In chapters 29-32 Irenaeus focuses on the blasphemous claims made by some heretics that being spiritual they are greater than the Creator God (Demiurge) who is animal.
In this section we also get some interesting opinions on:
The Role and future of the Body
"those acts which are deemed righteous are performed in bodies...God, when He resuscitates our mortal bodies which preserved righteousness, will render them incorruptible and immortal."
Statement of Apostolic Tradition
"But there is one only God, the Creator...He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed."
On the Contemporary Nature of the Miraculous Spiritual Gifts
"Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles]... For some do certainly and truly drive out devils...Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years."
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Humble epistemology continued
In chapter 28 we see Irenaeus continue in his defence of a humble epistemology. That which is not clear in Scripture should be entrusted to God and not lead to idle speculation. From this perspective the problem with heretics is that they seek to know too much.
Is Irenaeus' christology subordinationist? Certainly this chapter seems to lead us in that direction.
Is Irenaeus' christology subordinationist? Certainly this chapter seems to lead us in that direction.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Humble Epistemology
In chapter 24 Ireneaus argues for a form of humble epistemology recognising that one "
"cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God;" and mocks a biblical literalism, of which fundamentalists are enamoured, that would deeply investigate passages such as “even the hairs of your head are all numbered,” (Mat_10:30) or “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them falls to the ground without the will of your Father,” (Mat_10:29) .
"cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God;" and mocks a biblical literalism, of which fundamentalists are enamoured, that would deeply investigate passages such as “even the hairs of your head are all numbered,” (Mat_10:30) or “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them falls to the ground without the will of your Father,” (Mat_10:29) .
Esoteric Hermeneutics
In chapters 21-24 Ireneaus protests against the habit of his opponents of reading references to the Aeons in the NT. He also objects to their focus on numbers, syllables and letters in the Biblical text.
Chapter 22 is the most curious in this section. Ireneaus is arguing against the claim that Jesus exerted his ministry for one year. Against what he sees as a literalistic interpretation of Isaiah 61:2 he claims:
(i) That "the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words."
(ii) The year of the Lord is to be understood as the whole period of time during which men here and receive the Gospel in faith.
(iii) That Jesus celebrated the Passover on more than one occasion, according to the Gospel of John and therefore his ministry lasted more than one year.
(iv) In a more bizarre fashion that Jesus died at the age of 50. Amongst his arguments for this are:
(a) That to redeem mankind Jesus had to go through all the ages up to old age [50 in his context]. Yet by that argument Jesus would also have to be a woman to redeem women.
(b) That when his opponents complained that Jesus was not yet 50 but claimed to have seen Abraham this suggests that he was over 40, otherwise they would have said that Jesus was not yet 40. In this argument he also declares that Jesus was not "a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood"
(c) That to be considered a Master and a Teacher Jesus could not have been 30.
(d) That there was a tradition going back to John and other apostles that Jesus was crucified at 50.
Chapter 22 is the most curious in this section. Ireneaus is arguing against the claim that Jesus exerted his ministry for one year. Against what he sees as a literalistic interpretation of Isaiah 61:2 he claims:
(i) That "the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words."
(ii) The year of the Lord is to be understood as the whole period of time during which men here and receive the Gospel in faith.
(iii) That Jesus celebrated the Passover on more than one occasion, according to the Gospel of John and therefore his ministry lasted more than one year.
(iv) In a more bizarre fashion that Jesus died at the age of 50. Amongst his arguments for this are:
(a) That to redeem mankind Jesus had to go through all the ages up to old age [50 in his context]. Yet by that argument Jesus would also have to be a woman to redeem women.
(b) That when his opponents complained that Jesus was not yet 50 but claimed to have seen Abraham this suggests that he was over 40, otherwise they would have said that Jesus was not yet 40. In this argument he also declares that Jesus was not "a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood"
(c) That to be considered a Master and a Teacher Jesus could not have been 30.
(d) That there was a tradition going back to John and other apostles that Jesus was crucified at 50.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Deconstructing heresy
In chapters 15-20 of Book 2 Ireneaus continues to deconstruct his opponents ideas, at times showing a sense of humour as when he replies to his critics claims that he is ignorant because he is in a lower Aeon, he replies that anyone can postulate an unlimited number of Aeons and place their opponents in the lower realms.
