Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by gryan »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:35 pm Irenaeus AH 3
Moreover, if this is Christ, as it is, he is in terrible risk who says that Christ is either man or angel alone, withholding from Him the power of the divine name,—an authority which He has constantly received on the faith of the heavenly Scriptures, which continually say that He is both Angel and God. To all these things, moreover, is added this, that in like manner as the divine Scripture has frequently declared Him both Angel and God, so the same divine Scripture declares Him also both man and God, expressing thereby what He should be, and depicting even then in figure what He was to be in the truth of His substance. “For,” it says, “Jacob remained alone; and there wrestled with him a man even till daybreak. And He saw that He did not prevail against him; and He touched the broad part of Jacob’s thigh while He was wrestling with him and he with Him, and said to him, Let me go, for the morning has dawned. And he said, I will not let Thee go, except Thou bless me. And He said, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And He said to him, Thy name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name; because thou hast prevailed with God, and thou art powerful with men.”5167 And it adds, moreover: “And Jacob called the name of that place the Vision of God: for I have seen the Lord face to face, and my soul has been made safe. And the sun arose upon him. Afterwards he crossed over the Vision of God, but he halted upon his thigh.”5168 A man, it says, wrestled with Jacob. If this was a mere man, who is he? Whence is he? Wherefore does he contend and wrestle with Jacob? What had intervened? What had happened? What was the cause of so great a dispute as that, and so great a struggle? Why, moreover, is Jacob, who is found to be strong enough to hold the man with whom he is wrestling, and asks for a blessing from Him whom he is holding, asserted to have asked therefore, except because this struggle was prefigured as that which should be between Christ and the sons of Jacob, which is said to be completed in the Gospel? For against this man Jacob’s people struggled, in which struggle Jacob’s people was found to be the more powerful, because against Christ it gained the victory of its iniquity: at which time, on account of the crime that it committed, hesitating and giving way, it began most sorely to halt in the walk of its own faith and salvation; and although it was found the stronger, in respect of the condemnation of Christ, it still needs His mercy, still needs His blessing. But, moreover, the man who wrestled with Jacob says, “Moreover, thy name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name;” and if Israel is the man who sees God, the Lord was beautifully showing that it was not only a man who was then wrestling with Jacob, but God also. Certainly Jacob saw God, with whom he wrestled, although he was holding the man in his own struggle. And in order that there might still be no hesitation, He Himself laid down the interpretation by saying, “Because thou hast prevailed with God, and art powerful with men.” For which reason the same Jacob, perceiving already the force of the Mystery, and apprehending the authority of Him with whom he had wrestled, called the name of that place in which he had wrestled, the Vision of God. He, moreover, superadded the reason for his interpretation being offered of the Vision of God: “For I have seen,” said he, “God face to face, and my soul has been saved.” Moreover, he saw God, with whom he wrestled as with a man; but still indeed he held the man as a conqueror, though as an inferior he asked a blessing as from God. Thus he wrestled with God and with man; and
631
thus truly was that struggle prefigured, and in the Gospel was fulfilled, between Christ and the people of Jacob, wherein, although the people had the mastery, yet it proved to be inferior by being shown to be guilty. Who will hesitate to acknowledge that Christ, in whom this type of a wrestling was fulfilled, was not man only, but God also, since even that very type of a wrestling seems to have proved Him man and God? And yet, even after this, the same divine Scripture justly does not cease to call the Angel God, and to pronounce God the Angel. For when this very Jacob was about to bless Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, with his hands placed across on the heads of the lads, he said, “The God which fed me from my youth even unto this day, the Angel who delivered me from all evils, bless these lads.”5169 Even to such a point does he affirm the same Being to be an Angel, whom he had called God, as in the end of his discourse, to express the person of whom he was speaking as one, when he said5170 “bless these lads.” For if he had meant the one to be understood as God, and the other as an angel, he would have comprised the two persons in the plural number; but now he defined the singular number of one person in the blessing, whence he meant it to be understood that the same person is God and Angel. But yet He cannot be received as God the Father; but as God and Angel, as Christ He can be received. And Him, as the author of this blessing, Jacob also signified by placing his hands crossed upon the lads, as if their father was Christ, and showing, from thus placing his hands, the figure and future form of the passion.5171 Let no one, therefore, who does not shrink from speaking of Christ as an Angel, thus shrink from pronouncing Him God also, when he perceives that He Himself was invoked in the blessing of these lads, by the sacrament of the passion, intimated in the type of the crossed hands, as both God and Angel.


Re: Jacob/Israel, and visionary revelation
Cf. John 1:45-51
45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, a true Israelite (Ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλείτης), in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

------------------

Some interpret Nathaniel as another name for James/Jacob son of Alphaeus.
(see The Identity of John's Nathanael, By: Hill, C E. JSNT, 1998)
For example, The Epistula Apostolorum puts Nathaniel where James/Jacob son of Alphaeus might otherwise be expected.

We,
John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew,
James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas,
write unto the churches

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... lorum.html
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

To continue with Irenaeus's understanding of the Father "Man" impregnating Mary and making a "Son of Man" from the seed of the "Son of God." The next passage in Irenaeus:
AH 3.17.1

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ.
This is interesting. Irenaeus takes for granted that Man, the Father impregnates Mary "through his will" via the "Son of God" seed, now made the "Son of Man." But there is the added notion that the Trinity continuously engages with itself/themselves such as the coming down of the Holy Spirit (the Third in the Trinity) at the end of Matthew. It is said that the Holy Spirit comes down (from the Father) on to the Son of God made Son of Man.

