In the discussion as to whether or not the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have believed in the doctrine professed by the Nicene Council, one church father is particularly important: St. Irenaeus of Lyons. He is, among other things, the first of all systematic theologians in Christian history. He was also instructed by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who himself learned under St. John the Apostle (one of the Twelve.) He wasn't unaware of other ecclesial writers either, both past and contemporaneous with himself.
Dr. Jackson Lashier posits in his magnificent work that Irenaeus, hidden within plain sight from so many scholars for so many years, is the first early Christian writer to express the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in a form conceptually recognizable (but not necessarily identical) to the expressions of future Christians with more developed Trinitarian language. Looking honestly upon those writers (St. Justin Martyr and the other Apologists) who predated him, Dr. Lashier posits that Irenaeus transcends the subordinationist lingual tendencies (tendencies which would ultimately culminate in the heresy of Arianism.) He is the first to present a more mature Trinitarian theology, more wholly the formulations of the post-Nicene fathers.
There is no need to be scandalized by the fact that Justin & the Apologists expressed the mystery of the Trinity in very Platonic, subordinationist terms; it is the terminology they had available to them. They had not the fruits of later fathers in their expression of it -- namely, a development of language more suitable for conveying the substance of this faith. John Henry Newman would posit that when we read the early fathers, "of course we believe that they imply... or rather intend" what we are ourselves believe, despite their deficiency of language. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, sect 11) But Irenaeus has more developed and nuanced wording in his arsenal for his doctrine concerning the Trinity.
Irenaeus' work Against Heresies reveals familiarity with, and even consultation with, the works of the Apologists, in his exposition of Christian doctrine against the heresy of Gnosticism (a highly platonic and cultic form of Christianity which esoterically practiced a secretive elitism in whom they revealed their doctrines.) The bishop of Lyons' own ancient form of orthodoxy is vouched for by the fact that later authors, such as Hippolytus of Rome and Eusebius of Caesarea, reference his life and legacy in positive terms, even when they might be inclined to still be using the more widespread and available language of the Apologists. Thus, though he surely sticks out among the other Ante-Nicene fathers for his Trinitarian language, we ought not to conclude that Irenaeus is set in innate opposition to them. He is expressing their faith -- the Christian faith.
Dr. Jackson Lashier posits in his magnificent work that Irenaeus, hidden within plain sight from so many scholars for so many years, is the first early Christian writer to express the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in a form conceptually recognizable (but not necessarily identical) to the expressions of future Christians with more developed Trinitarian language. Looking honestly upon those writers (St. Justin Martyr and the other Apologists) who predated him, Dr. Lashier posits that Irenaeus transcends the subordinationist lingual tendencies (tendencies which would ultimately culminate in the heresy of Arianism.) He is the first to present a more mature Trinitarian theology, more wholly the formulations of the post-Nicene fathers.
There is no need to be scandalized by the fact that Justin & the Apologists expressed the mystery of the Trinity in very Platonic, subordinationist terms; it is the terminology they had available to them. They had not the fruits of later fathers in their expression of it -- namely, a development of language more suitable for conveying the substance of this faith. John Henry Newman would posit that when we read the early fathers, "of course we believe that they imply... or rather intend" what we are ourselves believe, despite their deficiency of language. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, sect 11) But Irenaeus has more developed and nuanced wording in his arsenal for his doctrine concerning the Trinity.
Irenaeus' work Against Heresies reveals familiarity with, and even consultation with, the works of the Apologists, in his exposition of Christian doctrine against the heresy of Gnosticism (a highly platonic and cultic form of Christianity which esoterically practiced a secretive elitism in whom they revealed their doctrines.) The bishop of Lyons' own ancient form of orthodoxy is vouched for by the fact that later authors, such as Hippolytus of Rome and Eusebius of Caesarea, reference his life and legacy in positive terms, even when they might be inclined to still be using the more widespread and available language of the Apologists. Thus, though he surely sticks out among the other Ante-Nicene fathers for his Trinitarian language, we ought not to conclude that Irenaeus is set in innate opposition to them. He is expressing their faith -- the Christian faith.
To grasp the full significance of his thoughts, it helps to understand what Irenaeus is writing against in his treatise. Firstly, his adversaries adhere to the standard Gnostic attitude of deeming physical matter as innately evil (being that it was created by the inferior, evil god) and that spiritual realities are of the holy and good God. Further, according to the Gnostic theologies of his opponents, the good God is an incredibly distant one -- so distant, in fact, that he needs a whole series of intermediaries, called Aeons, in order to actually create the world. One of these Aeons in particular, Sophia/Wisdom, visits the physical realm in the form of a man: Jesus of Nazareth.
Irenaeus affirms that God the Father made the world through the Son and the Spirit -- but one thing he does NOT want to do is present the Christian faith so as to make it appear similar to the very Gnosticism with which he is in combat. For St. Irenaeus, the Son and the Spirit are not mere created underlings who "do the dirty work" of creation. Irenaeus uses the language of them being God's "two own hands", with which He was "never without." Though distinct from God the Father, the Son and the Spirit are never separate from God the Father. Though He creates the world through them, it is still right to directly credit the work as being His.
For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator. [AH 3.8.3]
According to St. Irenaeus, God alone is uncreated, without beginning and end, and all other beings have their existence and beginning in this self-existent and infinite God. By saying that both the Father and His Word (the Son) are able to so be called "God", Irenaeus thus attributes theses same qualities to the Son -- the Son is uncreated, without beginning and end. There is nothing Arian about this in the slightest.
