6.3 The Resurrection of the Body: Haer. 5.3.1 and Haer. 5.5.2
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body remains subject to mortality. Corresponding to the both positions, Irenaeus appeals to the literal, plain sense reading of Gen 1:26. The creation of humankind in the image and likeness of God suggests that they are not the property of another, but God's very own creation. Not only this, but the incarnation assumes Christ took possession of his own creation and assumed flesh, thereby effecting the redemption of the people that are "his very own" (suo propria).33
At the incarnation the divine decree of Gen 1:26 comes to fruition and allows John and Paul to make sense of the incarnation in relation to the formation of Adam.
6.3
The Resurrection of the Body: Haer. 5.3.1 and Haer. 5.5.2
Haer. 5.3.1 begins a new section in the overall structure of Haer. 5 that addresses the salus carnis. Having worked through a critique of the Valentinians, Ebionites and Marcion, Irenaeus now provides a close evaluation of the Gnostic reading of 2 Cor 12:9.34 It is obvious that Irenaeus is familiar with competing Gnostic interpretations of this passage defending the renunciation of the corrupt body fashion by an incompetent Demiurge. The language of 2 Cor 12:9 and is cited in full in Haer. 5.3.1 and orients Haer. 5.3.1–5.5.2. The discussion focuses upon the interpretation of the language of "weakness of the flesh" (infirmitatem . . . carnis) and the "power of God" (potentiam Dei).35 In the hands of Irenaeus, this
Pauline text becomes a theological axiom manifesting the power of God over human weakness. The verbal and illustrative correspondence between Gen
1–3, 2 Cor 12:9, and the interrelated texts frames this section as a whole. Gen 2:7, in particular, serves as a crucial illustration of the power to restore the flesh.
6.3.1
The Power of God the Weakness of the Flesh: Haer. 5.3.2–3 (Gen 2:7) After concluding these polemical arguments, Irenaeus announces the text of 2 Cor 12:7–9 and cites the passage in the opening lines of Haer. 5.3.1. He then comments on this text through linking terms that unite a series of related texts including: Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 15:53, and Heb 11:19. His argument is framed into two logical claims: 1) God has the power to raise the flesh, and 2) the flesh is fit and capable of receiving vivification. Within this rhetorical structure, Gen 2:7 is a 33 Haer. 5.2.1.
34 Orbe notes that Irenaeus' comments are not set against any particular heretic (docetists,
Marcionites, Gnostics), but against all of them collectively. He suggests that he speaks in general terms to include any who would reject the salus carnis. Orbe, Teología V.1, 167.
35 Haer. 5.3.2. cf. Haer. 2.34.3–4.
CHAPTER 6
key validation for Irenaeus' understanding of the relationship between God's creative power and the resurrection. Then, continuing his discussion of the salus carnis, in Haer. 5.5.1–2 Irenaeus interprets 2 Cor 12:9, and the power of God to raise the flesh, alongside a number of allusions to the longevity of the patriarchs and the nature of paradise including: Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8 (cf. 2:15), Gen
3:23, Gen 5:24, (c.f. Gen 5:3–32) Gen 9:29, 2 Kgs 2:11, Jonah 2, Dan 3:19–25, and 2
Cor 12:4. Joining his anthropology and eschatology, he describes the economic vision for Adam's formation. God's two Hands, the Son and the Spirit that formed Adam in Gen 2:7, continue to sustain creation throughout salvation history.
First of all, discussing the power of God in 2 Cor 12:9, Irenaeus makes verbal and illustrative connections between the description of the resurrection and the "power" (virtutem) mentioned in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53, with the demonstration of God's creative power in Gen 2:7.36 Heb 11:19 describes the "power" (virtutem) God has to raise the dead, while 1 Cor 15:53 more explicitly describes the imagery of the power of God to raise the corruptible body to incorruption. The power made perfect in weakness in 2 Cor 12:9 is the power to raise the flesh expressed in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53. Therefore, the latter texts illustrates the power of God to form and enliven the flesh. What is more,
Irenaeus adds that the original creation in Gen 2:7 is even "more difficult and incredible" (multo difficilius et incredibilius) than the resurrection from the dead, because it was creatio ex nihilo.37 The resurrection in 1 Cor 15:53 and Heb
11:19 is a mere reassembling of the original form that decomposed into the earth. In the first instance, Irenaeus views the mortality of the flesh as experientially pedagogical, through which humankind becomes aware of the power of God. He goes so far as to define the weakness of the flesh as being "mortal by nature" (natura mortalis) and there is no hint of humanity's relationship to sin.38 Mortality is the natural condition of created beings that are, by nature, imperfect. As a result, death is not retributive, but a natural consequence of creaturely existence.39
Nevertheless, even if God has the power to raise the flesh, Irenaeus reasons that the body must have the aptitude to receive life again. Appealing to the logical analysis of the form fashioned in Gen 2:7, he argues both that God has power to form flesh from the earth and the flesh is capable of receiving
36 Haer. 5.3.1. See also Haer. 3.19.9, Haer. 3.22.1, and Haer. 5.10.2.
37 Haer. 5.3.2.
38 Haer. 5.3.1. Altermath, "The Purpose of the incarnation," 65.
39 Brown, "On the necessary imperfection of creation," 21. Cf. Orbe, "El hombre ideal en la teología de s. Ireneo," Greg 43 (1967): 449–491, 455.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body the life imparted by God. Consequently, this section entertains the contrast between the temporal life in the body and the eternal life given by the Spirit.
