Fuller Theological Seminary

Analytical Paper for

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

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

CH501 Patristic Theology

Dr. R.A. Muller

By

Jack Hakimian

Summer 2007
 Section 1

Irenaeus was from the city of Lyons. We know that he was born around A.D. 140

in Asia Minor and later moved to southern part of Gaul. He became pretty influential as

an elder in that church and was used to transmit a message to the bishop of Rome by the

martyrs in Gaul.1 When he came back he was appointed a bishop and wrote his most

famous work, A Detection and refutation of the Falsely Named “Knowledge” or what

others have titled, Against Heresies .2 Irenaeus of Lyons sets out to refute the Gnostic

teachings of Marcion and other heretical teachers.

We find similar battles taking place in the next generation with a theologian by

the name of Tertullian. Tertullian was born in Carthage, North Africa around 150 A.D.

Trained as a lawyer and rhetorician he argued for a pure Christian doctrine and practice.

While Irenaeus argued for the Unity of God as creator of the material world, Tertullian

argued that the salvation of humankind involved the entire person, “body, soul and

spirit”.3 Tertullian saw in scripture a God who loves the physical bodies of mankind’s to

the point that he himself becomes flesh and begins the process of redemption as the Head

and firstborn from the dead. 4

1
Pg 10
2
Pg 10
3
Pg 13
4
Pg 13
 Section 2

Irenaeus book, Against Heresies aims to destroy the false teachings of Marcion

and other teachers he sums up as Gnostics.5 The main point Irenaeus argues is that the

creator God of the Old Testament is truly indeed the one true divine God. There is no

“two Gods”. One that is responsible for the material world and another who is

responsible for the spiritual. Irenaeus argues that divine creator God created the temporal

material world with a perspective that everything is “good”.6 Also, Irenaeus argues that

the God of Biblical history has always been intimately involved with his creation.

Ultimately he demonstrated his redemptive plan in the person of Christ who was not only

fully divine, but human. In Christ we find “the unity of God with humanity and the unity

of human history with God”.7

Tertuullian in his book Against Praxeas argued against the “Monarchians” who

said there was no difference between the Son and the Creator God who is father. If there

was it wouldn’t be “monarchy” or one rule.8 Tertullian responds by stating that a

monarchy to be one does not have to one ruler. Rather a “Father King” can rule as He

pleases and can share his managerial work with a Son.9 In making his case he uses the

legal understanding of “substance and person”. The substance is the property or essence

of God, and the person is the possessor or owner of that property (essence). In this way

5
Pg 10
6
Genesis 1
7
Pg 12
8
Pg 178 A History of Christian Thought
9
Pg 178 A History of Christian Thought
there is one “monarchy” substance or essence and three persons (who posses property),

the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Each are part of the economy of God, they share an

organic relationship with distinct roles.10 As Gonzales puts it, “Trinity seems to be an

essential unity with secondary distinctions.”11

Section 3

Irenaeus
Summary of Ideas:
Christ becoming flesh does not mean he
had no prior existence; rather he put on
humanity to accomplish salvation.
Humanity could not pay the ransom since
they themselves are fallen under the
domination of sin. (49)
He summed up the long history of man and
accomplished salvation at a moment of
time. Essentially he accomplished God’s
plan of salvation and bore our sins as a
substitute (49-51)
Irenaeus argues that you cannot make a
distinction between a Spiritual Christ and a
human Jesus. They are both one and
scripture refers to the physically suffering
person on the cross as Christ.
He argues that if wasn’t a physically Christ
why would he exhort his followers to pick
up their cross and suffer like him. That
would be unjust. History tells us the
apostles did suffer as martyrs. That means
their suffering was in vain for they seek to
Tertullian
Summary of Ideas:
The followers of Valentinus make
distinctions between the Father and the
Son. They say the Son is flesh (human) and
the Father is the Spirit (divinity).
The Word did not become transformed into
flesh, but rather put on flesh. If he would
have been transformed he would have lost
some of his properties and thus become a
tertium quid (63).
He uses John 3 passage where Jesus made
distinction of the being born humanly and
being born spiritually to argue that Jesus
had both a human and divine attributes, yet
was fully God. He even quotes 1 Timothy
2:5 to validate his point.
There are heretics who claim the flesh does
not rise from the dead. By doing that they
deny that Jesus came in the flesh and
resurrected the third day. They imply that it
was not really flesh, but merely looked like
flesh (64). Marcionites teach their was no

