GORDON-CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IRENAEUS AND PRINCIPLES OF TRANSCENDENTAL THEOLOGY

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. FAIRBAIRN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE COMPLETION OF CH/TH 760 PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

BY

JONATHAN S. JONES

JACKSON, TENNESSEE

DECEMBER 16, 2013

1

Irenaeus and Principles of Transcendental Theology

In the classic Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis with skill and

precision lays out an understanding of transcendence as one of

his “first steps in the doctrine of the Trinity.” Using the

analogy of drawing objects, Lewis illustrates that a multi-

dimensional object is only able to ascend to higher dimension by

assimilated and transcending the simpler ones. In other words,

as one moves from a one-dimensional object to a two-dimensional

object (and then to a three-dimensional), the previous

dimension(s) are still present but become a part of a more

complex object.1 Though simple enough for elementary art

students, applying principles of transcendence to spiritual truth

has proven a difficult task for modern theologians. The

implication that in the spiritual life of Christ one approaches a

reality that transforms and transcends the human dimension within

a broader horizon is profound.

In his opening address as the James I. Packer Professor of

Theology, Hans Boersma laments today’s lack of appreciation for

1 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters: Complete in One Volume (New York:HarperCollins, 2003), 161-2.

2

transcendence. Boersma observes a contemporary treatment of the

natural world as completely opposed to anything supernatural, and

pinpoints our understanding (or lack thereof) of transcendence as

its root cause. We are living in a period that does not see

beyond the utilitarian value of creation stemming from a

dualistic worldview where nature and the supernatural are two

mutually exclusive spheres neither of which ever interfering with

the other. The “contemporary onslaught of immanentism…in its

horizontalizing tendency categorically excludes the reality of

the supernatural.”2 In response to this ‘onslaught’ of atheistic

utilitarianism, Boersma issues a challenge to contemporary

theology: “One of the most significant challenges for Christian

theology...may well be the reaffirmation of divine

transcendence.”3 The present investigation is intended as a

response to such a call.

The current trend of seeing the world completely cut off

from, even opposed to any supernatural realm is similar to the

2 Hans Boersma, “Accommodation to What? Univocity of Being, Pure Nature, and the Anthropology of St Irenaeus” in International Journal of Systematic Theology 8, no.3 (July 1, 2006): 267. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed, December 13, 2013).3 Ibid.

3

Church’s first major battle against heresy. During the second

century, just as the Church began to solidify her presence and

practice within the pagan Roman Empire, one of the Church’s most

foundational theologians emerged in Irenaeus of Lyons. His

magnum opus, Against Heresies 4, is half-polemic-half-dogmatic

treatise combatting Gnostic dualism with a biblical vision of the

cosmos so cohesive and comprehensive that he would provide many

of the pillars for subsequent Church dogma.5 Irenaeus unmasked

the misunderstanding of transcendence embedded in the Gnostic

claim that the material world is unholy and unredeemable, a

similar claim heard in our own day. Because Irenaeus

undergirded his theology with a solid understanding of God’s

transcendence as the all-containing and ever sustaining Creator,

a reappropriation of his key doctrines would be helpful for

today.

4 Hereafter, this major work will be referenced in the text as “AH” with the book.chapter.paragaph in parenthesis.5 W. Brian Shelton, “Irenaeus” in Shapers of Christian Orthdoxy 2nd ed. (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2010), 59-60: “From his masterful treatise Against Heresies and his smaller summative work Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching his theologicalprinciples were used by the church to frame doctrine for almost its whole history: God, creation, providence, history, economy, salvation, resurrection, church and basic pneumatology.”

4

Inherent within the doctrines creatio ex nihilo, man as imago dei,

and recapitulation is a framework that sees the world as

ontologically rooted, contained within, and teleologically

directed by God’s divine plan “set forth in Christ as a plan for

the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in

heaven and things on earth.” (Eph. 1.9-10). This shall be

explored by a glance at Gnosticism’s key concepts and inevitable

collapse, and followed by an examination of Irenaeus’

understanding of the relationship between God, man, and the

world.

Gnosticism

The term ‘Gosticism’ does not refer to one specific group of

people but rather denotes a broad movement with followers who

considered themselves elite Christians possessing a wisdom beyond

that of any previous revelation in the Bible or even that of the

majority of their contemporaries.6 It was a ‘biblical’

interpretation which had a general “propensity for dissolving

6 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 68.

5

history into myth.”7 Although variations among the different

sects of ‘gnostics’ are abundant (the first two books of AH are

devoted to laying out the main strands of Gnosticism, e.g.

‘Valentinian Gnosticism’), common characteristics are not

difficult to discern.

Gnosticism was founded upon four basic tenets: 1) a total

opposition between the created world and the spiritual world; 2)

the created world is the result of a chaotic rebellion against

the spiritual world; 3) man has a spiritual element held captive

by the body; and 4) man’s liberation as only achieved by divine

knowledge of a mediator. Distilled further, Kelly identifies the

core of the gnostic disagreement with the budding Church as their

view of creation and the process of history as inherently evil

and man’s barrier to salvation.8

The driving force behind Gnosticism, resonant with Christian

teaching, was an attempt to solve “the riddle of man’s plight in

a universe he feels alien to himself.”9 However, Gnosticism

7 John Anthony McGuckin, “Gnosticism” in Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 147-148.8 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. (New York: HarperOne, 1978), 26-28.9 Ibid., 26.

6

works its way in the wrong direction developing its cosmology by

starting “from below” (cf. AH 4.19.2), looking at man and his

apparent alienation from the world and extrapolating a complex

system of spiritual emanations.10 But, since man and his world

are products of the pleroma and are inherently deficient, the

perfection of the pleroma itself is thus negated.11 One can see

the problem with the Gnostic’s starting point: man’s experience

with the world is the foundation for discerning truth. As Markus

poignantly states, “The gnostic myth, [Irenaeus] will almost

concede (cf. AH 2.13.10; 15.3), may be good psychology; but good

psychology is not theology.”12 As will be shown below, Irenaeus’

method adopted the Biblical text as its data and his anthropology

was shaped by it.

