Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus’ significance for the development of Christian theories about the Antichrist is well-documented.  His major work, Against Heresies, provides the first extensive Christian discussion of the Antichrist thus far extant, drawing together various passages in the Hebrew Bible  and New Testament  and synthesizing them into a coherent picture of one end-time human being who recapitulates all evil.  Even though it is likely that Irenaeus’ antichrist-ology served to preserve a set of traditions already established in the church, rather than representing any significant theological innovation on his part, his work still influences modern interpretations of these passages and forms the foundation for many persisting Christian beliefs about the “Final Enemy.”

Less studied, however, is the theological significance of the Antichrist in Irenaeus’ own thought.  Although the most extensive discussion of the Antichrist appears in Book 5 of Against Heresies (AH 5.25-30), Irenaeus returns to the topic throughout the work.  Irenaeus portrays the Antichrist as both a spiritual and political figure, a future historical leader whose free decision to “recapitulate in himself all diabolic apostasy” (AH 5.25.1) takes on cosmic significance.  Situated as this figure is in the redemptive economy of God—as the concentrated epitome of the evil that Christ will eventually vanquish—and in the historical economy of God—as a holder of political authority (AH 5.24.1-2) which he chooses to wield tyrannically—the Antichrist serves as a useful lens through which to consider aspects of Irenaeus’ political thought within the context of his theological framework.  Focusing on how Irenaeus’ writings on the Antichrist relate to recapitulation, the rule of faith, and the theologies of power, I argue that his discussions about the Antichrist reflect, in microcosm, the broader dynamics of Irenaeus’ social and political thought.

Irenaeus is an early church father who wrote to formulate Christian doctrine in opposition to the Gnostics. In his thought, the Holy Spirit plays a vital role in the Bible story from creation through to new creation. This essay focuses on his role in the believer as the presence of the age to come - that the indwelling of the Spirit is a deposit of what awaits.

Zagadnienie apostazji u Ireneusza z Lyonu zwróciło moją uwagę kiedy podczas lektury Adversus haereses znalazłem tam zdanie: „Chrystus odkupił nas od apostazji swoją krwią” (Christus redemit nos de apostasia sanguine suo) (AH III,5,3). Wydało mi się ono mocno nieoczywiste i zagadkowe (nie spotkałem się z podobnym wyrażeniem u żadnego innego z autorów wczesnochrześcijańskich), dlatego zacząłem szukać innych fragmentów, w których Ireneusz mówiłby coś na temat apostazji. Rezultatem tych poszukiwań oraz próby interpretacji ich wyników jest niniejsza rozprawa.
W toku badań wyłoniły mi się trzy podstawowe problemy, które przełożyły się na trzy główne cele badawcze:

1). Pytanie o znaczenie pojęcia odstępstwa w myśli Ireneusza. Jest bowiem jasne, że odczytywanie terminologii apostazji w Adversus haereses przez pryzmat tego znaczenia, które ustaliło się w czasie kontrowersji wokół kwestii lapsi jest zwyczajnie nieadekwatne. Istnieje zatem potrzeba ustalenia sposobu, w jaki Ireneusz rozumiał „apostazję”, „apostatę” itp.
2). Rekonstrukcja poglądów Ireneusza odnośnie apostazji. Wymagała ona analizy wyobrażeń i tematów, które w jego wywodzie łączą się z pojęciem apostazji (odstępowania, bycia odstępcą itp.), ja również postawienia pytania o relacje pomiędzy nimi.
3). Pytanie o miejsce apostazji w Adversus haereses jako traktacie polemicznym.

