithful regeneration through the Son and the Spirit. But it does not appear that Irenaeus believes this regeneration is immediate and final. 

He continues discussion how the baptized believers carry the Holy Spirit in themselves who continually leads them toward the Son, who in turn presents them to the Father and only then will they possess incorruption. 

What is really interesting about this analysis is that in the pervious chapter we found Irenaeus discussing the Trinitarian work in creation, but here it is the Trinitarian work in salvation. Irenaeus Trinitarian logic unfold like this:

Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills.

Thus salvation is to be lead to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. This salvation is given to whoever the Father wills it. The entire work of salvation is dependent upon God and the interpersonal working of the Godhead in the life of the believer. 

We could ask the question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” But Irenaeus was not thinking in these categories and we can not force him to answer this question either way. But what is clear is that the Trinitarian formula established by Matthew prompts him to develop his theological understanding of salvation, which includes the Father, Son and Spirit.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 6

Chapter six begins with another summary of the regula fidei, such as we noticed in AP 3. We must note that this summary comes on the heels of the Trintarian discussion at the end of AP 5. Thischapter presents one of the most clear expressions of the formulation of the Trinity in Irenaeus and indeed one of the earliest of such statements in the history of the church. 

But before we cite the statement, we must note the qualifiaction Irenaeus gives the regula fidei, he writes:

This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation

The rule of faith has an inherent order. As we saw in AP 5 it is an order related to the persons of the Godhead. But he adds that it is also the foundation of the building (Eph 2:20), the building in this sense being both doctrinal and ecclesiastical. God as trinity is also the “Stability of our conversation.” In other words, any discourse about God is oriented by and through the three persons of God. 

But then he goes on to explain the order of the rule of faith, Irenaeus writes:

God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

The richness of this statement can not be reflected in one short blog post, so i will try to make some more general observations. The three points of the rule are devoted to the three persons of the Trinity. For obivous reasons Irenaeus is not thinking in terms of an economic and immanent Trinity. He might be accused of subverting the immanent for the economic, given his consistent emphasis on the divine economy and the Trinitarian relationship to the unfolding of the economy. But Irenaeus does present a view of their personal relationship that is allows for mystery. He speaks of the unknowability of the divine activity prior to creation and even suggests that one should not speculate about such matters (as the Gnostics do). 

The understanding of prophecy is also interesting. The prophets prophecy through the Spirit, but the form of their prophecy (in relation to the dispensations of God) is the Son. So when he turns to the OT he finds the inspired words of the Spirit shaping the form or image of Christ who would come. The prophecies flesh-out the picture of the coming messiah and now that the messiah has come the picture is even sharper. 

A final note on Irenaeus assessemnt of the Trinitarian activity in the rule of faith is the union of God and man. This is cited both in the case of the Son and the Spirit. The incarnation establishes the union between God and man and now through the Spirit, humankind has union with God. This relationship allows the believer to be conformed into the image of God and at long last be raised to new life in Christ.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 5 (part 2)

In the second half of chapter 5, Irenaeus presents a second passage that looks that the relationship between creation and the nature of God. In the previous post we discussed how Irenaeus understood the function of the Son and the Spirit in creation from Ps 33:6. In the rest of the short chapter, Irenaeus further explains the roles of the Son and the Spirit beginning with the citation of  Eph 4:6 which reads:

Eph 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, hust as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord one faith one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” 

The triatic formula of “over all” “through all” and “in all”, the bishop takes as a reference to the Trinity. In his own words he writes:

For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father, and fashions man into the likeness of God

The Spirit, then gets an added referent, He is the one who cries “Abba Father” (Rom) and who fashions humankind in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-7).

But Irenaeus continues this discourse on the Son and the Spirit explaining the interpersonal relationship between them:

Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father.

This is the relationship of all three persons of the Trinity to Scripture. The work of the Spirit is to show forth the Word, thus the prophets announce the Word of God through the Spirit.

But it is the work of the Word to utter the Spirit. So the Word announces the prophets with the result that he leads and draws man to God the Father.

This is not much different than the jigsaw analogy yesterday. The Spirit announces the Word of God through the prophets, but it is the Son who orders and ordains the prophets.

The Son is the announcer, the Spirt announces, with the result that man is drawn back to the Father. This demonstrates the functional relationship between God and Scripture, or theology and the bible, in the thought of Irenaeus.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 5

In the fifth chapter of AP the bishop of Lyons continues the same argument of chapter 4, arguing that all thing have been made by God. But this time he brings biblical support. Armed with two verses -neither of which is from Genesis- he demonstrates from Scripture that all things have been made by the Father, through the Son, and with the Spirit. 

In this post we will look at the first creation passage he cites, Ps. 33:6.

“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath/Spirit of His mouth all their host.”

Now of course the term for “breath” (ruach) can also be translated as “Spirit” (The LXX translates term as pneuma or Spirit). 

The good bishop follows this passage with an explination:

“Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.”

So in Ps. 33:6 the term “established” means created. But even more than that it means “grants the reality of being.” Thus, when the “Word established” this is an ontological creation expressing creation ex nihilo. A creation through the Word of God that moves from non-being to being, from non-reality to reality, from nothing to something. God the Father created the very reality of being, through the Word.

The Spirit, on the other hand, “gives order and form to the diversity of the powers.” The use of “powers” (dunamis)  is not speculation but another translation of “hosts.” The term “Lord of hosts” (Ps. 24, 48, 84, etc…) could also be translated “Lord of powers.” Powers are hosts. Powers and hosts are typically renders as angels or beings of the spiritual realm, but in this case it seems that Irenaeus is using it more generally to mean all created beings (including angels and demons). Now what Irenaeus mean by “order and form” is that the Spirit arranges the material of being. He sorts out all the material substance and puts it in its proper place.