The same thing is at the heart of the next citation from AH 3

AH 3.18.3
But who is it that has had fellowship with us in the matter of food? Whether is it he who is conceived of by them as the Christ above, who extended himself through Horos, and imparted a form to their mother; or is it He who is from the Virgin, Emmanuel, who did eat butter and honey, of whom the prophet declared, "He is also man, and who shall know him?" He was likewise preached by Paul: "For I delivered," he says, "unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and whom he speaks of as man. For after remarking, "But if Christ be preached, that He rose from the dead," he continues, rendering the reason of His incarnation, "For since by man came death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead." And everywhere, when [referring to] the passion of our Lord, and to His human nature, and His subjection to death, he employs the name of Christ, as in that passage: "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." And again: "But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." And again: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." And again: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died;" indicating that the impassible Christ did not descend upon Jesus, but that He Himself, because He was Jesus Christ, suffered for us; He, who lay in the tomb, and rose again, who descended and ascended,--the Son of God having been made the Son of man, as the very name itself doth declare. For in the name of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me," --pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit. The Lord Himself, too, makes it evident who it was that suffered for when He asked the disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" and when Peter had replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" and when he had been commended by Him [in these words], "That flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven," He made it clear that He, the Son of man, is Christ the Son of the living God. "For from that time forth," it is said, "He began to show to His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem,and suffer many things of the priests, and be rejected, and crucified, and rise again the third day." He who was acknowledged by Peter as Christ, who pronounced him blessed because the Father had revealed the Son of the living God to him, said that He must Himself suffer many things, and be crucified; and then He rebuked Peter, who imagined that He was the Christ as the generality of men supposed [that the Christ should be], and was averse to the idea of His suffering, [and] said to the disciples, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
The thing that might escape readers is that if we read Irenaeus carefully - as Novatian certain did - the suggestion is that Father, Son and Spirit WERE ALL TOGETHER in the same place and time. In other words, Irenaeus reads "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me" as if Son is speaking, Father is there anointing, Holy Spirit is the anointment. Similarly the burning bush is interpreted by Irenaeus to mean that Father and Son are there together in the burning bush:
Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;"(8) and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people."(9) For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself -- He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. -- As also Esaias says, "I too am witness," he declares, "saith the LORD God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am." (AH 3.6.2)
In other words, Justin understood there to be two powers - Man, the divine Logos who is the Son - who was with the Patriarchs and in the burning bush while the Father is in heaven. Look carefully at the statement. What sidetracks scholars is they don't recognize Irenaeus "tampering with" Justin. They see Irenaeus seeing the Son in the burning bush on his own. No. Irenaeus knew what Justin was saying (= the Son was in the bush, the Father was in heaven) but Irenaeus says Father, Son (and presumably Holy Spirit) are all together in the burning bush. Novatian is fighting this. He likely knows what Justin and other earlier writers understood and sees Irenaeus's innovation as heresy.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

The next one:
AH 3.18.6,7

This also does likewise meet [the case] of those who maintain that He suffered only in appearance. For if He did not truly suffer, no thanks to Him, since there was no suffering at all; and when we shall actually begin to suffer, He will seem as leading us astray, exhorting us to endure buffering, and to turn the other cheek, if He did not Himself before us in reality suffer the same; and as He misled them by seeming to them what He was not, so does He also mislead us, by exhorting us to endure what He did not endure Himself. [In that case] we shall be even above the Master, because we suffer and sustain what our Master never bore or endured. But as our Lord is alone truly Master, so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man (vere Filius Dei, et patiens, Verbum Dei Patris filius hominis factus) . For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race. Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.
What does "vere Filius Dei, et patiens, Verbum Dei Patris filius hominis factus" mean? Can it be other than Son, Father and Holy Spirit were made "Son of Man"? At least one writer noticed this and said that Irenaeus thought the Father suffered - https://books.google.com/books?id=oLBZA ... 22&f=false

Samuel Cooleridge

38 p 414 , pencil 9 He [ Thomas Emlyn , in Dr Bennet's New Theory of the Trinity Examined ( 1718 ) ] imagines that the good Father ( Irenaeus ) supposed the Aóyos , or Word , as such , passible .... The most that you can espy in ( the passages cited ) is , that the Abyos suffered in the Flesh .... [ Waterland quotes several passages from Irenaeus in footnotes , beginning with this one :) Solus vere Magister Dominus noster ; & bonus vere Filius Dei , & patiens , verbum Dei Patris Filius Hominis factus. ( Our Lord is truly our only master ; the Son of God is truly good and suffering , the word of God the Father was made the Son of Man . ) Iren . I. 3. c . 18. p . 211 . I rather think that by “ patiens " ! Irenæus might refer to the Logos , as the Deitas relativè objectiva # to the Father , the I AM , as the Deitas relative. ( Deity relatively objective , as opposed ” to the Father or “ deity relatively subjective ” : cf the use of this opposition in 5 . 39 pp 415-16 )
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by gryan »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:02 am The next one:
AH 3.18.6,7

so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man (vere Filius Dei, et patiens, Verbum Dei Patris filius hominis factus) . For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race. Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.
What does "vere Filius Dei, et patiens, Verbum Dei Patris filius hominis factus" mean? Can it be other than Son, Father and Holy Spirit were made "Son of Man"? At least one writer noticed this and said that Irenaeus thought the Father suffered - https://books.google.com/books?id=oLBZA ... 22&f=false
"In Christian theology, historical patripassianism (as it is referred to in the Western church) is a version of Sabellianism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism

This is related to a text critical decision on Gal 2:20.

The currently prevailing version is this:

Gal 2:20 standard text, my translation
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, in the faith I live--that of the Son of God (Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ), who loved me and gave himself for me."

Carlson has argued persuasively that the more likely authorial text is this one:

Gal 2:20, Carlson's critical text, my translation
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, in the faith I live--that of the God and Christ (τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ), who loved me and gave himself for me."

Why the alteration of the authorial text?

"...an antiPatripassionist scribe could well have misread the τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ as a single person,
which would suggest the passibility of God in this context, and fixed the reading to avoid that
implication" (Carlson, The Text and History of Galatians).

My guess is that Irenaeus might have been misreading the meaning of authorial text of Galatians 2:20.

I say "misreading" because I interpret "God and Christ" as two names for Jesus the anointed king in the sense of the psalm quoted in Hebrews 1:8,

"But about the Son He says:
...God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

The Jesus of Galatians and Hebrews is a subordinate "God".
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Very helpful. Can't believe someone at forum had an amazing contribution. Thank you!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

The next one in Book Three Against Heresies is even more obviously Patripassian:
AH 3.19.1-3

But again, those who assert that He was a naked man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience,are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father (nondum commixti Verbo Dei Patris) nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons?

For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?" But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering;(7) that He sat upon the foal of an ass;(8) that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;(9) that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God,(10) coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;(11)--all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.

