The Arc of the Economy
Irenaeus of Lyons invisible and incomprehensible to be visible and comprehensible. And this is done, as Irenaeus specifies and we will examine in what follows, in order that what we lost in Adam we might regain in Christ, recapitulating us in himself and rendering us in the image and likeness of God.
THE ARC OF THE ECONOMY
As was noted in the previous chapter, adherence to the canon of truth was not understood by Irenaeus to curtail further reflection or analysis, but rather to provide a firm basis upon which this can be done, for all reflection, if it is not to dissolve into endless speculation, requires a criterion. Thus, after giving his fullest statement of the canon in haer. 1.10.1, Irenaeus continues in haer. 1.10.3 by indicating possible lines of enquiry for those who want to understand the faith more fully. This cannot be done,
Irenaeus asserts, by changing the 'hypothesis' itself, by postulating, for instance, another God other than the Creator, maker, and nourisher of this universe, or another Christ or Only-begotten, for, quite simply, this would be a different project altogether. Rather one should bring out more clearly the meaning of those things spoken of in parables in accord with 'the hypothesis of the truth'. In particular, one should seek: to expound the dealings and economy of God, which occurred for the sake of humanity; to make clear that God was long-suffering with regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed and the disobedience of humans; to set forth why
God made some things temporal, others eternal, some heavenly, others eternal; to understand why God, being invisible, yet appeared to the prophets, not in one form but differently to different ones; to indicate why several covenants were made with humanity, and to teach the character of each covenant; to search out why 'God consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all' [Rom.
11:32], and to acknowledge thankfully [ PåÆæØ E] why the Word of God 'became flesh' [ John 1:14] and suffered, and to relate why the coming [Ææı Æ] of the Son of God was in the last times [K K åø H ŒÆØæH], that is, [why] the Beginning appeared at the end; to unfold as much as lies in Scripture concerning the end and the things to come; and not pass over in silence why God made the Gentiles, who were despaired of, co-heirs, co-incorporated, and co-partakers with the saints; and to expound how this mortal, fleshly [body] shall put on immortality and the corruptible incorruptibility [cf. 1 Cor. 15:53–4]; and to proclaim how he says '[Those who were] not a people, are a people, and she who was not beloved is beloved' [cf. Hos. 2:25; Rom. 9:25], and how 'The children of her who was desolate are more than her who is married' [cf. Isa. 54:1; Gal. 4:27]. For regarding these, and other such points, the apostle exclaims: 'O the depths of riches and wisdom and
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his judgements and inscrutable his ways!' [Rom. 11:33].31
All these points are not theological items deriving from the rule of truth, nor do they, together, form a 'system' of theological doctrine; they are rather, as the concluding quotation from Paul indicates, openings into the mysteries of the wisdom and riches of God deployed in his dealings with the human race, the economy. They are, moreover, ones that are not given to be reflected upon for one's own intellectual satisfaction, but rather, as the various verbs indicate—to preach, expound, demonstrate—to be made public rather than kept in silence. Despite the apostle's awe at the inscrutability of God's ways, Irenaeus expounds each of these topics during the course of Against the Heresies, by following the apostle's lead in correlating
Adam and Christ, expanding this parallel into an all-embracing understanding of the economy of God or the symphony of salvation.
Adam and Christ Perhaps the most striking, and certainly the most characteristically Irenaean, point set before the theologian is that the beginning appeared at the end. As we have seen, Irenaeus is clear that the only perspective from which one can contemplate the economy of God, from its beginning to its conclusion, is from the end point, the apocalyptic opening of the Scriptures at the end of the ages in the light of the Cross of Christ. Irenaeus is prepared to accept, moreover, that this structure of revelation qualifies how we speak of Christ himself. The genealogy given in the Gospel of Luke (haer. 3:23–38), tracing the lineage of Christ back to Adam, demonstrates, according to Irenaeus, how Christ has recapitulated all generations in himself, connecting the end to the beginning. It is for this reason, he says, that Paul could describe Adam as 'the type of the one to come' (Rom. 5:14), because the Word, the Fashioner of all things, prefigured in him the future economy relating to the Son of God on behalf of the human race, God having predetermined the first, the animated human that is, so that he should be saved by the spiritual [one]; for, since the Saviour pre-exists, it was necessary that the one to 31 haer. 1.10.3, following, largely, the textual emendations proposed by Rousseau (SC 263, pp. 226–9) and Unger (ACW 55, 188–90). On this text, see Alfred Bengsch, Heilsgeschichte und
Heilswissen: Eine Untersuchung zur Struktur und Entfaltung des theologischen Denkens im Werk
'Adversus Haereses' des hl. Irena¨us von Lyon (Leipzig: St Benno, 1957), 51–6, and W. C. van
Unnik, 'An Interesting Document of Second Century Theological Discussion (Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. 1.10.3)', VC 31 (1977), 196–228.
Irenaeus of Lyons be saved should also exist, so that the Saviour should not be without purpose.
(haer. 3.22.3)32 In Adam, the Word sketched out in advance what would be revealed and established in the Son of God, Christ himself. The description of Adam as a 'type' implies the prior existence of the one of whom he is a type.33 As such, the one who was to come exists before Adam; it was by him and for him that Adam came into existence, and, furthermore, as he exists as the Saviour, Adam came into existence to be saved by him. Thus, though only appearing at the end, this one is, nevertheless, the true beginning.
