Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

As I noted earlier, I think the reason Irenaeus PRINCIPALLY developed Against Heresies against the Valentinians was a tactical decision. There are some basic 'facts':

1. the Pentateuch
2. the rest of the Jewish writings
3. the gospel
4. the letters of Paul
5. the rest of the New Testament

Christians strangely agreed with respect to (1) that the god depicted as engaging with the Patriarchs was Man the divine Word. The had some inkling that the Hebrew word אּישׁ. For instance the visitors to Abraham, the 'man' who wrestled with Jacob etc. There is evidence that Justin, Marcion and many others had this understanding in the second century. Irenaeus also shared this understanding of the word אּישׁ but his effort was to get away from the implicit understanding that there was 'man' and another God. So Irenaeus made this other understanding in Christianity where the Father was 'Man' and the man who came out of Mary's womb was the 'Son of Man.'

This effort to 'streamline' Christianity seems very "Jewish' to me. The Jews read the Pentateuch in a similar way - i.e. there is one God. He was somehow 'there' with the Israelites.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

My theory would be with respect to Against Heresies is that whoever the final author was:

1. he took a stand alone 'Syntagma Against Heresies' which went back to Justin
2. 're-contextualized' it with the addition of an anti-Valentinian treatise (which still exists in its original 'stand-alone' form in Tertullian's Against the Valentians
3. thereby augmenting the original 'the Valentinians are inventing a plethora of gods of (2) with the addition of (1) = not only are the heresies multiplying gods but the heresies are also multiplying the number of sects

In other words there is a noticeable monarchian POV to Against Heresies as a whole. The final editor is developing a work which is all about 'the One.' In other words, there is One god (= God Father + Son of God), One Church both of which augmented into 'many gods, many sects.'

This becomes apparent throughout Book One. For instance 1.4 after a lengthy discussion of the Valentinian understanding of the fall of Sophia separating matter from the Father:
And others of them (sects), with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Then after a lengthy discussion of the Valentinian interpretation of John chapter 1 he begins his criticism of their beliefs:
The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten (i.e. Irenaeus's understanding that 'Father' and 'Son' are ONE BEING), by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,--these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma. Thus it is that, wresting from the truth every one of the expressions which have been cited, and taking a bad advantage of the names, they have transferred them to their own system; so that, according to them, in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ.For if he has named the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia, according to their hypothesis, he has, by thus speaking, referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus/Man, and no Christ, the teacher of John. But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus/Man Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the AEons], and was of later date than the Word.
The problem here is that it becomes difficult for us to follow Irenaeus's train of thought because we assume that our reading of John 1 is the same as Irenaeus. It is definitely not. Here is John 1.
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.
I would argue that Irenaeus, as I learn from Novatian's criticism of 'Sabellius' (whom I take to be one and the same with Irenaeus) that 'God' here means 'the Father.' Novatian and Sabellius were arguing over an interpretation of John 1. So Irenaeus is said that what John really means is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the Father], and the Word was [the Father]. He was with [the Father] in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Irenaeus is saying the Valentinians say:

1. Jesus and Man (Anthropos) are two separate beings (Irenaeus criticizes the Valentinians for their 'Jesus' doctrine many times in AH)
2. Jesus only appears when the Son of God became Incarnate (because of John 1.14
3. the Father was part of the original Ogdoad

But then he adds immediately afterwards (in his own voice)
Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus/Man who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh.
The point here is that Irenaeus is clearly arguing for:
1. a unity of Father and Son FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. In other words just as the Valentinians have 8 powers as One (Depth/Silence, Mind/Truth, Word/Life, Man/Church) and four 'male' powers (Depth, Mind, Word, Man) THERE WAS ONLY ONE GOD (= the Father who was Man the Word).
2. when Irenaeus says that "Jesus/Man who suffered for us and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God" we already know that with respect to the Incarnation Irenaeus says over and over again that Man, the Father implanted the 'Son of God' seed into the womb of Mary to make the resultant child a 'Son of Man.' He says this over and over in Book Three.
3. in other words, it is inescapable that the 'He' in the sentence "(He) who suffered for us and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God" is the Father so in explicitly plain words Irenaeus is saying that the Father suffered - viz. Book One of Against Heresies confirms that Irenaeus is the original exponent of Patripassianism.
Remember also that in explicit terms in both Book 1 and 3 the Valentinians are claiming to have the correct exegesis of John 1. The Gospel of John was not a universally accepted gospel especially in Rome. Let's say half of the Church didn't accept the gospel for argument's sake. Irenaeus tells all the sects TWICE in Against Heresies the Gospel of John 'corrects' your belief that Jesus was 30. Who was saying that Jesus was 30? Who was interpreting the 'year of favor' as a one year ministry? Pretty much everyone. We see in other places too the Gospel of John is a 'correct-all' for all heresies. Everyone has to accept the gospel in four to know the truth that Jesus was really 'almost 50.' The Valentinians already accept the Gospel of John but need to correct their exegesis.

