Irenaeus, Against Heresies & Tertullian Against Praxeas; On The Flesh Of Christ

Fuller Theological Seminary

Analytical Paper for Irenaeus, Against Heresies & Tertullian, Against Praxeas; On the Flesh of Christ

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course CH501 Patristic Theology Dr. R.A. Muller

By Jack Hakimian Summer 2007

Section 1

Irenaeus was from the city of Lyons. We know that he was born around A.D. 140 in Asia Minor and later moved to southern part of Gaul. He became pretty influential as an elder in that church and was used to transmit a message to the bishop of Rome by the martyrs in Gaul.1 When he came back he was appointed a bishop and wrote his most famous work, A Detection and refutation of the Falsely Named “Knowledge” or what others have titled, Against Heresies .2 Irenaeus of Lyons sets out to refute the Gnostic teachings of Marcion and other heretical teachers.

We find similar battles taking place in the next generation with a theologian by the name of Tertullian. Tertullian was born in Carthage, North Africa around 150 A.D. Trained as a lawyer and rhetorician he argued for a pure Christian doctrine and practice. While Irenaeus argued for the Unity of God as creator of the material world, Tertullian argued that the salvation of humankind involved the entire person, “body, soul and spirit”.3 Tertullian saw in scripture a God who loves the physical bodies of mankind’s to the point that he himself becomes flesh and begins the process of redemption as the Head and firstborn from the dead. 4

1

Pg 10 Pg 10 3 Pg 13 4 Pg 13 2

Section 2

Irenaeus book, Against Heresies aims to destroy the false teachings of Marcion and other teachers he sums up as Gnostics.5 The main point Irenaeus argues is that the creator God of the Old Testament is truly indeed the one true divine God. There is no “two Gods”. One that is responsible for the material world and another who is responsible for the spiritual. Irenaeus argues that divine creator God created the temporal material world with a perspective that everything is “good”.6 Also, Irenaeus argues that the God of Biblical history has always been intimately involved with his creation. Ultimately he demonstrated his redemptive plan in the person of Christ who was not only fully divine, but human. In Christ we find “the unity of God with humanity and the unity of human history with God”.7

Tertuullian in his book Against Praxeas argued against the “Monarchians” who said there was no difference between the Son and the Creator God who is father. If there was it wouldn’t be “monarchy” or one rule.8 Tertullian responds by stating that a monarchy to be one does not have to one ruler. Rather a “Father King” can rule as He pleases and can share his managerial work with a Son.9 In making his case he uses the legal understanding of “substance and person”. The substance is the property or essence of God, and the person is the possessor or owner of that property (essence). In this way 5

Pg 10 Genesis 1 7 Pg 12 8 Pg 178 A History of Christian Thought 9 Pg 178 A History of Christian Thought 6

there is one “monarchy” substance or essence and three persons (who posses property), the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Each are part of the economy of God, they share an organic relationship with distinct roles.10 As Gonzales puts it, “Trinity seems to be an essential unity with secondary distinctions.”11

Section 3

Irenaeus

Tertullian

Summary of Ideas: Christ becoming flesh does not mean he had no prior existence; rather he put on humanity to accomplish salvation. Humanity could not pay the ransom since they themselves are fallen under the domination of sin. (49) He summed up the long history of man and accomplished salvation at a moment of time. Essentially he accomplished God’s plan of salvation and bore our sins as a substitute (49-51) Irenaeus argues that you cannot make a distinction between a Spiritual Christ and a human Jesus. They are both one and scripture refers to the physically suffering person on the cross as Christ.

Summary of Ideas: The followers of Valentinus make distinctions between the Father and the Son. They say the Son is flesh (human) and the Father is the Spirit (divinity).

He argues that if wasn’t a physically Christ why would he exhort his followers to pick up their cross and suffer like him. That would be unjust. History tells us the apostles did suffer as martyrs. That means their suffering was in vain for they seek to 10 11

Pg 180 A History of Christian Thought

The Word did not become transformed into flesh, but rather put on flesh. If he would have been transformed he would have lost some of his properties and thus become a tertium quid (63). He uses John 3 passage where Jesus made distinction of the being born humanly and being born spiritually to argue that Jesus had both a human and divine attributes, yet was fully God. He even quotes 1 Timothy 2:5 to validate his point. There are heretics who claim the flesh does not rise from the dead. By doing that they deny that Jesus came in the flesh and resurrected the third day. They imply that it was not really flesh, but merely looked like flesh (64). Marcionites teach their was no

follow the example of their Lord who also physically suffered. That Christ forgave His enemies while physically suffering is patient and loving , therefore better than the Christ who flew away from suffering of the cross (53)

