I would like to expose you all to Thomas Torrance's take on Irenaeus' understanding on what could be called a Christocentric Hermeneutic. As you read Torrance's account of Irenaeus, understand that you are reading Torrance too. Here is Torrance on Irenaeus:
It is, then, to the Incarnation that
Irenaeus turns for the clue to the interpretation of the history of
creation and redemption and therefore for the clue to the interpretation
of the Scriptures. The essential order and connection of things is
embodied in Jesus Christ and it is by reference to him that the economic
ministrations of God in humanity and the historical covenants are to be
understood aright, and therefore the interconnection between the
scriptures of the prophets and the scriptures of the Apostles, 'the
Gospel and the Apostles. Even the Scriptures of the old covenant have to
be read in the light of Christ's advent in the flesh, for his coming
connected the end with the beginning and made the beginning predictive
of the end, thus showing that the faith of the patriarchs and prophets
and ours is one and the same. They sowed the seed, the word about Christ (sermonem de Christo),
but it is in us that the fruit is reaped and received, and only in the
Church is the truth of the things prefigured realised. 'Certain facts
had to be announced beforehand by the fathers in a paternal manner, (paternaliter), and others prefigured by the prophets in a legal manner (legaliter), but others delineated according to the pattern of Christ (deformari secundum formationem Christi) by those who perceived the adoption, for in one God are all things shown forth.' [Thomas F. Torrance, Divine Meaning, 122-23]
That's the only way to read it. Chris is the center. I learned this lesson almost a year and a half ago, and because I'm dumb I have to relearn it constantly. It makes the Scripture whole.
ReplyDeleteYes, whole indeed!
DeleteHi Bobby, Does Irenaeus/Torrance treat the Incarnation as a kind of shorthand for Christ's life, teachings, death, and resurrection? Or, is he focused on the simple fact of Incarnation: i.e. that God became human in Jesus Christ, should be for us the clue to the interpretation of Scripture? The reason I ask is: If it is just Incarnation, as such, then what I take to be the clue -- the crucifixion and resurrection -- is, at least implicitly, put in a secondary place. It seems to me that in accounts where Incarnation is put in the central place, then death, or the inherent tragedy of finite existence, become the "problems" solved, whereas when the crucifixion and resurrection are read as the center, then it is usually our sin and its consequences that are solved/overcome.
ReplyDeleteHi James,
DeleteGreat to hear from you (I am still going to respond to you on Facebook too :-)! Yes, TFT argues for the ontological theory of the atonement, so he sees all of Jesus' incarnate life as the act of atonement; starting in the manger, finally climaxing in the death, burial, and resurrection and ascension. Myk Habets has argued, in an essay, that TFT fits into the Scotist Thesis (e.g. that Jesus had always intended to incarnate, even w/o the 'Fall', for this has always been creation's telos or purpose). So the 'Fall' intensified his coming, but his coming was not contingent on him resolving sin, per se. But yes, you highlight an ancient controversy; and one as you also underscore which has consequences for how we view bigger things, like a doctrine of God and creation itself.
What do you think about an atonement theory?
No worries on the Facebook reply :). Which texts help one get to the thesis that Jesus always intended to incarnate? I'm not saying you absolutely have to have them to make that move, but I wonder... I can see how you might get there from John 1, and Philippians 2, but am I missing better, more direct routes from Scripture to that position? It's very provocative, in the good sense, and makes me want to take another look at TFT -- I have a hard time with his style, which at the end of the day is a silly reason for setting him to one side for so long. Thanks for the lead!
DeleteHi James,
DeleteI think the key text, and the one that the Scotist Thesis has historically appealed to is Col. 1:15ff. It is obviously a theological inference, and one, for one, that is intended to keep God from becoming a predicate of his creation (and the sin therein). On a more positive note, though, it is pressing the idea that creation's ultimate 'telos' has always been 'in Christ'. Myk Habets has written an essay on this, I will get you the biblio info.
No, not too much Jesus. I would add however that it occurs to me that the goal for many theologians and philosophers and scientists etc. is to discover that "god particle". Certainly Jesus is that to Scripture, but I believe the goal if not the method is to say "mystery solved". All Scripture is to be interpretted only as spectacles to reveal Jesus and He alone is important. Again, true. But so far I have not seen any interpretive work that steps outside of "this points to Christ". 66 books in the Bible, 100,000 times the like is written: ..."For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I'm speaking in riddles. What if all of Christendom agreed to E.C.'s specification that Christ is the key to Biblical hermeneutics? There E.C. has won. Then what does that do to the way we live? Does something in Scripture still say that we may not slaughter the innocent? Or are we "free indeed" to the point of anomialism? You know me Bobby, I'm not talking about conditions of salvation, but how then shall we live? Do we get instruction from Scripture, or just from the hotline from the Spirit?
Hi Duane,
DeleteYes, if Jesus was simply reduced to some sort of interpretive principle, then we wouldn't be doing any better than the classic position that relegates the atonement of Christ in instrumentalist terms (and thus Jesus is relegated simply to an instrument of God instead of the Person). So when we say "pointing to Jesus," it is this act in itself that ought to have the kind of ethical consequences relative to producing God's holiness in our lives, that you are concerned with.
First part of Colossians 3:4 settles it for me: "When Christ, WHO IS YOUR LIFE..."
ReplyDeleteNice, Jerome!
Delete