In contrast to the gnostic complexity, his view of creation is that "this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him — He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made".
Thinking just a bit outside the box, I started to wonder whether the later classical insistence on the impassibility of God was not in part a reaction to the simply bizarre nature of the gnostic theogenies.
At the end of this section Ireneaus deals with bizarre claims trying to link Judas and the suffering of Christ to the sufferings of a twelfth Aeon. In reply he presents his understanding of Christ's death as:
"but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship...but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation...His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, “ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men,” (Psa_68:18; Eph_4:8) and conferred on those that believe in Him the power “to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy,” (Luk_10:19; [Mar_16:17, Mar_16:18]) that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, "
In contrast to the gnostic complexity, his view of creation is that "this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him — He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made".
Thinking just a bit outside the box, I started to wonder whether the later classical insistence on the impassibility of God was not in part a reaction to the simply bizarre nature of the gnostic theogenies.
At the end of this section Ireneaus deals with bizarre claims trying to link Judas and the suffering of Christ to the sufferings of a twelfth Aeon. In reply he presents his understanding of Christ's death as:
"but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship...but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation...His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, “ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men,” (Psa_68:18; Eph_4:8) and conferred on those that believe in Him the power “to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy,” (Luk_10:19; [Mar_16:17, Mar_16:18]) that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, "
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Not so new
In chapters 8-14 Irenaeus continues his process of deconstructing his gnostic opponents, including pointing out how some of their "novel" ideas were in fact present in Greek poets, philosophers and other types.
Nonetheless, there are a few moments when his own theology shines, as the following quotations illustrate:
"yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."
"He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good."
Nonetheless, there are a few moments when his own theology shines, as the following quotations illustrate:
"yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."
"He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good."
Book 2 Opens
Book 2 Opens with Irenaeus categorically stating that this world was not created by a demiurge or by angels against the will of God, but by the one God through his Word. Much of his argument in the opening seven chapters is to seek to deconstruct his gnostic opponents by pushing their perspective to its logical extremities. One of his favourite arguments is that to suggest that creation is evil questions the goodness or the greatness of the One God,
" If again, as some say, their Father permitted these things without approving of them, then He gave the permission on account of some necessity, being either able to prevent [such procedure], or not able. But if indeed He could not [hinder it], then He is weak and powerless; while, if He could, He is a seducer, a hypocrite, and a slave of necessity, inasmuch as He does not consent [to such a course], and yet allows it as if He did consent."
Note however, how this is very close to the classical problem of evil and raises the question of how Irenaeus will account for the presence of evil in the universe created by the one great God.
On a different subject altogether, Irenaeus also claims that angels and demons have never seen God, but respect/fear Him due to His reputation.
" If again, as some say, their Father permitted these things without approving of them, then He gave the permission on account of some necessity, being either able to prevent [such procedure], or not able. But if indeed He could not [hinder it], then He is weak and powerless; while, if He could, He is a seducer, a hypocrite, and a slave of necessity, inasmuch as He does not consent [to such a course], and yet allows it as if He did consent."
Note however, how this is very close to the classical problem of evil and raises the question of how Irenaeus will account for the presence of evil in the universe created by the one great God.
On a different subject altogether, Irenaeus also claims that angels and demons have never seen God, but respect/fear Him due to His reputation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Book 1 Closes
Book 1 closes its anatomy of heresy. Here we also have the doctrine of the Cainites, where Irenaeus refers to the mysterious "fictitious Gospel of Judas", where Judas is made into the hero. [Scholars are still debating whether this is the same Gospel of Judas recently discovered/published].
Although there is little way of knowing how accurate Irenaeus is in his description of his opponents, he certainly is exhaustive. He also seems to have read them in their original writings, even going as far as to claim that he compiled a collection of their teachings. His belief is that if one exposes their teaching, than truth will come through.
