"My Flesh is True Food": Realist Nuances in John 6

[Firstly, I invite you to read the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, specifically verses 22-71, and go over it on your own. I imagine most translations will do. Secondly, to follow along with me here.]

Those who hold to a Transubstantianist (that is, a true change of substance) view, who hold the most adamant form of a "real presence" doctrine concerning the Holy Eucharist, (Catholics and Orthodox, some Anglicans) are often scoffed at because, to the mind of the Protestant, they take but one statement from the Lord Jesus, who very frequently employed the use of symbolic language in his teaching, and somehow decided that in this particular episode, his words were no mere symbol. (Humorous examples can be found all along YouTube comments: "Christ also said He was the door -- do you think He's a door?") It is essentially an accusation of a superstitious ineptitude.

However, it is odd that the Scripture would devote this much detail, this many statements within such an intense dialogue, around one teaching of Christ's, that should ultimately only be read along the same lines of His other statements. A discussion this dense is not given around His "being the door of the sheepfold", or His being "the vine", or around his command to "turn the other cheek." The sheer acknowledgement that the Evangelist has dedicated so much writing in presenting us with this teaching, should likewise inform us that it would behoove us to pay attention to it.

The Competency of His Hearers:

If one holds to a strictly symbolic view of the Eucharist, as many Evangelicals do, it is incredibly easy (I would say de facto) to think of the crowd as somehow dense, unreasonable, or unenlightened. After all, He often spoke to the crowds in parables, so that only those with "ears to hear" would understand Him. But this is too hasty a rendering; their own words reveal that they are capable of understanding to when He is speaking metaphorically and when He is speaking with an assertive realism. Such can be demonstrated:

Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Christ statement contains two parts: "I am the living bread | which came down from heaven." He is, of course, not literally bread, but it can be legitimately said that He came down from heaven -- it is from this fact from which the metaphor draws its inner truth.

How does the gathering reply? “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:42) Notice, then, that Christ's audience has dissected which parts of his statements were realist, and which were symbol. They raise objection, not to His saying "I am bread", but to "I came down from heaven." These Jews are not dense; they have caught on just fine as to what Christ was implying. Christ's words contain both realism and symbolism, but it is only their realism that is met with skepticism. They will not cede that He has in fact descended from the heavenly realm. In other words, they take issue not with Christ calling himself bread, but by his saying that he came down from heaven -- the part of His statement that is not metaphor, but actual.

The same can be said for when Christ further extrapolates his words "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn. 6:51)

Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Having vouched for this crowd's intellectual aptitude, let it be asked: if Christ were just speaking in figure about the necessity of consuming his flesh and blood, would they have taken offence at it? Why would they have found it a difficult teaching, a hard saying? Have they not already shown themselves competent enough to see where He was speaking in figure and where He was not? Just as they were scandalized by His implying that He came down from heaven -- something which is very true and that they grasped just fine -- they are now scandalized that He should tell them to eat His flesh.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

His hearers have voiced and evidenced their hesitancy, yet the Lord only becomes more assertive than before. Before, He says "the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Now, "Very truly, I tell you... my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." He explains His reasoning for making such a statement: Christ has his spiritual life from the Father, and by partaking of His flesh and blood, His disciples share in that same life which He has in the Father. That spiritual life is something He experiences in His humanity, that spiritual life from the Father which is capable of raising those who possess it from the grave. Those who would eat his flesh and drink his blood would live in Him just as He lives in the Father, and consequently be raised gloriously from the dead just as He would be.

Some of His statements are augmented to be rather intense; the Savior emphasizes his previous remarks so as to make it personal. While continuing to say "eat my flesh," he also expresses this truth by emphatically including, "whoever eats me." He utilizes the word "true", as is His wont as the enlightener of the human race, when he says "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life within you" and "for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." How often has He at other times employed such claims to veracity? "Truly I tell you, you must be like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Mt. 18:3)  "Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (Jn. 12:24)

Yes, much of the Lord's language is spiritual in its nature, but evidently, no one in this able crowd seemed inclined to take the contemporary Protestant approach of simply understanding the words about eating His flesh and blood along the same lines as the rest of His sermon. When doubt is initially expressed, He only reinforces this line of speech and progresses it in its assertiveness.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” 

The text tells us it not merely His casual hearers, or those with some loose association with him, who are bothered by these words. Rather, it informs us that it is His disciples -- those who have already walked with Him -- who own up to having a problem. They admit to their reservations. "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?" Yet the Lord does not choose to blunt the edge his words. Rather, he directly challenges their hesitation: “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?"

