6.7 Flesh, Blood, and the Kingdom of God: Haer. 5.10.1, Haer. 5.12.1–6, Haer. 5.14.1–2
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body the Father's will is embodied in Gen 1:26, and realized when the pledge of the Spirit that leads the faithful incrementally toward perfection, gives way to the fullness of the Spirit that renders them in the image and likeness of God.
6.7
Flesh, Blood, and the Kingdom of God: Haer. 5.10.1, Haer. 5.12.1–6, Haer. 5.14.1–2 The section of Haer. 5.9.1–14.4 concerns the interpretation of 1Cor 15:50 and the enigmatic saying, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (caro et sanguis Dei hereditare non possunt). The Gnostics regard this passage "decisive evidence" against any claim for a future bodily resurrection.79 Irenaeus' response entails the complex intertextual argumentation where he concludes that flesh and blood, in their present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but must be inherited by the Spirit.80 He applies a variety of intertextual reading strategies including verbal associations, Adam-Christ typology, and general-toparticular reasoning. In Haer. 5.10.1, Irenaeus interprets the original sense of image and likeness in Gen 1:26, but anticipates how the imagery sets a framework for the eschatological life in the Spirit. Then, in Haer. 5.12.1–6, he develops the logical contrast between humanity created in Gen 1–2, with the present life in the Spirit and the future eschatological life. Finally, in Haer. 5.14.1–2 he addresses the key language "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." He also closes with a polemical illustration drawn from Greco-Roman wrestling to describe Gnostic readings of 1 Cor 15:50 that serve to defend, once again, Irenaeus' practice of reading scripture intertextually.
6.7.1
The Olive Tree and the Image and Likeness: Haer. 5.10.1 (Gen 1:26) In Haer. 5.10, the controlling text in this section is the imagery of the wild olive tree in Rom 11:17, which he interprets as the flesh that is engrafted to the Spirit as the good olive tree. Those who are not engrafted with the Spirit are, according to Matt 7:9, cut off and thrown into the fire. These same individuals are fruitless and expose themselves as the tares sown among the wheat in the parable of Matt 13:25. Those engrafted to the good olive tree, on the other hand,
"receive the Word of God engrafted" (insertionem accipientes verbum Dei), which ensures their progress toward "the pristine nature of humankind" (pristinam . . . hominis naturam).
79 Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1975), 85. Cf. Haer. 5.13.2.
80 Behr, Asceticism, 105.
CHAPTER 6
Irenaeus focuses on the language of the "pristine nature" of Adam's original formation in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). This qualification of a "pristine nature" connotes a pre-lapsarian condition of Adam, but also, given the contextual scriptural imagery (Rom 11:17, Matt 7:9, and Matt 13:25), describes the salvific trajectory of the divine economy that tends towards the eschatological perfection of the faithful. The faithful who are, at present, engrafted to the good olive tree of the Spirit will receive the engrafting of the Word that forms them in the image and likeness of God.
6.7.2
The Breath of Life and the Spirit: Haer. 5.12.1–6 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) Continuing his intertextual reading of 1 Cor 15:50 in Haer. 5.12.1–6, Irenaeus stresses the dissimilarity between the experiences of life and death. For Irenaeus, death and life are ontologically contrasting conditions; they cannot mutually coexist within the same person. The flesh, for its part, remains a bystander that may be drawn in the direction of corruption or incorruption.
But Irenaeus must address the reality that, in the present, even those who experience life are still subject to death and corruption. For this reason, he speaks of "life" (vitae) in two senses that distinguish the present life within the divine economy given by the breath of God, which remains subject to death, and the eschatological glorified and incorruptible life in the Spirit.81 Each section in Haer. 5.12–2–4 contains echoes or allusions to Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 set in intertextual relationship to other texts including: Isa 25:8, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16,
Acts 2:17, 1 Cor 15:22, 1 Cor 15:45–46, and Gal 1:15–16.82 These are joined through both a detailed Adam-Christ typology and general-to-particular logic.
In the opening paragraph of Haer. 5.12.1, Irenaeus establishes the contrasting natures of life and death. While death has the power to overtake the human and drive life away, life bestowed by the Spirit must also possess the power to overcome death and restore the human to life with God (Rom 6:11). This economic distinction grounds his exegetical contrast in a general-to-particular fashion between the breath of life that animated Adam in Gen 2:7, with the vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 that causes the human to become spiritual.
The universality of the ephemeral life given by the breath to Adam, gives way to the particularly spiritual life bestowed by the Spirit through Christ. Then,
Irenaeus' union of Genesis and Paul is confirmed with reference to Isa 25:8 and Isa 42:5. In Isa 25:8 the reality of death's champion over life gives way to the eschatological life of God that swallows up death and wipes away every tear and sorrow. The verb κατεπίνω (devoro) in Isa 25:8 LXX is the same term Paul
81 Similar to arguments he has made in Haer. 5.3.2 and Haer. 5.7.1–2.
82 Cf. Haer. 5.18.1–2.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body uses in 1 Cor 15:54 and 2 Cor 5:4. Irenaeus describes the contrast in the nature and quality of life in the temporal life and the eternal life. The former life was given by the breath of God (Gen 2:7), while eternal life is given by the Spirit.
