DOCTORES ECCLESIAE

REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY
IN IRENAEUS:
A Model for Ecumenicity
in a Violent World1
Hans Boersma

IMMATURITY AS OCCASION FOR HOSPITALITY

The second-century church father, Irenaeus, sustains hope for the fu- Irenaeus sustains
ture by means of a vision that I have elsewhere referred to as "eschato- hope for the future
logical hospitality."2 This eschatological hospitality is God's hospitable by means of a vision
future that ensures the restoration and maturation of human beings that I have elsewhere
— ^ — ^ — — ^ — ^ — ^ — referred to as
Hans Boersma, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Department, Trinity "eschatological
Western diversity, 7600 Glover Road, Langley, BC, CANADA V2Y1Y1 hospitality. "
1.1 want to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert E. Webber, Dr. Dennis L. Okholm and
the other members of the CCCU Faculty Development Workshop in Theology held at
Wheaton College (May 27-June 3, 2001) for their interaction with some of the material
that I am presenting in this paper.
2. For an extended argument covering the remainder of this paragraph, see my essay,
"Irenaeus, Derrida and Hospitality: On the Eschatological Overcoming of Violence"
forthcoming in Modern Theology.

P R O E C C L E S I A V O L . XI, N o . 2 207
 Irenaeus anchors created in the image and likeness of God. Irenaeus anchors his hope for
his hope for the the future in the one God who has increasingly revealed himself in the
future in the one Old and the New Testaments. This one God is the transcendent signi-
God who has fier enabling Irenaeus' confidence in a future that consists of an end to
increasingly violence. In Irenaeus' eschatological understanding, the kingdom of
revealed himself in God consists of the perfection of God's good created order, including
the Old and the its temporality, spatiality and linguistic determinacy. For some
New Testaments. postmodern thinkers, such determinacy may seem problematic: how
is it possible to combine determinacy and justice in the messianic fu-
ture? Do the particularities of time and space not imply the continua-
tion of violence? 3 Irenaeus escapes this dilemma in two ways. First, he
counterbalances his view of the eschaton as a continuation of the cre-
ated order with apophatic strategies that build on mystical theology
and tend toward human deification. Second, he understands God's
eschatological hospitality so to transcend this-worldly categories that
he is able to accept the tension between the determinacy of an
eschatological created reality and the indeterminacy of the mystical
reality of theosis. The one God of history is the transcendent warrant of
an eschatological hospitality that overcomes the violence of our cur-
rent this-worldly realities and that offers an incentive for human hos-
pitality. Thus, the t r a n s c e n d e n t w a r r a n t implied in I r e n a e u s '
eschatological vision enables the human flourishing of hospitality in
the face of injustice and violence. Humans may trust that the future is
open to them and that they will share in an eschaton in which present
injustices and oppression are overcome.
Irenaeus looks at It is one thing, however, to say that eschatological hospitality receives
the incarnation of its transcendent warrant in the one God of history; it is yet another
the Word in Jesus thing to trust this God as the God who will, in fact, bring about such a
Christ as the fullest hospitable future. How can we know that God's eschatological hospi-
revelation of God. tality is trustworthy and is not a mere extension of human injustice and
This implies that violence? This is where issues of eschatology and soteriology intersect.
God extends his Irenaeus looks at the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ as the fullest
eschatological revelation of God. This implies that God extends his eschatological hos-
hospitality pitality proleptically in Christ. If God's revelation in Christ is trustwor-
proleptically thy, people have reason to trust God for the future, as well. In this essay,
in Christ. therefore, I want to explore Irenaeus' understanding of redemption and

3. Jacques Derrida is of the opinion that hospitality must be "unconditional" or "pure

hospitality." This "pure hospitality" is not able to welcome anyone in particular within
the horizons of historical and temporal existence, for it is always waiting for the other
to come {à venir). See Jacques Derrida, "Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility: A Dia-
logue with Jacques Derrida," in QuestioningEthics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, ed.
Richard Kearney and Mark Dooley (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 65-83. Part of the prob-
lem with Derrida's understanding of hospitality is the consistent posture of waiting (al-
beit impatiently) that it implies. If the embodiment of hospitality is at all important, it
implies a willingness to journey into the far country, and so to enter into the particularities
of the other's life. The posture of hospitality looks for opportunities for incarnation.

208 Hans Boersma

the way in which he sees God's eschatological hospitality manifested in God's hospitality
the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. in Christ implies
God's hospitality in Christ implies that human beings are, at least in that human beings
some sense, not quite at home. The physical and ethical understand- are, at least
ings of redemption, advocated in later Eastern and Western modes of in some sense,
thought respectively have different ways of conceiving the obstacles ttot quite at home.
on our homeward journey. They agree that human beings do not (or, at
least, no longer) have a natural, created capacity to see God, to be in
communion with him, and so to share in the future kingdom of God. It
is God's saving act that makes this possible. 4 But what exactly is the
obstacle standing in the way of this salvation? This question is one of
the most widely debated issues among students of Irenaeus. Accord-
ing to some, the obstacle for Irenaeus is immaturity, which naturally
comes with certain limits, perhaps even with violence and death. When In this essay I will
God created the world, he created it good, but not perfect. Likewise, argue that Irenaeus
Adam and Eve were not yet perfect either. They were created as chil- combines the
dren, and needed time to grow further into maturity and fellowship evolutiottist and
with God. This "evolutionary" approach emphasizes the human goal restorationist
of deification in Irenaeus and accepts a physical model of redemption elements of later
(in which the incarnation itself constitutes redemption for humanity). 5 Eastern and
This deification is seen as the maturation of the "image" and the "like- Western thought,
ness" of God in human beings. 6 Others see sin as the main obstacle. a?td that i?t doht g so
Adam and Eve were disobedient and thus brought sin, violence and he also weaves
death into the world. Christ's coming intervened, removed the obstacle together various
of sin and re-opened the way to God. This "restoration" approach sees theories of
forgiveness and restoration as the goal for Irenaeus. It corresponds to redemption that
an ethical model of redemption, which emphasizes the human response later theologians
as the way in which to appropriate salvation. 7 In this essay I will argue have te?tded to
that Irenaeus combines the evolutionist and restorationist elements of regardas mutually
later Eastern and Western thought, 8 and that in doing so he also weaves exclusive.

