Parallel Scriptural Interpretations in Sabellius and Irenaeus

[Secret Alias]

It's impossible not to think that Irenaeus is being singled out here in Against Praxeas

"Consequently", you say, "if God spake and God made, if one God spake and another made, two gods are preached." If you are so stubborn, keep on thinking so for a time. And, to give you more cause to think it, hear how also in a psalm two are called gods: Thy throne, O God, is for ever, a sceptre of direction is the sceptre of thy kingdom ; thou hast loved righteousness and hatest iniquity, wherefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee." If he is speaking to God, and to God anointed by God, here also he affirms that two are gods. Concerning this also Isaiah <speaks>, regarding the person of Christ, And the Sabaans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee and shall follow after thee with their hands in chains and shall worship thee because God is in thee; for thou art our God and we knew it not, O God of Israel.5 For here also, by saying God is in thee, and Thou O God, he sets forth two, him who was in Christ, and Christ himself. It is of more moment that in the Gospel you will find the same number: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God : there is one who "was", and another "within whom" he was. Also I read the name Lord applied to two: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.7 And Isaiah says this: Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? 1 For he would have said "thy arm", not "arm of the Lord", unless he had wished us to understand Lord the Father and Lord the Son. Also Genesis, of still older date: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven from the Lord.2 Either deny that these things are written, or who are you that you should think they must not be accepted as they are written, especially those which have their meaning not in allegories and parables but in clearly defined and simple statements?

compare Novatian: And after I this he hears also that he should be a father, and learns that Sarah his wife should bring forth a son by him; and acknowledges concerning the destruction of the people of Sodom, what they deserve to suffer; and learns that God had come down on account of the cry of Sodom. in which place, if they will have it that the Father was seen at that time to have been received with hospitality in company with two angels, the heretics have believed the Father to be visible. But if an angel, although of the three angels one is called Lord, why, although it is not usual, is an angel called God? Unless because, in order that His proper invisibility may be restored to the Father, and the proper inferiority be remitted to the angel, it was only God the Son, who also is God, who was seen by Abraham, and was believed to have been received with hospitality. For He anticipated sacramentally what He was hereafter to become. He was made a of Abraham, being about to be among the sons of Abraham. And his children's feet, by way of proving what He was, He washed; returning in the children the claim of hospitality which formerly the Father had put out to interest to Him. Whence also, that there might be no doubt but that it was He who was the of Abraham on the destruction of the people of Sodom, it is declared: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For thus also said the prophet in the person of God: I have overthrown you, as the Lord overturned Sodom and Gomorrha. Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire. And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.

Irenaeus: 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."(4) 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."(5) 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."(3) 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."(7)

Against Praxeas Also I read the name Lord applied to two: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.7 And Isaiah says this: Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord. Also Genesis, of still older date: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven from the Lord.2 Either deny that these things are written, or who are you that you should think they must not be
accepted as they are written, especially those which have their meaning not in allegories and parables but in clearly defined and simple statements? But if you are of those who on one occasion did not tolerate our Lord when he showed himself to be the Son of God, for fear of having to believe that he is the Lord,3 recollect, along with them that it is written, I said, Ye are gods and sons of the Most High 4; and, God standeth in the congregation of the gods

So the author of Against Praxeas has a different understanding than Novatian regarding HOW there are two gods but they both take issue with Irenaeus's understanding of the inseparability of the Father and Son because of the passage. But look at the parallels:

Psalm 110:1 Irenaeus YES Against Praxeas YES Novatian YES
Genesis 19:24 Irenaeus YES Against Praxeas YES Novatian YES
Psalm 82.1 Irenaeus YES Against Praxeas YES Novatian YES
Psalm 82:6 Irenaeus YES Against Praxeas YES Novatian YES

Is the passage in Irenaeus originally part of AH? Or was it a kind of deflection effort. Doesn't really fit the 'flow' of the material before and after it.