Based on gnostic anthropology, only an elect group of men

and women, the ‘pneumatics’, could be saved because of their 10 Julie Canlis, “Being Made Human: The Significance of Creation for Irenaeus’Doctrine of Participation” in Scottish Journal of Theology 58, no.4 (January 1, 2005): 440. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).11 R.A. Markus, “Pleroma and Fulfilment: The Significance of History in St Irenaeus’ Opposition to Gnosticism” in Vigilae Christianae 8, no.4 (October 1, 1954): 211-212. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOHhost (accessed December 13, 2013): “[a]ny attempt, like the gnostics, to sever a perfect and complete world outside and beyond history from this world which derives from it as the product of a defection in it, involves a defect within the pleroma itself.”12 Markus, 219.

7

interior divine spark, in effect creating a sub-category of semi-

divine humans. Salvation, or deification, means their ability to

shed the body and draw nearer to the divine and traversing the

various levels of the pleroma. Transcendence in this sense means

merely the distance divinity maintains from the created world.

Salvation occurs when humans cross the distance and the

differences between man’s natural form and his spiritual state

are erased (i.e., discarding the body for the increase of his

spiritual existence). This amounts to nothing less than a

theological monism and unwittingly obscures the difference

between humanity and divinity because both are seen as existing on the same

plane.13

The gnostic misunderstanding of transcendence led to the

inherent collapse of their entire cosmology. Because of this,

their interpretation of matter, man, and time as opposed to God

and the spiritual realm led to the creating of a system that

13 Canlis, 436 writes: “Despite the bravado of a resolutely dualist system, gnostic salvation can take place only when the differences between God and theworld are erased [i.e., the material world, especially the body, is shed]: one is saved by the virtue of the divinity one already has.” This understanding of transcendence as merely distant separation was also common among various Jewish sects in Irenaeus’ day as can be seen in their apocalypticism; cf. M.C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. (Boston, MA: Brill, 2008), 72.

8

consequently annihilated the chance for salvation (AH 1.21.1).

Irenaeus’ task in response meant reframing an entire worldview in

light of a true understanding of transcendence, one that would

neither sever the world from the divinity nor collapse the two

into one and obliterate all differences. Next, we shall examine

how Irenaeus’ understanding of transcendence shapes the

relationship between God and creation, the pinnacle of which is

man, and history’s ontological anchor in Christ.

God and creatio ex nihilo

Generally speaking, Irenaeus is more interested in the

relationship between God and the world than the Father-Son-Holy

Spirit.14 Irenaeus rebuts the Gnostic system insisting on God’s

creative involvement with His creation by expounding a doctrine

of creation ex nihilo. The key texts to examine will be AH 2.10.4

and 2.30.9 (emphasis mine):

For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that “the things which are

14 Dennis Minns, “Truth and Tradition: Irenaeus”, Origins to Constantine in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Ed. Margaret Mitchell and Frances M. Young. (New York: Cambridge UP, 2006), 1: 270.

9

impossible with men are possible with God.” While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out ofmatter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had not existence.

…He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father founding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, “by the word of His power;” and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no on besides Him, or above Him…

Irenaeus’ argument proceeds from the unequivocal foundation that

there is only one reality—God’s reality in which He is the

Creator while all else is created. This Creator/creation

distinction differentiates between the different types of being

of God and man. As Creator, God has absolute freedom apart from

His creation while maintaining direct involvement in its ensuing

existence. Conversely, the world is contained within God as its

Creator and utterly dependent upon Him for its beginning and

sustained existence. Irenaeus’ fundamental distinction between

God and the world is the necessary first step in correctly

defining their relationship.

10

For Irenaeus there simply is no room for two equal yet

separated worlds on the same plane of existence as the Gnostics

claimed. Markus summarizes “[t]he fulcrum of his argumentation

throughout this book [book 2] is the distinction between the

pleroma and the kenoma—the very raison d’etre of the gnostic myth.

There is no room for two worlds, any more than there is for two Gods, for a

cosmos and an ‘Aiwn, of a world of history and a timeless world of

Spirit. For God in his infinity contains all things.”15 Were any other

world to exist outside of God, completely severed and independent

from His sovereignty, then this would constitute a power limiting

God and, therefore, would actually be God itself (AH 2.1.2). By

definition of being God and Creator all things must be contained

by Him, and God is in no way circumscribed.

For the world, God is infinitely beyond comprehension.

Creation’s relation to God as infinite and eternal automatically

precludes its total grasping of Him (AH 2.28). Existence and

meaning are not to be sought and cannot be found within creation

itself, but only according to how its Creator has seen fit to

fashion it. Creation only exists because of God, and only

15 Markus, 211-212 (emphasis mine).

11

receives its meaning with reference to God. In Canlis’ words,

Ireanaeus’ doctrine of creation “secured the unconditional

character of God’s creative activity, giving him a freedom to

define creation, rather than being defined by it.”16

Also, creatio ex nihilo affirms creation’s dependence upon God’s

activity beyond the creating process via the Platonic distinction

between being and becoming. For Irenaeus, if something “is”, then

it is indefinitely, or unchangingly, which can only apply to God,

while creation “is” not but “becomes”, implying a perpetual state

of evolving such that it must continue becoming or else pass out

of being (AH 2.34.2).17 Therefore, creation is not but is becoming,

and, as such, perpetually dependent upon God’s sustaining

activity. Rather than a domino chain relationship of “cause-and-

effect” or “contemplation-contemplated”, reducing God’s getting

His ‘hands’ dirty in creation (AH 4.20.1, 5.6.1) to merely a

first cause or pure cosmic mind, creatio ex nihilo understands God as

continuously active in the world creating and animating with a

purpose.18

16 Canlis, 440.17 Dennis Minns, “Irenaeus” in Expository Times 120, no.4 (January 1, 2009), 162. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013). 18 Canlis, 438.

