6.2 Refuting Valentinians, Ebionites, and Marcion: Haer. 5.1.1–5.2.1
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body number of prophetic texts in light of God's progressive plan of redemption within the divine economy. A short conclusion in Haer. 5.36.3 fills out the work with a summary of the essential argument for resurrection and the glorified body fashioned once again in the image of God. This short conclusion brings
Haer. 5, and indeed the whole work, to a fitting conclusion.
Within the course of these arguments there are forty-eight allusions of Gen 1–3 that are found in half of the thirty-six chapters.2 It is clear that the contents of Gen 1–3 are at the forefront of his mind from the opening discussion of the salus carnis in Haer. 5.1.1 to the final allusion to Gen 1:26 in the closing lines of Haer. 5.36.3. He constantly returns to the imagery as he weaves it together with other texts through the various aspects of his intertextual arguments. Irenaeus continues to utilize the variety of intertextual practices that have characterized his exegesis to this point including: organizational functions, verbal connections, typology, illustrative application, general-to-particular arguments, prophecy and fulfillment, prosopological interpretation, and canonical arrangements. Together, these classifications clarify in analytical terms precisely how Irenaeus reads scripture intertextually. Amid his theological arguments, these strategies bolster his support his theological reasoning from the scriptures.
6.2
Refuting Valentinians, Ebionites, and Marcion: Haer. 5.1.1–5.2.1
As he has argued elsewhere, Irenaeus commences Haer. 5 with formal defense for the necessity for the incarnation in response to the Ebionites, Valentinians, and Marcion.3 Against the Valentinians and the Ebionites, he argues that Word become flesh in order to reveal the nature of the Creator. The incarnation is not only effectual for salvation, but it is instructive in the sense that it clarifies the creation events in Gen 1–3. Similarly, when he turns his attention to Marcion, he identifies the connections between the Creator in Gen 1–3 and the Father of Jesus in the Gospels. Both of these arguments are built upon intricate
2 Like the previous books, there are several references in BP that were unidentifiable including:
Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in Haer. 5.11.2 (cf. 1Cor 15:49–50), Gen 3:19 in Haer. 5.17.1, Gen 3:1–6 in Haer. 5.24.3 (John 8:44), and Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in Haer. 5.33.1–4.
3 Haer. 5.1.1–2.3. Sakari Häkkinen, "Ebionites," in A Companion to Second-Century Christian
'Heretics,' 247–78. Häkkinen suggests that Irenaeus derived his views from a revised catalog of heresies developed from Justin's Syntagma. See also Orbe, "Errores de los ebionitas (Analisis de Ireneo, Adversus haereses, V, 1, 3)," Mar 41 (1979): 147–70.
CHAPTER 6
intertextual scriptural readings fashioned through a literal reading of Gen 1–3 and an Adam-Christ typology.
6.2.1
The Valentinians on Adam and Christ: Haer. 5.1.1–2 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:1–6, Gen 3:24) In Haer. 5.1.1.-3 Irenaeus addresses, once again, the Valentinian and the Ebionite views of the incarnation. First of all, in Haer. 5.1.1 he argues that if the Word of God did not become flesh, the revelation of God would have remained obscure and unattainable.4 While the incarnation is effectual, it is also theologically instructive as it illuminates the understanding of the creation event. After all,
Irenaeus reminds his readers, no one knows the mind of God or offers God counsel (Rom 11:34) except the Word of God. Once the divine Logos, who is the Counselor of the Father (John 1:18), became incarnate he offered up spiritual instruction. As a result the faithful, through communion with the Son of God
(1 John 1:6) are able to perform the commands of his teaching (James 1:22) and advance towards divine perfection. This sophisticated intertextual description of the incarnation's didactical nature forms the backdrop for Irenaeus' explanation of the content of Christ's revelatory instruction, which he develops in the next few chapters.
