CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 8
Scripture as mind and will of God: participation in truth We have seen that the rule and apostolic preaching look to scripture for reciprocal demonstration. The bible is the highest source of truth because the prophets were inspired of God. Their visions take the place of Platonic forms and depict the mind and will of God. Just as Alcinous found the criterion of truth in the world of forms rather than in a formula of one line, so the Christian rule of faith expands to a brief:statement of scriptural claims behind which lies the universe of biblical imagery. Prophecy moves from future reference to present reality as illuminated by a rebirth of biblical images. 'These images unite the bible as the divine source of truth in which the believer participates.
Irenaeus provides the first clear evidence of a Christian bible, although his 'new testament' is not yet a document (4.9.1). He has a central concern for right use of the scripture (5.20.2) and is commonly contrasted with the Alexandrian fathers because he gave less importance to the place of philosophy and stayed closer to biblical categories. Against heresies draws extensively on new testament writings, mainly Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, then the sayings of the lord and the Epistles of Paul.'
Much has been written on Irenaeus' interpretation of the bible.?
He extols the bible as the measure of truth (2.28.1), perfect because from God (2.28.2), ordered and coherent (1.8.1), and never without meaning (4.31.1). What God has so entrusted to men must be
' It is difficult to count quotations because they fade into allusions. Benoit finds 629 references to the old testament and 1065 to the new testament. A. Benoit, 'Ecriture et tradition chez S. Irénée', RHPAR 40 (1960), 33.
* The literature is enormous. The fine work of J. Hoh, Die Lehre des hl. Inendus iiber das Neue
Testament (Miinster, 1919) is a comprehensive introduction.
Scripture as mind and will of God
handled with integrity, zeal and daily practice (2.27.1). Of course many questions must be left in the hands of God (2.28.6), for our knowledge is partial (2.28.7). We should despise the bible if its truths were universally accessible, for we are lesser and more recent than the word and spirit of God (2.28.2). In face of the tension between plain simplicity and divine mystery, Irenaeus turns always to the rule of faith as a criterion. Above all, the agreement of the Gospels and the prophets points to the supreme event of incarnation from which the life of humanity is renewed (4.34.1).3
Sale
FROM PROPHETIC SPIRIT TO ETERNAL WORD
Irenaeus finds in the prophets the economies of the divine Intellect. All is recapitulated in Christ and the linear extent in time gives way to synchronisation. Prophecy and fulfilment still affirm the historical dimension, but the recapitulation of all things brings simultaneity to the noetic world. Irenaeus' argument begins with Justin Martyr's linking of prophetic images and Platonic forms.
Prophetic spirit The authority of scripture depends on a metaphysic of mind which is common to Justin and Irenaeus. The movement of their argument is first set out in Justin's account of word, spirit and mind of God.5
More than a third of Justin's Apology is taken up with prophecies which have been fulfilled or are yet to be fulfilled. 'These are the unique source of truth. Even Plato learned from the prophets, who are 'our teachers' (r apol. 59): Philosophers and poets are able to talk about the immortality of the soul and other doctrines because they received hints from the prophets which have led them to the truth. The prophetic spirit will be seen to fulfil exactly the same function as the spermatic logos except that the seeds are traced to scripture rather than to human minds (7 apol. 44).
3 For a lucid exposition of these problems see N. Brox, "Die biblische Hermeneutik des
Irenaus', ZAC 2 (1998), 26-48.
4 See above, chapter 2.
5 See my, 'Word, Spirit and Geistmetaphysik', Prudentia, Supplement (1985), 64-6.
Participation Word of God Justin explains the anthropomorphic language of the old testament in terms of the cosmic Intellect whom Irenaeus knows as God.
When we read that God shut Noah into the ark or came down to see the tower which the sons of men had built, we must not think that the unbegotten God himself came down or went up anywhere.
[He] stays in his own place, wherever that is, being quick to see and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears but being of indescribable might; he sees all things, and knows all things and none of us escapes his observation; and he is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for he existed before the world was made. (dial. 1 27) On the contrary, it was Christ, as lord, God, son of God, who appeared in power as man, angel and burning bush. He is not an impersonal force, emanating like light from the father and sinking when the father wills; rather he is ied cally distinct like a fire kindled from another fire, distinct but not depriving the original fire in any way (dial. 128).
Scripture tells that God begat before he began creating things; his only begotten was a 'certain rational power', whom the holy spirit calls with many names, such as glory of the lord, son, wisdom, angel, God, lord, and logos. God's begetting was like our thinking and speaking, for when we produce some logos we beget the logos, not by cutting it off so that there is less logos left in us, when we produce it, just as we see also happening in the case of fire, which is not made less when it has kindled another fire but stays the same, and what has been kindled by it is seen to exist by itself, not taking away from that which kindled it.
(dial. 61) This word declares that those who prefer opinion to truth cannot find success, and whatever the word forbids, no sensible man will choose. (7 apol. 12). Truth belongs to Jesus Christ because he is
God's proper son, his word, first-begotten and power (r apol. 23).
The word of God is his son; as angel he tells us what we should know; as apostle he is sent to declare whatever is revealed.
Scripture as mind and will of God
Word of men Logos, in Socrates, condemned the demons and was in turn condemned (1 apol. 5). Long before Christ came there was hostility from those who lived without reason towards those who lived with reason (7 apol. 46). The difference between the reality of the logos and the dim perception of human minds is explained by the Platonic theme of participation. The logos himself is the reality in which direct participation is possible. Other ways to the truth are indirect through seeds and imitations (2 apol. 13).This idea is plainly of Stoic origin but it has become part of a Platonic metaphysic which allows for degrees of truth and reality.
Words of Fesus The highest truth is that of the word himself; he spoke with terseness and brevity, unlike the sophists, for 'his word was the power of God'
(1 apol. 14). Justin's conversion leads him to the prophets and the writings of the friends of Christ. Here he finds the only safe and useful philosophy. The source is the words of the saviour, for these have a terrible power of their own, and bring dread to those who stray from the right path, but rest to those who faithfully practise them (dial. 8).
Every argument of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho depends on the acceptance of scripture as 'the mind and will of God' (dal. 68). His attitude to scripture is one of acceptance of a complex world of divine truth. Historical exegesis would be inadequate within this world of word and spirit (dal. 85), and history has to coexist with simultaneity.
, Isaiah speaks of all the powers resting on the one who is to come.
This means that all the powers came together on Jesus and ceased to be found elsewhere.
Just as Jesus is the whole logos so the fullness of the spirit is in him and not elsewhere (dial. 88).
81.2
MIND AND WILL OF GOD
Justin's argument from prophecy, therefore, does not begin from Jesus as the fulfilment of predictions, but from the prophets who saw the economies of the divine mind which were joined to ordinary
Participation events. The logos is active within the events and realities of the world.® This link of the particular and the universal is consistent with the omnipresence of God who is Intellect. Prophetic vision is linked with particular events but is not reducible to them.
Justin's account of prophecy in the Dialogue presents the key idea.
Here he shows that the prophets saw the divine, noetic reality and that their writings are therefore the only sound basis for philosophy.
'Philosophy is the knowledge of being and truth, the recognition, and the well-being which is the reward of this knowledge and wisdom' (dial. 3.4).
Plato, Justin continues, says that the eye of the mind sees being when it is pure and clear. The mind is the cause of all intellectual objects (noeta) and does not see with physical sight. Being is beyond all substance, unspeakable and inexplicable, alone good. The vision of that which is comes suddenly to souls of a good nature because of their affinity and their desire to see the good (dial. 4.1).