Citing Isa 42:5, the same God who fashioned the earth also imparted breath to all and the Spirit to those who walk upon the earth. These texts confirm the transition from the breath to the Spirit and the way he unites texts in a general-to-particular fashion. He distinguishes between the collective nature of the breath that is imparted to all people, and the Spirit given only to those
"who walk upon it [the earth]" (qui calcant illam). All humanity has inherited the "earth" (terra), which is the substance God uses in Gen 2:7 to fashion Adam, but now only those who have received the Spirit have sufficiently overcome or "tread down their earthly desires" (inculcant terrenas concupiscentias).83
Likewise, in Isa 57:16 the breath is "common throughout creation" (communiter in conditione) as a part of the creative work and, therefore, ephemeral and vulnerable.84 The Spirit, on the other hand, is consubstantial with God, and proceeds outward from God (Acts 2:17) remaining permanently in its place within the human form.
Continuing the contrast between the breath and the Spirit, Irenaeus applies the Adam-Christ typology of 1 Cor 15:45–6 to reinforce the salvific and economic trajectory of this relationship that corresponds to Gen 2:7. He employs
Adam and Christ as paradigms for the qualitative distinction between the breath in Gen 2:7 and vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45.85 The breath of life given to Adam (and by extension to all humanity) is provisional and temporary, abandoning the body after death. The Spirit, which follows after the breath, is eternal and permanent. Following the logic of 1 Cor 15:45, the first Adam is animated or rational, while the second Adam is spiritual. Contrary to the Gnostic sensibilities, the spiritual does not precede the rational (humanly speaking); the progression moves from the breath to the Spirit, or the animal to the spiritual. The need for the Spirit was introduced because the one who was made a "living soul" (animam) in Gen 2:7 forfeited his life though disobedience.86 In Epid 15 Irenaeus argued that had Adam and Eve been obedient to God's command they would have remained immortal. As a result the animating breath lost its strength and requires the vivification of the Spirit through adoption.
Those who do not possess the Spirit of God by adoption retain only the breath of life. The distinction turns upon each person's "receptive capacity" for the 83 Haer. 5.12.2.
84 Behr, Asceticism, 105–6.
85 Ibid., 535.
86 Haer. 5.12.2.
CHAPTER 6
animating breath of life, which is temporal and mortal, or the vivifying Spirit, that is eternal and immortal.87 According to Behr, there are not two sources of life, but one and only one life-giving Spirit who imparts the breath of God in Gen 2:7 and is poured out in fullness upon the faithful (Acts 2:17). Irenaeus' interpretation of the breath of life in Gen 2:7 is only properly understood within the economy of salvation and the vivifying Spirit of 1 Cor 15:45.
In Haer. 5.12.3–6 Irenaeus bolsters this anthropological argument by establishing the economic continuity and discontinuity between the breath of life in Gen 2:7 and the vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45. In Haer. 5.12.3 he notes for the strict continuity in the substance of the flesh that receives life. Although there are two modalities or degrees of life, one temporal and the other eternal, there is only one substance of the flesh partaking of both degrees of life.
The same substance that dies and dissolves back into the earth (Gen 3:19) is the same substance that receives the vivifying Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).88 Whereas the same lost sheep is the one that is found (Luke 15:4–6), the same body of Christ that experiences corruption is raised to new life in the Spirit. For this reason, just as there is solidarity with Adam in death, so also is there solidarity with Christ in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:22).
This soteriological tension between solidarity with Adam in death and solidarity with Christ in life (1Cor 15:22) is supported by a series of Pauline texts
(Col 3:5, Col 3:9–10, and Phil 1:22) and an allusion to Gen 1:26. The transition from one degree of life to the other happens by setting aside not the substance of the flesh, contrary to the Valentinians, but the lusts (concupiscentias) of the flesh (Col 3:5). This is, for Irenaeus, the "old man" (veterem hominem, Col 3:9), or the former way of life (pristinae . . . conversationis), not the "ancient formation" (veterem . . . plasationem, Gen 2:7) that was fashioned from the earth, because to live in the flesh is the work of the Spirit (Phil 1:22).89 Instead, those who desire solidarity in Christ's resurrection must put on the "new man"
(novum hominem) who is being renewed through the true knowledge of God and conformed to the image of the Creator (Col 3:10). Connected through parallel imagery, Irenaeus interprets Paul's reference to the "image of the Creator"
(imaginem conditoris) as confirmation of the fulfillment of God's intention for humanity to be made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).90 This new
87 Behr, Asceticism, 107.
88 Haer. 5.12.3.
89 Haer. 5.12.4. The pejorative use of the Pauline imagery veterem hominem should not be confused with the frequent positive portrayal the antiquam plasmationem that is the physical substance of Adam's body. Orbe, Teología V.1, 87.