[Secret Alias]

I think I found the smoking gun. Just need the Latin of Irenaeus. First Against Praxeas:

Let this blasphemy be silent, be silent. Let it be enough to say that Christ the Son of God died, and this <only> because it is so written. For the apostle, while stating not without risk that Christ died, adds According to the scriptures, so as by the authority of the scriptures to soften the hardness of the statement 8 and avert offence to the hearer. And yet, since in Christ Jesus there are assessed two substances, a divine and a human, and it is admitted that the divine is immortal, as that that which is human is mortal, it is evident in what respect he says he died, namely in that he is flesh and man and Son of Man, not in that he is spirit and Word and Son of God. By saying then that Christ - that is, the anointed - died, he makes it clear that that which was anointed died, that is, the flesh. "So", you say, "we also who, by the same reasoning as you, say that the Son <died>, do not blaspheme against the Lord God ; for we say that he died not in respect of his divine but of his human substance." Yet you do blaspheme, not only because you say the Father died but also because <you say he was> crucified. For by converting Christ into the Father you blaspheme against the Father with that curse upon one crucified 1 which by the Law accrues to the Son, because it was Christ, not the Father, who was made a curse for us

Irenaeus:

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 your meat for whom Christ died. Romans 14:15 And again: But now, in Christ, you who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of Christ. Ephesians 2:13 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 hangs upon a tree. Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23 And again: And through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died; 1 Corinthians 8:11 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 does 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 has anointed me, Isaiah 61:1 — pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit.

Against Praxeas goes on to say:

Whereas we, when we say that Christ was crucified, curse him not, but relate the curse of the Law, because neither did the apostle blaspheme when he said this. But just as a thing said of anyone of whom it may appropriately be said is said without blasphemy, so what is not appropriate is blasphemy if it is said. Consequently neither did the Father suffer with the Son. In fact because they are ashamed of direct blasphemy against the Father, they hope it may in this manner be mitigated, while they now admit that Father and Son are two if indeed in this fashion the Son suffers while the Father suffers with <him>. In this also are they fools. For what is "compassion" except "suffering with" another? Further, if the Father is impassible he is of course incompassible or if he is compassible he is of course passible. So you do him no benefit by this fear of yours. For you fear to call passible him whom you do call compassible. But the Father is just as incompassible as the Son also is impassible as regards that state in which he is God.

[Secret Alias]

The thesis has been developed before Stuart George Hall, “Praxeas and Irenaeus,” Studia Patristica 14.3 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976), 145–147.

[Secret Alias]

Against Noetus. This pretty much nails it.

And then they answer in this manner: If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself. But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written: This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men. You see, then, he says, that this is God, who is the only One, and who afterwards did show Himself, and con-versed with men. And in another place he says, Egypt has laboured; and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto you, (and they shall be slaves to you); and they shall come after you bound with manacles, and they shall fall down unto you, because God is in you; and they shall make supplication unto you: and there is no God beside you. For You are God, and we knew not; God of Israel, the Saviour. Do you see, he says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, he says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, he says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. [Against Noetus 2]

Irenaeus Epid 97 "He is separated and withdrawn from among men, and (yet) there is a separation and division among mankind; and wheresoever any of those who believe on Him shall invoke and call upon Him and do His will, He is near and present, fulfilling the requests of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. Whereby receiving salvation, we continually give thanks to God, who by His great, inscrutable and unsearchable wisdom delivered us, and proclaimed the salvation from heaven ---- to wit, the visible coming of our Lord, that is, His living as man ----to which we by ourselves could not attain: for the things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Wherefore also Jeremiah saith concerning her (i. e. wisdom): Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, found her, and will bring her for choice gold? There is none that hath found her way, nor any that comprehendeth her path. But he that knoweth all things knoweth her by his understanding: he that prepareth the earth for evermore, hath filled it with four-footed beasts: he that sendeth forth the light and it goeth; he called it, and it obeyed him with fear: and the stars shined in their watches, and were glad: he called them, and they said Here we be; they shined with gladness unto him that made them. This is our God: there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with him. He hath found out every way by knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel that is beloved of him. Afterward did he appear upon earth, and was conversant with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die. Now by Jacob and Israel he means the Son of God, who received power from the Father over our life, and after having received this brought it down to us who were far off from Him, when He (the Father) appeared on earth and was conversant with men, mingling and mixing the Spirit of God the Father with the creature formed by God that man might be after the image and likeness of God.

