It has been three months since I last wrote anything here on my blog. I’m going to finally get around to get back into the swing of things by completing my series on Irenaeus’ work, Against Heresies. In this post, I’m going to provide an overview of Book 2, where Irenaeus specifically contrasts Church teaching with the teaching of various Gnostic schools on a number of points. I will obviously not cover everything Irenaeus says but will rather try to hit some of the highlights.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway for me with Irenaeus, both here in Book 2 and elsewhere, is how many of his critiques of the various Gnostic teachers and schools parallel my feelings about the “world of academia” in this day and age, particularly in Biblical Studies and Theology.
One of the things that was hammered into my head, both during my master’s program at Regent College and during my getting into Orthodoxy, was the importance of the original teaching and original context. At Regent, when it came to biblical exegesis, I remember Gordon Fee emphasizing over and over again that the goal of biblical exegesis was get to an understanding of what the author originally intended. Thus, it was not to try to come up with some new, novel interpretation. Similarly, one of the things that attracted me to Orthodoxy was its insistence on sticking to the basics of the Christian faith as put forth in the creeds, namely Church Tradition. Again, nothing new, nothing novel—just strive to understand the original teachings found in Church Tradition.
Over the past few years, though, I’ve read many books about Biblical Studies and Church History by certain scholars whose whole “shtick” was to push new, novel, scandalous, edgy interpretations of Scripture and completely re-write Church history according to current sociological, political trends that are currently fashionable. Instead of being laughed and dismissed, many of these scholars have gotten quite well-known and have acquired many adoring fans who love to just opine on how backwards, sexist, racist, misogynistic, colonialist, etc. etc. Christianity is (or perhaps more specifically, Evangelicalism…or really any Christian who isn’t a card-carrying progressive).
Overall, it has just been rather disheartening to see so many being led astray by “academics” who are profiting off of—there’s no other way to say it—subverting traditional Church teaching and Biblical understanding. But then in a strange, comforting way, when I read Irenaeus, I see he was dealing with the same dynamic as well—academic elites who make a name for themselves by teaching distorted, heretical things, and thus lead many people astray.
Book 2: Chapters 1-9
In the first nine chapters of Book 2, Irenaeus draws a clear line between the traditional Church teaching that there is one God, the Creator of everything, and the claims of various heretics. The foremost heretic he calls out is Marcion, who taught that there were actually two gods—a “good god” and a “bad god.” The “bad god” is the creator god of the Old Testament, whereas the “good god” is above the icky created order. He is the one who sent Jesus to “redeem” souls from this base, created world of the bad god.
Irenaeus, though, points out how illogical such a claim is, in that if one is going to say there is a good god and a bad god, then that must mean they both exist within a larger sphere of existence that was created by some kind of larger being. And therefore, that being would be greater and stronger than both, and would thus be the truly greater Lord. “And if there is a greater, stronger Lord, then that Lord (and not Marcion’s “good God”) must be God” (2.1). This is the same point C.S. Lewis makes in Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 2—“The Invasion.”
Side Note: When I was in high school and read Mere Christianity, it made so much sense to me. In fact, it has been one of the most influential books I’ve ever read. Now that I’m older and have been Orthodox now for 20 years, I find myself looking back and Lewis and realizing that, although he was technically Anglican, he was Orthodox is so much of his analysis and argumentation. I don’t know if he purposely borrowed Irenaeus’ argument against Marcion to use in Mere Christianity, but the connection is there, nonetheless.
Another interesting (and funny) thing Irenaeus addresses is another explanation some of the Gnostics came up with to distance the true God from the created world. Some apparently claimed that it wasn’t a “bad god” who created the material world, but rather that the material world just somehow came about from some sort of “vacuum” or “shadow.”
Dare I say it? It sounds almost like an ancient form of the modern scientific argument of some that the material world just somehow “popped into being” and “evolved” all on its own—trying to explain the created order without any reference to a Creator God.
This reminds me of the joke by the comedian Pete Holmes.
Irenaeus, though, obviously isn’t addressing the modern theory of evolution or the modern worldview of philosophical atheism. He was addressing specific heretical philosophers who had developed an entire “system” of Aeons, good gods, bad gods, etc. Therefore, the “joke” Irenaeus makes is directed at them.
He first asks, “If that’s true, then where did this ‘vacuum’ come from? If God, the Father of all things made it, then it must be the equivalent of the Aeons!” Actually, it probably is greater than the Aeons! Actually, if it came from God, then it must have the same nature as God! And if that’s the case, then Bythus (the ultimate God in the heretical system) must be a vacuum! He then says, “Yes! God is a vacuum, and all the Aeons share in that sucking vacuity, completely devoid of all substance!” (2:4).