4. Salvation, for Irenaeus, consists of vision of God and communion with God. See
Mar)7 Ann Donovan, "Insights on Ministry : Irenaeus/ 7 Toronto Journal of Theology! (1986),
pp. 82-85.
5. Demetrios J. Constantelos, "Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views on Human
Nature," St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly33 (1989), pp. 351-63; Denis Minns, Irenaeus
(Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1994), pp. 56-82.
6. For Irenaeus' distinction between "image" and "likeness," see Gustaf Wingren, Man
and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus, trans. Ross Mackenzie
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959), pp. 14-26, 90-100; John Behr, Asceticism and Anthro-
pology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 89-90.
7. John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: Epworth, 1948), pp. 192-97.
8. More recent students of Irenaeus have tended to observe both evolutionist and
restorationist tendencies, though they are not always agreed on the success of the
Irenaean integration of the two themes. See Robert F. Brown, "On the Necessary Imper-
fection of Creation: Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses IV,38," Scottish Journal of Theology 28
(1975), pp. 17-25; Douglas Farrow, "St. Irenaeus of Lyons: The Church and the World,"
Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995), pp. 333-55.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 209

 Λ consistent together various theories of redemption that later theologians have
evolutionary model, tended to regard as mutually exclusive. Irenaeus thus turns out to be
along with a an irenic theologian, whose understanding of what I will call God's
physical view "redemptive hospitality" in Christ holds out ecumenical promise: the
ofredemption, church can only fulfil its mission of redemptive hospitality in a violent
tends not to world to the degree that her own witness stems from a truly catholic
attribute unity and is reflective of the wideness of God's redemptive hospitality
a significant extended to the world in Jesus Christ.
theological role The significance of the Fall plays a large role in the discussions sur­
to the Fall. rounding Irenaeus' soteriology A consistent evolutionary model, along
with a physical view of redemption, tends not to attribute a significant
theological role to the Fall. According to this interpretation of Irenaeus,
creation set human beings on a course to perfection — a perfection that
was reached, in principle, in the joining of the human and divine na­
tures in the incarnation. It is not difficult to enlist support for this ap­
proach from Irenaeus. He explicitly argues that God did not "exhibit
man as perfect from the beginning." The reasons for this are that "cre­
ated things must be inferior to him who created them, from the very
fact of their later origin" and that "man could not receive this [perfec­
tion], being as yet an infant." 9 Adam and Eve were created as imma­
ture infants and had "no understanding of the procreation of children." 10
Irenaeus comments that "by their continuing in being throughout a long
course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the
gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God." This requires

Irenaeus may man making progress day by day and ascending towards the perfect,
be the first that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect,
that is, God. Now it as necessary that man should in the first instance be
theologianfor
created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having
zvhom the Fall received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened,
actually plays should abound; and having abounded, should recover...; and having
"more than an recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord.
incidentalr/ role, For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is produc­
but it is clear tive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.11
that this role is The picture is one of near-uninterrupted progress toward perfection. 12
not a large one. Irenaeus may be the first theologian for whom the Fall actually plays

9. Irenaeus against Heresies [henceforth AH\, in Ante-Nicene Tathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson (Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson,
1994), IV.381.
10. AH 111.22A; cf. St. Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (henceforth Dem), trans.
Joseph P. Smith (New York: Paulist, 1952), p. 14.
11. AH1V383.
12. Brown disputes that Irenaeus' "recovery" language here is a reference to the Fall.
Even if Brown is wrong on this particular exegetical point, he is right in concluding,
"The goal of human perfection is attained only by passing through all the stages of the
series. This passage occurs in time, that is, in human history" ("On the Necessary Im­
perfection of Creation," p. 20).

210 Hans Boersma

"more than an incidental" role, 13 but it is clear that this role is not a The intermezzo of
large one. While the Fall is not entirely excusable, Adam and Eve's the Fall became the
spiritual and moral immaturity — the natural concomitant of their occasionfor God to
young age — made them an easy prey for Satan. The Fall, therefore, display his grace.
was, in Nielsen's words, "hardly more than an intermezzo." 1 4
The intermezzo of the Fall became the occasion for God to display his
grace. Irenaeus points out that for Paul "man has been delivered over
to his own infirmity, lest, being uplifted, he might fall away from the
truth." God is able to use humanity's weakness to acquaint them with
the power of God: "For how could a man have learned that he is him­
self an infirm being, and mortal by nature, but that God is immortal
and powerful, unless he had learned by experience what is in both?
For there is nothing evil in learning one's infirmities by endurance;
yea, rather, it has even the beneficial effect of preventing him from form­
ing an undue opinion of his own nature {non aberrare in natura sua)."15
Likewise, the death that God had threatened to execute upon eating from
the tree of knowledge turns out to be in Irenaeus an act of mercy. To be
sure, Adam and Eve's act of disobedience meant that on the very same
day that they ate from the tree they died. 16 But God then removed Adam
from the tree of life, not out of envy, "but because He pitied him" and did
not want that "the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and
evil interminable and irremediable." 17 It is not Adam and Eve, but Satan In opposition to
who bears the brunt of Irenaeus' indictment, so that he emphatically states his Gnostic and
that God did not curse Adam personally, while "the curse in all its full­ Marcioîrite
ness fell upon the serpent which had beguiled them." 1 8 opponents, Irenaeus
The immaturity and imperfection of the prelapsarian situation is more wants to maitttain
than an interesting Irenaean idiosyncrasy On the one hand, in opposi­ that God created
tion to his Gnostic and Marcionite opponents, Irenaeus wants to main­ the world good,
tain that God created the world good, and that time and matter are not and that time
to be despised. Thus, the vocabulary that Irenaeus uses to describe cre­ and matter are not
ation is fascinatingly down-to-earth. 19 The God of redemption is also to be despised.

13. H.E W. Turner, Ώιε Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Dez>elopment of Doctrine
during tfie First Five Centuries (London: Mowbray; New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1952), p. 74.
14. J.T. Nielsen, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons: An Examination of the
Function of the Adam-Christ Typology in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, against the Back­
ground of the Gnosticism of His Time (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968), 62. Cf. Dem. 12: "But the
man was a little one, and his discretion still undeveloped, wherefore also he was easily
misled by the deceiver/'
15. AHV3.1.
16. ^#V.23.1-2; cf. Dem. 15.
17. ΑΗΙΙΙ.Ύοά.
18. AH 111.233.
19. Irenaeus often speaks about creation using terms such as plasma, plasmatw, caro,
artifex Verbum, plasmare, fabricare. See Nielsen, Adam and Christ, pp. 16-17. Irenaeus' re­
luctance to admit that creational limitations imply mortality and violence may tie in
with his fear of a Gnostic devaluation of time and matter.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 211

 As long as the the God of creation, and this is a fact to be celebrated, not one to ac-
created order is ?tot knowledge grudgingly. On the other hand, Irenaeus is keenly aware
yet fully drawn into that God's immanence, his direct involvement with the created order,
the light of the brings him face to face with imperfection and immaturity, with
presence of God, creational limitations, identities and boundaries that are shaped in par-
creation remains ticular ways. One might even wish to argue that violence and death
in a state of are necessarily a part of the created order with its historical and tem-
immaturity and poral limitations, so that perfection and deification would mean not
itnperfection that just human maturation but also the overcoming of the violence and death
Irenaeus believes inherent in creation itself. Irenaeus does not go quite this far, perhaps at
needs God's the cost of some consistency.20 Nonetheless, as long as the created order is
hospitality to open not yet fully drawn into the light of the presence of God, creation remains
up possibilities of in a state of immaturity and imperfection that Irenaeus believes needs
renewal and God's hospitality to open up possibilities of renewal and perfection.21
perfection.
AHERMENEUTIC OF HOSPITALITY

