An Allusion to 1 Co 13.8-10 in the Introduction of Irenaeus's Against Heresies

Sort of interesting, Irenaeus seems to understand the "perfect" in 1 Co 13.10 to be the Gospel preached by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures.

Recall that, for Paul, the coming of "the perfect" heralds an end to the gift of tongues, prophecy, and partial knowledge. Paul writes: "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are ongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away" (1 Co 13.8-10).

In the introduction to Book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

I "think" the italicized passages are an allusion to 1 Co 13. Although, if true, Irenaeus's chronology would seem to fit uncomfortably with what I take to be the sequence implicit in Paul's argument. It's interesting nonetheless.

Chiasm in Irenaeus's Appeal to Scripture and Tradition in Against Heresies

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote Against Heresies toward the end of the second century, A.D. In book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus advances an extended argument about the sources of truth for the heretic and the Christian. Roman Catholics often point to Irenaeus’s discussion as an early recognition of tradition as a source of authority independent from the Scriptures.

The funny thing is that, years and years ago, I read Against Heresies, as it were, as an innocent. I was simply interested in reading some of the early church fathers. A few years later, when I was in conversation with a pious, Roman Catholic academic, he appealed to Irenaeus's argument at the beginning of book III as establishing the independent authority of tradition, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church. That surprised me, because while I recalled that tradition and Rome were discussed there, I had actually taken the overall import of Irenaeus's argument in book III to be one in favor of the Scriptures as a sufficient authority for the Christian.

Just to be clear, let me underscore that I understood Irenaeus’s argument to be one of the sufficiency of the Scriptures for the Christian, not the necessity of the Scriptures for the Christian. Indeed, even in Protestant churches, unlearned people receive the Gospel orally from preachers rather than directly from the Scriptures themselves. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided what is orally communicated is consistent with what the Scriptures teach. Indeed, there really isn’t much of an alternative, as a practical matter (Ro 10.14).

But the thing is, in my reading, I never got the upshot of Irenaeus’s argument to be aimed at establishing tradition as an independent source of doctrine not taught by the Scriptures, nor that the Roman church had unique authority relative to other churches that were established by the apostles. It's of course possible that I misread Irenaeus's argument, but on revisiting it in my conversation it didn't seem to me that I had gotten it wrong, and my Roman Catholic discussant said that he agreed after all that the argument from that text wasn't as strong as he thought it had been.

I understood Irenaeus’s argument to have a chiastic structure that aims at vindicating the Scriptures (again, as sufficient authority, not as necessary authority). It seemed to me then, and seems to me today, that understanding the overall arc of Irenaeus’s argument requires understanding the chaistic structure of his argument in book III. Doing so seems to me to pretty much eliminate the idea that Irenaeus is arguing for tradition as an independent source of authority for doctrines not taught in the Scriptures.

I’ll sketch what I take to the Irenaeus’s chiastic structure in the early chapters of Book III, then I’ll copy part of the text (below). I encourage any interested reader to read the unedited text, which can be found in numerous books and on the web. My goal when I first read Irenaeus (not knowing the role it played in RC apologetics) was to give the text a sympathetic reading, and that continues to be my goal.

Anyway, here’s how I understand the structure of Irenaeus’s argument at the beginning of Book III:

A. (3.1.1-2) We learn salvation from what the apostles preached in public & “handed down to us in the Scriptures.”

B. (3.2.1) When confronted with Scripture, the heretics say that we need tradition in order to understand the Scriptures rightly. This is an oral tradition of doctrines not contained in the Scriptures.

C. (3.2.1) When confronted with orthodox tradition, the heretics reject tradition.

C’. (3.3.1-3) If you say you believe in tradition, you at least have to accept the tradition in the church of Rome because we can trace the succession of bishops there. The heretics can't point to any better candidate for authoritative tradition than that. (Nonetheless, the tradition is manifested in churches “throughout the whole world," but it would be "tedious" to reckon succession in all churches.)

