Note: This article is part of a series. Part 1 established Irenaeus’s systematic theology as supportive of Conditional Immortality. Part 2 addressed modern scholars and critics of this view and their interpretations of Irenaeus. Part 3 below explores how Irenaeus fits into the theological life of the church in its historical unfolding. You can also view the entire article in PDF here.
The previous sections of this paper identified Irenaeus’s systematic theology as supporting conditional immortality not as an exception local to one passage but as a rule, and carried out a discussion with modern critics of conditionalism. The rest of this paper is given over to fitting Irenaeus into the theological life of the church in light of his predecessors, teachers, contemporaries, and incorporation into later theology.
Tracing Irenaeus’s Influences
Irenaeus of Lyons joins his predecessor, St. Ignatius of Antioch, in emphasizing the intimate connection between life, immortality, and union with God, reflecting a shared theological tradition among early Christian thinkers. Ignatius describes the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live forever in Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 20.2). This striking image resonates with Irenaeus’s description of the bread and cup as conveying the promise of immortality: “For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist … so also our bodies, being nourished by it and deposited in the earth, and suffering decay there, shall rise at their appointed time” (Against Heresies 4.18.5). Both writers emphasize that participation in Christ (through the concrete means of the Eucharist) mediates eternal life to those united with Christ, presenting it as central to the Christian hope.
This shared Eucharistic theology directly informs their understanding of sin and its consequences. Ignatius warns, “Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be” (Magnesians 10). Or as Irenaeus said in Against Heresies 4.20.7, ”The Word became the dispenser of the paternal grace … revealing God to men … lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God.” For both, life is not an inherent property of human nature but a divine gift sustained by communion with God. Sin and unholiness, as acts of separation and ingratitude, lead naturally to the just outcome of ceasing to exist.
These parallels suggest that Irenaeus builds upon themes found in Ignatius’s writings, integrating them into a broader theological framework. Ignatius’s emphasis on the divine sustenance of life resonates with Irenaeus’s fully developed anthropology and eschatology, in which life and immortality are gifts mediated through union with God. Whether or not Ignatius explicitly held a conditionalist view, his teaching aligns with the tradition that life, immortality, and judgment are inextricably tied to a repentant walk with God, a tradition that Irenaeus develops into a more systematic articulation of conditional immortality.
St. Aphrahat of Syria (b. 280 AD) also reflects certain parallels with Ignatius and Irenaeus. In his 22-part series Demonstrations, Aphrahat emphasizes the soul’s dependency on the spirit for animate existence and highlights the unique role of the Holy Spirit for believers, contrasting it with the ‘animal spirit’ in unbelievers (Demonstration 8.23 cf. 6.14). However, while Irenaeus teaches in Against Heresies 2.34.1 that souls in Hades are sensate, Aphrahat asserts they are insensate, as the spirit resides with God during this period (Demonstration 6.14; 8.20). Aphrahat identifies this state of soul sleep as reflecting “the faith” and the universal teaching of the Church (Demonstration 8.20; 22.26). This discrepancy means that Aphrahat could not have derived this doctrine directly from Irenaeus’s writings. Instead, this suggests the shared ideas between them, both the dependence of the soul on the spirit and the resurrection to mortality (as noted earlier in discussion of Fragment of Irenaeus 12), were widespread enough in early Christian thought to be discovered without sharing specific writings.
Soon after Irenaeus, Origen of Alexandria and his universalist contemporaries expanded discussions on final punishment by proposing that all souls would ultimately be reconciled to God. While Origen became a controversial figure, the debates surrounding him primarily focused on his speculative cosmology and the preexistence of souls, rather than his universalist theology. By contrast, Gregory of Nyssa, another prominent universalist, faced no such controversy and played a key role in shaping orthodox theology. The seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II) praised Gregory as “the father of fathers,” even as it reaffirmed the fifth ecumenical council’s condemnation of universalism and Origen’s speculative teachings.
This historical context suggests that early Christianity, particularly during the time of the first ecumenical council, maintained a degree of tolerance for diversity in eschatological views. Final punishment, though discussed, was not yet deemed central enough to cause division. When later theological developments led to the formal condemnation of universalism, these anathemas targeted specific doctrines, such as the denial of “punishment without end” (Nicaea II). Importantly, these condemnations left room for interpretations like conditionalism, which affirm punishment’s finality while rejecting the necessity of eternal torment.
