Dmc Irenaeus

8/9/2019 Dmc Irenaeus

1/6


2/6

CHURCH FATHERS

be the real God whom Christ

revealed but the inferior demiurge.

Christ was the revealer of the

hitherto unknown high and all

perfect God to men. By this

illumination, all “spiritual” men

who were capable of receiving this

knowledge would be led back to

the realm of the good God.

To them, the material world was

evil therefore, Christ could not

have had a real incarnation; his

appearance was either as Docetic

and Ghostly, as a temporary

indwelling of the man Jesus, or as

an apparent birth from a Virgin

Mother without partaking of

material nature.4

Doctrine of Irenaeus against the

Gnostics

1 That the God of the Ol d Testament is

the God of The New and the One and

Only True God

To counter the first argument noted above,

Irenaeus notes that our Lord Jesus Christ

confesses the same Being as (His) Father,

as do Moses, David and Esaias (Isaiah),

where He says: “I confess to thee, O

Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”

4 Cf. Hubert Jedin, Handbook of Church History,

Volume I, (London: Burns and Oates, 1965), p. 183.

Irenaeus further observes that since the

writings (literæ) of Moses are the words of

Christ, He (Christ) does Himself declare to

the Jews, as John has recorded in the

Gospel: “If you had believed Moses, you

would have believed me: for he wrote of

me. But if you do not believe his writings,

neither will you believe my words.” From

this Irenaeus infers that if this is the case

with regard to Moses (that his are the

words of Christ), so too are the words of

the other prophets Christ’s words as well.

And again, the Lord Himself exhibits

Abraham as having said to the rich man,

with reference to all those who were still

alive: “If they do not obey Moses and the

prophets, neither, if any one were to rise

from the dead and go to them, will they

believe him.”

Irenaeus further reacts by commenting on

a text, the interpretation of which is in

contention between him and his

opponents. He notes that Jesus said: ‘do

not swear at all, either by Heaven, for it is

the throne of God, or by the earth for it is

his footstool, or by Jerusalem for it is the

city of the great king’ (Matt 5:34-35). The

text alludes to Isaiah 66:1 ‘Heaven is my

throne, and earth is my footstool.’ Irenaeus

then reports the Gnostic teaching thus:

‘these malicious ones say: If heaven is the

throne of God and the earth God’s

footstool, but it is said heaven and earth


3/6

CHURCH FATHERS

will pass away, with them will also

certainly pass this God who is sited upon

them, therefore this isn’t the God who is

above all things.’’ As Ireneaus remarks,

such a statement comes from one who

does not know what God is; rather they

think that God is like human beings who

sits contained, and not that God is the one

who contains. Ireneaus understands that a

specific note of the Creator God as distinct

from the things of creation is that the

Creator is the one in who all else is, but

who is in no other. The Gnostic reading

contradicts this position and it also

misunderstands the passing of Heaven and

earth.

Ireneus says that David resolved this latter

question in Ps 102: 25-28. According tothe psalmist heaven and earth will pass out

but God and his servants ‘will remain for

ever.’ While God is quite different from

created things that are limited and passing,

there is nevertheless a kind of

commonality between God and the

servants of God in that both ‘will live for

ever.’ To clarify this commonality

Ireneaus moves to his final section of the

Matthean passage, referring to Jerusalem.

The Gnostics say that the city would not

have been destroyed if were truly the city

of the great King. This says Irenaeus, is

like saying:

If the stubble were a creature of God,

never would it have been parted from

the grain of wheat! Or again, if the

vine twigs were made by God, never

would they be cut down when theyhave been stripped of grapes. But just

as these things were made principally

on account of the fruit growing on

them … so with Jerusalem.5

Jerusalem bore its fruit, the fruit of liberty

and now is abandoned. So it is for ‘all that

begins in time that must necessarily end in

time.’ And the One True God did not

begin in time hence He will not end in

time.

2. That Chri st i s the Revealer of the One

True God, and that the One True God is

the revealer of Chri st

Having demonstrated that the God of the

Old Testament is the God of the New, St.

Irenaeus continues to argue that Christ is

the only revealer of God who was known

from the beginning through the Word with

whom they co-existed. He highlights that

Christ, in revealing himself to his disciples

as the Word who imparts knowledge of the

Father and who reproves the Jews who

rejected this Word, declared that: “No man

knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither

knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,

and he to whom the Son has willed to

reveal [Him].” But the Gnostics according

5 (AH IV. 4, 1 SC 100: 416)


4/6

CHURCH FATHERS

to Irenaeus read same verse thus: “No man

knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son,

but the Father, and he to whom the Son

has willed to reveal [Him];”

The problem that Irenaeus finds with this

Gnostic variant is the shift of tenses which

has the effect of asserting that the Father

was not known before the coming of

Christ.6 He therefore argues that, if Christ

did then [only] begin to have existence

when He came into the world as man, and

if the Father did remember only in the

times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for the

wants of men, and His Word was shown to

have not always coexisted with His

creatures; [it may be remarked that]

neither then was it necessary that another

God should be proclaimed, but rather thatthe reasons for so great carelessness and

neglect on His part should be made the

subject of investigation.

