||Mr. James White says ...
<< Such a challenge reminds me of this
wonderful passage in Irenaeus, Ad Her. II:22:5:
"For how could He have had
disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless
He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized,
He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to
be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His
years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be
thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and,
[according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His
baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in
fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced
age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,
and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will
admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline
towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the
office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify;
those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
[affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he
remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover,
saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very
same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the
statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as
these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even
in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"
Here Irenaeus claims an *apostolic
tradition*, barely a century after the ministry of the apostles (and
less, in the case of John), that claims that Jesus was more than 50
years of age at His death. >>
:-) Well, you're proving that you are not infallible more and more,
Mr. White. Not only do you read the Scriptures incorrectly because you
wrench them out of context, you also do the same with the Fathers. Why
didn't you present ALL of what St. Irenaeus has to say? Then you
might understand his point IN CONTEXT. ;-)
First of all, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus' humanity identifies with
human beings of every age:
"For He came to save all through means of
Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God
--infants, and children, and boys, and ***youths***, and ***old men***.
He therefore passed through ***every age***, becoming an
infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children,
thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time
made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a
youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying
them for the Lord. ****So likewise He was an old man for old
men****, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as
respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age,
sanctifying at the same time ***the aged*** also, and becoming an
example to them likewise."
So, is Irenaeus saying that Jesus became an "old man"????
:-) Nope. But, first he continues...
"They, however, that they may establish their
false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year
only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they
are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work,
and ****robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and
more honourable**** .... "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning
to be ****thirty years old****, when He came to receive
baptism; and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year
reckoning from His baptism. On completing His ***thirtieth year***
He suffered, being in fact still a ***young man***, and who had by no
means attained to ***advanced age***."
So far, Irenaeus' point is that some say that Jesus died at age
30 (as a "young man," as opposed to an "elder"),
that He was NO OLDER than 30. And, he continues...
"Now, that the ***first stage of early
life*** embraces ***thirty years*** (i.e. age 1 to age 30), and
that this extends onwards to the ***fortieth year*** (31-40),
every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (i.e. 40 plus)
year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, ***even
as the Gospel*** and all the elders ***testify*** ..."
Ah! :-) Now what is Irenaeus' point???? It's that Jesus was
OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e. 33 years old, to be precise --"EVEN
AS THE GOSPEL ...TESTIFIES" ...that is, the Gospel of John ;-).
His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in
the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into "old
age" (as they saw it in Roman times). In this, Jesus was
qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a
"elder" in order to be a true teacher.
Think about it. Irenaeus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to
this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50??? Of course not!
Rather, John's Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of
His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Irenaeus'
And, Irenaeus continues,
"But, besides this, those very Jews who then
disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the
same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered
Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?'
Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed
the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet
is not far from this latter period. But to ****one who is
only thirty years old**** it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou
art not yet forty years old.' "
:-) Notice how Irenaeus is counting in 10's here. :-) Jesus is 33, so
the Jews do not use "forty," but "fifty." Why? Because
the Jews would only say "forty" if Jesus was 30-years-old or
younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life -- the period
between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30.
And Irenaeus then sums up his point, saying:
"He did not therefore preach ***only for
one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.***
For the period included between the ***thirtieth and the
fiftieth year*** can never be regarded as one year ...."
So, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50.
That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the
age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.
So, you misinterpret Irenaeus, Mr. White, BECAUSE you did not read
his statement IN CONTEXT, and because you did not read it with the
cultural sensibilities of a 2nd century Greco-Roman Christian, but with
your own, narrow, modernist sensibilities. For a scholar, that is
Mark J. Bonocore