12

Irenaeus envisions “a single world full of God’s glory and

one God who contains it all and governs its history by his

providence”.19 His radical distinction between God as Creator

and the world as created properly relates the two as the former

creating, containing, and guiding the later, yet, without

collapsing one into the other or setting the two at odds against

each other. God and the world are affirmed in their intertwined

existence as well as their differences.20 Though God is active

in the world, the world does not contain Him. Transcendence is

understood as God’s ever expansive existence beyond creation

while still choosing to engage in it as the locus for unfolding

His overall purpose enfleshed in Christ. In contrast to gnostic

transcendence which viewed the created order as inherently

opposed to divinity, “Irenaean transcendence bespeaks a God who

‘contains all things’ and is therefore related to everything in

an equally direct manner, because God is the Creator and ‘origin

of all things’.”21

Man the imago dei

19 Markus, 212.20 Canlis, 439.21 Canlis, 441.

13

For Gnosticism, perceiving man’s desire for transcending

himself to become more like the divine was not incorrect, but

because divinity and humanity existed on the same plane their

cosmology assumed that the physical world was man’s barrier.

Irenaeus’ response relocates man within the framework of creatio ex

nihilo as a becoming man. Because man is created, he possesses a

capacity to grow in communion with God, and will become more like

Him by growing nearer. Impressing upon man’s body the imago dei

means bodily life is intended to participate in divine communion

rather than shouldering an existence to be spurned and shed.

According to Irenaeus, man’s self-transcendence is not the

product of his own liberating autonomy, but instead is brought

about through a life of communion and thankfulness to God.

The fundamental line between man and God is drawn when

Irenaeus states: “And in this respect God differs from man, that

God indeed makes, but man is made” (AH 4.11.2). To understand

man, one must start with man as created. Dem.11-15 constitutes

Irenaeus’ most detailed discussion of man’s formation where, just

like the rest of creation, being made from dust is an important

concept. But, man is special because he bears God’s image 14

specifically in his body, thus revealing the pattern of his

archetype, the incarnate Son (cf. AH 5.15.2-4, 5.6.1; Dem.22).22

Man is also given a unique status among the rest of creation in

that he is made to exist eternally as bearing the fellowship of

God as his ‘friend’ (AH 3.18.7, 4.13.4, 4.16.3-4, 4.18.3, 5.14.2).23

Unique to Irenaeus is the perspective that man was created

with room to grow. Man is not created ‘perfect’ per se in the

beginning; instead he is created “innocent and childlike” (Dem.

14). Consequently, Irenaeus’ does not view Gen 1.3 as “the

paragon of humanness, but its foundation”.24 Being made in God’s

‘image and likeness’ implies that man possesses a capacity for

growth into God-likeness through learning to make wise choices.

Again, the platonic distinction of being and becoming is applied as

man becomes more and more like God, and therefore becomes himself.

However, this distinction does not describe the depth of man’s

relationship with God. Man’s becoming and growth through

character formation stem from “[t]he centrality of a personal

22 John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000), 86-90.23 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 106.24 Canlis, 446.

15

understanding of salvation”25, namely adoption. As Fairbairn

states, “adoption lies at the heart of Irenaeus’ soteriology.”26

This is clear when Irenaeus states

For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having beentaken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God…But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortalityhad become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal byimmortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons? (AH 3.19.1,emphasis mine)27

As man receives adoption as God’s son, he is welcomed into a life

of participation involving all three members of the Holy Trinity.

Man’s salvation as divine communion is also mentioned in Dem. 7

in a Trinitarian context:

For this reason the baptism of our regeneration takes place through these three articles, granting us regeneration unto God the Father through His Son by the Holy Spirit: for those who bear the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son, while the Son present [them] to the Father, and the Father furnishes incorruptibility. (emphasis mine)

Man is created initially as God’s friend, and destined to be

adopted as God’s son. We have put off discussing the effects of

25 Donald Fairbairn, “Patristic Soteriology: Three Trajectories” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 2 (June 2007): 296.26 Ibid.27 Cited in Fairbairn, “Patristic Soteriology”, 296.

16

the Incarnation as much as possible without distortion. But,

man’s origin and telos are inseparable from the Incarnate Christ:

He is the archetype for man’s body, and the natural heir of what

man receives through adoption.

How exactly does man’s present bodily life constitute his

path toward God that leads to fellowship? The answer is found in

Irenaeus’ distinct understanding of what “image” and “likeness”

mean. By learning the difference between good and bad, obedience

and disobedience, life and death, through decision-making man

evolves into ever-increasing God-likeness.

It is largely to Irenaeus’ credit28 that he was the first to

propose a systematic interpretation of Gen. 1.2629 and

distinguishing between the qualities “image” and “likeness”.30

God’s “image” is reflected in specifically man’s body giving it a

divine role as revealer of its archetype (specifically the

incarnate Son; cf. 4.20.1). Man’s form, then, calls for works

28 Irenaeus receives credit to the extent that he organizes the teaching he had received from his predecessors.29 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (ESV; emphasis mine)30 Zachary Xintaras, “Man, the Image of God: According to the Greek Fathers” in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1, no.1 (January 1, 1954), 51. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

17

appropriate to it, thus linking man’s formation to his freedom of

choice which is a part of man’s “likeness” to God. ‘Likeness,’

for Irenaeus, breaks down further into two uses traditionally

referred to as “similitude” and “likeness.”31

“Similitude” denotes man’s gift of free choice by virtue of

man’s being God’s image. God is free to choose, therefore, man

is free as well. This also affirms man’s choice of God in

opposition to Gnostic pre-determinism. Created as free is

another way of saying that man is created as perfectible through

practice in good choice-making. This leads to maturing which in

turn leads to salvation and immortality (4.38.4); but, man still

lacks what is needed to pass from mortality to immortality.32

“Likeness” refers to the work of the Holy Spirit which was

lost in Adam through the Fall and restored in Christ by his

Incarnation. In retrospect this sheds light on Irenaeus’

understanding of the Fall’s nature and man’s ensuing consequences

31 Mary Ann Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St Irenaeus” in Theological Studies 49, no.2 (June 1, 1988), 293-4. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).32 Donovan, 294-295.

