6.4 Perfection in the Image and Likeness: Haer. 5.6.1 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7)
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body expulsion from paradise in Gen 3:23 and function as a paradigm for the faithful that will make their way back into paradise to dwell in the presence of God.
Contrary to Gnostic assumptions, their physical bodies are no hindrance to the paradisiacal life.
6.4
Perfection in the Image and Likeness: Haer. 5.6.1 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) Having used the testimonies of the faithful in the Old Testament to communicate the power and providence of God over the preservation of the flesh within the economy, in Haer. 5.6.1 Irenaeus provides a more focused treatment of the final resurrection in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). This section, in particular, contains some intense reflection on the imagery of the body and Adam's formation from the dust. The anthropological vocabulary is interpreted literally and connects to other passages with similar imagery. Specifically, he links the image of God mentioned in Gen 1:26 with the flesh formed in Gen 2:7, saying it is "the flesh that was molded according to the image of God" (carni quae plasmata secundum imaginem Dei).52 Irenaeus also links reason and freedom with the imago dei, but he explicitly rejects any notion of locating the image in the immaterial.53 Irenaeus does not come to this conclusion merely from his contemplation on Gen 1:26, but from the intertextual association with Rom 8:29. Fantino does not mention Rom 8:29 in his evaluation of this passage and only mentions it elsewhere in passing as a purely eschatological reality.54
While many have observed that the bishop can appear "inconsistent" in his usage of these terms, Steenberg argues that when he does clearly distinguish them, the distinction may be understood as "the ontological formation of the human person (image) and the actualization of the human nature in an individual's lived life (likeness)."55 The former applies most properly to the person of the Son, while the latter applies to the activity of the Spirit, but Irenaeus arrives at this rendering of likeness through linking Rom 8:29 and Gen 1:26, which are connected through the language of "image" and the concept of 52 Haer. 5.6.1.
53 Fantino, L' Homme, 87–9. Epid. 11. Haer. 4.37.4.
54 Fantino, L'homme, 18, 125–28. For similar uses of Rom 8:29 see Haer. 4.20.8 and Haer.
4.37.7.
55 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 138. Fantino suggests that the likeness is "presence of the Spirit," but Behr is right to connect it with the breath of life that is lost in the apostasy. Behr,
Anthropology, 115; Fantino, L'homme, 117–8. See also Fantino, L'homme, 4–44. Wingren,
Man and the incarnation, 82. Osborn, Irenaeus, 211.
CHAPTER 6
"conformable" (conforme).56 Alluding to this Pauline passage, Irenaeus argues that the flesh was created to be conformable (conforme) and adapted (adaptans), by means of the Son and Spirit, to the image of the incarnate Son.57 When
Irenaeus reads Gen 1:26 in continuity with Rom 8:29, he interprets the notion of being conformed to the likeness as the activity of the Spirit transforming the faithful into the glorified and perfected image of the resurrected Christ.58
This transformation is not an instantaneous event but a prolonged plasmatio hominis that extends throughout the course of the divine economy to the final consummation.59
The whole person, as Irenaeus argues, and not merely part of the person, was made in the image and likeness of God. The complete human person is one who is composed of body, soul, and Spirit and the three elements express the participation in the "triune reality" of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Gnostics
(especially the Valentinians), on the other hand, erect an anthropological dualism that partitions humanity in three distinctive natures: hylic, psychic, and spiritual.60 The psychic human is fashioned after the likeness of the Demiurge, the pneumatic after the likeness of Sophia, and the body of the hylic after the image of Anthropos. In essence, Irenaeus argues in Gen 1:26 that God did not say "Let Us make the soul after the image and likeness of God," but God said
"Let us make the man after the image and likeness of God." For Irenaeus, the soul and the Spirit are both part of the person, but they do not constitute the whole person.
