Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Heresies

Irenaeus of Lyons

Book 2 · Chapter 20

About this work

A five-book account and refutation of competing Christian movements that also develops Irenaeus’s positive theology of creation, Scripture, apostolic tradition, incarnation, salvation, and recapitulation in Christ.

Author: Irenaeus of Lyons
Date: c. AD 175–185
Origin: Lyons, Gaul
Genre: Heresiology

Futility of the arguments adduced to demonstrate the sufferings of the twelfth Æon, from the parables, the treachery of Judas, and the passion of our Saviour.

Section 1

1. That they improperly and illogically apply both

‹ Book 2 · Chapter 19 Book 2 · Chapter 21 ›

the

parables

and

the

actions

of

the

Lord

to

their

falsely

-

devised

system

,

I

prove

as

follows

:

They

endeavour

,

for

instance

,

to

demonstrate

that

passion

which

,

they

say

,

happened

in

the

case

of

the

twelfth

Æon

,

from

this

fact

,

that

the

passion

of

the

Saviour

was

brought

about

by

the

twelfth

apostle

,

and

happened

in

the

twelfth

month

.

For

they

hold

that

He

preached

[

only

]

for

one

year

after

His

baptism

.

They

maintain

also

that

the

same

thing

was

clearly

set

forth

in

the

case

of

her

who

suffered

from

the

issue

of

blood

.

For

the

woman

suffered

during

twelve

years

,

and

through

touching

the

hem

of

the

Saviour’s

garment

she

was

made

whole

by

that

power

which

went

forth

from

the

Saviour

,

and

which

,

they

affirm

,

had

a

.

For

that

Power

who

suffered

was

stretching

herself

outwards

and

flowing

into

immensity

,

so

that

she

was

in

danger

of

being

dissolved

into

the

general

substance

[

of

the

Æons

]

;

but

then

,

touching

the

primary

Tetrad

,

which

is

typified

by

the

hem

of

the

garment

,

she

was

arrested

,

and

ceased

from

her

passion

.

Section 2

2. Then, again, as to their assertion that the passion of the twelfth Æon was proved through the conduct of Judas, how is it possible that Judas can be compared [with this Æon] as being an emblem of her—he who was expelled from the number of the twelve, and never restored to his place? For that Æon, whose type they declare Judas to be, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored or recalled [to her former position]; but Judas was deprived [of his office], and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, “And his bishopric let another take.” They ought therefore to maintain that the twelfth Æon was cast out of the Pleroma, and that another was produced, or sent forth to fill her place; if, that is to say, she is pointed at in Judas. Moreover, they tell us that it was the Æon herself who suffered, but Judas was the betrayer, [and not the sufferer.] Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to [the endurance of] passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that Æon who suffered?

Section 3

3. But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the Æon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely accidental passion; not only was He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The Æon, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was not able to find Him; but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, “ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men,” and conferred on those that believe in Him the power “to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy,” that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while He manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But their Æon, when she had suffered, established ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced—death, corruption, error, and such like.

Section 4

4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering Æon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number. For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel. But this Æon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for, according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve Æons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary,] as having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that Æon who occupies the thirtieth place?

Section 5

5. But if they say that Judas in perishing was the image of her Enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any analogy to that truth which [by hypothesis] corresponds to it. For the Enthymesis having been separated from the Æon, and itself afterwards receiving a shape from Christ, then being made a partaker of intelligence by the Saviour, and having formed all things which are outside of the Pleroma, after the image of those which are within the Pleroma, is said at last to have been received by them into the Pleroma, and, according to [the principle of] conjunction, to have been united to that Saviour who was formed out of all. But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, “Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed;” and, “It were better for him if he had never been born;” and he was called the “son of perdition” by Him. If, however, they say that Judas was a type of the Enthymesis, not as separated from the Æon, but of the passion entwined with her, neither in this way can the number twelve be regarded as a [fitting] type of the number three. For in the one case Judas was cast away, and Matthias was ordained instead of him; but in the other case the Æon is said to have been in danger of dissolution and destruction, and [there are also] her Enthymesis and passion: for they markedly distinguish Enthymesis from the passion; and they represent the Æon as being restored, and Enthymesis as acquiring form, but the passion, when separated from these, as becoming matter. Since, therefore, there are thus these three, the Æon, her Enthymesis, and her passion, Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot be the types of them.

Notes

113
Or, “from the twelfth number”—the twelfth position among the apostles.
114
Acts i. 20, from Ps. cix. 8.
115
The text is here uncertain. Most editions read “et quæ non cederet,” but Harvey prefers “quæ non accederet” (for “accideret”), and remarks that the corresponding Greek would be καὶ οὐ τυχόν, which we have translated as above.
116
“Corruptum hominem.”
117
Ps. lxviii. 18; Eph. iv. 8.
118
Luke x. 19; [Mark xvi. 17, 18.]
119
Though the reading “substituit” is found in all the mss. and editions, it has been deemed corrupt, and “sustinuit” has been proposed instead of it. Harvey supposes it the equivalent of ὑπέστησε, and then somewhat strangely adds “for ἀπέστησε.” There seems to us no difficulty in the word, and consequently no necessity for change.
120
Compare, in illustration of this sentence, book i. 4, 1, and i. 4, 5.
121
Matt. xxvi. 24.
122
Mark xiv. 21.
123
John xvii. 12.