Introduction
The foundational model to understanding the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ is to be engage with two Patristic church fathers,
Irenaeus of Lyons and Athanasius of Alexandria. Both of these church fathers
had to deal with opposing understanding with Gnostics and Arians that was flourishing
in the Christian community. It was during this period that greater understanding
of incarnation and atonement grew and affirm by the church finally through the
council of Nicaea.
The Discoveries
Irenaeus
We find Irenaeus of Lyon (B.C.E 130-200) (Dicker, 1996, p.
164) at the beginning of the Patristic period. Patristic means in reference “to
the Fathers of the Church” (Hoad, 1996,) and the period is from around the end
of first century to the 8th Century.
Ferguson mention that Irenaeus plays a “pivotal” role in the development
of Christian Theology (Ferguson, 1988, p. 340). Part of this role of Irenaeus
rest of the uprising of beliefs by the Gnostic theology, where he compiled a
number of books to ratify arguments against. It is here where discovery can be
made about his beliefs on the incarnation and atonement of Jesus Christ in the
book, Against Heresies. One such
heresy was “the Docetic view that Christ was a human being in appearance only”
(McGrath, 2011, p. 221). Irenaeus develops his arguments from a position of
scriptures and traditions. Ferguson states, “since Scripture and traditions had
the same content for Irenaeus (i.e. the gospel), “biblical theology” is the
substance of his thought.” (Ferguson, 1988, p. 340) Irenaeus stresses ‘the
unity of Scripture as the historical revelation of ‘one and the same God’ who
initiated different covenants with human beings” (p. 340). The correct
understanding of Scripture was of essential foundation as revelation was given
through “the prophets, Christ and the Apostles”. (p.340) To understand Irenaeus
about incarnation and atonement is the know his thoughts on the Trinity. It is
in the Trinity where God the Son is understood as “the image of God’s Word and
Wisdom (Christ and the Holy Spirit) as the ‘two hands of God’.” (p. 341)
Ferguson alludes to God’s Word and Christ are the same by Irenaeus. Christ and
the Word are the same who is “the fully divine Son of God became the Son of Man
for human salvation.” (p. 341) The point of Christ’s incarnation for Irenaeus
is through the virgin birth, where the divine becomes flesh and able to
experience life as a human. Ferguson states that “retracing the steps of
humanity in order to bring humanity to perfection in himself (recapitulation).
The tracing of life from birth to death as a human, “reversed the effect of
Adam’s disobedience” (p. 341) through the blood and death of Jesus. The death
enables “forgiveness of sins” and Jesus’ resurrection a claim to victory over
death and the devil. Irenaeus understanding of Christ help “by the second
century, Irenaeus is able to summarize the Trinitarian and Christocentre rule
of faith that is accepted by the church ‘scattered throughout the whole world”
Migliore, 2014, p.61)
Athanasius
Another church father was Athanasius of Alexandria that was enthrone
into defence against Arianism. Athanasius lived in the Patristic period (c.
297-373) and had a hazardous time as bishop. The incarnation and atonement of
Jesus played a very central role in maintaining “the Word-become-man” against
the Arians. Bray states that “Arius believed that Jesus Christ was a heavenly
being, intermediate between God and man, but nevertheless a creature” (Bray,
1988, p. 138). Walker enshrine the “central to Athanasius’ faith and theology
was the incarnation of the word of God, climaxing in the death and
resurrection” (Walker, 1988, p. 52) which drives him. Both the incarnation and
atonement are held together as unseparated from each activity (Crisp, 2013,
p.23). Within Athanasius On the
Incarnation, displays his beliefs around the doctrine of creation and
noting the place of humanity. From the creation account, Athanasius maintain
that only the Creator can restore humanity by taking on flesh, living the human
life, facing death on the cross and turning the instrument of shame to a prize
of victory because of the resurrection. (Walker, 1988, p. 52)
Comparison and Constrast
One the principles shared by Irenaeus and Athanasius is to
exposed false gospels according to Migliore and rejected the Gnostics and
Arians respectively (2014, p.11). It is noted by Crisp where Irenaeus and
Athanasius are in the same light “… to take seriously that in Christ the Son
assume full humanity in order to redeem it” (2013, p. 198). Another area of
similarity is the use of typology to address incarnation and atonement,
Irenaeus through the imagery of the virgin birth (Ferguson, 1988, p. 341). Athanasius
through the temple image employed by Jesus (John 2:21) and Wisdom from before
the beginning (Prov. 8:23) is noted by Crisp as …” the substance of his
Christology emerges from his elaboration of biblical paradigms” (1988, pp.
116-117). Much can be said about the validation use of typology in noted in
Crisp (pp. 119-120) but is beyond the scope of this paper. What separates Irenaeus and Athanasius is the
field of theology, Irenaeus is biblical while Athanasius is dogmatic according
to Wright (1988, p. 495).
Conclusion
In the Patristic period, the formation of the incarnation
and atonement were beginning to take place form the influences of Irenaeus of
Lyons and Athanasius of Alexandria. At the beginning, I established the period
and the nature of the issue and with whom. Both of them had to deal with opposing
theology about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The influences
of the Gnostics and Arians greatly impacted on the early church believers. To
combat against the rising tide required Irenaeus and Athanasius to firstly
examine the teaching of the Gnostics and Arians, which raise questions about
the nature of the Son of God, the Christ and Jesus. It was also discovering
that incarnation and atonement were always held together by Irenaeus and
Athanasius and never separated. What I endeavour to offer in comparison and
contrast lead to the discovery of similarities that each in terminology, they
shared the same ambition to correct false trues, and the use of typology to
explain the nature of incarnation and atonement. It is being noted that
scholars view Irenaeus was biblical and Athanasius was dogmatic in their field
of theology towards the study of incarnation and atonement of Jesus, the Son of
God.
Bibliography/Reference
List
(1996). patristic. In Hoad,
T. (Ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.: Oxford
University Press, Retrieved 6 Sep. 2018, from http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/view/10.1093/acref/9780192830982.001.0001/acref-9780192830982-e-10986.
Bray,
G. I. (1988). Christology. In S.B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright (Eds). New
Dictionary of Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Crisp.
O. D., Sanders, F (Eds). (2013). Christology Ancient & Modern: Explorations
in Constructive Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Dicker,
G. S. (1996). Faith with understanding. Melbourne: The Joint Board of Christian
Education.
Ferguson,
E. (1988) Irenaeus. In S.B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright (Eds). New Dictionary of
Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
McGrath,
A (Ed). (2011). The Christian Theology Reader. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Migliore,
D. L. (2014). Faith seeking understanding: An introduction to Christian
Theology. (3rd Ed). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Walker,
J. B. (1988) Athanasius. In S.B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright (Eds). New Dictionary
of Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Wright,
D. F. (1988) Patristic Theology. In S.B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright (Eds). New
Dictionary of Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