His begging question which He uses as a follow up to his teaching is, of course, very realist: the Son of Man is going to ascend to where he was before (this happens at the Ascension, as recorded at the end of Luke and in the beginning of Acts.) This is not a mere rhetorical device, but a driving guarantee. It would seem very odd that He would intimidate the crowd's hesitation towards a metaphorical statement with one that is not metaphorical at all. If His claim that He down from heaven, and that He will ascend back to His Father, is credible, why is not His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

"The Flesh is useless?"

It is sometimes objected that Jesus, with one fell swoop, eliminates any realist understanding when He utters "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." There are some who would latch on to "the flesh is useless" and utilize it to dismiss that idea that there could be any spiritual benefit in taking into oneself the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

This is quite an unsound interpretation to think that when He says "the flesh is useless", that this would include His own flesh and blood. How regularly does the New Testament attribute Christ's blood with the work of Redemption? Thus says St. Paul, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7) And in Revelation, "you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9) No, His flesh is precious, as He offered it to His Father in a holy oblation which proved conducive towards the salvation of the human race.

Rather, in accordance the more Scripturally consonant understanding, in this particular instance, He is using this word "flesh" not in the sense of physical and tangible flesh, but rather, in the sense of man's lower, carnal mind. In such a way, He spoke to the Apostle Peter "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." (Mt. 16:17)

Turning to Those Closest to Him

Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

It isn't fair to assert that those He was preaching to were simply among the uninitated. The text tells us many of His disciples no longer walked with him. It was his followers who were scandalized; not merely the casual hearers and those who had ulterior motives.

When the crowds turn away, Jesus turns to the Twelve. Though Christ had many disciples, this group of men had a privilege which no others shared -- namely, that when Christ spoke in parables in public, He would do them the service of explaining them in private. “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples." (Mk. 4:33-34) Or as they are actually addressed: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." (Mt. 13:11) The twelve received the most direct instruction. Yet, when the crowd which included many of His followers departs, He offers them no explanation to his words. Rather, he only leaves them with harrowing question:

“Do you also wish to go away?”

If the Apostles had special access for unpacking His teachings which are more or less verbal illustrations, and in light of this most hard saying, no interpretation is thus given, it seems to follow that He was, in fact, not using a mere metaphor at all.


Let us close with this: one who would deny the realist implications of His words would have to in some way or another, admit:

• that Christ's audience generally had well developed enough reasoning to discern when He was using metaphor and when he was not, yet somehow made an obvious error in their assessment of His instruction to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
• that the Lord's disciples , who had greater familiarity with Him than others, were the ones who called it "a hard teaching", and were the ones needlessly scandalized over a metaphor, over which they ultimately left Him.
• that He challenged them needlessly, and did not even explain His words to His intimates in this scenario 
• that one of the Gospel accounts devotes so much time in explaining a teaching of Christ which is just as much a metaphor, simile, hyperbole and parable as His other statements.
• that it also takes so much time in explaining this teaching, comparable to other discourses like ones where He says that He is the Son of God
• that aside from proclaiming Himself the Son of God and for condemning the Pharisees of infidelity, no other statements of His illicit such negative reactions amidst His hearers.

That's quite a lot to ascribe to being a mere metaphor and to consign to relative regularity in the greater scheme of His teachings.

Deus Fit Homo Ut Homo Fieret Deus

The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ

And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.  

2 Corinthians 3:18

Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature. 

2 Peter 1:4  

Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. 

1 John 3:2 

One of the doctrines of the Early Church is also one not commonly addressed or adhered to in contemporary Western Christianity. It is, however still part of Catholic and Orthodox teaching. The Eastern Churches calls it "Theosis", while the West calls it "Deification", and Aquinas uses the term "becoming Deiform."

Ranking among the greatest of all Christian mysteries is the idea that God descended from His heavenly throne to become one of us, taking the form of a lowly servant. Or, as it's commonly stated: God became man. If this mystery is true, there's a flip-side to it, which is seldom contemplated in mainstream Christianity: if God became man, then man also became God.