18

which are reversed in the Incarnation. In light of AH 5.16.2,

Behr summarizes ‘likeness’ as

the strength of the breath of life, which would have kept Adam immortal, and his ‘natural and childlike mind’ or the ‘robe of holiness from the Spirit’, and both these are the expressions or results of man seeing God through the creation, recognizing the fact that he is created and therefore dependent upon his Creator, an attitude of thankfulness and obedience. It is this recognition and disposition that enables man to live, whether animated by the breath of life or vivified directly by the life-creatingSpirit.33

Here man’s need for maturity comes into view as a part of his

original life and not as a post-lapsarian consequence. Man’s

possibility for choosing life or death opens room for his growth

into God ‘likeness’ (AH 5.9.3).34 Life as preparation for

communion with God is a humanizing process leading to ‘promotion

into God’ and is worked out through a life of obedience (AH

3.19.1, 20.2; 4.20.7, 33.4).35

Disobedience, in Irenaeus’ eyes, is the essence of the Fall.

It is the result of immaturity and the reason for Adam and Eve

falling prey to Satan, loosing divine likeness and falling into

33 Behr, Asceticism, 115.34 Donovan, 296.35 Canlis, 447.

19

the Devil’s hands and leading to all mankind’s captivity (Dem.

16; AH 5.21.3; ‘loosing divine likeness’ cf. AH 3.18.1; 5.2.1.).36 In

contrast, Minns states well the profound meaning of obedience

when he states that obedience “represents the totality of a

creature’s proper stance before its Creator…to be obedient to God

is to allow God to be the Creator, to allow oneself to be

created, as and when the Creator wills. To be disobedient to God

is either to want to be one’s own creator, or to want to be

brought to perfection sooner than the Creator wills.”37 For

Irenaeus, the difference between obedience and disobedience is

nothing short of the difference between life and death (AH 2.28.3;

4.14.1, 16.4).

Man’s life of obedience is meant to spring from an inner

disposition of thankfulness as the creature lives in continual

recognition of its Creator. Because obedience and thankfulness

are rooted in Adam as original to his divine design, man’s

thankfulness is an anthropological category rather than a moral

one. It is “an entire orientation, an obedient correspondence

36 Kelly,171.37 Minns,“Irenaeus”, 164.

20

as those who are ‘made’ to the one who ‘makes’” and can be

defined as “consent to a life of participation and growth in God

and thus is constitutive of being rather than attempting to find

a source of life in ourselves” (AH 4.11.2; 3.20.1; 4.38.4, 4.39.2).

38

This fundamental understanding of obedience and thankfulness

reveals the spiritual dimension of the Fall as the loss of man’s

life and freedom. Ingratitude and rebellion means a complete

refusal of ultimate truth and results in the loss of life. All

of life is inseparable from its source and therefore all of life

is dependent. Breath itself is a gift of God, and anything that

leads man to act contrary is destructive. Man’s first steps

toward independence are his first steps toward death, but his

first steps toward submission to God’s self-revelation in Christ

lead to eternal life. As opposed to equating man’s freedom with

his autonomy, Irenaeus believes that “[f]reedom is never impaired

by this dependence” rather “ an increasing dependence or

subjection is the mark of a greater measure of true freedom: an

increased subjection implies a greater receptivity to the

38 Canlis, 445-6.

21

creative activity of God, enabling man to partake of the life of

God, his only life, in an ever fuller measure.”39

Irenaeus saves man body by insisting it is in the body that

man bears God’s image and by which man participates in fellowship

with God. Being truly human is a becoming human in fellowship

with God; there is no such thing as ‘man’ apart from or outside

of God. Mankind “does not have a form of existence, or

‘ontology,’ except as enclosed-in-God… Human uniqueness is not

found in ontological independence from God, but in being enclosed

by the Creator who continues to create, nurture and sustain it”

(cf. AH 2.16.4).40 This current life is intended as preparation

for eternal life. Man receives his adoption into God’s family

and responds in thankfulness for the gift of life. The desire,

then, for transcending this life does not entail disposing of the

body, but in fact is worked out through life in the body

submitting to a life caught in the whirlwind of God’s

transcendent love mediated through “the Word of God, our Lord

Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what

39 Behr, Asceticism, 211.40 Canlis, 441.

22

we are, that he might bring us to be even what He is Himself”

(AH 5.Pref).

Recapitulation—the world’s transformation in Christ

Having started wider in scope examining God’s relation to

creation, then focusing on man and creation’s Fall through Adam

and Eve, we are now in position to see zoom out once more to view

creation’s restoration and man’s redemption effected by the

Second Adam, the Incarnate Christ.

The genius of Irenaeus’ system, the center of his

theological web holding together all the various strands is

undoubtedly his doctrine of recapitulation.41 It is this

doctrine with its unifying dynamism which puts Irenaeus in a

class all his own42, and what Hans Urs von Balthasar has called

for Irenaeus the “formative element in the world and history in

general.”43 By means of recapitulation, Irenaeus reconfigures

the life of man and all of creation by anchoring it in the life

41 Wingren notes that the central problem of Irenaeus’ theology is specifically man and salvation via the incarnation.; cf. Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus. (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,1959), ix, 81.42 Wingren, Man, xvi.43 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985), 51.

23

of Jesus Christ. In Christ, God descends to renew his creation

from the inside out, becoming a part of it. Like a shockwave

ever expanding its reach, no part of creation escapes the

Incarnation with its gospel power. Every part of the cosmos is

infused with Christological significance. Emanating from the

Incarnation at the center, Christ restores man to a life of

divine participation, leading to a renewed care for creation, and

ultimately time itself is transformed as God’s progressive

unveiling of Himself in Christ.