In fact I would argue that the twice cited argument related to Jesus being almost 50 goes back to Patripassianism. In Book Three Irenaeus says it was necessary that:
For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him (the Father) 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 'every stage of life' mean? Clearly (as one who became a father) it means that this Man, "Son of God" who became Son of Man also became a father (i.e. after making us 'his sons'). In Book Two the argument is presented with respect to the word Magister in Latin:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a magister He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a magister. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify ... But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.
While there is no explicit identification of Jesus/Man as a 'father' because of his age (= fifty) it is clearly implied throughout. For instance even the emphasis in John 8 of Abraham as the 'father' of the Jews and Christians having another Father through Jesus:
I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Jesus’ Claims About Himself
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”


When taken in its totality then Irenaeus's argument is clearly that Jesus/Man has to be almost 50 to manifest 'the Father' to his disciples, the Jews in this scene and 'us' insofar as we are his 'sons.' To that end, in no uncertain terms we can be sure that Irenaeus understood that Jesus/Man was the father, the Word of God and that he - the Father - also suffered on the Cross.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

In the previous post I demonstrated how Irenaeus's Against Heresies was the source for the idea 'Patripassians' held the Father was crucified. Now I would like to address Novatians repeated claim that Sabellius held that only the Father was God. From Book 1:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God - the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God - and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus/Man, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning, and others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason "God hath concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;" and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that "this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption;"(6) and proclaim in what sense [God] says, "'That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved;"(7) and in what sense He says that "more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband."(8) For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: "Oh! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring AEon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of AEons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Another section from Irenaeus Book 1 that seems to have this 'Sabellian' add-on quality:
The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth." And again, "All things were made by Him (= the Father), and without Him was nothing made. There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,--He who formed the world (for the world is of all),--He who fashioned man,--He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,--He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove. Holding, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry,--thus proving themselves ungrateful to Him that created them. Moreover, they despise the workmanship of God, speaking against their own salvation, becoming their own bitterest accusers, and being false witnesses [against themselves]. Yet, reluctant as they may be, these men shall one day rise again in the flesh, to confess the power of Him who raises them from the dead; but they shall not be numbered among the righteous on account of their unbelief.
I happen to think that these four sections:
1.3.6
1.9.2 - 3
1.10.1 - 3
1.22.1
represent a later rewriting of the original anti-Valentinian treatise. They are not to be found in Tertullian's Against the Valentinians so what I suppose is that someone combined two possibly three treatises (a) a Greek proto-Against the Valentinians (b) an Against the Marcosians to a reworking of Justin's Syntagma. As I said the 'polytheistic' character of the Valentinian sect lent itself to Irenaeus/Sabellius's argumentation.

I want the reader to notice here against that Irenaeus's presupposes that 'God' in John 1 is the Father - something which Novatian criticizes 'Sabellius' for. I also want to correct something I said previous mainly that Irenaeus must suppose that 'Man' was the name of the Father. I think it is clear that Irenaeus still holds it to be the name of the Logos.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Does Irenaeus only identify the Father as 'God' (like Sabellius)?

Book 1
These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein [1 pref] Yes

Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. "For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known." [1.pref] ?

. And others(13) of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [1.3.6] Yes

Some of them, moreover, are in the habit of defiling those women to whom they have taught the above doctrine, as has frequently been confessed by those women who have been led astray by certain of them, on their returning to the Church of God, and acknowledging this along with the rest of their errors. [1.6.3] ?

And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons [1.6.4] ?

In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. [1.8.1]?

The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,--these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. [1.9.2] Yes

Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. [1.9.3] Yes

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"(7) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"(8) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," [1.10.1] Yes

It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient(2) for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten ... and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason "God(3) hath concluded every man(4) in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;" and gratefully(5) describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles [1.10.3] Yes

But who will tolerate thy nonsensical Sige, who names Him that cannot be named, and expounds the nature of Him that is unspeakable, and searches out Him that is unsearchable, and declares that He whom thou maintainest to be destitute of body and form, opened His mouth and sent forth the Word, as if He were included among organized beings; and that His Word, while like to His Author, and bearing the image of the invisible, nevertheless consisted of thirty elements and four syllables? It will follow, then, according to thy theory, that the Father of all, in accordance with the likeness of the Word, consists of thirty elements and four syllables! Or, again, who will tolerate thee in thy juggling with forms and numbers,--at one time thirty, at another twenty-four, and at another, again, only six,--whilst thou shuttest up [in these] the Word of God, the Founder, and Framer, and Maker of all things [1.15.4] Yes