For as He (the Father) became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified; the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven]. He therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father (Verbum Patris), and the Son of man, since He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary--who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being--was made the Son of man. Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be" God with us," and descend to those things which are of the earth beneath, seeking the sheep which had perished, which was indeed His own peculiar handiwork, and ascend to the height above, offering and commending to His Father that man (hominem) which had been found, making in His own person the first-fruits of the resurrection of man; that, as the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining pan of the body--[namely, the body] of every man who is found in life--when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which existed by reason of disobedience, may arise, blended together and strengthened through means of joints and bands(13) by the increase of God, each of the members having its own proper and fit position in the body. For there are many mansions in the Father's house, inasmuch as there are also many members in the body.
Now let's revisit WHY the Word was introduced to the Jewish understanding of Philo. The thought was that 'the Almighty Father' couldn't co-mix with matter. Here we see the exact opposite tendency. Starting from the last statement, "the Father" is involved in Mary's pregnancy. As noted he is "Man" who makes the child of Mary "the Son of Man." But here it absolutely explicit. The sentence earlier "the will of the Father" is used to explain the Virgin Birth (where the Father is again "Man"). The addition of "the Father" to "the Word of God" - Verbo Dei Patris - is unusual. Normally we'd expect to see simply a reference to the divine Word.

The implication is clear throughout that "the Father" is present and participating in the Incarnation of Christ.
17.1 For the apostles could have said that Christ descended into Jesus, or that superior Saviour [descended on] to him who is dispositional, or to him who is of the invisible [descended on] to him who is Demiurge [but instead said] that the Spirit of God descended upon him like a dove, of whom it was said by Isaiah that the Spirit will rest upon him, as we said before. And again "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me." It is the Spirit of whom the Lord says, "For it is not you that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you." And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration toward God, he said to them: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit" For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy." wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ (unde et in Filium Dei filium hominis factum, descendit, cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano, et requiescere in hominibus, et habitare in plasmate Dei, voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis, et renovans eos a vetustate in novitatem Christi).
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Among the things that the Son does is not merely to 'make known' the Father but actually bring the Father into the flesh of the individual:
AH 3.20.2,3

For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one,] continuing in His love(6) and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion,(7) looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,"(8) to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and receive the Father granting the Word of God (capere Patrem donans Verbum Dei) who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father. On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself (ipse Dominus), who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself (ipse Dominus) who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: "For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing," showing that the "good thing" of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying,] "The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord." And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says:] "Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us."(14) Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved.
It is also interesting to look and see what Irenaeus means by ipse Dominus (= the Lord himself).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

The last one:
AH 22.1

Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err, [since,] in order that they may cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between Him and Adam]. For if the one [who sprang] from the earth had indeed formation and substance from both the hand and workmanship of God, but the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case, preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured. But every one will allow that we are [composed of] a body taken from the earth, and a soul receiving spirit from God. This, therefore, the Word of God was made, recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork; and on this account does He confess Himself the Son of man, and blesses "the meek, because they shall inherit the earth." The Apostle Paul, moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, "God sent His Son, made of a woman." And again, in that to the Romans, he says, "Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

All instances of "Father" in Irenaeus Book 3:
1.2 "These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics."

3.3 "In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things."

4.2 "To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent (et contemptores Patris sui et adventus ejus)." (the advent of His Father)

5.3 " Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies; and whom He knew to have taken origin from a defect, He never would have acknowledged as God, even the God of all, the Supreme King, too, and His own Father, an imperfect being as a perfect one, an animal one as a spiritual, Him who was without the Pleroma as Him who was within it. 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 dulness; 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!"
6.1 "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven." For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee." For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God -- both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods."(2) He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God--that is, the Son Himself--has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth." Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, "God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; "(4) that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, "I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not."(5) But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High."(6) To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father." Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;" and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people." For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself -- He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. -- As also Esaias says, "I too am witness," he declares, "saith the LORD God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am" ... And the Apostle Paul also, saying, "For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God,"(1) has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped."(2) He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. And Paul himself says that this is true: "We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."(3) For he has made a distinction, and separated those which are indeed called gods, but which are none, from the one God the Father, from whom are all things, and, he has confessed in the most decided manner in his own person, one Lord Jesus Christ. But in this [clause], "whether in heaven or in earth," he does not speak of the formers of the world, as these [teachers] expound it; but his meaning is similar to that of Moses, when it is said, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any image for God, of whatsoever things are in heaven above, whatsoever in the earth beneath, and whatsoever in the waters under the earth."(4) And he does thus explain what are meant by the things in heaven: "Lest when," he says, "looking towards heaven, and observing the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the ornament of heaven, falling into error, thou shouldest adore and serve them."(5) And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh;(6) but he is not properly termed Lord, nor is called God by the prophets, but is spoken of by the Spirit as "Moses, the faithful minister and servant of God,"(7) which also he was.
I am fairly sure the Novatian is commenting on this passage here in On the Trinity:

But if some heretic, obstinately struggling against the truth, should persist in all these instances either in understanding that Christ was properly an angel, or should contend that He must be so understood, he must in this respect also be subdued by the force of truth. For if, since all heavenly things, earthly things, and things under the earth, are subjected to Christ, even the angels themselves, with all other creatures, as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God. And if any angel at all subjected to Christ can be called God, and this, if it be said, is also professed without blasphemy, certainly much more can this be fitting for Christ, Himself the Son of God, for Him to be pronounced God. For if an angel who is subjected to Christ is exalted as God, much more, and more consistently, shall Christ, to whom all angels are subjected, be said to be God. For it is not suitable to nature, that what is conceded to the lesser should be denied to the greater. Thus, if an angel be inferior to Christ, and yet an angel is called god, rather by consequence is Christ said to be God, who is discovered to be both greater and better, not than one, but than all angels. And if God stands in the assembly of the gods, and in the midst God distinguishes between the gods, and Christ stood at various times in the synagogue, then Christ stood in the synagogue as God — judging, to wit, between the gods, to whom He says, How long do you accept the persons of men? That is to say, consequently, charging the men of the synagogue with not practising just judgments. Further, if they who are reproved and blamed seem even for any reason to attain this name without blasphemy, that they should be called gods, assuredly much more shall He be esteemed God, who not only is said to have stood as God in the synagogue of the gods, but moreover is revealed by the same authority 9f the reading as distinguishing and judging between gods. But even if they who fall like one of the princes are still called gods, much rather shall He be said to be God, who not only does not fall like one of the princes, but even overcomes both the author and prince of wickedness himself. And what in the world is the reason, that although they say that this name was given even to Moses, since it is said, I have made you as a god to Pharaoh, it should be denied to Christ, who is declared to be ordained not to Pharaoh only, but to every creature, as both Lord and God? And in the former case indeed this name is given with reserve, in the latter lavishly; in the former by measure, in the latter above all kind of measure: For, it is said, the Father gives not to the Son by measure, for the Father loves the Son. In the former for the time, in the latter without reference to time; for He received the power of the divine name, both above all things and for all time. But if he who has received the power of one man, in respect to this limited power given him, still without hesitation attains that name of God, how much more shall He who has power over Moses himself as well be believed to have attained the authority of that name?
8.3 For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father (Cum enim dixisset de Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in Patre), he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."
This would seem to indicate "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." While the Gospel of John now says "the Word was God" it is worth noting that there is an extended section in Novatian where the author claims Sabellius thinks only the Father is God.
9.1 This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person (neque Dominum Christum confessum esse ex sua persona), did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all (et ipso Domino Patrem tantum Deum et Dominum eum); -- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God (= the Father), Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved -- declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, "O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."(4) He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham; he, the forerunner of Christ, of whom Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, "For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."(5) There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation -- that is, His Word -- He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.
It's hard to get away from the sense that Irenaeus understood 'Jesus' to be the Father from the line in blue.
9.3 And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."(6) For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ, as Esaias also says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from his root; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God, shall fill Him. He shall not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech; but He shall dispense judgment to the humble man, and reprove the haughty ones of the earth."

