stranger said:
Iraneus is the only one it seems who said that jesus ministered at the age of fifty, there is plenty of evidence that this is mistaken ... the problem then is that he makes statemnets that ae not from God but from his own imagination...
The problem becomes more serious when one realise that some modern theories about the very nature of Jesus' revelation from God rest solely upon Iranaeus' vague recollections from his childhood of what Polycarp told him.... notably the only evidence that indicates that John wrote Revelation aBout 90AD ... long after the destruction of Jerusalem...
Against this heresay evidence it should immediately seem curious that John makes no mention whatever of the destruction of Jerusalem despite referring to future Jerusalem in the Revelation...
Whilst it is cear that John wrote after 52AD there is evry reason to believe that the Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and thus that one major interpretation of Revelation as having somehow largely already occurred would be dispelled.... can one really base theological beliefs on such shaky hearsay evidence as this ?
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*** ..."
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' point.
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.
Thanks to
Mark Bonocore