[Secret Alias]

How many references are there from the Book of Baruch in the Church Fathers?

Baruch 1,1 - 2 Hippolytus Romanus (?) Chronicon
Baruch 1, 11 Origen Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri XII-XIII (lat.)
Baruch 2, 17 Origenes In Isaiam homiliae XXII
Baruch 3, 9 - 10, 13, 15 Homiliae in Ieremiam (gr.) 7 3 (p.348, l.41 - < >) BP3, In Exodum homiliae XIII (latine Rufino interprete) 7 2
Baruch 3, 16, 19 Clemens Alexandrinus Paedagogus 2 36 § 4 (p.179, l.4) BP1
Baruch 3, 36 - 4, 1 Hippolytus Romanus De benedictionibus Isaaci et Iacobi et Moysis (georg.et arm.) 2 (p.132, l.6 - /) BP2, Hippolytus Romanus (?) Contra Noetum 2 (p.237, l.13 - *<) BP2, 5 (p.243, l.15, l.17 - <) BP2, Cyprianus episcopus Carthaginiensis Ad Quirinum (1) 2 6 (p.35, l.17 - < )) BP2, Origenes Libri X in Canticum canticorum 2 (p.120, l.2) BP3, Origenes Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri X-XVII 16 26 (p.562, l.2) BP3, Irenaeus Lugdunensis 97 (p.166, l.12) BP1
Baruch 4, 7 Origenes In Numeros homiliae XXVIII (2nd éd.) 17 1 (p.154, l.7 - < /) BP3
Baruch 4, 36 Origenes In Leuiticum homiliae XVI (latine interprete Rufino) 9 10 (p.438, l.22) BP3
Baruch 6, 3 - 5Tertullianus Scorpiace 8 § 5 (p.1083, l.13) BP1

[Secret Alias]

Can't find this Hippolytus Romanus De benedictionibus Isaaci et Iacobi et Moysis.

Ad Quirinum That remission cannot in the Church be granted unto him who has sinned against God (i.e., the Holy Ghost). In the Gospel according to Matthew: "Whosoever shall say a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come."(14) Also according to Mark: "All sins shall be forgiven, and blasphemies, to the sons of men; but whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, but he shall be guilty of eternal sin."(15) Of this same thing in the first book of Kings: "If a man sin by offending against a man, they shall pray the Lord for him; but if a man sin against God, who shall pray for him?"(16) 29. That it was before predicted, concerning the hatred of the Name, In the Gospel according to Luke: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake."(17) Also according to John: "If the world hate you, know ye that it first hated me. If ye were of the world, the world would love what would be its own: but because ye are not of the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word which I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you."(18) Also in Baruch:(19) "For the time shall come, and ye shall seek me, both ye and those who shall be after you, to hear the word of wisdom and of understanding; and ye shall not find me. But the nations shall desire to see the wise man, and it shall not happen to them; not because the wisdom of this world shall be wanting, or shall fail to the earth; but neither shall the word of the law be wanting to the world. For wisdom shall be in a few who watch, and are silent and quiet, and who hold converse with one another; because some shall dread them, and shall fear them as evil. But some do not believe the word of the law of the Highest. But some who are amazed in their countenance will not believe; and they also who contradict will believe, and will be contrary to and hindering the spirit of truth. Moreover, others will be wise to the spirit of error, and declaring the edicts, as if of the Highest and the Strong One. Moreover, others are possessors of faith.(1) Others are mighty and strong in the faith of the Highest, and hateful to the stranger." 30. That what any one has vowed to God, he must quickly repay.