Then, to get one more shot at the heretic Valentinus, Irenaeus says, “If that vacuum really was produced, clearly the one who produced it was Valentinus himself, the biggest sucking vacuum of them all! Thus, this vacuum is really no different than the Aeons taught by Ptolemy, Heracleon, or anyone who holds the same sucking opinions.” (2:4).
Something From 2:9
After that, in 2:9, Irenaeus brings things back to the Church’s teaching that there is one God, the Creator of everything. Not only do the Scriptures teach that, but even the heathen can figure that out by just looking at creation. Virtually everyone acknowledges the existence of the Creator God…everyone except the various heretics who basically twist and distort Church teaching into their own “system” and claim that Creator God whom the Christians worship is a “bad” and “defective” lesser “god.” The heretics claim that the real Father God is actually above that lower Creator God.
For that reason, Irenaeus says, “In many ways, these heretics are worse than the heathen. The heathen may “worship the creature rather than the Creator” by serving things that aren’t gods, but the heretics claim that the Creator is the “fruit of a defect,” has an animal nature, and is ignorant of the Power above Him. And these heretics have the nerve to claim they are perfect? They are worse than the heathen because they actually slander their own Creator.” (2:9).
And, not to harp on this point (but I will keep doing so), this sort of thing keeps me coming back to how so many of so-called “academics” these days are really not that different than the ancient Gnostics. If you have been reading my blog for some time, you probably know what kind of scholars I’m referring to—scholars like Francesca Stavrakopolou, Dan McClellan, or Esther Hamori (among others).
They are the ones who are constantly saying that YHWH, the God of Israel, the one whom Jesus Himself calls “Father,” really is just a lower deity in the pantheon of the ancient Near East. These so-called scholars aren’t pushing that ancient Gnostic system, but they clearly are pushing their own contrived systems and are all basically saying, “Oh, the God of the Bible isn’t really who you think he is! If you believe what ‘the Bible’ says, you’re a fool! That’s not what ‘the Bible’ says—that’s what your stupid pastor and ‘Christian apologists’ say! They’re stupid! They don’t have higher degrees, like us! Here’s what really is the case!”
But then, upon a little investigation, you’ll find that their supposed “scholarly knowledge” amounts to nothing more than their own arrogant imaginations. Unfortunately (just like the ancient heretical teachers), they gain quite a devoted following. But let’s face it, it’s not rooted in a desire for the truth. It’s rooted in a sniveling, condescending contempt for Christianity and the Church. That is why so many of those who follow scholars like that tend to be disillusioned Evangelicals (ex-Evangelicals). It feeds their contempt.
Final Note from Book 2: Chapter 14
Another interesting thing Irenaeus points out regarding those heretical teachers is just how unoriginal they really are. In 2:14, Irenaeus shows how all these Gnostic teachers who claimed to have gain special, divine insight into their “secret knowledge” really just ripped off most of their ideas from other Greek philosophers, writers, and playwrights.
- The heretics’ teaching of Bythus and Sige is a rip off of Antiphanes’ Theogony, namely his account of the order of all things. “If you are familiar with Antiphanes, you know these heretics have simply ripped off his account and changed the names. Instead of Night and Silence, they have Bythus and Sige; instead of Chaos, they put Nous; and instead of Love, they put the Word. Antiphanes’ first order of gods becomes their Aeons, and in place of his second order of gods, they put the story of their mother outside of the Pleroma, from which came the creation of the world and the formation of man.”
- Thales of Miletus claimed water was the main generative principle of all things; the heretics just say Bythus.
- Homer thought that Oceanus and Mother Tethys was the origin of the gods; the heretics just made it Bythus and Sige.
- Anaximander talked about how the infinite first principle of all things formed all the worlds that were originated in itself; the heretics claim it is Bythus and the Aeons.
- Democritus and Epicurus talked a great deal about a vacuum (that which is not) and atoms (that which is). The heretics say that the things within their Pleroma have real existence (that which is) and those without have no existence (that which is not). At this point, Irenaeus jokes that if that’s the case, then the heretics just admitted they don’t really exist…because they’re not in the Pleroma!
All in all, all the heretics do, Irenaeus points out, is lift ideas from other philosophers, writers, and playwrights, change a few names, and then claim they’ve discovered some “secret knowledge” congratulate themselves for having “discovered” such imaginary fiction!
Here’s my easy-to-read paraphrase of Irenaeus. Available on Amazon.
We all know the biggest modern heresy is denying that Carman is currently Heaven’s DJ.