The bridge between philosophy and the bible is that intellect sees intellectual objects and the prophets can cross this bridge. Justin insists that the prophets alone had this vision of the God-who-is and of the higher reality which depends upon him. They saw and declared the truth without respect or fear of men. They spoke only what they saw and heard and were able to give knowledge of the beginning and the end of things. This knowledge is the proper knowledge of philosophy. The prophets, because of their direct perception of reality, needed no proofs for what they said. They were witnesses of the truth, above demonstration and worthy of belief.
The truth of prophecy does not depend upon its fulfilment in the coming of Christ, but on its original source in the vision of those who saw directly and accurately what every philosopher needs to see.
Justin can speak of the events of the Gospels as the true philosophy because they reflect the prophetic vision of reality. This fusion of Plato and the bible is fundamental to the understanding of the economy of salvation and the nature of scripture in both Justin and Irenaeus.
The words of the prophets are continued in the words of the lord wherein Justin finds a terrible power. Irenaeus similarly affirms an ® Justin includes Heraclitus in his 'Christians before Christ'.
Scripture as mind and will of God
identity between the prophetic account of the divine mind and the words of him who was himself the divine mind and word. Truth depends on this direct access to the mind of God, as for Plato it depended on access to the forms and the form of the good.
The words of the prophets and the words of Christ are joined by the projection back of Christ into the thought of the ancient prophets. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ, for Christ was his contemporary.
8.1.3
PROPHECY: FROM PREDICTION TO PRESENCE
Yet the predictive element of prophecy remained. Irenaeus, like Justin, sees the prophetic vision of the divine economies as a noetic apprehension of the divine mind. As for Philo, Moses looked on the divine forms when alone on the mountain. The law was given to lead the people from the secondary to the primary, from types to reality, from temporal to eternal, carnal to spiritual, and earthly to heavenly things. For forty days, Moses contemplated the divine logoi and paradigms, spiritual images, and types of things to come (4.14.3). At the same time, the future reference of prophecy remained important for two reasons. First, the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ demonstrated the truth of the apostolic preaching. What is for men impossible has been foretold by prophets so that when it happens faith is strengthened and doubt removed (dem. 42).'The son of God has in his own person confirmed the truth of all prophecies about him, to provide for our faith a foundation which cannot be shaken (dem. 98).'? Secondly, the time between prefiguration and realisation was a time of preparation and education.® The divine economy made sense of the time between prophecy and fulfilment 'for through types they learned to fear God and to persevere in his service' (4.14.3). Through patriarchs and prophets
Christ trained his inheritance in advance for the economies of God (4.21.2).
These two predictive factors went together. The preparation and education meant that the new testament message was not new; the only novelty was its fulfilment in Christ. The Ethiopian eunuch
7 See Daniélou, Gospel message, 226-34.
8 R.M. Grant, The letter and the spit (London, 1967), 83.
Participation (Acts 8:26-40) had been catechised in advance by the prophets concerning God and salvation. He needed to be told only that the son of God had come.
Prediction, however, gave way to presence. Prophecy, for Irenaeus, defends the oneness of God and the one plan of salvation against Gnostic divisions.? All God's economies are united in one economy, which leads to Christ. The central moves are clear in one passage (4.20.1—8). The invisible and incomprehensible God created all things by his word and wisdom. To his incarnate word all things were subjected and by the same word God was known.
He gave a charisma to the prophets so that they could foretell his incarnation and announce future events, declaring that God would be known according to his love. Prophetic vision participates in the incarnate God and God's love permits us to see him.
Prophetic vision saw and made known the continuous activity of God, father, son and holy spirit, as. the word constantly gave knowledge of the father through the changing economies. Through the spirit, God was seen prophetically, through the son he was seen adoptively, and through the father he will be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven (4.20.5). The vision of God is participation in God, and only within the glory of God can man live (4.20.5).'° The tension between the immensity (magnitudo) and love (dilectio) of God requires that the divine economy be gradual.
This leads to the important move from continuity to simultaneity. How this happens is shown in a recent study, which concludes by setting out the chief ideas of Irenaeus on prophecy."' In the end we may define prophecy backwards rather than forwards as 'one of God's saving economies by which, through the mediation of the spirit, the same God brings the reality and the results of the incarnation of the word back to the time of the Old
'Testament'.'?
This careful and extended study reveals the move from prediction to presence, from economy to recapitulation. Economies
° This section draws supporting argument from Rodrigo Polanco Fermandois, El concepto de profecia en la teologia de san Ireneo (Madrid, 1999).
1° Ibid., 32.
™ Thid., 384-97.
1 Thid., 393.
Scripture as mind and will of God
remain, but their temporal extent becomes secondary. Irenaeus reaches the noetic world of Justin without Plato's help. Recapitulation brings all the economies together. The temporal dimension is not lost but included among all things in Christ.
The prophets had presented the mind of God to Justin because they saw the noeta. After Irenaeus, the insistence that the object of Christian hope was also the ultimate being which philosophers sought — the fusing of the ontological and eschatological — turned scripture into a higher world which gave the believer understanding of the world in which he lived.'3 The world of prophecy takes the place of the world of Plato's forms in a way far more effective than did the aeons of Valentinus.
The synchronisation of gospel, prophets and law was to have enormous consequences. A whole culture found the imagery of the old testament (when joined to the new) a source of inspiration in every aspect of its life. Yet the world of the spirit was never divorced from history, and the particularity of Jesus remained the key to all understanding.
8.1.4
A REBIRTH OF IMAGES
Irenaeus fits prophetic images into Platonic epistemology, only after they are transformed in the life and teaching of Jesus. Christianity 1s
'a visible rebirth of images'."* Jesus took and transformed a treasury of images and handed them on to his followers who were further led by the spirit into all truth. To understand the movement requires intellectual effort but mere calculative reason is not enough. "The images must live again in the mind, with the life of the image of Christ: that is inspiration."'° Nowhere is this renaissance more evident than in the Apocalypse, where John sees the slaughtered lamb and gives himself over to the images which flow from it. This is the open heaven. This is the answer to the ineffability of what God has done in overturning time to make the future present and eternity close at hand. It is
'3 For an extended treatment of this development, see G. Apostolopoulou, Die Dialektik bec
Klemens von Alexandria (Frankfurt, 1977).
'4 A. Farrer, A rebirth of images (London, 1949), 14.
'S Tbid., 17.
Participation communicated, in John as in Irenaeus, 'by playing simultaneously on several registers'.'® Irenaeus follows Justin in identifying these images with the mind of God or the world of forms.'? They are joined by logic and aesthetic, but imagery is more powerful than logic.
It has an amazing multiplicity of reference. It presents reality with all the interconnections. "There is a current and exceedingly stupid doctrine that symbol evokes emotion, and exact prose states reality. Nothing could be further from the truth: exact prose abstracts from reality, symbol presents it. And for that very reason, symbols have some of the many-sidedness of wild nature.'™® Prophetic imagery draws another world by using pictures of this world: the lamb, the candle sticks, light, lost sheep and shepherd, virgin mother, child and suffering man. Truth and beauty appear in physical shape. We are on the way to incarnation.
We cannot find our way by discursive reason alone. Only the mind of God understands our world. So we must share the mind of Christ, live in the bible and look to the open heaven and the solid earth, from which our bodies were made. Just as Plato's dialectic disappears into the form of the good, so Frenaeus' images submit to the glory of the cross. 'Jesus Christ clothed himself in all the images of messianic promise, and in living them out, crucified them : but the crucified reality is better than the figures of prophecy. This is very
God and life eternal, whereby the children of God are delivered from idols.'"9
8.2.0 itn UNDE Y CAN DER UIE Ol s GiRvne TUS, The truth is derived from scripture and handed down in the church.
