Since I’ve been getting all happy about the importance of Jesus’ humanness, folks have been telling me that when I speak Irenaeus echoes in their ears.
I’m glad to hear it, really. For all of my posturing to the contrary, every now and then I like to know that what I’m doing is within the stream of the church’s tradition. I mean, I figure it is since I’m talking about the Bible, but, well, you know, the theologians aren’t always impressed with that.
To have a friend among the theological giants of the early church makes me happy. So I’ve started reading through books 3-5 of Against Heresies.
One reason that I find myself resonating so deeply with Irenaeus is that the particular historical moment within which he found himself forced him to answer the question, “Who is God?” whereas the tendency shortly after seems to have been to take “who” for granted and ask, instead, “What is God?”
Irenaeus was doing theological battle with gnostics. And so the answer to the question “Who is God?” had to be tied to both creation itself and the Old Testament narrative more generally. He had to fight for a unity between the Old and the New where his theological opponents were trying to pit these against each other as representative of two separate gods.
Today I want to focus on one thing I appreciated in this reading. It is important not to lose sight (and I have been guilty of giving too little weight to it on this blog) of the importance of saying in the Creed, “I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.” That statement is the church’s declaration that the God whom we know from the OT to be the maker of all things, the God of Israel, is the same God who was at work in Jesus.
Here is what Irenaeus says one can learn from Clement about God. God is…
… 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, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets… He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches (Against Heresies III.3.iii)
And then there is this prayer:
I call upon you, the LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob and Israel, who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who through the abundance of your mercy have had a favor towards us…
We will never know who God is until we learn the importance of confessing God not only as the Father, and not only as creator, but also as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who brought the people up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
This is the story to which the Christian God is bound, and within which all makes sense — or falls apart.
Tomorrow I’ll reflect a bit on the necessity of Jesus’ humanity, given his mission to draw to its climax the story of this particular God.
“Tomorrow I’ll reflect a bit on the necessity of Jesus’ humanity.”
You aren’t going to talk about resurrection by any chance, are you?
Irenaeus is awesome.
What do you know about the image you have included? I assume that’s Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob … Who is Jacob holding? Jesus?
Stephan Huller, has an interesting series on Irenaeus, Although it is called _Against Polycarp_, he puts forward the idea that Ireanaeus actually created the character of Polycarp. It is a very interesting series. He also points out how Ireanaeus was a driving force behind consolidating christian power in Rome.
If anyone wants to discuss this or other topics in early Christian history, feel free to email me.
Cheers! RichGriese@gmail.com
Apparently I forgot to include a link to Stephan’s series. It is http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080/stephan_huller
Cheers! RichGriese@gmail.com
A very important point again… I’m loving this blog since I started following it!
Again, coming from an Anabaptist/Mennonite perspective, there seems to be a tendency in my historical tradition to be almost dispensationalistic in treatment of the OT because of the problem of war (a book I know I should read). But I’ve become increasingly convinced that the God of the NT cannot be understood without the context of the OT. Jesus identification with that OT God, with the OT Law, and even the apostles’ treatment of him in the Epistles make a very close tie.
The story of the OT doesn’t end in the book of Malachai (for those of us in the Protestant stream) but continues through the gospels and epistles and into the eschaton as shown in the book of the Revelation of John. Beginning through End, it’s all one story and we are called to participate in it.
This reiterates for me the necessity of incorporating the Old Testament into our theology and the dangers of shirking it.
Thanks for writing; really enjoying the blog lately.
Irenaeus is so helpful because he writes before the Augustinian tradition and therefore before that tradition ossifies into its scholastic categories. He is the paradigmatic narrative theologian.
Let me play the nudge again a bit with narrative theology in relation to Biblical Studies, though: what if the “Exodus” never happened, or at least was nothing like the Biblical stories portray it?
We seem to have (1) a primordial paradise that never was; (2) a deluge that never happened or was at best a collection of big seasonal river floods; (3) an Exodus without a historical trace; (4) a conquest that was really mostly a bunch of commingling proto-Cananite tribes; (5) judges and kings who were mostly inconsequential petty local chieftans… all amplified exponentially in stories created for a rag-tag band exiles and returnees in order to justify their claim to be special.
Ok, so the historical criticism reflected above is one-sided and overstated. Still, when the story being told is in form and content far “bigger” than the historical reality underlying it, what does that say about God, His mission, and how we read the story?
I think we in the West have a museum-like concept of history in time and space, attempting to snap a picture and piece together the exact nature of past events. As historian Hayden White argues, history is intensely rhetorical.
The reason why the metanarrative of Scripture is important isn’t because it is factually correct but because its content resonates with the human condition — it is a plausible story. The paradigm of creation/fall/renewal is basic, but the thing that separates this metanarrative from others is the attention to suffering (Exodus story; a third of Psalms is comprised of laments; also, the prophetic canon as a whole), and the inclusiveness or holistic picture it paints (i.e. Jeremiah is a prophet to all of the nations; the Pentecost event where all nations speak of the Spirit).
– sorry, meant to say “BUT as historian Hayden White argues, history is intensely rhetorical.”
That’s it!!
Have to repeat it, “We will never know who God is until we learn the importance of confessing God not only as the Father, and not only as creator, but also as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who brought the people up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
Thanks for this. I appreciate Irenaeus’ thoughts very much so. Namely, his alternate use of “the hands of God” when talking about the Spirit of God. Like Paul, he scored the soma/sarx distinction, whereby the physical, tangible body made for divinity (soma) is connected to but not identical to the brokenness or sinfulness of the flesh (sarx). This distinction has immense implications for contemporary theology and mission of the gospel, empowering us to move with sanctioned intent.
Daniel,
Glad to see you are reading some early Christian writings outside of the New Testament
.