His interpretation of the text allows for

more subtlety. Certainly it means that the

invisible Father is known through the

Word and the inexpressible is expressed

by the Word; in turn the word is known

only by the Father. But Irenaeus insists

that the Lord did not say that the Father

and the Son can be known in no way at all,

rather what he taught is that no one is able

to know God unless God teaches the

6 Ma ry Ann Do novan, op. cit., p.103.

person; that without God there is no

knowledge of God. But that God should be

known is the will of the Father. For they

know Him to whom the Son will reveal

Him.7

For Irenaeus, the Father reveals the Son

precisely so that through His

instrumentality He might be manifested to

all, and might receive those righteous ones

who believe in Him into incorruption and

everlasting enjoyment (now, to believe in

Him is to do His will); but He shall

righteously shut out into the darkness,

those who do not believe, and who do

consequently avoid His light. The Father

therefore has revealed Himself to all, by

making His Word visible to all; and,

conversely, the Word has declared to all,the Father and the Son since He has

become visible to all. And therefore the

righteous judgment of God shall fall upon

all who, like others, have seen, but have

not, like others, believed. For Irenaeus

therefore, it is not sufficient to have the

knowledge revealed by Christ in order to

be led back to the realm of the good God

as the Gnostics claimed. One should also

believe in Him and carry out His will. It is

in this way that one procures for himself

the salvation of God. Instead, unbelief and

acting contrary to the will of God brings

7 Ibid.


5/6

CHURCH FATHERS

about judgement and eternal

condemnation.8

3. That Ch ri st was True Man Born of the

Bl essed Vi rgi n Mary

Following from the above two discourses

about God St. Irenaeus in Book Five

Chapter One defends the Humanity of

Christ. Irenaeus articulates his discourse

from what is observable of Christ; that it

was in fact necessary for the existing Word

to become flesh for in no other way could

we have learned the things of God. For no

other being had the power of revealing to

us the things of the Father, except His own

proper Word. For what other person “knew

the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has

become His counsellor?” Again, we could

have learned in no other way than by

seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice

with our own ears, that, by becoming

imitators of His works as well as doers of

His words, we may have communion with

Him, receiving increase from the perfect

One, and from Him who is prior to all

creation. Irenaeus notes that we were

created by the only best and good Being,

by him who has immortality and that we

were formed in his own image and

likeness and thus we were made the first

fruits of creation. We also have received

8

Cf.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.html

beforehand the blessing of salvation

according to the ministration of the Word

who is perfect in all things.

But according to Irenaeus, apostasy

tyrannized over us unjustly, and hence

contrary to nature, alienated us from the

Omnipotent God whose property we are

rendering us its own disciples.

Nevertheless the Word of God righteously

turned against this apostasy, and redeemed

from it His own property through His own

blood, giving His soul for our souls, and

His flesh for our flesh, and He also poured

out the Spirit of the Father for the union

and communion of God and man,

imparting indeed God to men by means of

the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching

man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowed upon us at His coming

immortality durably and truly, by means of

communion with God.

It is because this that Christ could not have

appeared in mere seeming, for these things

[noted above] were not done in appearance

only, but in actual reality. For Irenaeus, if

He did appear as a man, when He was not

a man, neither could the Holy Spirit have

rested upon Him, (an occurrence which did

actually take place) as the Spirit is

invisible; nor, [in that case], was there any

degree of truth in Him, for He was not that

which He seemed to be. Irenaeus

furthermore attests that Abraham and the

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.html


6/6

CHURCH FATHERS

other prophets beheld Him after a

prophetical manner, foretelling in vision

what should come to pass. If, then, such a

being has now appeared in outward

semblance different from what he was in

reality, there has been a certain prophetical

vision made to men; and another advent of

His must be looked forward to, in which

He shall be such as He has now been seen

in a prophetic manner. To Irenaeus, it is

the same thing to say that He appeared

merely to outward seeming, and to affirm

that He received nothing from Mary. For

He would not have been one truly

possessing flesh and blood, by which He

redeemed us, unless He had summed up in

Himself the ancient formation of Adam.9

Irenaeus highlights the futility of thosewho do not receive by faith into their soul

the union of God and man, and thus fail to

understand that the Holy Spirit came upon

Mary, and that the power of the Most High

did overshadow her: wherefore also what

was generated is a holy thing, and the Son

of the Most High God. Irenaeus argues

that at the beginning of our formation in

Adam, the breath of life that God breathed

into man animated him, and manifested

him as a being with reason; in the same

way in the times of the end, the Word and

the Spirit of God, having become united

with the ancient substance of Adam’s

9 Cf. Ibid.

formation rendered man living and perfect,

receptive to the Father so that in the

natural Adam we all are dead, so that in

the spiritual we may be made alive. And

for this reason in the last times, by the

good pleasure of the Father, His Hands

[the Son and the Spirit] formed a living

man, in order that Adam might be created

again after the image and likeness of God10

Bibliography

Donovan, Mary Ann. One Right Reading:

A Guide to Ireneaus. Minnesota: The

Liturgical Press, 1997.

Jedin, Hubert. Handbook of Church

History, Volume I. London: Burns and

Oates, 1965.

Schmid, Bernard. Manual of Patrology. St.

Louis: JB. Iberder, 1903.

Other Sources

Catholic Encyclopaedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.

htm

Christian Classics:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi

i.ii.html

10 Cf. Ibid.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.ii.htmlhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

Dmc Irenaeus

Documents

Transcript of Dmc Irenaeus