Although there is little way of knowing how accurate Irenaeus is in his description of his opponents, he certainly is exhaustive. He also seems to have read them in their original writings, even going as far as to claim that he compiled a collection of their teachings. His belief is that if one exposes their teaching, than truth will come through.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Marcion
Marcion is singled out as the worst of heretics by Irenaeus, mainly through the way that he chooses to multilate the Scriptures.
Adoptionist Christology
One of the interesting things that can be gauged from the overview of heresies is how the adoptionist Christologies that Irenaeus had to deal with (e..g. the Ebionites) were the fruit of a negative understanding of material, bodily existence. As such it was considered unacceptable that the Christ had become truly incarnate, and especially unacceptable that the same Christ had suffered and died. Hence, some explanation, in which Jesus is reduced to being the son of Joseph and Mary and the "Spirit" of Christ abandoned him when he went to the cross had to be developed.
Unless of course one claims like one of these groups that it was actually Simon Cyrene who died on the cross, and Jesus took on the corporeal form of Simon in the mean time and laughed at those who believed that it was him on the cross.
Unless of course one claims like one of these groups that it was actually Simon Cyrene who died on the cross, and Jesus took on the corporeal form of Simon in the mean time and laughed at those who believed that it was him on the cross.
Somethings remain the same
As heresy after heresy is listed, I felt the following comment by Irenaeus had some contemporary parallel:
"These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all"
Or even the following:
"Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them — indeed, we may say all — desire themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy in which they have been involved. "
"These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all"
Or even the following:
"Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them — indeed, we may say all — desire themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy in which they have been involved. "
Against Marconites ctd...
Irenaeus continues his critique of the Marconites summarizing two key themes:
(1) Their belief that the creator of the world is not the "invisible father"
(2) Their complex schemes of redemption which centre around the concept of salvation through knowledge from ignorance towards perfection.
Against this Irenaeus sets the "rule of truth" which affirms God as the creator.
(1) Their belief that the creator of the world is not the "invisible father"
(2) Their complex schemes of redemption which centre around the concept of salvation through knowledge from ignorance towards perfection.
Against this Irenaeus sets the "rule of truth" which affirms God as the creator.
Marconites
To take craziness to frontiers it has never reached before, seems to have been the motto of the followers of Marcus. Irenaeus describes him as a gnostic magician, who used his tricks to seduce and take advantage of rich women, single or married. Marcus' follows the Valentinus system, adding in a greater concern with numerology, especially Gematria.
In his rebuke of Marcus, it is important to note that Irenaeus does not refute his prophecy by claiming that the gift of prophecy had ceased, rather he refers to it as a fraud or demon-inspired.
In his rebuke of Marcus, it is important to note that Irenaeus does not refute his prophecy by claiming that the gift of prophecy had ceased, rather he refers to it as a fraud or demon-inspired.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Drawing Distinctions
In chapters 10-12 Irenaeus explores, with a bit of sarcasm, the distinctions between different "Gnostic" systems. We also have the following understanding of God:
"He, as soon as He thinks, also performs what He has willed; and as soon as He wills, also thinks that which He has willed; then thinking when He wills, and then willing when He thinks, since He is all thought, [all will, all mind, all light,] all eye, all ear, the one entire fountain of all good things."
"He, as soon as He thinks, also performs what He has willed; and as soon as He wills, also thinks that which He has willed; then thinking when He wills, and then willing when He thinks, since He is all thought, [all will, all mind, all light,] all eye, all ear, the one entire fountain of all good things."
Irenaeus' Refutation
Irenaeus is relatively brief in his refutation of his opponents. Basically:
(1) He questions their hermeneutic, applying it to Homer to show what ridiculous results could be reached.
(2) He also refers to the apostolic tradition, the faith he claims is common to all churches of his time in all languages.
(3) In Irenaeus, although he does not use this terminology, we see a distinction made between the faith, which is considered unique, and its formulations, which may vary according to the skills and the approach of different theologians.
(1) He questions their hermeneutic, applying it to Homer to show what ridiculous results could be reached.
(2) He also refers to the apostolic tradition, the faith he claims is common to all churches of his time in all languages.