"This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth and this is the manner '© 'en jouant simultanément sur plusieurs registres et en disant par exemple que Dieu bouleverse le temps: le futur peut étre présent et 'éternité a portée de la main', P. Prigent,
L'Apocalypse de saint Jean (Paris, 1981), 379.
'7 Justin compares his proofs from prophecy to mathematics; they are like saying that two plus two equals four.
18 Farrer, A rebirth, 20.
'9 A. Farrer, 'An English appreciation', in Kerygma and myth, ed. H. W. Bartsch (London,
1953), 223-
Scripture as mind and will of God
of our redemption, and this is the way of life which the prophets proclaimed and Christ established, the apostles delivered and the church in all the world hands on to her children' (dem. 98). The Demonstration is a proof from scripture. The apostolic preaching is shown to be true because it declares what scripture has foretold.
Irenaeus knows of no other proof which can stand beside the testimony of the scriptures. The source of truth is the holy spirit who spoke through the prophets the word of truth. Scripture is validated by the rule of faith which is threefold, declaring father, son and holy spirit (dem. 6).
Scripture can be misused. The heretics have taken the parables, the prophets and the words of the apostle, and dismembered them to destroy their coherence and truth. "They disregard the order and the connection of the scriptures' (1.8.1).
They gain their views from other sources than the scriptures and then twist logic to justify them. The heretics perversely select the parables and every other obscure section of scripture.
They produce, according to their own inclination, a false interpretation of a parable, and they set up their opposed systems on the basis of such interpretation. The proper subject of parbles is the one God who 1s father of all, and to desert him removes any possibility of understanding what parables are about (2,27):
Knowledge has limits. There will be parts of scripture which we cannot understand. When we cannot find an explanation we should not look for another God besides the one true God (2.28.2).
Because we trust in the one true God and love him forever, we may hope to receive always more and more from God. Scripture, which God has given us, will finally be to us completely consistent and the parables will fit together with those passages which are perfectly plain (2.28.3).
Christ, the treasure hidden in the field, is the content of scripture. If anyone reads the scriptures carefully he will find an account of Christ and his new calling (4.26.1). The prophets prefigured all things of Christ, being joined as members of Christ, each one setting out some part of the truth. He is the whole body whose many members are prefigured by the prophets
(4.33.10).
Participation 8.2.2
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
There is nothing unsure about the writings of the apostles and their testimony. There are those who saw John face to face and who can confirm the number (666) which is found in the 'most approved and ancient copies' of the Apocalypse (5.30.1). Written and oral testimony stand side by side. Polycarp spoke with John and others who were eye-witnesses of the word of life and all the words which he heard were in harmony with the scriptures (HE. 5.20).
The relation between scripture and tradition®® in Irenaeus has been commonly misunderstood: tradition has been seen as a saving supplement which rescues the inadequacy of scripture.
However, while Irenaeus speaks of scripture five times in the Demonstration, and 160 times in Against heresies he refers to tradition in the technical sense only twenty-one times (noun) and forty-one times (verb). His citations of old testament (629) and of new testament (1065) dominate Against heresies. Looking at the Demonstration,
R. Seeberg identified Irenaeus as the first great representative of biblicism.?! Nothing could be further from the truth, because Irenaeus analyses the theology of scripture more rigorously than most theologians. His own theology blends Paul and John in a way which is beyond proof-texts and based on a profound understanding.
Gnostics reject scripture, which they claim to be corrupt, and prefer the living voice of tradition. Irenaeus defends the truth of scripture but also sets out true tradition in contrast to that of the Gnostics. His account of tradition is therefore a second line of defence which points back to the truth of scripture. The scriptures provide the basis, and tradition is appealed to as confirmation of the scripture. We should 'take refuge in the church, be reared in her bosom and be nourished by the scriptures of the lord'
(5.20.2).7?
8.2.3
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Irenaeus works with eight principles of scriptural interpretation.
2° Benoit, 'Ecriture et tradition chez Saint Irénée', 32-43.
2" Dogmengeschichte (Leipzig, 1922), 1, 365.
*2 Confugere autem ad ecclesiam et in eius sinu educari et dominicis scripturis enutriri.
Scripture as mind and will of God
(i) Rule of truth. The rule of truth is the starting point. Behind it stands the one canon and content of the faith written on the heart by the holy spirit."3
(1) Logical coherence and aesthetic fitness. 'It is fitting, it is possible, therefore it is' is a constant refrain for Irenaeus. Logical coherence is also a constant test. The rejection of the logically incoherent and the aesthetically inappropriate go together: the heretics have taken a mosaic and jumbled the pieces around to produce a fox instead of a king; they have made a new poem by juggling remote lines into a new order (1.8).? Scripture is an unbroken unity, he argues, for the word of God is found in all parts of scripture (4.35.2).?° Coherence is the final text because coherence is the way God works. The exuberance of Irenaeus' exegesis goes beyond logical analysis. The poetic associations which spring from the lost axe of Elisha point to connections which only lively imagination can achieve. This comes for Irenaeus from 'chewing the cud' of scripture. Daily rumination for Christians as for Jews is part of exegesis (5.8.3).
(ii) Fulfilment of prophecy and recapitulation. Scripture shows the fulfilment in Christ of what the spirit foretold through the prophets.
Christ sums up the purposes of God, and crowns the long dispensation of saving history. Recapitulation, we have seen, unites a wide range of concepts.
(iv) Eschatology. Irenaeus sees the victory of Christ continued in the kingdom of the son, who will reign for a thousand years on earth. All the wonders of chiliastic plenty will cover the earth.
23 1.9.4; 1-22.1; 2.27.1; 3.2.1; 3.11.1; 3.12.6; 3.15.1; 4.35.4; dem. 3.
24 Hoh, Die Lehre des hl. Irendus, 112.
25 See above, 7.7, on parody.
26 The Gnostics put forward a collection of narratives for which the principle of logical coherence was not seen to be relevant. Irenaeus, however, brought against them the principle of no contradiction, and he based this on the central thought of Platonic origin that God is the highest and all-embracing reality. There can be no other God beside
God (2.1.2). Beyond God there can be no other reality, no strange God and no higher necessity. Everything depends upon the principle that God is all-embracing and allpowerful. There is nothing over which he does not rule and transcend. With this idea goes inevitably the principle of rationality, for without such a first principle there is no limit to thought. Unending worlds and gods will follow (2.1.4). Thinking must have clear limits and a clear orientation and these are lost when one goes in search of a god higher than God; Schwager, 'Der Gott des Alten Testaments', 294.
Participation (v) From the certain to the obscure. How stupid it is to put on blinkers and begin from obscurities in order to find one's own private
God (2.27.2)! When the bridegroom comes, the unprepared trafficker in obscurity, with his dim lamp and untrimmed wick,is excluded from the brightness of the wedding chamber. Since parables are obscure, no lover of truth will begin from them rather than from what is clear and certain. It is dangerous to abandon what is certain, indubitable and true
(2197.4):
(vi) Moral integrity of interpreter. 'Those who claim knowledge of the unspeakable mysteries, which not even God's son knew, are disqualified as irrationally puffed up (2.28.6).*7 Pride leads to falsehood (5.22.2). Those who desert the church drink from broken cisterns and filthy puddles (3.24.1). Alienated from truth, they think differently?' at different times, and blaspheme their creator. Because they dishonour God, his light does not shine to them (3.24.2).
