Boersma - Redemptive Hospitality in Iranaeus

8/14/2019 Boersma - Redemptive Hospitality in Iranaeus

1/21

DOCTORES ECCLESIAE

REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITYIN IRENAEUS:

A Model for Ecumenicityin a Violent World

1

Hans Boersma

IMMATURITY AS OCCASION FOR HOSPITALITY

The second-century church father, Irenaeus, sustains hope for the fu- Irenaeus sustainsture by means of a vision that I have elsewhere referred to as "eschato- hope for the futurelogical hospitality."2 This eschatological hospitality is God's hospitable by means of a visionfuture that ensures the restoration and maturation of human beings that I have elsewher ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ referred to asHans Boersma, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Department, Trinity "eschatologicalWestern diversity, 7600 GloverRoad, Langley, BC, CANADA V2Y1Y1 hospitality. "

1.1 want to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert E. Webber, Dr. Dennis L. Okholm and

the other members of the CCCU Faculty Development Workshop in Theology held atWheaton College (May 27-June 3, 2001) for their interaction with some of the material

that I am presenting in this paper.


2/21

Irenaeus anchorshis hope for the

future in the one

Godwho hasincreasingly

revealed himself inthe Old and the

New Testaments.

Irenaeus looks atthe incarnation ofthe Word in Jesus

Christas the fullestrevelation of God.This implies that

God extends hiseschatological

hospitalityproleptically

in Christ.

created in the image and likeness of God. Irenaeus anchors his hope for

the future in the one God who has increasingly revealed himself in the

Old and the New Testaments. This one God is the transcendent signi

fier enabling Irenaeus' confidence in a future that consists of an end toviolence. In Irenaeus' eschatological understanding, the kingdom of

God consists of the perfection of God's good created order, including

its temporality, spatiality and linguistic determinacy. For some

postmodern thinkers, such determinacy may seem problematic: how

is it possible to combine determinacy and justice in the messianic fu

ture? Do the particularities of time and space not imply the continua

tion of violence?3 Irenaeus escapes this dilemma in two ways. First, he

counterbalances his view of the eschaton as a continuation of the cre

ated order with apophatic strategies that build on mystical theology

and tend toward human deification. Second, he understands God's

eschatological hospitality so to transcend this-worldly categories that

he is able to accept the tension between the determinacy of an

eschatological created reality and the indeterminacy of the mystical

reality oftheosis. The one God of history is the transcendent warrant ofan eschatological hospitality that overcomes the violence of our cur

rent this-worldly realities and that offers an incentive for human hos

pitality. Thus, the transcendent warrant implied in Irenaeus

eschatological vision enables the hu man flourishing of hospitality in

the face of injustice and violence. Humans may trust that the future isopen to them and that they will share in an eschaton in which present

injustices and oppression are overcome.

It is one thing, however, to say that eschatological hospitality receives

its transcendent warrant in the one God of history; it is yet another

thing to trust this God as the God who will, in fact, bring about such a

hospitable future. How can we know that God's eschatological hospi

tality is trustworthy and is not a mere extension of human injustice and

violence? This is where issues of eschatology and soteriology intersect.

Irenaeus looks at the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ as the fullestrevelation of God. This implies that God extends his eschatological hos

pitality proleptically in Christ. If God's revelation in Christ is trustwor

thy, people have reason to trust God for the future, as well. In this essay,

therefore, I want to explore Irenaeus' understanding of redemption and

3. Jacques Derrida is of the opinion that hospitality must be "unconditional" or "pure

hospitality." This "pure hospitality" is not able to welcome anyone in particular within

the horizons of historical and temporal existence, for it is always waiting for the other

to come { venir). See Jacques Derrida, "Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility: A Dia

logue with Jacques Derrida," in QuestioningEthics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, edRichard Kearney and Mark Dooley (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 65-83. Part of the prob

lem with Derrida's understanding of hospitality is the consistent posture of waiting (al


3/21

the way in which he sees God's eschatological hospitality manifested in

the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

God's hospitality in Christ implies that human beings are, at least in

some sense, not quite at home. The physical and ethical understand

ings of redemption, advocated in later Eastern and Western modes of

thought respectively have different ways of conceiving the obstacles

on our homeward journey. They agree that human beings do not (or, at

least, no longer) have a natural, created capacity to see God, to be in

communion with him, and so to share in the future kingdom of God. It

is God's saving act that makes this possible.4 But what exactly is the

obstacle standing in the way of this salvation? This question is one of

the most widely debated issues among students of Irenaeus. Accord

ing to some, the obstacle for Irenaeus is immaturity, which naturallycomes with certain limits, perhaps even with violence and death. When

God created the world, he created it good, but not perfect. Likewise,

Adam and Eve were not yet perfect either. They were created as chil

dren, and needed time to grow further into maturity and fellowship

with God. This "evolutionary" approach emphasizes the human goal

of deification in Irenaeus and accepts a physical model of redemption

(in which the incarnation itself constitutes redemption for humanity).5

This deification is seen as the maturation of the "image" and the "like

ness" of God in human beings.6 Others see sin as the main obstacle.

Adam and Eve were disobedient and thus brought sin, violence and

death into the world. Christ's coming intervened, removed the obstacle

of sin and re-opened the way to God. This "restoration" approach sees

forgiveness and restoration as the goal for Irenaeus. It corresponds to

an ethical model of redemption, which emphasizes the human response

as the way in which to appropriate salvation.7 In this essay I will argue

that Irenaeus combines the evolutionist and restorationist elements of

later Eastern and Western thought,8 and that in doing so he also weaves

4. Salvation, for Irenaeus, consists of vision of God and communion with God. SeeMar)

7 Ann Donovan, "Insights on Ministry: Irenaeus/7 Toronto Journal of Theology! (1986),pp. 82-85.

5. Demetrios J. Constantelos, "Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views on Human

Nature," St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly33 (1989), pp . 351-63; Denis Minns, Irenaeus(Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1994), pp. 56-82.

6. For Irenaeus' distinction between "image" and "likeness," see Gustaf Wingren, Manand the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus, trans. Ross Mackenzie(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959), pp . 14-26, 90-100; John Behr, Asceticism and Anthro

pology in Irenaeus and Clement(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 89-90.

7. John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of SaintIrenaeus (London: Epworth, 1948), pp. 192-97.

8. More recent students of Irenaeus have tended to observe both evolutionist andrestorationist tendencies, though they are not always agreed on the success of the

Irenaean integration of the two themes See Robert F Brown "On the Necessary Imper

God's hospitalityin Christ impliesthat human beings

are, at leastin some sense,ttot quite at home.

