174 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacythe 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 incar-
nation 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 anti-
subordinationist 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 engastri-
mytho contra Origenem, an exegetical treatise written after 311. There is also a substan-
tial 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 frame-
work 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 central to Irenaeus’s articula-
tion of human essence. Sometimes God’s image is what humanity progresses from, but
even then it is the essence of humanity, the core that will remain in the new ἄνθρωπος.
Irenaeus’s conception of God’s image is thus very concerned with the question: What
is humankind supposed to be?
For Irenaeus, Christ is the image of God in that he reveals God. In Christ, the
“invisible is made visible.”^11 Christ also reveals Adam. As Ysabel de Andia observes,
there is a “double visibilité” in the incarnation.^12 Often, when Irenaeus writes of Christ
revealing Adam, what Christ reveals is that Adam is in God’s image.^13 Thus, in reveal-
ing Adam, he reveals a connection between Adam and God.
For Irenaeus, Christ can simultaneously reveal both humanity and God because
humanity was, in a sense, modelled on God. God, and more particularly the Son, is the