Adam and Eve's growth to maturity was meant to draw them into the
presence of the one God — the God with the two hands, as Irenaeus
describes the trinitarian relationships. 22 The unity of God is a crucial
theme for Irenaeus, over against the multiple Gnostic emanations and
the Marcionite separation between the God of creation and the Father
of Jesus Christ. 23 The Word that has become incarnate is the very God
who created heaven and earth. The incarnate Word, therefore, shows
Adam and Eve's God's very character. Adam and Eve may have been created in the
growth to maturity image and likeness of God, but Adam was ultimately no more than an
was meant to draw imperfect type of the Christ to come. It is Christ who truly shows what
them into the it means to be created in the image of God. Thus, when Irenaeus ac-
presence of the one knowledges that Adam and Eve are created in the "image and like-
God — the God ness" of God, he sees this expression not just as an ontological or fac-
with the two hands, tual description, but especially as a calling — or, we might say, as a
as Irenaeus reminder of the hospitality of God, which is truly shown in Jesus Christ.
describes the In a fascinating passage, Irenaeus comments:
trinitarian For in times l o n g past, it w a s said t h a t m a n w a s created after t h e i m a g e
relationships. of G o d , b u t it w a s n o t [actually] shown; for t h e W o r d w a s as y e t invis-
20. F. Altermath argues unpersuasively (and ignoring the two passages that I mention
in footnote 16) that Irenaeus sees man as created mortal and that he sees death as part of
the natural prelapsarian situation ('The Purpose of the Incarnation according to
Irenaeus," Studia Patristica 13 [1975], pp. 63-68).
21. Interestingly, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki appeals to Irenaeus for an evolutionary un-
derstanding of violence {The Tall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology [New
York: Continuum, 1994], pp. 86-87).
22. AH V.l.3; V.6.1. See also Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1997), p. 104.
23. Irenaeus gives an extensive account of Gnostic cosmogonies in AHI. For a helpful
overview, see Nielsen, Adam and Christ, pp. 24-28.

212 Hans Boersma

 ible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easily The ittcarnation
lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God becameflesh,He of the Son of God
confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since thus becomes the
He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the
hinge on which
similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible
Father through means of the visible Word.24 Irenaeus'entire
theological enterprise
The Word of God is interpreted here not only as the climax of humanity's turns, both
"evolution" to perfection but also as the template for the creation of hermeneutically and
humanity. The incarnation of the Son of God thus becomes the hinge soteriologically.
on which Irenaeus' entire theological enterprise turns, both hermeneu-
tically and soteriologically.
A superficial reading of Irenaeus might give the impression that he is
unfair in his criticism of Gnostic interpretations of biblical passages: They
"patch together old wives' fables," Irenaeus alleges, "and then endeav­
our, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, ex­
pressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to
their baseless fictions."25 One wonders at times whether Irenaeus' own
exegesis is any less arbitrary and violent. The Bishop of Lyons nonethe­
less provides a degree of hermeneutical consistency by arguing that the
Scriptures need to be read in the light of God's hospitality in Christ:
If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention, he will find in
them an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling
(vocationis). For Christ is the treasure that was hid in the field, that is, in
this world (for 'the field is the world'); but the treasure hid in the Scrip­ Christ, a?td the
tures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types and
cross in particular,
parables.... When it [i.e., the law] is read by the Christians, it is a trea­
sure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ... .26 is the key to the
interpretation
Christ, and the cross in particular, is the key to the interpretation of the of the Scriptures.
Scriptures. This brings Irenaeus to a strong plea for the unity of re­ This brings
demptive history. Where Marcion objects to divine violence in the Old Irenaeus to a
Testament, Irenaeus turns around and accuses him of a hermeneutic of strongplea
violence! The God of creation is the God of redemption, and the God of for the unity of
the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. For Irenaeus, there redemptive history.
is one economy, one dispensation. In retrospect, we can see Christ
throughout the Old Testament. 27 Irenaeus thus counters what he re­
gards as his opponents' hermeneutic of violence with a hermeneutic of
hospitality, which sees God's welcome in Christ throughout the pages
of Scripture. Indeed, "the Son of God is implanted everywhere through­
out his [i.e., Moses'] writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with
24. AHV.16.2.
25. AH1.8.1. Irenaeus repeatedly accuses his opponents of "abusing/' "injuring/' "vio­
lating/ 7 "perverting" or "mutilating" Scripture (1.9.1,3-4; II.24.3; III. 12.12).
26. ΑΗ1\τ2βΛ. Irenaeus adds that one needs to rely on the bishops and presbyters, who
have received "the certain gift of truth" (IV.26.2).
27. Cf. Terranee L. Tiessen, Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevangehzed, ATLA Mono­
graph Series, no. 31 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1993), pp. 142-49.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 213

The entire economy, Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah,
from creation to giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another, inquiring after
consummation, is Adam; at another, bringing dowrn judgment upon the Sodomites; and
viewed in the light again, when He becomes visible and directs Jacob on his journey, and
of the saving speaks with Moses from the bush." 28
character of the Not only is the Son of God present throughout the Law and the Proph-
Word: the Word ets, but as the eternal, invisible Word of God he already functioned as
was present the anti-type for the creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God.
throughout the Law This means that the incarnation of the Word is not the mere conse-
and the Prophets; quence of sin: "For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving
he walked and Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called
talked with Adam into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in
in the garden. vain."29 The entire economy, from creation to consummation, is viewed
in the light of the saving character of the Word: the Word was present
throughout the Law and the Prophets; he walked and talked with
Adam in the garden. 30 His saving character — God's "redemptive
hospitality" — stems from eternity.

VICTORY AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Significant though the evolutionary strand may be in Irenaeus' think-

ing, it is not an independent notion. After all, the Word had pre-exist-
ence as a saving Being. God's eternal hospitality is always already a
redemptive hospitality. Irenaeus refuses to separate Christology from
Irenaeus refuses soteriology. The eternal Word that spoke the world into being is the
to separate Word that saves from sin and death. Since the unity of God's dispen-
Christologyfrom sation stems from his eternal plan, the need for a saving act did not
soteriology. The take God by surprise.
eternal Word that The purpose of the incarnation, therefore, is not just ontological in na-
spoke the zuorld into ture, in the sense that it is meant to transform, perfect and deify human
being is the Word beings. This may well be the ultimate goal of the incarnation, but
that saves from Irenaeus also has a more immediate goal in mind. He explicitly states
sin and death. that the purpose of the incarnation was to overcome sin and death:
"For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under
the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same
thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into
bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by

28. AHTV.IOA; cf. Dem. 25, 27, 43-85; Tragments from the lost Writings oflremeus (hence-
forth Trag), in Ante-Ntcene Tathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
(Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 54.
29. AH111.223. Irenaeus also connects creation and providence to the Son of God being
imprinted on the universe in the form of a cross (AH\7.18.3; Dem. 34; cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus,
pp. 136-42).
30. Dem. 12.