Tesis de Doctorado / PhD Thesis.
Since J. Parkes invented it in 1934, the expression “Parting of the Ways” has deeply rooted in the scholarship to study the distance between Jews and Christians during Antiquity. Indeed, issued from the same common background, which was the Second Temple Judaism, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism became two opposing orthodoxies which excluded each other and, largely, based their own identity in opposition to the other one, in a process started by the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70. This doctoral thesis analyses how this parting of the ways happened throughout the first three centuries of the Common Era in the different regional realities of the Roman Empire, taking as a main source the literature of the Church Fathers, though also other ones, as the rabbinic literature, the so-called “cycle of the Talmud”. So, despite their rivalries, Judaism and Christianity form a large spectrum where, in an extreme, we find the Rabbinic Judaism, for which Jesus represents nothing, and, in the other, different forms of Gnostic Christianity, which fully denied the identification between the Jewish Jahveh and the God Father preached by Jesus Christ and, because of that, refused all the Jewish heritage of Christianity. Between both extremes became established the self-proclaimed Orthodox Christianity, over the basis of the anti-legalistic thought of the Apostle Paul. This form of Christianity also felt obliged to harmonize Hebrew Scriptures as a part of the history of salvation with the idea that the Mosaic Law had been abrogated with the coming of the Messiah. This proto-Orthodox Christianity found in the method of allegory applied to the interpretation of the Old Testament the legitimation of its doctrine and its universalistic and uniformist wishes. On the other hand, the rabbis, with the Patriarch as their leader, got the decisive support of the Roman authorities in their purpose to proclaim themselves as the leaders of Judaism, which was decapitated after the disappearance of the Temple. This Judaism found its way of expression in the so-called Talmudic literature, where the Rabbis systematized an orthodoxy that excluded from the people of Israel all those who did not share their doctrines, as we can see, for example, in the Birkat ha minim, imprecation which, included in the liturgy of the synagogue worship, was pronounced against the Followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

This work sets out to explain the atonement theory of Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus' atonement theology is often described simply as “Christus Victor” but I argue that is simply a narrow sliver of the wider atonement theory of recapitulation. In this thesis I systematically try to expound what it is Irenaeus believed and why he believed it. In the first chapter I explain the problem at hand and a short biography of the bishop. In the second chapter I seek to summarize the Gnostic school of Valentinianism, which is the key opponent against Irenaeus writes in his best-known work “Against Heresies.” In the third chapter I expound on Irenaeus' hamartiology. In the fourth chapter Irenaeus' theory of recapitulation is covered, looking at his understanding of the role of Christ, of Mary, and Christ's defeat of Satan. In the fifth chapter Irenaeus' understanding of deification is broken down. Finally in the sixth chapter we look at the role of the church in Irenaeus' soteriology.

Irénée témoigne d’une lecture originale du verset 13 du Prologue de Jean. Il connaît le verbe principal au singulier, et non au pluriel : « Lui qui n’est pas né de la volonté de la chair, ni de la volonté de l’homme, mais de (la volonté de) Dieu » (Contre les hérésies III, 16, 2 ; III, 19, 2 ; 21, 5.7 ; V, 1, 3). Avec cette lecture, le verset n’est plus une affirmation sur les croyants, mais une affirmation christologique qui vise alors la conception et la naissance virginale de Jésus, voire la génération éternelle du Verbe. Le contexte des cinq passages est polémique au point que la leçon christologique fait partie intégrante de son arsenal anti-hérétique. Quel est pour lui l’enjeu théologique ? Une christologie qui nierait la naissance virginale de Jésus, et par voie de conséquence sa divinité, mettrait en péril le salut sur lequel est fondée la foi chrétienne. Notre hypothèse est que la tournure syntaxique élaborée du verset 13, « naître non de…, ni de…, mais de… », explique pourquoi la leçon christologique est privilégiée dans la polémique judéo-chrétienne sur la naissance virginale : sa fonction correctrice, parce qu’elle provient de l’évangile, est une arme de choix contre les adversaires de la divinité de Jésus.

Originally submitted: May, 2017. Last edited and expanded: November - December, 2024. In this research thesis we will discover that Augustine’s opinion that concupiscence was an evil, hereditary stain of original sin was not in line with the agreed-upon tradition of the earliest of Church fathers but there are strong arguments for believing that this opinion was based on non-Christian or spurious sources, the most probable direct source being the “Ambrosiaster” document. On this shaky foundation of the inheritance of concupiscence, Augustine built the idea of the massa damnata. It was a novel doctrine, since it was incompatible with the earlier Orthodox tradition. Augustine's claim that this denial of limbo and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was part of the Catholic tradition, was a novelty to the Church universal. It was unsupported by early sources. This leads me to conclude that Augustine’s threefold philosophical structure of concupiscence, massa damnata and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was not in accordance with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3b, NKJV). The lack of orthodox evidence supporting an idea of genetically inheriting sin substantially weakens the basis as proffered by Augustine.