10.3 (on Luke) For this is the knowledge of salvation which was wanting to them, that of the Son of God, which John made known, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was made before me; because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received." This, therefore, was the knowledge of salvation; but [it did not consist in] another God, nor another Father, nor Bythus, nor the Pleroma of thirty Aeons, nor the Mother of the (lower) Ogdoad: but the knowledge of salvation was the knowledge of the Son of God, who is both called and actually is, salvation, and Saviour, and salutary. Salvation, indeed, as follows: "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord." And then again, Saviour: "Behold my God, my Saviour, I will put my trust in Him."(13) But as bringing salvation, thus: "God hath made known His salvation (salutare) in the sight of the heathen."(14) For He is indeed Saviour, as being the Son and Word of God; but salutary, since [He is] Spirit; for he says: "The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord."(15) But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(16) This knowledge of salvation, therefore, John did impart to those repenting, and believing in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.

10.5 Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"(1)"Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "(3) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."(4) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.
There does seem to be a pattern of the Father being "God" as per the criticism of Sabellius in Novatian.
11.1 John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another ; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable.

11.3 But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.

11.5 - 7 (on John) For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks, and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining [at table], and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father. For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]."(11) For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible. Wherefore they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him; and again, the Father, by means of the Son, gives knowledge of His Son to those who love Him. By whom also Nathanael, being taught, recognised [Him], he to whom also the Lord bare witness, that he was "an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile."(12) The Israelite recognised his King, therefore did he cry out to Him, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel." By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognised Christ as the Son of the living God, when [God] said, "Behold My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He send forth judgment into contention ;(1) and in His name shall the Gentiles trust." Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,--[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use only that Gospel, which is according to Matthew,, are convinced by that very fact, not presuming rightly of the Lord (solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino).
I think it is important to see the manner in which Irenaeus accuses the Ebionites of not reading Matthew together with John. That John is his 'go to gospel' in terms of Patripassianism. Note the next citation in a list of things that each gospel teaches us. For John:
11.7 For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(8) Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."
I think the Ebionites only see the Son engaging with humanity, don't see the Father. Hence the 'naked man' reference. The unnamed heretics put aside the Gospel of John so have the wrong understanding of the Father.
11.9 Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;(5) but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit.
12.2 (Peter from Acts) He said, "But since he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his body one should sit in his throne; foreseeing this, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, that He was not left in hell, neither did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus," he said, "hath God raised up, of which we all are witnesses: who, being exalted by the right hand of God, receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this gift which ye now see and hear. For David has not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My fight hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made [that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ]." And when the multitudes exclaimed, "What shall we do then?" Peter says to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Thus the apostles did not preach another God, or another Fulness; nor, that the Christ who suffered and rose again was one, while he who flew off on high was another, and remained impossible; but that there was one and the same God the Father, and Christ Jesus who rose from the dead; and they preached faith in Him, to those who did not believe on the Son of God, and exhorted them out of the prophets, that the Christ whom God promised to send, He sent in Jesus, whom they crucified and God raised up.

12.6 Since this, however, was so, they certainly did not speak to them in accordance with their old belief. For they, who told them to their face that they were the slayers of the Lord, would themselves also much more boldly preach that Father who is above the Demiurge, and not what each individual bid himself believe [respecting God]; and the sin was much less, if indeed they had not fastened to the cross the superior Saviour (to whom it behoved them to ascend), since He was impassible. For, as they did not speak to the Gentiles in compliance with their notions, but told them with boldness that their gods were no gods, but the idols of demons; so would they in like manner have preached to the Jews, if they had known another greater or more perfect Father, not nourishing nor strengthening the untrue opinion of these men regarding God. Moreover, while destroying the error of the Gentiles, and bearing them away from their gods, they did not certainly induce another error upon them; but, removing those which were no gods, they pointed out Him who alone was God and the true Father.

12.11 And that the whole range of the doctrine of the apostles proclaimed one and the same God, who removed Abraham, who made to him the promise of inheritance, who in due season gave to him the covenant of circumcision, who called his descendants out of Egypt, preserved outwardly by circumcision--for he gave it as a sign, that they might not be like the Egyptians--that He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory,-- they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the apostles, and may contemplate the fact that this God is one, above whom is no other. But even if there were another god above Him, we should say, upon [instituting] a comparison of the quantity [of the work done by each], that the latter is superior to the former
Without question Irenaeus thinks 'the Father' interacted with the Patriarchs (= the role of Man, the Word in Justin's system only now revised by Irenaeus to Patripassianism).
12.12 Those from Valentinus, however, while they employ names of a more honourable kind, and set forth that He who is Creator is both Father, and Lord, and God, do [nevertheless] render their theory or sect more plasphemous, by maintaining that He was not produced from any one of those Aeons within the Pleroma, but from that defect which had been expelled beyond the Pleroma. Ignorance of the Scriptures and of the dispensation of God has brought all these things upon them. And in the course of this work I shall touch upon the cause of the difference of the covenants on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of their unity and harmony.