214 Hans Boersma

man, and man should go forth from death/' 31 Irenaeus regards the incar-
nation as necessary to "destroy" sin, to overcome "power" or the "bond-
age" of death. Death is not merely the outcome of God's pity; it is also the
enemy that needs to be overcome. The incarnation is not just the climax of
an uninterrupted evolutionary growth of humankind. Important though The history of
it may be — the incarnation by itself is not enough for Irenaeus to render Christian thought
the human race immortal.32 The incarnation has not only an ontological, has ivitties sed
but also a soteriological purpose. This indicates that Irenaeus takes hu- different models
man bondage and sin — the consequences of the Fall — seriously and metaphors to
The history of Christian thought has witnessed different models and explain God's
metaphors to explain God's redemptive hospitality in Christ, the most redemptive
notable ones being the Christus Victor model, the satisfaction model and hospitality in
the moral influence model. In what follows we will see that Irenaeus' Christ, the most
theology is an interesting combination of elements from each of these notable ones being
three models. Irenaeus' Christus Vïctorûieme is not worked out in as much /^Christus
detail as it is in some of the later church fathers, such as Origen and Gre- Victor model the
gory of Nyssa. It is nonetheless key to Irenaeus' understanding of God's satisfaction model
redemptive hospitality. When one traces the Christus Victor theme in and the moral
Irenaeus, a dynamic picture emerges: Satan has abused Adam and Eve's influence model.
moral immaturity, has tempted them into disobedience and has thus cap-
tured and imprisoned the human race. Repeatedly, Irenaeus refers to Sa-
tan as the "strong man" whom Christ has bound and robbed (Matt 12:29).B
In a characteristic passage, Irenaeus comments:
For as in the beginning he [the apostate angel of God] enticed man to
transgress his Maker's law, and thereby got him into his power; yet his
power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound
man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was necessary that
through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the
same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being
set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by
which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound,
man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoil
his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself."34
Irenaeus sees Adam's transgression as the "bonds" or the "chains" that
Satan uses to bind human beings. 35 God in turn puts Satan in chains.
31. ΑΗ111Λ8.7. See also Dem. 31: "So the Word was madeflesh,in order that sin, destroyed
by means of that same flesh through which it had gained mastery and taken hold and
lorded it, should no longer be in us...." Cf. Turner, Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, pp.
52-53.
32. So also Andrew J. Bandstra, "Paul and an Ancient Interpreter: A Comparison of the
Teaching of Redemption in Paul and Irenaeus," Calvin Theological Journal'5 (1970): 56;
Trevor A. Hart, "Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption," in Christ in Our
Place: The Humanity of God in Christfor the Reconciliation of the World, ed. Trevor A. Hart
and Daniel P. Thimell (Exeter: Paternoster; Allison Park: Pickwick, 1989), p. 155.
33. AHm.8.2; 18.6; 23.1; cf. III.23.7.
34. AHV.213.
35. AH111.93; Dem. 31, 38; Prag. 43.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 215

The cross only has a There may seem to be a violent edge to Irenaeus' vocabulary here. But
minor place in Irenaeus immediately deals with this apprehension: whereas apostasy
connection with the used deception and violence whereby "it insatiably snatched away what
Christus Victor was not its own," God uses "persuasion" instead of "violent means"
theme. This is a and does not infringe upon "justice." 36 It is only upon repentance,
noteworthy Irenaeus states, that people are again loosed from these shackles of sin.37
observation, Irenaeus' insistence on God's non-violence is to some extent a rhetori-
because it means cal ploy. The persuasion and repentance of human beings may perhaps
that for Irenaeus be non-violent, b u t w h e n Christ "robs" the strong m a n (Matt
the cross is not 12:29),"crushes" the devil (Gen 3:15)38 and "destroys" death, does this
the central backdrop not raise suspicions of violence as Christ's means of redemption, and
to the victory does this not put the genuinely hospitable character of God's redemp-
of Christ. tion into question? Indeed, the violence of the imagery is unmistak-
able. Nonetheless, the question must be asked: hozv exactly does Christ
rob the strong man and destroy death? Is it necessary to press the meta-
phors of violence here? Interestingly, when we scan Irenaeus' writings in
search for an answer to this question, we find that he does not speculate
about a ransom being paid to the devil or about the devil being tricked
into thinking that Jesus was a mere human. Later church fathers would
use the ransom imagery and the theme of trickery to explain how Christ
was victorious on the cross — thus resorting to means that might perhaps
cause some hesitations about the character of God's redemptive justice
and hospitality. But Irenaeus does not do this. In fact, the cross only has a
Irenaeus employs minor place in connection with the Christus Victor Ûieme.39 This is a note-
the notion of worthy observation, because it means that for Irenaeus the cross is not the
recapitulation to central backdrop to the victory of Christ.40 This naturally leads to the
explain the means question: how then did Christ loosen the chains and bind the strong man?
of redemption in What is it that effects atonement and reconciliation?
Christ. It is
particularly in
discussing RECAPITULATION AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY
recapitulation,
therefore, that The Christus Victor theme illustrates that Irenaeus complements his
Irenaeus needs to evolutionary model with a restoration model of redemption. The prob-
demonstrate the lem of the Fall may be no more than an "intermezzo," but it is a serious
hospitable character intermezzo nonetheless, requiring Christ to destroy the power of death.
ofredemption. Irenaeus employs the notion of recapitulation to explain the means of
redemption in Christ. It is particularly in discussing recapitulation,

36. AHV.l.l; cf. ΙΙΙ.23.1.

37. Trag 43.
38. See .4/ΠΠ.23.7; V.21.1.
39. Irenaeus makes the connection in AHΠ.20.3.
40. This does not mean that Christ's death on the cross does not play an important role
for Irenaeus, which it clearly does. The point is that for Irenaeus Christ's passion on the
cross is not alone in its atoning value.