For they falsely hold, that the Creator was seen by the prophets. But this passage, "No man shall see God and live," they would interpret as spoken of His greatness unseen and unknown by all; and indeed that these words, "No man shall see God," are spoken concerning the invisible Father, the Maker of the universe, is evident to us all; but that they are not used concerning that Bythus whom they conjure into existence, but concerning the Creator (and He is the invisible God), shall be shown as we proceed. [1.19.2] Yes

The rule(2) of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth."(3) And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."(4) There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal(5) things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,--He who formed the world (for the world is of all),--He who fashioned man,--He [who](6) is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,--He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove. Holding, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry,--thus proving themselves ungrateful to Him that created them. Moreover, they despise the workmanship of God, speaking against their own salvation, becoming their own bitterest accusers, and being false witnesses [against themselves]. Yet, reluctant as they may be, these men shall one day rise again in the flesh, to confess the power of Him who raises them from the dead; but they shall not be numbered among the righteous on account of their unbelief. [1.22.1] Yes

He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent.

2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. [1.27.1] I can see it

It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drown away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. [1.31.3]
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Praxeas:
1. He (Praxeas) says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, himself was born of her, himself suffered, in short himself is Jesus Christ.
There are certainly passages in Irenaeus that sound like he is saying this. So does this:
The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the temptation : If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread 1: again, If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down from hence, for it is written that he - the Father, of course - hath given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a stone.2 Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let Matthew and Luke see to it: I for my part approached God himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation: otherwise, if it had been <only> God's son, perhaps I should not have demeaned myself < to tempt> him"?
Could Praxeas have been Polycarp:
puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited nothing, since he had not the love of God4 whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts. Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business: he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.
He says:
But seeing they will have it that the two are one, so that the Father and the Son are to be considered identical, we must also examine the whole <question> concerning the Son, whether he is, and who he is, and in what manner he is, and thus the fact itself will establish its own legality by the advocacy of , the scriptures and the interpretations of them. Certain people affirm that in Hebrew Genesis begins, In the beginning God made for himself a son.
Irenaeus writes in the Defense of the Apostolic Preaching:
So then we must believe God in all things, for in all things God is true. Now that there was a Son of God, and that He existed not only before He appeared in the world, but also before the world was made, Moses, who was the first that prophesied [164] says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares. And this, translated into our language, [165] is: "The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth." [166] This Jeremiah the prophet also testified, saying thus: Before the morning-star I begat thee:and before the sun&gt; (is) thy name; and that is, before the creation of the world; for together with the world the stars were made. And again the same says: Blessed is he who was, before he became man. Because, for God, the Son was (as) the beginning before the creation of the world; but for us (He was) then, when He appeared; and before that He was not for us, who knew Him not. Wherefore also His disciple John, in teaching us who is the Son of God, who was with the Father before the world was made, and that all the things that were made were made by Him, says thus: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made: showing with certainty that the Word, who was in the beginning with the Father, and by whom all things were made, this is His Son.
The identification of the poor translation of Genesis 1:1 with the Sabellians is important. It narrows down the possibilities to Irenaeus and the author of Jason and Papiscus. It is interesting that the author of that work is also identified as 'Luke' and Irenaeus is the first person to cite Luke. The circle narrows ever more around Irenaeus.

It is noteworthy that while Irenaeus's Hebrew translation is unworkable the Valentinian understanding of aeons is not completely ridiculous. Instead of reading barashith as 'in the beginning' it has long been read as 'he created six.' (bara shith). In other words, The Father + Son + 6 = an ogdoad.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Praxeas 10 This is how these maintain the monarchy, who retain neither the Father nor the Son. "But", they says, "to God nothing is difficult." Who does not know it? and who is not aware that things impossible with the world are possible with God ? 1 Also God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things that are wise.2 We have read it all. "Consequently", they say, "it was not difficult for God to make himself both father and son, contrary to the law, traditional in human affairs: for it was not difficult for God, contrary to nature, to cause the barren woman to bear - or even the virgin."
Irenaeus AH 2.10. 4 For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God."(2) While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.

