God

Chapter 2 examines Irenaeus’ understanding of the divine being, his theology proper. Since the propositions fundamental to Irenaeus’ doctrine of God bear upon his understanding of the Word-Son and the work of Christ, this chapter also prepares for the chapters to come. To be specific, this chapter examines the two propositions upon which Irenaeus founds his conception of the divine being: God is infinite and God is simple. Both propositions have philosophical roots. Moreover, they sustain several corollaries that further define the divine being: transcendence, incomprehensibility, immanence, immateriality, and atemporality. Once these propositions and their corollaries are addressed, this chapter discusses Irenaeus’ identification of God as Spirit, an identification which has a biblical basis as well as a philosophical one. It concludes by considering the implications of Irenaeus’ theology proper for understanding his thought more generally, as well as particular implications for the remaining chapters of this study.

Conclusion

The Conclusion summarizes previous findings and locates Irenaeus in the Christian tradition. Irenaeus was the first Christian to attribute infinitude to God and possibly the first to attribute simplicity to God. Irenaeus, and not Origen, is also the first to affirm the eternal generation of the Word-Son. This being the case his conception of divine generation is more advanced than Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. Irenaeus is the first theologian after the New Testament writings to affirm both the eternal unity and diversity of the divine being. He is also the first to attempt to explain, by utilizing Stoic mixture theory, how the two realities of the incarnate Word-Son function as one reality. The bishop of Lyons, therefore, emerges as a subtle and eclectic thinker able to use philosophical and rhetorical ideas in order to substantiate his understanding of the apostolic tradition and the hypothesis of Scripture.

Word-Son

Chapter 3 investigates the standing of the Word-Son in relation to God the Father. The first section explores the contours of Irenaeus’ doctrine of reciprocal immanence and identifies features left unexplained. The second section explains these features by studying the logic that appears in the earlier polemical arguments of Against Heresies 2. The third section continues examining the polemical arguments of AH 2, but now with a focus upon the comments Irenaeus makes about the production of a simple, spiritual substance—his comments about divine production. Taken together these sections further establish Irenaeus’ understanding of the intra-Trinitarian relationship of the Word-Son to the Father, including the nature and generation of the Word-Son. In contrast to characterizations of Irenaeus’ theology as economic or modalistic, we see that Irenaeus affirmed an eternal and distinct coexistence of the Word-Son with God the Father as the one God.

Christ and his Work

Chapter 2 through 4 lead on to Chapter 5. Having established Irenaeus’ understanding of the nature of the divine being, the Word-Son, and the person of Christ, this chapter shows that central aspects of Irenaeus’ account of the economic activity of Christ are grounded upon his understanding of God. It constitutes the final movement in my argument that scholars have underappreciated—or failed to appreciate altogether—the significance of metaphysics to Irenaeus’ theology. This chapter consists of two sections. The first focuses on AH 3.18.7, wherein Irenaeus founds essential features of the economy of salvation upon the divinity of Christ—namely, the security of salvation, the reception of incorruptibility, and the adoption as children of God. The second section shows that Irenaeus’ understanding of the revelatory activity of the Word-Son in the Old Testament theophanies and incarnation is based upon his conception of the divine being as infinite and incomprehensible.

Introduction

When it comes to the history of Christian thought, Irenaeus is most famous as the greatest opponent of Gnosticism in the early Church. For that reason his polemic has received considerable attention and at times his polemical significance has overshadowed his importance as a theologian. But a focus on his polemical significance was not the only thing that discouraged nuanced analysis of his theological account. For his theological ability and even intelligence have been impugned for generations. As a result central aspects of Irenaeus’ thought have gone unexplored—especially the metaphysical dimension of his theology. This Introduction locates this study within the scholarly conversation about Irenaeus that has taken place over the past two centuries, and then summarizes the themes and chapters that constitute the study proper.

Christological Union

The aim of Chapter 4 is to explain how Irenaeus conceives of the union between the divine Word-Son and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, thereby preparing the way for a study of the work of Christ in Chapter 5. To that end, this chapter contends that Irenaeus uses Stoic mixture theory to conceptualize the Christological union, including the relationship between the human and divine in the experiences and activities of Christ. This chapter demonstrates that Irenaeus used Stoic mixture theory to explain the interaction of the soul and body in human beings, the salvific joining of human beings to the Word of God, and the union of and interaction between the divine and human in Jesus. It concludes by highlighting the connection Irenaeus draws between the person of Christ and the mixed cup of the Eucharist.

Prolegomena

Irenaeus has been characterized as incapable of sound reasoning, not a good thinker, naïve, and unable to construct a sophisticated theology. He was said to have little to no interest in philosophical reasoning and to strictly oppose theological speculation. Each of these narratives opposes the study of Irenaeus’ understanding of God and its bearing on the divine economy. This chapter consists of three essays that challenge these narratives, thereby establishing an understanding of Irenaeus and his theological method that sustains the chapters that follow. The first essay challenges the narrative that Irenaeus was unintelligent or incompetent by demonstrating his knowledge of literary and rhetorical theory and, thus, arguing he enjoyed a thorough rhetorical education. The second argues that he is not strictly opposed to theological speculation. The third shows that he recognizes a natural knowledge of God which, in turn, establishes a basis for the theological appropriation of philosophical insights.