This is a remarkable statement and for our modern theological sensibilities perhaps rather jarring. Yet it is entirely consequential and coherent, and a position held right through to the end of the Byzantine era.34 It highlights the fact, as we have been emphasizing, that Irenaeus theologizes strictly from within the economy, from what can in fact be known and spoken about, with the right hermeneutic, of God's activity and revelation in Christ. He resists any attempt to seek a higher perspective to speak about God prior to and independent from creation, a standpoint that would have to be supra-human and, indeed, above God himself; to attempt to speak from such a perspective would, for Irenaeus, be not only presumptuous but also groundless. Yet, since the starting point for Christian theology is the work of God in Christ, understood through the opening of the Scriptures, the Christ who is now known to be the one to whom God said 'Let us make the human being' is already known to be the Saviour, to 32 This is a difficult text; for full discussion see Rousseau (SC 210, pp. 371–2) and Steenberg
(ACW 64, 195–8) with reference to prior literature. I have adopted Rousseau's suggestion of in eo instead of in semetipsum, which Steenberg retains and renders 'with a view to himself ', rather than 'in him', though he accepts that 'if in semetipsum is retained, Adam must in any case be implied in the clause'. I have adopted Steenberg's reading of generis humani 'as if it were a dative of advantage'.
33 The word 'type', , comes from ø,'to strike', 'to blow', and so primarily means 'impression'—for instance, the 'stamp' left in wax when it is struck by a seal; the seal must exist prior to the impression.
34 See, for instance, the statement of Nicholas Cabasilas: 'It was for the new human being that human nature was created at the beginning, and for him mind and desire were prepared . . . It was not the old Adam who was the model for the new, but the new Adam for the old . . . For those who have known him first, the old Adam is the archetype because of our fallen nature. But for him who sees all things before they exist, the first Adam is the imitation of the second. To sum it up: the Saviour first and alone showed to us the true human being, who is perfect on account of both character and life and in all other respects' (The Life in Christ, 6.91–4. ed. and French trans. M.-H. Congourdeau, SC 361 (Paris: Cerf, 1990); Eng. trans. C. J. deCatanzaro (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), where it is numbered as 6.12).
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
'pre-exist' as Saviour, and so Adam's relation to his maker is always already that of being saved by the Saviour. We are here far removed from the debate between Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus about whether the Word would have become incarnate had Adam not fallen, a debate that has all too frequently set the parameters for interpreting
Irenaeus.35 We are also far removed from any attempt to think of creation and salvation as being respectively, in rather crude terms, 'Plan A', followed by the 'Fall', which is then rectified by 'Plan B'. Starting with Christ, Irenaeus would rather see creation and salvation, with carefully defined nuances considered below, as being not two moments within one economy, but rather as coextensive, as the one economy: God's continuously creative work throughout the economy, resulting in the end in the one who is in the image and likeness of God, is salvation. And, as such,
Irenaeus can even say that it was necessary for Adam to come into existence, not implying any lack or need in God himself, but simply as a consequence of the fact that the starting point for all theology is Jesus
Christ, the Saviour.
This point is fundamental and follows on from Irenaeus' understanding of the relation between Scripture and Gospel, in which the Gospel is not simply the next stage or a new step in God's dealings with the human race, but rather the recapitulation of Scripture through the Cross in a concise word. The significance of this can again be illustrated by the example of Paul, whose hermeneutic turn we considered in the previous section: it is only after his encounter with Christ that Paul understood the human predicament, which he then expounded in terms of the contrast between Adam and Christ. To paraphrase E. P. Sanders, the solution comes first, and then the problem is understood, or, in more Irenaean terms, starting from the perfected and completed work of God in Christ, we now understand the preliminary nature of what came before.36 Seen in this way, from the very beginning Adam is always and already 'the type of the 35 As Gustav Wingren comments, these debates in Irenaean scholarship 'might lead one to ask if the main question is really whether Irenaeus followed Thomas or Duns Scotus!' (Man and the Incarnation, 92–3, n. 37).
36 Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 475:
'Paul's logic seems to run like this: in Christ God has acted to save the world; therefore the world is in need of salvation; but God also gave the law; if Christ is given for salvation, it must follow that the law could not have been; is the law then against the purpose of God which has been revealed in Christ? No, it has the function of consigning everyone to sin so that everyone could be saved by God's grace in Christ.' For further reflection on the implications of starting with Christ, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Deaths (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press,
2006), ch. 3.