B’. (3.4.1) Tradition confirms what the Scriptures teach.
i. “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings?”
ii. How else could illiterate people know the Gospel?

A’. (3.5.1.) Therefore, on the basis of their own argument, the heretics must accept arguments based by an appeal to the Scriptures. And so I will "revert" to appealing to Scripture as authoritative refutation of heretical doctrines.

Irenaeus goes on to use the authority of the Scriptures as the conclusion of reductio arguments against the heretics. For example, in 3.11.9, Irenaeus argues:

For if what [the Valentinians] have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, then that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth.

There only reason that he can advance this argument is that he thinks that he has already established that the Valentinians must accept the authority of the Scriptures. Hence, if he can show that their argument is inconsistent with Scriptures, then he's made his point, and the Valentinians must reject the disputed doctrine in favor of the orthodox affirmation.

There is lots to learn from Irenaeus that doesn’t concern modern disputes over the source(s) of authority for the church. Nonetheless, Irenaeus seems to me to teach us two things in the context of arguments between Rome and Wittenberg.

First, tradition is the best that people can do who do not have the Scriptures or who are illiterate. Indeed, if there were no Scriptures there would be no alternative to learning the Gospel from what was handed down orally. But in Irenaeus, tradition is a second-best alternative to the Scriptures. It would be used if we do not have the Scriptures or if we could not read the Scriptures. The Scriptures, by themselves, however, are a sufficiently complete expression of apostolic teaching. The Scriptures are, according to Irenaeus, “the ground and pillar of our faith” (3.1.1-2, cf., 1 Tm 3.15).

Secondly, Irenaeus’ argument for Rome and tradition is nested in this larger argument for Scriptural authority against the heretics. His argument from tradition is aimed at a group that says they do not accept the Scriptures, but accepts an oral tradition that teaches doctrines not taught in the Scriptures. Irenaeus raises the ante on tradition – arguing that if you want tradition you can’t do any better than the tradition in the churches founded by the apostles – and then uses that tradition to force the heretics, as it were, to accept the authority of the Scriptures.

Finally, Irenaeus’s argument is that the Roman church is a “preeminent authority” because, up to that time, she has “preserved continuously” the “apostolical tradition.” Remember Irenaeus’s argument: If you heretics want to appeal to tradition instead of the Scriptures, you can’t do any better than appealing to Rome (and the other apostolic churches). Irenaeus’s argument doesn't pertain to asserting tradition as a source of authority against those who accept and appeal to the Scriptures. Indeed, the irony is that affirming an unwritten, oral tradition of doctrines not also affirmed in the Scriptures is what Irenaeus criticizes the heretics for. It seems to me a real inversion of his argument for modern Roman Catholics then to appeal to it as evidence precisely for an unwritten, oral tradition of doctrines that are not taught in the Scriptures.

Irenaeus’s argument begins with the sufficiency of the Scriptures (3.1.1-2) and ends with the sufficiency of the Scriptures (3.5.1). Giving Irenaeus’s argument the most honest reading I am able, it does not establish tradition as an authority with any content distinct from the Scriptures, and it does not establish Rome as any authority independent of her faithfulness to the Scriptures. It seems to me that a reader can tease out an argument for an unwritten tradition that contains doctrines not taught in the Scriptures only by ignoring how Irenaeus's argument about tradition fits in the chiastic arc of his broader argument about the Scriptures.

Excerpts from Irenaeus's Against Heresies

Against Heresies, Bk III, ch. 1

1.1 We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

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.

Ch 2

2.1. [The heretics] when, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." 1 Corinthians 2:6 . . .

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
. . .

Ch 3

3.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

3.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3.3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

. . .

Ch 4

4.1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

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, . . . . Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

. . .

Ch 5

5.1. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6 and that no lie is in Him.

