But one can already see what the author fails to grasp - namely that the real 'accommodation' that Irenaeus was responsible for was with the Imperial government. For clearly the passages where Paul 'accommodates' himself to the sacrificial veneration of the 'ruler of the world' were added by Irenaeus to the Pauline canon. No one before Irenaeus ever says anything to this effect - i.e. that Paul allowed for this or that ancient prescription before Irenaeus. Justin has been effectively 'cut off' from any knowledge of Paul. Indeed Irenaeus as far as I can tell never wades into the dangerous waters of whether Christians could be allowed to join in the Imperial cult of acknowledging the Emperor as the living personification of the cosmocrator. That ambiguity is most interesting given the persecution of Christians while Irenaeus lived.The apologete Justin Martyr ('died' 165) is the first Church Father who employs the concept of accommodation. In his dialogue with the Jew Trypho Justin has to account for the fact that Christians say they serve the God of the Jews, whereas they on the other hand refrain from obeying the Jewish laws of circumcision, the Sabbath and the sacrifices. In his answer, Justin first points at the examples of the uncircumcised righteous Lot and Noah, which demonstrate in Justin's opinion that even under the Old Testament circumcision was not indispensable. Justin then explains the sacrificial laws as a result of Israel's sin with the golden calf. This sin clearly shows Israel's inclination to idolatry, “wherefore God, accommodating (oipuoooiusvog) Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols.” So God's purpose in giving sacrificial laws was not directed to God's needs, but to the needs of Israel, which was so heavily inclined to offerings and idolatry that a means had to be found to meet their need for sacrifice, while at the same time keeping them from idolatry.
God's accommodation did not function as an explanatory model for the fact that Christians do not keep certain Old Testament commandments only in discussion with the Jews. Marcion confronted the Christian church with a similar question but from the opposite perspective, for he advanced the thesis that Christians should do away with the inferior God of the Old Testament in order to rightly serve the God of the New Testament. Marcion used the bloody and primitive character of sacrificial law as one of his arguments against the Old Testament. In opposition to Marcion, Tertullian (160-220) in fact employs the same argument Justin used against Trypho; namely, that God did not need the sacrifices for Himself, but that they were a means to keep Israel away from idolatry. If the Jews had to perform rites for God that were common in contemporary idolatry, they could be kept from making new idols out of their need for rites. In short, sacrificial law expresses God's patience with idolatrous inclinations.71 Although Tertullian does not use the term accommodare in the passage where he describes God's motives for demanding sacrifices, the idea is obviously present.
The argument of God's accommodation that Justin used against the Jews and that Tertullian used against Marcion, is taken up by many other Church Fathers. Sacrificial law posed a serious challenge, which could be dealt with in two ways, one of which was reference to divine accommodation. The other strategy was allegorical exegesis, which explains sacrifices as instituted in order to achieve a higher goal, but to a further goal in history. In the contrast between the strategies of accommodation and allegory, the specific hermeneutical character of the concept of accommodation becomes clear as moving along historical lines in exegesis.
Like other Church Fathers, Irenaeus (d 200) also explains certain Old Testament prescriptions as divine accommodations to the Jews' hardness of heart and to their inclination to idolatry, but he places it in an original theological 72 Irenaeus not only finds God's accommodations in the Old Testament, but also in the New, because Paul sometimes permits certain things that he does not command.73 Irenaeus used this argument in his discussion with the Gnostics, who rejected the Old Testament completely because they regarded it as only as only earthly and non-spiritual, unlike the spiritual New Testament truth. However, Irenaeus contends, when accommodation to the weak takes place even in the New Testament, because the weak would otherwise not be able to bear the message and would even apostatize, then God's accommodations in the Old Testament are not that offensive at all; at least, they do not indicate a principal difference between the Old and New Testaments. https://books.google.com/books?id=I3CVS ... 22&f=false
It is also worth noting that - as is consistent in Tertullian's borrowings from Justin - that an original argument developed against the Jews by Justin is here turned around by Tertullian against the Marcionites. Another example is large passages of Book Three of Against Marcion and Against the Jews. There are many others. How and why an argument developed against the Jews would be able to 'suit' attacks against the Marcionites is never explained - especially if as is generally supposed the Marcionites opposed the Jews. But here we have yet another piece of the puzzle which might be useful to figure that out.