4.7 Adam's Formation and Christ's Incarnation: Haer. 3.22.1–4
CHAPTER 4
(alia plasmatio), which would also require a separate means of salvation.56 By different formation, he implies a distinct human race fashioned from the same fleshy substance, but not in the physical line of Adam. As Paul expresses Adam unifies all humanity in himself and through his disobedience death spreads to all humanity. Likewise, Christ comprises all humanity in his obedience, thus reversing the effects of Adam and reviving human nature. Irenaeus' theological and exegetical reflection is guided by the conviction that Christ must be analogous to Adam in order to convey salvation to the same flesh of Adam that was formed from the dust.
4.7
Adam's Formation and Christ's Incarnation: Haer. 3.22.1–4 In this section, Irenaeus continues the discussion of recapitulation from Haer. 3.21.10, but in this case Irenaeus' polemic is set against the Valentinians, rather than the Ebionites who deny the virgin birth. For the Bishop of Lyons, those who reject Christ's human nature also reject the "similitude" (similitudinem) between Adam and Christ. As I argued, Irenaeus' concern is the analogy between Adam and Christ, which he extends through a range of textual connections. His argumentation continues the scriptural correlation between the first and second Adam, beginning with the closing line of Haer. 3.21.10 and lasting through Haer. 3.22.1–4. Within this section Irenaeus links Gen 2:7, Matt
5:5, Gal 4:4, and Rom 1:3–4 in order to demonstrate that the meekness of the flesh derived from the earth is the same flesh Christ assumed. He also points to a number of passages that communicate the weakness of Christ's body in the Gospel accounts where he required food, grew tired, grieved, sweat blood, and was pierced revealing blood and water. In the final two sections he develops the Adam-Christ typology with the discussion of the Eve-Mary typology that links Gen 2:24, Gen 3:6, Deut 22:23–24, Matt 19:6, Matt 19:30/20:16, Psalm
44:17(45:16), and Col 1:18. These passages are fashioned through verbal and conceptual connections, especially focused on Adam's bodily substance and nature.
4.7.1
Christ and the Blessed Meekness of the Flesh: Haer. 3.22.1
(Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) He begins his polemic with another conditional clause that entertains the converse idea of the second conditional clause mentioned above in Haer. 3.21.10. The consistency of God's economy is dependent upon his concepts
56 Haer. 3.21.10.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation of image and likeness found in Gen 1:26 and linked with John 1:3, Matt 5:5,
Rom 1:3–4, and Gal 4:4. He argues that if Adam was formed from the hand of God (Gen 2:7), but not Christ, then he would not preserve a likeness to Adam who was made in the image and likeness of Christ (Gen 1:26). God would be an "inconsistent Artist" (inconstans Artifex) and unable to manage his own creation.57 The term "Artist" (Artifex), as Osborn notes, emphasizes the aesthetic notions of coherence and proportion.58 Since Adam was made in the image and likeness of Christ then the divine Artist would preserve the likeness of Adam in Christ.59
The demand for similitude between the formations of Adam and Christ prompts Irenaeus to correlate the substance of Adam's flesh formed in Gen 2:7 with Christ's humanity. Echoing Gen 2:7, he makes the general anthropological statement that humankind is formed from a body taken from the earth and a soul imparted by the Spirit of God. When the Word of God recapitulated himself in the form of his own handiwork, he received a body from Mary that connected him to the substance of Adam's body fashioned from the "earth" (terra).