AH 4.20.4

There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things; but this is the Creator (Demiurge) who has granted this world to the human race, and who, as regards His greatness, is indeed unknown to all who have been made by Him (for no man has searched out His height, either among the ancients who have gone to their rest, or any of those who are now alive); but as regards His love, He is always known through Him by whose means He ordained all things. Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. Wherefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the flesh, by which the blending and communion of God and man took place according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with them upon earth, should confer with them, and should be present with His own creation, saving it, and becoming capable of being perceived by it, and freeing us from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of wickedness; and causing us to serve Him in holiness and righteousness all our days,(12) in order that man, having embraced the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father. These things did the prophets set forth in a prophetical manner; but they did not, as some allege, [proclaim] that He who was seen by the prophets was a different [God], the Father of all being invisible. Yet this is what those [heretics] declare, who are altogether ignorant of the nature of prophecy. For prophecy is a prediction of things future, that is, a setting forth beforehand of those things which shall be afterwards. The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."(1) But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live,"(2) for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict. "For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God."(3) For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son

5.5.2 If, however, any one imagine it impossible that men should survive for such a length of time, and that Elias was not caught up in the flesh, but that his flesh was consumed in the fiery chariot, let him consider that Jonah, when he had been cast into the deep, and swallowed down into the whale's belly, was by the command of God again thrown out safe upon the land.(3) And then, again, when Ananias, Azarias, and Misael were cast into the furnace of fire sevenfold heated, they sustained no harm whatever, neither was the smell of fire perceived upon them. As, therefore, the hand of God was present with them, working out marvellous things in their case--[things] impossible [to be accomplished] by man's nature--what wonder was it, if also in the case of those who were translated it performed something wonderful, working in obedience to the will of God, even the Father? Now this is the Son of God, as the Scripture represents Nebuchadnezzar the king as having said, "Did not we cast three men bound into the furnace? and, lo, I do see four walking in the midst of the fire, and the fourth is like the Son of God."(4) Neither the nature of any created thing, therefore, nor the weakness of the flesh, can prevail against the will of God. For God is not subject to created things, but created things to God; and all things yield obedience to His will. Wherefore also the Lord declares, "The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God."(5) As, therefore, it might seem to the men of the present day, who are ignorant of God's appointment, to be a thing incredible and impossible that any man could live for such a number of years, yet those who were before us did live [to such an age], and those who were translated do live as an earnest of the future length of days; and [as it might also appear impossible] that from the whale's belly and from the fiery furnace men issued forth unhurt, yet they nevertheless did so, led forth as it were by the hand of God, for the purpose of declaring His power: so also now, although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead; to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Praxeas 11
But it will be your duty to prove it as openly from the scriptures as we prove that he made his own Word his Son. For if he calls him Son, while the Son will be no other than he who came forth from him, and the Word came forth from him, this <Word> will be the Son, not he from whom the Wordy came forth: for he did not himself come forth from himself.
Irenaeus's system indeed supposes that the Father came forth from himself as the Son.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Praxeas 12
If you are still offended by the plurality of the Trinity, on the ground that it is not combined in simple unity, I ask you how it, is that one only single <person> speaks in the plural, Let us make man after our image and likeness,1 when he ought to have said, Let me make man after my image and likeness, as being one only single <person>. Also in what follows, Behold, Adam is become as one of us,2 he is deceptive or joking in speaking in the plural while being one and alone and singular. Or was he speaking to the angels, as the Jews explain it, because they, like you, do not recognise the Son? Or, because he was himself father-son-spirit, did he for that reason make himself plural and speak to himself in the plural? Nay rather, because there already was attached to him the Son, a second Person, his Word, and a third Person, the Spirit in the Word, for that reason he spoke in the plural, Let us make, and Our, and Of us. For in whose company was he making man, and like whom was he making him? He was speaking with the Son who was to assume manhood, and the Spirit who was to sanctify man, as with ministers and mediators in consequence of the unity of the Trinity.
Irenaeus 4.20.1

It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;"(1) He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

Post by Secret Alias »

Against Praxeas 12
Why not "his own image", if the maker was one, and there was none in whose image he was making him? But there was one in whose image he was making him, the Son's in fact, who because he was to be the surer and truer man caused that man to be called his image who at that time had to be formed of clay, as the image and similitude of the true.4 But also in the preceding works of the world, how is it written ? At first, while the Son is not yet on the scene, And God said, Let there be light, and it was made.5 The Word himself is in first instance the true light that lighteneth the man that cometh into this world 6 and through him also the mundane light comes to bed. But from then on in the Word, <that is>, with Christ as assistant and minister, God wished things to be made, and God made them:
The argument between Irenaeus (Sabellius) and the author of this treatise and Novatian is over whether 'the Father' was always one with the Son. Irenaeus makes clear that 'God' in John 1 and Genesis 1:1 - 2 is the Father. Like the later Arians "there was a time when the Son wasn't" - literally the verses Genesis 1:1 - 2. To that end, the 'offense' of Irenaeus/Sabellius was to argue for complete unity of Father/Son.
Post Reply