Irenaeus of Lyons one to come' and so cannot simply be considered in himself, as a finished product. Thus the death he subsequently brought into the world through his disobedience, and that disobedience itself, must be placed within the scope of the larger arc that moves from the original formation of Adam to its completion in Christ. In other words, the person and work of Christ cannot be understood simply as a response to the death that Adam brought upon himself. To take it as such would be to treat Adam as already sufficient unto himself and Christ's work as merely restoring that condition. Rather, starting instead with the person of Christ, the one whom the type prefigures, Adam is seen to be an initial sketch or a preliminary imprint of the figure of Christ. And the difference between the two, for Irenaeus, is that Christ alone first shows us the life of God in human form, so that the life of Adam, before as well as after subjecting himself to death, is but a foreshadowing of this. The difference between them then is not simply, though it certainly includes, the contrast between the disobedience shown by the human creature, Adam, and the obedience of the Son of God, Christ. Nor does it turn only upon Adam's subjecting himself to death through disobedience, as if it were mortality alone that needs to be overcome, for this would only return Adam to his former life, which is already set in an arc leading to something greater. As it is in the life-giving death of Christ, in obedience to the Father and voluntarily assumed for the sake of others, that the uncreated life of God is revealed and communicated to his creature, the contrasting position of Adam from the very beginning is that he did not live this life, but rather, as created and a preliminary sketch of what is to come, this life of Christ is something that he needs to grow into by learning through experience. The unfolding of the economy cannot, therefore, be told by beginning with Adam, considered in himself, proceeding to the 'Fall', then the 'history of salvation', and finally to Christ, but must be told in such a manner that the end and the beginning mutually inform each other in one arc, both synchronously, in that the arrangement of the whole is revealed together in its recapitulation, and diachronously, as it is unfolded throughout time.37
37 The attempt to do this here marks the major departure from my earlier work, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), a slight revision of my doctoral dissertation ('Godly Lives: Asceticism and Anthropology, with Special Reference to Sexuality, in the Writings of St Irenaeus of Lyons and St Clement of Alexandria', D.Phil. Oxford University, 1995), in which I did indeed recount the economy of God by beginning with Adam and concluding with the beginning that appears at the end
(Asceticism and Anthropology, 35–85), noting that the end is in fact the starting point, but not
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
To ask whether this means that God planned 'the Fall', or in Irenaeus' terms our apostasy and our death in that apostasy, would be, for Irenaeus, a mistaken question, or rather one that arises from a mistaken standpoint, imagining ourselves in the position of God before creation. As we have seen, for Irenaeus the task of theology is, as Balthasar put it, 'to see what is', rather than imagining a different starting point or another first principle. Rather, beginning from what has been revealed in Christ, we can see that his work encompasses the whole of creation and its history, including our apostasy and transforming it into one movement of salvation.
This is in fact a theme that runs throughout Scripture, from Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt, yet telling his brothers that 'God sent me before you to preserve life . . . So it was not you who sent me here but God' (Gen.
45:5, 8), to Christ himself, who, though he 'was crucified and killed by the hand of lawless men', yet he was, nevertheless, 'delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:23). If human apostasy, and the death that is its consequence, cannot be turned inside out, as it were, to be utilized by the God who in Christ destroyed death by his death, so granting not only a restored (yet still mortal) breath of life but the life granted by the Spirit, which can no longer be touched by death since it is entered into through death, God would not, in fact, be almighty and all things would not be in his Hands. As difficult as Irenaeus' claims might seem to us, they testify to his sense that God's overwhelming omnipotence works through the paradox of strength in weakness and articulates this transforming power consistently and forcefully.
The Breath and the Spirit It is not only the relation between Adam and Christ that is presented in the passage (3.22.3) cited above, but also the contrast between the two ends of the arc, which Irenaeus describes in terms of the different 'lives' by which they live: the type, Adam, is an animated human being, who is saved by the 'spiritual' one. Irenaeus is again drawing from Paul, this time from the contrast he makes between the first Adam, who by the 'breath of life' became a 'living soul' (łıåc ÇH Æ), and 'the last Adam' who 'became a life-creating spirit'.38 As the context in 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear, the yet presenting the economy that way nor being explicit about the hermeneutic stance upon which it is based.
38 1 Cor. 15:45; Gen. 2:7. Cf. Jacques Fantino, 'Le Passage du Premier Adam au Second
Adam comme expression du salut chez Ire´ne´e de Lyon', VC 52/4 (1998), 418–29.
Irenaeus of Lyons transformation from one to the other is effected by the resurrection from the dead, in which what is sown in dishonour and weakness will be raised in glory and power, and what is sown as an 'animated body
[ HÆ łıåØŒ]' will be raised as a 'spiritual body [ HÆ ıÆØŒ]'
(1 Cor. 15:44, 46). Unlike the RSV, which renders the first as 'physical body' in contrast to the 'spiritual body', with the implication that, when raised, the body is no longer 'physical', Irenaeus reads Paul as contrasting two different modes of life: the first is the 'animation' effected by the 'breath of life', and the second, the 'vivification' effected by the Holy
Spirit, bestowed in Christ, rendering the same body as 'spiritual', with the transition between the two turning upon death, that of Christ himself and then those who die in him to be raised to life in him: 'what you sow does not come to life unless it dies' (1 Cor. 15:36). It is worth noting that when Irenaeus cites John 1:3–4 he does so in the form, also witnessed by many other early writers and manuscripts: 'All things came to be by him and without him nothing came to be. What came to be in him was life [n ªª K ÆPfiH Çøc q], and the life was the light of human beings.'39 'Life', strictly speaking, is what comes through Christ, and, in turn, those who do not live by this life are, simply, 'dead'.40
This contrast and the transformation from the first to the last is also treated by Irenaeus in haer. 5.1.3, which sets out the contrast between the 'animated' and the 'living' with the same intentionality and within the full scope of the economy. Irenaeus here tackles the 'Ebionites' who regard
Jesus as a human son of Joseph and Mary, rather than accepting 'the union of God and human', and so remain in 'the old leaven of birth [generationis]'. They do not want to understand, Irenaeus says, that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the Power of the Most High overshadowed her, so that 'what is born [quod generatum est] is holy and the Son of the Most
High God, the Father, who effected his [the Son's] Incarnation and demonstrated a new generation [novam generationem], so that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this generation we might
39 haer. 3.11.1, cf. 1.8.5. Cf. Origen, Jo. 2.132: 'Some copies, however, have, and perhaps not without credibility, "what came to be in him was life". Now if life is equivalent to "the light of human beings", no one who is in darkness is alive, and no one who is alive is in darkness, but everyone who is alive is also in light, and everyone who is in light is alive.' The Codex Sinaiticus and the Western text have this reading of John 1:3–4.