This paper introduces Irenaeus of Lyons and his significance to Christian theology. It approaches his theology in a systematic order. It argues against the view that Irenaeus believed in penal substitutionary atonement, a view Osborn attributes to Irenaeus. Also, it argues that Irenaeus held to the "fallen" view of Jesus' incarnation, against the assessment by Van Kuiken and Hatzidakis that Irenaeus held the "unfallen" view.

Introduced by Aldo Magris, full professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Trieste, the book is divided into three sections. It aims to illustrate the development and semantic links of terms related to the phenomenology of spiration in ancient times, especially Late Antiquity.
The first part focuses on the three main cultural contexts of the Hellenistic era: Greek, Jewish and Christian;  the second part outlines the chaotic and fascinating sapiential galaxy of the High Empire: Gnosticism, esoteric syncretism and philosophical speculation; the third part, finally, investigates the semantic reworking of the terms pneuma/spiritus in Christian thought of the first centuries, both Greek and Latin.
The conclusion - which tries to be a more theoretical reflection - offers a plausible reading key on what emerged during the study and highlighting the benefits and advantages that a discipline such as pneumatology could offer to current theological thought.

Il volume, suddiviso in tre sezioni e prefato dal prof. Aldo Magris, ordinario di Filosofia Teoretica presso l'Università di Trieste, si propone di delineare lo sviluppo ed i nessi semantici dei termini relativi alla fenomenologia della spirazione in età antica, soprattutto tarda. Ad una prima parte attenta ai tre principali contesti culturali dell’epoca ellenistica – greco, ebraico e cristiano – segue una seconda parte dedicata alla caotica e affascinante galassia sapienziale dell’Alto Impero - gnosticismo, sincretismo esoterico e speculazione filosofica; la terza parte, infine, indaga l’elaborazione o, per meglio dire, l’‘elevazione’ teologica di cui la dinamica dello spirare ha beneficiato in seno al pensiero cristiano dei primi secoli, sia greco sia latino. Le conclusioni, infine, operano una riflessione critica a carattere più squisitamente teoretico, cercando di offrire una plausibile chiave di lettura su quanto emerso lungo lo studio e, soprattutto, evidenziando i benefici ed i vantaggi che una disciplina come la pneumatologia potrebbe offrire al pensiero teologico odierno. Correda il volume un ricco apparato di riferimenti - relativi ai passi scritturisti, alle citazioni extratestuali, ai luoghi, ai personaggi letterari o mitologici, ai nomi antichi e a quelli nomi moderni - completato da un accurato indice analitico, recante termini sia greci sia latini.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

This chapter collects the evidence for engagement with the world soul in early Christian thought. The prevailing scholarly opinion is that Christians could not accept this philosophical idea due to its connection with the postulate of a divine cosmos. By means of a close analysis of key Christian authors between the second and the fourth century, the article partly corrects this consensus. Without fully embracing either the Platonic or the Stoic concept, Christian thinkers as diverse as the Gnostic author of the Acts of John, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen adopted elements of the world soul theory to articulate their Christologies. In a final part, the chapter follows these ideas into the fourth century where they continue to exercise some influence albeit in modified form.

In describing the Eucharist as the "new oblation of the new covenant," Irenaeus of Lyons presents Malachi 1:10-11 as a foreshadow of this new sacrifice. He is not alone in doing so: the Didache and Justin Martyr also view the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11. The primary question for this project is whether the text of Malachi itself or its use by New Testament authors warrants the type of Eucharistic interpretation seen in these second century authors.

In his essay “Eucharist, Sacrifice, and Scripture”, Michael Vasey comments that "two facts are clear: the New Testament never speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and the early church very quickly began to do so." One might well get the impression that the two bodies of literature are at odds. We will propose that when second century writers speak of the Eucharist as sacrifice, they are doing so on the basis of what they find in the New Testament’s own use of Malachi.

We begin by exploring Malachi in its own Old Testament context and highlighting key changes to the text during its translation into the Septuagint. This is followed by an overview of two key New Testament allusions to Malachi that are found in Eucharistic contexts. An overview of the Eucharistic use of Malachi before Irenaeus is followed by a final chapter on his own use of Malachi in the context of his wider sacramental theology.

