The "Eight" According to Irenaeus

[Peter Kirby]

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/ ... tolic.html

9. 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. Wherefore also the Spirit of God is manifold in (His) indwelling, and in seven forms of service is He reckoned by the prophet Isaiah, as resting on the Son of God, that is the Word, in His coming as man. 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. 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. For, as the pattern (of this), Moses received the seven-branched candlestick, that shined continually in the holy place; for as a pattern of the heavens he received this service, according to that which the Word spake unto him: Thou shalt make (it) according to all the pattern of the things which thou hast seen in the mount.

So, now we know:

(1) God
(2) Wisdom
(3) Understanding
(4) Counsel
(5) Might
(6) Knowledge
(7) Godliness
(8) Fear of God

(We get eight just by following the "spirit of" bits in scripture quoted, and in general from the ancient worldview on display here of seven heavens outside of where God dwells.)

I just find it a little amusing that the one who started a five-book work with this:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

Seems to have his own little preferred system for naming the relevant heavenly eight (God + the seven belonging to the seven heavens after).

[Secret Alias]

Wherever or to whomever Irenaeus was writing they seem to be swayed by numerological argumentation (4 gospels because of 4 heavenly things). The best argument for the pre-existence of Christian kabbalah is Irenaeus

[Secret Alias]

It isn't just Irenaeus. Clement uses Isaiah 11 the same way

The golden lamp conveys another enigma as a symbol of Christ, not in respect of form alone, but in his casting light, "at sundry times and divers manners," on those who believe on Him and hope, and who see by means of the ministry of the First-born. And they say that the seven eyes of the Lord "are the seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of Jesse.(Stromata 5.6.3)

[goatguy]

Oh the problems that the LXX has caused. The Hebrew has six attributes describing one God. The LXX has seven attributes describing one God. More interesting to me is that 'spirit' is only used 4 times, three describing one.

A few years ago I mapped the heavens one of the gnostic writings to the seven days of creation. I had little interest in pursuing it further, since I found a more profitable hermeneutic.

[Secret Alias]

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... j;61/2/779

[Secret Alias]

In Justin too https://books.google.com/books?id=VdmiR ... 22&f=false Clement and Irenaeus got it from Justin

[Secret Alias]

And the seven spirits of Revelations

https://books.google.com/books?id=VdmiR ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

For Justin, therefore, Jesus Christ preexisted as bearer
of the seven “powers of the Holy Spirit” or, as he had explained earlier, as “Lord of the powers.” This theory of the “powers” proves serviceable for an account of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament charismatic endowment. According to Justin, each of the prophets received “some one or two
powers from God”: α τι ο παρ ` ο ι - υ’ ι µ ν προ φηται, *αστο
µαν τινα`
η. ι α δευτ ραν δναµιν παρ το θεο λαµβνοντε
` ε´ α` υ υ . Thus, Solomon
had the spirit of wisdom; Daniel, that of understanding and counsel;
Moses, that of strength and piety; Elijah, that of fear; Isaiah, that of
knowledge. “The seven powers of the Spirit enumerated by Isaiah were
later reassembled in Jesus Christ, ‘the Lord of the powers’” (Dial. 87.4).
Specifically, the Spirit “ceased” (πασατο) from being poured out frag-
mentarily upon the prophets when it is said to have “rested”
(νεπασατο) upon him (Dial. 87.3) at the Jordan baptism. After his
ascension, Christ turns the prophetic powers of the Spirit into various
δ µατα ο´ or χαρσµατα to the church, thus fulfilling the prophecies of
Joel 3:1 (“I shall pour out my Spirit over all flesh”) and Ps. 67:19 (LXX)
(“He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to the sons
of men”).59 Here Justin is most likely using a collection of testimonia.
60

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... IKzXlKQBxg

[Secret Alias]

I think Irenaeus somewhere mentions the heretical belief (negatively) regarding each of the powers speaking through different powers

[Secret Alias]

And for me this brings up an even deeper problem. What Peter brings up is perfectly valid too. There seems to be an inconsistency between Irenaeus's attack against heretical 'gnosis' and then the understanding he appropriated from Justin - namely that there were seven powers plus God in heaven. But I think that this goes beyond 'hypocrisy' as such. There is simply a fundamental logical inconsistency here which is difficult to explain.

Bucur shows that Justin thought that the seven powers entered into Jesus at baptism. Irenaeus criticizes the Marcionites for instance for dividing the godhead into just and merciful powers (forget the stuff you learned about 'good vs evil' powers). The criticism against Marcion in Book Four is that the godhead shouldn't be divided into separate powers. But then how can Justin's work be appropriate where there are seven divine powers who as a totality make up 'god'?

The problem is that Irenaeus for instance doesn't agree with Justin when explaining the burning bush incident. Irenaeus says that the Father was there with the Son whereas Justin seems to indicate that only the Son was there. Indeed Irenaeus criticizes those who say what Justin says.

I really think that now that we have Trump as our president we begin to get a sense of what Irenaeus was like. He really didn't have a great grasp of the theological issues. He was certainly involved in appropriating large amounts of text from other writers - just like Trump. But again if you are trying to get a sense of how things 'add up' or what 'big picture' emerges from beneath all this appropriation there simply isn't that much there.

Both Trump and Irenaeus used the hatred of others as their primary rallying point. We hate the Marcionites, we hate the Valentinians, we hate this group and that group. But where is the substance of what we stand for other than opposing others? Very little there.

I even think that Trump being assisted into the office by outside forces fits Irenaeus too. You don't get a real sense with Irenaeus that he 'agreed' with any establishment group. Like Trump he was an 'outsider' who took bits and pieces from 'conservative doctrine' or at least doctrine that was opposed to new ideas (hence the leaning on Judaism or at least 'Jewish scriptures'). But his conservativism is almost entirely based on his opposition to the new covenant as it emerged in the first hundred or so years of its existence (if the gospel was written c 80 CE Irenaeus emerged at about the 100 year point).

That's why I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Irenaeus wasn't even a Christian at all. He is so outside any of the normal 'traditions' within Christianity up to hat point - picking and choosing often self-contradictory positions - that I am almost certain he was at the very least a 'recent' convert to the religion. Maybe he came from a Jewish background. His issue is monarchianism through identifying Jesus as the son of Father he was one with. Again the position makes very little intuitive sense other than it being able to resolve a lot of theological difficulties by just mouthing a formulaic confession of the Trinity.

But back to Peter's point (or my development of his original question) I find it difficult to reconcile how Justin's idea that the menorah demonstrated that there were seven powers 'inside of Jesus' with his contempt for all traditions that posited a 'secret gnosis' about the godhead. It is the same disconnect you find when he argues that the gospel should be four. I'd ask 'if there is a monarchy in heaven (i.e. one rule) why shouldn't there be just one gospel and one apostle just as the Marcionites declare'? The argument for four gospels is surprising and seems to contradict his overriding principle.

But the four gospel argument because of a primal quaternion - a Marcosian idea - is there no less than the idea that godhead is really seven because of the seven heavens. One gets the sense that - like Trump - Irenaeus was only there for the hatred of other groups. There is no logical or rational doctrine beyond the hatred. There is the apostolic succession list in Rome, the church of Peter and Paul. Irenaeus was for that. But isn't it odd that the list again starts with two rather than one? I could go on and on but there is something bizarrely inconsistent - Trumpian in fact - about Irenaeus. It's fascinated me all my life.