The earthly substance that was used to fashion Adam is characteristically ignoble or "meek" (mites), but when the Word assumes flesh he "blesses the meek, because they shall inherit the earth" (beatificat mites, quoniam ipsi hereitabunt terram).60 For Irenaeus, the meek who inherit the "earth" (terra) in Matt 5:5 are those who receive the same flesh fashioned from the "earth" (terra) in Gen 2:7. In other words, assuming flesh in his incarnation, the Son of Man
"blesses" (beatificat) the weak flesh that is inherited by all those born in line of Adam. He also unites these texts with Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3–4, but he offers virtually no commentary on these passages. Instead, bound by their verbal and conceptual connections, Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3–4 are themselves commentary on the nature of the Incarnation and the relationship between Gen 2:7 and Matt 5:5. In Gal 4:4 Irenaeus notes that Paul expresses the humanity of Christ "plainly" (manifeste) saying "God sent His Son made of a woman" (misit
Deus Filium suum, factum de muliere) and he adds that the same point is made in Rom 1:3–4, "but His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (De ilio autem, inquit, euis, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem).61 The emphasis on the notion of being "made" ( facio) combined
57 Haer. 3.22.1.
58 Osborn, Irenaeus, 18–20.
59 Haer. 3.22.1.
60 The use of the title Son of man suggests Irenaeus is drawing upon the Lukan account of the beatitudes.
61 Haer. 3.22.1.
CHAPTER 4
with the concept of being born of a woman and the seed of David corresponds to the "earth" imagery in Matt 5:5 and the same concepts in Gen 1:26, and Gen 2:7. Taken together, this network of texts forms a paradigmatic link between the body that is fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7 and flesh of the incarnate Christ.
4.7.2
The Incarnation and the Substance of Adam's Formation:
Haer. 3.22.2–3 (Gen 2:7) In Haer. 3.22.2, Irenaeus continues the same discussion, on the nature of Christ's incarnate flesh. To characterize the nature of the body from the earth
(Gen 2:7), he alludes to a number of passages that describe how Christ required food, grew tired, was wounded, grieved, sweat blood, and was pierced, revealing blood and water (Matt 4:2, John 4:6, Psalm 68:27(69:26), John 11:35, Luke
22:44, Matt 26:38, and John 19:34). The networking of these texts is dependent upon their verbal and conceptual connections to Christ's experience in the body. Together the echoes and allusions form an extended anthropological commentary upon the nature and weakness of the flesh formed from the dust in Gen 2:7. After citing these passages in succession, Irenaeus remarks they all express "signs of the flesh" (signa carnis) formed from the earth.62
Discussion of the Adam-Christ typology continues in Haer. 3.22.3 and reinforces the observations of Haer. 3.22.1–2. The central allusion is Luke's genealogical account that, as Irenaeus notes, is written backwards beginning with Christ in Luke 3:23 and concluding with Adam in Luke 3:38. He interprets the genealogy theologically, as indicating Christ had recapitulated in himself all previous generations. Thus, the very structure of the genealogical list reflects the recapitulating acts of Christ and his reversal of Adam's sin. From this arrangement Irenaeus draws the conclusion that the Word of God existed logically prior to Adam and ultimately "prefigures" (praeformauerat) his incarnation in Adam.63 In the same context Irenaeus cites Rom 5:14, where Adam is said to be a "type of Him that was to come" (typus futuri).64 Adam's physical form was a type of Christ in whose image Adam was originally formed. This is also supported by an allusion to 1 Cor 15:46: "God predestined the first man should be of an animal nature, in order that he might be saved by the spiritual" (praedestinante Deo primum animalem hominem uidelicet uti ab spiritali
62 Haer. 3.22.2.
63 Haer. 3.22.3.
64 Haer. 3.22.3.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation saluaretur).65 This makes clear Irenaeus' understanding of typus is highly literal and physical, even as it is linked with the chronological structure of the divine economy.66 Thus, in the flow of Irenaeus' argumentation, these textual allusions in Haer. 3.22.3 are related to the discussion and content of Haer.