The term recapitulation is a translation of the Greek verb

anakephalaioomai derived from the Greek word kephale, or “head”, and

is only found twice in the New Testament: in Romans 13.9 and

Ephesians 1.10. Both passages use this word for its meaning of

gathering its subject into one great summary: in Romans, Paul

unites the commandments into the one great command to “love your

neighbor as yourself”; Ephesians is much more profound in its

scope as history and the cosmos are summed up entirely in

Christ.44 44 Cf. Collin Brown, “Head” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), 163: “The thought of unity has affinity with the use of the vb. in Rom. And is one of the great themes of Eph. (cf. 2:14-22; 4:3f.).” The significance of this thought for the Ephesian

24

For Irenaeus, the term is used with various levels of

meaning. Daniélou outlines 3 basic uses of the term: 1) a

summary of key ideas (cf. AH 5.14.1, 4.20.8, 3.2.8, 2.22.4); 2) a

“summing up” as the one in whom all things find their unity” (cf.

AH 3.16.6, 5.18.3, 3.18.1, 5.20.2, 3.21.9)45; and 3) a repetition of

previous events (cf. AH 3.23.1, 3.21.10).46 Recapitulation reaches

its full breadth under the second meaning as all of creation and

its history is brought “to a new apex of meaning by the

establishment of Christ as cosmic Lord and Head.”47 Only with

Christ as the cosmic Lord does man regain his humanity and assume

his rightful place within creation. Daniélou’s third use refers

to Jesus’ life mirroring Adam’s and thereby overturning the

passage can be seen when set in its structural context. The entire pericope, Ephesians 1.3-14, constitutes one entire sentence which is a testimony to the inner unity of its content. A cooperation of divine activity with all three members of the trinity (v.3) guiding a historical progression (vv.3-6 focus onthe past and vv.7-9 discussing the present effects) the passage reaches its future-oriented climax in vv.9-10 as Christ eschatologically embodies “the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Heaven and earth, divine activity and historical development meet and are summarized in the person of Jesus Christ. This idea is also linked to Revelation 22.13, the final chapter of the Holy Writ, where God declares “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the Last, the beginning and the end” (ESV).45 Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, vol.2. Trans. John Austin Baker. (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1973), 173. 46 Jean Daniélou, 172-183.47 John Anthony McGuckin, “Recapitulation” in The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 2004), 289.

25

effects of Adam’s sin. It is with the second sense that we are

most concerned as it transcends the other levels by giving them

deeper meaning.

Irenaeus begins his doctrine of recapitulation with Christ

as the Second Adam. The principle thought consists of Christ

restoring that which Adam forfeited. Two key texts should

suffice for the present discussion:

when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a briefcomprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus. (AH 3.18.1; emphasis mine)

Also, Irenaeus spells out the implications of Christ as the

Second Adam with greater detail in the following:

For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself, Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God hadnot yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground”), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a manfor his father, and was born of human seed, it were

26

reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, makinga recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed inAdam], the analogy having been preserved (AH 3.21.10 emphasismine).

Jesus repeats the life of Adam thereby commencing a new beginning

for mankind, and he summarizes the Old Testament by embodying the

fulfillment of all its promises of salvation foretold by the

prophets.48

The point of impact for initiating man’s redemption is the

Incarnation. In the Incarnation of Jesus, God himself becomes

man without either his humanity or divinity being diminished.

The mystery of such a paradox as God becoming man is no less than

the salvation of mankind for Irenaeus. As Wingren states,

“Christ is God, and He is also man—these are not two

irreconcilable truths. Very God and very man in one, with not

48 Hans Boersma, “Redemptive Hospitality in Irenaeus: A Model for Ecumenicityin a Violent World” in Pro Ecclesia 11, no.2 (March 1, 2002), 217-218. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

27

separation between His divinity and His humanity—this is

salvation: the presence of life in the world of death.”49

Jesus parallels Adam as the “New Adam” and surpasses him by

succeeding in obedience where Adam had failed.50 Jesus was

conceived of a virgin, while Adam was born from virgin soil (AH

3.18.7; 21.10; Dem. 32). Christ conquers sin through the tree of

the Cross on the sixth day of the week, thus reversing the

effects of Adam’s experience with the tree of knowledge on the

sixth day of creation (AH 3.18.7; 5.17.2; 5.23.2; Dem. 34). As man,

49 Wingren, 86-7.50 Irenaeus extends this typological parallelism to apply also to Eve and Mary(AH 3.22.4, 5.19.1). Steenberg has argued strongly against reading this connection as merely aesthetic, a maintaining of Irenaeus’ symmetry. Rather, Mary’s role in the recapitulation is based in Eve’s own creation apart from Adam’s: “The character of [Eve’s] creation is therein substantially differentfrom that of Adam: not only was she of Adam, since, coming from his rib, she had her nature as human directly from his and was not a new creation in the same sense as he had been; but she also was for Adam, made for his aid and companionship along the necessary pathway of human growth. Eve was, from her inception, a social creature, symbolically embodying not so much human nature…as the human society formed by God in light of the fact that ‘it is not good for man to be alone’.” Still in need of Christ’s redemption, as Eve’s antitype Mary is “in the unique position of being herself recapitulatory, not in the same sense as Christ whose recapitulation is of human nature, but as one whose role in the recapitulative economy is to restore the proper character of human interrelatedness that this nature requires. Irenaeus can see this as a role distinct from that of Christ inasmuch as the healing of social relationships requires a relationship, requires more than one person. Even as Adam could not have been the cause of corruption to the ppurposed nature of human interaction without the presence and activity of another (Eve), so Chirst could not have been the cause of a restoration of these relatioinships without the presence of another person working in concert with His own recapitulative activities.” M.C. Steenberg, “The Role of Mary as Co-Recapitulator” in Vigilae Christianae 58 (2004): 133, 136.