He characterizes the revelation of the Word described above with notions of salvific perfection in the image and likeness of God and redemption from apostasy, both of which comprise subtle echoes of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7 and Gen
3:1–6.5 Beginning with his reading of Gen 1–2, he writes:
We who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness [Gen 1:26] predestinated according to the foreknowledge of the Father [Eph 1:11–12; 1Pet 1:2] that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being, and made the first-fruits of creation [James 1:18].6
The echo of Gen 1:26 emphasizes the Christological connection and describes Adam as "formed after his [Christ's] likeness" (ad eum similitudinem facti). The reference to creation in the likeness of Christ is the qualitative description of humanity as "predestinated" (praedestinati) for immortality (Eph 1:11–12)
4 Haer. 5.1.1.
5 While Orbe identifies this as an allusion to Gen 1:26, it is not mentioned in BP or SC. Given the contextual description it seems certain Irenaeus has the imagery of Gen 1:26 in view. Orbe,
Teología V.1, 60–1. See also Fantino, L'homme, 114.
6 Haer. 5.1.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body by the "foreknowledge" (praescientiam) of the Father (1Pet 1:2) through the economic administration of the preexistent Word [James 1:18].7 The divine command in Gen 1:26 is not a momentary, impulsive decision, as it was for the Gnostics, but a carefully calculated salvific arrangement designed to lead humanity incrementally towards the divine likeness.8 The conflation of these
New Testament texts clarifies the divine intention for creation in Gen 1–2, and, in this way, elucidates the literal interpretation of the text.
Second, the same intensive literal reading of Gen 1–2 continues in Haer. 5.1.1 with an extended description of the unjust apostasy committed in Gen 3:1–5, when the serpent, by means of cunning persuasion, gained dominion over Adam and Eve in the beginning and captured the creation that did not belong to him [John 8:44]. The verbal connections between Gen 3:1–5 and John 8:44 are located in the correspondences to "Satan" and the "beginning" in the Lord's words, and the general reference to humanity as "from your father the Devil."9
For Irenaeus the prepositional phrase is possessive, implying that Satan took possession of humanity through the deception of the serpent. Satan, then, has tormented God's creatures throughout salvation history until the incarnation.
Once again Irenaeus describes humanity as the "ancient handiwork of God"
(antiqua plasmatio Dei), which always connotes the physical body of Adam fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7.10 The Adam-Christ typology continues to inform his theology of the incarnation. When Christ assumed humanity, he became the means of physical redemption. Twice in this context Irenaeus characterizes redemption from apostasy with the blood redemption language of Eph 1:7 and the ransom text of 1 Tim 2:6.11 Through his death and resurrection Christ offered himself as a "redemption" (redemptionem) payment to the Father for all those who had been led into captivity through the deception of the serpent. This theological reading links his intensive literal reading with his Adam-Christ typology and demonstrates continuity between these reading strategies. The contemplation on the work of Satan through the serpent conflates Gen 3:1–6 with John 8:44, while the Adam-Christ typology of Eph
1:7, and 1 Tim 2:6 theologically connects the work of Christ with the activity of the serpent.
Cf. Haer. 4.38.3, James 1:18.
Haer. 1.5.5, Haer. 1.18.2, Haer. 1.24.1–2, and Haer. 1.30.6.
Haer. 5.1.1.
10 Orbe, Teología V.1, 87. Cf. Haer. 3.18.7, Haer. 4.36.2, 4, Haer. 5.14.1–2, Haer. 5.15.3, and Haer.
5.21.1.
11 SC notes Col 1:14, but the redemption language of sanguine alludes to Eph 1:7.
CHAPTER 6
Irenaeus employs that same Adam-Christ typology in his critique of the docetic Valentinians in Haer. 5.1.2, who suggest the Word only appeared to become incarnate, but did not in reality assume flesh. Against a Valentinian docetism, he adds another brief allusion to Gen 2:7, which is also conflated with his recapitulation argument from Eph 1:10. If Christ merely appeared to become incarnate then it is logical to assume that he received nothing from Mary. However, the redemption of the body necessarily assumed that he received from Mary true flesh and blood. In Irenaeus' words, "For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by which He redeemed us, unless He had summed up in Himself [Eph 1:10] the ancient formation of Adam [Gen 2:7]." Instead of the more general reference that Christ summed up "all things" (πáντα) in himself, Irenaeus particularizes Paul's argument, so that it is clear that Christ summed up the formation of Adam in himself. He has already made the case the humanity is a particular focus with in the general reference to the creation of all things.12 This figural interpretation of Eph
1:10 specifies the apostle's language, and clarifies precisely the focus of Christ's salvific work. For Irenaeus, it is not logically consistent that Christ could recapitulate Adam's formation in himself only in appearance, nor merely appear to redeem the body that is subject to death. He must do so in reality, which means he must have assumed in himself the same substance of Adam's flesh.
