Home » The Bible and Beyond » Blog » Re-Considering Irenaeus and His Problem with the Gnostics

Re-Considering Irenaeus and His Problem with the Gnostics

by Shirley Paulson, PhD

Irenaeus, born about a century after the crucifixion of Jesus, ultimately became venerated as a saint for many Christians. When he moved to Lyon, France to become the bishop there, he inherited an assortment of traditions and practices from various groups of Jesus’s followers. This multiplicity was typical of the period, but for some reason, Irenaeus feared the defection of his own followers to the growing number of Valentinians in the area. (See the Valentinus series here.)

His primary methods for retaining followers centered around attacking competing practices, and he developed aggressive methods for doing so.  Among other things, he employed what we now refer to as strawman tactics – misrepresenting his enemies’ theological intent, and then attacking that misrepresentation.

For example, Irenaeus claimed his gnostic enemies hated the God of Genesis, the creator of the world, and centered many of his attacks on that claim. But in fact, now that we can read the writings themselves, we can see those claims from Irenaeus were quite misleading. All of the different groups who relied on gnosis for salvation indeed shared with Irenaeus the same belief in the unity and goodness of God, the God of Genesis.

Irenaeus’s goal to prove the gnostics wrong

In order to make his claims, he completely ignored the Secret Revelation of John‘s full commitment to the Genesis Creator God of chapter 1.

The Unity is a monarchy with nothing ruling over it. . . . It cannot be made perfect as though it were deficient and only required perfecting. Rather It is always totally perfect. . . . It is the blessed one who gives blessedness, the understanding which gives understanding, the ever good one who gives good, the one who does good. (transl. King, 4:2,11, 37)

The reality was quite different from Irenaeus’s assertions.  Both he and the author of the Secret Revelation of John (and probably every theologian in the world) had difficulties reconciling a beautiful God who is all good with the turmoil and pain that humans endure. They both had a problem with Genesis on this score.  They just solved it differently.  However, in order to discredit a complex but differing view, Irenaeus misrepresented the Secret Revelation of John.

Their differing explanations for the existence of evil

Irenaeus’s justification for evil in the world depended on what he thought of as God’s wise design: that humans were created immature, and that it takes a long time to grow into the divine likeness. God intentionally designed the world as a difficult place to force the needed growth.

On the other hand, the author of the Secret Revelation of John remained committed to a wise creator who created only goodness, not flawed immaturity.  After the perfect creation was established (Genesis 1), then a second creation, the “difficult place” (Genesis 2), appeared as if the first had never taken place. Rather than being an entirely new creation, the Secret Revelation of John treats it as an object lesson for understanding how and where evil entered into the perfect world.

The world of difficulties couldn’t have been created by an entirely good and loving God. That’s illogical, according to the Secret Revelation of John. So, this author argued, the troubling elements of humanity were created by a false belief about creation. He imagined that a false god, a mockery of God, who pretended to be the ‘only true god and a jealous god’ attempted to create humanity in his (flawed) likeness, not the likeness of the good and beautiful God. This is the false god who caused selfishness, greed, and even fratricide.

By expanding on the same characters and events in Genesis, the Secret Revelation of John distinguished between the true God of Genesis 1 and the ‘counterfeit spirit’ (named Yaldabaoth) of the following chapters. This false god had no true power of its own to create anything. All he could do was to deceive people into forgetting their true origins or fearing and obeying his false voice.

The big mistake Irenaeus left in history

The big problem that Irenaeus left us in history is his misrepresentation of this other theological viewpoint. He argued that such books as the Secret Revelation of John agreed with him that the second creation story in Genesis was the creator God. In doing so, he grossly mischaracterized the view of the gnostics, accusing them of blaming the true God for the worldly horrors. “They hate the God of Genesis!,” he falsely declared.

But the gnostics claimed that the true God never caused a deep sleep for Adam, never taught his people to learn evil from the wrong tree, and never provoked fratricide among his children. That was a false god.  In order to attack the gnostics, Irenaeus attacked their view of the second creator God, as if this cruel creator God was the entirety of their view of the God of Genesis.

Multiple perspectives 

The second century generated a great deal of thinking and re-thinking about the cosmic order of being, the origin of evil, and the power of healing. It is no wonder there was a wide variety of answers to unresolved questions.

As scholars are now paying more attention to the actual writings of these long-lost writings, the truth of the matter is becoming clearer. Irenaeus may remain the champion of the God who made a difficult place for humans to grow, but the gnostic thinkers should be granted champions for the God who created the inherently good creation. Both revere a ‘true’ God of Genesis.