Furthermore, the perfected human person is not merely body and soul, but also requires the indwelling of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:6). Irenaeus appeals to the two terms "perfect" (perfectus) and "spiritual" (spiritalis), which he views as synonymous, derived from 1 Cor 2:6 and 1 Cor 2:15 and related conceptually to the person formed from the dust and after the image of God in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.61 Irenaeus' view is fundamentally unitary, and comprising the 56 Haer. 5.6.1.
57 Orbe suggests a possible conflation with Phil 3:21 that contains similar imagery and the language of "transform" (μετασχηματίζω), but Irenaeus never mentions this text elsewhere. However, as Orbe also points out, the subject performing the work of transformation is Christ (cf. Phil 3:20).
58 Fantino, L'homme, 18, 178. Orbe, Teología V.1, 268.
59 Orbe, Teología V.1, 270; Steenberg, Irenaeus, 136.
60 Haer. 1.5.1–5.
61 In Haer. 1.8.3. Irenaeus describes how the Valentinians appeal to 1 Cor 2:14–15, along with 1 Cor 15:46, to explain their three-fold distinction of persons. 1 Cor 15:46 speaks of the "earthly" (choicum) 1 Cor 2:14 speaks of the "animal" (animale) and 1 Cor 2:15 speaks of the "spiritual" (spiritale). Irenaeus has already mentioned that the Valentinians refer to
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body anthropological "commingling and union" (commixtio et adunitio) of the soul receiving Spirit along with the "admixture" (admixtae) of the body fashioned in the image of the incarnate Son (i.e. Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7).62 Thus, his anthropological framework is essentially tripartite, consisting of a body and soul that is infused with the Spirit of God. He will often use this philosophical definition of the human person as composed of body and soul, and Irenaeus' reading of 1 Cor 2:11 is consistent with his anthropological framework.63 The Spirit of a man in 1 Cor 2:11 is the Spirit of God.64 But his use of 1 Cor 2:11 implies that the presence of the Spirit alone, without the presence of the body is not a perfect or spiritual person. This is, as Behr notes, Irenaeus' primary point of emphasis when he closes with a citation of 1 Thess 5:23.65
The composite nature of Irenaeus' anthropological discussion from Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 2:6, 11, and 15 is expressed fully in the language of 1 Thess
5:23. 1 Thess 5:23 is the crucial passage that unites the anthropological poles of Genesis and Paul. It mentions all the component parts of the human person: body, soul, and Spirit, along with the language of "perfect" (perfectus).66
Arguing from 1 Thess 5:23, those who are "perfect" are those who present to the Lord all three parts in concord. Contrary to the breath of life that infuses the formation from the dust, the flesh is vivified and made spiritual by the Spirit.
These exegetical relationships communicate the creation of humankind and the eschatological perfection of the human person who is created in the image and likeness of God. themselves as spiritual and perfect and in the context of Haer. 1.8.4, he cites the Valentinian use of 1 Cor 2:6 that finds Paul speaking of the mysteries of the Pleroma.
62 Haer. 5.6.1; cf. 1 Cor 3:1. He also alludes to 1 Cor 12:7 as those who bring to light the mysteries of God.
63 Cf. Haer. 2.33.5 and Epid. 7.
64 Haer. 5.6.1.
65 Behr, Anthropology, 100. Behr provides a good discussion of the interpretative difficulties of this passage presented in Rousseau's translation. Rousseau wants to render the homo spiritus, as the human soul, but as Behr notes, Irenaeus never does so. So the Spiritus is the Spiritus Dei as the one who owns and inhabits the human creature. Behr, Anthropology,
99 n. 51. Likewise, Orbe (contra Rousseau) consistently identifies the spiritus hominis with the spiritus Dei. Behr and Orbe are right to observe that in Irenaeus, the Spiritus is always divine, comes from God to humankind, and is considered an essential component of the perfect human. Orbe, Teología V.1, 274–5. Cf. SC 152.227–32.
66 Haer. 5.6.1. Cf. Haer. 2.33.5.