13. But that both the apostles and their disciples thus taught as the Church preaches, and thus teaching were perfected, wherefore also they were called away to that which is perfect--Stephen, teaching these truths, when he was yet on earth, saw the glory of God, and Jesus on His right hand, and exclaimed, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."(3) These words he said, and was stoned; and thus did he fulfil the perfect doctrine, copying in every respect the Leader of martyrdom, and praying for those who were slaying him, in these words: "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Thus were they perfected who knew one and the same God, who from beginning to end was present with mankind in the various dispensations; as the prophet Hosea declares: "I have filled up visions, and used similitudes by the hands of the prophets."(4) Those, therefore, who delivered up their souls to death for Christ's Gospel--how could they have spoken to men in accordance with old-established opinion? If this had been the course adopted by them, they should not have suffered; but inasmuch as they did preach things contrary to those persons who did not assent to the truth, for that reason they suffered. It is evident, therefore, that they did not relinquish the truth, but with all boldness preached to the Jews and Greeks. To the Jews, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks they preached one God, who made all things, and Jesus Christ His Son.
I wasn't aware that Irenaeus believed that the apostles preached a different doctrine to the Jews than the Gentiles with respect to the identity of Christ. The "one god" doctrine, seems to be a specifically 'Gentile' form of Christianity. Also notice that for the Jews there is an expectation of a messianic kingdom in Judea:
Judaeis quidem, hominem/Jesum eum qui ab ipsis crucifixus est, esse Filium Dei, judicem vivorum et mortuorum, a Patre accepisse aeternum Regnum in Israel, quemadmodum ostendimus
12.15 Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine--for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him-- scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God; which they certainly never would have done, as I have already said, if they had learned from the Lord another Father besides Him who appointed the dispensation of the law (si praeter eum qui Legis dispositionem fecit,alterum Patrem a Domino didicissent).
Of course for Justin, Man the Word gave the Law to Moses and the Israelites. Irenaeus now introduces effectively Man, the Father as the one responsible.
13.2 And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to behold the Father, "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." (3) To these men, therefore, did the Lord bear witness, that in Himself they had both known and seen the Father (and the Father is truth). To allege, then, that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses, and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel if these men did not know the truth? How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached? Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven? Just, then, as" Paul [was] an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father,"(6) [so with the rest;] (7) the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to them the Son.

15.3 But let us revert to the same line of argument [hitherto pursued]. For when it has been manifestly declared, that they who were the preachers of the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no one else God, or named him Lord, except the only true God the Father, and His Word, who has the pre-eminence in all things (Cum enim declaratum sit manifeste, quoniam neminem alium Deum vocaverunt, vel Dominum nominaverunt, qui veritatis fuerunt praedicatores, et Apostoli libertatis, nisi solum verum Deum Patrem et Verbum ejus, qui in omnibus principatum habet)
There is this consistent echo of the Novatian charge against the Sabellians insofar as "only the Father" is called God. There is this notion floating around the text.

16.1 But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan, because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by Monogenes, for the confirmation of the Pleroma; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father; and yet another, the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma.

16.3 And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; " plainly indicating one God (= the Father), who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,--humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God. Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets." Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, "'the messenger of great counsel of the Father;" through whom God caused the day-spring and the Just One to arise to the house of David, and raised up for him an horn of salvation, "and established a testimony in Jacob;" as David says when discoursing on the causes of His birth: "And He appointed a law in Israel, that another generation might know [Him,] the children which should he born from these, and they arising shall themselves declare to their children, so that they might set their hope in God, and seek after His commandments."(10) And again, the angel said, when bringing good tidings to Mary: "He shall he great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of His father David;"(11) acknowledging that He who is the Son of the Highest, the same is Himself also the Son of David. And David, knowing by the Spirit the dispensation of the advent of this Person, by which He is supreme over all the living and dead, confessed Him as Lord, sitting on the right hand of the Most High Father (Cujus et David dispositionem adventus per Spiritum cognoscens, per quam dominans est omnium vivorum et mortuorum, Dominum eum confessus est, sedentem ad dextram Patris altissimi)
16.6 - 8 But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another (for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown) the suffering one is either the dispositional one or from Joseph but the other has come down from things invisible and unspeakable, whom they confirm to be both invisible and incomprehensible and incapable of passion, deceiving from the truth, because their opinion keeps away from Him who is truly God, not knowing that the only-begotten Word of this world, who is always present to the human race, is united and mingled with his own, fashioned according to the will of the Father, and made flesh, he is Jesus Christ our Lord, who suffered for us, and is risen for us, and to come again in the glory of the Father, to raise up all flesh, and to show salvation, and to show the rule of just judgment to all who were made under him (quemque passibilem argumentantur alterum vero eorum ab invisibilibus et inenarrabilibus descendisse, quem et invisibilem, et incomprehensibilem, et impassibilem esse confirmant, errantes a veritate, eo quod absistat sententia eorum ab eo qui est vere Deus nescientes quoniam hujus Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum Patris, et caro factus, ipse est Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui passus est pro nobis, et surrexit propter nos et rursus venturus in gloria Patris, ad resuscitandum universam carnem, et ad ostensionem salutis, et regulam justi judicii ostendere omnibus, qui sub ipso facti sunt).Therefore there is one God the Father, as we have shown, and one Christ Jesus our Lord, coming through the whole arrangement and recapitulating all things in himself (Unus igitur Deus Pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Jesus Dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem, et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans). But in every respect He (the Father) is both man, the workmanship of God and Man, he is recapitulating in himself, becoming invisible, visible, and incomprehensible, becoming incomprehensible, and incapable of passion, and the Word Man, recapitulating all things in himself, as he is the leader in the super-celestial, and spiritual, and invisible things The Word of God thus has dominion over both visible and corporeal things, assuming primacy over himself, and placing himself as the head of the Church, to attract all things to himself in an apt time (In omnibus autem est et homo, plasmatio Dei et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans uti sicut in supercoelestibus, et spiritalibus, et invisibilibus princeps est Verbum Dei sic et in visibilibus, et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens, et apponens semetipsum caput Ecclesiae, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore).
I have noticed that if I translate the original Latin without the prejudice of making Irenaeus sound 'orthodox' the underlying connection of 'Man' as the name of God becomes stronger. There is almost totemic understanding of the Father having 'the Word/Son' as a tool to save humanity.
16.7 With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, as he is not inappropriate with the Father (Nihil enim incomptum atque intempestivum apud eum, quomodo nec incongruens est apud Patrem). For all things are known beforehand by the Father, and are perfected by the Son, as it is fitting and, consequently, at an appropriate time (Praecognita sunt enim omnia a Patre, perficiuntur autem a Filio, sicut congruum et consequens est, apto tempore). Because of this Mary hastening to the marvelous sign of wine, and wishing before time to share in the cup of a return, the Lord rejecting her untimely haste, said: What have I to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come (Propter hoc properante Maria ad admirabile vini signum, et ante tempus volente participare compendii poculo, Dominus repellens eius intempestivam festinationem, dixit: Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Nondum venit hora mea), waiting for that hour which was known in advance by the Father (exspectans eam horam quae est a Patre praecognita). Because of this, when men often wanted to take him, no one, he says, put his hands on him. because my soul is troubled, you will remember your mercy. But Paul also says, "But when the fullness of time has come, God has sent his son." By which it is manifest, that our Lord perfected all things which were known beforehand by the Father, in order and time, and beforehand in time, and fitting for it, being one and the same, but rich and numerous (Per quod manifestum est, quoniam omnia quae praecognita erant a Patre, ordine et tempore, et hora praecognita et apta perfecit Dominus noster, unus quidem et idem exsistens, dives autem et multus). For he is rich and abundant in the will of the Father, since He (= the Father) is the Savior of those who are saved, and Lord of those who are under the dominion, and God of those things which are established, and the only-begotten of the Father (Diviti enim et multae voluntati Patris deservit, cum sit ipse Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et Dominus eorum qui sunt sub dominio, et Deus eorum quae constituta sunt, et unigenitus Patris), and Christ who was preached, and the Word of God incarnate; in whom the Son of man had to be made the Son of God ( et Christus qui praedicatus est, et Verbum Dei incarnatus, cum advenisset plenitudo temporis, in quo Filium hominis fieri oportebat filium Dei).
The further we get into Book 3 the more we see Novatian's criticism of 'Sabellius' emerge from the text of Irenaeus. The Father = God. The Son is something less than a god. Yes he is one with the Father but he has no real personality apart from the Father. He is a tool of the Father and little else. Also this line "in quo Filium hominis fieri oportebat filium Dei" is translated by others as "at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man" even though the word order suggest the Sabellian tendencies which Novatian criticizes. For Novatian, "the Son of God" comes down from heaven and only in the womb of Mary transforms the child into a "Son of Man." Irenaeus above has the opposite and so proves Novatian's point "that reasonably the Son of God might be made by the assumption of flesh the Son of man, and the Son of man by the reception of the Word of God the Son of God. This most profound and recondite mystery, destined before the worlds for the salvation of the human race, is found to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man, that the human race might be placed within the reach of the enjoyment of eternal salvation. But the material of that heretical error has arisen. as I judge, from this, that they think that there is no distinction between the Son of God and the Son of man; because if a distinction were made, Jesus Christ would easily be proved to be both man and God. For they will have it that the self-same that is man, the Son of man, appears also as the Son of God; that man and flesh and that same frail substance may be said to be also the Son of God Himself. Whence, since no distinction is discerned between the Son of man and the Son of God, but the Son of man Himself is asserted to be the Son of God, the same Christ and the Son of God is asserted to be man only; by which they strive to exclude, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
16.8 8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian] dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of error allege to be a production of those who were made Aeons in a state of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought."(7) And again does he say in the Epistle: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist."(8) These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;"(9) knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.

