Morphemics

Irenaeus

The details surrounding the life of Irenaeus are not well known. He was born in Asia Minor, probably around 135; but dates between 140 and 160 have also been suggested. From a letter to Florinus (a Roman presbyter), in which Irenaeus describes seeing Polycarp in his home, it is most likely that he grew up in Smyrna. In about 170, he moved to Gaul and took up residence in Lyon where he became a presbyter. In 177, he was asked to deliver a letter to Eleutherus, the bishop of Rome, and to mediate in a dispute about Montanism. When he returned home, he discovered that Photinus, the bishop of Lyon, had been martyred. Irenaeus became his successor.

While bishop, Irenaeus fought against heresy and defended the unity of the church. There had been a controversy with the churches of Asia Minor over the date for celebrating Easter. It isn’t clear whether Victor, the new bishop of Rome, had excommunicated them or was about to. Irenaeus wrote to a number of the Asiatic bishops and to Victor asking them to make peace. And then Irenaeus is never heard from again. He may have died around 202. Martyrdom is rumored.

Other than fragments, only two of Irenaeus' many works survive. These are his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching and his Denunciation and Refutation of the So-called Gnosis. The latter is usually known by its Latin title Adversus Haereses, or Against Heresies.

The purpose of the Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, known also as the Epideixis, is to strengthen the faith of believers. The work consists of an introductory confession of faith. This is then expounded, both systematically and historically. There follows an attempt to prove the faith from Scripture.

Irenaeus has been called the most important theologian of the second century and among the greatest of any century. However, he was not much of systematic theologian. Instead, his organizing principle went along more historical lines. Justo L. Gonzalez writes, “It is best to follow the order that Irenaeus suggests in his Epideixis: to start with the Creator and then to pursue the history of salvation up to its final consummation.”

Before exploring the historical orientation of Irenaeus theology, his second major work should be considered. Against Heresies is primarily aimed at Gnosticism. Although it addresses other forms, it is primarily taken up with that brand associated with the Valentinians. The work is divided into five books. The first of these describes Gnosticism. The next three refute it from: 1) reason, 2) the doctrine of God and Christ, and 3) the sayings of Christ. The fifth book deals with the resurrection of the body: a thing denied by all self-respecting Gnostics.

Both of Irenaeus major works are written with heresy in mind. Even his Epideixis states its purpose: to defend against heresy. While this preoccupation with heresy is a source of strength- it allows him to formulate and clarify correct doctrine, - it also proves a potential source of weakness- he overreacts and moves too far in the opposite direction. In the section of Against Heresies that defends the resurrection, he also defends chiliasm, that is, a future, physical Kingdom of God on this earth.

In another case, however, Irenaeus is not in error but has been misread. Johannes Quasten claims that Irenaeus did not believe in the immortality of the soul. Irenaeus had written:

And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days forever and ever. But he who reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognized him who bestowed, deprives himself of the continuance forever and ever (Against Heresies 2,34,3).

Quasten responds:

Irenaeus thought it necessary to refute the assertion of the Gnostics that the soul is immortal by nature independently of her moral conduct, and thus he was led to these false ideas.

But Quasten has not taken into account “the repeated assertions of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever.” As A. Cleveland Coxe notes, “It refers not to annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness.”

Other than the chiliasm, Irenaeus is orthodox in what he asserts. It is his intent to expound the doctrine of the church and only that. Gonzalez comments, “[Irenaeus] has no desire to be considered an original or speculative theologian.” Yet, despite this lack of originality, Irenaeus’ approach to theology carries with it a freshness that is all too rare in either liberal innovators or conservative systematicians. This is most apparent when his historical approach is seen in combination with his development of the doctrine of recapitulation.

Recapitulation is taken from Paul’s doctrine of the two Adams. The term means “to place under a new head.” Irenaeus’ treatment, however, goes beyond a mere statement of Federal headship (not that Paul’s is limited to this). He sees in Christ the replaying of human history beginning with Adam and ending at the consummation. In order for Christ to effect the salvation of his people, he must be, at the least, everything that Adam was when he was created. From this starting point, Christ does right what Adam and humanity had done wrong. In so doing, he becomes the head of a new humanity.

Christ’s recapitulation begins with his virgin birth. Irenaeus draws the analogy to Adam, comparing Mary with the virgin soil from which the first man was created. He writes:

If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin (Against Heresies 3,21,10).

On the one hand, Adam is the model for Christ. On the other, the reverse is true. Irenaeus speaks of the imago Dei in his Epideixis, “As the image of God hath he made man; and the ‘image’ is the Son of God, in whose image man was made.” Gonzalez gives an explanation that has a thoroughly eschatological bent. He writes, “It is as if in creating humankind God has used the future incarnation of the Word as a model.”

Even at the creation, Christ was the intended goal for humanity. Adam was, by Irenaeus account, not created perfect. Instead, it was intended that he mature into the fullness of this image. However, when Adam fell, the opposite took place; hence, the need for Christ to step in as the second Adam and recapitulate the intended history of humanity in himself. We grow to maturity because the second Adam has proven himself to be mature. It is apparent that Irenaeus’ view of recapitulation and of Christ as the goal of creation explains his organization of theology along historical lines. The history of salvation takes place on a double level. It plays out in time, in that it inevitably leads to the incarnation of the image of God; and it plays out in the life of Christ himself.

I agree with Irenaeus’ doctrine concerning the relation between Christ and Adam; with his view of salvation history; and with his view of the image of God as the eschatological model for the creation of man. I am not so sure that I agree with the idea that Adam was created in order that he might mature towards the image of God. At least, not insofar as he was the original Federal head. But then, perhaps I should not fault Irenaeus too much, since I am thinking more of ideas that came into existence after the development of Federal theology. Basically, I see no room in a “maturing” paradigm for the strict fulfillment of the Covenant of Works. Irenaeus spends much time drawing the necessary parallels between the first and second Adams; however, one of these parallels must be in relation to their office. This must be the same for both. If Christ does not mature as the Federal head, neither does Adam. He either does what he is told, or he does not.

Posted by kcourter at maio 21, 2004 2:13 AM