This is truly significant. Jesus says "no one has seen the Father except the One who is truly from him." (John 6:46). Moses, a human being, could not look upon the face of God, and yet Jesus, also a human being, could, on account of his simultaneously being divine. Jesus later says "anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:6) Jesus thus offers himself as the means for man to finally see God. He gives man an ability that innately only belongs to the Trinity: the ability to look upon the Face of God. Being the mediator between God and man (2 Tm. 1:5), he thus bridges the two parties, and allows both to assume each other's inner experience.

How does this apply to us? God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying "Abba, Father!" In other words, we call out to God as Father just as Christ calls out to God as Father, for it is His Spirit within us. We are, not figuratively, but literally, adopted into the Divine Family! We are, by sharing in Christ's eternal sonship, participating in the inner life of God. If we are truly sons via adoption, then we are truly heirs as well (cf. Rm 8:15), meaning what the Father has is being passed on to us.

Hence, here lies the explanation for the verses up above. By being made "partakers in the divine nature", it entails a host of things: it enables us to share in God's holiness, which sanctifies us and makes us holy; to experience His internal life, which is everlasting, and it will culmination to actually being able (to some extent) to look upon the face of our Creator. Therefore, "when he is revealed, we shall be like him, for we will see him as he is." It says "we will be like him!" It says we are progressing "from glory unto glory," reflecting God's glory as in a mirror.

It could be summed up in a simple sentence: Deus fit homo it homo fieret deus. God became man that man might become God.

This is not to be understood that we become who God is, nor is it to be understood in a Mormon-esque way and believing ourselves to become our own gods -- God alone is God, and He is one. We are not, and shall never be, gods unto ourselves. Yet, this is to be understood as more than just being made righteous and even more than just living forever in and of themselves. Essentially, it means that we will experience in our lives certain qualities that by their very nature only belong to God: perfect sanctity, everlasting life, consummate happiness. Thus, we experience God's own life, partaking in the divine nature.

Through the loving Grace which God offers us through his Son, Jesus' command "be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" should no longer be seen as an impossible achievement -- for what is impossible for man is possible for God, and He has made it that our humanities may have true union with His divinity. This is ultimately what the life of Christ accomplished for us. As active Christians, we are literally becoming the righteousness of God (2 Cr. 5:21), being conformed to the image of His Son (Rm. 8:29).

And this concept of theosis, of "Deus fit homo it homo fieret deus", is the consistent testimony of the ancient church, as is demonstrated from these ancient voices:

"The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."
- Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202), Against Heresies, preface to book 5

"If he [man] should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God..."
- Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183), to Autolycus, book II, 27

"The Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God"
 - Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Exhortations to the Heathen 1

"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, ...begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God."
- Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), discourse on the Holy Theophany 8

"Certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give."
- Novatian (200-258), treatise on the Trinity 15

"This is our God, this is Christ, who, as the mediator of the two, puts on man that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be, that man may be what Christ is."
- Cyprian of Carthage (200-258), Treatises 6:11

"For He was made man that we might be made God ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality."
- Athanasius of Alexandria (297-373), On the Incarnation 54

"But the Incarnation is summed up in this, that the whole Son, that is, His manhood as well as His divinity, was permitted by the Father's gracious favour to continue in the unity of the Father's nature, and retained not only the powers of the divine nature, but also that nature's self. For the object to be gained was that man might become God."
- Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), On the Trinity 9:38

"Since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be defied."
- Gregory of Nyssa (335-395), Great Catechism 38

"While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed ... in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man."
- Gregory Nazianzen (329-390), The Third Theological Oration 29:19

"Today Godhead sealed itself upon Manhood, that so with the Godhead’s stamp Manhood might be adorned."
- Ephraim the Syrian (306-376), Hymns on the Nativity 1

"He therefore descended that we might ascend, and, while remaining in His own nature, became a sharer in our nature, so that we, while remaining in our own nature, might become sharers in His nature; but not in the same way, for He did not become worse by sharing in our nature, but we become better by sharing in His"
- Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Letters 140:4

Trinitarian Theology in St. Irenaeus

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.