28

or the man, Christ is stronger than Adam because Christ is fully

matured and for this reason life springs out of the same

temptations that led to Adam’s fall (AH 5.21.3).51 In the New Adam

man is also revealed to himself by his original design and

according to his eschatological maturity. Thus, Christ shows man

the template on which he was based as well as the fully developed

person he is intended to become.52 Again, Irenaeus places man’s

physical existence at the center as man adopts the mature

practices of God-likeness displayed in Christ with the same body

that once practiced rebellion an disobedience (AH 5.12.3-5).53 In

the meantime, man’s struggle is a continual combat between God’s

Spirit and man’s flesh is part of a broader conflict between God

and Satan, and it is in man’s obedience that the Holy Spirit

prevails (AH 5.10.2).54 Just as disobedience was the essence of the

Fall, obedience is the essence of Christ’s redemptive work.

Liberating man from the bonds of the enemy that he might once

again in accordance with his original ‘image and likeness’ live

51 Ibid., 125-6.52 Cf. Bogdan G. Bucur, “Foreordained from All Eternity: The Mystery of the Incarnation According to Some Early Christian and Byzantine Writers” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008): 211.53 Ibid., 172.54 Ibid., 171.

29

freely in obedience is the nature of Christ victory over sin and

death.55

The Incarnation’s rejuvenating effect emanates throughout

the world as a recreating of the cosmos, its Creator bringing

pure life back to a world that has cut itself off from its source

(cf. AH 3.30-31.1; 5.2.1).56 Creation’s restoration is a

consequence of man’s return to obedience, meaning this

restorative work is effected now through the Church and intended

to spread to all of creation.57 Man’s role at the fore of God’s

redemptive plan points toward the eschatological reality that

will one day consummate at the return of Christ.58 In response

to the gnostic abhorrence of man and matter, Irenaeus restores

its divine purpose and goodness. Von Balthasar describes the

profound reach of the Incarnation and its call to the church to

continue its redemptive work for creation:

With this creative event in view the Father gave this ‘hour’the character of the fullness of time. In this fullness notonly the Old Covenant but also all human and physical natureis fulfilled, because now the Word is present within the

55 Ibid., 130.56 Ibid., 84.57 Ibid., 170-171.58 Ibid., 174.

30

flesh. Nor is this just in the one man Christ, because through him all hearts are really changed. It is here that the Church with its timeless newness will make its entry.59

Finally, once Adam’s sin has been overturned and man is

restored to obedience and life of caring for God’s creation, the

final extension of redemption is time’s reorientation around the

revelation of God in the flesh. Past, present, and future are

united as they receive meaning and fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

This enables von Balthasar to say, “The Christian reality is

inseparable from history. And, consequently, it is free from

time”.60 All of history is revealed as a series of stages, or

dispensations, given a specific purpose with reference to God’s

self-revelation in the Incarnation, an oikonomia with many chronoi

and its one kairos (most of book 4 is taken with the theme of the

Christ’s being revealed in the Old Testament, and establishing

the unity between the two Testaments; cf. AH 4.2.1-7, 4.5.1-5,

4.7.1-4, 4.10.1-2, 4.11.1-4). Creation participates in the

overall process as it submits to its place within a broader plan,

its end where God’s world and man’s are united in fellowship.61

Every moment of every day is given eternal significance as it has59 von Balthasar, 85-86.60 Ibid., 70.61 Ibid., 67.

31

a place, a kairos, within God’s economy revolving around Christ.

Man’s life, then, is his training for eternal fellowship and

obedience, or adoption, into the fellowship with God.62 “The

goal of the process is not redemption, not the Church, but the

merging of both into eternal life.”63

Recapitulation constitutes the entire process of redemption

unfolding as God assimilates man’s dimensions of time and space

to himself in the Incarnation, giving them meaning only according

to His plan. Recapitulation is “the accomplishment of God’s plan

of salvation, and this accomplishment is within history, in a

time-sequence, and is not an episode at one particular point of

time. It is a continuous process in which the oikonomia, disposition,

of God is manifested by degrees.”64 This is the plan the Apostle

Paul referred to as “the mystery of his will, according to his

purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness

of time, to unity all things in him, things in heaven and things

on earth” (Eph 1.9-10).

62 Ibid., 46, 81.63 Ibid., 89.64 Wingren, Man, 81.

32

Conclusion

The difference in perspective between Irenaeus and modern

understandings of humanity is obvious. In Irenaeus, concepts

such as freedom, thankfulness, and obedience have a theological

depth that is lost on many today. The root difference between

(post)modern theological dialogue and Irenaeus’ approach, I

believe, is a radical separation between man’s world and God’s

supernatural world based on suppositions similar to Gnostic

dualism. As Boersma has noted in his book, Heavenly Participation,

the root of today’s departure from the early Christian worldview

is “the abandonment of a premodern sacramental mindset in which

the realities of this-worldly existence pointed to greater,

eternal realities in which they sacramentally shared.”65 If

evangelicals are to engage modern issues that hinge on

understandings of freedom or man’s nature, then there must be a

new articulation of the link between this world and the greater

reality to which it points, the heavenly reality for which

mankind is being prepared in this life.

65 Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 2.

33

What Boersma means by Heavenly Participation is the conviction

that “life on earth takes on a heavenly dimension…Participation

in heaven changes life on earth: paradoxically, only

otherworldliness guarantees proper engagement in this world.”66

The paradox is that only in constant view of eternity can we know

how to live today. Far from the old warning of being ‘too

heavenly-minded for any earthly-good’, Irenaeus teaches us that

“earthly realities carry significance only when we refuse to rank

them first. Far from downplaying or undermining the

significance…by turning created realities from objects of

penultimate interest into objects that have ultimate importance,

we ironically end up losing their significance.”67 In other

words, the only proper way for Christians to relate to the world

is by keeping a proper perspective on the next. This proposal is

as earthy as the ground itself.68

66 Ibid., 6.67 Ibid., 8.68 The argument could be made that the tie between God’s world and ours for Irenaeus is too strong, and this is what leads him to his millenarian views inAH 5.32-36. However, I agree with Smith when he refuses to categorize Irenaeus as a traditional chiliast. Instead, “he is a consistent creationist.Creation, in fact, is so much a part of the deliberate plan of God for him that not only must the righteous receive their rewards in the present heavens and earth, but creation itself can never pass away…” Christopher R. Smith, “Chiliasm and Recapitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus” in Vigilae Christianae 48(1994): 320.