40 Cf. haer. 5.9.1: 'Those, then, not having that which saves and forms into life, shall be, and shall be called, "flesh and blood" [1 Cor. 15:50], not having the Spirit of God in themselves. Wherefore they were spoken of by the Lord as "dead", for, he says, "Let the dead bury their dead" [Luke 9:60], because they do not have the Spirit which vivifies the human being.'
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
inherit life'. Rejecting the 'heavenly wine', wanting only the 'water of this world', they do not 'receive God so as to have communion with him, but remain in Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from paradise'. The mention of Adam is the occasion for Irenaeus to set out the arc of the economy in the terms that we have been considering. His opponents, he says, do not understand that just as, at the beginning [ab initio] of our formation [plasmationis] in Adam, the breath of life from God, having been united [unita] to the handiwork [plasmati], animated [animavit] the human being and showed him to be a rational being, so also, at the end [in fine], the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united [adunitus] with the ancient substance of the formation [plasmationis] of Adam, rendered [effecit] the human being living [viventem] and perfect, bearing the perfect Father, in order that just as in the animated we all die, so also in the spiritual we may all be vivified [vivificemur]. For never at any time did Adam escape the Hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, 'Let us make the human being in our image, after our likeness' [Gen. 1:26]. And for this reason at the end
[fine], 'not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man' [ John 1:13], but by the good pleasure of the Father, his Hands perfected a living human being [vivum perfecerunt hominem], in order that Adam might become in the image and likeness of God. (haer. 5.1.3, emphasis added) The two 'just as—so also' parallels are linked by a statement of intent: the beginningof our formation, in Adam, is animationby a breath of life,whereas its end, in Christ, is vivification of the ancient substance by the Holy Spirit, rendering the handiwork a living and perfect human being, and this has been established with the intention that as we all die in the animated life of Adam we may be vivified in the spiritual life of Christ. That the beginning and the end are united in one intentional economy is further emphasized by the statement that Adam 'never escaped the Hands of God', being continuously fashioned and prepared to live the life of God. The perfected living human being does not result, for Irenaeus, from the 'old generation', or, borrowing words from John's Prologue, 'from the will of the flesh or the will of man', but rather by the good pleasure of the Father in the 'new generation', and so the living human being is none other than Christ himself, who enables Adam also to become 'in the image and likeness of God'.41
41 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 155, notes that 'Irenaeus' reading of John 1.13 follows the Western tradition where the verb "born" is singular in tense (Kª ŁÅ) rather than plural (Kª ŁÅ Æ) as is the case in all Greek manuscripts'. Cf. haer. 3.19.2: 'He who "was not born of the will of the flesh nor by the will of man" is the Son of Man, he is the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
Irenaeus of Lyons What more then can be said of the difference between animation by the breath of life and vivification by the Spirit, the relation between them, and between them and the soul?42 In the passage just cited (haer. 5.1.3),
Irenaeus describes the breath of life as animating the human being and showing him to be a rational animal. Throughout his writings, Irenaeus shows a remarkable lack of interest in the soul, as the bearer of the identity of the person or as the domain of interiority. In one of his very few comments on the soul itself, he describes it as being the intellect of the human being, containing 'mind, thought, mental intuition, and such like'
(haer. 2.29.3), but he is led to make this remark only because here he is discussing his opponents' claim that each 'part' of the human being has a separate destiny. His gaze is focused much more on the body, or more specifically on the flesh, the handiwork (º Æ) of God; it is, by and large, only with respect to its contribution to the body that Irenaeus is interested in the soul. The soul uses the body as an artist does an instrument and even adopts its shape.43 On one occasion, in the context of considering what Paul meant by the 'mortal body' that will be raised by the Spirit (Rom. 8:11), Irenaeus does call the soul 'the breath of life', to emphasize that it is flesh, again his primary interest, that will be raised.44
But, while animating the body, and as such a breath of life, the soul emphatically does not have life in itself. This point is made explicitly in haer. 2.34.2–4, an important passage that seems to be dependent upon Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.45 Here, commenting on Psalm 20:5 (LXX),
42 The relationship between the soul, the breath of life, and the Holy Spirit is examined in detail in Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology, 91–109.
43 Cf. haer. 2.33.4. Irenaeus never says that the soul is itself a 'body' (as did some Stoics, e.g.
SVF 2.790, 219.24–8), but that it retains the form of the body. Cf. haer. 2.19.6, and 2.34.1, commenting on the account of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19–31.
44 haer. 5.7.1: 'But souls are incorporeal when compared to mortal bodies; for God
"breathed into the face" of the human "a breath of life, and the human became a living soul" [Gen. 2:7], and the breath of life is incorporeal. But one cannot call it mortal, since it is the breath of life.' What the 'it' in the previous sentence refers to is unclear: the Latin has ipsum, referring back to the breath of life, but Rousseau (SC 152, pp. 236–7) suspects this to be a mistranslation and would correct it to ipsam, referring back to the soul, the Greek in either case being ÆP. A few lines later, commenting on the death of the body, Irenaeus states that this does not happen to the soul 'for it is a breath of life'. For the distinction between 'immortality' and the possession of life, see Henri Lassiat, Promotion de l'homme en Je´sus-Christ d'apre`s Ire´ne´e de Lyon (Tours: Mame, 1974), esp. 165–6, responded to by Adelin Rousseau,
'L'E´ternite´ des peines de l'enfer et l'immortalite´ naturelle de l'aˆme selon saint Ire´ne´e', NRT 99
(1977), 834–64, to which Lassiat replied with 'L'Anthropologie d'Ire´ne´e', NRT 100 (1978),
399–417. For comment on this debate, see Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology, 94–6.