An example may be a jigsaw puzzle: The Son establishes the shapes, the Spirit puts them in their proper arrangement.

 

Let us be sure about one thing, however, Irenaeus’s interpretation of Ps. 33:6 is not speculative, but literal. When he opens to Ps. 33:6 he reads it literally: The Word establishes all creation the Spirit orders it. This is what the text literally means. This is not an allegorical interpretation. The Word does not represent Christ, the Word is Christ. 

Thus, it is not only Genesis that teaches us that the Father has made all things through the Son and by means of the Spirit. Perhaps we should be Ps. 33:6 along side Genesis?

Re-Reading Steinmetz

Few essays of recent years have had more of an impact on biblical exegesis then David Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.” On a whim i recently returned to this now famous essay to see if it still had the same resonance that it did several years ago. Steinmetz simply argues that the medieval exegetes were not as ludicrous as the moderns have come to believe. The four-fold interpretative framework, did not flourish because it was the best method; it flourished because it was true. 

Steinmetz gets at the heart of the issue when he describes the highly problematic situation of interpreting the OT after Christ. The problem of the OT is one that still rages today. Here are he comments: 

How was a French parish priest in 1150 to understand Psalm 137, which bemoans captivity in Babylon, makes rude remarks about Edomites, expresses an ineradicable longing for a glimpse of Jerusalem, and pronounces a blessing on anyone who avenges the destruction of the temple by dashing Babylonian children against a rock? The priest lives in Concale, not Babylon, has no personal quarrel with Edomites, cherishes no ambitions to visit Jerusalem (though he might fancy a holiday in Paris), and is expressly forbidden by Jesus to avenge himself on his enemies. Unless Psalm 137 has more than one possible meaning, it cannot be used as a prayer by the church and must be rejected as a lament belonging exclusively to the piety of ancient Israel.

A text has a range of meanings. This is the reality we face. Even if i could crawl into Paul’s brain and decode his intentions, i would not arrive at the only possible meaning of a text (or even the most important meaning). Because, as Steinmetz shows, meaning is effectual and communal. A text, especially a biblical text, produces effects upon people and groups and these effects have meanings.

Now we can polish up these effects and call them “applications” so as to say that a bible passage “applies” to us, but in that very claim we are asserting that the text has particular contextual meaning. A contemporary meaning. A meaning that invades our space and reorders our world. A text that speaks to us. 

Thus, the question is not what is The singular meaning, but which meaning is true! The problem is not history (i.e. getting back to the original historical meaning) but veracity (i.e. which meaning is true). It is this sentiment that surfaces in both the beginning and the end of Steinmetz’s essay:

The medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted-as it deserves to be-to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.

This does not imply that we all must return to the Dark Ages and apply the same methodology (which would be impossible on several levels), but, learning from the past, we must read the bible in faith and with the faith. In reality this is what the church has been doing since the apostles.

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 4

This chapter begins Irenaeus’s summary of the OT that extends for the next 38 chapters. He starts from the beginning. Infused with Aristolean logic, Irenaeus writes:

 For it is necessary that things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. 

God is not made; man is made. This is the first axiom of Irenaeus and the beginning of the gospel. His logic is simple. The existence of material things implies a beginning. God is that beginning. It is right and fitting, therefore, to believe in God the Father, who has created all things. Through his act of creation, he has contained all things, but he himself is un-contained. 

What Irenaeus teaches us is that the Gospel does not begin with Jesus, but with creation. Irenaeus was not trying to convince non-Christians that they need to believe in Jesus, he was trying to convince them that all things had been created by God. If the first premise of God as creator is accepted the rest of the gospel follows rather plainly. 

This means that evangelism is not just a matter of sharing the story of Jesus, but sharing the story of creation that anticipates the work of Christ and culminates in the recreation of all things. Therefore, the first question is not necessarily do you believe in Jesus, but do you believe you are one of God’s creations?

On Apostolic Preaching chapter 3

The third chapter opens with a comment about the rule of faith. This is in response the groups he mentions in reference to Ps 1:1. In order to avoid falling victim to the teaching of those who reject God, a believer in christ must:

hold the rule of the faith without deviation, and do the commandments of God, believing in God and fearing Him as Lord and loving Him as Father.

He cites the passage from Isa 7:9 that has inspired the well-known Anselmic axiom: faith seeking understanding. Faith, for the Christian, precedes understanding.

But faith, Irenaeus continues, is produced by truth, because faith rests in things that truly exist. God is real. God is true. Thus, faith in God is spurred by the fact that he is real and true. 

This assumption underscores the faith of the Christian and provides the basis for the rule of faith. In other words, the Christian faith is founded upon the reality of God. He is the one true God.

In the words of Irenaeus:

And faith is produced by the truth; for faith rests on things that truly are. For in things that are, as they are, we believe; and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them.

And furthermore, because the salvation of the Christian depends upon the reality of God, the faithful must have a true comprehension of who God is. On other words, true knowledge of salvation depends upon true knowledge of God.

So what is this true knowledge of God and true knowledge of salvation?

In a summary fashion Irenaeus states that the faith was passed down from the Apostles and their disciples, that it is received at baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life.

It is this God, in whom all Christians are baptized, that is over all created things and has put all things underneath Christ (Ps 110). Thus, all things are made the possessions of Christ and, therefore, all things belong to God.

This is the true knowledge of God and salvation. That he is God and that we are his creatures. That all things have been made subject to Christ and, therefore, all things belong to God.