The Christological Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyons and Karl Barth

245 Pages·2016·17.58 MB·English

This electronic thesis or dissertation has been
downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/
The glory of God : the Christological anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyons and Karl Barth
Reeves, Michael
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it
may be published without proper acknowledgement.
END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT
Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Under the following conditions:
 Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any
way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
 Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
 No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and
other rights are in no way affected by the above.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing
details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 07. Mar. 2023
THE GLORY OF GOD
The Christological Anthropology Irenaeus
of
Lyons Karl Barth
of and
Michael Reeves
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
KING'S COLLEGE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON AND OF THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
2004
ceUD 1
Abstract
This thesis to the in is informed by
seeks examine manner which anthropology
Christology in the thought Irenaeus Lyons Karl Barth. It does by
of of and so placing
the two theologians in turn, to
alongside each other and examining each allowing each
illuminate the heuristic device to draw the issues
other, so providing an out and clarify
they their
address and respective approaches and models.
Three questions are put to each in an attempt, not to constrain, but to give full space to
their first, `Who is Man? ' (concerning
articulate anthropology: methodology and
looking to obtain a preliminary conclusion); second, `What is Man? ' (analysing the
detail of what human being and becoming can then be said to be); and third `When is
Man? ' (concerning the doctrine time being destiny).
of and man's origin, and
In that it takes two subjects so separated in time, it should be clear that this examination
is a work of systematic as opposed to historical theology. Historically they are far
they As Irenaeus
apart; systematically are easily comparable. such, not only can and
Barth be by for but be brought into
placed side side examination, they can also easily
debates
conversation with contemporary anthropological and concerns.
Whilst it does in fact do so, the goal of the thesis is not simply to prove the merits of
Christological instead it
demonstration
anthropology; serves as more of an exploratory
of the diverse possibilities that are available when it is affirmed that Jesus Christ is the
revelation and reality of the being of man. That is, whilst the anthropologies of
Irenaeus and Barth can, all their separation in time, be shown to bear a remarkable
-for
similarity to each other because informed by Christology, they can also be shown to be
in their differences, because informed by different Christologies. Thus,
striking
we will
Christological be
see, anthropology cannot accepted as an unambiguous category or
single project.
2
Contents
4
Abbreviations
INTRODUCTION 5
PART I: IRENAEUS 8
1. Who is Man? 9
i. The Gnostic Dissolution Man 9
of
ii. The Proper Object Anthropology 16
of
iii. Homo Humanus 22
iv. A Revised Methodology 43
2. What is Man? 49
i. Spirit Man 50
and
ii. Spirit Flesh 56
and
iii. Deification Hominisation 73
and
3. When is Man? 81
i. Redeeming Time 82
ii. One Economy Father, Son Spirit 92
of and
iii. The Cause Incarnation 97
the
of
PART!!: BARTH 108
4. Who is Man? 109
i. Pioneering New Anthropology? 109
a
ii. Man as the Creature of the Trinity 119
iii. Man Male Female 133
as and
5. What is Man? 146
i. Spirit Man 146
and
ii. Man Saul Body 166
as and
iii. Conclusion 179
6. When is Man? 183
i. Jesus, Lord Time 184
of
ii. The Covenant the Presupposition Reconciliation 202
as of
iii. Conclusion 217
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 218
i. The Polyvalence Christological Anthropology 219
of
ii. The Promise Christological Anthropology 225
of
Select Bibliography
232
3
Abbreviations
AH Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (in the Massuet)
numeration of
Dent. Irenaeus, Demonstration the Apostolic Preaching
of
Frag. Irenaeus, Fragment
I Ap. Justin Martyr, First Apology
II Ap. Justin Martyr, Second Apology
Dial. Justin Martyr, Dialogue Trypho
with
EH Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
CD Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1-4, G. W. Bromiley
vols eds.
T. F. Torrance; trans. G. W. Bromiley Edinburgh: T.
and
et al.