6.2.2
The Ebionites on Creation and Incarnation: Haer. 5.1.3 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen 3:23) While the Valentinians deny the humanity of Christ, the Ebionites reject his deity. They regard Jesus as the Messiah, but reject the virgin birth.13 Irenaeus' polemical response is laced with Genesis creation imagery and read in correspondence with Luke 1:35, John 1:13, 1 Cor 5:7, and 1 Cor 15:22.14 He appeals to the imagery of these texts in order to illustrate the continuity between Adam and Christ's formation. Furthermore, the denial of the incarnation is more fundamentally a denial of the potentiality for union, or "mingling" (commixtionem), between God and the human person, which is described in the 12 Haer. 4.20.1–2.
13 Häkkinen, "Ebionites," 247–78. Irenaeus is the first to mention the Ebionites among his analysis of heretics and he has done so on several occasions: Haer. 1.26.2, Haer. 3.11.7,
Haer. 3.21.1, and Haer. 4.33.4. Orbe isolates some interesting linguistic parallels in first and second part of Haer. 5.1.3, which correspond to Irenaeus' polemical summary with his theological rebuttal. Orbe, Teología V.1, 88–89. The two sections comprise SC 153.24.61–
26.71 and SC 153.26.71–83.
14 Haer. 5.1.3.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body Spirit and the power of God coming upon Mary in Luke 1:35.15 For Irenaeus, the Ebonite's denial of the incarnation identifies them with those still bound by Adam's sin of disobedience. To illustrate this point, he utilizes the Pauline culinary imagery of bread-making in 1 Cor 5:6–7, saying that the Ebionites
"remain in the old leaven of birth" (veteri generationis perseverantes fermento).16
By remaining in the condition of the heretics, they remain bound to Adam who was "conquered" (victus, Gen 3:6) and "expelled from paradise" (projectus es de paradiso, Gen 3:23).17 The old leaven of 1 Cor 5:7, therefore, illustrates
Adam's post-lapsarian condition, and all humankind, including the Ebionites, who reject the incarnation remain in this state.
Irenaeus continues the illustrative correspondence and the parallel conceptual patterning between the "bread-making" metaphor in 1 Cor 5:7 (Gen 3:6 and Gen 3:23) and the "human-making" imagery in Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. Not only do the Ebionites rebuff the proper understanding of Adam's fallen nature, but they also misunderstand the creative performance of the Word and Spirit from the creation to the incarnation.18 Applying his Adam-Christ typology
(Rom 5:12, 1Cor 15:22), Irenaeus parallels the nature of Adam's formation "in the beginning" (initio, Gen 2:7), and Christ's formation "in the end" ( fine, Luke
1:35). He emphasizes the substance, or plasma (Gen 2:7), of Adam's formation as a way to identify the solidarity of the whole human race in Adam.19 But the account in Gen 2:7 does not merely emphasize the plasma, because the plasma without the "breath of life" (adspiratio vitae) remains inanimate. Through the infusion of the breath of life, Adam becomes a "living human" (animavit hominem, Gen 2:7) and a "rational being" (animal rationabile). Rationality is a key component of the imago dei and Irenaeus' view of human freedom, though the use here is also polemical. Since the Ebionites are in the line of Adam and endowed with human freedom and rationality, they willingly choose to reject the validity of the incarnation, and their choice has soteriological implications.
15 Here Irenaeus appears to be employing Eucharist imagery with the composite nature of wine, verses mere water. For the complex interpretation of this term, see: Orbe, Teología
V.1, 101–2.
16 Haer. 5.1.3. Orbe points to a similar idea in Jesus' warning against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospels (Matt 16:6, 11, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1), which may also be part of this use of 1 Cor 5:7. Orbe, Teología V.1, 90, 99.
17 Cf. Haer. 3.23.7. The language non recipientes, referring to the Ebionites, introduces each allusion/echo.
18 In this case the similar language of neque intelligere volentes quoniam and non contemplantes quoniam links these concepts.