90 Haer. 5.12.4.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body man of Col 3:9 is, for Irenaeus, the recapitulation of the same one created in the beginning to partake of the divine life.
In the closing sections of Haer. 5.12.5–6, there are two more echoes of the original formation of the flesh in Gen 2:7. Given the soteriological orientation of this section, the substance of the flesh continues to provide linking imagery that threads texts together his arguments. In the same manner as others, Paul was born of a woman (Gal 1:15–16) and received "ancient substance of flesh"
(antiqua carnis substantia, Gen 2:7). Later he persecuted the church until he had direct converse with the Lord, then he preached the gospel in the flesh.91 In the same manner as the Pauline old man/new man dialectic (Col 3:9–10), the very life of Paul reveals a continuity of substance before and after conversion.
The conversion of Paul is theologically analogous to Christ's miraculous healing accounts in the gospels, because they both exemplify a transition from the temporal life to eternal life in the Spirit. He argues that those who received physical restoration at the hands of Christ, "who formed humankind in the beginning" (ab initio plasmavit hominem), did so in the same substance of the flesh. The various parts of the body such as the eyes or the hands were not taken from a different substance, but retained the nature of their original form in a healthy condition. However, distinguishing between the particular and the universal, healing the particular members of the body typifies the universal restoration of the whole body in Christ, who confers life upon every portion of the flesh. There is no part or member that does not experience incorruption and life as one integrated whole. Therefore, the same one who created and organized the human form in the beginning is the same one who confers life upon his handiwork in the end.
6.7.3
Reconciliation in the Body of Christ: Haer. 5.14.1–2 (Gen 2:7) This section brings closure to Irenaeus' extended reflection on 1 Cor 15:50.92
While the Valentinians believe this Pauline language plainly refutes a bodily resurrection, Irenaeus builds his case for the salus carnis through a series of intertextual networks (especially Pauline) that drawn continually from that language and concepts resonate in Gen 1–3. In the final section, Haer. 5.13.2, he isolates what he perceives as the exegetical root of the problem. The Valentinians interpret the two terms, "flesh" (caro) and "blood" (sanguis), without respect for Paul's intended meaning and neglect to scrutinize the actual force (virtutem) of the terms themselves.93 Instead, they examine the 91 Cf. Haer. 3.12.9.
92 For the Valentinian reading of 1 Cor 15:50 see Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, 85–86.
93 Haer. 5.13.2.
CHAPTER 6
"terms themselves" (ipsas dictiones) apart from any association with the rest of scripture.94 As an illustration he compares the Valentinian exegesis of 1Cor
15:50 to an amateur wrestler who, with only single move, latches on to one part (unam partem) of his opponent's body.95 With a combination of moves, his adversary has no trouble overcoming the inexperienced wrestler. Not to be outdone, the conquered wrestler foolishly continues to maintain his grasp on the one part of his opponent's body and to the amusement of all the spectators he shamefully declares victory. In the same way, the Valentinians isolate these terms and refuse to consider the meaning of parallel imagery found throughout the Pauline corpus or the rest of the scriptural witness.96 By separating terms from their natural Pauline context, they force the apostle into contradiction.97 Even the description of the mortal assuming immortality in the immediate context of 1 Cor 15:54 communicates, according to Irenaeus, the salvation of the flesh. As a result, by neglecting the true understanding of one passage
(1 Cor 15:50) they misunderstand a multitude of others.
Considering the nature of Irenaeus' exegetical concerns and the tissue of Pauline passages containing the terminology of "flesh" (caro) and "blood"
(sanguis), he argues Paul cannot intend to devalue the flesh because elsewhere these terms are essential for defending Christ's human nature and the salvation of flesh.98 In both cases, the nature of the flesh in Gen 2:7 occupies a formative role. First, Irenaeus reasons that the blood of the righteous must be required, otherwise the Lord would not have spilled blood. From Abel
(Gen 4:10), to Noah (Gen 9:5–6), to Christ (Matt 23:35), the blood of the righteous has always been required. These three passages necessitate that Christ, receiving the same flesh and blood as the original formation of Adam
(Gen 2:7), recapitulated the shedding of the righteous blood in his own person and redeemed what was lost in Adam.
Second, against any notion of docetic Christology, Irenaeus argues that flesh requires salvation otherwise the incarnation would be pointless. Using
Gen 2:7 to interpret the language of flesh in 1 Cor 15:50, Irenaeus designates flesh as the very substance created from the dust. If life in the body required a different substance then the Father would have moulded Adam from some other substance. However, as Gen 2:7 illustrates, God moulded the man from 94 Haer. 5.13.2.
95 Haer. 5.13.2. Cf. Haer. 5.14.4.
96 He provides a number of examples throughout Haer. 5.13.3–4 including: Phil 3:20–21, 2
Cor 5:4, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:10–11, 2 Cor 3:3, Phil 3:10–11, and 1 Cor 15:13–21, 32.
97 Haer. 5.13.3, 5.
98 Donovan, One Right Reading?, 150.