(vii) History. Irenaeus has a sense of historical context. For example, he writes of the tension between Jews and Gentiles (3.12.15;
4.24.13 3.5.3), and of the identity of Paul's preaching to the Gentiles with the preaching of Petei*to the Jews (3.13.1). Paul's message of freedom to the Gentiles (Gal. 2) is not neglected
(3.13.3) and the solidarity of Luke and Paul is indicated by the 'we' passages (3.14.1). He notes the continuity between Jesus and Paul in their concern for the poor and lowly.
(vit) Grammar. Irenaeus readily argues points of grammar, claiming, for example, that 2 Corinthians 4:4 does not point to more than one God (3.7.1, 2).
Gnostics fail on every principle of exegesis. They do not hold to the rule of faith; they select arbitrarily (elgentes, 2 pref. 1), use other sources outside scripture (1.8.1), ignore context (1.8.2, 3), turn to what is obscure rather than what is certain and true (2.27.3) and explain the obscure by what is more obscure (2.10.1). They ignore important names when they can find no numerical relevance (2.24.1,
2; 1.14.4) and they personify key terms such as Sophia (1.8.4), *7 See above, chapter 2.
28 liter atque aliter.
Scripture as mind and will of God
Aion (1.3.1), Stauros (1.3.5) and the members of the Ogdoad such as Pater, and Charis (1.1.1; 1.9.2).?9
Their moral fibre is displayed as deficient, because of their pride (3.12.12) and intellectual arrogance (1.10.2, 3) which monstrously sets itself above God (2.26.1). Paul insists that our knowledge now is partial (1 Cor. 13:9) while Gnostics claim complete knowledge
(2.28.9), when some questions should be left to God (2.28.3). Further, their sexual behaviour is spectacularly bad (4.26.3).
8.4
IMAGES OF THE ECONOMY: THE FOUR GOSPELS
Following his criterion of fitness and proportion, Irenaeus finds it impossible that the written Gospels should be more or fewer in number than they are (3.11.8).The world has four zones and the church is scattered throughout all the world. There are four winds which blow, so the church is made alive by the gospel and the spirit which exhales in four directions. The argument shows how literally Irenaeus took the unity of creation and redemption and of the noetic and physical worlds. The same word who made everything and who contains all things has given the gospel under four aspects. The world, which the word sustains by his creative power, displays on every side the fourfold sign of the cross which marks his triumph and his recapitulation.°°
To annul the shape of the gospel (3.11.9: @#€TOUVTES THY idéav tov evayyediov) is to be vain, ignorant and audacious.
It is wrong to represent the gospel as being in its aspects either more or fewer than four. The heretics, however, do not see this.
Montanists look to John's Gospel, Marcion boasts that he has the one Gospel, although he has'cut himself off from the gospel. But the worst people of all are the followers of Valentinus because they have put forward their own compositions as Gospels, and claim to have not fewer but more Gospels than there are. 'They even call a recent writing by the title "The Gospel of Truth'. This writing does not agree with the Gospels and, if it is true, then what the apostles have handed down is not the gospel of truth. 'But', says Irenaeus,
29 Irenaeus' point is that the meaning of these terms 'wisdom, acon, cross, father, grace' has no relevance to Gnostic use.
3° P Ferlay, 'Irénée de Lyon exégéte du quatriéme évangile', VRTh 106 (1984), 227.
Participation 'I have proved through many arguments of great force that only those Gospels of the apostles are true and worthy of acceptance and that their number cannot be either increased or diminished. God always works things in proportion and proper arrangement and therefore the external or outward aspect of the gospel is ordered, arranged, harmonized' (3.11.9).
Irenaeus' reverence for scripture is joined to the metaphysic of mind which governs his account of God and the world. "The creative word (tex vitns AOyos) who sits upon the cherubim, holding (suvé x@v) all things together, when he had appeared to men gave to us the tetramorphous gospel, which is held together (sUve x Ome VvOV) by the one Spirit' (3.11.8). The fourfold cherubim (not four-faced as Irenaeus claims)?' had been joined by an earlier source to the living creatures of the Apocalypse (whom
Irenaeus does not mention). Christ is enthroned between the lion, ox, man and eagle, which represent John, Luke, Matthew and Mark as 'umages of the economy of the son of God'.
John (lion) tells of the pre-eminent, effective and glorious generation of him who was in the beginning God, who made all things, and who displays audacity. Luke (ox) is a priestly work, beginning with Zachariah offering sacrifice and telling of the fatted calf sacrificed for the returning prodigal. Matthew (man) displays the humanity and humility of one born as a man from the line of David and Abraham. Mark (eagle) points to the gift of the spirit as it commences with a reference to Isaiah and embodies the brevity and scope of prophetic utterance.
'There remains one gospel message of Christ possessed of cosmic scope. This came to us through the apostles who first preached it and then wrote it down so that it would become the foundation of our faith (3.1.1). Fixed in writing, it guards against the heresies which the spirit had foreseen. Only the four Gospels are 'true and firm', for they are the one gospel which has come from the apostles
(3.11.9; 3.5.1). The Gospel of Truth is rejected because it is recent and quite inconsistent with the Gospels of the apostles (3.11.9).
Well before the end of the second century codices containing the four Gospels were in use.3" Irenaeus uses the Gospels together. In 3" See discussion of T. C. Skeat, 'Irenaeus and the four-gospel canon', N734,2(1992), 198.
3° GN. Stanton,"The fourfold Gospel', NTS 43 (1997), 329-
Scripture as mind and will of God
3.10.3, when discussing Luke, he uses John without indicating that he has switched; he weaves texts together, cites inexactly, adds oral traditions without distinguishing sources.33 Unlike Justin, who also knows at least four 'memoirs' of the apostles, Irenaeus is interested in the different approaches of the four Gospels. There are four reasons why there should be four Gospels. The four Gospels provide
'solidity' in contrast to Gnostic ropes of sand. They also provide 'harmonious proportion';34 the aesthetic unity of the Gospels (dene compositam et bene compaginatam) reflects the unity of the creation (compostta et apta) (3.11.9). Further, in Irenaeus metaphors fructify and there is always need for plurality in language about God; the voice of the word is like the sound of many waters.35 Finally, biblicism
(one verse—one vote) was not yet a possibility, given the formative state of the canon; Irenaeus followed Paul (Rom. 10:5—13) in turning to the spirit rather than to the letter, and defining all thought about God christologically (3.1 8.2).3° The unity of revelation in scripture is further guaranteed by the identity (wnus et dem) of the spirit who in the prophets announced and explained the coming of the lord and who in the apostles declared the fullness of the time of adoption (3.21.4). Irenaeus summarises his account of the universal word and spirit as manifest in scripture
(4-33-15):
(a) the prophetic utterances cover a long series of scriptures; (b) they are understood by the reader who is truly spiritual;37
(c) they display the entire work of the son of God; (d) the unity of this work derives from one God, father, son and holy spirit, through knowledge always of the same God acknowledging always the same word of God (although he is only now manifest), acknowledging also always the same spirit of God (although he has been recently poured out in a new way);
(ec) the spirit descends on the human race from creation of the world to its end; 33 Thid., 321.
34 Like the Tetrapylon at Aphrodisias; ibid., 320.
35 See above, 7.8, Consonantia.
3® Kasemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 237-85, ET Perspectwes on Paul, 138-66. Kaésemann gives unaware a similar exegesis to Irenaeus.