Of no relevance that I can see. The Origen reference is not there. Hengel says Irenaeus TWICE references Baruch. 97 of the Defense of the Apostolic Preaching and 4.20.4 of Against Heresies https://books.google.com/books?id=LUmGZ ... en&f=false

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, in order that man, having embraced the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father.

The implication is that the Word does the 'foretelling' through the prophets but that the Father, the Creator, would come down in the person of the Logos as Jesus/Man. Irenaeus's references consistently echo the Sabellian use of Baruch.

[Secret Alias]

I found someone who picked up on the Noetus/Irenaeus use of Baruch. https://brill.com/view/journals/vc/70/4 ... p401_3.xml

After adducing prooftexts to assert that there is only one God, Noetus and his disciples moved into an exegetical argument about the appearances of God—which is paralleled to a certain extent in the rabbinic “two powers” material I examine below. The Noetians used two main passages to discuss the appearances of God: Baruch 3:36-38 and Isaiah 45:14-15. Hippolytus records their use of Baruch:

But they also proclaim by other witnesses, saying, “Thus it is written, ‘This is our God; another will not be reckoned before him. He sought out every path of knowledge and he gave it to Jacob his child and to Israel, the one beloved by him. After these things he was seen upon the earth and lived alongside humans.’” “Therefore you see,” he says, “that this is the only God who was later both seen and who lived with humans.”28.

The Noetians used this passage to claim that the one God became visible on earth and conversed with humans.29 The Noetians used Isaiah 45:14-15 in a similar manner. Hippolytus writes, “But in another [place],” he said, “it says, ‘Egypt grew weary and markets of Ethiopians and the Sabaean men will cross over, and they will be your slaves; and they will be carried back by you having been bound in handcuffs; and they will worship you because God is in you and they will pray to you; and there is no god other than you. For you are God, and we did not know, the God of Israel, the savior.’” "See" he says "how the Scriptures proclaim one God, the one shown visibly."30

In both of these passages, there is an assertion that the God of Israel became visible on earth. The choice of these passages is elucidated by the sort of arguments Justin makes in the Dialogue with Trypho. Consider Justin's interpretation of Genesis 18:1 - 3:

Moses, then, that faithful and blessed servant of God, tells us that he who appeared to Abraham under the oak tree of Mamre was God, sent, with two accompanying angels, to judge Sodom by another, who forever abides in the super-celestial regions, who has never been seen by any man, and with whom no man has ever conversed, and whom we call Creator of all and Father.31

Justin starts with the assertion that the God of Israel is invisible and then states that God did, in fact, appear on earth.32 These premises then form the foundation for his argument that for God to have been seen on earth, there must have been another God who was visible. The passages that the Noetians chose are perfectly suited to contest Justin's interpretation of the theophanies. For the Noetians, the Baruch passage is unambiguous. It affirms that there is one God using a classic formula that echoes the refrain of Isaiah 44:6:

This is our God another will note be reckoned before Him." After clearly identifying the one God, the passage states that this God was seen and lived on earth. Within the exegetical context of the late-second century, the Noetians must have viewed this passage as a ready-made refutation of the Christological interpretation of the theophanies. In their exegesis, Isaiah 44:14-15 has a similar aim; although it is not as explicit as the passage from Baruch.33

One thing that stands out of course is that the author identifies a pattern I've already noted with Irenaeus - namely the 'building out' of the Noetian dialogue from the writings of Justin, something I've already noted about Irenaeus's exegesis. In other words, Irenaeus took the Logos in Justin (where there are obviously two powers - i.e. the Father and the Son/Logos/Man - and just 'flatlined' the process so that the Son/Logos/Man is a mere extension of the Father, quite literally THE EMBODIMENT of the Father. Irenaeus = Sabellius quite certainly.

[lsayre]

I thought Sabellius lived roughly a generation post Irenaeus. Or at least that he survived Irenaeus by about 30-35 years.

[Secret Alias]

That's when the reports come. Marcion is identified as (a) living at the time of Jesus's ascension (b) the apostolic era (c) the time of Trajan (d) mid second century or later. When the reports were established = that's when they lived.

[lsayre]

Understood!