216 Hans Boersma

therefore, that Irenaeus needs to demonstrate the hospitable character He closely connects
of redemption. He takes his notion of recapitulation from Ephesians recapitulation
1:10, which speaks of anakephalaidsis, although he works it out more to the incarnation
broadly than does the Pauline letter.41 and comments
Scattered throughout Adversus haereses, Irenaeus mentions a number of that the Word took
examples where Christ recapitulates Adamic existence. In order to grasp on human flesh
more fully what Irenaeus has in mind with recapitulation, it may be in order to present
helpful to trace some of Irenaeus' thinking on this theme. 4 2 He closely human beings
connects recapitulation to the incarnation and comments that the Word to God.
took on human flesh in order to present human beings to God: "For in
what way could we be partakers of the adoption of sons, unless we
had received from him through the Son that fellowship which refers to
himself, unless his Word, having been made flesh, had entered into
communion with us?" 4 3 Irenaeus is consistently and strongly anti-
docetic. Christ must have taken on true human flesh, for salvation is
impossible without it. It is difficult to over-emphasize the importance
of this point for Irenaeus. The close connection between incarnation
and redemption has been the main reason behind the interpretation of
Irenaeus' soteriology as being physical in nature. And even though I
am not convinced that Irenaeus goes quite as far as making the incar­ The reason for
nation by itselfr(i.e., in isolation) redemptive in nature, 4 4 the incarnation the close
is emphatically present as a necessary precondition for the restoration relationship
of fellowship with God and, indeed, as part of Christ's recapitulation, between
is itself redemptive in character. incarnation and
The reason for the close relationship between incarnation and recapitu­ recapitulation lies
lation lies in the fact that in the incarnation the Word comes to us as the in thefact that
second Adam. Just as Adam was moulded from untilled virgin soil in the incarnation
(Gen 2:5), so Christ was born of a virgin. 45 The only reason why Christ the Word comes
was not taken directly from dust (as Adam had been), but was born to us as the
from a human being, was that Christ had to have the same humanity second Adam.
that Adam had — "the very same formation should be summed u p " —
so that recapitulation would truly be that of the human race. 46
41. For an argument pleading for an Irenaean reading of Eph 1:10, see John McHugh, "A
Reconsideration of Ephesians 1.10b in the Light of Irenaeus," in Paul and Paulinism: Essays
in Honour of CK. Barrett, ed. M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 302-09.
42. See also Lawson, Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus, 140-98; William P. Loewe, "Myth
and Counter-Myth: Irenaeus' Story of Salvation," in Interpreting Tradition: The Art of Theo­
logical Reflection, The Annual Publication of the College Theology Society, vol. 29, ed. Jane
Kopas (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 46-52; Christopher Smith, "Chiliasm and Reca­
pitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus," Vigihae Christianae 48 (1994), pp. 313-31.
43. AtfIII.18.7; cf. III.19.1; 22.1-2; V.1.2; 14.1.
44. Cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 161-62: "It is frequently recognized, therefore, that although
Irenaeus's doctrine of recapitulation might logically lead to universal salvation, for
Irenaeus it does not conclude that way."
45. ΑΗ111Λ8.7; 21.10; Dem. 32.
46. AHlll.lWÜ.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 217

 The Word became Irenaeus sees the Fall as necessitating this recapitulation of Adamic hu-
incarnate, Irenaeus manity. The Word became incarnate, Irenaeus maintains, in order that
maintains, in order Christ might recapitulate Adam's temptation and be victorious over sin.47
that Christ might Thus, Irenaeus mines the temptation narratives for analogies between
recapitulate Adam 's Christ and Adam.48 Christ's obedience is a recapitulation — here a retrac-
temptation and be ing and reversing — of Adam's disobedience. Christ's victory over temp-
victorious over sin. tation is for Irenaeus a significant part of the answer to the question how
Christ gains the victory over Satan, sin and death. Christ gains the victory
not by employing counter-violence but by faithful obedience in the face
of Satanic temptation. Interestingly, Irenaeus works out Christ's retracing
of Adam's temptation in some detail by repeated analogies between the
tree of knowledge and the tree of the cross. The handwriting of our debt
has been fastened to the cross for the remission of sins, "so that as by
means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree
we may obtain the remission of our debt."49
Christ's passion on the cross had to take place, Irenaeus argues, on the
sixth day of the week, for Adam and Eve had sinned and died on the
sixth day. Christ recapitulated in himself the entire day, "thus granting
him [Adam] a second creation by means of his passion, which is that
[creation] out of death." 50 Christ himself "points out the recapitulation
that should take place in his own person of the effusion of blood from
the beginning," says Irenaeus with a reference to the blood of the mar-
tyrs of the Old Testament.51
By retracing the creation, temptation and death of Adam, Christ as the
new humanity reverses the effects of the Fall and restores humanity.
By retracing the But Christ not only takes on the same flesh as Adam; he also retraces
creation, temptation every age of all human beings:
and death of Adam, For he came to save all through means of himself — all, I say, who
Christ as the new through him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys,
humanity reverses and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, be-
the effects of the coming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for chil-
Fall and restores dren, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time
humanity. made to them an example of piety righteousness and submission; a
youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctify-
ing them for the Lord. Likewise, he was an old man for old men, that
he might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting
forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time

47.AtfIII.18.7.
48. A//V.21.1-3. This passage is particularly instructive in that it places recapitulation
in the context of the Christus Victor theme: "He has therefore, in His work of recapitu-
lation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him
who had at the beginning led us awav captives in Adam, and trampled upon his
head" (V.21.1).
49. AHW17.2. Cf. V.16.3; 17.3; 19.1; Dem. 34; Trag 28.
50. AHV.23.2.
51. AHV.U.l

218 Hans Boersma

 the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at The incarnation of
last, he came on to death itself, that he might be "the first-born from the Word is God's
the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence," the Prince ozvn entry into the
of Life, existing before all, and going before all.52
very lives of the
This quotation shows something of the ambivalence in Irenaeus' victims of Satan 's
thought. It almost seems as though Christ recapitulating every age oppression and
group in and of itself sanctifies those age groups, leading to a physical bondage. God's
understanding of redemption. Irenaeus draws back from this conclu­ hospitality is
sion, however, by his references to Christ as an example. The physical redemptive not
and the ethical elements of redemption go hand in hand for Irenaeus. by merely waiting
Irenaeus's theology of recapitulation does not have the logical rigour for humanity's
and precision of some of the later explications of the various strands of homecoming
atonement theology. 53 It is clear, however, that the incarnation of the but by God himself
Word is God's own entry into the very lives of the victims of Satan's journeying into
oppression and bondage. God's hospitality is redemptive not by merely the far country.
waiting for humanity's homecoming but by God himself journeying
into the far country. His hospitality submits to the historical and tem­
poral particularities of human existence with all of its limitations and
exclusions, even to violence and death itself. God's redemptive hospi­
tality is, for Irenaeus, a creational and incarnational hospitality.

SACRIFICE AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Recapitulation of Adamic existence — creation, temptation and death Throughout

— is for Irenaeus the means by which Christ gains the victory. In other Irenaeus's writitig,
words, Irenaeus works with a Christus Victormodel, but it is one that is there are also some
built not around ransom or trickery 54 but around recapitulation, which of the more
includes the passion and death of Christ. The cross has significance, in objective atottement
Irenaeus's thought, not only in the more general sense that Christ's death categories of later
is part of his work of recapitulation, but throughout Irenaeus' writing, satisfaction
there are also some of the more objective atonement categories of later theology, such as
satisfaction theology, such as sacrifice and propitiation. When arguing sacrifice and
that God has cancelled the Law of Moses, Irenaeus points out that people propitiation.
52. AH11.22A; cf. III.18.7; IV.38.2. With an appeal to tradition and John 8:56-57, Irenaeus
argues that Jesus reached the age of 50 (AH11.22.5-6; cf. George Ogg, "The Age of Jesus
When He Taught/' New Testament Studies 5 [1958-59], pp. 291-98).
53. Just to add to the confusion, according to Irenaeus the reversal of disobedience takes
place not only in Christ, but also in Mary: Eve disobeyed as a virgin, while Mary obeyed
as a virgin. Eve disobeyed an angel, while Mary obeyed an angel. As Adam was re­
stored in Christ, so Eve was restored in Mary: "For what the virgin Eve had bound fast
through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith" (ΑΗ111.21Λ; cf. V.19.1;
21.1; Dem. 33). Irenaeus does not explain how Mary's recapitulation contributes to hu­
man redemption.
54. For a contemporary feminist application of patristic notions of ransom and decep­
tion of the devil, see Darby Kathleen Ray, Deceiving the Devil: Atonement, Abuse, and
Ransom (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1998).