3.22.1–2, all of which depend upon allusions to the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7. The texts of Luke 3:23–38, Rom 5:14, and 1 Cor 15:46 are the theological links connecting the "end" ( finem) in Christ with the "beginning" (initio) in Adam so that Irenaeus envisions the whole of Gen 1–3, and indeed the whole Old
Testament, as linked with the New Testament in a "single pattern of salvation history."67
4.7.3
From Adam and Christ to Eve and Mary: Haer. 3.22.4 (Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen 3:6) Following this delineation of Adam-Christ typology in Haer. 3.22.4, Irenaeus transitions into a description of the Eve-Mary typology. Since Irenaeus is one of the first theologians to comment on the Eve-Mary relationship, his comments have garnered a significant amount of attention.68 While Irenaeus comments on the Eve-Mary typology and their respective roles elsewhere, the 65 Haer. 3.22.3. This argument is interesting because it implies Christ's predisposition to save necessitated something to save, which resulted in the creation of Adam. Steenberg believes this is some form of necessitarianism and one of Irenaeus' more controversial statements. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 34. On the nature of this phrase see also Behr,
Anthropology, 58; Orbe, Anthropologia, 491ff; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 5–7.
66 Behr, Asceticism, 58 n. 81.
67 Donovan, One Right Reading?, 88.
68 Dunning, "Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth." Studies on Irenaeus' views of Mary include: Tina
Beattie, "Mary in Patristic Thought," in Mary: The Complete Resource, ed. Sarah Jane Boss,
75–105 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 86–7; Steenberg, "The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St. Irenaeus of Lyon," VC 58 (2004): 117–37; Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, trans. Thomas
Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), 56; Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries:
Her place in the History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 42–52; D.
Ramos-Lissón, 'Le Role de la femme dans la théologie de saint Irénée," StuPat 21 (1989):
163–74; Orbe, "La Virgen María abogada de la virgen Eva; en torna a s. Ireneo adv. haer.
V. 19, 1)," Greg 63 (1982): 453–506; Jose Antonio de Aldama, María en la patrística de los siglos I y II (Madrid: Editorial Catholica, 1970); Jean Plagineux, "La doctrine mariale de saint Irénée," RSR 44 (1970): 179–89; Orbe, "El pecado de Eva, signo de divieion', OCP 29
(1963): 305–30. Steenberg frames Irenaeus' uses of Eve-Mary typology into three classifications: 1) anti-adoptionist, 2) anti-doectic, and 3) recapitulative. Steenberg, "The Role of Mary," 119.
CHAPTER 4
present section is the most developed explanation.69 Although many studies focus on gender issues, Steenberg provides a theologically developed understanding of this typology and argues for a subordinate, yet necessary role of Mary as "co-recapitulator" with Christ.70 He appreciates the inherent "social" role of Eve in relation to Adam, thereby extending Osborn's previous observation of mere aesthetic parallelism between the experiences of Adam and Christ.71 Within the broader contours of Irenaeus' argument in Haer. 3.22.1–4, he places the Eve-Mary typology in continuity with the Adam-Christ typology as another means to unifying both Testaments in a single trajectory spanning the narrative of the divine economy. However, the theological coherence of the Eve-Mary typology continues to guide Irenaeus' intertextual networking in continuity with the textual matrix of the Adam-Christ typology in the preceding sections. Like the Adam-Christ typology, the Eve-Mary typology depends upon several corresponding (or contrasting) characteristics recorded in their respective narratives and expressed through reflection on a network of texts including: Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen 3:6, Deut 22:23–24, Psalm 44:17(45:16), Matt
19:30, Matt 20:16, Luke 1:38, Luke 3:23–38, Col 1:18, and Heb 5:9.
First, following the same contrastive nature of Adam and Christ, Irenaeus distinguishes the disobedience of Eve from the obedience of Mary. While Eve was disobedient when she ate from the tree of knowledge in Gen 3:6, Mary is obedient when she proclaims to the angel, "Behold your handmaid, Lord, be it unto me according to your word" (Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, Luke 1:38).72 The disobedience of the former became the "cause of death" (causa . . . mortis), while obedience of the latter became the "cause of life" (causa . . . salutis).73 In this sense, Eve and Mary are instrumental in the root causes of death and life respectively, which are effected through the corresponding actions of Adam and Christ. The parallelism between Adam and Christ is also strengthened by the concurrent disobedience of Eve and obedience of Mary, who is shown to be a "necessary and essential" means for the recapitulatory work of Christ.74
69 Cf. Epid 33. Haer. 3.16.7, Haer. 4.27.1, Haer. 4.33.11, and Haer. 5.19.1.
70 Steenberg, "The Role of Mary," 118; Dunning, "Virgin Earth," 59–60.
71 Osborn, Irenaeus, 51, 75–6, 101. There appears to be another chiasm in Haer. 3.21.10–22.4 centered on recapitulation in Luke's genealogy.