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

This last statement from Irenaeus is, in a way, a nice condensation of his whole thought. As mentioned in Against Heresies, this One God is the Father who is above all, through all (via the Word) and in all (via the Spirit.) It is not simply the Father designated as the One God, but specifically the Father who is above all, and through all, and in all. These extensions of himself, that is, His being reckoned "through" and "in" all, are part of what qualify Him to be Himself. God is not simply God in Himself, but the God who is through all and in all -- the "through" and "in" are as much God as God himself.

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.

The Church Fathers on the Immortal Soul

The belief in the human soul's ongoing existence after death has been a very consistent position held by the Christian church (as well as its continued consciousness, albeit with minimally less consistence as far as the earliest centuries of the church are concerned.) St. Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian are the only ones, as far as I know, who raise some sort of dispute about it (and the issue with Justin, I believe is just a misunderstanding.)

So, here are some select quotes from the Early Church Fathers who testify in favor to the human soul's aeviternity:

"Mathetes" (Anonymous), Epistle to Diognetus 6, c. 130/(c. 200)

The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens.

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 155

And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul... they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories.

St. Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead 13, c. 180

Confident of these things, no less than of those which have already come to pass, and reflecting on our own nature, we are content with a life associated with neediness and corruption, as suited to our present state of existence, and we steadfastly hope for a continuance of being in immortality; and this we do not take without foundation from the inventions of men, feeding ourselves on false hopes, but our belief rests on a most infallible guarantee— the purpose of Him who fashioned us, according to which He made man of an immortal soul and a body, and furnished him with understanding and an innate law for the preservation and safeguard of the things given by Him as suitable to an intelligent existence and a rational life: for we know well that He would not have fashioned such a being, and furnished him with everything belonging to perpetuity, had He not intended that what was so created should continue in perpetuity.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies V:7:1, c. 180

What, then, are mortal bodies? Can they be souls? Nay, for souls are incorporeal when put in comparison with mortal bodies; for "God breathed into the face of man the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Now the breath of life is an incorporeal thing. And certainly they cannot maintain that the very breath of life is mortal. Therefore David says, "My soul also shall live to Him", just as if its substance were immortal. Neither, on the other hand, can they say that the spirit is the mortal body. What therefore is there left to which we may apply the term mortal body, unless it be the thing that was molded, that is, the flesh, of which it is also said that God will vivify it? For this it is which dies and is decomposed, but not the soul or the spirit.

Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul 22, c. 205

The soul, then, we define to be sprung from the breath of God, immortal, possessing body, having form, simple in its substance, intelligent in its own nature, developing its power in various ways, free in its determinations, subject to be changes of accident, in its faculties mutable, rational, supreme, endued with an instinct of presentiment... 

St. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10:30, c. 230

And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul.

St. Methodius of Philippi, Discourse on the Resurrection 1:XII, c. 300

But it is the flesh which dies; the soul is immortal. So, then, if the soul be immortal, and the body be the corpse, those who say that there is a resurrection, but not of the flesh, deny any resurrection; because it is not that which remains standing, but that which has fallen and been laid down, that is set up

St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen 33, c. 318

But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church's teaching which you must know, to show how the idols are to be overthrown. But we shall more directly arrive at a knowledge of this from what we know of the body, and from the difference between the body and the soul. For if our argument has proved it to be distinct from the body, while the body is by nature mortal, it follows that the soul is immortal, because it is not like the body.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:18, c. 350

Know also that you have a soul self-governed, the noblest work of God, made after the image of its Creator: Immortal, because of God who gives it immortality; a living being, rational, imperishable, because of Him who bestowed these gifts, having power to do what He wills.

Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down Death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

What 1 Tm 2:5 Means & Doesn't Mean by "Mediator"

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

1 Timothy 2:5

Orthodox, Catholics and some Anglican Christians practice asking the departed saints to pray to God on their behalf, and Protestants frequently frown upon this practice. When criticizing the former, the latter will often appeal to this verse as a proof-text against it, saying "Jesus is the only mediator between God and man." It tends to be their go-to text.

However, a closer look at the text itself will show that the two points are not in opposition to each other in the least bit; the saints can still intercede for us, and Christ is still "the one mediator between God and man." This solution will be provided by citing the four preceding verses and the one following, and delving into the context of the word "mediator." The passage below is 1 Timothy 2:1-6

1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people...

