Contra Irenaeum: Christological Recapitulation and Other Doctrines--Part I

While I do not condemn Irenaeus of Lyons ex toto, it is my impression that his teachings are skewed to some extent by the subtle philosophical inclinations that one encounters within his unique brand of "Christian" didache. For while Irenaeus supposedly bases his teaching on the Bible, he equally uses philosophical concepts as part of his theologia: one instance of this Tendenz is his theory of recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις or recirculatio). See https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/recapitulation-christ

Irenaeus bases his recapitulation idea on Eph. 1:9-10. Charles Ryrie explains his teaching in this way:

"Christ recapitulated in Himself all the stages of life including what belongs to us as sinners. His obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience, and this should affect a transformation in our life" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 308 [1986]).

How does Ryrie view the recapitulation doctrine of Irenaeus? Under a section titled "Theories of the Atonement," Ryrie lists Irenaeus' idea as one "theory" among many, then he states:

"As one would expect, various views of the Atonement, both true and false, have been propagated throughout church history. A study of these, even in a summary manner, should do two things: it should help prevent one falling into the same errors others have made, and it should help one to state the truth more precisely because of errors that have been made" (Ryrie, 308 [1986]).

So Ryrie, while not condemning Irenaeus as a false prophet, does seem to affirm that his recapitulation theory is possibly erroneous or mistaken: it does not seem to communicate the truth of Scripture as precisely as one might desire. Yet why does Irenaean recapitulation theory fail to put across the full truth of God's Word concerning Christ's substitutionary act?

If one carefully scrutinizes Irenaeus' recapitulation theory, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a philosophical aura surrounding this idea. For while Irenaeus ostensibly employs Eph. 1:9-10 to buttress his atonement theory, he simultaneously utilizes Aristotle's famed concepts of potentiality and actuality as well. In other words, Irenaeus professes that humans were created with a certain God-given potentiality. But since Adam and Eve did not actualize their God-given potentiality, Christ came to actualize what Adam did not, and what the first human couple's progeny could not actualize. Irenaean theology is thus framed in hylomorphic/Aristotelian terms--not strict Pauline language. Nevertheless, it is not just the language that constitutes a problem; the very philosophical concepts that Irenaeus puts to work in this regard are problematic.

In view of how Christ supposedly actualized his God-given potential, Irenaeus avers, all humans should effect a spiritual transformation in their own lives (Cf. Iren. Haer. 2.22.4; 3.18.1-7; 5.16.2-3). The difficulty with this view, however, is that it skews the Biblical picture of humanity's fall; it also obscures the substitutionary gift of Christ Jesus. Moreover, while the recapitulation theory may not be totally erroneous, it still fails to "state the truth . . . precisely" (Ryrie). This is but one example of Irenaeus' theological misgivings, yet this is not the only scriptural faux pas that he commits. My next post will deal with Irenaeus and the Antichrist.