Letters inserted into Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History can be interpreted fruitfully within the context of the usage of embedded letters in imperial Greek literature. Elite Greek narrative texts regularly attributed letters to famous Greeks of the past in order to model elite convention and to reveal heroic character. Similarly, Eusebius’ subtle and manipulative reproduction of letters by past Christians foregrounds these Christians as exemplars of proper ecclesiastical conduct. Eusebius’ letters represent wide communication, harmonious resolution of dif erences, and conformity to past Christians’ conduct as essential to Christian identity, particularly in his narratives of the paschal and rebaptism controversies. Eusebius presented epistolary conventions so as to render Christian character acceptable to elite Greek-speaking audiences.

-An addendum to this article now appears in my "'The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope,"" Histos 13 (2020), p. 10 n. 47.
-I missed 4.26.13 among the letters quoted by Eusebius.

This course examines Irenaeus of Lyons’ writings on the Spiritual life. A careful reading of his texts reveals several foundational themes, five of which this class will study in detail. These themes include: an emphasis on humanity’s creation and restoration into the divine image and likeness, the Christian life as pilgrimage, the pilgrimage as a journey marked by growth and ascent to God, spirituality as fellowship with God, and divinization. The course will conclude with a brief survey of Irenaeus’ few thoughts on the practical steps of the spiritual life.

Saint Irenaeus's anthropology is built biblically. The main concepts that underpin its thinking about man are biblical concepts, having a unitary theological foundation that is offered by the unity of the revelation of the holy text. Written in a polemic context, the anthropology of Saint Irenaeus breaks up with the Greek and Hebrew classic vision about man. It is an anthropology centered on the event of the Logos incarnation, the Son of God, event witnessed by the Scriptures and the lively experience of the Church, in the economy of the Holy Spirit in the world. The life and words of the Saviour, narrated in the Gospels, represent the main source of Saint Irenaeus's understanding of man. The four Gospels do not provide too many texts with an explicit anthropological character, but the work of the bishop of Lyon contains references to such sources. Their analysis, that makes the object of this study, shows the importance given by St. Irenaeus to the Gospels and to the development of his thinking about man, as well as how he interpreted the biblical passages in an anthropological manner.

Irenaeus' understanding of Old Testament theophanies and their exegesis is one of the loci of marked disagreement in scholarship. After a detailed survey of the various scholarly positions, this article argues against the oft-repeated judgment that Irenaeus' treatment of theophanies would set forth a theological corrective to, or even an explicit rebuttal of, Justin of Neapolis' Logos-theology, and shows that Irenaeus' exegesis of theophanies is also consistent with that of authors who have read Adv. haer. (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen). If the bishop of Lyons participated fully in the tradition of interpreting Old Testament theophanies as " Christophanies, " it follows that some strands of scholarship are severe misreadings of Irenaeus.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp.  Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa.

Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel

Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini.

Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

Apostle Paul's text in 1 Corinthians 15:50 was frequently quoted by Gnostics as proof for the belief that only man's soul is destined for salvation. Quoted out of its context, this verse seems to support the Gnostics' claim, and its interpretation can raise a host of theological problems. The author of this article analyzes Irenaeus' exegesis on the Pauline text, trying to uncover the meaning construed by the bishop in the context of his polemic against Gnosticism. Irenaeus envisages three possible solutions in interpreting 1 Cor. 15:50, as he attempts to refute the Gnostic heresy and to uncover the Christian meaning of this text. His method consists in resorting to key Gnostic philosophical concepts on one hand; and in bringing to bear on the text a Biblical anthropological perspective which departs from the classical Greek ontology and anthropology.

This paper will discuss how the theological turn within phenomenology has contributed to the further development of discussions concerning Husserl's distinction between the lived body (Leib) of the "flesh" and the extrinsically manifest "seen" body (Körper) by re-appropriating Christianity's emphasis upon incarnation, as exemplified in the work of Michel Henry and Emmanuel Falque. For Henry, an additional "reduction to the flesh" must be enacted in order to overcome the dualistic opposition between "phenomenal body" on the one hand, and the living medium of flesh on the other, for the sake of returning to the original givenness of life. Yet, Falque criticizes Henry's position as a kind of monism, just as problematic as the very dichotomy which it aims to criticize. Falque argues instead that the flesh must always be incorporated, "given back" to the body as a unity, possessing not only affect and life, but also solidity and visibility.