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 219

 Irenaeus appears under the Old Covenant often wrongly thought that they could "propiti-
to assume — albeit ate" God by means of their sacrifices.55 They should have realized that
with a degree of the transcendent God "stands in need of nothing."56 Throughout this ar-
ambiguity — that gument, Irenaeus appears to assume a connection between the Levitical
Christ's sacrificial sacrifices and the idea of propitiation—though he is careful to safeguard
death on the cross divine transcendence: God does not need human sacrifices.57
is propitiatory Irenaeus appears to assume — albeit with a degree of ambiguity —
in character. that Christ's sacrificial death on the cross is propitiatory in character.58
To be sure, Irenaeus is not entirely unambiguous. Some of the passages
that speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice do not make clear that this
sacrifice has to do with the condemnation for sin,59 and other passages
in which Irenaeus speaks of Christ "propitiating" the Father do not
make clear whether it is Christ's obedience (in the face of temptation)
or Christ's death that propitiates the Father.60 Irenaeus expresses the
connection between Christ's sacrifice and propitiation perhaps most
clearly when he says that the Lord "did not make void, but fulfilled the
The notion of law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for
Christ's death being men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering
sacrificial and death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might
propitiatory return without fear to his own inheritance." 61 Thus, there is a sense in
remains marginal which Irenaeus appears to interpret Christ's death as a sacrifice that
in Irenaeus. Not propitiates the Father. However, such references do remain sparse.
only sof but even Robert J. Daly makes the comment that in Irenaeus "the idea of the
Christ's suffering as sacrifice of Christ seems to be presumed more often than explicitly
such is by no means stated." 62 This may well be true, but even this modest assertion seems
central to Irenaeus. mostly an argument from silence. The notion of Christ's death being

55. AHTV.17.1. Interestingly, Irenaeus does say that God asks for mercy and compas-
sion. One cannot help but wonder whether the transcendent God would "need" these
any more than he needs sacrifices. Irenaeus seems to be aware of the tension in his
argument here, when he comments (regarding the Eucharist): "Now we make offering
to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus
sanctifying what has been created" (AHTV.18.6).
56.AHW.17.1.
57. Paul S. Fiddes points out that the notion of satisfaction in the Anselmian tradition
requires a change in God—a notion with which many in the Anselmian tradition are
uncomfortable (Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement [Louis-
ville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989], p. 28).
58. Both Aulén and Lawson deny the presence of sacrifice and propitiation in Irenaeus:
Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the
Atonement, trans. A.G. Hebert (London: SPCK, 1970), pp. 27, 33; Lawson, Biblical Theol-
ogy of Saint Irenaeus, 193. For a defence of the element of propitiation in Irenaeus, see
Bandstra, "Paul and an Ancient Interpreter," pp. 58-61.
59. E.g., AH1V.5Á.
60. E.g., AHW.Y71.
61. AH1WS.2.
62. Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen (Wash-
ington: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), p. 348.

220 Hans Boersma

sacrificial and propitiatory remains marginal in Irenaeus. 63 Not only
so, but even Christ's suffering as such is by no means central to Irenaeus.
He may comment that our Lord "by his passion destroyed death, and
dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance,
while he manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of
incorruption" 64 — but such references to Christ's passion are rather
incidental within the whole of Irenaeus' theology.
Do Irenaeus' incidental comments about sacrifice and propitiation per-
haps cast a shadow over God's redemptive hospitality? Does this hos-
pitality run the risk here of turning into an oppressive violence that
issues judgement and demands sacrifice, payment and propitiation? It
may seem this way, but again the mystery of the incarnation needs to
be taken into account. So far, we have seen that the idea of recapitula-
tion came with an unequivocal stress on the obedience of the humanity
of Christ as the second Adam. Interestingly, however, Irenaeus speaks
several times about God suffering on the cross. Irenaeus' desire to
present the Father and the Word as one — in opposition both to Gnostics
and Marcionites — means that when Christ dies, God suffers in Christ.65
The impassible becomes passible in the incarnation. 66 God truly enters
into the human realm and takes human suffering onto himself. Irenaeus'
view that Christ's sacrifice propitiates the Father must, therefore, be
balanced by his belief that in Christ God takes human suffering onto
himself. God's redemptive hospitality includes self-sacrificial love.

MORAL INFLUENCE AND HOSPITALITY

Thus far, we have seen that Irenaeus' soteriology is a combination of In addition to

the Christus Victor theme and his understanding of recapitulation (which employing notions
starts with the incarnation, focuses particularly on Christ's obedience ^/"Christus Victor
in the face of temptation, and includes also his sacrificial death). The and sacrifice,
emphasis on the incarnation contains elements that in later Eastern Irenaeus also zvorks
thought would lead to a physical view of redemption. The Bishop of with aspects of the
Lyons combines this view with the ethical elements of Christ's obedi- later moral
ence (in temptation), and of sacrifice and propitiation. In addition to influence theory of
employing notions of Christus Victor and sacrifice, Irenaeus also works the atonement.
with aspects of the later moral influence theory of the atonement. Sa-
63. Irenaeus does repeatedly refer to the "blood" of Christ and to the "cross" and the
"tree," indicating an interest in the death of Christ. The death of Christ is, after all, part
of Christ's work of recapitulation. An interesting example—also illustrative of Irenaeus'
christological reading of the Old Testament—is found in Trag. 23, where Irenaeus de-
picts Balaam's donkey as a type of the body of Christ: "For the Savior has taken up the
burden of our sins." Cf. Dem. 69.
64. AtfII.20.3.
65. AH 111.20A; 1V.20.8.
66. AH 111 16.6; cf. III.20.4; IV.20.8.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 221

 Although Irenaeus tan is defeated not only by means of recapitulation but also by means
wants nothing to do of the ethical response in the lives of Christ's followers.
zvith such Gnostic For the Gnostics, knowledge is salvation from matter and time. Al-
escapism, this is not though Irenaeus wants nothing to do with such Gnostic escapism, this
to say that his is not to say that his understanding of salvation can be captured by a
understanding of Western or Augustinian emphasis on forgiveness. Despite his strenu-
salvation can be ous opposition to Gnostic soteriology, he is not willing to abandon knowl-
captured by a edge as lying at the heart of redemption.67 The full title of Irenaeus' main
Western or work is significant: A Refutation and Subversion ofKnozvledgefalsely so called.®
Augustinian One does not gain true knowledge through the esoteric teachings of the
emphasis on heretics but through the public revelation of Jesus Christ.
forgiveness.
The emphasis on knowledge leads to what could be interpreted as pre-
Abelardian rumblings when Irenaeus comments that "we could have
learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His
voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of his works as
well as doers of his words, we may have communion with him, receiv-
ing increase from the perfect One, and from him who is prior to all
creation."69 Christ is our teacher, requiring our imitation.70
One way in which Christ conquers sin and death is by gaining follow-
ers who are persuaded by his teaching and example. In the paragraph
where Irenaeus speaks about "seeing our Teacher and hearing his voice"
he also makes the comment that the Word of God
One way in which did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own
Christ conquers sin property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained domin-
and death is by ion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what
gaining followers was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of coun-
who are persuaded sel, who does not use violent means to obtain what he desires; so that
by his teaching neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of
God go to destruction.71
and example.
The Word redeemed his property by means of "persuasion," maintains
Irenaeus. He does not identify the exact subject of the persuasion; the