37 For Origen, this means that inspiration must be twofold — of both writer and reader.
Participation (f) from the spirit flows salvation for those who believe in God and follow his word.
Scripture belongs to the lord (dominica) (2.30.6; 2.35.43 4-33-15; 5.20.2). He is the source of charisma to the prophets (4.20.4). Indeed the prophets were themselves members of Christ and prophesied as his members (4.33.10). Hence their words were spoken by both word and spirit of God (2.28.2). As far as the apostles were concerned, their link with Christ is obvious, since they were "observers and ministers of the word of truth' (4 pref. 3; cf. Lk. 1:2).
Yet the prophets also wrote the words of Christ. Commenting on John 5:46-7 — where Jesus declares. 'If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me' — Irenaeus claims that Christ could not have indicated more clearly that he had spoken words which Moses wrote. Further, if this is the case, there is no doubt that the words of the other prophets are his, a claum which Irenaeus has already made (4.2.3; 4.10.1).38
8.5.1
FORMATION OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
God, the giver of all charismata (2.32.4), is the origin of all scripture, old and new, all of which, because it comes from him, may be called
'divine' (2.35.4). Irenaeus' account of the formation of the scriptures derives from the same theology as is evident in his account of God, the trinity and history. God's unity is unbroken and universal in scripture as in creation. 'How therefore did the scriptures testify of him unless they were from one and the same father?' (4.10.1).
This holds of the present as of the past. Scriptures do not end with the prophets but include the apostolic writings, which take precedence over the works of the prophets: 'first the apostles, second the prophets, but all from the one and same God' (3.11.4).
We turn now to historical questions. Irenaeus tells us more than anyone about the beginning of the Christian bible. The new
38 While J. Ochagavia (Visible Patris Filius. A study of Irenaeus' teaching on revelation and tradition, OrChrAn 171(Rome, 1964)) believes Irenaeus goes beyond the Gospel text here,
D. Farkasfalvy ("Theology of scripture in St Irenaeus', RevBen 78 (1968), 326) argues that Irenaeus 'uses a variant of Jn 5:47 that preserves the perfect parallelism between the act of faith with respect to Moses' writings and the words of Christ'. Farkasfalvy's article provides a useful background to the topic of the present chapter.
Scripture as mind and will of God
testament emerged against a background of theological disagreement over the difference between Jew and Christian. Marcion rejected both Mosaic law and creation and in this he was joined by most Gnostics. They agreed that the God of the Jewish scriptures could not be the father of Jesus Christ. The only way to hold on to both Jewish and Christian scriptures was to believe 'that there was a difference between the eras in which one and the same God had acted, and to see in the old testament a stage (or various stages) of that providential guidance of salvation-history which attained its goal in Christ'.39 In the face of the two tendencies, dominical sayings were defined by the preface 'it is written' ( Justin), or by reference to those who had known the apostles (4.27.1), or to what may be read in the Gospel (4.29.1).
The possibilities were to select a single Gospel (as Marcion did), to produce a new Gospel from authentic elements, or to choose a few Gospels and make them a unity. Irenaeus belongs to a church which chose the final option and accepted a Four Gospel canon.
This acceptance was gradual and cannot be tied to a specific time and place.*° The contrast between Justin, who generally cites old testament as scripture, and Irenaeus, who cites new testament alongside and above old testament, is clear. The move of Irenaeus is not the result of an ecclesiastical decision but of his own rational acceptance of the rule of faith which embodies the new testament message. For 'Irenaeus is not, like a later canonist, concerned with formal safeguards for their own sake, but with the one substantial truth of the Christian message, through which mankind receives salvation.
'#"
Irenaeus has no ecclesiastical guarantee for the standing which he gives to the new testament, nor does he argue from the general category of scripture, transferring to the new testament the status accorded to the old testament. He begins with the claim that gospel, truth and the teaching of the son of God are to be found in what the apostles preached and handed down in writings (3 pref.; 3.1.1).
The apostles have full knowledge of the truth and their writings do not need to be cut back or supplemented. He offers historical
39 H. von Campenhausen, The formation of the Christian bible (London, 1972), 166.
4° C. ED. Moule, The birth of the New Testament (London, 1972), 188.
4" Von Campenhausen, Christian bible, 182.
Participation argument for their authority and arranges them in order: first the teaching of the apostles (four Gospels, Acts), sayings of the lord, and the apostolic letters of Paul. Irenaeus grants Paul equal authority to that of the other apostles.
If Marcion first propounded a Christian canon of scripture, then Irenaeus' canon could be seen as a catholic response. Yet it was nota canon either in the exclusive sense of Marcion or in the later sense of a formal list. Irenaeus does not try to iron out inconsistencies as does
Tertullian. His interest is not historical but theological, governed by 'a feeling for the essential and unitary: the one God, the one
Christ, and the one salvation'.*" Before Irenaeus, Justin had already won the victory for the old testament against the Gnostics through the concepts of one God and one economy of many epochs. After Irenaeus the church always looked to a bible with two testaments, the second of which controlled the first. aN 8.5.2
CANON OF SCRIPTURE
Irenaeus does not supply a list which anticipates fourth-century definitions of the canon, but his defencesof the four Gospels, and his intensive use of John and Paul, represent an important stage of its development. Beyond the theological considerations already considered, what other factors produced the change from Justin's
Memorrs to Irenaeus' four Gospels?43 The rapidity of the change was due to the power of Gnostic exuberance rather than the threat of Marcionite restriction. Christians had indeed received 'an explosive revelation which required .
. . the constitution ofa canonical corpus . ..a group of writings with a fixed outline and a fully recognised normative function'
.+ Can the canonical uncertainties of Irenaeus' time illuminate Christian existence as it lives by the tension between an historical figure of the past and the immediacy of a risen lord?45 Four questions may be asked:
42 Ibid., 206-7.
43 Y-M. Blanchard, Aux sources du canon, le témoignage d'Trénée (Paris, 1993), 283: 'la rapidité de lévolution' may need qualification, but there was 'une influence extérieure massive'.
'4 Thid., 283. Irenaeus' canon was a response to the Gnostic lack of a canon, rather than to Marcion's limited canon.
45 Thid., grr.
Scripture as mind and will of God
(i) How did Gnostics regard the scriptures? Some disregarded scripture in their esoteric excursions. Neither their works nor those of their opponents can be restricted to exposition of identifiable texts.4°
(uu) What part was played by harmonisations such as Tatian's Diatessaron? They were not concoctions based on the four
Gospels but attempts to produce a Gospel at a later date. In response to heresy, Justin and Irenaeus harmonised the words of Jesus from the apostolic accounts; however, Tatian went further and produced his own account of the historic ministry of Jesus. His work was rejected by Irenaeus lest new Gospels proliferate, and the shape of the gospel was defined as fourfold. The theory that a Roman school produced harmonies of texts 4" fails because it presupposes that only a text could link the words of Jesus to second-century writers. On the contrary, the Diatessaron depends on a double reference to Christ through the living tradition of his words and the written records of scripture.
(111) How are we to account for the different, indeed inverse, order of the Gospels (to which infancy narratives are a late addition) and the account of Justin (where infancy narratives take precedence)? Mark, the earliest Gospel, gains the least recognition in the second century. In Justin he is, like Paul, 'le grand absent'.4®
There seems no clear answer to this question.