34

Man’s world is only a part of a God’s greater reality which

the world points to and participates in through the Incarnation.

Man’s tension from living in a world while feeling destined for a

greater one drove Gnostic dualism just like today’s technological

innovations, yet serves as a reminder that reality is more than

just what we see. Issues such as bio-technology, ‘right’ to

life, gender equality, and virtual living through the internet

raise questions about the basic meaning of human existence that

the Churches must be equipped to answer. I propose that a

reappropriation of Irenaeus’ understanding of transcendence would

provide a helpful framework for engaging such issues. A

theologically grounded and guided transcendent worldview will

penetrate to the very nature and make up of all creation. Two

areas that would benefit today from recovering Irenaeus’ thought

of transcendence include: an appropriation of an early analogia

entis, and a theologically grounded approach to the environment.

Foundational to man’s relationship with God is a humble

attitude recognizing God’s self-revelation in the world while

still maintaining His incomprehensibility. Irenaeus refers to

this tension when he writes that God is 35

indescribable. For He may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is not [on that account] like the understanding of men; and He may most properly be termed Light, but He is nothing like that light with which we are acquainted. And so, in all other particulars, the Father of all is in no degree similar to human weakness.He is spoken of in these terms according to the love [we bear him]; but in point of greatness, our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. (AH 2.13.4, emphasis mine)

With the Creator-creation distinction, Irenaeus protects God and

creation from gnostic dualism, while through his doctrine of

recapitulation he weaves every aspect of creation into one

harmonious tapestry with divine purpose.

A mysterious tension between God and the world would be

helpful for today. No matter man’s advances in knowledge or

technology his creaturely status never subsides and always calls

man back to a posture of acknowledging his dependence upon God.

At the same time, this does not negate man’s abilities or

knowledge in the world, so long as it reflects this humility, nor

are knowledge and language stripped of their value. Rather, they

allow space for paradox or the ineffable. For example, Boersma

draws from this tension in Irenaeus’ thought discussing his

36

apophatic and katophatic tendencies with regards to his

eschatology and sees it as a model that would be helpful.69

Room must be made for considering creation’s Christological

significance which can unlock and expound research and

information amassed through scientific research. I agree with

Boersma where he has elsewhere articulated a Christological

analogia entis which affirms and continuously articulates anew

creation’s pointing to that spiritual realm which always

surpasses our own understanding. The point of Irenaeus’

anthropology and analogia entis’ original intention are the same:

“human language cannot comprehend the essence of God; on the

other hand, divine revelation is such that we can trust human

language to speak properly about God.”70 According to Steenberg,

there exists a reciprocal relationship between the Creator and

the creation such that “the nature of the creator reveals

something about the nature of the creation, while the nature of 69 Hans Boersma, “Irenaeus, Derrida and Hospitality: On the Eschatological Overcoming of Violence” in Modern Theology 19, no.2 (April 2003), 168-174. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013). Shelton warns against importing the historical baggage of analogical theology into Irenaeus, but it would be equally anachronistic to avoid for the same reasons the analogical thinking Irenaeus proposes. Shelton, 55; cf. Boersma, “Accommodation to What?” 276, acknowledges the pitfall, but still moves forward.70 Boersma, “Accommodation to What?” 276-7.

37

the creation may, in turn, be used to glean knowledge of its

creator.”71 Rearticulating an analogia entis based on Irenaeus’

Christocentric recapitulation would give the church proper

footing for engaging today’s fundamental issues, such as

questions of humanity, because the church would better perceive

the direct connection between everything and its divine meaning,

thus, properly relating the material to the spiritual.

If we recover an appreciation for mystery and transcendence

as I have described, then a renewed approach for engaging the

created order will follow. Caring for the creation is man’s

divinely delegated task, and is God’s gift and means of character

formation. In the scope of history, today’s ecological problems

are unprecedented. Constantinople’s Ecumenical Patriarch

Bartholomew has spoken out strongly regarding today’s unique

environmental predicaments. “Never before,” he laments, “in the

long history of our planet, has humanity found itself so

“developed” that it faces the possible destruction of its own

environment and species. Never before in the long history of the71 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 39. The Thomistic understanding of analogia entis eventually departed from Aquinas himself by divorcing too strongly the naturalfrom the supernatural, a dichotomy which we have inherited; cf. Boersma, “Accommodation to What?” 283-285.

38

earth have the earth’s ecosystems faced almost irreversible

damage.”72 As the church marches forward to meet the challenges

of never-before-seen dilemmas, the theological nature of our

world and its problems must be clearly perceived. This entails

re-establishing the divine significance innate to all creation as

products of God’s love and instruments of His purposes in Christ.

Bartholomew is unafraid to say that the Western culture has

had much to do with expediting the degradation of the world. He

links five western values exported around the world that have

directly contributed to the current ecological devastation.

However, these are not to be taken as the primary reasons for the

world’s environmental problems. Instead, the real issue,

Bartholomew says, is within human nature itself. 73

Mankind has the unique role within creation as representing

the Creator’s presence on the earth. He is called to care for

72 Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 117.73These 5 include: a barren sense of intellectualism, which has ruptured any balanced sense of spirituality…an unrestrained sense of individualism, which has shattered any healthy sense of community…the exploitation and abuse of nature through greedy market consumerism, which has destroyed the planet’s ecosystems and depleted its resources…[and] the extremes of economic globalization (at the expense of human beings) and exclusive nationalism (at the cost of human lives);Ibid., 115 (italics original).