45 Cf. Dial. 6.1–3. The similarity with Justin is denied by Rousseau (SC 293, p. 348), but upheld by J. C. M. van Winden, An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr's Dialogue with
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
'He asked life of you and you gave him length of days for ages and ages', Irenaeus asserts that 'life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but is bestowed according to the grace of God' (haer. 2.34.3). As a gift, it must be received, and so 'those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to him who bestowed it' will not receive
'length of days for ages of ages'. Irenaeus then turns to Genesis 2:7:
But as the animated body is certainly not itself the soul, yet participates in the soul as long as God pleases, so also the soul herself assuredly is not life, but partakes in that life bestowed from God himself. Wherefore also the prophetic word declares of the first-formed, 'he became a living soul', teaching us that by participation of life the soul was made 'living' so that the soul is thought of separately, and separately also the life which is in her. With God therefore bestowing life and perpetual continuance, it comes to pass that even souls which did not at first exist should henceforth continue, since God will have both willed them to be and to continue. (haer. 2.34.4) The soul becomes a 'living soul' by receiving life from God, through the breath of life, and thus is able to animate the body. The life lived by the human creature in this way is, however, a 'brief temporal life'. Showing themselves thankful in this life, ready to accept life rather than reject it, the human being will also be able to receive 'length of days for ever and ever'.
The description of the life of the human animated by the breath of life as being 'brief ' and 'temporal', is developed in haer. 5.3.3, where Irenaeus explains further how this life relates to eternal life given in Christ by the Spirit in the resurrection. Those who claim that it is not possible for the flesh to receive life in the resurrection, he points out, contradict the selfevident fact that their bodies already now participate in life.
If, then, the present temporal life, which is much weaker than that eternal life, is nevertheless able to vivify our mortal members, why should not eternal life, being much more powerful than this, vivify the flesh, already exercised and accustomed to sustain life? For that the flesh is capable of receiving life is shown from the fact of its being alive; for it lives as long as God wants it to live. It is manifest, too, that God has the power to confer life upon it, for when he grants life, we live. (haer. 5.3.3)
All life is a gift from God, lived by the human being. And the life we now live in the body shows that the same body is indeed capable of receiving the eternal life of God himself. The only distinction that Irenaeus makes
Trypho, Chapters One to Nine: Introduction, Text and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 105–8, and Ysabel de Andia, Homo vivens: Incorruptibilite´ et divinisation de l'homme selon Ire´ne´e de Lyon
(Paris: E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1986), 271–3, who helpfully prints both texts in parallel.
Irenaeus of Lyons between the two is one of relative degrees: weaker or stronger, temporal or eternal.46
The Pauline distinction between the breath of life and the life-creating spirit, used by Irenaeus to describe the arc of the economy of God, is treated most fully during the course of his rebuttal of his opponents' literal reading of Paul's assertion that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom' (1 Cor. 15:50). Irenaeus argues that flesh and blood can indeed be inherited by the Spirit when vivified by the Spirit (haer. 5.9–10)—that is, when we no longer bear the image of the earthly one by working the deeds of the flesh, but rather bear the image of the heavenly one, having been washed in Christ and 'made alive by working the works of the Spirit'
(haer. 5.11; 1 Cor. 15:48–9). Irenaeus then further explains the relationship between the breath of life and the life-creating Spirit by turning to the previous verses from the apostle's epistle. Although the flesh is capable of receiving both the breath of life and the life given by the Spirit, and while the difference between these can be put in relative terms (temporal/ eternal, weaker/stronger), they cannot, however, coexist together in the same body. Just as death cannot coexist in the same body with life, so Irenaeus asserts, apropos of a quotation from Isaiah (25:8), that 'the former life is expelled, because it was not given by the Spirit but by the breath, for the breath of life, which made the human an animated being, is one thing, and the vivifying Spirit, which rendered him spiritual, another'
(haer. 5.12.1–2). Citing two further verses from Isaiah (42:5; 57:16), Irenaeus concludes from the first that the 'breath' is given in common to all people upon earth, but the Spirit only to those who tread down earthly desires, and following the language of the second, 'For the Spirit shall go forth from me, and I have made every breath', that the Spirit is placed
'particularly on the side of God [N ø Kd f ¨ F]', bestowed upon the human race in the last times through the adoption of sons, while the 'breath' is common to all creation and is 'created [ ÅÆ]' (haer. 5.12.2).
As 'the created is other than him who creates', the breath is temporal while the Spirit is eternal; the breath increases in strength, flourishes for a period of time, and then departs, leaving its abode destitute of breath, while the Spirit 'embraces the human being inside and out' and remains with him permanently (haer. 5.12.2). And then returning to 1 Corinthians
15:45–6, Irenaeus reminds us that the animated is first, followed by the spiritual: 'it was necessary that, first, the human being should be
46 Cf. Noormann, Irena¨us, 277, 486–7. In haer. 4.9.2 Irenaeus points out that the terms
'more' and 'less' can be applied only to things of the same nature.
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
fashioned, then that what was fashioned should receive the soul; and that afterwards it should thus receive the communion of the Spirit.' That he uses the term 'soul' here, rather than 'breath', is due to the fact that he is commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:45–6, and the use it makes of Genesis
2:7, rather than the Genesis text itself. Irenaeus then concludes his discussion stating: 'Therefore, just as the one who became a living soul, turning to evil, lost life, so again, that same one, turning to what is better and receiving the life-creating Spirit, shall find life' (haer. 5.12.2). Turning to evil, the animated human being lost the life of the breath, but what he or she will receive in Christ is more than this, it will be the life-creating
Spirit himself.