Caesar's Jubilee

God told Moses in Lev 25.10, "You shall consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family."

In the Jubilee year, of course, the land would have a sabbath (Lev 25.11), land would return to the original family to which it was given (v.13), and unredeemed Israeli slaves would be freed (v. 54).

The Jubilee ordinances show Yahweh's ownership of the promised land (v. 23) and of the people of the promised land (v. 55).

Suggestively, Luke reports an event when all Israel returns to their family's estate. But this return is ordered by Caesar rather than by Yahweh: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. . . . And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee . . . [to] Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David" (Lk 2.1,3-4).

Caesar's decree requiring a return reflects an anti-Jubilee -- Caesar's mandated return betokens bondage for Israel rather than release. Caesar claims the promised land to serve his own purposes, and claims Israel as his servant rather than God's. Israel moves on Caesar's command rather than on God's command.

That Israel returns to her family estates because Caesar wants to take a census, is also suggestive in light of Israel's experience with censuses (1 Chr 21.1). Israel is not moving to God's commands but rather moves to Caesar's command.

Chatting with the Mormons, Part II

So I read the Book of Mormon, and the missionaries came back to talk about it. Here are a few thoughts.

1. As I mentioned in an earlier post, aside from the claim that the book itself is revealed by God, and its ostensible history of a group of Israelites who leave Israel for a new promised land, there’s little in the Book of Mormon along the lines of propositional doctrine that, say, a free-will Baptist couldn’t affirm. That leaves plenty to discuss – the role of Israel in God’s redemptive plan, the Fall, infant baptism and etc. Probably the most innovative thing in the BOM itself is the affirmation that the Fall had an upside. Still, I’ve talked with free-will Christians who ultimately adopt something of a version of this – embracing the idea that it was better that Adam and Eve fall than that “choice” be taken from them. (But that's a topic for another blog entry.)

The more distinctive LDS doctrines are discussed in LDS books less known to outsiders, The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants. I’ve only skimmed parts of these books, but both basically seem to be compilations of “revelations” given to Joseph Smith (and perhaps others). As best I have seen, they do not report sustained narratives as does the BOM.

If the LDS derived all of its doctrines from the BOM, it seems to me it wouldn’t be located much beyond some of the harder Pentecostal-type churches. Significantly heterodox, to be sure, but affirming a form of Christianity.

2. I figured that the missionaries would be interested to talk about the actual content of the BOM. I was wrong about that.

My first question to them and, as it turns out, the only question we really got to in our meeting, was based on the observation I sketched in point 1 above. I told the missionaries that I was surprised that the BOM seemed to me to reveal so little distinctive doctrine. So I asked them what it was in their view that the BOM revealed that was distinctive relative to the large body of already-existing Christianity.

The missionaries started to talk about the apostasy of the church, the many denominations and etc. This is the typical introductory message that the missionaries provide in their initial contact.

So, apologetically, I interrupted the missionary and said, “I already know that’s what you believe. But to the best of my recollection, those topics are not discussed in the Book of Mormon, which is the only text I’ve had an opportunity to read. What is it in the Book of Mormon itself that was missing from the Gospel preached by the other Christian churches for most of the 1800 years before its ostensible discovery by Joseph Smith? After all, the Book of Mormon affirms that God offers salvation to humanity through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, which is the same Gospel message preached by all of the Christian churches over the last 2,000 years.”

The missionaries had two responses, neither of which referenced any content in the Book of Mormon itself.

First, they said that the Gospel includes what they called Gospel "ordinances" as well as the Gospel itself. And God reestablished these ordinances and authority in the world through Joseph Smith and the LDS.

I responded that that might well be true, and that we can talk about those, but that that didn’t really answer my question, because the Book of Mormon itself doesn't talk about those. I pointed out that they -- or at least the earlier rotation of missionaries who visited weeks before -- had invited me to read the Book of Mormon, and I had done so, even praying beforehand as they instructed regarding whether what I read is from God or not. I had done so, thinking that in doing so I would learn something of what made the LDS distinctive, and why they rejected the other churches as apostate. But I found nothing in the actual content of the Book of Mormon itself that answered that purpose.