72 Haer. 3.22.4.
73 Haer. 3.22.4. The reference of "Mary the Virgin" most naturally alludes to Luke 1:34 in the immediate context.
74 Steenberg, "The Role of Mary," 118.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation Second, similar conceptions of virginity are found in both Eve and Mary.
While Mary's virginity is plainly recorded in the Gospels (i.e. Matt 1:23–25, Luke
1:27–34), Irenaeus cites Gen 2:25, "they were both naked in Paradise and were not ashamed" (utrique nudi in Paradiso et non confundebantur), to prove Eve's virginity. He interprets this text to mean that Adam and Eve were prepubescent children in paradise who kissed and embraced each other in all holiness and felt no shame in their nakedness because they had no knowledge of procreation.75 This state of innocence, however, is merely the initial stage in the course of human growth and maturity that includes procreation. This notion of anthropological progression is located in his conflation of Gen 2:25 with Gen 1:28, where he interprets the divine commands "increase and multiply" as sequential stages of human growth and development.76 The term "increase"
(adolescere) implies human maturity towards the transition into adulthood, while the term "multiply" (multiplicari) suggests human reproduction. For Irenaeus procreation has always been part of God's economy as a means to guide God's creatures toward the divine life.
Third, the virginal correspondence is complemented by their respective betrothals. Irenaeus points to legal nature of betrothal in Deut 22:23–24 to argue that a betrothed virgin is actually considered a wife under Mosaic Law.
Therefore Mary, who was "betrothed" (desponsatus) to Joseph, could be considered his wife. Rousseau argues that the application of Deut 22:23–24 applies exclusively to the situation of Mary because Irenaeus would recognize that Eve is espoused to Adam and not engaged.77 For Irenaeus, this logical set of conceptual and textual interconnections, including obedience/disobedience, virginity, and betrothal, signifies a circling back (recirculationem significans)
75 Epid 14; Dunning, "Virgin Earth," 64; Both Behr and Donovan criticize Orbe for pressing the Eve-Mary typology in relation to the role of the Spirit and marital intercourse beyond the evidence in Irenaeus' writings. See Donovan, One Right Reading?, 91–2 n. 19. Behr,
Asceticism, 111 n. 70. The same criticism is warranted for Dunning's attempt to differentiate Irenaeus' notions of "virginity" as a means to critique the inconsistencies in Irenaeus' logic of recapitulation. Like Orbe, Dunning forces Irenaeus to answer questions of gender and sexuality that are not altogether explicit in his writings. As Donovan remarks quite clearly (following the work of Rebecca Lyman): "Absent here [Haer. 3.22.4] is any suggestion of the impact of sexuality on either Eve's sin or Mary's obedience." Donovan, One
Right Reading?, 88. Donovan refers to an unpublished presentation of Lyman entitled
"Irenaeus on Eve: The Christological Connection," where Lyman argues that what is clear in Irenaeus is simply that both sexes, male and female, are unified in the resurrected humanity of Christ and fully restored in the eschaton. cf. Behr, Asceticism, 210.