The relationship between the breath of life and the Spirit is thus described, throughout this passage, in terms of the Spirit's activity as life-creating, and therefore the breath as being created. Yet, as created, the breath is nevertheless placed in direct relationship to, and dependent upon, the Spirit. There is no life, as we have seen, apart from that given by God. However, the life received at the beginning is received, as it were, on the creature's own terms and capacity—that is, as created: it is a created breath, that abides and flourishes for a period, but is not strong enough to remain permanently. Those, however, who receive the adoption of sons in Christ receive life as the life-creating Spirit himself, vivifying them permanently 'inside and out'. But reception of this requires that the breath be 'expelled'; it requires that the creature die, with Christ, to receive the life given in Christ. In one passage, Irenaeus suggests that human beings, animated by a breath of life, could have remained as they were—'that is, immortal'—had they kept the commandment and acknowledged God as the Lord of all—that is, the source of all life—but that if they failed to recognize this they would become mortal and be dissolved into the earth from which they were taken (Dem. 15). Or, as he had just put it, while 'the breath of life remains in its order and strength', Adam and Eve had no comprehension of what is evil, and so '"were not ashamed" [Gen. 2:25], kissing and embracing each other in holiness as children'.47 But even this apparent 'immortality' is not the same thing as the life given by the possession of the Spirit to adopted sons in Christ: the 'breath' remaining with its 'proper strength', while the human being acknowledges that God is Lord of all, the source of all life, by obedience to his law, is still but a breath, a created effect of the life-creating Spirit, rather than the possession
47 Dem. 14, mistranslated by Smith, who renders 'breath' as 'spirit', on the grounds that 'it is hardly possible to use "breath" in what follows' (ACW 16, pp. 151–2, nn. 82–3).
Irenaeus of Lyons of the Spirit enjoyed by those adopted in Christ, and so those living by the 'breath' can be called merely 'flesh and blood', or even simply 'dead'.48
Irenaeus does not hold that in their initial formation human beings 'possessed' the Spirit, which they then 'lost' and then regained in Christ.
Rather, for Irenaeus, the Spirit is present throughout the whole economy ('For never at any time did Adam escape the Hands of God', haer. 5.1.3), from the first stage, imparting what the human being receives as a 'breath', and thereafter preparing human beings to learn to live not by or from themselves, but from God, who alone provides life through his life-creating Spirit, in different modalities, to all living upon earth.
Two further passages mention this distinction of modalities. The first is a long discussion in haer. 4.20, in which Irenaeus speaks of life in terms of the vision of God. He is emphatic that it is not possible to live without life, and that life is to be found in communion with God, which is to see God and enjoy his blessings.49 After discussing the proleptic nature of the vision of God enjoyed by the prophets of old, Irenaeus continues:
For the glory of God is a living human being; and the life of the human consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.
There is, again, only one source of life—that is, God, which is received through the vision of him, in two distinct modes, first, through creation, as God, for his fatherhood is not yet known, and then, secondly, in a stronger fashion, through the vision of the Father through the Word. The second passage, haer. 5.18.2, presents a similar distinction, in terms of the bestowal of the Spirit:
For the Father simultaneously bears the creation and his own Word, and the Word borne by the Father bestows the Spirit on all as the Father wills: to some, who are in a created state, which is made, he gives the Spirit pertaining to creation; to others, who are according to adoption, an engendering, he gives the Spirit of the Father.50
48 Cf. haer. 5.9.1, cited in Ch. 3, n. 40.
49 haer. 4.20.5: '¯ d ÇB ÆØ ¼ ı ÇøB [IÆ], b oÆæØ B ÇøB KŒ B F ¨ F æت ÆØ åB, åc b ¨ F K Ø e [›æA] ¨ e ŒÆd IºÆ Ø B åæÅ Å
ÆPF.The words in square brackets are Rousseau's emendations to the Greek text, found in the Sacra Parallela, on the basis of the Latin and the Armenian.
50 The Latin text of this passage is particularly problematic but clarified somewhat by the Armenian version. For a full analysis of the textual difficulties, see Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology, 102–5.
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
Those who remain as they are created, receive the Spirit in a manner befitting their state, as what we have seen him elsewhere speak of as 'the breath of life'. On the other hand, those who are born as adopted sons of God receive the Spirit of the Father.
The role of the Spirit in the human being whom the Spirit 'embraces inside and out' in a permanent fashion to such an extent that the Spirit can be called 'their Spirit' is described most fully in the following passage, which analyses what Paul means by the perfect or complete human being:
Now the soul and the Spirit can be a part of the human being, but by no means a human being; the complete [perfectus] human being is the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father and joined to the flesh that was moulded after the image of God. For this reason the Apostle says 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect [perfectos]' [1 Cor. 2:6], calling those 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God . . . these the Apostle also calls 'spiritual', being spiritual by a participation in the Spirit and not by a deprivation and removal of the flesh {and merely that itself alone}. For if anyone take away the substance {of the flesh, that is} of the handiwork, and merely considers only the Spirit itself, such is no longer what is a spiritual human, but the Spirit of the human being or the Spirit of God.51 But when this Spirit, commingled with the soul, is united to the handiwork, because of the outpouring of the Spirit the human being is rendered spiritual and complete [perfectus], and this is the one who was made in the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit is lacking from the soul, such a one, remaining indeed animated and fleshly, will be incomplete [imperfectus], having the image, certainly, in the handiwork, but not receiving the likeness through the Spirit.