In this essay I willargue that Irenaeuscombines theevolutiottist andrestorationistelements of laterEastern andWestern thought,

a?tdthat i?tdoht g she also weavestogether varioustheories ofredemption thatlater theologianshave te?tdedtoregardas mutuallyexclusive.


4/21

consistent

evolutionary model,

alongwith a

physical viewofredemption,

tends not to

attribute

a significant

theologicalrole

to the Fall.

Irenaeus may

be the first

theologianfor

zvhom the Fall

actually plays

"more than an

incidental

r/

role,but it is clear

that this role is

not a large one.

together various theories of redemption that later theologians have

tended to regard as mutually exclusive. Irenaeus thus turns out to be

an irenic theologian, whose understanding of what I will call God's

"redemptive hospitality" in Christ holds out ecumenical promise: thechurch can onlyfulfil its mission of redemptive hospitality in a violent

world to the degree that her own witness stems from a truly catholic

unity and is reflective of the wideness of God's redemptive hospitali ty

extended to the world in Jesus Christ.

The significance of the Fall plays a large role in the discussions sur

rounding Irenaeus' soteriology A consistent evolutionary model, along

with a physical view ofredemption, tends not to attribute a significant

theological role to the Fall. According to this interpretation of Irenaeus,

creation set human beings on a course to perfection a perfection that was reached, in principle, in the joining of the human and divine na

tures in the incarnation. It is not difficult to enlist support for this ap

proach from Irenaeus. He explicitly argues that God did not "exhibit

man as perfect from the beginning." The reasons for this are that "cre

ated things must be inferior to him who created them, from the very

fact of their later origin" and that "man could not receive this [perfec

tion], being as yet an infant."9

Adam and Eve were created as imma

ture infants and had "n o understanding ofthe procreation of children."10

Irenaeus comments that "by their continuing in being throughout a long

course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the

gratuitous bestowal ofeternal existence upon them by God." This requires

man making progress day by day and ascending towards the perfect,that is, approximating to the uncreated One. Forthe Uncreated is perfect,that is, God. Now it as necessary that man should in the first instance becreated; and having been created, should receive growth; and havingreceived growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened,should abound; and having abounded, should recover...; and havingrecovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord.ForGod is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding ofGod is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.11

The picture is one of near-uninterrupted progress toward perfection.12

Irenaeus may be the first theologian for wh om the Fall actually plays

9. Irenaeus against Heresies [henceforth AH\, in Ante-Nicene Tathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander

Roberts and James Donaldson (Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson,

1994), IV.381.

10. AH 111.22A; cf. St. Irenaeus, Proofof the Apostolic Preaching(henceforth Dem), trans

Joseph P. Smith (New York: Paulist, 1952), p. 14.

11. AH1V383.

12. Brown d isput es that Irenae us' "recovery " langu age here is a reference to the Fall.

Even if Brown is wrong on this particular exegetical point, he is right in concluding,


5/21

"more than an incidental" role,13

but it is clear that this role is not a

large one. While the Fall is not entirely excusable, Adam and Eve's

spiritual and moral immaturity the natural concomitant of their

young age made them an easy prey for Satan. The Fall, therefore, was, in Nielsen's words, "hardly more than an intermezzo."

1 4

The intermezzo of the Fall became the occasion for God to display his

grace. Irenaeus points out that for Paul "m an has been delivered over

to his own infirmity, lest, being uplifted, he might fall away from the

truth." God is able to use humani ty' s weakness to acquaint them with

the power ofGod: "For how could a man have learned that he is him

self an infirm being, and mortal by nature, but that God is immortal

and powerful, unless he had learned by experience wha t is in both?

For there is nothing evil in learning one's infirmities by endurance;yea, rather, it has even the beneficial effect of preventing him from form

ing an undue opinion of his own nature {non aberrare in natura sua)."15

Likewise, the death that God had threatened to execute upon eating from

the tree of knowledge turns out to be in Irenaeus an act of mercy. To be

sure, Adam and Eve's act of disobedience meant that on the very same

day that they ate from the tree they died.16

But God then removed Ada m

from the tree of life, not out ofenvy, "but because He pitied him" and did

not want that "the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and

evil interminable and irremediable."

17

It is not Adam and Eve, but Satanwho bears the brunt ofIrenaeus' indictment, so that he emphatically states

that God did not curse Adam personally, while "the curse in all its full

ness fell upo n the serpent which had beguiled them."1 8

The immaturity and imperfection of the prelapsarian situation is more

than an interesting Irenaean idiosyncrasy On the one hand, in opposi

tion to his Gnostic and Marcionite opponents , Irenaeus wants to main

tain that God created the world good, and that time and matter are not

to be despised. Thus, the vocabulary that Irenaeus uses to describe cre

ation is fascinatingly down-to-earth.

19

The God of redemption is also13. H.E W. Turner, Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Dez>elopmentofDoctrine

during tfieFirstFive Centuries (London: Mowbray; New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1952), p. 74.

14. J.T. Nielsen, Adam andChristin the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons: An Examination of the

Function of the Adam-Christ Typology in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, against the Back

groundof the Gnosticism of His Time (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968), 62. Cf. Dem. 12: "But the

ma n was a little one, and his discre tion still und eve loped, wherefore also he was easily

misled by the deceiver/'

15. AHV3.1.

16. ^#V.23.1-2; cf. Dem. 15.

17. ..18. AH111.233.

19 Irenaeus often speaks about creation using terms such as plasma plasmatw caro

The intermezzo of

the Fallbecame the

occasionfor God to

display his grace.

In opposition tohis Gnostic and

Marcioriteopponents, Irenaeuwants to maitttainthatGodcreatedthe worldgood,and that timeand matterare notto be despised.


6/21

As long as thecreated orderis ?tot

yet fully drawn into

the light of thepresence of God,creation remains

in a state ofimmaturity and

itnperfection thatIrenaeus believes

needs God'shospitality to open

up possibilities ofrenewal andperfection.

the God ofcreation, and this is a fact to be celebrated, not one to ac

knowledge grudgingly. On the other hand, Irenaeus is keenly aware

that God's immanence, his direct involvement with the created order,

brings him face to face with imperfection and immaturity, withcreational limitations, identities and boundaries that are shaped in par

ticular ways. One might even wish to argue that violence and death

are necessarily a part of the created order with its historical and tem

poral limitations, so that perfection and deification would mean not

just human maturation but also the overcoming of the violence and death

inherent in creation itself. Irenaeus does not go quite this far, perhaps at

the cost of some consistency.20 Nonetheless, as long as the created order is

not yet fully drawn into the light ofthe presence ofGod, creation remains

in a state ofimmaturity and imperfection that Irenaeus believes needsGod's hospitality to open up possibilities ofrenewal and perfection.21

AHERMENEUTIC OF HOSPITALITY

Adam and Eve'sgrowth to maturitywas meant to draw

them into thepresence of the one

God the Godwith the two hands,

as Irenaeusdescribes the

trinitarianrelationships.

