Cartwright—The Image of God in Irenaeus, Marcellus, and Eustathius 175archetype for Adam. God “made ἄνθρωπος in the image of God and the image of God
is the Son, after whose image ἄνθρωπος was made.”^14 There is a resemblance between
humanity and God that the incarnation both displays and reinforces. Christ is perfect
humanity because humanity was created with him in mind.
Whilst Adam often images specifically the Son, it is the eternal Son, rather than
Incarnate Son, whom he images, and therefore the eternal Son who is archetype.
Admittedly, Irenaeus is often vague about the distinction between the eternal Son,
or Word, and Christ. Significantly, however, the incarnation clearly exhibited an
existing similarity. For instance, Irenaeus writes that: “He appeared... that he might
show the image [to be] like himself.”^15 It is God qua God, not God made human,
whom Adam resembles.
Minns contends that Irenaeus’s most original interpretation of the “image of God”
is that “a two-fold similarity between us and God is to be found in the human body.”^16
He cites Demonstration 22: “He might show the image to be like himself.” Flesh is
emphatically part of God’s image: Irenaeus refers to “that fleshly nature which was
moulded according to the image of God.”^17 Irenaeus often emphasizes the body in
order to establish that the whole person is in God’s image, contra “Gnostic” spiritual-
izing tendencies.^18 Nonetheless, this strategy signifies the belief, not only that people
are properly physical but that human flesh is part of what resembles God.
The incarnation not only demonstrates a resemblance but also creates one. Christ
“re-formed the human race.”^19 Christ not only reveals Adam but also fulfills Adam; he
is, in a sense, more Adam than Adam. Christ fulfills Adam by assimilating humankind
to God: “the Word of God was made ἄνθρωπος, assimilating himself to ἄνθρωπος, and
ἄνθρωπος to himself.”^20 In becoming assimilated to God, humanity becomes what it is
supposed to be. Christ is more Adam than Adam because he is also God and therefore
unifies God and ἄνθρωπος.
So, Christ causes an existential change in humankind. This is reflected in Irenaeus’s
ontology of the human person. As Peter Foster has discussed in detail, the fullness of
God’s image is achieved by the addition of the Spirit to the human body and soul.^21
God’s perfect image, or sometimes God’s likeness, is body, soul, and spirit.^22 Whilst Ire-
naeus does not explain how these three components interact, he does have a coherent
sense of how new humanity includes original humanity—body and soul, and improves
on it—with the spirit. Irenaeus does not distinguish between human spirit and God’s
Spirit;^23 he therefore suggests that God’s essence comprises part of God’s perfect image.
Foster argues that Irenaeus risks reducing the autonomy of the human person by
making God’s spirit a necessary part of fulfilled humanity.^24 This may seem ironic,
given Irenaeus’s emphasis on human free will.^25 However, it is astute: in Irenaeus’s
scheme, by rejecting participation in God, one rejects life. Saved humanity has entirely
relinquished the power of self-direction. God’s image is intimately connected to God,
but the trade-off is dependency on God.
Irenaeus’s concept of shared essence between God and Adam coheres with his
understanding of what an image is: an image has an ontological affinity with the
thing it is imaging, so God’s image necessarily has an ontological affinity with God.
This is achieved because God, the one being imaged, is also the image-maker. Hence,