4.6 Adam, Christ, and Recapitulation: Haer. 3.21.10 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7)
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation the more when they receive an unexpected salvation and indeed "become like
God" (similis esset Deo) in the resurrection.
4.6
Adam, Christ, and Recapitulation: Haer. 3.21.10 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7) Irenaeus has already discussed recapitulation in Haer. 3.16.6 and Haer. 3.18.7, but the present context (Haer. 3.21.10–3.23.8) offers the most developed explanation of this theology of recapitulation. Similar to the previous sections, this passage also follows a chiastic argument on the nature and character of the incarnation. The incarnation unifies the trajectory of the economy manifested in the typology of Adam and Christ. The basis for recapitulation is the "similitude" (similitudinem) between Christ and Adam, not only in terms of their formal substances, but also in their actions. This notion of similitude is predicated upon a theological reading of the creation of Adam in Gen 1:26.
Describing the similitude between Adam and Christ, he begins with the summary statement of Christ's recapitulation of the ancient substance of Adam's formation.47 This Pauline imagery introduces a network of texts including: Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, John 1:3, Rom 5:12, 19, and Eph 1:10.48 The passage reads:
He has recapitulated in Himself even the ancient first-formed man [Eph 1:10]. To explain, just as by one man's disobedience sin came and death through sin reigned, so by one man's obedience, justice was brought and produces the fruit of life for those who in times past were dead
[Rom 5:12,19]. First, just as the first-fashioned Adam got his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil—for God had not yet caused it to rain . . . and man had not tilled the ground [Gen 2:5]—and was formed by God's hand, that is, the Word of God—for all things were made through Him [John 1:3]—and the Lord took mud from the earth and fashioned man [Gen 2:7].49
While Irenaeus' reflection on this text continues, this correspondence between Eph 1:10, Rom 5:12, 19, Gen 2:5,7, and John 1:3 reveals the intricate tissue of texts in Irenaeus' theology of recapitulation. These passages are united through an 47 Haer. 3.21.9.
48 The final clause of Haer. 3.21.9 is actually the introduction to Haer. 3.21.10, see:
SC 211:426.215.
49 Haer. 3.21.10.
CHAPTER 4
explicit Adam-Christ typology in Rom 5:12, 19, the creation imagery in John 1:3, and the act of the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7. In this instance his focus is on the understanding the recapitulation of all things in himself in Eph 1:10 with the concept of "humanity" in Rom 5:12 and 5:19. Again, he interprets the condition of the soil prior to the creation of Adam in Gen 2:5 as "untilled and yet virgin" (rudi terra et de adhuc uirgine) because there was no rain to agitate the soil and no one to till the ground.50 Steenberg presses the ontology of Irenaeus' image, suggesting his reading of Gen 2:5 communicates both "divine and material in the constitution of the human person."51 But Irenaeus theology of recapitulation is under the provision of a divine economy oriented toward the incarnation, so the focus extends beyond the original human constitution.
In other words, Adam is fashioned from the untilled soil precisely because Christ would be born from a virgin.
Irenaeus also reminds his readers that the Word of God, through whom all things were made (John 1:3), forms the plasma of Adam from the earth; the same substance assumed in the Incarnation of the Word. This textual arrangement puts Irenaeus' logic of recapitulation on display and parallels the generation of Adam and Christ by means of explicit intertextual connections.
In fact, the effectiveness of recapitulation hangs on the "likeness" (similitudinem) of Christ and Adam. Here again, Irenaeus extends Paul's typology by inserting explicit references to particular texts in Gen 1–2, as well as other
New Testament references. Nielson's study of Adam-Christ typology argues that Paul is concerned exclusively with the salvific arrangement of Adam and Christ, while Irenaeus' is concerned with their corresponding physical constitution. Nielson's evaluation, however, does not consider the intertextual networks Irenaeus creates with the Pauline imagery or the way that Irenaeus' applies the Pauline typological method. Irenaeus is not merely concerned with Paul's observations in Rom 5:12, 19 apart from the rest of scripture, but applying the Paul typology to establish even more developed correspondence between Adam and Christ.52 In doing so, his emphasis on the substance of Adam's flesh is an extension of the Pauline analogy that connects Rom 5:12, and Rom 5:19 with Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, and John 1:3.
50 Haer. 3.21.10. He has the same emphasis on the "virgin" soil in Haer. 3.18.7, Epid. 32, and Haer. 3.21.10; and Haer. 3.23.2.
51 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 110.
52 Ibid., 68. For example, in next section (Haer. 3.22.3) he will comment on the Adam-Christ connections in Luke's genealogy.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation Following the argument from Genesis, Paul, and John, Irenaeus continues communicating the theological and exegetical logic of recapitulation. He provides several rational arguments for the continuity and consistency between Adam and Christ. First, he uses the dialectical imagery 1 Cor 15:45–47 and the imagery of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7 in a simple counterfactual conditional statement. He reasons that if the first Adam (1 Cor 15:45) had a man for his father and was born of a "male seed" (semine viri), then it would be right to argue that the second Adam (1 Cor 15:47) was born of Joseph.53 This clause mixes the condition of simple past tense with the perfect "had" (habuit) in the protasis and a present subjunctive "might say" (discerent) in the apodosis.
With this change in modality, Irenaeus is conceding that if Adam had a natural birth then one certainly could say that Christ received his birth from Joseph.54
However, given this is a counterfactual condition, the thrust of the argument is that Adam did not have a natural birth from a "male seed" (semine viri) and, therefore Christ could not have a natural birth from Joseph.
To extend his first statement, Irenaeus provides a second conditional clause.
He states that if the first Adam was formed from the dust (Gen 2:7) by the Word of God, then it is proper that the Word himself when recapitulating Adam within himself ought to have an analogous birth. In this case the protasis and apodosis are presented in the perfect (plamsatus est) and imperfect (oportebat) tenses respectively, which makes this statement in Irenaeus' view a simple fact.
In other words, Adam was certainly created from the dust; therefore, Christ was certainly formed in the likeness of Adam. This emphasis communicates how important the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7 is for Irenaeus' Christology as the very nature of Christ's humanity hinges upon the correspondence between the virgin birth and Adam's formation from the dust.
Given the crucial similitude between that of the Adam-Christ, Irenaeus anticipates a question that logically follows: "Why, then, did God not again take up the dust, but designed that the formation [Christ] should be made of Mary? (Quare igitur non iterum sumpsit limum Deus, sed Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri?)."55 In other words, if the similitude between Adam and Christ is so essential, as Irenaeus understands Paul to argue in Rom 5:12, 19 and 1 Cor 15:45, 47, why are their specific modes of creation not identical? Irenaeus answers this objection with the logical remark that a second formation from the dust would produce a second race that is an altogether separate formation
53 Haer. 3.21.10. The emphasis on "male seed" (semine viri) is directed at the Ebionites, who were already addressed in Haer. 3.19.1ff.
54 See also Haer. 3.21.9; Haer. 3.22.1.
55 Haer. 3.21.10.