76 Haer. 3.22.4. Behr, Asceticism, 112; Dunning, "Virgin Earth," 66.
77 SC 210.375–6.
CHAPTER 4
from Mary to Eve reinforcing the social and aesthetic stability of the AdamChrist typology.78
Summarizing their recapitulative roles, or the "circling back" (recirculationem) from Mary to Eve, de Aldama argues the disobedience of Adam and Eve is undone through the obedience of Mary and Christ so that she unties the knot that was secured through Eve.79 This summary, however, leaves open the question of the nature of the "bonds" (compagines) that Eve inflicted, which Mary conversely untied. In this context, Irenaeus uses several parallel images to speak of the relationship fashioned between Eve and Adam including: "the binding of the bonds" (compagines adligationis), "first union" (primae conjunctiones)—or "first bond" (primam . . . compaginem)—and "knot" (nodus).80 He also uses the verbs colligatum est and adligauit to illustrate the act of binding.
Interpreting this "bond" between Adam and Eve, Steenberg remarks that this "knot" (nodus) refers specifically to the fact that "Eve's disobedience had bound the nature of human relationships into a detrimental state bent on turning men away from the intentions of God."81 This "knot," therefore is purely a metaphorical (or soteriological) "knot" illustrating the sinful condition of human nature bound to sin through disobedience. It is strange, however, given the context and the discussion on marriage, that no one has observed the echoes of the union of Adam and Eve becoming one flesh in Gen 2:24 (Matt 19:6).82
78 Given the ascetic harmony between Adam, Eve, Mary, and Christ, I think the simple terminology "Adam-Christ typology" and "Eve-Mary typology" runs the risk of being unhelpful, because it inherently divorces the theological interconnectiveness of these typological images. The notion of "ascetic harmony" on the other hand is not textually (or scripturally) based and does not explain how Irenaeus corresponds the specific characteristics of Gen 1–3 with the Gospels. Given these are the prevailing scholarly terms, I continue to use them even if they are restrictive.
79 de Aldama, María, 278–93.
80 Haer. 3.24.4.
81 Steenberg, "The Role of Mary," 136.
82 This echo is not observed in BP or SC. Orbe recognizes all other references in this context, but does not mention Gen 2:24 or Matt 19:6. Orbe, Anthropologia, 248–9. See also:
Steenberg, "The Role of Mary," 129–30. Rousseau argues that Irenaeus' use of Deut 22:23–
24 proves Mary was Joseph's wife even if she was merely betrothed to him could not refer to Adam and Eve, precisely because it would be obvious to Irenaeus that Adam and Eve were espoused. In making this argument he indirectly proves that Irenaeus is thinking in terms of Adam and Eve's union. SC 210.375–6. Furthermore, the contextual and linguistic support is overwhelming. Irenaeus cites Gen 2:25 in this section as well as Matt
19:30/20:6 and alludes to marriage imagery which constitutes the themes of Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:6. The imagery, while not identical, is close enough to constitute an allusion to Matt 19:6 in the imagery of "what was bound together could not otherwise be undone . . ."
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation While the language is only loosely connected, Irenaeus has just concluded that Eve is betrothed to Adam and Mary is betrothed to Joseph (although Joseph is not mentioned by name). He implicitly alludes to the actual union of marriage (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:6), which he applies to illustrate the effects of Eve's disobedience. In other words, the "knot" between Eve and Adam is their nuptial union that Irenaeus applies metaphorically to the binding of humanity to sin and death. This does not imply that Irenaeus disparages marriage, but he recognizes the physical and mystical nuptial union between the first couple
(Gen 2:24), though coordinating acts of disobedience, bound humankind to sin and death.