67. William P. Loewe helpfully points out the noetic elements in Irenaeus. He over-
states his case, however, by making these noetic elements the overall pattern of
Irenaeus 7 soteriology, and arguing that Christus Victor "remains but a single theme
among others" ("Irenaeus' Soteriology: Christus Victor Revisited," Anglican Theologi-
cal Review 67 [1985], p. 14).
68. For knowledge or Gnostics "falselv so-called," see also AH 1.23.4; III.ll.l; IV.6.4;
35.1; 41.4; V pref.; V.26.2.
69. AHWl.l.
70. Cf. Loewe, "Irenaeus' Soteriology: Christus Victor Revisited," pp. 3-4; Turner, Patristic
Doctrine of Redemption, 38. Several authors refer to the "pedagogical" character of
soteriology in Irenaeus. See William P. Loewe, "Irenaeus 7 Soteriology: Transposing the
Question," in Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lonergan, S.J., ed. Timothy
P. Fallon and Philip Boo Riley (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), p.
168; Nielsen, Adam and Christ, p. 63.
71. AHV.1.1

222 Hans Boersma

most likely interpretation, however, is that the revelation of God in Redemption is for
Christ convinces people of the truth of the gospel. In other words, re- Irenaeus not
demption is for Irenaeus not something that only takes place objec- something that
tively in Christ, but it is something that has a subjective pole in the only takes place
lives of those who become persuaded by God's revelation in Christ.72 objectively in
Over against the Gnostic notion of secret knowledge imparted to an Christ, but it is
elite segment of believers, Irenaeus insists that the revelation of the something that has
Word is public. 73 Indeed, the entire history of redemption is one in a subjective pole in
which God reveals himself ever more clearly Not only is it the case, as the lives of those
we have already noted, that the Word of salvation is present wherever who become
God speaks in the Old Testament narratives, but the Word also con- persuaded by
tinuously reveals God the Father: God's revelation
And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal in Christ.
grace for the benefit of men, for whom he made such great dispensa-
tions, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and
preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should
at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always pos-
sess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand,
revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away
from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a liv-
ing man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the mani-
festation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all
living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which
comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.74
The entire history is the oikonomia of the Word that continuously God's revelation
and progressively reveals God. This process of revelation climaxes and teaching
in the incarnation of the Word, and it leads finally to the visio Dei'm throughout the
the kingdom of God.75 one econotny of
God's revelation and teaching throughout the one economy of redemp- redemption,
tion, climaxing in Christ, require a human response. The future of hu- climaxing in
man beings is not determined according to the various Gnostic types Christ, require a
(pneumatic, psychical or material).76 Irenaeus emphatically defends the human response.

72. The theme of "persuasion" plays a prominent role throughout Against Heresies. Some
of the most significant examples for the topic under discussion are the instances where
on the one hand Satan "persuades" Adam and Eve (III.23.8; V.21.2), the Antichrist "per-
suades" people (V.25.1) and the Gnostics "persuade" people of lies (1.6.4; 19.1; 31.3;
II.14.8); and where on the other hand Jesus Christ (1.27.2), the disciple John (III.ll.l),
John the Baptist (III.11.4), Philip (ffl.12.15; IV.23.2), the apostles (IV.23.2), the angel speak-
ing to Mary (V.19.1), and Irenaeus himself (III.25.7) "persuade" people of the truth.
73. Cf. Philip J. Lee's contrast between the private, secret illumination of Gnosticism
and the public, open character of revelation in orthodox Christianity {Against the Protes-
tant Gnostics [New York: Oxford University Press, 1987], pp. 101-14).
74. AH IV.20.7. The entire chapter is relevant for the notion of God's increasing self-
revelation through his Word and Spirit (cf. also IV.6.6).
75. See Mary Ann Donovan, "Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St. Irenaeus,"
Theological Studies 49 (1988), pp. 283-97; Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 86-87.
76. For the Gnostics, only the future of the psychical class of human beings was open.
The future of the pneumatic and material classes was determined by their nature.

PRO ECCLESIA VOL. XI, No. 2 223

 The emphatic freedom of the human will, both before and after the Fall. Redemption
presence of free will means that God does not use violence, but "persuades" human beings.
in Irenaeus makes it This implies an independent free will, since "there is no coercion with
fair to conclude that God...." 7 7 To be sure, the "ancient law of human liberty" is no occa­
salvation is sion for pride. Irenaeus adduces a number of Old Testament passages
ultimately the that illustrate that "not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must
result of a synergy be saved." 78 Nonetheless, the emphatic presence of free will in Irenaeus
of divine and makes it fair to conclude that salvation is ultimately the result of a
human power. synergy of divine and human power. 79 Thus, while Irenaeus insists on
specifying divine hospitality as an entering into the historical and
material particularities of h u m a n life, this hospitality does not result
into the unjustified violence of divine coercion. While hospitality is
not afraid to express itself concretely by identifying with the other
and by sharing in their situation, hospitality would turn into hostility
if characterized by mere force.80
The importance of the human response is seen also in the place of faith
and works in Irenaeus. He regards Abraham as the father of all who
follow the example of his faith and in this way are saved.81 This does not
The importance of mean that Irenaeus, in proto-Reformation fashion, opposes faith to works.82
the human response He consistently keeps the two together.83 Apprehensive of any Gnostic
is seen also in the devaluation of the significance of moral choice and good works, he warns
place of faith and of the moral relativism inherent in the Gnostic position 84 and insists that
works in Irenaeus. by definition Christians have changed lives.85 Repeatedly, Irenaeus warns
77. AH1W.32.1.
78. AH III.20.3; cf. III. 18.2. Tiessen puts it too strongly when he states that "Irenaeus
clearly affirmed the necessity of God's grace prior to human choice of the good and the
decision of faith in God" {Irenaeus, 219). Irenaeus does not express any logical or tempo­
ral priority, either to the work of the Spirit or to the human response.
79. Demetrios J. Constantelos, "Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views on Human
Nature," St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 33 (1989), pp. 360.
80. Cf. Miroslav Volf's comment: "In an embrace a host is a guest and a guest is a host.
Though one self may receive or give more than the other, each must enter the space of
the other, feel the presence of the other in the self, and make its own presence felt.
Without such reciprocity, there is no embrace" (Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Ex­
ploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation [Nashville: Abingdon, 1996], p. 143).
81. AH1V.5.3-5; 16.2; Dem. 24.
82. Dem. 2: "For what is the use of knowing the truth in word, while defiling the body and
accomplishing the works of evil? Or what real good at all can bodily holiness do, if truth
be not in the soul? For these two rejoice in each other's company, and agree together and
fight side by side to set man in the presence of God." Cf. Α#Ίν.5.3-4; Dem. 3, 41.
83. Irenaeus does not oppose faith to works but to the Mosaic Law specifically. It is the
Law—with the exception of the Decalogue—that has lost its prescriptive role (Dem. 35,
87, 89, 95-96). This emphatic assertion of normative discontinuity is all the more re­
markable considering that Irenaeus opposes Marcion with a consistent appeal to the
unity of the Old and the New7 Testaments.
84. AHlh.2-3; 23.3; 25.3; II.32.1. Cf. 1.25.4: "So unbridled is their madness that ... they
maintain that things are evil, or good, simply in virtue of human opinion."
85. Dem. 61