What "One Mediator" Does Mean:

Verse 6 is especially important, because it describes what that office of mediator actually looks like and how it came to be. Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all people. In paying this ransom, Christ mediated our reconciliation with God the Father.

Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews sheds further light on the issue, because Hebrews equates Christ's office as mediator with his office as high priest of the people of God. Chapters five through ten expound on the nuances of His office as high priest and as mediator.

Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins... During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
(Hebrews 5:1, 7-10)

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
(Hebrews 7:23-27)

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
(Hebrews 9:15)

This last verse cited, IX, xv, directly equates Christ being mediator with his giving his life as a ransom. Other verses could be cited, but these will suffice. An high priest is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, in offering gifts and sacrifices for sins. He lives always to intercede as a high priest, having sacrificed himself for their sins once for all. Jesus reconciled men unto God through the offering of His life. His sacrifice mediates forgiveness of sins, as is standard of His high priestly office. His mediation is on sacerdotal grounds, meaning that it is a covenantal mediation. It is something much more significant than simply praying on behalf of the people on earth -- this mediatorship encompasses the element of offering sacrifices, of remitting sin, of propitiating God the Father.


What "One Mediator" Doesn't Mean:

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the word 'mediatior' described in 1 Tm 2:5 is written in an even more general sense and has a wider meaning than simply being the High Priest. Are we to understand it as forbidding intercessory prayer?

In verse 1 of this chapter, Paul urges that petitions, prayers, [and] intercessions be made for all people (the word intercession is specifically used.) If one wants to understand the concepts of intercessor and mediator as being synonymous, then St. Paul is contradicting himself. It is thus not coherent to read this verse as forbidding any and all intercessory prayer aside from that of Christ's.

Furthermore, Scripture itself testifies that the company of heaven do, in fact, pray for the holy ones on earth. The Book of Revelation depicts such an occurrence:

[. . .] the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints
Revelation 5:8

Here, the twenty-four elders and four living creatures, who are present before the throne of God,  present the prayers of the living to the Lamb of God. Paul's words thus cannot exclude this "mediation" which is here described; on the contrary: this intercession which Paul exhorts Timothy to is practiced by the hosts of heaven as well as by the saints upon earth.

One should take note also that it isn't even God the Father to which the incense of prayer is offered, but rather, to the Lamb: Christ, the priest and victim. The Father thus receives the prayers of both the earthly and heavenly saints through his Son. Even amidst the reality of heavenly intercessors, Jesus still stands out as "the one mediator between God and man."

In summary, Christ certainly is the "one mediator between God and man", in context of His high priesthood in Heaven, where He constantly beseeches His Father on behalf of His church, and this mediation is effective through surpassing value of His sacrifice on Calvary. There is nothing in asking the saints in heaven to pray for you which violates this principle -- ergo, there's no compromise in the truth set forth in 1 Timothy 2:5. Christ retains His rightful title and the honor it accords Him.

Who is the Light of the World?

The Transfiguration, Alexander Ivanov, c. 1845, Moscow

[for my friend Benjamin Tercero]

Primarily, Our Lord Jesus Christ gives this title to his very self. "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (Jn 8:12) He is the light in the darkness which came into the world, and the darkness has not overcome Him. (cf. Jn 1)

But notice also what the Lord says in relation to this truth, "Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life." The light of Christ dwells within the Christian. But I ask, to what degree? How brightly does it shine?

The other place where we find the phrase "light of the world" is used in Matthew's Gospel, and when Christ uses it, He says it not in reference to Himself, but to His disciples -- that is, the Church.

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father." (Mt. 5:14-16)

And why should that surprise anyone? After all, Paul says the church is, among other things, the body of Christ, and the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way. (Eph. 1:23) We know Jesus is speaking of the Church because he specifically follows up the statement with "a city set on a mountain cannot be hidden", a city being a visible, established community of people. The society of saints itself is designated as "the light of the world."

To say that the Church is his body, even his "fullness" in the world, then the light of Christ, the light of world, only ought naturally to apply to the Church -- it is to be his light in the world, in a very dynamic and real sense. A sacrament to the non-believer.