Athanasius of Alexandria, writing well after Irenaeus, begins with the same foundational principle that sin draws a person toward corruption and non-being. In On the Incarnation 4, he writes, perfectly in line with Irenaeus, that “the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again.” Like Irenaeus, Athanasius underscores God’s commitment to His creation, declaring: “It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself.” Unlike Irenaeus, however, he always attributes this concern as due to God’s own worthiness; he does not weigh any individual’s misery or God’s pity, or even God’s affection toward any person.
So Athanasius has in effect added a new dimension to this tradition, one absent from the writings of Irenaeus. The outcome of this can be seen in On the Incarnation 9, where he writes: “through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.” He teaches that God could be credited with justice in decreeing the penalty of corruption leading to nonexistence, but could not ultimately carry it out because it would discredit Him as creator. Instead, through the Incarnation and the shared nature of Christ with all humanity in common, God causes man to share a universal resurrection to incorruption, thus utterly removing the penalty of death. But this does not directly imply universal salvation, and in fact Athanasius does not address it as salvation. In place of death, Athanasius asserts in On the Incarnation 56, is the wholly different penalty of “the eternal fire,” which he explains at the end of his Festal Letter 3 to mean that the wicked “have the due reward of their folly, since their expectation will be vain through their ingratitude; for there is no hope for the ungrateful. The last fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, awaits those who have neglected divine light. Such then is the end of the unthankful.”
The change of direction in the reasoning here is almost stunning; Irenaeus speaks of God’s compassion and desire to save each and every person leading to actually saving those who appeal to Him from the fate they are in by nature, leaving those who separate themselves from God in exactly the same trouble all were in before; while for Athanasius, according to the consensus interpretation, God’s self-motivated desire to remove death does remove the danger of corruption, but replaces it with a strangely opposite danger which Athanasius barely discusses.
Athenagoras of Athens, a contemporary of Irenaeus, offers a striking contrast to the view witnessed by Ignatius. His two surviving works include some of the earliest in-depth defenses of eternal torment. In On the Resurrection of the Dead 19, he argues that the limitations of a mortal body prevent adequate punishment for grievous crimes, presenting death as an obstacle to justice and necessitating resurrection to incorruptible bodies. This reasoning extends beyond Athanasius’s view, which acknowledges death as an appropriate penalty for sin but deems it dishonoring to God as humanity’s creator. In contrast, Ignatius and Irenaeus present death as the natural result of rejecting God, with torment understood as passively allowed due to being proportional to specific sins.
While Athenagoras and others contribute to the diversity of early Christian thought, Justin Martyr, as Irenaeus’s teacher, occupies a unique position in this discussion. His influence on Irenaeus’s theological framework, combined with the contested interpretation of his writings, warrant separate attention.
Teacher of Irenaeus: Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr, one of Irenaeus’s key influences, presents a challenge to the claim that Irenaeus consistently taught conditional immortality. Justin made statements interpreted by many as affirming eternal torment, while others appear to support conditional immortality. Rather than attempting to resolve debates about Justin’s personal beliefs, this section examines his explicit statements and their implications for those who heard and passed on his teachings.
In First Apology 8, Justin asserts that “the wicked [will exist] in the same bodies united again to their spirits, which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” This statement is often cited as supporting eternal torment, particularly by his student Tatian, though it was also plausibly appropriated by the conditionalist Arnobius of Sicca, who argued (Against the Heathen 2.14) that eternal capital punishment by prolonged torments inflicts a greater and more decisive penalty than Plato’s concept of cycles of temporary punishment and eventual reconciliation with the Divine.
A similar idea appears in a more explicitly Jewish context in Dialogue with Trypho 103, where Justin writes: “We know from Isaiah that the members of those who have transgressed shall be consumed by the worm and unquenchable fire, remaining immortal.” Again, his student Tatian used this to affirm eternal torment.
Conversely, in Dialogue with Trypho 6, Justin quotes the Christian philosopher who converted him, who articulates a view that aligns more closely with Irenaeus’s expression of anthropology and theology:
Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different from that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake [of life] when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God’s; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not for ever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, and the man exists no longer; even so, whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.
This passage makes pivotal claims suggesting that some souls have an end to life, using unconditional words like “when.” This sheds light on the earlier statement from Dialogue with Trypho 5 (and see also the similar logic of First Apology 18), where the Christian philosopher declares:
‘But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.’
