St. Irenæus: Infernalist, Conditionalist, or Closet Universalist?
The Saint of Lyons
Irenæus was a bishop in Lyons, France. He was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John the apostle). He lived in the second century, and doctrinally opposed the teachings of the Gnostics. He composed a 5 volume book (Against Heresies), and its entity was preserved in Latin, but only some Greek fragments survived.
The purpose of this post is to discover what Irenaeus believed about hell or the fate of the wicked. Did he teach eternal torment, total destruction, or universal restoration? I make the attempt to revive his views of hell or the afterlife.
His Writings in Latin (E.T. or C.I.)
A conditionalist will argue that Irenaeus affirmed that the gift of immortality is for the soul to continue to exist. They argue that souls do not continue to exist, and that he embraced this philosophy. They quote him saying:
“The Lord has taught with very great fullness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased…”
However, if one reads his writings within context, you won’t conclude that Irenaeus was a conditionalist. He was attempting to refute unorthodox ideals in his works. Here’s a continuation of the quote above:
“in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states Luke 16:19, etc. that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — [Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. (2) By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class [of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment…”
Irenaeus uses scriptural narratives or stories told in the Scripture to prove that souls do continue after death and are separate entities from the gift of life. Because life and the soul are separate entities, then their natures differ. Philosophically, the soul has capacities (volition, imagination, memory) and life is the very essence or presence of God, which brings consolation and strength to the soul, not continuance or a perpetual state of existence. The next quote states as follows:
“But as the animal body is certainly not itself the soul, yet has fellowship with the soul as long as God pleases; so the soul herself is not life, but partakes in that life bestowed upon her by God. Wherefore also the prophetic word declares of the first-formed man, He became a living soul, Genesis 2:7 teaching us that by the participation of life the soul became alive; so that the soul, and the life which it possesses, must be understood as being separate existences. When God therefore bestows life and perpetual duration, it comes to pass that even souls which did not previously exist should henceforth endure [for ever], since God has both willed that they should exist, and should continue in existence. For the will of God ought to govern and rule in all things, while all other things give way to Him, are in subjection, and devoted to His service. Thus far, then, let me speak concerning the creation and the continued duration of the soul.”
Any conditionalist or annihilationalist misquote Irenaeus’ belief to affirm the discontinuance of the soul. Irenaeus attempts to refute the folly of the soul’s lack of continuance after the body’s death, or the transmigration of souls. But now let’s analyze the sayings of Irenaeus. Because traditionalists take some portions in the Latin works like “eternal fire” or “without end” to imply eternal torment. But if you study the Greek fragments, he isn’t claiming this Eternal Torment nonsense!
Greek Fragments (Universalist?)
In his known works, they tend to cite this quote to affirm their eternal torment theology:
“But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending”
And now their English translation comes from the Latin, but the Latin is a mistranslation of Irenaeus’ work in Koine Greek. So in hopes of arguing my case, I will not argue any other Latin portion of “Against Heresies” without a Greek fragment, but there is one Latin portion I will make an exception for (due to my familiarity of the Greek and Latin connections). The claim is that good things from God are eternal and without end, but why is there a need to repeat the same concept in two ways (in the same sentence). I analyzed the Greek portions and it turns out, the Latin is wrong.
“Good things from God are great in quality and great in quantity, but the loss of such are extreme in quality and in quantity” (Translation of Greek Fragments).
The word aionion or aionios never conveys an endless duration of time, but rather conveys an age in a literal sense, or conveys the quality of something in a rhetorical sense. The word ateleftita (άτελεύτητα) might convey an endless duration (certainly in modern Greek) but like aionios, it also conveys a rhetorical definition. Instead of conveying the extreme quality of something, it expresses the view of quantity. Quality means performance and quantity means size. I could want a burger that is large in quantity but excellent in quality of its taste. The loss of good attributes do not negate its existence in quality or quantity. You can have light that is keen in size and performance, but you can also have darkness that encompasses a large area (quantity) and appear very present in a room, which deprives much visibility (quality). A shadow doesn’t deprive much visibility, but an enclosed space without light does.
And Irenaeus’ use of “poena” in Latin does mean “retributive punishment” but his use of this word in Greek is “remedial punishment”. So the chastisement that God offers to the wicked is purgatorial and restorative, not punitive or totally destructive. The Greek word he uses is Κολάζοντος (Kolazontos) which is a variation of κόλασις (kolasis) that is remedial in nature, not punitive. It is a gardening word that was used to prune trees in hopes of maturing it.
The Latin word “æterna” is used for this quote in Irenaeus:
“thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal [æterna]”.
Whenever “æterna” is being used, I remind myself that the Greek word typically translated as “eternal” by mistake is aionion or aionios. So it can be translated as: “thus also the corrective chastisement of those who deny the Word of God, and reject His advent (maybe presence), and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also great [in quality].” The chastisement of their turning away is temporal but also extreme in quality, concerning their afterlife experience. This is what he meant in regard to the fate of the dead who denied Christ. A temporal but great remedial chastisement. If purification for the dead or correction for the wicked is mentioned, there is no need to mention the redemption of the wicked, because it is all left to simple deduction. There is a possibility that implying their redemption, instead of directly stating it again, was a form of discomfort for them in expressing the eventual return of the formerly wicked men, who are to later join with God in paradise. So Irenaeus, despite his implication, was a universalist but a closet one at that. This statement and logic of Irenaeus suggests universal restorationist:
“God drove Adam out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, in compassion for him, that he might not remain a transgressor always, and that the sin in which he was involved might not be immortal, nor be without end and incurable. He prevented further transgression by the interposition of death, and by causing sin to cease by the dissolution of the flesh * * * that man ceasing to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God” (Book 3, Ch. 23, P6).
Re-edited: Feb. 12th, 2023
Me:
Can this ατελεύτητος mean great quality [of something or someone]? <I’m asking for confirmation>
Chat GPT:
Yes, in some contexts the word “ατελεύτητος” can mean “great quality.” In ancient Greek, the word “ατελεύτητος” was often used to describe qualities or attributes that were considered to be permanent, unchanging, and everlasting. In this sense, it could refer to things or people of high quality, as high quality is often thought to be enduring and long-lasting.