The missionaries changed tack at that point, talking about how much comfort they received from reading the Book of Mormon, and how that testified to its truth, and how reading it increased the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. They then asked what I felt when I read it. I told them, as I had earlier, that I found much that was edifying in reading the Book of Mormon. I added that I found much that was edifying in many books, including the Apocrypha and the Chronicles of Narnia. But that didn’t mean that the books were to be received as revelations from God.

I told them that they only way I knew to test whether something was from the Spirit of God was, like the Bereans, to search the Scriptures diligently to see whether what the Book of Mormon told me was consistent with what we all agreed that the Spirit truly revealed in the New and the Old Testaments. I told them that, on that score, the Spirit did not confirm the content of the Book of Mormon to me as actual revelation from God. I told them that it was fine if they disagreed, and that I was open to discussion of what I understood the Spirit to have told me through the Scriptures, but that in order to do so, we would have to discuss the actual content of the Book of Mormon rather than talking about other LDS teachings that were not discussed in the Book of Mormon.

One of the missionaries asked, “The Spirit did not confirm to you the message of the Book of Mormon? Did you pray when you read it?” I told them I did, although I admitted that on a couple of occasions I had forgotten to pray when I started reading it, but then prayed as soon as I remembered my oversight.

They pointed me to a particular prayer and promise in Moroni 10.2-5. I asked them whether there was anything special about the specific working of the prayer in that text. They asked why I had read the Book of Mormon. I told them that I read it because I wanted to know what is true. I said that if Christianity is really true, then we should have no fear of exposure to, and of trying to understand, contending beliefs. Hence my goal of giving the BOM a sympathetic reading; to read it to understand what it taught, rather than just trolling it to identify some debating points.

Our discussion pretty much ended there. I thanked them for their time, and for allowing me the opportunity to read the Book of Mormon, and they left.

3. From all of this it seems to me that the missionaries are not all that interested in people actually reading the Book of Mormon. In the context of LDS missionary work, what seems most important about the Book of Mormon isn’t its actual content, but the claim that it is new revelation from God. That, at least, is the only lesson that the missionaries seemed to want me to learn from the BOM. And even then, it formed very little of what the missionaries wanted me to understand about the LDS. Overall, they did little more than reiterate what they said in their earlier visits, that God had reinstituted the authority of the apostles in the LDS, and as a result had reestablished the true church as Jesus Christ had intended it. (I pointed out that Paul says in 1 Co 15.8 that he is the last person to see Jesus and so is the last person who could be an apostle. Both missionaries looked at the passage, but said nothing more about it. I also pointed out that the office of the Twelve Apostles could not continue after the first generation of the church, since that office was limited to men who had accompanied Jesus from his baptism through to his ascension, Acts 1.21-22.)

So all in all it was a surprise that for all of the commercials on T.V. about the Book of Mormon, for all of the emphasis the missionaries put on it, that the actual content or message of the book plays such a small role in the distinctive beliefs and practices of the LDS, and in their missionary activity.

This does suggest to me something of a "bait and switch" missionary approach. The missionary emphasis toward outsiders seemingly is to get them to accept the principle of additional revelation from God through Joseph Smith and the LDS church. They do so by introducing this new revelation in a book of (relatively) innocuous doctrinal content. Once you accept the general principle, only then are the texts introduced with the more distinctive doctrinal content. If true, then that's a bit disappointing, since the LDS missionary systsem seems to revolve around a bit of manipulation. That being said, I'm unsure that there is much different in principle between the LDS approach, and the so-called "seeker sensitive" methodologies adopted by some Christian churches. The whole point is to tell people what they want to hear in order to "get them through the doors," and then at that point give them the "real message."