224 Hans Boersma

of the danger of losing the Spirit of God, after which there is no further The human
forgiveness of sins, but only the loss of the kingdom of heaven.86 Irenaeus responseffor
even goes so far as to suggest that it is not sacrifices but doing justice for Irenaeus, is part
the oppressed, the fatherless and the widow that "propitiates" God.87 aitd parcel of
Those who consistently refuse to do this and reject Christ will be given God's redemptive
over to eternal judgment as the consequence of their choice.88 action in Christ.
The human response, for Irenaeus, is part and parcel of God's redemp­
tive action in Christ. Redemption does not consist solely of a physical
union of the human and the divine in the incarnation of the Word, some­
thing that would logically require universal redemption.89 Redemp­
tion needs more than incarnation. Even knowledge, by itself, is not
enough, as the Gnostics erroneously propose. For Irenaeus, revelation
and knowledge are intimately tied to Christ as the teaching model that
requires imitation. Hence, persuasion, free will, faith, morality and judg­
ment all have their integral place within the whole of Irenaeus' thought.
Human maturity and perfection can only be reached by means of faith
and obedience. The consequences of the Fall need to be undone by
Christ's victory as it is completed in the human response that prepares
believers for the eternal kingdom.90

CONCLUSION: ECUMENICITY AND REDEMPTIVE HOSPITALITY

Irenaeus holds out a vision of redemptive hospitality that is remark­ Irenaeus holds out a
able for its ecumenical promise. Weaving together the physical and ethi­ vision ofredemptive
cal approaches of later Eastern and Western thought, the Bishop of Lyons hospitality that is
takes his starting-point in a duality of the human predicament: human remarkable for its
immaturity in creation as well as human sinfulness through the Fall. In ecumenical promise.

86. AHYV.27.2; V.9.3; 10.1.

87. AHTV.17.1-2.
88. ΑΗ1Λ0.1; 22.1; II.32.2; III.4.2; 25.4; IV.4.3; IV.6.5,7; 27.4; 28.1-3; 36.4,6; 40.1-3; V.27.1-
2. This emphasis on judgement is somewhat softened (1) by the fact that God's good­
ness takes precedence over his justice (AH111.25.3) and (2) by the fact that in judgement
God is simply honouring people's own moral commitments and choices (AHΊΙΙ.6.1;
IV.6.5; V.27.2; cf. Loewe, "Irenaeus 7 Soteriology: Transposing the Question/ 7 p. 177; Minns,
Irenaeus, 128). Terranee Tiessen raises the question whether for Irenaeus also the
unevangelized can be saved, a question that he maintains cannot be answered conclu­
sively ("Irenaeus on Salvation and the Millennium/' Διδασκαλία 3 [April 1991], pp. 2-
5; cf. Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 168-70).
89. Cf. Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Taith,
trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth, 1934), p. 255; Tiessen, Irenaeus, pp. 155-58.
90. Cf. Trevor Hart's similar conclusion: "Thus we must give sufficient recognition to
the fact that man's plight is described by Irenaeus in relational language as well as that
which has been termed 'physical'" ("Irenaeus, Recapitulation, and Physical Redemp­
tion," p. 157). Likewise, Thomas Finger wants to hold the "ethical" and the "spiritual"
together in Irenaeus ("Christus Victor and the Creeds: Some Historical Considerations,"
Mennonite Quarterly Reviezv 72 [1998], p. 49).

P R O E C C L E S I A V O L . XI, N o . 2 225
 Irenaeus thus opposition to his opponents' hermeneutic of violence, Irenaeus pleads
combines the for a hermeneutic of hospitality that interprets the entire economy of
Eastern hope for salvation from a christological and soteriological perspective: God's
ontological hospitable and redemptive character goes back to eternity and is not a
transformatioiï mere ad hoc response to human sinfulness. Irenaeus thus combines the
(deification) as Eastern hope for ontological transformation (deification) as God's eter-
God's eternal nal purpose with the Western longing for restoration (forgiveness).
purpose zvith the While he frequently employs the Christus Victortheme to explain God's
Western longing for dealing with Satan's violence and injustice, Irenaeus does not lose sight
restoration of the hospitable character of redemption: God does not counter vio-
(forgiveness). lence with violence: Christ gains the victory through recapitulation and
the influence of persuasion. Recapitulation, the first (objective) means
of victory, includes (1) the incarnation of the Word as a redemptive
moment, in line with the more physical views of salvation in later East-
ern thought; (2) Christ's obedience in the face of Satanic temptation,
leading to a restoration of Adamic innocence — emphasizing the themes
of the Fall and of restoration in line with later Western thought; and (3)
Christ's death as sacrificial and propitiatory in character. Recapitula-
tion thus means that in his redemptive hospitality God does not re-
main at a distance but enters into human life: though being impassible,
God has become passible in the incarnation and thus takes on human
suffering and death. God's hospitality is redemptive through his will-
ingness to identify with the determinate and violent circumstances of
human beings. Persuasion, the second (subjective) means of victory,
emphasizes knowledge, as well as faith and obedience, as the human
response to what God has done in Christ. Irenaeus' emphasis on the
role of the freedom of the human response and on final judgment safe-
guards the open, hospitable character of God's redemption. The physi-
cal and ethical strands of later Eastern and Western thought and the
various models of redemption—Christus Victor, satisfaction and moral
influence—hardly exclude each other.
I suspect that the The combination of the various approaches may well mean that
breadth of Irenaeus ' Irenaeus' theology contains certain tensions that I have not explored in
understanding of this essay. Nonetheless, I suspect that the breadth of Irenaeus' under-
redemption, does standing of redemption does more justice to the over-all biblical wit-
more justice to the ness than a restriction to either one or another of the various approaches.
over-all biblical Moreover, the breadth of the Irenaean view of salvation stands as an
zvitness than a ecumenical challenge for the various traditions both within Eastern
restiiction to either and Western Christianity. If the church's message is to offer redemp-
one or another of tion to a world of violence, her harmonious unity needs to model the
the various message of redemptive hospitality to the world. In order to participate
approaches. in this hospitality, the church may look to Irenaeus as a model to appre-
ciate the fullness of this redemptive hospitality. D

226 Hans Boersma

 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.