Here Irenaeus distinguishes between two "modalities of life" that are separated by degree not nature.40 The distinction between the present life and the resurrected life is not a distinction in nature, but a distinction in degree, from a "weaker" or "temporal" life to a "stronger" or "eternal" life.41 This reading is borne out of intertextual connections with 2 Cor 12:9. He draws out the imagery of the fashioning of the body in Gen 2:7, including the harmonious binding of the various body parts, such as the sensitivity of the sensory organs and the agility of the muscular system. The aesthetic harmony of the body reveals the "wisdom of God" (sapientia Dei) in creation that is indicative of God's power.
Utilizing his rhetorical arsenal he compares the flesh to a sponge or a torch.42
Just as the sponge is fit to absorb water and the torch to possess fire, so also is the flesh, as Gen 2:7 testifies, "found fit and capable of receiving the power of God" (Invenietur autem perceptrix et capax caro virtutis Dei).43 Just as the body has the capacity to receive the power of God in Gen 2:7, so also in the resurrection.44
6.3.2
The Flesh in the Hands of God: Haer. 5.5.1–2 (Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Gen 2:15, Gen 3:23) Continuing his discussion of the salus carnis, in Haer. 5.5.1–2 Irenaeus exploits the longevity of the patriarchs and the nature of paradise as he elucidates, in response to 2 Cor 12:9, the power of God to raise the flesh. Joining his anthropology and eschatology, he describes the economic vision for Adam's formation. Irenaeus again applies a prosopological reading of Gen 2:7 and the "two
Hands" of God, that is the Son and the Spirit, who form Adam from the dust, continue to sustain creation throughout salvation history. In Adam, Irenaeus writes, the hands of God became accustomed "to join together, to preserve, to sustain, to bring his form and place him where they pleased" (coaptare et tenere et bajulare suum plasma et ferre et ponere ubi ipsae vellent).45 The last three
40 Behr, Asceticism, 95–6. Cf. Haer. 2.34.3–4.
41 Behr, Asceticism, 96.
42 Haer. 5.3.3.
43 Haer. 5.3.2. In the following section, Haer. 5.3.3, Irenaeus develops this argument and suggests the life the Gnostics enjoy now supports the capability of the flesh to participate in life.
44 This section confirms that Behr and others are right to correct Rousseau on his assertion that "life" in Haer. 2.34.3–4 is something other than bodily existence. Rousseau, "L'Eternité des peines", 843. Cf. Donovan, "Alive to the Glory of God," 289.
45 Haer. 5.5.1.
CHAPTER 6
verbs (bajulare, ferre, ponere) are derived from Gen 2:8 (cf. 2:15), where God planted a garden in paradise and placed Adam there for growth and maturity.46
The former two verbs (coaptare, tenere) explain the Son and the Spirit's role in holding simultaneously sustaining the bonds and preserving the life of the created form. This characterization of the inter-trinitarian activity is not, in Irenaeus' view, reserved to Adam's pre-lapsarian life. He has already noted that at no time did the "Hands of God" never abandoned Adam, because the existence and preservation of the flesh depends wholly upon the will and pleasure of God.47
Irenaeus joins his citation of Gen 2:8 with an allusion to Adam's expulsion from the Garden in Gen 3:23. While God's will and desire for Adam was the Edenic life, Adam relinquished this opportunity in his disobedience. Extending the application of his prosopological reading, any scriptural account involving the preservation or protraction of life in the body following Gen 3 is explained through the relationship to the Hands of God and the nature of paradise including: the translation and assumption of Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah
(2 Kgs 2:11), the preservation of Jonah in the whale (Jonah 2), and the preservation of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the furnace (Dan 3:19–25).48 This also includes the longevity of the patriarchs (i.e. Gen 5:3–32, Gen 9:29) who enjoyed their prolonged life for no other reason than the pleasure and will of God. In each instance the same "Hands" that fashioned Adam and placed him in paradise are the same "Hands" extending and preserving life throughout the unfolding of the divine economy.
While the preservation of the body is reserved for the Hands of God, the experiences of Enoch and Elijah raise the question of the location of paradise.49 Irenaeus' interpretation of paradise is a sensible, intermediate realm separate from the earth, where the just and righteous dwell in anticipation of resurrection and immortality.50 He links the experiences of Adam, Enoch, and Elijah, with Paul's rapture to paradise in 2 Cor 12:4. All four contain the language of "paradise" (paradisus) in each passage and, in the case of the latter three, the experience of being caught up to heaven. Adam, on the other hand, had existed in paradise and after his disobedience was cast out into this world.51 In this sense, Enoch, Elijah and Paul exemplify the inversion of Adam's
46 Orbe, Teología V.1, 239.
47 Haer. 5.1.3.
48 Haer. 5.5.2.
49 Cf. Epid 10.
50 Cf. Epid 12.
51 Haer. 5.5.1.