Adam and Eve's growth to maturity was meant to draw them into the

presence of the one God the God with the two hands, as Irenaeus

describes the trinitarian relationships.22

The unity of God is a crucial

theme for Irenaeus, over against the multiple Gnostic emanations and

the Marcionite separation between the God ofcreation and the Fatherof Jesus Christ.23 The Word that has become incarnate is the very God

who created heaven and earth. The incarnate Word, therefore, shows

God's very character. Adam and Eve may have been created in the

image and likeness ofGod, but Adam was ultimately no more than an

imperfect type of the Christ to come. It is Christ who truly shows what

it means to be created in the image of God. Thus, when Irenaeus ac

knowledges that Adam and Eve are created in the "image and like

ness" ofGod, he sees this expression not just as an ontological or fac

tual description, but especially as a calling or, we might say, as a

reminder ofthe hospitality ofGod, which is truly shown in Jesus Christ.

In a fascinating passage, Irenaeus comments:

For in times long past, it wa s said that ma n was created after the imageof God, but i t wa s not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invis-

20. F.Altermath argues unpersuasively (and ignoring the two passages that I mention

in footnote 16) that Irenaeus sees man as created mortal and that he sees death as part of

the natural prelapsarian situation ( 'The Purpose of the Incarnation according to

Irenaeus," Studia Patristica 13 [1975], pp. 63-68).

21. Interestingly, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki appeals to Irenaeus for an evolutionary un

derstanding ofviolence {The Tall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology [NewYork: Continuum, 1994], pp. 86-87).

22. AH V.l.3; V.6.1. See also Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus


7/21

ible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easilylose the similitude. When, however, the Word ofGod becameflesh,Heconfirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, sinceHe became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the

similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisibleFatherthrough means of the visible Word.

24

The Word of God is interpreted here not only as the climax of humanity's

"evolution" to perfection but also as the template for the creation of

humanity. The incarnation of the Son of God thus becomes the hinge

on which Irenaeus' entire theological enterprise turns, both hermeneu-

tically and soteriologically.

A superficial reading of Irenaeus might give the impression that he is

unfair in his criticism ofGnostic interpretations of biblical passages: They

"patch together old wives' fables," Irenaeus alleges, "and then endeavour, by violently drawing awayfrom their properconnection, words, ex

pressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to

theirbaseless fictions."25

One wonders at times whether Irenaeus' own

exegesis is any less arbitrary and violent. The Bishop of Lyons nonethe

less provides a degree of hermeneutical consistency by arguing that the

Scriptures need to be read in the light of God's hospitality in Christ:

If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention, he will find inthem an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling

(vocationis). For Christ is the treasure that was hid in the field, that is, inthis world (for 'the field is the world'); but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types andparables.... When it [i.e., the law] is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ... .

26

Christ, and the cross in particular, is the key to the interpretation of the

Scriptures. This brings Irenaeus to a strong plea for the unity of re

demptive history. Where Marcion objects to divine violence in the Old

Testament, Irenaeus turn s arou nd and accuses him of a hermeneutic of

violence! The God of creation is the God of redemption, and the God of

the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. For Irenaeus, thereis one economy, one dispensation. In retrospect, we can see Christ

throughout the Old Testament.27

Irenaeus thus counters what he re

gards as his oppo nents' hermeneutic of violence with a hermeneut ic of

hospitality, which sees God's welcome in Christ throughout the pages

of Scripture. Indeed, "the Son of God is implanted everywhere through

out his [i.e., Moses'] wr itings: at one time, indeed, speaking wit h

24. AHV.16.2.

25. AH1.8.1. Irenaeus repeated ly accuses his oppone nts of "abu sing /' "injuring/ ' "vio

lating/7

"perverting" or "mutilating" Scripture (1.9.1,3-4; II.24.3; III.12.12).

26. 1\2. Irenaeus add s that one needs to rely on the bishops and presbyters, who

have received "the certain gift of truth" (IV 26 2)

The ittcarnation

of the Son of God

thus becomes the

hinge on which

Irenaeus'entire

theologicalenterpr

turns, both

hermeneuticallyan

soteriologically.

Christ, a?tdthe

cross inparticular,

is the key to the

interpretation

of the Scriptures.

This brings

Irenaeus to a

strongplea

for the unity of

redemptive history


8/21

The entire economy, from creation toconsummation, is

viewed in the lightof the saving

characterof theWord: the Word

was presentthroughout the Law

and the Prophets;he walked and

talked with Adamin the garden.

Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah,

giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another, inquiring after

Adam; at another, bringing dowrn judgment upon the Sodomites; and

again, when He becomes visible and directs Jacob on his journey, and

speaks with Moses from the bush."28

Not only is the Son of God present throughout the Law and the Proph

ets, bu t as the eternal, invisible Word of God he already functioned as

the anti-type for the creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God.

This means that the incarnation of the Word is not the mere conse

quence of sin: "For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving

Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called

into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in

vain."29

The entire economy, from creation to consummation, is viewed

in the light of the saving character of the Word: the Word was present

throughout the Law and the Prophets; he walked and talked with

Adam in the garden.30 His saving character God's "redemptive

hospitality" stems from eternity.

VICTORY AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Irenaeus refusesto separate

Christologyfromsoteriology. The

eternal Word thatspoke the zuorld into

being is the Word

that saves fromsin anddeath.

Significant though the evolutionary strand may be in Irenaeus' think

ing, it is not an independent notion. After all, the Word had pre-existence as a saving Being. God's eternal hospitality is always already aredemptive hospitality. Irenaeus refuses to separate Christology fromsoteriology. The eternal Word that spoke the world into being is the

Word that saves from sin and death. Since the unity of God's dispen

sation stems from his eternal plan, the need for a saving act did not

take God by surprise.

The purpose of the incarnation, therefore, is not just ontological in na

ture, in the sense that it is meant to transform, perfect and deify hu ma n

beings. This may well be the ultimate goal of the incarnation, but

Irenaeus also has a more immedia te goal in mind. He explicitly states

that the purpose of the incarnation was to overcome sin and death:

"For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under

the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same

thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into

bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by

28. AHTV.IOA; cf. Dem. 25, 27, 43-85; Tragments from the lost Writings oflremeus (henceforth Trag), in Ante-Ntcene Tathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson(Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 54.