Likewise this one is incomplete, in the same manner again, if someone takes away the image and rejects the handiwork; one can no longer contemplate a human being, but either some part of the human, as we have said, or something other than the human being. For neither is the handiwork of the flesh itself, by itself, a complete human being, but the body of a human and a part of a human being; nor is the soul itself, by itself, a human, but the soul of a human and a part of a human
51 The words in curly brackets {} are only in the Latin version and are perhaps an attempt to soften Irenaeus' words. Rousseau's translation of 'Spiritus' in these sentences with a capital for 'l'Esprit de Dieu', but lower case for 'l'esprit de l'homme', and his note that the latter refers to the 'soul' (SC 152, pp. 231–2), are unwarranted. Irenaeus never refers to the soul as spiritus, and the whole emphasis here is that the Spirit of God is present in the perfect human being to such an extent that it can be considered 'their Spirit', yet without it being a 'part' of the human being, as Rousseau accepts in his comments on the quotation of 1 Thess. 5:23
(H e FÆ) in the same passage (SC 152, pp. 233–4). Rousseau also interprets the phrase
'their Spirit[s]' in haer. 2.33.5 in this way (SC 293, pp. 339–42); only in haer. 2.31.2 might
Irenaeus use the term 'spirit' to refer to the 'soul', though the choice of words here probably reflects Luke 8:55, cited earlier, which would thus be consistent with the interpretation of haer. 5.6.1 given here, and with haer. 2.33.5 and 5.18.2.
Irenaeus of Lyons being; nor is the Spirit a human being, for it is called Spirit and not human. But the commingling and union of all of these constitutes the complete human being. And for this reason the Apostle, explaining himself, clarifies [what makes] the complete and spiritual saved human being [perfectum et spiritalem salutis hominem], saying, in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 'May the God of peace sanctify you completely [perfectos], and may your Spirit and soul and body be preserved in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ' [1 Thess. 5.23]. (haer. 5.6.1)
The complete or the perfect human being is saved in body, soul, and Spirit, preserved as such in the coming of Christ. Neither element can individually be called the human being. But the body and soul can be called 'parts' of the human being, in the way that the Spirit cannot, for the Spirit is not human, but of God; if we were to remove the Spirit, what we would have left is an animated and fleshly being.52 Nevertheless, the Spirit is given to the perfect and complete spiritual human being, or perhaps rather inherits and embraces that human being, in such a manner that it becomes integral to the human being: if we were to remove 'the substance of the handiwork'—that is, the flesh animated by the soul—we would be left with 'only the Spirit itself ', which can be spoken of as 'the Spirit of the human being'.
Death and life The arc of the economy thus moves from Adam to Christ and from the breath to the Spirit, with Christ and the Spirit being the Hands that fashion and animate the human creature, leading the handiwork from animation to vivification. As we have seen, as yet only in passing, it was by his disobedience that Adam turned to evil and 'lost life', becoming not just capable of death but subject to death. Yet, as told from the end, death and disobedience are integral to the movement from one end of the arc to the other: it is by death that the animation by the breath is 'expelled', giving way to the vivification of the flesh by the Spirit; and it is also by the effect of disobedience that the human being learns obedience—that is, learns to receive life, which God alone can give, and so receive it securely. The ultimately pedagogical, and salvific, role of disobedience and death within the economy is brought out in a further passage where Irenaeus again depicts the span of the economy and makes clear that the salvific work of Christ is both the beginning and culmination.
52 Cf. haer. 5.8.2: 'but our substance, that is, the union of soul and flesh, receiving the Spirit of God, constitutes the spiritual human being.'
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
God, therefore, was long-suffering when the human being defaulted, foreseeing that victory which should be granted to him through the Word. For when strength was made perfect in weakness [cf. 2 Cor. 12:9], [the Word] showed the kindness and transcendent power of God. For just as he did bear53 Jonah to be swallowed up by the whale, not that he should be swallowed up and perish altogether, but so that, having been cast out again, he might be more subject to God and might glorify him the more who had conferred upon him such an unhoped-for salvation and brought a firm repentance to the Ninevites, that they might convert to the Lord who delivered them from death when they were struck with awe by that sign that had been wrought on Jonah . . . so also, from the beginning, God did bear the human being to be swallowed up by the great whale, who was the author of the transgression, not that he should perish altogether when so engulfed, but arranging in advance the finding of salvation, which was accomplished by the Word, through the 'sign of Jonah' [Matt. 12:39–40], for those who held the same opinion as Jonah regarding the Lord, and who confessed, and said, 'I am a servant of the Lord, and I worship the Lord God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land'
( Jonah 1.9), so that the human being, receiving an unhoped-for salvation from God, might rise from the dead, and glorify God, and repeat, 'I cried to the Lord my
God in my affliction, and he heard me from the belly of hell' [Jonah 2:2], and that he might always continue glorifying God, and giving thanks without ceasing for that salvation which he had obtained from him, 'that no flesh should glory in the Lord's presence' [1 Cor. 1:29], nor should the human being ever adopt an opposite opinion with regard to God, supposing that the incorruptibility which surrounds him is his own by nature, nor, by not holding the truth, should boast with empty superciliousness, as if he were by nature like to God. (haer. 3.20.1)
From the beginning God has borne human beings while they were swallowed up by the great whale—that is, death. God, emphatically, did not create human beings in this condition. It was the 'animated' human
53 The Latin here is patienter sustinuit, and variations thereof in the following sentences, for which Rousseau suggests that the Greek would have been M å , and translates by 'a permis'. However, as Roger Berthouzoz notes, such a translation reflects a later theological perspective, and so he proposes instead 'a supporte´' (Liberte´ et graˆce suivant la the´ologie d'Ire´ne´e de Lyon (Fribourg en Suisse: E´ditions Universitaires; Paris: Cerf, 1980), 216, n .79). The term is used elsewhere in Against the Heresies: in haer. 5.2.3, in a similar context, where the Greek is preserved; and haer. 4.37.8, where the Armenian version seems to be an attempt to explain the middle voice, 'he took to himself ' (TU 35.2, 137.23; for 5.2.3, see 157.5). Both passages will be considered below. In the New Testament (the background for much of Irenaeus' vocabulary), the verb Iåø always appears in the middle voice, generally with the sense of 'to bear, to endure' (e.g. Matt. 17:17). I have preferred 'to bear' to emphasize God's support of the human being in and through this, rather than simply permitting or enduring it from a distance. Indeed, if the parallel with Jonah is to hold, God is in fact actively involved, appointing a whale to swallow him up. The background for Irenaeus' use of this term and the idea of the forbearance of God in Polycarp and the Letter to Diognetus, was noted in Ch. 2.