If Christ didn’t suffer physically then there is no passion. If there is no passion then we would feel deceived when we suffer for Him (53)

If Christ did not go through every sate of humanity we would not be able to share in adoption as God’s sons. Rather he fully by becoming human restored communion with God (54). People who say that Jesus is an ordinary man are in danger of death, because they deny that God ever gave a remedy of their sin (55). The only way for God to the deal with the consequences of our sin, was to become a sin offering for us (56). Jesus became human to be tempted like us, and reminded as logos (divine) so he may be glorified. (56)That is why he was called the Son of God and Son of Man. Ultimately he did so that he can raise humanity unto eternal life as he himself did as the Head of the church (57). Only the logos could teach us the “mysteries of God”, properly teach us the ways of God. It is by seeing him and hearing his voice that we learn the truth (57).

birth, so they can deny the flesh of Christ (65). It is not impossible for God to be born or to do anything He chooses. He chose to be born, therefore he was flesh. He wouldn’t want appear to be something he really didn’t want to be, because it is not in God’s nature to even appear like something that He considers ugly or wicked (65). He really seams to use deductive argumentation here. You can see his skills as a lawyer coming forth (65). God can change into a human being and not lose his divinity. He is very different from created things that lose their properties when they change. Even angels turn into tangible properties, but remain as angels. How much more God? He remains divine even in the person of Jesus Christ (66). The Gospel of John which Marcion rejects claims that Spirit came upon Jesus in a dove like state. When this happened the Spirit did not lose it proper substance (67). Marcion rejects the humanity of Christ because he views it as unworthy of God. He doesn’t realize that God loves human beings and is willing to become one to save them (68).

God was truly born, crucified, and risen. That is why Paul declared, “to know among us only one who had been crucified?” That is why he is called “Son of Man”. That is why Jesus challenged us not be ashamed of him (68, 69). Christ has a twofold substance which reveals Him to be both human and both God. In virtue of one born; in virtue of the other, unborn. In virtue of the one he was fleshly; in virtue of the other, spiritual. In virtue of the one he was feeble; in virtue of the other, mighty. In virtue of the one he

was dying; in virtue of the other, alive (71) People, who say Christ only appeared to be human, don’t speak with objectively. Secondly, God would be misleading people if he appeared to be human when in reality He was a Spirit. Thirdly, the prophets spoke about Him as he would appear in the actual flesh. If he wasn’t flesh in the formation of Adam then he wouldn’t be able to redeem us by His blood (58-59). It appears that the Ebonite don’t believe that God put on flesh to reach humanity. They view God as transcendent and holy to the point that he would not mix with sinful humans by becoming incarnate. They must view the material world as evil. Irenaeus argues that the Holy Spirit was united to Adam when he formed Him and breathed the breath of life into his being (59). God never forgot his promise, “Let us make humanity after our image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). That is why through Christ he accomplished the task by sending a second Adam that can restore the image (60).

He also argues against those who claim that Jesus Christ flesh had a soul. They claim that the soul is made up of the flesh. That Jesus Christ came only to save the soul. Tertullian argues that even if he came to save the soul, which he did, with the body, the soul is not made up of the flesh, but apart from the flesh (71,72)

Tertullian’s tone, in contrast to Irenaeus, seems to be more aggressive. For example he starts his polemic by stating, “Why, though, do I delay over such obvious matters when I ought to be tackling the arguments in which they attempt to take the obvious and obscure it?”12 Some of the difference I noted is that Tertullian more than Irenaeus presents exhortations in his polemic to the heretics asking them to respond positively to the truths of his argument (71). It appears he has one point in mind. That is to persuade his opponents to make a decision to follow the truth as they hear his arguments. Tertullian

12

Pg 61

uses scripture, but not to the same degree as Irenaeus. Rather he seems to make use of analogies. For example he responds to the argument of Jesus transforming into flesh by comparing it to gold and silver loosing their essential properties when mixing. He physically sets out to prove that if the Logos transformed into a human thru the virgin birth, he would of not been either human or God, but a third type of being (63).

Section 4 It is clear that the church was in danger of being influenced with Gnostic, Jewish legalism, and other heresies. Yet these theologians dealt with the crucial matters of scriptural authority, methods of interpretation, rule of faith, etc. They helped preserve Christian traditions and orthodoxy in a time where the faith was vulnerable to become just another sect with no authoritative presence. Irenaeus and Tertullian in comparison to Origen seem to have a more balanced approach to the interpretation and use of scripture. They seem to argue from scripture and apply it based on its historical grammatical context. I wonder if they have something to do with the formation of the Antichene Interpretative Methods.