The Living Irenaeus of Lyons: A Blog Series on Against Heresies (Part 2: Con-men, Gnostics, and Scholars)

Over this past year, as I have been reading and paraphrasing Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, I knew that I was going to do a blog series on it. Now, here I am, reading to go through this amazing work of one of my favorite early Church Fathers. To tell you the truth, it is a bit intimidating. Most of the time when I do a book analysis series, it is of some book that I disagree with. Although I “enjoy” sharing my thoughts and critiquing a book like that, I can’t say that I truly enjoy writing those kinds of book analyses. The analysis is mostly negative, and dare I say, combative. But hey, that’s what happens with disagreements and debates. Criticizing claims, making counterarguments, that’s all part of moving forward in one’s understanding. Still, such debates are mostly always just intellectual sparing matches. Although I’m glad I did book analyses of Davis’ God’s Propaganda, McClellan’s The Bible Says So, and Stavrakopoulou’s God’s Anatomy, there really was no “heart” to them. Yes, I learned a lot, but those book analyses weren’t really edifying or uplifting. They may have sharpened my mind, but they really didn’t do anything to build up or challenge my faith.

With Against Heresies, even though Irenaeus intellectually critiques and picks apart the Gnostic heresies of his day, he always discusses and reveals quite a lot of things that reflect the faith of the early Church—that that is challenging to my own faith. Consequently, writing something that more directly reveals my Christian faith is a bit more intimidating that just writing something that is the equivalent of an intellectual sparing match. That being said, what I’m going to try to do in this blog series over the next few weeks is just walk you through Irenaeus’ book. Not only will I be summarizing and providing an overview of his arguments, I’ll also be sharing my own thoughts about how what he has to say should challenge those of us who consider ourselves Christians.

And when I say, “walk you through,” I mean get ready for a ramble. Against Heresies is a bit of a ramble. It is not the tightest, more organized book ever written, to be sure. It rambles and ambles, often retracing a few of the paths in the book multiple times. We’ll just keep walking, taking in the scenery, and see where my conversation with Irenaeus leads us. To begin with, I’ll say that two major things continually stood out to me as I read Against Heresies are these.

First, the various Gnostics Irenaeus discusses remind me a whole lot of the modern academic world, particularly in the world of Biblical Studies and Theology. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to every academic and scholar. There are many great scholars who, even though they may have different takes on certain things, still maintain a basic Christian orthodoxy in their work. But there are others who seem to be solely interested in self-promotion and novel, edgy claims. In fact, it seems that they intentionally go out of their way to push teachings and interpretations that are directly opposed to traditional Church teaching and (what I would argue) is a clear, responsible reading of Scripture. As the Apostle Paul correctly said, knowledge really does puff up and make one arrogant.

Second, Irenaeus’ insistence on sticking to the “apostolic core” of Church teaching also comes consistently through. When I started reading the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, so much of what they said seemed so boring and “elementary” to me. I was thinking to myself, “Come on, get to the good stuff!” But the fact is, the basic, core, “elementary” teachings are the good stuff. There is a spiritual depth to them that those who are always looking for the “exciting, edgy, heady stuff” are going to miss.

In any case, I honestly do not know how many posts this series will end up being. I imagine I will end up quoting particular sections and then simply sharing my thoughts.

Book 1: Understanding the Valentinian System
Against Heresies is a book that comes in five parts, each part being a “book” in an of itself. The first book I’ve titled Understanding the Valentinian System. It is by far the most confusing of the five books in Against Heresies because in it, Irenaeus meticulously explains the Gnostic “system” that underlies so many of the Gnostic schools of the time. Although each Gnostic school had its own founder and its own particular wrinkles to its teaching, most of them share a common “Gnostic worldview.” In my first post in this series, I provided a very truncated “Reader’s Digest” summary of that system, so I won’t be doing that again here.

I. CONVALUTED!
In his Preface to Book 1, Irenaeus makes this observation regarding the Gnostics and their teachings:

²Their errors are never presented in a clear way. If they were, people could see how they are distortions of the truth, and those heretics would be exposed for what they really are. There is always ambiguity and misdirection at play. Errors are always deceptively dressed up in some enticing way so that someone who is naïve will just accept them without really critically thinking about it. It won’t matter how ludicrous and stupid the error is. A simple-minded person will accept it over the truth, simply because it looks nice.

Someone much smarter than me once said, “A clever imitation in a glass case will cause people to look at the actual precious jewel with contempt, unless the eye of an experienced jeweler shows it to be a counterfeit.” The same holds true if someone mixes in brass with silver. An inexperienced person won’t be able to tell that it’s a fake. He needs someone with experience to help him.

This description of what Gnostic teachers do can easily be applied to modern day cults, as well as quite a lot “scholarly” work in Biblical Studies. I’ve come across this in a number of my book analysis series on scholars whom, quite frankly, Irenaeus would no doubt consider heretical. But they get a certain following because they are able to “dress up” their claims and arguments in a way that sounds smart, clever, and intelligent. And their followers inevitably just parrot their teachings with arrogant glee. Anytime you try to show, for example, why a particular interpretation or claim doesn’t make sense, either in light of the context of the passage or for some other reason, they simply double-down on their parroted phrases and levy all sorts of labels and accusations against you in order to insulate themselves within their particular bias. I’ve gotten this from rabid young earth creationists and rabid “new atheists” and progressive skeptics alike.