(iv) What part did lectionaries and liturgy play? Liturgy and living recollection played a part during the period when two sources
(Gospels and a collection of sayings) governed the life of the early church. The free oral tradition preceded the text and, as Irenaeus shows, continued alongside it.49 Christianity never became purely the religion of a book.®° For Irenaeus, Christ remains the subject who speaks a word rather than the object of a writing. The historical writing gives bodily stature to the voice, but does not replace it.
4° Blanchard points out that Pagels wrongly assumes the contrary; ibid., 313.
47 A.J. Bellinzoni, The sayings of Jesus in the writings of Justin Martyr (Leiden, 1967), 141.
48 Blanchard, Sources, 319.
49 Tbid., 323.
5° An opinion which some have wrongly attributed to Irenaeus.
Participation 'On the one hand, the gradual acceptance ofa canon of scripture indicates a radical difference between the historical Christian faith and the mythical language of the Gnostics. On the other hand, the creative spontaneity at work in the operation of the sayings of Jesus points to a living relation with the Risen One.' The second century makes a permanent theological point: scripture must never be a dead letter but always a spoken language, which is ever new and fresh.>* There is a long transition between the second-century appearance of the new testament writings and their fourth-century reception in a formal canon.53 The great achievement of Irenaeus is twofold: he organised the structure of scripture and he set out the apostolic tradition using both the sayings of the lord and the writings which were to be canonised.
~~s
8.6.1 - -f YPOLOGY AND)
ER EH "The exegesis of Irenaeus is of the greatest precision and density, worthy of scrupulous analysis.'°+ One principle of exegesis (according to the Presbyter) is that what appears scandalous in scripture should not be rejected, because God put it there and he has higher standards than we have. It should be seen as part of the total economy, and discerned as a type. This point was taken up by Origen, who claimed that God placed offensive material in the text of scripture so that readers would look beyond the literal to the spiritual sense.
A good example is the account of the incest of Lot and the entire salination of his wife (4.31). Irenaeus reverses their order
5' "D'une part, la mise en place progressive d'un Canon scripturaire marque la différence radicale entre la foi chrétienne historique et le discours mythique des systémes gnostiques; dautre part, la spontanéité créatrice a oeuvre dans l'effectuation des logia atteste une relation vivante au Ressuscité', Blanchard, Sources, 330.
Ibid., 331: 'une langue, laquelle ne sera vivante que portée a la parole, dans la nouveauté et la liberté qui caractérisent tout acte d'énonciation'.
°3 The history of their reception is as important as the history of their redaction. Its complexity is great but cannot be overlooked; the early fathers are essential to the understanding of the new testament.
| A. Orbe, "Los hechos de Lot, mujer e hijas vistos por San Ireneo', Greg 75 (1994) 63.
Cf. "Whatever may be his other gifts, he shows no special wisdom in the application of hermeneutical methods', F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (New York, 1886), 174-5.
Scripture as mind and will of God
because the meaning within the economy (i.e. under the rule of faith) gives priority to the incest and it is the more difficult and more illuminating episode. He does this despite the literal truth that the incest would not have taken place if Lot's wife were still alive. The inebriated innocence of Lot and the simple altruism of the daughters are stressed. The story relates the two churches
(two daughters) to the one divine father (Lot) who can procreate children. Lot stands for the word who created the human race and then poured out on all the life-giving seed which is the spirit who remits sins and gives life.5> When the seed or spirit of God was joined to flesh which God himself has made, the two churches produced from their own fathers living sons (Jew and Christian) to the living God.
Lot's wife also represented the church, the salt of the earth, with a plurality of meaning which only typology could contain.
Corruptible flesh is replaced by a salt rock which endures for ages and provides a firm foundation for faith. Like Lot's wife, the church is left behind on earth (after her lord has ascended), and sends forth children of the one father, losimg members but standing firm.
Typology>® shows the logic of revelation, which moves from pattern to reality. Moses, for example, is told to make all things according to the type or pattern which he saw on the mountain; in this way he will move from temporal to eternal, from carnal to spiritual and from things earthly to heavenly (4.14.3). The movement is complex, proceeding vertically, upwards to heaven (typum caelestium), downwards to the church (imagines eorum quae sunt in ecclesia), and horizontally to the future (prophetiam futurorum continens)
(4132/2).
Horizontally, this means a move from prediction by patriarchs and prophets to description of the reality of Christ (4.25.3), but all takes place in one God. Since the subject of typology is the recapitulation of all things in Christ, there is no limit to the scope of its content. Inevitably, with such width, there is ambiguity and enigma. Christ is the treasure hidden in a field of types and parables, a complex of riddle and uncertainty (4.26.1). Yet, like the different
55 See below, 10.3.
56 The discussion of the remainder of this section is indebted to M. Simonetti, 'Per typica ad vera', VetChr 18 (1981), 357-82.
Participation members of one body, prophecy is a unity, where 'all the prophets prefigured one thing. . . the work of Christ' (4.33.10). This gives to the world of types a global unity which Gnostics try to shatter.
The modern tendency to divide types from allegory does not find support in Irenaeus and Justin.5" Indeed types have a vertical reference linking earthly and heavenly realities rather than the horizontal/temporal application which has often been given to them (4.19.1 and 4.32.2). In Irenaeus, typology becomes a generic term for all symbolic representation. It gives global relevance to the presence of Christ in scripture.5® Sometimes it points beyond the incarnation to the eschaton, when the just will rise from the dead to reign in the earth (5.33.3). Whereas the Gnostic interpretation is unnatural and diverges from the rule of truth (1.9.4) and the tradition of the elders (4.26.2), the final achievement of Irenaeus is that he was the first church theologian to join systematically old testament and new testament through the world of typology.59
8.6.2.
TYPOLOGY AND ECONOMY
The whole argument of Irenaeus in Book 4 of Against heresies rests on the words of the lord and the prophets, which are incompatible with Gnostic interpretations. 'The unity of Book 4 has been proved by a careful analysis of the literary structure.®°° The words of the lord are used to refute the Gnostic divisions between the old and new covenants.°" Irenaeus begins with a proof from the clear words of the lord that there is one creator God who is the author of the two covenants. In the second part he proves that the old testament is a prophecy of the new and has prepared the faith of the church. The 57 Nor can it be justified from patristic literature. "Et le mot qui reste le plus fréquent, le plus constant, au moins dans la tradition latine, est allegoria', H. de Lubac, ' "Typologie" et
"allégorisme" ', RSR 34 (1947), 187. See also the valuable account, FM. Young, Biblical exegesis and the formation of Christian culture (Cambridge, 1997), part 1,
119-212.
Simonetti 'Per typica ad vera', 367.
59 Thid., 380.
P. Bacq, De U'ancienne a la nouvelle alliance selon S. Irénée. Unité du livre IV de VAdversus haereses (Paris, 1978).
Book 4. has three parts:
(1) unity of testaments proved from the clear words of the lord; (ii) the old testament as prophecy of the new;
(ui) the unity of the two testaments proved by the parables of Christ.
Scripture as mind and will of God
unity of this Book 4 must be seen less in linear argument than in the sequence of the words of the lord, which are the purest expression of the divine mind. The writings of Moses are owned by Christ
(Jn 5:46-7), and the unity between the writings of Moses and the spoken words of Christ is clear (4.2.3).
Within the motif of the words of the lord, Irenaeus plays on several registers. His central theme remains the unity of the divine economy, including the many partial economies in a continuity which depends upon the words of the lord spoken in the prophets and spoken by Christ. The two claims of recapitulation, as growth and evolution on the one hand and as a return to the beginning on the other, are held together by scriptural citation.® In his use of scripture and his account of the economy, Irenaeus puts forward a christology which is more and more ontological; that is, Christ speaks because of what he is.