& T. Clark, 1956-75
KD Karl Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik (Munich: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, 1932 Zurich: TVZ 1938-65)
and
I
4
Introduction
The Glory God
of
Introduction
At the 'O L#M6 the navel of the Greek world at its classical height, stood the temple of
,
Apollo Delphi. On its the that Socrates to take his
at walls was written maxim was as
FVO)OL EEauiöv ('Know Thyself'). Thus two things implied to the Hellenic
Own: were
knowledge knowledge in be
mind: that and of man particular could acquired
- -
immanently; insuperable distance between Olympus Athens,
and that there was an and
between `the immortals' between God Neither the
and mere mortals, and man. pivotal
in fundamental
theology the two
role of anthropology and philosophy, nor assumptions
have disappeared.
Questions have to Such the
about man certainly some claim pre-eminence. was
first ('Man, '), is
the
question where are you? and such question automatically elicited
1
God ('Who I? '). Indeed, in it is
the
on meeting of and man am many ways questions
the identity (or lack it) that today, from
and assumptions about of man of shape society
fashion industry `self-realisation'
to the the
psychology and medical ethics and
Yet then, it is the introspection the Delphic that
movement. now, as of maxim still
dominates in his God
to the
methodology questions about man and relation and world
.
him. Feuerbach's `knowledge God is
that
around assertion of self-knowledge' can only
be by `knowledge is
the that
supported anthropological assumption of man self-
knowledge'. The is look like its
that,
result anthropology can much a puppy chasing
tail, for the is thus both the the his
anthropologist subject and object of own
investigation. As by Sphinx, be impossible
the then
shown man can something of an
It is that the third finds himself helplessly far
riddle. no wonder man of millennium so
into identity In to this, has to deal
an crisis. reaction much anthropology attempted
humanity in (the incomprehensible
the the tribe
with abstract or as other remote and
human image familiar
that through the
enables understanding negative of customs).
Such detached in treating inevitably tends to dehumanise. Yet,
study, man as a sample,
1
Gen. 3: 9; Exod. 3: 11
5
Introduction
The Glory God
of
`I do
G. K. Chesterton stated in his perhaps most masterful work on anthropology
as
Z
believe in being dehumanised in order to study humanity'. The intention of this
not
is by to be humanised.
study the very opposite: considering man,
The two subjects of this study, Irenaeus of Lyons and Karl Barth, each from
Church history,
opposite ends of post-apostolic are radical anthropologists of a very
different school to Delphi. They seek to be theologians first, and to think theologically
Christianly. John Behr has that both
and noted were aware of, and successfully
managed to avoid, the temptation `to use a general concept of man to explain who the
second person of the Trinity is, rather than a concept of man understood in terms of
3
what God has revealed in Jesus Christ'. That is the revolution both offer, and the
theological issue at the core of this study: `a concept of man understood in terms of
God has in Jesus Christ'. What that however, is by
what revealed comes of revolution,
Two distinct, if be to
no means predictable. quite complementary, accounts can seen
from first be
to
rise what appears at a single source.
In order to appreciate those accounts and so to come to an understanding of
some of the possibilities of what we shall see to be the extremely broad category of
Christological it is to in detail their
anthropology, necessary analyse respective
This is that It is that
contributions. not we might accept either anthropology wholesale.
hope danger
only with such thorough appraisals can we to avoid the ubiquitous of
into debates. If
them to they
simply squeezing relevance contemporary questions and
do in fact truly Christian hope to
offer anthropology, only so can we avoid simply
Christian flourishes.
garnishing non-theological anthropology with
We in two for theologian, the
will proceed parts, one each each part mirroring
That done, final
three to
other and consisting of major sections. we can come some
Even final by their
attempt at resolution and conclusion. without such resolution, aided
illuminative
the
arrangement alongside each other, each should prove as of other as of
The three dealt in be: the the
man. main matters with each will method used and
by (approached `Who is Man? ');
through the
general conclusion reached each question
the detailing human being (and becoming) then be to be (approached
of what can said
through the `What is Man? '); finally, the temporal framework
question and within
man finds his being destiny (approached `When
through the
which origin, and question
is Man? '). It become through the the thesis that the three
should apparent course of
do form fails
the three that to
questions not simply strands of some crude artificial net
2
Chesterton, G. K., The Everlasting Man (repr. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 23
3
Behr, J., `The Word God in the Second Century' Pro Ecclesia IX, 1 (2000), 85-107,86
of
6
The Glory God Introduction
of
information distorting it does instead,
the these
gather all relevant whilst what collect;
both instruct
the that theologians the to
are questions effectively reader ask.