(3) In Irenaeus, although he does not use this terminology, we see a distinction made between the faith, which is considered unique, and its formulations, which may vary according to the skills and the approach of different theologians.
Brain in a Knot
Trying to disentagle myself from the aenoic confusion of the Valentians. Some key points:
(i) Note how they divide humanity into three groups: spiritual, material and animal, only the first group will be saved, to marry the angels in heaven.
(ii) Their christology is adoptionist and they deny that the heavenly saviour shared in the sufferings of the human Christ.
(iii) Their hermeneutics involves bringing in ideas from outside of scripture, chopping scripture about and re-interpreting it in an esoteric manner. Once again, this reminds me of the methodology of many fundamentalist groups on the fringe of conservative evangelicalism.
(i) Note how they divide humanity into three groups: spiritual, material and animal, only the first group will be saved, to marry the angels in heaven.
(ii) Their christology is adoptionist and they deny that the heavenly saviour shared in the sufferings of the human Christ.
(iii) Their hermeneutics involves bringing in ideas from outside of scripture, chopping scripture about and re-interpreting it in an esoteric manner. Once again, this reminds me of the methodology of many fundamentalist groups on the fringe of conservative evangelicalism.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Valentinus' ideas
Having encountered sectarian and esoterically fundamentalist groups, I must admit I saw traces of their approach in the outline of Valentinus' complex, and bizarre ideas. To get a grasp of these ideas, of 30 different Aeons with multiple names and intersecting offspring one needs to be a Sudoku lover on Red Bull and caffeine pills. Some comments, however:
(1) The very incomprehensibility of the system seems to be part of its mystique, attracting people as a revelation of heavenly, esoteric mysteries.
(2) A key theme is that "material substance had its beginning from ignorance and grief, and fear and bewilderment." This has implications for soteriology, christology, and ethics.
Soteriology: Salvation comes from knowledge of the "spiritual nature." They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God, and been initiated into these mysteries by Achamoth."
Christology: Jesus, who is somehow related to one of 2 Christs and somewhere fits into the whole system, did not assume a material nature, only a spiritual nature.
Ethics: For the "spiritual man" what one does with the material body is of no use.
(3) Hermeneutics: Valentinus' gang's hermeneutics is of "Bible Code" methodology, seeking secret symbols and numerical codes in Scripture.
(note --for the really enthusiastic--Achamoth is mother of the demiurge, she is also known Ogdoad, Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord, she herself is not an Aeon, but daughter of Sophia an Aeon who in turn was the youngest of 12 aeons coming from Anthopos and Ecclesia, and who fell due to an attack of passion...told you it was bizarre!)
(1) The very incomprehensibility of the system seems to be part of its mystique, attracting people as a revelation of heavenly, esoteric mysteries.
(2) A key theme is that "material substance had its beginning from ignorance and grief, and fear and bewilderment." This has implications for soteriology, christology, and ethics.
Soteriology: Salvation comes from knowledge of the "spiritual nature." They further hold that the consummation of all things will take place when all that is spiritual has been formed and perfected by Gnosis (knowledge); and by this they mean spiritual men who have attained to the perfect knowledge of God, and been initiated into these mysteries by Achamoth."
Christology: Jesus, who is somehow related to one of 2 Christs and somewhere fits into the whole system, did not assume a material nature, only a spiritual nature.
Ethics: For the "spiritual man" what one does with the material body is of no use.
(3) Hermeneutics: Valentinus' gang's hermeneutics is of "Bible Code" methodology, seeking secret symbols and numerical codes in Scripture.
(note --for the really enthusiastic--Achamoth is mother of the demiurge, she is also known Ogdoad, Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord, she herself is not an Aeon, but daughter of Sophia an Aeon who in turn was the youngest of 12 aeons coming from Anthopos and Ecclesia, and who fell due to an attack of passion...told you it was bizarre!)
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book 1
Arguably the most complicated to spell of church fathers, is also one who is becoming increasingly popular. Could be an interesting ride.
In his preface he expresses concern over "blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge" which he links to "disciples of Ptolemaeus" coming from Valentinus.