It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; (Genesis 1:26) [AH 4.20.1]Man was made in the image of God. This is no small statement; a created intermediary such as angels could not have the power to accomplish this. Though the Son and Spirit are attributed with the work of creation, Irenaeus says that this power that made man was "not distant" from the Father; nay, the saint calls them God's "own hands", whom "were always present" with him. Our saint thus ascribes to these two hands of God, the Son and the Spirit, the quality of being eternal, and insofar as they were always present to Him, God thus did not then make or create them.
Further, Irenaeus says that in creating the world, God "determined with Himself before hand" with His two hands, interpreting "Let us make man after Our image and likeness" referring to God the Father, the Son and the Holy. The "our" in Genesis 1:26 thus applies equally to the Father, Son and Spirit -- it is Their image in which man is made. And this image is, of course, a single image -- God's image.
By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God—[of] the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, [of] the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and [of] the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. [AH 4.38.3]This subtlety in St. Irenaeus is actually one of the most revealing; concerning not only man's being made in the image of God, but man's ascension to the likeness of God, He has already extrapolated that man was made in the image and likeness the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In this passage, Irenaeus now refers to man's ascension to becoming "partakers in the divine nature." Man's similarity to God does not only relate to whom they are being likened to (the Father), but also being made like unto Who creates them (the Son) and who gives them increase (the Spirit). Being made like the Father through the Son, in the Spirit, it is this image to which man ascends.
He deems that what is uncreated as perfect, and given that he has already in previous passages attributed to the Son and Spirit the quality of uncreatedness, they must, according to the view of St. Irenaeus, be perfect in the same manner in which God is perfect.
And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ; but the Word is through all things, and is Himself the Head of the Church; while the Spirit is in us all, and He is the living water, (John 7:39) which the Lord grants to those who rightly believe in Him, and love Him, and who know that there is one Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. Ephesians 4:6 [AH 5.18.2]
In this way, then, it is demonstrated [that there is] One God, [the] Father, uncreated, invisible, Creator of all, above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And as God is verbal, therefore, He made created things by the Word; and God is Spirit, so that He adorned all things by the Spirit, as the prophet also says, “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the power by his Spirit” (Ps. 33:6/32:6 LXX). Thus, since the Word ‘establishes,’ that is, works bodily and confers existence, while the Spirit arranges and forms the various ‘powers’, so rightly is the Son called the Word and the Spirit the Wisdom of God. Hence, His apostle Paul also well says, “One God, the Father, who is above all, and through all and in us all”—because ‘above all’ is the Father, and ‘through all’ is the Word—since through Him everything was made by the Father—while ‘in us all’ is the Spirit, who cries “Abba, Father,” and forms man to the likeness of God. Thus, the Spirit demonstrates the Word, and, because of this, the prophets announced the Son of God, while the Word articulates the Spirit, and therefore it is He Himself who interprets the prophets and brings man to the Father. (On the Apostolic Preaching 5)
 |
| St. Irenaeus, 2nd century bishop of Lyons |
Throughout Irenaeus' work, the Spirit and Son do exhibit a sort of functional subordination in the work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; but this is wholly orthodox. It does not substantiate or infer any kind of ontological subordination, or that the Son and Spirit are lesser in their personhood. They share all the same attributes as God the Father, which are the attributes which accredit to him the perfection of Godhead.
St. Irenaeus' work is dated to c. A.D. 180, about halfway between the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord, and of the convocation of the first council of Nicaea. The Nicene doctrines cannot be construed to be innovation; though Irenaeus does not speak in exactly the same terms and use the same mode of thinking, one can easily see the parallels between his thoughts and those of the later Nicenes. Surely, Irenaeus could give an amen to the notion that the Logos of God is "light from light, true God from true God", as would Justin Martyr and Ignatius before him, and as Tertullian and the two Dionysius after him.
[For more in-depth reading, see Jackson Lashier's great work: The Trinitarian Theology of St. Irenaeus of Lyons.]
UPDATE 3/9/18
I have come across other excerpts from St. Irenaeus' from the collection of Lost Fragments (partial remnants of lost works recorded by other authors.) These quotes go very much along in the same vein as do those from Against Heresies, but adding these to the list contribute to the dynamism of his doctrine.
Concerning Christ specifically, St. Irenaeus language is astounding in Fragment 53:
With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen.Our ancient saint actually utters what is said in the original Nicene creed: Christ is not only "God in God" (a phrase easily read along subordinationist lines) , but is "God of God; Son of the Father." This is certainly more along of the lines of what the Nicene Council affirmed in Christ's consubstantiality with the Father.
Along more explicitly Trinitarian lines, Fragment 26 reads:
Know that every man is either empty or full. For if he has not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the Creator; he has not received Jesus Christ the Life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven; if he does not live after the dictates of reason, after the heavenly law, he is not a sober-minded person, nor does he act uprightly: such an one is empty. If, on the other hand, he receives God, who says, I will dwell with them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, (Leviticus 26:12) such an one is not empty, but full.Asserting that "every man is either empty or full", Irenaeus goes on to describe what those both mean. He who is empty "has not the Holy Spirit," "has no knowledge of Jesus Christ the Life", "knows not the Father." Contrasting this absence are those "who receive God." And God dwells with them, and walks with them, and is their God. He thus makes this juxtaposition: man is either empty of the Spirit, Son and Father, or man is full of God. The equivocation is difficult to downplay.
No comments:
Post a Comment