Christology is Irenaeus' answer to the problem of contradiction between old and new testaments. Is the economy coherent? Harnack was emphatic that the contradictions were too strong and Braun claimed that the possibility of linking new testament with old testament texts is today excluded. Biblicist approaches face the difficulty of linking an old testament text with a new testament text when old testament texts are constantly being reinterpreted.®
Here the new testament has no alternative but to adopt an eclectic approach to old testament traditions. An example of the difficulty of resolution may be seen in Psalm 109, which has been taken either as Christ cursing the Jews or as David cursing the Christians.
Is it possible to find a total view within which the various types can find their place?®° Choosing spirit not letter, Irenaeus has followed
Paul in making Christ the centre of all exegesis and has achieved his aim through the concepts of recapitulation and economy.
62 There are other themes as well. Irenaeus always writes harmony or counterpoint, never a simple melody.
63 The claim that Irenaeus used a distinct document on prophecy is difficult to maintain, for the alleged document is in total harmony with the rest of Agaist heresies, Bacq, De
Vancienne & la nouvelle alliance, 340. However, Irenaus tries to harmonise all his sources.
64 Schwager, 'Der Gott des Alten Testaments', 309.
65 G. von Rad, Theologie des alten Testaments, 5th edn (Munich, 1968), vol. 11, 409; cited in Schwager, ibid., 310.
66 Schwager, Der Gott des Alten Testaments', 310-11.
Participation 8.7 JOHN The Fourth Gospel has a dominant role in the theology of Irenaeus, not because it is cited more frequently than others, but because it contains the understanding of one God, incarnation, creation, glory, life, and knowledge which forms his thought. His account of God, word, incarnation and creation is taken explicitly from the prologue and provides his starting-point. Glory 1s the most striking Irenaean idea for many readers" and its link with incorruption points back to John. Recapitulation is governed by the Johannine themes of unification and perfection; it is implicit in the prologue of John and in chapter 17 which brings John's teaching together and balances the prologue.® The prologue relates the 'sovereign, effective and glorious generation of the word from the father' and 'is filled with an unqualified boldness, which defines its character' (3.11.8). The incarnation tells how the word became flesh. God becomes the son of man in order that man might become the son of God, and that the human nature which had departed from God might be won back (3.10.2).
His taking of flesh accustoms him to the new-born sons of God, born of faith in his name. In the unity of the father and son, the son does all according to the will of the father (Jn 5:19—23). The word came to his own to recapitulate, to return all things under his lordship to the father. The incarnate word received power over all things and by becoming flesh he assumed sovereignty on earth.
The word 'received power over all things when he became flesh.
Just as he held first place in heaven as the word of God, so he has, as the righteous man, taken first place on earth' (4.20.2).
The word assumed the power which was his as creator and extended his lordship to those who had died before he came. John does not oppose the centrality which Paul gives to Christ crucified but joins it with the incarnation. To the mysteries of Christ's birth and death, John adds the time between them; it is important that Christ lived through all the ages from infancy to maturity in order
7 Reals remblay, La manifestation et la vision de Dieu selon Saint lrénée de Lyon (Aschendorff Miinster,
_ 1978); Scherrer, La gloire de Dieu.
°8 G, Siegwalt, 'Introduction a une théologie chrétienne de la récapitulation', RThPh 113
(1981), 259-78. E. Kasemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tibingen, 1966); ET,
The testament of Jesus (London, 1968).
Scripture as mind and will of God
to restore all to fellowship with God (3.18.7). The unity of father and son is evident in the knowledge of Nathanael through the instruction of the father (3.11.6), since only through the father may the son be known and vice versa. Again, the knowledge which Christ has of humans (Jn 2:25) is marked by mercy (dem. 60) and the relation into which he calls them is that of a friend of God: 'by declaring his disciples friends of God he shows plainly that he is the word' (4.13.4).°9 The creative word is ever present to the father (dem. 43) and the human race (3.18.1). This intimate presence which Irenaeus underlines by the Xenophanes allusion7° springs open in the incarnation;'' for the incarnate word is the creator word who comes to what is his own, to the world which is his own territory created by him according to the will of the father (5.18.2). At the marriage feast at Cana the incarnate word drank first the wine made by God on the vine (3.11.5).
When he became man he was already in the world, imprinted on all creation in the form of the cross (5.18.3).'* This, we found earlier, is the point at which the cosmic word is joined to the historical
Jesus. The indefatigable immediacy of the creator to the creature is further underlined by the metaphors of the finger of God (3.21.8) and the hand of God (3.21.10).'3 Irenaeus joins the creation of man (Genesis 2) to the prologue by taking the Fourth Gospel as the account of the new Genesis. Jesus, by an act, heals this man born blind, to make manifest the hand of God which shaped man at the beginning (5.15.2). Jesus returns to deny that the blindness was caused by sin and to claim that its only purpose was that the works of God should be manifest in him (Jn 9).
Jesus' actions repeat what he did at the first Genesis, 'displaying the hand of God to those who were capable of understanding, the hand by which man was modelled from mud'. What the creative word had overlooked in the intimacy of the mother's womb
69 Ferlay confirms the position adopted above, that Irenaeus begins with the middle and looks back to creation and forward to the end: 'retrospectif sur la création et lalliance';
'Trénée de Lyon exégéte', 225.
7° See above, chapter two.
7" Ferlay, 'Irénée de Lyon exégéte', 226: 'éclosion totale d'un amour originel'.
7? See Armenian version 18.70. SC 153, 244.
73 The metaphors are not used in later theology because of their subordinationist flavour.
Partucipation he now did in full day to demonstrate the works of God. The purpose of this display is that we should learn the immediacy of the only God and not go looking for intermediaries. The hand that formed us in the beginning, that shaped us in the maternal womb, is the hand of the shepherd who has sought and found us as sheep which were lost and who, 'regaining his own, hoists the lost sheep on his shoulders to carry it back rejoicing to the fold of life' (5.15.2)./4 Further examples of John's heightened christology develop
Jesus' claim that Moses had written of him (Jn 5:46) into the claim that the writings of Moses are Jesus' own words (4.2.3), for by word and theophany he has been present to men from the beginning. It was already the word who walked in the garden to prefigure that he would always be with men (dem. 12). By law and prophecy even more than by visible theophany, the word was present to prepare men for his coming.
Ss Irenaeus also draws from John the link between spirit and church.
Regeneration radiates from the incarnation as the church spreads through the world. There is a change of heart among the pagans now that the word has pitched his tent angong men (dem. 94). This concept of salvation by contagion and participation will play a persistent role in Greek theology.
Entry into the kingdom is by water and the spirit (Jn 3:5). The mission of the church is driven by the spirit who was promised by the Baptist, received from the lord by the apostles, 'who shared and distributed it to the faithful, thereby instituting and founding the church' (dem. 41). Water and spirit run in parallel. The water offered by the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:14) springs to life eternal.
This spring is identified (Jn 7:37) with the spirit who is not yet given, but who is to be given from the cross (Jn 19:30) when the water flows from his pierced side (Jn 19:34), and after resurrection when Christ gives the spirit to the apostles (Jn 20:22). So long as the gentiles were without the word and spirit, their calling was an arid desert: 'the word has made streams spring up abundantly and has sowed the holy spirit on the earth' (dem. 89). Outside the church,
74 suam lucrifaciens et super humeros assumens ovem perditam et cum gratulatione in cohortem restituens vitae. For Irenaeus, God finds joy in saving mankind. His words give new meaning to the prevalence of this image in early Christian art.