Discussion related to the potential for mystical union with God was largely absent from the writings of the Church Fathers prior to the late-second century. Toward the end of that century, however, the concept of communion with God emerged as a topic of interest in both early  Christian and Gnostic literature. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was among the earliest Christian writers to critically reflect on the subject. He argued that participation with the divine was possible only in the “orthodox” churches and required three key elements: a life lived in connection to the Spirit of God, in community with the true people of God, while bearing evidence of godly piety and virtue. Whereas Gnostic conceptions of communion frequently included an emphasis on the reception of an exclusive, secret gnosis, Irenaeus’ paradigm offered a public, progressive path of ascent to God.

Modern expositions on Irenaeus’ theological concept regarding the nature of God and the human response to God have tended to thoroughly articulate the fatherly love of God and the human affection for Him in the dazzling harmony of His providence. The fatherhood of God, the sonship of humanity, Christ’s recapitulation, and the order and beauty of God’s providence in Irenaeus seem to have contributed to this positive manner of interpretation. However, as shown not only in his warning against the Gnostics but also in his advice for Christians, it is clear that Irenaeus deemed as hugely significant the negative dimensions of such a theological concept such as God’s righteous judgment and the fear of God. Accordingly, this dissertation explores the nature of God and the proper human response to God in Irenaeus in light of the criticism that there has been insufficient scholarly attention given to these negative dimensions. By involving both positive and negative aspects, this work attempts to put forward a more accurate and balanced account of Irenaeus’ understanding of God’s nature and the human response in their theological relation. Concerning the nature of God, three concepts are selected and studied: the supremacy of God, the oneness of God, and the God of love and righteousness. Correspondingly, humility, love and fear and vigour in action are forwarded and discussed as the proper human response to God. Interaction between those two subjects portrays theological consistency and projects a more comprehensive and holistic depiction of Irenaeus’ thought. The study hopes to suggest a new direction of research which might open the channel to a further knowledge and more balanced understanding of Irenaean theology in its width and depth.

The article redescribes Irenaeus of Lyon’s depiction of Marcus the Magician and his followers (Against the Heresies I,13-15) and, following the methodology elaborated by Jonathan Z. Smith and Burton L. Mack, it advances a rectification of the category of «heresiology» in the work of this second-century Christian writer. This application of the Smith/Mack four-step theoretical recalibration of comparison entails, in a first stage, a description of the Marcosians according to the primary sources. It continues with a comparison with similar ancient religious elements, derived from the collection of Greek magical papyri, and from the religious history of Montanism. The paper proposes, in a third stage, a redescription of the ancient religious group of the Marcosians as a highly mobile religious group, active across the Mediterranean world, open to complete inclusion of women in ritual activities and prophecy, with an ambitious agenda of social mobility. Finally, the paper advances a categorial rectification: it considers the category of «heresiology» as being influenced by Irenaeus’s discourse of creating a «heresiological double» with the purpose of delegitimization and deauthorization, and it suggests regarding it as an aggregating term. In Irenaeus’s particular case, « heresiology » aggregates «magic» and «gender» as two constitutive terms in the depiction of the Marcosians.

Cet article propose une « redescription » du tableau peint par Irénée de Lyon (Contre les hérésies I,13-15) de Marc le Magicien et ses disciples. Adoptant les principes méthodologiques élaborés par Jonathan Z. Smith et Burton L. Mack, nous proposons ainsi une rectification de la catégorie d’«hérésiologie» dans l’œuvre de cet auteur chrétien du deuxième siècle. Ces principes de recalibrage théorique implique quatre étapes: 1) une description, ici des Marcosiens d’après les sources primaires ; 2) une comparaison avec des éléments religieux antiques similaires, ici tirés du corpus des papyrus magiques grecs et de l’histoire religieuse du montanisme; 3) une redescription du groupe religieux antique des Marcosiens en tant que groupe religieux hautement mobile, actif à travers l’ensemble du monde méditerranéen, ouvert à une inclusion totale des femmes dans ses activités rituelles et prophétiques, et doté d’un ambitieux projet de mobilité sociale; 4) enfin, une rectification catégorielle, en considérant comment la catégorie d’«hérésiologie», influencée par le discours d’Irénée et l’idée d’un «double hérésiologique», dépourvu à la fois de légitimité et d’autorité, est en fait un un terme agrégeant. L’«hérésiologie d’Irénée en particulier agrège la «magie» et le «genre» comme le deux termes constitutifs de sa description des marcosiens.