29. AH111.223. Irenaeus also connects creation and providence to the Son of God beingimprinted on the universe in the form of a cross (AH\7.18.3; Dem. 34; cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus,

136 42)


9/21

man, and man should go forth from death/'31

Irenaeus regards the incar

nation as necessary to "destroy" sin, to overcome "power" or the "bond

age" of death. Death is not merely the outcome of God's pity; it is also the

enemy that needs to be overcome. The incarnation is not just the climax of

an uninterrupted evolutionary growth of humankind. Important though

it may be the incarnation by itself is not enough for Irenaeus to render

the human race immortal.32

The incarnation has not only an ontological,

but also a soteriological purpose. This indicates that Irenaeus takes hu

man bondage and sin the consequences of the Fall seriously

The history of Christian thought has witnessed different models and

metaphors to explain God's redemptive hospitality in Christ, the most

notable ones being the Christus Victormodel, the satisfaction model andthe moral influence model. In what follows we will see that Irenaeus'

theology is an interesting combination of elements from each of thesethree models. Irenaeus' Christus Vctorieme is not worked out in as muchdetail as it is in some of the later church fathers, such as Origen and Gre

gory of Nyssa. It is nonetheless key to Irenaeus' understanding of God's

redemptive hospitality. When one traces the Christus Victortheme inIrenaeus, a dynamic picture emerges: Satan has abused Adam and Eve's

moral immaturity, has tempted them into disobedience and has thus cap

tured and imprisoned the human race. Repeatedly, Irenaeus refers to Sa

tan as the "strong man" whom Christ has bound and robbed (Matt 12:29).B

In a characteristic passage, Irenaeus comments:For as in the beginning he [the apostate angel of God] enticed man totransgress his Maker's law, and thereby got him into his power; yet hispower consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he boundman [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was necessary thatthrough man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with thesame chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, beingset free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds bywhich he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound,man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoilhis goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself."

34

Irenaeus sees Adam's transgression as the "bonds" or the "chains" that

Satan uses to bind human beings.35

God in turn puts Satan in chains.

31. 1118.7. See also Dem. 31: "So the Wordwas madeflesh,in orderthat sin, destroyed

by means ofthat same flesh through which it had gained mastery and taken hold and

lorded it, should no longer be in us...." Cf. Turner, Patristic Doctrine ofRedemption, pp.

52-53.

32. So also Andrew J. Bandstra, "Paul and an Ancient Interpreter: A Comparison of the

Teaching of Redemption in Paul and Irenaeus," Calvin TheologicalJournal'5 (1970): 56;

Trevor A. Hart, "Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption," in Christ in Our

Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for theReconciliation of the World, ed. Trevor A. Hart

an d Daniel P. Thimell (Exeter: Paternoster; Allison Park: Pickwick, 1989), p. 155.

33. AHm.8.2; 18.6; 23.1; cf. III.23.7.

The history of

Christian thought

has ivitties sed

different models

and metaphors to

explain God's

redemptive

hospitality in

Christ, the most

notable ones being/^Christus

Victor model the

satisfaction model

and the moral

influence model.


10/21

The cross only has aminor place in

connection with theChristus Victor

theme. This is anoteworthy

observation,because it meansthat for Irenaeus

the cross is notthe central backdrop

to the victoryof Christ.

Irenaeus employsthe notion of

recapitulation toexplain the means

of redemption inChrist. It is

particularly indiscussing

recapitulation,therefore, thatIrenaeus needs to

demonstrate thehospitable character

ofredemption.

There may seem to be a violent edge to Irenaeus' vocabulary here. But

Irenaeus immediately deals with this apprehension: whereas apostasy

used deception and violence whereby "it insatiably snatched away what

was not its own," God uses "persuasion" instead of "violent means"

and does not infringe upon "justice."36 It is only upon repentance,

Irenaeus states, that people are again loosed from these shackles of sin.37

Irenaeus' insistence on God's non-violence is to some extent a rhetori

cal ploy. The persuasion and repentance of hu man beings may perhaps

be non-violent, but when Christ "robs" the strong man (Matt

12:29),"crushes" the devil (Gen 3:15)38

and "destroys" death, does this

not raise suspicions of violence as Christ's means of redemption, and

does this not put the genuinely hospitable character of God's redemp

tion into question? Indeed, the violence of the imagery is unmistak

able. Nonetheless, the question must be asked: hozv exactly does Christrob the strong man and destroy death? Is it necessary to press the meta

phors of violence here? Interestingly, when we scan Irenaeus' writings in

search for an answer to this question, we find that he does not speculate

about a ransom being paid to the devil or about the devil being tricked

into thinking that Jesus was a mere human. Later church fathers would

use the ransom imagery and the theme of trickery to explain how Christwas victorious on the cross thus resorting to means that might perhaps

cause some hesitations about the character of God's redemptive justice

and hospitality. But Irenaeus does not do this. In fact, the cross only has aminor place in connection with the Christus Victor ieme.39 This is a noteworthy observation, because it means that for Irenaeus the cross is not the

central backdrop to the victory of Christ.40

This naturally leads to the

question: how then did Christ loosen the chains and bind the strong man?

What is it that effects atonement and reconciliation?

RECAPITULATION AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

The Christus Victortheme illustrates that Irenaeus complements hisevolutionary model with a restoration model of redemption. The prob

lem of the Fall may be no more than an "intermezzo," but it is a serious

intermezzo nonetheless, requiring Christ to destroy the power of death.

Irenaeus employs the notion of recapitulation to explain the means of

redemption in Christ. It is particularly in discussing recapitulation,

36. AHV.l.l; cf. .23.1.

37. Trag 43.

38. See .4/.23.7; V.21.1.39. Irenaeus makes the connection in AH.20.3.

40 This does not mean that Christ's death on the cross does not play an important role


11/21

therefore, that Irenaeus needs to demonstrate the hospitable character

of redempt ion. He takes his notion of recapitulation from Ephesians

1:10, which speaks of anakephalaidsis, although he works it out more

broadly than does the Pauline letter.

41

Scattered throughout Adversus haereses, Irenaeus mentions a number of

examples where Christ recapitulates Adamic existence. In order to grasp

more fully what Irenaeus has in mind with recapitulation, it may be

helpful to trace some of Irenaeus' thinking on this theme.42

He closely

connects recapitulation to the incarnation and comments that the Word

took on hu ma n flesh in order to present hu ma n beings to God: "For in

what way could we be partakers of the adopt ion of sons, unless we

had received from him through the Son that fellowship which refers to

himself, unless his Word, having been made flesh, had entered into

communion with us?"4 3

Irenaeus is consistently and strongly anti-

docetic. Christ must have taken on true human flesh, for salvation is

impossible wit hou t it. It is difficult to over-emphasize the importance

of this point for Irenaeus. The close connection between incarnation

and redemption has been the main reason behind the interpretation of

Irenaeus' soteriology as being physical in nature. And even thou gh I

am not convinced that Irenaeus goes quite as far as making the incar

nation by itselfr(i.e., in isolation) redempt ive in nature,

44the incarnation

is emphatically present as a necessary precondition for the restoration

of fellowship with God and, indeed, as part of Christ' s recapitulation,is itself redemptive in character.