What is of interest is that Irenaeus seeks to study his opponents in their primary sources and seek personal interaction with them. He has studied enough of their material to recognise the plausibility of their system, as well as its dangers.
In his preface he expresses concern over "blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge" which he links to "disciples of Ptolemaeus" coming from Valentinus.
What is of interest is that Irenaeus seeks to study his opponents in their primary sources and seek personal interaction with them. He has studied enough of their material to recognise the plausibility of their system, as well as its dangers.
Resurrection Fragments
Fragmentary response to a fragmentary document.
(1) Justin adopts what can be called a christological hermeneutic. Christ is the Word, proceeding from the Father who is the truth. Hence, Jesus needs no proof to back him up, for he is the proof by which all else is judged.
(2) In many ways Justin sings from the emerging/missional choir. He denies that there is any "secular" sphere "because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship;" and hence he feels free to employ philosophical arguments. On the same line, he emphasises the goodness of the body as God's creation. Nonetheless, there is some of the anti-sexual ascetism of later Christian tradition in his claim that some refuse to marry, (and Jesus was born of a virgin) to abolish "lawless desire". This seems to be a reference to marriage not for the sake of having children and suggest that maybe not all the blame can be laid upon Augustine after all.
(3) Justin points to the futility of arguments between trichotomists and dichotomists, for at times he is able to speak of humans as "Body and Soul" and at other times as "body, soul and spirit."
(4) The arguments against the resurrection that Justin faced seem to be similar to ones we see today (i) it is impossible (ii) it is undesirable (iii) Jesus' resurrection was spiritual.
(1) Justin adopts what can be called a christological hermeneutic. Christ is the Word, proceeding from the Father who is the truth. Hence, Jesus needs no proof to back him up, for he is the proof by which all else is judged.
(2) In many ways Justin sings from the emerging/missional choir. He denies that there is any "secular" sphere "because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship;" and hence he feels free to employ philosophical arguments. On the same line, he emphasises the goodness of the body as God's creation. Nonetheless, there is some of the anti-sexual ascetism of later Christian tradition in his claim that some refuse to marry, (and Jesus was born of a virgin) to abolish "lawless desire". This seems to be a reference to marriage not for the sake of having children and suggest that maybe not all the blame can be laid upon Augustine after all.
(3) Justin points to the futility of arguments between trichotomists and dichotomists, for at times he is able to speak of humans as "Body and Soul" and at other times as "body, soul and spirit."
(4) The arguments against the resurrection that Justin faced seem to be similar to ones we see today (i) it is impossible (ii) it is undesirable (iii) Jesus' resurrection was spiritual.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Justin and the Sole Government of God
This short tract typifies Justin's love-hate relationship with his Greek heritage. On the one hand, he attacks Greek idolatry, but on the other hand this attack is mediated through Greek poets.
Again there is an interesting theological point to ponder. How much truth is there to his suggestion that it is in the poetry of other religions that we may yet find the truth concerning the One God still present, albeit in an oblique form?
Again there is an interesting theological point to ponder. How much truth is there to his suggestion that it is in the poetry of other religions that we may yet find the truth concerning the One God still present, albeit in an oblique form?
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Justin and Greek culture ctd...
The rest of Justin's address carries on his love-hate relationship with Greek culture. Whilst on the one hand he can be quite disparaging, even to state that most if not all the philosophers are suffering in Hades and of no use, on the other hand he tries to find links between that culture and the Bible.
Hence Plato is said to have learned from Moses. Why is this not clearer in Plato's writings? At times, Justin suggests it is because Plato misinterpreted Moses, at others because he was afraid of suffering the same fate as Socrates.
Finally, Justin ends with a very enigmatic statement that the ancient Sybil prophesied the coming of Christ.
Hence Plato is said to have learned from Moses. Why is this not clearer in Plato's writings? At times, Justin suggests it is because Plato misinterpreted Moses, at others because he was afraid of suffering the same fate as Socrates.
Finally, Justin ends with a very enigmatic statement that the ancient Sybil prophesied the coming of Christ.