Abstract: Библијски наратив о стварању првог човека, животу у рајском врту и изгону из њега представља полазиште за антрополошке спекулације како хришћанских тако и јеврејских тумача. Овај рад покушава да покаже да је Иринеј Лионски, свети отац који је припадао формативном периоду хришћанства, користио прве главе Књиге постања у својој борби против разних тзв. гностичких учења, употребљавајући исте стратегије као и представници рабинског јудаизма, који се као и рана Црква налазио у свом формативном периоду. Верност старозаветној антропологији и буквално читање библијског текста је стратегија коју употребљава св. Иринеј Лионски али и рабински јудаизам борећи се против платонизирајућих тенденција хеленског јудаизма.

Кључне речи: св. Иринеј Лионски, св. Теофил Антиохијски, Филон Александријски, гностицизам, рабински јудаизам, Књига постања, сексуалност, антропологија, обличије, икона, подобије, дух живота, душа жива, Рај, преступ, теодицеја, библијска егзегеза.

Summary. After close reading of the texts ascribed to St. Irenaeus, we can conclude that the anthropology of this church father is scriptural. Nevertheless, some dualistic elements are present, mainly regarding the distinction between image and likeness in Adam. According to St. Irenaeus, the first man was created by God, not by angels as in the Gnostic myths. He is created from the earth, not from some invisible ideal material. The first man was immortal and the ruler of the creation brought in existence for his sake. Similar to the understanding of man in the emerging rabbinic culture, St. Irenaeus understood humanity as marked from the moment of creation by corporeality and heterogeneity. Compared with the anthropology of Augustine, Irenaeus’ optimism regarding the destiny of the human race is simply radiant. Divine attributes, image, and the likeness of God in humanity are not totally corrupted. Humankind’s capacity toward progression, toward life, remained intact. The Genesis narrative and its “carnal” reading is used by Irenaeus as a polemical tool against the different Gnostic positions. Similar strategies were applied by rabbinic Judaism in distancing themselves from the Platonizing tendencies of Hellenized Judaism. The Genesis narrative was christianized in the same way as it was rabbinized by Irenaeus’ Jewish contemporaries.

Though scholars have amply documented the seminal role of Irenaeus of
Lyons in the development of Marian theology, Irenaeus uses a rare 
in Adversus Haereses 3.22.4 that has yet to be fully explored: “the knot of
Eve’s disobedience was untied through Mary’s obedience.” Why does Irenaeus choose such a seemingly weak image to describe the redemption of humanity? The present study shows through a close exegesis of the whole passage that Mary not only unties the knot of Satan, sin, and death, but she does so through an inverse tying of her own. Analysis of the ubiquitous literary, artistic, and material sources in the ancient Greco-Roman world reveals that the knot was a powerful and ambivalent symbol, connoting virginity and healing at the same time as bondage and constraint of the will. Irenaeus’s knot finally emerges as an eloquent and multivalent symbol for Mary’s crucial role in Christ’s recapitulation.

Im Paschaverständnis altkirchlicher Autoren spielen bekanntlich verschiedene Etymologien des Wortes Pascha eine wichtige Rolle. Ihnen soll im folgenden nachgegangen werden, wobei nach einem Aufriß der beiden philologischen Hauptlinien (1) im eigentlichen Hauptteil dieser Untersuchung gefragt werden soll, wie sich das Zeugnis des Irenäus von Lyon in dieses der Forschung hinlänglich vertraute Koordinatensystem einfügt (2); dabei wird sich auch der Beitrag der Onomastica Sacra als hilfreich erweisen und zeigen, daß die beiden bekannten Etymologien durch eine dritte zu ergänzen sind (3).

This article is devoted to the assertions of theological purity and authority forwarded by Valentinians, ancient Christians who were inspired by a form of theology that was popular around the Mediterranean area in the second to fourth century.

This article proposes an interpretation of the use of the lemma ὁ κανὼν τὴς ἀληθείας-regula veritatis in Irenaeus' Adversus haereses. It is commonly interpreted as a compendium of the main items of Christian faith (more or less as a symbolum) or as indicating the whole-ness of the faith (as synonym of veritas). These interpretations focuse themselves in terms of the "contents" of faith. We propose to understand it in a more formal way, as a lemma that indicates the formal structure of Christian truth (µορφή), the specific shape that keeps the objects of faith joined together.

Per il pdf dell'articolo pregasi contattare l'autore.