The reason for the close relationship between incarnation and recapitu

lation lies in the fact that in the incarnation the Word comes to us as the

second Adam. Just as Adam was moulded from untilled virgin soil

(Gen 2:5), so Christ was born of a virgin.45

The only reason why Christ

was not taken directly from dust (as Adam had been), but was bor n

from a human being, was that Christ had to have the same humanity

that Adam had "the verysame formation should be summed up"

so that recapitulation would truly be that of the human race.46

41. For an argument plead ing for an Irenaean reading of Eph 1:10, see John McHugh, "A

Reconsideration of Ephesians 1.10b in the Light ofIrenaeus," in Paul and Paulinism: Essays

in Honour of CK. Barrett, ed. M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 302-09.

42. See also Lawson, Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, 140-98; William P. Loewe, "Myth

and Counter-Myth: Irenaeus' Story of Salvation," in InterpretingTradition: The Art of Theo-

logicalReflection, The Annual Publication of the College Theology Society, vol. 29, ed. Jane

Kopas (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 46-52; Christopher Smith, "Chiliasm and Reca

pitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus," Vigihae Christianae 48 (1994), pp. 313-31.

43. AtfIII.18.7; cf. III.19.1; 22.1-2; V.1.2; 14.1.

44. Cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp . 161-62: "It is frequently recognized, therefore, that althoughIrenaeus's doctrine of recapitulation might logically lead to universal salvation, for

Irenaeus it does not conclude that way "

He closely connectsrecapitulationto the incarnationand commentsthatthe Word tookon human fleshin orderto presenthuman beingsto God.

The reason forthe closerelationship

betweenincarnation andrecapitulation liesin thefact thatin the incarnationthe Word comesto us as thesecond Adam.


12/21

The Word becameincarnate, Irenaeusmaintains, in order

that Christ mightrecapitulate Adam 's

temptation and bevictorious oversin.

By retracing thecreation, temptationand death of Adam,

Christ as the newhumanity reverses

the effects of the

Fall and restoreshumanity.

Irenaeus sees the Fall as necessitating this recapitulation of Adamic hu

manity. The Word became incarnate, Irenaeus maintains, in order that

Christ might recapitulate Adam's temptation and be victorious over sin.47

Thus, Irenaeus mines the temptation narratives for analogies between

Christ and Adam.48

Christ 's obedience is a recapitulation here a retrac

ing and reversing of Adam's disobedience. Christ 's victory over temp

tation is for Irenaeus a significant par t of the answer to the question howChrist gains the victory over Satan, sin and death. Christ gains the victory

not by employing counter-violence but by faithful obedience in the face

of Satanic temptation. Interestingly, Irenaeus works out Christ's retracing

of Adam's temptation in some detail by repeated analogies between the

tree of knowledge and the tree of the cross. The handwriting of our debt

has been fastened to the cross for the remission of sins, "so that as by

means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a treewe may obtain the remission of our debt."49

Christ's passion on the cross had to take place, Irenaeus argues, on the

sixth day of the week, for Adam and Eve had sinned and died on the

sixth day. Christ recapitulated in himself the entire day, "thus granting

him [Adam] a second creation by means of his passion, which is that

[creation] out of death."50 Christ himself "points out the recapitulation

that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from

the beginning," says Irenaeus with a reference to the blood of the mar

tyrs of the Old Testament.51

By retracing the creation, temptation and death of Adam, Christ as the

new humanity reverses the effects of the Fall and restores humanity.

But Christ not only takes on the same flesh as Adam; he also retraces

every age of all human beings:

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, be

coming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for chil

dren, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same timemade to them an example of piety righteousness and submission; a

youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctify

ing them for the Lord. 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

47.AtfIII.18.7.

48. A//V.21.1-3. This passage is particularly instructive in that it places recapitulationin the context of the Christus Victortheme: "He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him

who had at the beginning led us awav captives in Adam, and trampled upon hishead" (V.21.1).

49 AHW17 2 Cf V 16 3; 17 3; 19 1; Dem 34; Trag 28


13/21

the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, atlast, he came on to death itself, that he might be "the first-born fromthe dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence," the Princeof Life, existing before all, and going before all.

52

This quotation shows something of the ambivalence in Irenaeus'

thought. It almost seems as though Christ recapitulating every age

group in and of itself sanctifies those age groups, leading to a physical

understanding of redemption. Irenaeus draws back from this conclu

sion, however, by his references to Christ as an example. The physical

and the ethical elements of redemption go hand in hand for Irenaeus.

Irenaeus's theology of recapitulation does not have the logical rigour

and precision of some of the later explications of the various strands of

atonement theology.53

It is clear, however, that the incarnation of the

Word is God's own entry into the very lives of the victims of Satan's

oppression and bondage. God's hospitality is redemptive not by merely

waiting for human ity 's homecoming but by God himself journeying

into the far country. His hospitality submits to the historical and tem

poral particularities of human existence with all of its limitations and

exclusions, even to violence and death itself. God's redemptive hospi

tality is, for Irenaeus, a creational and incarnational hospitality.

The incarnation of

the Wordis God's

ozvn entry into the

very lives of thevictims of Satan 's

oppression and

bondage. God's

hospitality is

redemptive not

by merely waiting

for humanity's

homecoming

but by God himself

journeying into

the far country.

SACRIFICE AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Recapitulation of Adamic existence creation, temptation and death

is for Irenaeus the means by which Christ gains the victory. In other

words, Irenaeusworks with a Christus Victormodel, but it is one that is

built not arou nd ransom or trickery54

but around recapitulation, which

includes the passion and death of Christ. The cross has significance, in

Irenaeus's thought, not only in the more general sense that Christ's death

is part of his work of recapitulation, but throughout Irenaeus' writing,

there are also some of the more objective atonement categories of latersatisfaction theology, such as sacrifice and propitiation. When arguing

that God has cancelled the Law of Moses, Irenaeus points out that people

52. AH11.22A; cf. III.18.7; IV.38.2. With an appeal to tradition and John 8:56-57, Irenaeus

argues that Jesus reached the age of 50 (AH11.22.5-6; cf. George Ogg, "The Age of Jesus

When He Taught/' New Testament Studies 5 [1958-59], pp. 291-98).

53. Just to add to the confusion, according to Irenaeus the reversal of disobedience takes

place not only in Christ, but also in Mary: Eve disobeyed as a virgin, while Mary obeyed

as a virgin. Eve disobeyed an angel, while Mary obeyed an angel. As Adam was re

stored in Christ, so Eve was restored in Mary: "For what the virgin Eve had bound fast

through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith" (111.21; cf. V.19.1;21.1; Dem. 33). Irenaeus does not explain how Mary's recapitulation contributes to hu

man redemption.