This passage expands on the concept of sensation in the intermediate state, introducing the idea that the ones worthy of God never die, while the “others” are punished for a duration determined by God (and, by contrast to the righteous who “never die,” would then die “when” God willed it). This framework challenges the wicked’s assumption that all souls die, undermining their justification for immoral behavior, a theme found in Jewish texts such as the Wisdom of Solomon1See especially the beliefs of the wicked that there is no life apart from the life of the flesh in Wisdom 2:1-5, leading to prosperity and riotous living at the expense of the weak in Wisdom 2:6-11. This is judged and they are sentenced in Wisdom 3:10 to exactly what their reasoning was (i.e. there will be no life for them), as opposed to the righteous who receive immortality that the reasoning of the wicked rejected. See also Wisdom 5, where the wicked lament the absolutely zero effect of their entire lives, leaving nothing..
Some note was already taken of Tatian, another student of Justin, credited with evangelizing Syria and translating the gospels into their language. Tatian, in his Address To the Greeks 8, makes a statement that appears to harmonize both kinds of claims that Justin made: “The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it [the soul] acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not…” This expresses both ideas that Justin’s teachings might convey: that the soul is not inherently immortal and may die, and that eternal torment is a reality, with body immortal and death somehow certain. His peculiar phrasing suggests that Tatian attempts to reconcile the conditionalist notion of personal sureness to die as Justin expressed it with the concept of eternal torment, resulting in a hybrid expression of the view of eternal torment found nowhere else in early Christian writings. Tatian’s synthesis strongly implies that Justin taught both concepts to his students but left them unresolved, without offering a clear harmonization. In response, Tatian appears to have devised his own interpretation to unify these ideas.
Despite Irenaeus’s close alignment with Justin’s quotations from his teacher, Irenaeus does not appear to reference or adopt Justin’s arguments that suggest eternal torment. For example, he does not attribute punishment to immortalized limbs, stating in Against Heresies 5.12.2 that unless the Spirit replaces the temporal breath, the body cannot remain alive. Nor does he engage in comparisons with Plato’s idea of a thousand years of pain before reincarnation, though he critiques reincarnationist arguments associated with Plato.
There is no evidence of a Christian source from which Justin might have derived his statements that Tatian takes to teach eternal torment. One possible parallel is a post-Temple-destruction Jewish tradition related to the surviving copies of the Targum Jeremiah, though the version extant today replaces Isaiah 66:24’s undying worm with “their breaths shall not die,” and concludes with the fiery punishment of the wicked ceasing when “the righteous say concerning them, ‘we have seen enough;’” perhaps Justin and Trypho witness here to a different version of the Targumic tradition where those corpses or limbs are kept undying in the worm and fire, an idea fitting to Justin’s demonstrated knowledge of variant texts together with his audience’s expertise.
Unlike Tatian, Irenaeus’s evident respect for Justin did not extend to adopting these aspects of his thought regarding eternal torment. There is no evidence that Irenaeus incorporated Justin’s statements interpreted by Tatian as supporting eternal torment, nor relied on any sources from which such ideas might have been derived. Instead, Irenaeus consistently articulated a theology of eternal punishment that aligns with what Justin himself claimed to have been taught, as well as with the views reflected in the writings of earlier Christian thinkers. As Justin remained a layman rather than a church father, Irenaeus could be interpreted to have prioritized an ecclesial tradition in which conditional immortality was (or at least had been) prevalent. This interpretation aligns with the patristic sources discussed in Chris Date’s articles and Rethinking Hell Live episodes, which highlight the early Christian emphasis on conditional immortality and the eventual loss of life for the wicked as foundational to their theology.
Modern Interactions
One of the most theologically developed views of hell in Christian tradition has come to be known as the “Augustinian” perspective. Joseph Ratzinger’s Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life offers an excellent study of this view, which shares certain elements with Irenaeus’s theology. Chief among these is the claim that the punishment of hell results from God allowing people to reject Him, rather than from God actively imposing pain. However, much like Athanasius, this view also asserts that God refuses to allow any of His image-bearers to be annihilated. Within this framework, the torments of hell are understood as both self-imposed rejection of the good God offers and the result of God’s sustaining act of love, which preserves existence even for those who reject Him.