39

the earth in a manner consistent with its Creator. But, sin has

cost man his glory, and this has repercussions for everything

under his care. Bartholomew proposes it is because of the

rupturing of man’s relationships between himself, God, and

neighbor, that the cosmic significance of sin has gone unnoticed.

“The concept of sin must be broadened to include all human beings

and all of created nature,” Bartholomew says.74 Man still bears

his responsibility as the steward of God’s creation, thus his

care for it plays a role in his relationship with God—“…every act

of pollution or destruction of the natural environment is an

offense against God as Creator.”75 The perversion of man’s care

for the world creeps in when he forgets that he is only its

caretaker and not its creator. He must hold together both who he

is as creation’s imago dei and how he is to treat the earth in

light of that fact.76

This calls for a return to responsibility, a repentance, in

Bartholomew’s terms, to take care of the earth’s ecosystems out

of a “eucharistic spirit” that sees the earth as God’s gift to

74 Ibid., 116.75 Ibid.76 Behr, Asceticism, 211.

40

man.77 In God’s handing over to man the care for the earth, it

is to be received with thankfulness. Bartholomew intends when he

speaks of a “eucharistic spirit” that man reciprocates God’s

giving with a giving of his own. In this sense, for grace to be

experienced, the cycle of giving-and-receiving must characterize

man’s relation to God and permeate all aspects of life. Man’s

capacity for experiencing God’s grace through creation is

directly linked to his capacity for gratitude in word and deed.

As a first step in this direction, I suggest a reemphasis on

the importance of the Eucharist with real bread and wine (if

man’s body is important, so is the wine) taken at least once a

month. Joel Kurz articulates well the connection between the

church and her stewardship over creation when he states, “Liturgy

and ecology, far from being mutually exclusive of each other,

are, in reality, both concerned with the integrity and meaning of

creation. They are bound up in the same expectation and find

their fulfillment in the incarnate Christ who completes all

things.”78 If, the purpose of creation is to lead us into God’s 77 Bartholomew, 118.78 Joel Kurz, “Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humaity: Irenaeus ofLyons’Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist” in Worship 83, no.2 (March, 2009), 132. ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost (accessed December

41

fellowship and presence, where is this more clearly demonstrated

than in the sharing of the eucharist? Our partaking of the

eucharist should demonstrate the attitude toward which we view

creation in general, a “eucharistic attitude.” By elevating the

eucharist we elevate the entire created order, and “[b]y treating

the world as a Eucharistic offering in Christ, received from God

and offered to him, we are drawn into God’s presence.”79

13, 2013).79 Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 8.

42

Bibliography

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985.

Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Behr, John. Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.

Boersma, Hans. "Accommodation to What? Univocity of Being, Pure Nature, and the Anthropology of St Irenaeus." International Journal Of Systematic Theology 8, no. 3 (July 1, 2006): 266-293. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December13, 2013).

------. Heavenly Participation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.

------. "Irenaeus, Derrida and Hospitality: On the EschatologicalOvercoming of Violence." Modern Theology 19, no. 2 (April 1, 2003): 163-180. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

------. "Redemptive Hospitality in Irenaeus: A Model for Ecumenicity in a Violent World." Pro Ecclesia 11, no. 2 (March 1, 2002): 207-226. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed December 13, 2013).

Brown, Collin. “Head.” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971): 159-163.

Bucur, Bogdan G. “Foreordained From All Eternity: The Mystery of the Incarnation According to Some Early Christian and Byzantine Writers.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008): 199-215.

43

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788046 (Accessed August 11, 2013).

Canlis, Julie. "Being Made Human: The Significance of Creation for Irenaeus' Doctrine of Participation." Scottish Journal Of Theology 58, no. 4 (January 1, 2005): 434-454. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

Daniélou, Jean. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea vol.2. Trans. John Austin Baker. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1973.

Donovan, Mary Ann. "Alive to the Glory of God : A Key Insight in St Irenaeus." Theological Studies 49, no. 2 (June 1, 1988): 283-297. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

Fairbairn, Donald. "Patristic Soteriology: Three Trajectories." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 2 (June 1, 2007):289-310. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessedDecember 13, 2013).

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. New York: HarperOne, 1978.

Kurz, Joel R. "Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanity: Irenaeus of Lyons' Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist." Worship 83, no. 2 (March 2009): 112-132. ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost (accessed December13, 2013).

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters: Complete in One Volume. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.

Markus, R.A. "Pleroma and Fulfilment: The Significance of History inSt Irenaeus' Opposition to Gnosticism." Vigiliae Christianae 8, no. 4 (October 1, 1954): 193-224. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

44

McGuckin, John Anthony. “Gnosticism” in The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology: 147-148. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

------. “Recapitulation” in The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology: 289. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,2004.

Minns, Denis. "Irenaeus." Expository Times 120, no. 4 (January 1, 2009): 157-166. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

------. “Truth and Tradition: Irenaeus.” Origins to Constantine in The Cambridge History of Christianity, 1: 261-273. Ed. Margaret Mitchell and Frances M. Young. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006.

Osborn, Eric. "Love of Enemies and Recapitulation." Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 1 (February 2000): 12-31. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Shelton, W. Brian. “Irenaeus.” Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy. Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2010: 15-63.

Smith, Christopher R. "Chiliasm and Recapitulation in the Theology of Ireneus." Vigiliae Christianae 48, no. 4 (December 1,1994): 313-331. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

Steenberg, M.C. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. Boston, MA: Brill, 2008.

------. "The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St Irenaeus of Lyons." Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 2 (May 2004): 117-137. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13,2013).

45

Wingren, Gustaf. Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959.

Xintaras, Zachary C. "Man, the Image of God: According to the Greek Fathers." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1, no. 1 (January 1, 1954): 48-62. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2013).

46