Throughout

Irenaeus's writitig,

there are also some

of the more

objective atottement

categories oflater

satisfaction

theology, such assacrifice and

propitiation.


14/21

Irenaeus appearsto assume albeit

with a degree of

ambiguity thatChrist's sacrificialdeath on the cross

is propitiatoryin character.

The notion ofChrist's death being

sacrificial andpropitiatory

remains marginalin Irenaeus. Not

only sof but evenChrist's suffering assuch is by no meanscentral to Irenaeus.

under the Old Covenant often wrongly thought that they could "propiti

ate" God by means of their sacrifices.55 They should have realized tha

the transcendent God "stands in need of nothing."56 Throughout this ar

gument, Irenaeus appears to assume a connection between the Leviticasacrifices and the idea of propitiationthough he is careful to safeguard

divine transcendence: God does not need human sacrifices.57

Irenaeus appears to assume albeit with a degree of ambiguity

that Christ 's sacrificial death on the cross is propitiatory in character.58

To be sure, Irenaeus is not entirely unambiguous . Some of the passage

that speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice do not make clear that thi

sacrifice has to do with the condemnation for sin,59 and other passage

in which Irenaeus speaks of Christ "propitiating" the Father do not

make clear whether it is Christ's obedience (in the face of temptationor Christ's death that propitiates the Father.60 Irenaeus expresses the

connection between Christ's sacrifice and propitiation perhaps mos

clearly when he says that the Lord "did not make void, but fulfilled the

law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for

men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering

death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and migh

return without fear to his own inheritance."61

Thus, there is a sense in

which Irenaeus appears to interpret Christ's death as a sacrifice tha

propitiates the Father. However, such references do remain sparse

Robert J. Daly makes the comment that in Irenaeus "the idea of thesacrifice of Christ seems to be presumed more often than explicitly

stated."62 This may well be true, but even this modest assertion seems

mostly an argument from silence. The notion of Christ's death being

55. AHTV.17.1. Interestingly, Irenaeus does say that God asks for mercy and compassion. One cannot help but wonder whether the transcendent God would "need" these

any more than he needs sacrifices. Irenaeus seems to be aware of the tension in his

argument here, when he comments (regarding the Eucharist): "Now we make offering

to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thu

sanctifying what has been created" (AHTV.18.6).56.AHW.17.1.

57. Paul S. Fiddes points out that the notion of satisfaction in the Anselmian tradition

requires a change in Goda notion with which many in the Anselmian tradition are

uncomfortable (Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989], p. 28).

58. Both Auln and Lawson deny the presence of sacrifice and propitiation in Irenaeus

Gustaf Auln, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of tAtonement, trans. A.G. Hebert (London: SPCK, 1970), pp . 27, 33; Lawson, Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, 193. For a defence of the element of propitiation in Irenaeus, seBandstra, "Paul and an Ancient Interpreter," pp. 58-61.

59. E.g., AH1V.5.60. E.g., AHW.Y71.

61 AH1WS 2


15/21

sacrificial and propitiatory remains marginal in Irenaeus.63 Not only

so, but even Christ's suffering as such is by no means central to Irenaeus.

He may comment that our Lord "by his passion destroyed death, and

dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance,while he manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of

incorruption"64 but such references to Christ's passion are rather

incidental within the whole of Irenaeus' theology.

Do Irenaeus' incidental comments about sacrifice and propitiation per

haps cast a shadow over God's redemptive hospitality? Does this hos

pitality run the risk here of turning into an oppressive violence that

issues judgement and demands sacrifice, payment and propitiation? It

may seem this way, but again the mystery of the incarnation needs to

be taken into account. So far, we have seen that the idea of recapitulation came with an unequivocal stress on the obedience of the humanity

of Christ as the second Adam. Interestingly, however, Irenaeus speaks

several times about God suffering on the cross. Irenaeus' desire to

present the Father and the Word as one in opposition both to Gnostics

and Marcionites means that when Christ dies, God suffers in Christ.65

The impassible becomes passible in the incarnation.66 God truly enters

into the huma n realm and takes huma n suffering onto himself. Irenaeus'

view that Christ's sacrifice propitiates the Father must, therefore, be

balanced by his belief that in Christ God takes hu man suffering ontohimself. God's redemptive hospitality includes self-sacrificial love.

MORAL INFLUENCE AND HOSPITALITY

Thus far, we have seen that Irenaeus' soteriology is a combination of

the Christus Victor theme and his unders tanding of recapitulation (whichstarts with the incarnation, focuses particularly on Christ's obedience

in the face of temptation, and includes also his sacrificial death). The

emphasis on the incarnation contains elements that in later Eastern

thought would lead to a physical view of redemption. The Bishop of

Lyons combines this view with the ethical elements of Christ's obedi

ence (in temptation), and of sacrifice and propitiation. In addition to

employing notions ofChristus Victorand sacrifice, Irenaeus also workswith aspects of the later moral influence theory of the atonement. Sa-

63. Irenaeus does repeatedly refer to the "blood" of Christ and to the "cross" and the

"tree," indicating an interest in the death of Christ. The death of Christ is, after all, part

of Christ's wor k of recapitulation. An interesting examplealso il lustrative of Irenaeus'

christological reading of the Old Testamentis found in Trag. 23, where Irenaeus depicts Balaam's donkey as a type of the body of Christ: "For the Savior has taken up theburden of our sins." Cf. Dem. 69.

In addition toemploying notions^/"Christus Victor

and sacrifice,Irenaeus also zvorkswith aspects of thelater moralinfluence theory ofthe atonement.


16/21

Although Irenaeuswants nothing to do

zvith such Gnostic

escapism, this is notto say that his

understanding ofsalvation can be

captured by aWestern or

Augustinianemphasis on

forgiveness.

One way in whichChrist conquers sin

and death is bygaining followers

who are persuadedby his teaching

and example.

tan is defeated not only by means of recapitulation but also by means

of the ethical response in the lives of Christ's followers.

For the Gnostics, knowledge is salvation from matter and time. Al

though Irenaeus wants nothing to do with such Gnostic escapism, thi

is not to say that his understanding of salvation can be captured by a

Western or Augustinian emphasis on forgiveness. Despite his strenu

ous opposition to Gnostic soteriology, he is not willing to abandon knowl

edge as lying at the heart of redemption.67 The full title of Irenaeus' main

workis significant: A Refutation and Subversion ofKnozvledgefalsely so calledOne does not gain true knowledge through the esoteric teachings of the

heretics but through the public revelation of Jesus Christ.