Link on Justin and OT
A more detailed look, by Brandon Watson, at how Justin uses a specific OT passage can be found here
Monday, May 07, 2007
Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Chapters 1-18 are a rather strange bunch. Justin begins by demolishing Greek religion, poetry and philosophy (not even the great Plato and Aristotle escape) by pointing to its internal contradictions and ridiculous features, yet in the end, still appeals to the same tradition to support the notion of monotheism.
Justin also engages in a rather weak argument concerning the antiquity of Moses. He obviously believes in the Septuagint legend, and places great value on it.
On a theological level it is interesting to note that Justin describes the inspiration of scripture as the Holy Spirit using the Biblical authors as a musician would use an instrument. I wonder whether he would allow the shape and nature of the instrument to effect the music played, i.e. move away from a dictation-theory of inspiration?
Justin also engages in a rather weak argument concerning the antiquity of Moses. He obviously believes in the Septuagint legend, and places great value on it.
On a theological level it is interesting to note that Justin describes the inspiration of scripture as the Holy Spirit using the Biblical authors as a musician would use an instrument. I wonder whether he would allow the shape and nature of the instrument to effect the music played, i.e. move away from a dictation-theory of inspiration?
Friday, May 04, 2007
Discourse to the Greeks
After the long marathon of "Dialogue with Trypho" the fast sprint of "Discourse to the Greeks" in which Justin savages his Greek heritage, especially the immorality present in much of the mythology.
Concluding the "dialogue"
Justin concludes by going over many familiar points to establish that Church>Israel. One new argument is a typology by which Leah becomes Israel and Rachel the Church.
After some of the heat generated in the dialogue it was touching to see the cordial, even friendly tone on which it concluded.
After some of the heat generated in the dialogue it was touching to see the cordial, even friendly tone on which it concluded.
Christology
In chapters 126-129 Justin rehashes familiar ground, claiming that appearances of God in the OT refer to the Son rather than the Father who is ineffable.
Clues of his christology lie in his insistence that whilst Father and Son are numerically distinct, they share in the same essence such as two flames coming from the same fire [in this case the Father being the original fire/flame]
Clues of his christology lie in his insistence that whilst Father and Son are numerically distinct, they share in the same essence such as two flames coming from the same fire [in this case the Father being the original fire/flame]
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Israel?
In chapters 122-125 Justin seeks to argue that the church is the true Israel, as Christ is the true Israel. In a rather bizarre line of argument he claims that Israel is originally a name belonging to Christ, which he granted to Jacob.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Justin repeats himself
As I read through chapters 103-121 of the dialogue (rather a generous term as Trypho does not get much of a say!) I must admit to sharing in Trypho's comment:
“You do well; and though you repeat the same things at considerable length, be assured that I and my companions listen with pleasure.”
Most of these chapters are devoted to reading references to Christ and Christians in the OT. Although I sympathise with Justin on this point, I am not so content with those passages where he seeks to establish this from what seems to be an "objective" point of view; but more at ease when he admits that "Would you suppose, sirs, that we could ever have understood these matters in the Scriptures, if we had not received grace to discern by the will of Him whose pleasure it was?"reminding us of the vital role of the Holy Spirit in any genuinely Christian hermeneutic.
In the midst of some of his more aggressive rhetoric against Jews, it is a relief to read him say
" Yet we do not hate you or those who, by your means, have conceived such prejudices against us; but we pray that even now all of you may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and long-suffering Father of all."
“You do well; and though you repeat the same things at considerable length, be assured that I and my companions listen with pleasure.”
Most of these chapters are devoted to reading references to Christ and Christians in the OT. Although I sympathise with Justin on this point, I am not so content with those passages where he seeks to establish this from what seems to be an "objective" point of view; but more at ease when he admits that "Would you suppose, sirs, that we could ever have understood these matters in the Scriptures, if we had not received grace to discern by the will of Him whose pleasure it was?"reminding us of the vital role of the Holy Spirit in any genuinely Christian hermeneutic.
In the midst of some of his more aggressive rhetoric against Jews, it is a relief to read him say
" Yet we do not hate you or those who, by your means, have conceived such prejudices against us; but we pray that even now all of you may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and long-suffering Father of all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