But that is precisely why a solid grasp of the Bible and traditional Church teaching is so vital. One who is well-versed in these things can see the flaws in such teaching a mile away, much like an expert jeweler can distinguish the genuine article from a fraud.

II. CREATIVELY BAD INTERPRETATION
One particular thing I love in Against Heresies is how Irenaeus explains some of the genuinely horrible re-interpretations of various biblical passages that the Gnostics would teach. For example, in AH 1.1.3, they claim that the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard is really about the thirty Aeons in the Pleroma. The come to that conclusion by adding up all the different “hours” that different laborers were sent out: the 1^st hour, 3^rd hour, 6^th hour, 9^th hour, and 11^th hour. Voila! Thirty Aeons! Now, you might be thinking, “But then what’s the significance?” To that, the Gnostics will reply that “it’s a mystery”—and that, Irenaeus says, is the key that gives them the license to take anything they want in the Scriptures and reinterpret it to support their baseless speculations. They ignore reading a passage like Matthew 20:1-16 in its context and just look for things that they can fit into their preconceived “system.” They then claim that not everyone would understand something like this because most people are not “spiritual” enough to receive these heady mysteries. Don’t worry, though, they have a specific teaching that explains why most people aren’t “spiritual” enough! We’ll get to that in time.

III. SPEND MONEY FOR PRIVATE LESSONS
Another thing that I absolutely love is when Irenaeus gets cheeky and sarcastic. In AH 1.4.3-4, Irenaeus says that these heretics have all sorts of explanations regarding where every single, solitary passion and element comes from, but they will only tell someone about their sophisticated knowledge of the origin of these things if that person agrees to pay them for private sessions. “Instead, they run a manipulative and abusive con game. They say you must pay up and spend a lot of time and energy before you can receive their “great mysteries,” which is nothing more than pure nonsense.”  I immediately thought of the South Park episode on Scientology (and the Scientology scam itself!), where Scientologists are always charging fees for “private lessons” so the sad dupes can cleanse themselves of “thetans” and rise to various levels within the Scientology system. For that matter, Scientology’s teachings about where all our fears come from is every bit as ridiculous as the Gnostic teachings Irenaeus talks about.

One Gnostic claim Irenaeus highlights is the claim that all liquids in the world come from the tears of the Enthymesis (see Part 1 of the series for this explanation), all the light in the world comes from her smile, and all earthly elements come from her grief and confusion. At this point, Irenaeus just goes off:

⁴Let’s see if I can contribute to their system and cash in, too! Think about this: when it comes to all the waters in the world, some are fresh waters (like fountains and rivers), while some are salt waters (like the waters of the sea). Since that’s the case, it’s not possible that both kinds of water come from the tears of the enthymesis! Obviously, the salt waters come from her tears, but where do the fresh waters come from? I’ve got it! When she is grieving and confused, she is probably sweating and perspiring like crazy! It’s so clear! The fresh waters of fountains and rivers come from her perspiration, and the waters of the sea come from her tears! Problem solved! While we’re at it, someone should really look into the instances where hot and putrid water comes from!

Who says early Church Fathers can’t have a biting, sarcastic sense of humor?

IV. IF SCHOLARS READ OTHER THINGS LIKE THE BIBLE
Later on, in AH 1.9.4, after going through the way the heretics twist and distort various passages in Scripture to make it seem that the various people mentioned in them were really secret mysteries regarding the supreme God of the Gnostic systems, Irenaeus makes an astute point. He says, “Imagine if these heretics did to Homer what they do with the Scripture. Imagine if they just cherry-picked various lines from Homer’s poems and made it seem that all his references to Ulysses, Hercules, Priam, Menelaus, and Agamemnon were really references to another solitary person.”

This is something I’ve always thought when I read certain biblical scholars who are completely butchering any given text. I’ve used the example of Shakespeare. If Shakespeare scholars read Shakespeare’s plays the way many Biblical scholars read the Bible, Shakespeare’s plays would be rendered completely incoherent.  Just imagine that you take a course on Shakespeare’s tragedies, but instead of actually reading Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and Othello, the professor just tells you that Shakespeare (if there really was a Shakespeare…maybe it was Christopher Marlow) actually was a closeted homosexual who was also a misogynist, as well as a racist Englishman who was an early supporter of English colonialism. And then, to bolster those claims, the professor simply took out cherry-picked quotes and passages from the plays to show that Shakespeare really hated women (Hamlet drove Ophelia to suicide) and hated black people (I mean, the entire play of Othello perpetuates racial stereotypes!). And let’s not forget Romeo and Juliet—Shakespeare lifted the story from Arthur Brooke, who stole it from the Italian writer Matteo Bandello! I mean, how can anyone find that story historically reliable? In any case, it is pretty obvious that if the patriarchal English norms had not been forced upon those two young lovers, they wouldn’t have ended up dead!

I’m sorry, but such an approach to Shakespeare would be not only nonsensically stupid, but it would be a crime against great art and literature. It would amount to the rape and desecration of beauty and art. And that, I submit, is what a significant portion of modern Biblical Studies is doing with the Bible. And, as we read Irenaeus, we see this sort of thing of scholars and intellectuals completely dissecting the Bible to push their own novel agendas has been going on for 2,000 years. Some things never change.