The emphasis on knowledge leads to what could be interpreted as pre

Abelardian rumblings when Irenaeus comments that "we could have

learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His

voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of his works as

well as doers of his words, we may have communion with him, receiv

ing increase from the perfect One, and from him who is prior to all

creation."69 Christ is our teacher, requiring our imitation.70

One way in which Christ conquers sin and death is by gaining follow

ers who are persuaded by his teaching and example. In the paragraph

where Irenaeus speaks about "seeing our Teacher and hearing his voice

he also makes the comment that the Word of God

did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His ownproperty, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away whatwas not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what he desires; so thatneither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiworkofGod go to destruction.71

The Word redeemed his property by means of "persuasion," maintains

Irenaeus. He does not identify the exact subject of the persuasion; the

67. William P. Loewe helpfully points out the noetic elements in Irenaeus. He over

states his case, however, by making these noetic elements the overall pattern of

Irenaeus7 soteriology, and arguing that Christus Victor"remains but a single themeamong others" ("Irenaeus' Soteriology: Christus VictorRevisited," Anglican Theological Review 67 [1985], p. 14).

68. For knowledge or Gnostics "falselv so-called," see also AH 1.23.4; III.ll.l; IV.6.435.1; 41.4; V pref.; V.26.2.

69. AHWl.l.

70. Cf. Loewe, "Irenaeus' Soteriology: Christus VictorRevisited," p p. 3-4; Turner, Patristi

Doctrine of Redemption, 38. Several authors refer to the "pedagogical" character ofsoteriology in Irenaeus. See William P. Loewe, "Irenaeus7 Soteriology: Transposing the

Question " in Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lonergan S J ed Timothy


17/21

most likely interpretation, however, is that the revelation of God in

Christ convinces people of the truth of the gospel. In other words, re

demption is for Irenaeus not something that only takes place objec

tively in Christ, but it is something that has a subjective pole in thelives of those who become persuaded by God's revelation in Christ.72

Over against the Gnostic notion of secret knowledge imparted to an

elite segment of believers, Irenaeus insists that the revelation of the

Word is public.73 Indeed, the entire history of redemption is one in

which God reveals himself ever more clearly Not only is it the case, as

we have already noted, that the Word of salvation is present wherever

God speaks in the Old Testament narratives, but the Word also con

tinuously reveals God the Father:

And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternalgrace for the benefit of men, for whom he made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, andpreserving at the same time the invisibility ofthe Father, lest man shouldat any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which hemight advance; but, on the other hand,revealing God tomen through many dispensations, lest man, falling awayfrom God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which ismade bymeans of the creation, affords life to allliving in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father whichcomes through the Word, give life to those who see God.74

The entire history is the oikonomia of the Word that continuouslyand progressively reveals God. This process of revelation climaxes

in the incarnation of the Word, and it leads finally to the visio Dei'mthe kingdom of God.75

God's revelation and teaching throughout the one economy of redemp

tion, climaxing in Christ, require a human response. The future of hu

man beings is not determined according to the various Gnostic types

(pneumatic, psychical or material).76 Irenaeus emphatically defends the

72. The theme of "persuasion" plays a prominent role throughout Against Heresies. Someof the most significant examples for the topic under discussion are the instances where

on the one hand Satan "persuades" Adam and Eve (III.23.8; V.21.2), the Antichrist "per

suades" people (V.25.1) and the Gnostics "per suade" people of lies (1.6.4; 19.1; 31.3;

II.14.8); and where on the other hand Jesus Christ (1.27.2), the disciple John (III.ll.l),

John the Baptist (III.11.4), Philip (ffl.12.15; IV.23.2), the apostles (IV.23.2), the angel speak

ing to Mary (V.19.1), and Irenaeus himself (III.25.7) "persuade" people of the truth.

73. Cf. Philip J. Lee's contrast between the private, secret illumination of Gnosticism

and the public, open character of revelation in orthodox Christianity {Against the Protestant Gnostics [New York: Oxford University Press, 1987], pp. 101-14).

74. AH IV.20.7. The entire chapter is relevant for the notion of God's increasing self-revelation through his Word and Spirit (cf. also IV.6.6).

75 S M A D "Ali t th Gl f G d A K I i ht i St I "

Redemption is forIrenaeus notsomething that

only takes placeobjectively inChrist, but it issomething that hasa subjective pole inthe lives of thosewho become

persuaded byGod's revelation

in Christ.

God's revelationand teachingthroughout theone econotny ofredemption,climaxing inChrist, require ahuman response.


18/21

The emphatic

presence offree will

in Irenaeus makes it

fair toconclude that

salvation is

ultimately the

resultof a synergy

of divine and

human power.

The importance of

the human response

is seen also in the

place of faith andworks in Irenaeus.

freedom of the hu ma n will, both before and after the Fall. Redemption

means that God does not use violence, but "persuad es" h um an beings.

This implies an indep end ent free will, since "there is no coercion with

God...."7 7 To be sure, the "ancient law of hu ma n liberty" is no occa

sion for pride. Irenaeus adduces a number of Old Testament passages

that illustrate that "not by ourselves, but by the help ofGod, we must

be saved."78

Nonetheless, the emphatic presence of free will in Irenaeus

makes it fair to conclude that salvation is ultimately the result of a

synergy of divine and human power.79

Thus, while Irenaeus insists on

specifying divine hospitality as an entering into the historical and

material particularities of human life, this hospitality does not result

into the unjustified violence of divine coercion. While hospitality is

not afraid to express itself concretely by identifying with the otherand by sharing in their situation, hospitality would turn into hostility

if characterized by mere force.80

The importance of the human response is seen also in the place of faith

and works in Irenaeus. He regards Abraham as the father of all who

follow the example of his faith and in this way are saved.81

This does not

mean that Irenaeus, in proto-Reformation fashion, opposes faith to works.82

He consistently keeps the two together.83

Apprehensive of any Gnostic

devaluation ofthe significance ofmoral choice and good works, he warns

of the moral relativism inherent in the Gnostic position84

and insists thatby definition Christians have changed lives.

85Repeatedly, Irenaeus warns

77. AH1W.32.1.

78. AH III.20.3; cf. III.18.2. Tiessen puts it too strongly when he states that "Irenaeus

clearly affirmed the necessity of God' s grace prior to hum an choice of the good and the

decision of faith in God" {Irenaeus, 219). Irenaeus does not express any logical or tempo

ral priority, either to the work of th e Spirit or to the hu ma n response.

79. Demetrios J. Constantelos, "Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views on Human

Nature," St Vladimir's TheologicalQuarterly 33 (1989), pp. 360.

80. Cf. Miroslav Volf's comment: "In an embrace a host is a guest and a guest is a host.

Though one self may receive orgive more than the other, each must enter the space ofth e other, feel the presence of the other in the self, and make its own presence felt.

