Irenaeus

173

ChAPtER SIxtEEn

The Image of God in Irenaeus,

Marcellus, and Eustathius

Sophie Cartwright

T

he image of God is central to Irenaean theology and the extensive scholarship
that explores it. Theological anthropology is deservedly important to this schol-
arship. 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 vary-
ing degrees, been compared with Irenaeus, especially with reference to theological
anthropology, and an “Asia Minor” school of thought.^2 The two fourth-century bish-
ops 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 simi-

larity. 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 per-

son. 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 prin-

cipally 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