A recent development toward a more Irenaean perspective can be found in the work of Catholic scholar Paul Griffiths,2See also Griffiths, P. J. (2007). Self-Annihilation Or Damnation? A Disputable Question in Christian Eschatology. Pro Ecclesia, 16(4), 416-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/106385120701600403, downloaded 1/19 from https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/griffiths-on-annihilation.pdf particularly in his book Decreation: The Last Things of All Creatures. As the title suggests, Griffiths proposes a form of conditional immortality, tuned to fit Catholic doctrinal requirements. Bruce McCuskey, a Jesuit scholar, provides a compelling review that compares Griffiths’s book with Ratzinger’s book. While McCuskey highlights notable thematic parallels between Griffiths’s ideas and Irenaeus’s theology, his most striking observation lies in his analysis of the metaphors used to describe divine-human interaction. McCuskey writes:
For Ratzinger, the givenness of human existence is captured primarily by oral and aural metaphors. The dialogical call anchors his account. For Griffiths, the imagery is tactile: ‘caress’ is the crucial term. The difference lies ultimately in the weight each set of images and metaphors gives to human and divine agency. One can call to another dialogically without that person exercising any intentional response. Hence, God can continually call us into being even if we ourselves never respond. A successful caress, however, must be accepted and ultimately returned. If performed without the willed acceptance of the one being caressed, a caress fails, as does one that does not evoke a response, even if simply that of acceptance.
While Irenaeus does not employ the metaphors of “call” or “caress” directly, his theology resonates with Griffiths’s tactile imagery in its emphasis on active participative engagement between humanity and God. For Irenaeus, creation is a divine call to existence, but salvation is a relational and transformative process of communion that begins with God’s action but grows into active union with God. This concept is vividly expressed in Against Heresies 5.1.1, where Irenaeus writes of Christ:
[He is] imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God.
Likewise he writes of Christ’s work of theosis in Against Heresies 3.20.2:
… that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; […] that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man.
These passages, among others, highlight Irenaeus’s emphasis on salvation as a process of growing in closeness to God, culminating in union with Him and participation in His life. This vision of salvation as relational and transformative echoes through Griffiths’s work, which revives the ancient Christian understanding of divine sustenance as essential to human flourishing — a theme foundational to Irenaeus’s theology.
Closing: Reading Irenaeus in Light of Life and Death
Let us conclude by hearing Irenaeus speak for himself, placing his thought at the forefront. In Against Heresies 3.20.2, he offers a profound passage that encapsulates many of the central themes explored here, with added emphasis to highlight its key ideas. This passage reveals how deeply these concepts are woven into the Christian message as Irenaeus understood and proclaimed it. It also underscores the theological consistency of his argument when viewed through the lens of his broader teachings on the end of sin and sinners as opposed to righteousness, love, and union with God.
This, therefore, was the [object of the] long-suffering of God, that man, passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral discipline, then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and learning by experience what is the source of his deliverance, may always live in a state of gratitude to the Lord, having obtained from Him the gift of incorruptibility, that he might love Him the more; for “he to whom more is forgiven, loveth more:” and that he may know himself, how mortal and weak he is; while he also understands respecting God, that He is immortal and powerful to such a degree as to confer immortality upon what is mortal, and eternity upon what is temporal; and may understand also the other attributes of God displayed towards himself, by means of which being instructed he may think of God in accordance with the divine greatness. For the glory of man [is] God, but [His] works [are the glory] of God; and the receptacle of all His wisdom and power [is] man. Just as the physician is proved by his patients, so is God also revealed through men. And therefore Paul declares, “For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;” not saying this in reference to spiritual Aeons3Aeons, according to Gnosticism, are semi-divine beings., but to man, who had been disobedient to God, and being cast off from immortality, then obtained mercy, receiving through the Son of God that adoption which is [accomplished] by Himself. For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one,] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, “was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.
* * * * *
Note: This article is part of a series. Part 1 established Irenaeus’s systematic theology as supportive of Conditional Immortality. Part 2 addressed modern scholars and critics of this view and their interpretations of Irenaeus. Part 3 above explores how Irenaeus fits into the theological life of the church in its historical unfolding.
 |
| View this article in PDF |
Lorem fistrum por la gloria de mi madre esse jarl aliqua llevame al sircoo. De la pradera ullamco qué dise usteer está la cosa muy malar.
| ￪1 | See especially the beliefs of the wicked that there is no life apart from the life of the flesh in Wisdom 2:1-5, leading to prosperity and riotous living at the expense of the weak in Wisdom 2:6-11. This is judged and they are sentenced in Wisdom 3:10 to exactly what their reasoning was (i.e. there will be no life for them), as opposed to the righteous who receive immortality that the reasoning of the wicked rejected. See also Wisdom 5, where the wicked lament the absolutely zero effect of their entire lives, leaving nothing. |
|---|---|
| ￪2 | See also Griffiths, P. J. (2007). Self-Annihilation Or Damnation? A Disputable Question in Christian Eschatology. Pro Ecclesia, 16(4), 416-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/106385120701600403, downloaded 1/19 from https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/griffiths-on-annihilation.pdf |
| ￪3 | Aeons, according to Gnosticism, are semi-divine beings. |