16.9 Do not be deceived; one and the same Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who through his passion reconciled us to God and rose again from the dead, who is at the right hand of the Father and perfect in all and while he was experiencing tyranny, he begged the Father to pardon those who had crucified him. For he truly saved: he is the Word of God, the only begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord. (Nolite errare; unus et idem est Christus Jesus Filius Dei, qui per passionem reconciliavit nos Deo, et resurrexit a mortuis, qui est in dextera Patris, et perfectus in omnibus: qui cum vapularet, non repercutiebat gud cum pateretur non est minifatus; et cum tyrannidem pateretur, rogabat Patrem ut ignosceret his qui se crucifixerant. Ipse enim vere salvavit: ipse est Verbum Dei, ipse unigenitus a Patre, Christus Jesus Dominus noster)

17.1 - 3 For the apostles could have said that Christ descended into Jesus, or that superior Saviour [descended on] to him who is dispositional, or to him who is of the invisible [descended on] to him who is Demiurge [but instead said] that the Spirit of God descended upon him like a dove, of whom it was said by Isaiah that the Spirit will rest upon him, as we said before. And again "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me." It is the Spirit of whom the Lord says, "For it is not you that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you." And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration toward God, he said to them: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit" For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy." wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ (unde et in Filium Dei filium hominis factum, descendit, cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano, et requiescere in hominibus, et habitare in plasmate Dei, voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis, et renovans eos a vetustate in novitatem Christi). This Spirit did David ask for the human race, saying, "And stablish me with Thine all- governing Spirit" who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord's ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter who should join us to God. For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that layer which leads to incorruption; but our souls, by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God, our Lord compassionating that erring Samaritan woman--who did not remain with one husband, but committed fornication by [contracting] many marriages--by pointing out, and promising to her living water, so that she should thirst no more, nor occupy herself in acquiring the refreshing water obtained by labour, having in herself water springing up to eternal life. The Lord, accepting this gift from the Father, himself also gave to those who partake of him, sending the Holy Spirit into the whole earth (Quod Dominus accipiens munus a Patre, ipse quoque his donavit qui ex ipso participantur, in universam terram mittens Spiritum Sanctum.)

... Wherefore the dew of God is necessary for us, that we may not burn ourselves, nor become unfruitful; and where we have an accuser, there we may have also the Helper, on the recommendation of the Lord by the Holy Ghost, his man, who fell into robbers, to whom He (= the Father) himself had compassion, and wound his wounds, giving us two royal pence so that, receiving the image and inscription of the Father and Son through the Spirit, we may bear fruit by numbering the number of the coin entrusted to us by the Lord (Quapropter necessarius nobis est ros Dei, ut non comburamur, neque infructuosi efficiamur, et ubi accusatorem habemus, illic habeamus et paracletum commendante Domino Spiritui sancto suum hominem, qui inciderat in latrones, cui ipse misertus est, et ligavit vulnera ejus, dans duo denaria regalia, ut per Spiritum imaginem et inscriptionem Patris et Filii accipientes, fructificemus creditum nobis denarium, multiplicatum Domino annumerantes) The Spirit, therefore, descended upon the above-mentioned disposition, and the only-begotten Son of God, who is also the Word of the Father, when the fullness of time came, incarnate in man for man, and Jesus Christ our Lord fulfilled every disposition according to man, being one and the same, just as the Lord himself testifies, as the apostles confess, and as the prophets announce,--all the doctrines of these men who have invented putative Ogdoads and Tetrads, and imagined subdivisions [of the Lord's person], have been proved falsehoods
There is this sense that the two step process - Son of God going into the womb to make Son of Man then Holy Spirit to go on this Son of God/Man - is entirely directed by the Father.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