Scripture as mind and will of God
'those who do not share in the spirit ... receive nothing from the purest source which flows from the body of Christ' (3.24.1).
No text says more about recapitulation than John 12:32, 'when I have been lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all to myself'.
Irenaeus explains that the head of the church draws all to himself at the appropriate time (3.16.6). His concern for time, for the fitting time (aptum tempus), points to God's patience and temporal artistry
(zetthafte Kunst). A parallel concern for space looks to the universal spread of the gospel, beyond the borders of Israel, as a proof of the presence of the spirit. 'To the many mansions in the father's house
(Jn 14:2) he adds, with his fusion of John and Paul, 'there are many members in the body' (3.19.3; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12).
Love dominates the accounts of trinity and incarnation that Irenaeus draws from the Fourth Gospel, and from love flows glory
(Jn 17:22—6). This will be the subject of the following chapter. nee | LeveMl Ub, Irenaeus exhibits a complexity, which has made things difficult for historical theologians. Not least of his challenges is the interpretation of Paul which pervades his writing. While many had suggested where Irenaeus distorted Paul,'° no one had taken the trouble to assess his contribution as the first great exponent of Paul. Progress has been made in a large recent work, which deals first with the use of Paul in each book of the Against heresies,'7 and then goes on to examine the influence of Paul on the three main areas of Irenaeus' thought: history of salvation, christology and anthropology.
Irenaeus transforms Payl's concept of continuity with a different idea of time and history. His many-sided development of the 75 Von Balthasar, Herrlichkeit 11, 76.
7® Notably J. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus, TU 6, 2 (Leipzig, 1889), 212-13. By the concept of natural law a unity between the two covenants is obtained. The specifically new and Christian salvation, the righteousness of God through faith alone, is suppressed in the interest of the continuity of saving history. The agreement of salvation in both covenants consists in the fulfilment of the natural law. This makes a striking difference from what Paul had said and means that any inner affinity between Paul and Irenaeus rust be abandoned.
Rolf Noormann, Jrendus als Paulusinterpret (Tibingen, 1994). The reader who finds this early detailed account 'etwas miihsam' may move to the second more systematic section which begins at p. 377. vi NI
Participation Adam-—Christ typology takes the restoration of divine sonship and immortality in new directions. His anthropology develops the Pauline defence of the flesh and of human creatureliness, against the spiritualising tendencies of enthusiasts.
As well as developments, there are clear differences between Irenaeus and Paul. Irenaeus takes Paul's Hellenistic Jewish ideas and blends them with classical and Hellenistic ideas such as the ideal of participation and assimilation to God. In anthropology, for example, Irenaeus uses against the Valentinians the same account of flesh and spirit which Paul used against Corinthian enthusiasts; yet here there is a new note which defends the flesh as part of God's creation and extends future hope into millenarian expectations.
The concluding negations of this study are important. Irenaeus built his theology on the rule of faith, not on Paul. His use of Paul was not governed by the Pastoral Epistles and Acts, but by Romans,
1 Corinthians and Ephesians. Matthew and Luke contribute to his theology. Yet Paul and John remain the chief sources of what is a new and different theology.
'To this account a few points may be added in what is an ever widening question.'® First, Irenaeus' use of Paul is not merely designed to control the damage caused by Gnostic interpreters, but rather to expound the central elements of his own theology. Secondly, Irenaeus infrequently attacks the heretical dualist interpretation of Paul, when it is used to support two gods or a determuinist anthropology. More frequently he uses Paul to support his own insistence (against heretics) that there is one God, creator and supreme father, one Jesus Christ, the incarnate word of God, and one economy of salvation history.
When Irenaeus expounds his distinctive ideas on recapitulation and the economy of salvation he uses Paul persistently. In Book 1 the statements of the rule of faith (1.10.1 and 1.22.1) and of the key theological questions (1.10.3) use much Pauline thought and language. In Book 2, on the issue of Gnostic pride as the driving force of their theology, Irenaeus builds his case on Paul: knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (2.26.1). In Book 3 Irenaeus draws
78 For example, the dissertation of E. Peretto, La lettera ai Romani ce 1-8 nell'Adversus haereses di Ireneo (Bari, 1971), covered only eight chapters of Paul.
Scripture as mind and will of God 1QI heavily on Paul for his account of one God and the recapitulation of all things in Christ. That there is one incarnate Christ who summed up all things is proved through Paul (3.16-23). While
Book 4 is concerned to prove from Christ's words what has been proved from the apostles, there is still reference to Paul to prove the unity of God's saving work in both testaments. In Book 5 he turns to Paul to show how wrong the heretics are about the resurrection which is God's strength perfected in our weakness (5.3.1; 5.3.3)
(2 Cor. 12:9). The essence of Irenaeus' eschatology is drawn from 1 Corinthians 15:25—-8.79
Irenaeus' central belief in one God is based on Paul (Eph.
4:5—6 (4.32.1; 2.2.6); Rom. 3:30 (5.22.1; 3.10.2)). His account of the kingdom of God is marked by Paul's respect for, and emphasis on, creation in general and the body in particular. The importance of body alongside of soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23) is paramount
(5.6.1). The body is the image of God (5.6.1). The soul takes the shape of the body (2.19.6). The body is the temple of God (1 Cor.
3:16) (5.6.2). God is to be glorified in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20), in our mortal flesh (2 Cor. 4:10) (5.13.3, 4). The members of the body should not be joined to a harlot (1 Cor. 6:15) (5.6.2). Bodies are part of the totality of things which is summed up in Christ (Eph.
1:10) and bodies will be raised from the dead (1 Cor. 6:14; Rom.
Pel (5-7 0).
Irenaeus follows Paul in the place given to the Mosaic law. The law never prevented anyone from believing in the son of God (4.2.7) and the Decalogue is essential to salvation (4.15.1). He deviates from Paul in the place which he gives to ignorance rather than sin (5.12.5) as a cause of human disobedience. Above all, in the face of Gnostic determinism, he underlines the power of free will
(4-37-14).
To conclude, Irenaeus' account of scripture has great relevance for biblical understanding and historical origins. He links scripture with his four concepts: the rational intimacy of the universal Intellect, the earthly pageant of the economy, the summit of 79 This section draws on the useful summary in D. L. Balas, "The use and interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus' five books Adversus haereses', SecCent 9 (1992), 27-39 which is a response to R. A. Norris Jr, 'Irenaeus' use of Paul in his polemic against the Gnostics', in Paul and the legacies of Paul, ed. W. S. Babcock (Dallas, 1990).
Participation recapitulation and the grace of participation. He provides more data concerning the origin of a Christian bible than anyone else.
Above all, he shows the mutual dependence of imagery and reason, of 'the unfettered images of apocalypse and the applied images of history and doctrine'.®° The fact that we have needed two chapters to explore Irenaeus' participation in truth is important, for it explains the remarkable way in which he argues, using both the rule of truth and the universe of scripture. Moving from centre to circumference, then back to the centre, through the whole range of biblical imagery and text, rubbing arguments and images together so that each is stronger, he manages to say and prove things. This is what Clement of Alexandria will call the true dialectic and it points, through its imagery, to the aesthetic element in Irenaeus' work, which is now to be our concern. i 8° Farrer, A rebirth 17. The opening pages of this book are extremely valuable for an understanding of Irenaeus.