Irenaeus of Lyons being who 'turned to evil and lost life' (haer. 5.12.2). And, as he puts it in the above passage, there was 'an author of the transgression'. The lesson learnt by Jonah through his misadventure, according to Irenaeus, was that he 'is a servant of the Lord', which is nothing other, as we have seen, than the law given to Adam and Eve at the beginning (cf. Dem.15). As such, the 'author of the transgression' tempts the human being to think that he or she has life of his or her own nature, 'as if he were like to God', or, as Irenaeus puts it elsewhere, he beguiled Adam and Eve with 'the pretext of immortality', that which is God's alone to give.54 However, God's forbearance has a purpose, which is that, as in the case of Jonah, the human being might learn to subject herself or himself to God, to glorify him the more, and so be glorified in return. Moreover, God is forbearing in allowing the human race to be swallowed up from the beginning because, although unknown to the human race, he had also 'arranged in advance the finding of salvation'—a salvation that therefore was, from the human perspective,
'unhoped-for'.
In this way, then, the 'finding of salvation' was effected through 'the sign of Jonah', who in turn becomes a type both of the perishing human race and of the salvation worked by Christ. That Jonah can represent both is because it is in and through his death that Christ brings about salvation, as it is through their death that the human beings come to know their own inherent weakness and, simultaneously, the strength of God, just as it is also through death that the human being passes from animation to vivification. So, Irenaeus concludes:
Such then was the patience of God, that the human being, passing through all things and acquiring knowledge of death,55 then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and learning by experience from whence he has been delivered, may thus always gives thanks to the Lord, having received from him the gift of incorruptibility, and may love him the more, for 'he to whom more is forgiven, loves more'
[cf. Luke 7:42–3], and may himself know how mortal and weak he is, but also understand that God is so immortal and powerful as to bestow immortality on the mortal and eternity on the temporal, and that he may also know the other powers of God made manifest in himself, and, being taught by them, may think of God in accordance with the greatness of God. For the glory of the human being is God,
54 haer. 3.23.5; 4.Pref.4. For the Devil's role in the human apostasy, see also haer. 3.23.1–3;
4.40.3; Dem. 16.
55 Following the emendation of 'morum' to 'mortum' proposed by Grabe and adopted by Rousseau (SC 210, 349–50), who notes haer. 3.23.1 (referring back to the previous passage) and haer. 4.39.1 as parallels.
The Glory of God (haer. 3–5)
while the vessel of the workings of God, and of all his wisdom and power is the human being. (haer. 3.20.2) Subjection to death, brought upon human beings by their own disobedience at the instigation of the Devil, is thus turned inside out within the full arc of the economy, which, as we have seen repeatedly, can be understood only from the end point, Christ and his Passion. In this way, then, Irenaeus has explicated one of the key points that he set before the theologian in 1.10.3—that is, to proclaim the reason why God 'was long-suffering' with regard to the apostasy of angels and the disobedience of human beings and 'consigned all to disobedience that he may have mercy on all' (Rom. 11:32).
'The glory of the human being is God' (haer. 3.20.2), and in turn 'the glory of God is the living human being' (haer. 4.20.7); and it is precisely in terms of this glory that Irenaeus explains why God initiated the whole economy. In the context of explaining that God accepted the friendship of Abraham, not because he was in need of it, but so that he might bestow eternal life upon Abraham, for 'friendship with God imparts immortality to those who embrace it' (haer. 4.13.3), Irenaeus extrapolates the point on the basis of Christ's high priestly prayer:
Neither in the beginning was it because God had need of the human being that he formed Adam, but that he might have someone on whom he might confer his benefits. For not only before Adam, but also before all creation, did the Word glorify his Father, remaining in him, and was himself glorified by the Father, as he did himself declare, 'Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was'. (haer. 4.14.1; John 17:5)
Since to follow the light is to be enlightened, he continues, so also to follow the Saviour is to partake in salvation, and likewise to serve and follow God gives nothing to God, but rather God bestows upon those who follow him
'life, incorruptibility, and eternal glory' (haer. 4.14.1). Only by orienting himself towards God, by following him, is the human being able to receive life and share in the incorruptibility and glory of God. As created, the human being ever stands in dependency upon the Creator: 'For as much as God is in want of nothing, by so much does the human being stand in need of communion with God; for this is the glory of the human being, to continue and remain permanently in the service of God' (haer. 4.14.1).
Picking up on the theme of glory evoked by the prayer of Christ, 'I will that where I am there they may also be, that they may behold my glory'
(John 17:24), Irenaeus adds that Christ did not want to boast of his glory, but rather that his disciples, by beholding his glory, should also participate in it. Irenaeus returns to the inspiration for creation in terms of this