Irenaeus and The Rule of Faith: What the 21st Century Church can Learn

Irenaeus understands scripture through the rule of faith (regula fidei) handed down by the church (ejkklhsiva). Against Heresies illuminates Irenaeus’ interpretation of scripture, not because the rule of faith is clearly defined, but because of his apologetic against Gnosticism. The rule of faith is an assumption that naturally permeates the text in Against Heresies. Reno and O’Keefe postulate a convincing point that the rule of faith is the principle interpretative key for the early church fathers. “The rule promises to order our interpretation so that, however impossible might be a complete and final reading of the whole of the divine testimony, ‘all scripture . . . shall be found by us perfectly consistent.” The rule of faith is the banks of the theological river. When a hermeneutical method flows down inside the banks of the river, orthodoxy remains. Problems occur when methods go from the river and onto the shore, as Irenaeus claims of the Gnostics. As a result heterodoxy arises.

How Irenaeus utilizes the rule of faith is instructive for Christian traditions that lack tradition.  Against Heresies becomes informative regarding tradition for local churches located in a world of various ideas; pluralism; and clear confusion about the Christian faith. For better or worse, he demonstrates that the rule of faith is a hermeneutical and theological framework handed down by the church for the church. Theological schemes and paradigms that influence biblical interpretation are no different today.

On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis.

A few comments should be made in regards to Against Heresies. This will provide context for the rule of faith framed by Irenaeus. The primary concern of Irenaeus is to combat various forms of Gnosticism—Valentinian Gnosticism the chief among many. First, Irenaeus opposes the platonic view of the flesh. He combats Gnosticism by emphasizing key orthodox doctrines: the incarnation of Christ and the resurrection of the human body. Regarding the resurrection he says, “For if He does not vivify what is mortal, and does not bring back the corruptible to incorruption, He is not a God of power.” This statement provides insight into the stoic sensibilities of Irenaeus. Second, the incarnation of Christ displays the need for him to assume all that makes up man. Further, the incarnation of the Lord restores friendship with man. “For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He [Christ] had recapitulated in Himeslf, bearing salvation to His own handiwork.” It is by blood and flesh where Christ presents himself as the head of saved humanity. It appears clear that against the Gnostics Irenaeus believes that the work of Christ includes the incarnation and crucifixion. Through Christ comes renewal and resurrection of corrupted human flesh.

Like Ignatius, Irenaeus responds to heresy. However, the hermeneutics of Irenaeus appear to be more mature. Against Heresies bares witness for the need of the Bible to be read as unified whole. This concern is fitting for two reasons. First, Gnosticism notoriously denies the Old Testament providing attributes to the God of the New Testament. Only the God of Jesus Christ is the knowable God of the world. Irenaeus responds to this concern with a canonical approach to the Bible and a conviction of the Jewish scriptures. Second, the rule of faith finds its genesis within the narrative of the Old Testament and is affirmed by scriptures that would become a part of the New Testament. For example, when Irenaeus defends the orthodox view of creation he connects the two testaments. “The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist.” After affirming the monolithic God of creation he cites two passages, Ps. 33:6 and John 1:3. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth” and “All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing made.” The connection between these two passages not only insists that both testaments actualize God as the creator of the world, but that Christ is that creator. For Irenaeus, no other interpretation is clear unless the Bible is read as a unified whole.

Renouncing a Gnostic view of the flesh while affirming the unity of Bible results in Irenaeus providing alternative principles for reading scripture with the rule of faith. Below, by defining the rule of faith while also understanding how it carries from one generation to the next will further illuminate what became orthodoxy while also demonstrating what did not; namely, a Gnostic view is false; blasphemy; or a form of pseudo-knowledge.

The Role of Tradition and the Rule of Faith

            In Against Heresies the rule of faith is the interpretive key for reading scripture. A useful definition of the rule of faith begins with acknowledging the ecclesiastical context for which the rule of faith gets handed down. Building on the ecclesiology of Ignatius, Irenaeus sees the value and necessity for the office of bishop, elder, and deacon. In particular the office of bishop serves for Irenaeus as the unbroken chain of faith since the apostles. In Book III he spends a considerable amount of time articulating this position. His point against the Gnostics is clear; they have a hidden untested faith or knowledge (gnw:siV) while orthodoxy contains an empirical faith tested by the scriptures but also handed down by a succession of bishops. Chapter III. 1 demonstrates this point.

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up to those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrated] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about."

Although this passage has an apologetic tone an ecclesiological paradigm is built in. The ecclesiological paradigm involves the role of the bishop. Clearly Irenaeus views the office of bishop is critical toward the handing down the rule of truth. He clears away many assumptions that the rule of faith could be found outside the bishops when he says later, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

According to Irenaeus, the church, and specifically the bishops, answer the question “who hands down the rule of faith?” The role of tradition is paramount in order to understand Christian orthodox teachings. Even if specific 21st century denominations and churches do not acknowledge bishops, for example, the point remains—a specific theological perspective informs how people read the Bible. This truth continues and getting a grip on tradition (of 50 years or 500 years) is essential for understanding how the Bible is read today. In the Evangelical world, which prizes the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, they should acknowledge theological presuppositions so that biblical interpretation is conducted is manner that holds up inerrancy and authority. Theological and biblical interpretive tradition needs to be embraced in order to create a stronger future for the preaching of God’s Word in the local church.