19 Behr, Asceticism, 38.
CHAPTER 6
Irenaeus' illustrative use of Gen 2:7 serves as theological validation that human plasma can in fact receive divine unction. The imagery and divine activity recorded in the description of the incarnation in Luke 1:35 corresponds to Adam's formation. Thus, the Ebionites reject the proper connections between Luke 1:35 and Gen 2:7. While the language of "Holy Spirit" (Spiritus sanctus) in Luke 1:35 is self-evident, he interprets the "Power of the Most High" (Virtus
Altissimi) as the "Son of the Most High God and Father of all" ( filius Altissimi
Dei Patris omnium), thereby distinguishing between the activity of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the incarnation.20 Through the trinitarian activity expressed in a conflation of Luke 1:35 and Gen 2:7, the child born of Mary was united with the "ancient substance of Adam's formation" (antiquae substantiae plasmationis Adae), so that, once again, the substance of Adam's formation becomes
"living and perfect" (viventem et perfectum) in the person of Christ.21 Returning again to the Pauline imagery of 1 Cor 5:7, Christ is the "new lump" (νέον φύραμα) or the "new generation" (novam . . . generationem) that, once again, imparts life to the faithful (1 Cor 15:22).22 All who remain joined to Adam's formation (i.e. the Ebionites) are subject to death, while all that remain faithful to Christ will be made alive.23 The final echo of 1 Cor 15:22 highlights the Adam-Christ typology that pervades this intertextual reading of Gen 2:7, Luke 1:35, and 1Cor 5:7.
The tenor of Irenaeus' objection to Ebionite Christology, therefore, is not necessarily their reading of Luke 1:35 (or their rejection of Luke's Gospel altogether i.e. Haer. 1.26.2), but their lack of a coherent understanding of the events within the divine economy and vision for the man formed in Gen 1–2 epitomized in the intertextual correspondence between Gen 2:7, Luke 1:35,
1Cor 5:7, 1Cor 15:22. Irenaeus makes it clear that any dispute over Luke 1:35 (not to mention how this passage interprets Isa 7:14) must also address the apparent economic continuity between the substance of Adam's formation and Christ's incarnation. This becomes most evident in the closing lines of Haer.
5.1.3 where, citing Gen 1:26, Irenaeus formulates clear trinitarian theology of history and economic trajectory of salvation that is often expressed in a prosopological manner of reading.
He uses the imagery of Gen 1:26 in connection with his imagery of "hands"
(manus) as a trinitarian analogy depicting the immediacy of God's presence in the formation of Adam (both in the beginning and throughout salvation
20 For the implicit connections between Luke 1:3 and Isa 7:14 in Irenaeus' exegetical response to the Ebonites see: Orbe, Teología V.1, 93–4.
21 Haer. 5.1.3.
22 Haer. 5.1.3. Cf. Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, and Col 3:9.
23 Cf. Rom 5:12.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body history). The Son and the Spirit are the "hands of God" (manus Dei) in Gen
1:26 to whom the Father proclaims, "Let Us make man in our image and likeness" (Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram).24 Noting the intertextual connections between Gen 1:26 and Luke 1:35, the "hands" imagery in this context is linked to the two-fold mention of the Son and the Spirit in Luke 1:35. These same "Hands" are at work in the incarnation in Luke 1:35, fashioning Christ in the same pattern as Adam. Through the imagery of hands, the two-fold mention of the "Holy Spirit" (πνεῦμα ἁγιον) and the "Power of the Most High" (δύναμις ὑψίστου) in Luke 1:35 become the paradigm through which to understand the plural pronoun in the proclamation "Let Us make"
(Faciamus) in Gen 1:26. Just as the Spirit and the Son (Power) are working in Luke 1:35, so it is the Spirit and the Son working in Gen 1:26.
Building upon the imagery of the "Hands" of God in Gen 1:26, Irenaeus concludes with an allusion to John 1:13, suggesting that the incarnation is a divine act and not the work of human desire or will. Christ is not merely human, but a "living man" (vivum . . . hominem, Gen 2:7) born out of the good pleasure of God for the sake of Adam.25 When John 1:13 is set in continuity with Gen 2:7,
John 1:13 expresses Christ as the ideal man of Genesis. For Irenaeus, John 1:13 is the natural theological conclusion to the creation of Adam.