While Irenaeus' typological analysis is praiseworthy and there is great strength in the parallels between Adam, Eve, Joseph, Mary and Christ, this correspondence is certainly not "perfect."83 The reason the allusions to marriage in Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:6 are not more explicit is because they potentially weaken the strength of Irenaeus' economic parallelism. The nuptial bond of union between Adam and Eve does not mirror the mother-child relationship of Mary and Christ. In a recent article, Dunning argues that "sexual difference" is the breakdown in Irenaeus' recapitulative framework, yet this section reveals a more fundamental struggle for the symmetry of his ascetic parallelism.84
While there is much that is consistent, the essential inconsistency lies in the familial relationships between Adam, Eve, Joseph, Mary and Christ. Irenaeus is not oblivious of this point, which is why he only names Adam outright in his discussion of their respective betrothals. He refers to Mary as having a husband, but omits mention of Joseph's name precisely because he is the exception to the Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary parallelism.85 This inconsistency also helps explain the awkward phrasing in this section and the use of the cryptic binding imagery. The references to Mary's reversal of the bonds, therefore, should be understood as Irenaeus' attempt to wrestle with the union imagery
(non aliter quod colligatum est colueretur). Furthermore, the references to the "first union"
(primae conjunctiones) or "first bond" (primam . . . compaginem) in this context are easily understood as images referring to nuptial union of Eve and Adam in Gen 2:24. The retroversion uses of the language τὸ δεδεμένον, πρῶται συνδέσεις, and πρώτην συναφὴν reflect common New Testament images for binding especially in a prison context, it is conceptually equivalent to the imagery of Matt 19:6 (Mark 10:9): συνέζευξεν. Several of these terms are uniquely concentrated in Paul's body imagery, which suggests that Irenaeus is conflating the marriage imagery with soteriological imagery (cf. Eph 4:3,16, Col 2:19, Col 3:14, and Haer. 3.19.7).
83 SC 210.374. Donovan, One Right Reading?, 88.
84 Dunning, "Virgin Earth," 63.
85 Haer. 3.22.4.
CHAPTER 4
of Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:6 (alongside Pauline use of body imagery) in relationship to the salvific work of Christ who was born of Mary in light of his economic parallelism.86 What is clear in his argument is that the second bond
(secunda colligatione) that overturns or loses the first bond is not a nuptial "bond" between Mary and Christ, but the union of all humanity in the body of Christ. This is why Irenaeus concludes that through Mary, Christ was the "first begotten of the dead," becoming in "himself" (ipse) the beginning of those who live contrary to Adam who became the beginning of those who die.
The intertextual references he uses in the context confirm this point and each of these texts is connected by the conceptual idea of "circling back"
(recirculationem) or reversal of the disobedience in Gen 3:6.87 He begins with a citation of the Lord's words in Matt 19:30/20:16, "indeed the first shall be last and the last first" (primos quidem nouissimos futuros et nouissimos primos).
For Irenaeus, Christ himself is the "last" (nouissimos) who has been made first in the kingdom, because through Christ all have found life. Likewise he cites
Psalm 44:17(45:16), "In place of your fathers will be your sons" (Pro patribus nati sunt tibi fili). The son of Adam has taken the place of his father, because the Lord was "born the First-begotten of the dead," (Primogenitus enim mortuorum natus Dominus, Col 1:18). Having been resurrected from the dead, he now receives the ancient Fathers into his own bosom (Isa 40:11) and regenerates them back to the life of God.88 The climax of this theology of reversal is the recapitulation of all things in Christ. He again mentions the reverse chronology of Luke's genealogy and remarks that just as Adam became the beginning of those who die (though his union with Eve's disobedience), so also has Christ become the beginning of those who find life (by means of Mary's obedience).
In general the conceptual imagery of these texts supports Irenaeus' theology of reversal and the overturning of the effects of Adam and Eve's disobedience in paradise. In this way, the Eve-Mary typology is understood in immediate connection to the Adam and Christ typology. The Eve-Mary typology, like all other intertextual relationships, participates in Irenaeus' broader intertextual connections.
86 This is also strengthened by the fact that Irenaeus envisions the rite of marriage to cease in the eschatological state. While he uses the marriage imagery for linking salvation history, his ultimate concern is soteriological. Behr, Asceticism, 113, Haer. 2.33.5.
87 Behr, Asceticism, 64 n. 96. Haer. 3.22.4. See also Dial. 132.
88 Haer. 3.22.4. Although, several passages may be in view, Isa 40:11 is likely due to the language of "his bosom" (sinum suum) combined with the use of "lambs" (ouem) at the start of the subsequent chapter.