In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

173 ChAPtER SIxtEEn The Image of God in Irenaeus, Marcellus, and Eustathius Sophie Cartwright The image of God is central to Irenaean theology and the extensive scholarship that explores it. Theological anthropology is deservedly important to this scholarship . God’s image in Adam and Christ is fundamental to Irenaeus’s anthropology both because Adam represents the human race and because Christ, as New Adam, is “the first-fruits of the resurrection of ἄνθρωπος.”1 He is the perfect human being— perfect ἄνθρωπος. Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch have both, to varying degrees, been compared with Irenaeus, especially with reference to theological anthropology, and an “Asia Minor” school of thought.2 The two fourth-century bishops are also linked in the context of the trinitarian controversies.3 I will argue that both Marcellus and Eustathius are hugely indebted to Irenaeus in their understanding of God’s image in Adam and Christ. Both later thinkers also depart from Irenaeus’s conception, and from each other’s, in important ways. God’s Image and Human Essence Like Irenaeus, Marcellus and Eustathius both see God’s image as fundamental to human essence as it is supposed to be, and that this is connected to the concept that Christ fulfills Adam. Also like Irenaeus, they understand “God’s image” in extremely physical terms. However, the two later thinkers have a very different conception of the relationship between God and God’s image. Marcellus emphasizes the distinction between the image and the thing that it is imaging while Irenaeus emphasizes the similarity . Although Eustathius sometimes applies “image” to the Son, whenever he applies it to Adam or Christ, he also emphasizes the distinction. Correspondingly, Marcellus and Eustathius both see humankind, made in God’s image, as more distinct from God than Irenaeus does. This is part of a more autonomous conception of the human person . I will argue that the differences between these conceptions of God’s image rely on divergent cosmological frameworks. Marcellus and Eustathius see humanity and God as ontologically separate principally because God is ἀγένητος—“never having not been”—while humanity, like everything else, is γενητός—“having come to be.”4 Both are therefore concerned that 174 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy the Son should not be seen as a “created thing.”5 This is a normative fourth-century categorization, novel in that period.6 These categories are intrinsic: they define their subjects without reference to their relationship to anything else. Irenaeus thinks about the world in very different terms to fourth-century Christians. The state of having been created by God is fundamental in Irenaean anthropology: the primary distinction he makes is creator—creation—it is relational rather than intrinsic. Marcellus, you will remember, broadly speaking, supported Nicaea, although he had an especially unified conception of the Godhead. With Eustathius, he insisted that there was only one hypostasis in God.7 He controversially suggested that the incarnation would eventually end. I return to this doctrine later as it is significant to the current discussion. Marcellus’s principal surviving work is Against Asterius, an antisubordinationist writing from circa 330 of which only fragments remain.8 Eustathius, in opposing subordinationism, focused on logos-sarx Christology and himself developed a highly divisive Christology, within which he clearly articulated a concept of Christ’s human soul. Eustathius’s only work surviving in full is De engastrimytho contra Origenem, an exegetical treatise written after 311. There is also a substantial body of fragments, many from anti-subordinationist writings. José Declerck has recently established the Eustathian authorship of an epitome of Contra Ariomanitas et de anima.9 Whilst most explicit references to image theology are outwith the epitome, it is invaluable here in elucidating Eustathius’s use of a Pauline Adam-Christ framework that echoes Irenaeus. The fragmentary nature of the sources renders it very difficult to establish the nuanced differences between Marcellus’s and Eustathius’s respective anthropologies, which are often remarkably similar. Nonetheless, comparison can, cautiously, be made. Notably, Eustathius articulates Christ’s humanity more fully than Marcellus, and his concept of Christ as New Adam is consequently more robust. Irenaeus Drawing on the considerable existing scholarship, we must review several important elements of Irenaeus’s understanding of God’s image. Irenaeus uses the term image of God variously. Thinkers such as Eric Osborn and Denis Minns have discussed the nuances of Irenaeus’s usage in detail.10 Here I want only to observe, in line with Minns, that this diverse usage has a wider consistency. It is always...

Share