18.3 - 4 For in the name of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me," pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit. The Lord Himself, too, makes it evident who it was that suffered; for when He asked the disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?"(16) and when Peter had replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" and when he had been commended by Him [in these words], "That flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven," He made it clear that He, the Son of man, is Christ the Son of the living God. "For from that time forth," it is said, "He began to show to His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem,and suffer many things of the priests, and be rejected, and crucified, and rise again the third day."(1) He who was acknowledged by Peter as Christ, who pronounced him blessed because the Father had revealed the Son of the living God to him, said that He must Himself suffer many things, and be crucified; and then He rebuked Peter, who imagined that He was the Christ as the generality of men supposed(2) [that the Christ should be], and was averse to the idea of His suffering, [and] said to the disciples, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose it for My sake shall save it."(3) For these things Christ spoke openly, He being Himself the Saviour of those who should be delivered over to death for their confession of Him, and lose their lives.

18.5- 7 For this purpose did He give them this exhortation: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to send both soul and body into hell;" to hold fast those professions of faith which they had made in reference to Him. For He promised to confess before His Father those who should confess His name before men; but declared that He would deny those who should deny Him, and would be ashamed of those who should be ashamed to confess Him. And although these things are so, some of these men have proceeded to such a degree of temerity, that they even pour contempt upon the martyrs, and vituperate those who are slain on account of the confession of the Lord, and who suffer all things predicted by the Lord, and who in this respect strive to follow the footprints of the Lord's passion, having become martyrs of the suffering One; these we do also enrol with the martyrs themselves. For, when inquisition shall be made for their blood,(7) and they shall attain to glory, then all shall be confounded by Christ, who have cast a slur upon their martyrdom. And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," the long- suffering, patience, compassion, and goodness of Christ are exhibited, since He both suffered, and did Himself exculpate those who had maltreated Him. For the Word of God, who said to us, "Love your enemies, and pray for those that hate you," Himself did this very thing upon the cross; loving the human race to such a degree, that He even prayed for those putting Him to death. If, however, any one, going upon the supposition that there are two[Christs], forms a judgment in regard to them, that [Christ] shall be found much the better one, and more patient, and the truly good one, who, in the midst of His own wounds and stripes, and the other [cruelties] inflicted upon Him, was beneficent, and unmindful of the wrongs perpetrated upon Him, than he who flew away, and sustained neither injury nor insult. This also does likewise meet [the case] of those who maintain that He suffered only in appearance. For if He did not truly suffer, no thanks to Him, since there was no suffering at all; and when we shall actually begin to suffer, He will seem as leading us astray, exhorting us to endure buffering, and to turn the other cheek, if He did not Himself before us in reality suffer the same; and as He misled them by seeming to them what He was not, so does He also mislead us, by exhorting us to endure what He did not endure Himself. [In that case] we shall be even above the Master, because we suffer and sustain what our Master never bore or endured so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man (vere Filius Dei, et patiens, Verbum Dei Patris filius hominis factus). For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers,(11) and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race. Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.
A few notes.

1. Irenaeus accepts that the Father isn't limited by earth's material basis. So the ultimate god is understood to be 'anoint' the Word with the Holy Spirit.
2. the last line is derived from the understanding in Book 2 and Defense of the Apostolic Doctrine that Jesus was almost 50 when crucified. The underlying source is John. The implication is that the four gospels are necessary because of John. The argument is consistently John helps clarify what was missing or unclear from either Matthew (Ebionites), Mark (unnamed heresy) or Luke (Marcion) alone.
19.1 But again, those who assert that He was a naked man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience,are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father (nondum commixti Verbo Dei Patris) nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons?
I think the emphasis is on "the Word of God the Father." This is why the Carpocratian Jesus/Man is 'naked.'
19.2 For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?" But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering;(7) that He sat upon the foal of an ass;(8) that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;(9) that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.

For as He (the Father) was Man, that he might be tempted; so also the Word, that it might be glorified; even when the Word rested, that it might be tempted, and dishonored, and crucified, and die (Sicut enim homo erat, ut téntaretur; sic et Verbum, ut glorificaretur requiescente quidem Verbo, ‘ut posset tentari, et inhonorari, et crucifigi, et mori) but when Man has been swallowed up in that which he conquers, he sustains, and rises again, and is taken up (absorpto autem homine in eo quod vincit, et sustinet et resurgit, et assumitur). This Son of God, then, our Lord, existing as the Word of the Father, and the Son of Man, since Mary, who had the race of men, and who herself was also a man, had, after the birth of man, been made the Son of man (Hic igitur Filius Dei Dominus noster, exsistens Verbum Patris, et filius hominis: quoniam ex Maria, quae ex hominibus habebat genus, quae et ipsa erat homo, habuit secundum hominem generationem, factus est filius hominis). For this reason the Lord Himself has given us a sign in the depths, in the depth above, which man did not ask, because neither did he hope that a virgin could become pregnant, she was a virgin, and give birth to a son, and that God would be with us when he was looking for the lost sheep, which was his own plasma and ascending to a height, offering and commending to the Father that man who was found (Propter hoc et ipse Dominus dedit nobis signum in profundum, in altitudinem sursum quod non postulavit homo, quia nec speravit virginem praegnantem fieri posse, quae erat virgo, et parere filium, et hunc partum Deum esse nobiscum, et descendere in ea quae sunt deorsum terrae, quaerentem ovem quae perierat, quod quidem erat proprium ipsius plasma, et ascendere in altitudinem, offerentem et commendantem Patri eum hominem, qui fuerat inventus), making in himself the best of the resurrection of man he is found in life, when the time of his condemnation, which was due to his disobedience, rises again (optimitias resurrectionis hominis in semetipso faciens ut quemadmodum caput resurrexit a mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus omnis hominis, qui invenitur in vita, impleto tempore condemnationis ejus, quae erat propter inobedientiam, resurgat), coalescing through joints and conjunctions, and strengthened by the growth of God, each of its members having its own proper and proper posture in the body (per compagines et conjunctiones coalescens, et confirmatum augmento Dei, unoquoque membrorum habente propriam et aptam in corpore positionem). For there are many abodes with the Father, since there are also many members in the body.
Here's how I see it. If you buy into Irenaeus's BS that he's passing on an established system of the apostles than you can overlook the idea that Irenaeus = Sabellius. It's 'faith' that leads to this conclusion. After all, we've already seen Irenaeus inherited TWO systems

(a) Justin's 'two powers' in heaven understanding of an almighty god in heaven and a Logos named Man on the earth who has always engaged with humanity
(b) Papias's understanding that the 'dominical logia' were needed to explain the gospel

Irenaeus innovated insofar as for him the gospel (in four) explained the scriptures = so a variation or inversion of (b) and he innovated with (a) to argue that the Word was just the 'plasma' of the Father.