Without such reciprocity, there is no embrace" (Exclusion and Embrace: A TheologicalEx

ploration of Identity, Otherness, andReconciliation [Nashville: Abingdon, 1996], p. 143).

81. AH1V.5.3-5; 16.2; Dem. 24.

82. Dem. 2: "For what is the use of knowing the truth in word, while defiling the body and

accomplishing the works ofevil? Or what real good at all can bodily holiness do, if truth

be not in the soul? For these two rejoice in each other's company, and agree together and

fight side by side to set man in the presence of God." Cf. #.5.3-4; Dem. 3, 41.

83. Irenaeus does not oppos e faith to wor ks but to the Mosaic Law specifically. It is the

Law with the exception of the Decal oguethat has lost its prescriptive role (Dem. 35,

87, 89, 95-96). This emphatic assertion of normative discontinuity is all the more remarkable considering that Irenaeus opposes Marcion with a consistent appeal to the

unity of the Old and the New7

Testaments.


19/21

of the danger of losing the Spirit of God, after which there is no furtherforgiveness ofsins, but onlythe loss ofthe kingdom of heaven.

86Irenaeus

even goes so far as to suggest that it is not sacrifices but doing justice for

the oppressed, the fatherless and the widow that "propitiates" God.87

Those who consistently refuse to do this and reject Christ will be givenover to eternal judgment as the consequence of their choice.

88

The human response, forIrenaeus, is part and parcel of God's redemptive action in Christ. Redemption does not consist solelyof a physicalunion ofthe human and the divine in the incarnation ofthe Word, something that would logicallyrequire universal redemption.

89Redemp

tion needs more than incarnation. Even knowledge, by itself, is notenough, as the Gnostics erroneously propose. For Irenaeus, revelation

and knowledge are intimately tied to Christ as the teaching modelthatrequires imitation. Hence, persuasion, free will, faith, morality and judgment all have their integral place within the whole ofIrenaeus' thought.Human maturity and perfection can only be reached by means of faithand obedience. The consequences of the Fall need to be undone byChrist's victory as it is completed in the human response that prepares

believers for the eternal kingdom.90

Thehuman

responseffor

Irenaeus, ispart

aitd parcelofGod's redemptiveaction in Christ.

CONCLUSION: ECUMENICITYAND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Irenaeus holds out a vision of redemptive hospitality that is remarkable for its ecumenical promise. Weaving togetherthe physical and ethical approaches of later Eastern and Western thought, the Bishop of Lyonstakes his starting-point in a duality of the human predicament: humanimmaturity in creation as well as human sinfulness through the Fall. In

Irenaeus holds out

vision ofredemptiv

hospitality that is

remarkablefor its

ecumenicalpromis

86. AHYV.27.2; V.9.3; 10.1.

87. AHTV.17.1-2.

88. 10.1; 22.1; II.32.2; III.4.2; 25.4; IV.4.3; IV.6.5,7; 27.4; 28.1-3; 36.4,6; 40.1-3; V.27.1-

2. This emphasi s on jud geme nt is somewh at softened (1) by the fact that God's good

ness takes precedence over his justice (AH111.25.3) and (2) by the fact that in judgement

God is simply honouring people's own moral commitments and choices (AH.6.1;

IV.6.5; V.27.2; cf. Loewe, "Irenaeus7

Soteriology: Transposing the Question/7

p. 177; Minns,

Irenaeus, 128). Terranee Tiessen raises the question whether for Irenaeus also the

unevan gelize d can be saved, a question that he maintains cann ot be answe red conclu

sively ("Irenaeus on Salvation a nd the Millenn ium/' 3 [April 1991], pp . 2-

5; cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 168-70).

89. Cf. Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Taith,

trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth, 1934), p. 255; Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 155-58.

90. Cf. Trevor Hart's similar conclusion: "Thus we must give sufficient recognition tothe fact that man's plight is described by Irenaeus in relational language as well as that

hich has been termed 'ph sica l'" ("Irenae s Recapit lation and Ph sical Red emp


20/21

Irenaeus thuscombines the

Eastern hope for

ontologicaltransformatioi(deification) as

God's eternalpurpose zvith the

Western longing forrestoration

(forgiveness).

I suspect that thebreadth of Irenaeus '

understanding ofredemption, does

more justice to theover-all biblicalzvitness than a

restiiction to eitherone or another of

the variousapproaches.

opposition to his opponents ' hermeneutic of violence, Irenaeus pleads

for a hermeneutic of hospitality that interprets the entire economy of

salvation from a christological and soteriological perspective: God's

hospitable and redemptive character goes back to eternity and is not amere ad hoc response to human sinfulness. Irenaeus thus combines theEastern hope for ontological transformation (deification) as God 's eter

nal purpose with the Western longing for restoration (forgiveness).

While he frequently employs the Christus Victortheme to explain God'sdealing with Satan's violence and injustice, Irenaeus does not lose sight

of the hospitable character of redemption: God does not counter vio

lence with violence: Christ gains the victory through recapitulation and

the influence of persuasion. Recapitulation, the first (objective) means

of victory, includes (1) the incarnation of the Word as a redemptivemoment, in line with the more physical views of salvation in later East

ern thought; (2) Christ's obedience in the face of Satanic temptation,

leading to a restoration of Adamic innocence emphasizing the themes

of the Fall and of restoration in line with later Western thought; and (3)

Christ's death as sacrificial and propitiatory in character. Recapitula

tion thus means that in his redemptive hospitality God does not re

main at a distance but enters into human life: though being impassible,

God has become passible in the incarnation and thus takes on human

suffering and death. God's hospitality is redemptive through his willingness to identify with the determinate and violent circumstances of

human beings. Persuasion, the second (subjective) means of victory,

emphasizes knowledge, as well as faith and obedience, as the human

response to what God has done in Christ. Irenaeus' emphasis on the

role of the freedom of the human response and on final judgment safe

guards the open, hospitable character of God's redemption. The physi

cal and ethical strands of later Eastern and Western thought and the

various models of redemptionChristus Victor, satisfaction and morainfluencehardly exclude each other.

The combination of the various approaches may well mean that

Irenaeus' theology contains certain tensions that I have not explored in

this essay. Nonetheless, I suspect that the breadth of Irenaeus' unde r

standing of redemption does more justice to the over-all biblical wit

ness than a restriction to either one or another of the various approaches.

Moreover, the breadth of the Irenaean view of salvation stands as an

ecumenical challenge for the various traditions both within Eastern

and Western Christianity. If the church's message is to offer redemp

tion to a world of violence, her harmonious unity needs to model the

message of redemptive hospitality to the world. In order to participate

in this hospitality, the church may look to Irenaeus as a model to appre


21/21

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Boersma - Redemptive Hospitality in Iranaeus