Applying that there is, in fact, a light of the world, Christ also affirms the other end of this reality: the world is in darkness. The darkness of sin, of a broken humanity. It needs to be shown the light of Christ, to know the redemption and reconciliation which He provides. The Church is to be that light in the world -- to demonstrate, exercise and bestow that healing and forgiveness, to give tangible evidence of that reconciliation.

If you are not the light of the world -- living the Christian life in faith, hope and love -- all the earth will be in darkness, and you yourself will be dwelling in it. You must let your good deeds shine before men for the Father's glory, because it is the Father's glory itself, the grace of Christ, which will give them their brilliance. We were "made to walk in our good deeds." (cf. Eph 2:10)

This is how intimately Christ and the Church associate with each other: they are both, very properly, called "the light of the world." It is Christ's light, but it shines from the tower which is the Church as from a lighthouse, guiding souls to the truth that will set them free -- for just as Christ is truth (Jn. 14:6), the Church is pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tm 3:15).

The Church Fathers on Original Sin

THE CHURCH FATHERS ON ORIGINAL SIN

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 202)

But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the first formed man, of whom the Scripture says that the Lord spoke, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness; (Genesis 1:26) and we are all from him: and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title.
(Against Heresies III:23:2)

Men cannot be saved in any other way from the ancient wound of the Serpent except by believing in Him who according to the likeness of sinful flesh was lifted up from the earth on the tree of testimony and drew all things to Himself and gave life to the dead.
(ibid IV:2:8)

But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.
(ibid V:16:3)

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155 - c. 244)

In expressing vexation, contempt, or abhorrence, you have Satan constantly upon your lips; the very same we hold to be the angel of evil, the source of error, the corrupter of the whole world, by whom in the beginning man was entrapped into breaking the commandment of God. And (the man) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, tainted in their descent from him, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation.
(Testimony of the Soul 3)

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 - c. 254)

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.
(Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 - 258)

For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean. (Acts 10:28) But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted— and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. (Epistles 58:5)

St. Methodius of Philippi (d. 311)

For with this purpose the Word assumed the nature of man, that, having overcome the serpent, He might by Himself destroy the condemnation which had come into being along with man's ruin. For it was fitting that the Evil One should be overcome by no other, but by him whom he had deceived, and whom he was boasting that he held in subjection, because no otherwise was it possible that sin and condemnation should be destroyed, unless that same man on whose account it had been said, Dust you are, and unto dust you shall return, (Genesis 3:19) should be created anew, and undo the sentence which for his sake had gone forth on all, that as in Adam at first all die, even so again in Christ, who assumed the nature and position of Adam, should all be made alive.
(Banquet of the Ten Virgins III:6)

St. Athanasius of Alexandria

For since the first man Adam altered, and through sin death came into the world, therefore it became the second Adam to be unalterable; that, should the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent's deceit might be baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all. For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to extend through all men, so that each of us may say, 'For we are not ignorant of his devices.' (2 Corinthians 2:11)
(Four Discourses Against the Arians 1, 12)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - 394)

Evil has been intermingled with our nature from the outset, because of those who received passion into themselves at the beginning by disobeying and so giving the disease a home in themselves. And, as in every species of living being, the same nature persists as one follows the other, so that as far as nature itself is concerned, what comes into existence is identical with that whence it came, so it is that man comes from man, the passionate from the passionate, the sinner from the sinner. In some sense, therefore, sin comes to exist along with things that come to be. It is born with it, grows alongside it and ceases only when life is ended.
(Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes)

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 338 - 397)

Therefore, in accordance with nature, excessive grief must not be yielded to, lest we should seem either to claim for ourselves either an exceptional superiority of nature, or to reject the common lot. For death is alike to all, without difference for the poor, without exception for the rich. And so although through the sin of one alone, yet it passed upon all; (Romans 5:12) that we may not refuse to acknowledge Him to be also the Author of death, Whom we do not refuse to acknowledge as the Author of our race; and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift. For, as we read, Christ has come to save that which was lost, (Luke 19:10) and to be Lord both of the dead and living. Romans 14:9 In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ. If, then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment. But this topic must be reserved for later treatment.
(On the Death of Satyrus II, 6)