Two before begin: first, have
words of explanation we where possible, we
the traditional translation Irenaeus' homo/ävOpwiioc Barth's Mensch by
retained of and
`man', it for the term `human being'. Whilst,
and not substituted gender-neutral no
doubt, is done in be
this to this that
will cause some unease many, order we might more
(and both
to the the they
sensitive anthropology understanding of gender) actually
fact it is hoped, become increasingly As
present, a which, should clear. a provisional
in does like
that this to
comfort we can note neither amount anything a marginalisation
femininity; is it for homo/äv@pumoc
to that, theologian,
of nor so simple as say either or
Mensch is
paradigmatically male.
Second, be
to the
what may appear extraordinary and unjustifiable straddling of
by from is, in
the twentieth
eighteen centuries a concentration on subjects second and
fact, the the For, to take their
strength of study. whilst needing account of respective
historical this is historical but The
situations, not an survey a systematic study. proof
lie in
can only the pudding, yet already we might note that the applicability of the same
to both itself demonstrates the Irenaeus' Barth's
questions commensurate nature of and
the them
relevant material, showing validity and value of placing alongside each other.
Read their is in their for
on own, each undeniably enlightening proposal a
Christological differences
the
anthropology; yet very of context as much as response
enable both to set each other off to even greater effect, each helping to draw attention to
both the the the in doing how
strengths and weaknesses of other, so revealing variously
Christology can inform anthropology. It is through two eyes that we will be able to see
the Christological
more clearly promise of anthropology.
7
PART I:
IRENAEUS
The Glory God. Part One: Irenaeus I Who is Man?
of
1
'
Who is Man?
The Gnostic Dissolution Man
of
The in the Church that to the ideals
movement early post-apostolic most came embody
Delphi Gnosticism. It the the that the
of Evas was middle of second century saw
Gnostic
proliferation of what are now called schemes of cosmology and soteriology,
Church day intellectual
the the the
presenting of with most complex, subtle and serious
to
its The Gnosticism (supposedly
threat that the the
gospel. notion progeny of
heresiarch the book Acts, Simon Magus) homogenous
of of was ever an system was
2
by their has been thoroughly debunked today. Under
never assumed adversaries, and
loosely leadership Ozymandian
the the
extremely associated of men such as self-styled
Gnostic Valentinus (Irenaeus' Irenaeus felt,
most potent and creative adversary, who,
3),
had heresy Christ had history Marcion, Basilides,
recapitulated all as recapitulated all
Saturninus, Carpocrates, Bardesanes, Marcus, Tatian, Cerdo Cerinthus
and were such
disparate the Simonians, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Encratites, Ophites
sects as or
Naasenes, Sethians, Cainites Archontics. `Homogenous' in fact, be last
the
and would,
in description
to the
word use of a compilation of such opiate complexity and obscurity,
fruit (particularly Alexandrian) Oriental Hellenic
of a composting of and philosophies.
However the term is bowdlerised
still a useful crudity and so we may present a
Gnostic follows. The
synthesis of cosmogony somewhat as prime realm consisted of
II) (Fullness), divine beings (aiaivror),
the the
pwµa a collection of or quasi-divine root
the HIpoapXrj BuOOq (Abyss). The the hylic,
of which was or other realm was with only
indirect former. This
to the the
connections realm was afterbirth of a celestial
disruption That is, (Eoýia) had, for her
the the
amongst aicSvtor. one of atcSvLor
hubristic lust to the Incomprehensible (having been tempted by NoOS),
comprehend
1
The is inspired by the LXX (A) Psa. 8: 4, has (who? ) instead
question alternative reading of which TLS of
(what? ). We hope it it
to that, the the
ri establish whether or not was question psalmist was asking, was
certainly the question of preliminary significance for Irenaeus (and Karl Barth).
2Williams,
M. A., Rethinking 'Gnosticism': for dismantling dubious (Princeton:
an argument a category
Princeton University Press, 1996)
3
Adversus Haereses (henceforth AH) 4. 2. Valentinus from
cited as pref. was a particular threat, not only
the apparent winsomeness of his argument, but due to his position within the Church as a whole, once
having been to have become Bishop Rome (Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos 4). Though
expected of
he was proud of the title `Gnostic', it should be remembered that the term did not have the connotations
be it.
that came to associated with
9