While Irenaeus can appear inconsistent in his use of imago and similitudo, Fantino's analysis concludes, by and large, the imago refers to the incarnate Son of God, while the likeness refers to the faculty of reason or free will endowed to the creature and the Spirit that conforms the faithful to Christ's image. In this sense, soteriological function of the Word as the image and the Spirit as the likeness in Gen 1:26 is confirmed when this text is read in continuity with Luke 1:35 and John 1:13 (not to mention the Pauline Adam-Christ typology).
Orbe comes close to making this argument when he suggests in passing that pre-incarnate readings of Gen 1:26 (and post-incarnate readings of the Ebionites) did not understand the "scope" of Gen 1:26 until the revelation of the incarnation in Luke 1:35 and John 1:13.26 The titles and activity of the divine persons in Luke 1:35 also solidifies the personal distinction between image and likeness. With the revelation of the incarnate Son, the one who is willing to read scripture in continuity with scripture discovers the Son and Spirit of Luke
1:35 is the image and likeness of Gen 1:26. Of course this theological distinction cannot be separated from the anthropological object of salvation. It is the human form that is the locus of the Word and Spirit's activity throughout
24 Haer. 5.1.3.
25 Haer. 5.1.3. Cf. Col 1:19 (Phil 2:13).
26 Orbe, Teología V.1, 111.
CHAPTER 6
history. Thus, Irenaeus does not debate the Valentinian and Ebionites over any particular passage from Gen 1–3, but through a community of texts read alongside these creation texts.
6.2.3
Marcion on the Creator and the Father: Haer. 5.2.1 (Gen 1:26) Following closely with the previous section, in this chapter Irenaeus counters the Marcionite distinction between the Creator in Genesis and the Father of Jesus.27 Irenaeus argues that Marcion believes the supreme God has no association to the material world; creation belongs wholly to the Demiurge of Genesis, who is also Yahweh the God of the Jews.28 The sensible and material world are in every way alien to the Supreme God. Drawing a sharp distinction between the creation in Genesis and the Savior in the Gospels, Marcion believes the Supreme God sent a Savior to a world that did not belong to him to redeem a people that were not his own.29
Contrary to Marcion, Irenaeus reads the creation accounts in a highly literal manner and identifies humankind as God's property by nature, since humankind is God's creation. The logical conclusion is that the Father sent the Son to redeem what already belonged to him.30 His polemic in this context focuses on two aspects of Marcion's thought: 1) the unjust nature of redeeming another's property and 2) the ineffectual nature of redemption without blood.31 The former addresses the reading of John 1:11, the latter contains echoes of Eph 1:7, and both are set in relationship to Gen 1:26.32 First, Irenaeus argues a priori that to steal the property belonging to another is unjust. Even if humanity belonged to the Demiurge and is alien (John 1:11) to the true God, it is not right or lawful to steal. Second, redemption that does not involve physical, bodily sacrifice (Eph 1:7) does not redeem the true nature of humanity. Without bodily sacrifice, the Savior did not truly become human and, as a result, humanity
27 Cf. Haer. 4.18.4.
28 There is much debate regarding the accuracy of Irenaeus' presentation of Marcion. Orbe,
Teología V.1, 121. Harnack, Marcion, 295.
29 According to Tertullian, the language of coming "to another's property" (in aliena) is essential terminology of Marcion taken from John 1:11. Tertullian, Marc. 3.6.2, Marc. 3.9.10.
See also: Orbe, Teología V.1, 118. Harnack, Marcion, 266–88. Orbe locates an allusion to John 1:11 in this citation, but it is not noted in SC or BP. Orbe, Teología V.1, 123.
30 Haer. 5.1.1. Although he does not mention Marcion specifically, Irenaeus is clearly speaking of Marcion here because of the parallel passage in Haer. 3.11.2.
31 Orbe, Teología V.1, 121.
32 Rousseau cites this passage as Col. 1:14, but the presence of sanguine here and in Eph 1:7 make the latter the more likely passage in consideration.