The point is that you have this basic understanding - a new 'race' of humanity is being created by having Man come down and 'entering the flesh' of human beings. I think this was a universal understanding:

Man + man = new race of humanity.
20.2 And therefore Paul declares, "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all" not saying this about the spiritual Aeons, but about the man who was disobedient to God and cast out of immortality; then he obtained mercy, receiving adoption through the Son of God, who is through him. For he who holds without puffing and boasting, the true glory of those things which were made, and of him who made (= the Father), who is the most powerful God of all, and who pre-eminent in all that they may be; and remaining in his love, and subjection, and thanksgiving, he will receive greater glory from him, accepting the advanced one, while he becomes like to the one who died for him; for he also became in the likeness of the flesh of sin, to condemn sin, and to cast it out of the flesh as if condemned (Hic enim tenens sine inflatione et jactantia veram gloriam de his quae facta sunt, et de eo qui fecit, qui est potentissimus omnium Deus, quique omnibus ut sint praestitit; et manens in dilectione ejus, et subjectione, et gratiarum actione, majorem ab eo gloriam percipiet, provectus accipiens, dum consimilis fiat ejus qui pro eo mortuus est; quoniam et ipse in ssimilitudinem carnis peccati factus est, uti condemnaret peccatum, et jam quasi condemnatum projiceret illud extra carnem provocaret) but as a man in his own likeness, assigning him an imitator to God, and imposing his rule upon his father, to see God and to receive the Father, forgiving the Word of God which dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, so that he might be accustomed to perceive God as man, and become accustomed to God to dwell in man; according to the pleasure of the Father (autem in similitudinem suam hominem, imitatorem eum assignans Deo, et in paternam imponens regulam, ad videndum Deum et capere Patrem donans Verbum Dei quod habitavit in homine, et Filius hominis factus est, ut assuesceret hominem percipere Deum, et assuesceret Deum habitare in homine, secundum placitum Patris).
This seems to derive from Marcionism:
23.1 It was necessary, therefore, that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep, and making recapitulation of so comprehensive a dispensation, and seeking after His own handiwork, should save that very man who had been created after His image and likeness, that is, Adam, filling up the times of His condemnation, which had been incurred through disobedience,--[times] "which the Father had placed in His own power."(11) [This was necessary,] too, inasmuch as the whole economy of salvation regarding man came to pass according to the good pleasure of the Father, in order that God might not be conquered, nor His wisdom lessened, [in the estimation of His creatures.] For if man, who had been created by God that he might live, after losing life, through being injured by the serpent that had corrupted him, should not any more return to life, but should be utterly [and for ever] abandoned to death, God would [in that case] have been conquered, and the wickedness of the serpent would have prevailed over the will of God. But inasmuch as God is invincible and long- suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods,(1) and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan's) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under colour of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation.
The last chapter in Book 3 also deals with Marcionism:
1. God does, however, exercise a providence over all things, and therefore He also gives counsel; and when giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline. It follows then of course, that the things which are watched over and governed should be acquainted with their ruler; which things are not irrational or vain, but they have understanding derived from the providence of God. And, for this reason certain of the Gentiles, who were less addicted to [sensual] allurements and voluptuousness, and were not led away to such a degree of superstition with regard to idols, being moved, though but slightly, by His providence, were nevertheless convinced that they should call the Maker of this universe the Father, who exercises a providence over all things, and arranges the affairs of our world.

2. Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment.

3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice, nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.

4. The God, therefore, who does benevolently cause His sun to rise upon all, and sends rain upon the just and unjust, shall judge those who, enjoying His equally distributed kindness, have led lives not corresponding to the dignity of His bounty; but who have spent their days in wantonness and luxury, in opposition to His benevolence, and have, moreover, even blasphemed Him who has conferred so great benefits upon them.

5. Plato is proved to be more religious than these men, for he allowed that the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and Himself executing judgment, expressing himself thus, "And God indeed, as He is also the ancient Word, possessing the beginning, the end, and the mean of all existing things, does everything rightly, moving round about them according to their nature; but retributive justice always follows Him against those who depart from the divine law." Then, again, he points out that the Maker and Framer of the universe is good. "And to the good," he says, "no envy ever springs up with regard to anything;"(6) thus establishing the goodness of God, as the beginning and the cause of the creation of the world, but not ignorance, nor an erring Aeon, nor the consequence of a defect, nor the Mother weeping and lamenting, nor another God or Father.

6. Well may their Mother bewail them, as capable of conceiving and inventing such things for they have worthily uttered this falsehood against themselves, that their Mother is beyond the Pleroma, that is beyond the knowledge of God, and that their entire multitude became a shapeless and crude abortion: for it apprehends nothing of the truth; it falls into void and darkness: for their wisdom (Sophia) was void, and wrapped up in darkness; and Horos did not permit her to enter the Pleroma: for the Spirit (Achamoth) did not receive them into the place of refreshment. For their father, by begetting ignorance, wrought in them the sufferings of death. We do not misrepresent [their opinions on] these points; but they do themselves confirm, they do themselves teach, they do glory in them, they imagine a lofty [mystery] about their Mother, whom they represent as having been begotten without a father, that is, without God, a female from a female, that is, corruption from error.

7. We do indeed pray that these men may not remain in the pit which they themselves have dug, but separate themselves from a Mother of this nature, and depart from Bythus, and stand away from the void, and relinquish the shadow; and that they, being converted to the Church of God, may be lawfully begotten, and that Christ may be formed in them, and that they may know the Framer and Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of all. We pray for these things on their behalf, loving them better than they seem to love themselves. For our love, inasmuch as it is true, is salutary to them, if they will but receive it. It may be compared to a severe remedy, extirpating the proud and sloughing flesh of a wound; for it puts an end to their pride and haughtiness. Wherefore it shall not weary us, to endeavour with all our might to stretch out the hand unto them. Over and above what has been already stated, I have deferred to the following book, to adduce the words of the Lord; if, by convincing some among them, through means of the very instruction of Christ, I may succeed in persuading them to abandon such error, and to cease from blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
It is an unusual way to end the Third Book.
Post Reply