10
11
Pg 180 A History of Christian Thought
follow the example of their Lord who also
physically suffered.
That Christ forgave His enemies while
physically suffering is patient and loving ,
therefore better than the Christ who flew
away from suffering of the cross (53)
If Christ didn’t suffer physically then there
is no passion. If there is no passion then we
would feel deceived when we suffer for
Him (53)
If Christ did not go through every sate of
humanity we would not be able to share in
adoption as God’s sons. Rather he fully by
becoming human restored communion with
God (54).
People who say that Jesus is an ordinary
man are in danger of death, because they
deny that God ever gave a remedy of their
sin (55). The only way for God to the deal
with the consequences of our sin, was to
become a sin offering for us (56).
Jesus became human to be tempted like us,
and reminded as logos (divine) so he may
be glorified. (56)That is why he was called
the Son of God and Son of Man. Ultimately
he did so that he can raise humanity unto
eternal life as he himself did as the Head of
the church (57).
Only the logos could teach us the
“mysteries of God”, properly teach us the
ways of God. It is by seeing him and
hearing his voice that we learn the truth
(57).
birth, so they can deny the flesh of Christ
(65).
It is not impossible for God to be born or to
do anything He chooses. He chose to be
born, therefore he was flesh. He wouldn’t
want appear to be something he really
didn’t want to be, because it is not in God’s
nature to even appear like something that
He considers ugly or wicked (65). He really
seams to use deductive argumentation here.
You can see his skills as a lawyer coming
forth (65).
God can change into a human being and
not lose his divinity. He is very different
from created things that lose their
properties when they change. Even angels
turn into tangible properties, but remain as
angels. How much more God? He remains
divine even in the person of Jesus Christ
(66).
The Gospel of John which Marcion rejects
claims that Spirit came upon Jesus in a
dove like state. When this happened the
Spirit did not lose it proper substance (67).
Marcion rejects the humanity of Christ
because he views it as unworthy of God.
He doesn’t realize that God loves human
beings and is willing to become one to save
them (68).
God was truly born, crucified, and risen.
That is why Paul declared, “to know
among us only one who had been
crucified?” That is why he is called “Son of
Man”. That is why Jesus challenged us not
be ashamed of him (68, 69).
Christ has a twofold substance which
reveals Him to be both human and both
God. In virtue of one born; in virtue of the
other, unborn. In virtue of the one he was
fleshly; in virtue of the other, spiritual. In
virtue of the one he was feeble; in virtue of
the other, mighty. In virtue of the one he
 was dying; in virtue of the other, alive (71)

People, who say Christ only appeared to be He also argues against those who claim that
human, don’t speak with objectively. Jesus Christ flesh had a soul. They claim
Secondly, God would be misleading people that the soul is made up of the flesh. That
if he appeared to be human when in reality Jesus Christ came only to save the soul.
He was a Spirit. Thirdly, the prophets Tertullian argues that even if he came to
spoke about Him as he would appear in the save the soul, which he did, with the body,
actual flesh. If he wasn’t flesh in the the soul is not made up of the flesh, but
formation of Adam then he wouldn’t be apart from the flesh (71,72)
able to redeem us by His blood (58-59).
It appears that the Ebonite don’t believe
that God put on flesh to reach humanity.
They view God as transcendent and holy to
the point that he would not mix with sinful
humans by becoming incarnate. They must
view the material world as evil. Irenaeus
argues that the Holy Spirit was united to
Adam when he formed Him and breathed
the breath of life into his being (59).
God never forgot his promise, “Let us
make humanity after our image and
likeness” (Gen 1:26). That is why through
Christ he accomplished the task by sending
a second Adam that can restore the image
(60).

Tertullian’s tone, in contrast to Irenaeus, seems to be more aggressive. For example he

starts his polemic by stating, “Why, though, do I delay over such obvious matters when I

ought to be tackling the arguments in which they attempt to take the obvious and obscure

it?”12 Some of the difference I noted is that Tertullian more than Irenaeus presents

exhortations in his polemic to the heretics asking them to respond positively to the truths

of his argument (71). It appears he has one point in mind. That is to persuade his

opponents to make a decision to follow the truth as they hear his arguments. Tertullian

12
Pg 61
uses scripture, but not to the same degree as Irenaeus. Rather he seems to make use of

analogies. For example he responds to the argument of Jesus transforming into flesh by

comparing it to gold and silver loosing their essential properties when mixing. He

physically sets out to prove that if the Logos transformed into a human thru the virgin

birth, he would of not been either human or God, but a third type of being (63).

Section 4

It is clear that the church was in danger of being influenced with Gnostic, Jewish

legalism, and other heresies. Yet these theologians dealt with the crucial matters of

scriptural authority, methods of interpretation, rule of faith, etc. They helped preserve

Christian traditions and orthodoxy in a time where the faith was vulnerable to become

just another sect with no authoritative presence.

Irenaeus and Tertullian in comparison to Origen seem to have a more balanced

approach to the interpretation and use of scripture. They seem to argue from scripture and

apply it based on its historical grammatical context. I wonder if they have something to

do with the formation of the Antichene Interpretative Methods.