Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons Jackson Jay Lashier Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Lashier, Jackson Jay, "The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons" (2011). Dissertations (1934 -). 109. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/109 THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF IRENAEUS OF LYONS by Jackson Lashier, B.A., M.Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2011 ABSTRACT THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF IRENAEUS OF LYONS Jackson Lashier, B.A., M.Div. Marquette University, 2011 This dissertation is a study of the Trinitarian theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. With the exception of two recent studies, Irenaeus’ Trinitarian theology, particularly in its immanent manifestation, has been devalued by scholarship due to his early dates and his stated purpose of avoiding speculative theology. In contrast to this majority opinion, I argue that Irenaeus’ works show a mature understanding of the Trinity, in both its immanent and economic manifestations, which is occasioned by Valentinianism. Moreover, his Trinitarian theology represents a significant advancement upon that of his sources, the so-called apologists, whose understanding of the divine nature converges in many respects with Valentinian theology. I display this advancement by comparing the thought of Irenaeus with that of Justin, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, on Trinitarian themes. Irenaeus develops Trinitarian theology in the following ways. First, he defines God’s nature as spirit, thus maintaining the divine transcendence through God’s higher order of being as opposed to the use of spatial imagery (God is separated/far away from creation). This definition allows him to speak of God’s work in the world apart from the use of semi-divine agents. Second, Irenaeus removes spatial language and a time element from the concept of divine generation. Thus, although both Logos/Son and Sophia/Spirit are generated from God/Father, they eternally exist with God and in God. Because they come from God, they are divine to the same degree as God, existing in an eternal, mutually interpenetrating relationship, which results in one, simple divine nature. Finally, Irenaeus distinguishes the three entities in their eternal unity through attributing to them different functions in the economy. God/Father is the source of the creative and redemptive work, while Logos/Son and Sophia/Spirit enact the work. However, the logic of Irenaeus’ argument demands that the same quality of divinity be shared among all three figures. Their equal divinity provides the Son and the Spirit the power to enact the will of the Father in the economy. The result is a developed Trinitarian theology that posits three distinct entities named Father, Son, and Spirit, eternally united through one divine and spiritual nature. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jackson Lashier, B.A., M.Div. This dissertation is the product of countless hours spent in solitude. But solitude never involves just one person or one mind. On the one hand, solitude is spent pondering, critiquing, interacting with, working through, and being formed by the thoughts and ideas of others. On the other hand, the space for solitude often is provided by the efforts, support, confidence, love, and prayers of others. In reality, then, the product of solitude is a collaborative effort involving a community of people. The following list is neither exhaustive nor an adequate expression of the gratitude and indebtedness I have to the community of people who made this dissertation possible. I would like to thank the Department of Theology and the President’s Council of the University for selecting me to be a John P. Raynor, S.J. Fellow for the 2009-2010 school year, during which I was able to accomplish a significant amount of the planning and research for this dissertation. Thanks also to A Foundation for Theological Education for selecting me to be a John Wesley Fellow, which has been a significant financial support for my family. More importantly, the community of faithful Wesleyan scholars has been an ongoing source of encouragement to me in this process. I consider both of these fellowships high honors. I would like to thank the members of my dissertation board, Dr. Michel René Barnes, Rev. Alexander Golitzin, Rev. D. Thomas Hughson, S.J., and Dr. D. Stephen Long, for agreeing to read my dissertation, as well as for the support and helpful comments and ideas I received from them during the writing process. My thought and scholarship also has been influenced by the many professors of the theology department with whom I had the privilege of studying during my five years at Marquette. In addition to those already mentioned, I am particularly grateful for the pedagogy of Dr. Julian V. Hills, Dr. Rodrigo J. Morales, Dr. Susan K. Wood, SCL, Dr. Markus Wriedt, and Dr. Wanda Zemler-Cizewski. I learned a great deal outside the classroom in working through these ideas with my fellow doctoral students, many of whom have become close friends. Thanks to Matthew Eubanks who graciously read through these pages and offered invaluable comments and guidance regarding grammar and writing style. Thanks also to my brother Andy Lashier, whose company Laser Resources graciously provided the copies of this dissertation used for the purposes of my defense. A special word of thanks is due to my director Dr. Michel René Barnes. I am indebted to his scholarship and pedagogy, as well as to his friendship. Much of the content of the following pages had its spark in his ideas that I either read or discussed with him, both in classes and personally. I came to Marquette with an interest in the Fathers, but I leave Marquette with a love of the Fathers because his teaching and his ideas have opened their world and their theology to me. I cannot say enough about the support of my family, without which this dissertation could not have been finished. I am particularly grateful to my parents, Jack and Kathy Lashier, who have always believed in me, always supported me, and always loved me. I am thankful also for the love and support of my in-laws, Stan and Marsha ii Graff. In addition to the love and support of both sets of parents, which we have come to expect, we have benefited also from their gracious monetary support, which we never expected, and which made the last five years of fulltime study possible. Our daughter Ruthie was born as I was preparing for my qualifying exams. One of my greatest blessings in this process has been to stay with her in the days, dividing my time equally between reading Irenaeus and reading Dr. Seuss. She has been an absolute joy and I always will cherish and remember fondly these years together. However, the demands of parenting are such that I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the gracious help of friends and family who stayed with her for weeks at a time so I could focus on researching and writing. Thanks particularly to Kathy Lashier, Marsha Graff, Jill Moore, Cindy McDavid, Matthew Eubanks, and Ellen Scully. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Julie. She is one of the primary reasons I pursued doctoral studies in the first place, and I cannot begin to express how much her belief in me has meant throughout this process. There have been many nights that I wanted to quit, many nights I felt this work was too much for me, and she has always met those doubts with a calming presence and encouraging words. She has sacrificed much in the way of her own plans and her own time so that I might complete this work. Thank you for your selflessness, your belief, and most of all your love. This is a happy moment because you are a part of it. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………….iv CHAPTER INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...…1 I. THE DISSIMILAR CONTEXTS OF IRENAEUS AND THE APOLOGISTS………………………………………………..….19 II. GOD THE FATHER…………………………………………………………59 III. THE LOGOS OF GOD……………………………………………………..103 IV. THE SOPHIA OF GOD…………………………………………………….171 V. GOD, LOGOS, SOPHIA…………………………………………………....216 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………261 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………...….270 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACW Ancient Christian Writers ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers Apol. 1 and 2 Apologies ATR Anglican Theological Review Aug Augustinianum AugStud Augustinian Studies Autol. To Autolycus CH Church History Dial. Dialogue with Trypho DTC Dictionnaire de théologie catholique Epid. Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching FC Fathers of the Church Greg Gregorianum Haer. Against Heresies HTR Harvard Theological Review ILC Illinois Classical Studies ITS Indian Theological Studies JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JrnRel Journal of Religion JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JTS Journal of Theological Studies Leg. Legatio LCL Loeb Classical Library NPNF The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NRSV New Revised Standard Version NV Nova et Vetera NVT Nouvelle Revue Théologique RSPHTH Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse SC Sources Chrétiennes SP Studia Patristica SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta