PROOF COPY Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions Lydia Gore-Jones St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College Abstract: In Book 5 of his Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses), Irenaeus envisions an eschaton that coheres with the beginning of creation and serves God’s purpose of perfecting man in His divine dispensation. For this argument, Irenaeus cites extra-biblical traditions about end times. His depiction of the earthly Messianic Kingdom demonstrates striking similarities to the eschatological visions in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), a Jewish apocalypse written around the end of the first century, thus indicating shared traditions. In this regard, Irenaeus is rather unique among early Church Fathers. While others show influences of the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that features heavenly journeys, spiritual ascents and angelic theoria, Irenaeus, on the other hand, shows to be heir to the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that envisions an end with the blessing of union with God that is materially abundant, concretely earthy, upon this world created by God from the beginning. I t is unusual to see the name of Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century Christian theologian, appear together with Jewish apocalypses. Irenaeus wrote no apocalypse; but he was a faithful transmitter of traditions.1 Among the many traditions of Second Temple Judaism, from which early Christianity emerged, the apocalyptic tradition particularly gave rise to the distinctive Christian eschatological outlook as well as what later became Christian mysticism. The apocalyptic tradition that 1 I wish to thank Professor Larry L. Welborn (Fordham University), Professor Fr John Behr (St Vladimir’s Seminary), and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their constructive comments and suggestions for improvement. “He made no claim to originality. He was content to rely on the Word of God. Throughout his classic treatise (as elsewhere) he referred to the witness of Scripture preserved by the ‘elders’, which he simply sought to hand on and apply.” A. Skevington Wood, ‘The Eschatology of Irenaeus’ The Evangelical Quarterly 41 (1969) 31. On the other hand, one needs to recognise that Irenaeus’s originality lies in his use of Tradition and Scripture in defence of doctrine. PHRONEMA, VOL. 34(1), 2019, 1-23 1 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions influenced Christian thought is not limited to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible and the Apocalypse of John in the New Testament; it must be sought in the wider apocalyptic culture that produced diversely articulated speculations about cosmological secrets and expectations of the end times.2 Irenaeus is not only a recipient of apocalyptic traditions; he is also one who put a Christian imprint on them. In the fifth book of his Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses), Irenaeus uses extensively a particular form of the apocalyptic tradition in the refutation of his opponents and in the exposition of what he terms the “canon of truth” (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας).3 In particular, he quotes a piece of oral tradition that depicts an earthly Messianic Kingdom at the end of time full of material abundance; the tradition is attributed to “John the disciple of the Lord” and the Lord himself (5.33.3). The intention of this paper is to examine Irenaues’s use of these traditions in the context of Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature, and to argue that a particular strand of apocalypticism is used in his writing to serve the importance of his “theology of the flesh,” that salvation is the bringing to perfection of the same human being formed at Creation. In this regard, Irenaeus is rather unique from other early Christian thinkers who are under the influence of the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that underscores heavenly ascents and angelic visions of God. Irenaeus, instead, envisions an end where perfected human beings converse with God and the angels in a renewed world that is materially abundant and concretely earthy.4 2 3 4 2 For an overview of the typological features of apocalyptic literature and apocalypticism in general, see John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016) and Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002). On the relationship of apocalypticism and early Christology, see the first chapter of Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997). A more recent volume that deals with the origin of Christianity within the Jewish apocalyptic context is The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, ed. Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017). Haer 1.9.4 For a brief introduction on the eschatological outlook of early Christians Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions Firstly, it is necessary to delineate what is meant by Jewish ‘apocalyptic’ tradition. The adjective itself has often been employed ambiguously to refer to a range of things, from literary genre, to socio-religious movement, and eschatological worldview.5 Eschatological expectation was a salient aspect of Second Temple Judaism, shared by diverse socioreligious groups; yet not all of those holding an eschatological worldview necessarily wrote apocalyptic literature. No known apocalypse, for example, has been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Qumran sect, who otherwise authored rule books, thanksgiving hymns and biblical commentaries that portray a community with a strong belief of living at end times.6 The eschatological worldview was also held by the disciples of Jesus; yet apart from the Book of Revelation, they wrote gospel books and letters, despite the many identifiable ‘apocalyptic’ features within.7 Another related term is ‘apocalypticism’, which is used to refer to “the ideology of a movement that shares the conceptual structure of the apocalypses,” and such a movement endorses “a worldview in which supernatural revelation, the heavenly world, and eschatological judgment played essential parts.”8 In a sense, then, both apocalyptic movements and their ideologies are related in certain ways to some salient features of apocalyptic writing. We have no direct access to either ancient communities or ideologies, but we do have 5 6 7 8 including Irenaeus up to the sixth century, see Brian Daley, ‘Eschatology in the Early Church Fathers’ in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 56–72. The undifferentiated use of the word has also been commented upon by Reynolds and Stuckenbruck in the Introduction to their edited volume, Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition, 1–12. For more details on this topic, see John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London & NY: Routledge, 1997). See Christopher Rowland, ‘The Eschatology of the New Testament Church’ in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 56–72. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 13. For a comprehensive review of modern scholarship on apocalyptic studies, see Lorenzo DiTommaso, ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part I)’; ‘Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part II)’ Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2007) 235–86; 367–432. 3 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions access to texts that bear witness to traditions of thought. ‘Apocalyptic traditions’ in this paper refers to traditions contained in the ancient text type of the apocalypse. It is commonly defined as “a literary genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisions eschatological speculation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”9 Texts typically belonging to this genre include the books of Enoch, Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of John. Two sub-categories are further identified: those featuring other-worldly journeys—particularly heavenly ascents, which are often inclined to cosmological speculations; and those featuring revelatory visions of a historical nature, which often describe what shall happen at the end of this age and in the Age to Come.10 Along the line between the two sub-categories, two strands of tradition may be identified: heavenly ascents and eschatological descriptions. The former is represented by the heavenly journeys of Enoch in parts of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 12–16; 20–32) and the Book of Parables (1 Enoch 39–56; 70–71). In these accounts, the seer ascends to the heavenly throne room, has visions of God, visits astronomical and celestial phenomena, and sees the places prepared for both the righteous and sinners.11 The Enochic tradition is also the earliest extant source that describes the activities and future punishments of the fallen angels, as well as the names and functions of the archangels. The list of the archangels are given either in a group of four (Watchers, 1 9 10 11 4 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 5. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 6–7. For a general introduction on 1 Enoch, see James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984); George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); idem, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005); Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007). Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 Enoch 9; Parables, 1 Enoch 40; 71)12 or a group of seven (Watchers, 1 Enoch 20).13 Other heavenly hosts described are Cherubim, Seraphim, Ophannim (wheels), Powers and Dominions (Parables, 1 Enoch 61). Moreover, the one that ascends (Enoch in this case) is “transformed” into one among the angels (1 Enoch 71:11). Human transformation into angels is also attested in other pseudepigrapha. In 2 Enoch, Enoch is not a mere visitor to the heavenly realm but was transfigured as “one of his glorious ones” to stand “before the LORD’s face” “into eternity” (22:5–9).14 Likewise, in the Testament of Levi (4.2), the righteous one is made a “son” of God and “a minister in his presence”.15 The Qumran sectarians also seemed to have envisaged themselves as going through a process of “angelification” while worshipping on earth, as illustrated in the so-called Self-Glorification Hymn (4Q491).16 The “ascent” strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition along with the belief of angelic transformation of humans at the eschaton also found attestation in New Testament writings (Mk 12:25/Matt 2:30; Lk 20:36; Col 2:18; Heb 8–9; Rev 4–5) and the early church fathers. Clement of Alexandria, a younger contemporary of Irenaeus, writes about Christian saints as already living as angels on earth. Consider, for example, his words that the souls of the Christian saints (“gnostics”) “surpass in the greatness of contemplation the mode of life of each of the holy ranks … 12 13 14 15 16 In Watchers they are Michael, Sariel (Uriel in the Greek manuscript), Raphael and Gabriel; in Parables they are Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Phanuel instead. Uriel, Raphael, Reuel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel and Remiel. On the text of 2 Enoch, see F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch (Late First Century A.D.) with Appendix: 2 Enoch in Merilo Pravednoe,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (NY: Doubleday, 1983), I: 91–221; Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). On the transformation from human into an angelic being in Judaism and early Christianity, see the extensive references in Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘Hierarchy, Eldership, Isangelia: Clement of Alexandria and the Ascetic Tradition’ in Alexandrian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Doru Costache, Philip Kariatlis and Mario Baghos (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2015) 31, note 86. Philip Alexander, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts (London: T&T Clark, 2006) 90. 5 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions ever moving to higher and yet higher places, embracing the divine vision (θεωρία) not in mirrors or by means of mirrors”;17 “the true Gnostic has been brought in the presence of his glory … before the angels; faultless in joyousness, having become angels.”18 Origen, Evagrius Ponticus, and later John Climacus also applied the concept of “angelification” to perfected ascetic life.19 Bucur uses the term “interiorised apocalypticism” to describe the use of the “heavenly ascent” strand of apocalyptic tradition in Clement of Alexandria and the Byzantine monastic literature after him; it is “the transposition of the cosmic setting of apocalyptic literature … to the inner theatre of the soul.”20 In other words, the Clementine concept of the cosmic ladder, i.e. human ascent to angels, to archangels, to the seven beings first created, and to the divine Face – was used as a metaphor for the concept of theosis; and it is rooted in the ascent type of Jewish apocalypticism.21 But this does not appear to be the case for Irenaeus. Irenaeus certainly knows about the Enochic tradition, the fallen watchers and their final punishment – he mentions the ringleader Azazel by name in his writing (Haer 1.15.6);22 he also believes in the transformation of the human being in the last times. However, it is the historical type of apocalyptic tradition that Irenaeus takes up in his Adversus Haereses. His description of the eschaton especially bears significant resemblance to two Jewish apocalypses written towards the end of the first century, known as 4 Ezra (2 Esdras 3–14) and 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch). Both are believed to be of Palestinian Jewish provenance, first 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 Stromateis 7.3.13.1. Adumbr. 5.24. Bucur, ‘Hierarchy’ 36. Bucur, ‘Hierarchy’ 38. The quotation is from Golitzin, ‘Earthly Angels and Heavenly Men: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Nicetas Stethatos, and the Tradition of Interiorized Apocalyptic in Eastern Christian Ascetical and Mystical Literature’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001), 125–53. Ibid. Also see Bucur’s “The Other Clement of Alexandria: Cosmic Hierarchy and Interiorized Apocalypticism,” in Vigiliae Christianae 60 (2006) 251–68. Here Irenaeus seems to be quoting the words of Polycarp, “divine/saintly elders and preacher of the truth” Haer 15.6.1. The name appears as Azael in the Ethiopic 1 Enoch. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 written in Hebrew, as a response to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans in AD 70. One is attributed to the biblical Ezra and the other, the biblical Baruch Ben Neriah, friend and scribe of the Prophet Jeremiah. 4 Ezra is set in the Babylonian exile, whereas 2 Baruch is situated at the time of the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians.23 Both works were preserved and transmitted by Christian churches. 4 Ezra survived mainly in Latin and Syriac, and the only extant complete copy of 2 Baruch is found in Syriac, itself being a translation from a lost Greek manuscript.24 I shall use 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as typical examples of the historical apocalyptic tradition, and as references in the following analysis of Irenaeus’s use of this strand of apocalyptic thought. The literary and theological context of Irenaeus’s use of the apocalyptic tradition Irenaeus’s use of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition in Book 5 of his tome is closely linked to his “theology of the flesh”25 and his “theology of recapitulation”. I follow Behr’s analysis, which identifies a tripartite division within the book (Haer 5.1–14; 15–24; 25–36).26 On the surface, it is the heretical views which Irenaeus refutes that drive the argument; but 23 24 25 26 For a general introduction on text and dating of 4 Ezra, see G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse: being chapters 3-14 of the book commonly known as 4 Ezra (or II Esdras) (London: Pitman, 1912); Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Michael Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary of the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). On 2 Baruch, see R. H. Charles, ‘II Baruch: I. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch’ in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) I: 470–521; Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, L’Apocalypse Syriaque de Baruch (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1969); A. Frederik J. Klijn, ‘2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch’ in James H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I: 615–52; Daniel Gurtner, “Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (NY: T&T Clark, 2009); and Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). See Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism 16–70. John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 99, note 38. Ibid. 103. 7 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions there are also strong undercurrents clearly showing Irenaeus establishing his own theology: that it is the one God the Father who willed, and one Son Jesus Christ, who accomplished, in the end, the one economy of making the same human race, that which was fashioned from earth in the beginning. Thus part one (5.1–14) works as a defence for the goodness of the substance of creation—the flesh—and as a refutation of his opponents’ view of an “inferior creation” by an “inferior god.” The undercurrent of this part is Irenaeus’s “theology of the flesh”. In particular, Irenaeus offers a long (5.9–14) exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:50, “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” This is a crucial scriptural reference which his opponents used to support their denial of the salvation of the flesh and the reality of physical resurrection.27 Irenaeus argues that indeed flesh and blood alone cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but those who participate in the Spirit of God will be saved as a whole person. Their flesh and blood will be inherited into the kingdom. Here his defence of the flesh transitions into an exposition of the work of the Spirit in the divine economy of making the human race. In the beginning the breath animated the flesh, but at end times the Spirit vivifies and gives true life to the same flesh which was previously subject to death when it lost its breath.28 Later in the third part, Irenaeus underscores that it is precisely this vivified flesh no longer knowing death that rejoices in the Messianic Kingdom upon the renewed earth. The second part of Book 5 (5.15–24) defends the oneness of God, the same God who is the creator, the law giver and the Father of Jesus Christ. The undercurrent of this part is Irenaeus’s “theology of recapitulation.” The word, “recapitulation” (recapitulatio; 27 28 8 On the early Christian resurrection debate revolving the exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:50, see Outi Lehtipuu, ‘“Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God”: The Transformation of the Flesh in the Early Christian Debates Concerning Resurrection’ in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, ed. Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009) 159–80. Behr, Irenaeus 149–58. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 ἀνακεφαλαίωσις),29 or “summing up,” frequently appears, together with the frequent juxtaposition of “the beginning” and “the last times”. The key scriptural text used to support Irenaeus’s exposition is the Garden of Eden account in Genesis 2–3. “At the beginning” God formed the human being; “in the last times” He sought his creation out (5.15.2). “At the beginning” He called out to Adam at eventide; “in the last times” the very same Word has visited him (5.15.4). Moreover, “at the beginning,” God set out to make man in His image and likeness; “in the last times,” the Word became flesh and made Himself visible to man to show forth “the image truly” and to reestablish “the similitude … by assimilating man” – i.e. by becoming its head30 – “to the invisible Father through the means of the visible Word” (5.16.2). “From beginning even to the end” there is one and the same Father whose hands are always with His handiwork (5.16.1). The end joins the beginning, so Christ “might sum up all things in Himself” (5.18.3). The cross is the recapitulation of the disobedience by means of a tree, the faithful Virgin Mary the recapitulation of the deceived Virgin Eve (5.19.1), the Church the recapitulation of Eden – with Scriptures as the trees that supply nourishments and heresies as the forbidden tree (5.20.2), and the enemy that Christ defeated the recapitulation of the serpent (5.21.1). Irenaeus then carries out a detailed exegesis of the episode of the Temptation of Christ (Matt 4:1–13; Mk 1:12–13; Lk 4:1–11), showing how Christ did away with Adam’s transgression in the garden by defeating the Devil in the wilderness (5.21.2–22.2). Irenaeus draws a parallel between the activity of Christ and the activity of the Devil. “By summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end,” Christ also “summed up its death” (5.23.3). The Devil, on the other hand, “lied at the beginning, so did he also in the end” (5.24.1). He is 29 30 For a discussion on the meaning and significance of the term, see ibid. 136–38. In the words of Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, “humanity … originally ‘capitulated by virtue of its relationship to its ‘head,’ has found itself ‘de-capitulated’ (or decapitated). What is needed is a re-capitulation wherein the original connection between creation and Creator is restored, thus replacing death with life.” See his Irenaeus and Genesis: A Study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraus, 2009) 128; cited in Behr, Irenaeus, 171. 9 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions referring to the Antichrist at the end times as the recapitulation of all evil, wrong and apostasy.31 It is on the basis of the above two key principles, the salvation of the created matter and the end as the fulfillment of the beginning, that Irenaeus launches into his eschatological vision in the final part (5.25– 36) of the last book of his tome. Irenaeus’s use of Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition The intention of Irenaeus is not to teach the chronology of end times; he assumes a familiarity with eschatological knowledge on the part of his audience. Rather, he is using traditions to illustrate his theological points. For Irenaeus as for 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the “end,” finis, or better still, “the last times,” novissimus, is not a point in time, but a duration of time consisting of stages. “The end,” therefore, is used synecdochically where the final event or result is selected to represent the whole process, due to its salience. Within the wider Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic tradition, there are shared expectations about the end, even though details may vary in various textual evidence; these major stages can be outlined as 1) the so-called Messianic Woes, signs of disasters and tribulations; 2) the appearance of the Messiah and Messianic warfare against the evil power; 3) a Messianic Era; and 4) the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment. The last event marks the beginning of the World/Age to Come. Irenaeus conceives of similar stages, although neither are they given equal emphasis, nor are they presented in strict order and clearly delineated. His stages are: 1) The appearance of the Antichrist and time of tribulation; 2) The return of Christ and destruction of the enemy; 31 10 Johannine literature presents ideas of both “the Antichrist” (1 Jn 2:18; 4:3) and “an antichrist” (1 Jn 2:22; 2 Jn 1:7). Irenaeus clearly emphasises “the Antichrist” in his eschatological programme to serve his theology of “recapitulation”; see more on this below. An interesting book that traces the development of Christian concepts of “antichrist” is Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (New York: HarperCollins, 1994). Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 3) The resurrection of the righteous (the First Resurrection) and the Messianic Kingdom on earth, with material abundance and the newly built earthly Jerusalem; 4) General resurrection and the Last Judgment of both the righteous and the wicked, the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the beginning of the Age to Come. The topics that receive his fullest treatment are the Antichrist and the earthly Messianic Kingdom. The Antichrist While 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch present the signs of the end in the forms of earthquakes, pestilences, wars and disturbances, famines and droughts, demonic attacks and depravity of humanity,32 for Irenaeus the troubles of the end are personified by the Antichrist. This is the “man of sin” and “son of perdition” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Haer 5.25.1), and the last of the four beasts described in Daniel 7 (Haer 5.25.3) and the last ruler of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 (Haer 5.26.1). He is the one that sums up all rebellion and wickedness, who sets himself up as God to be worshiped in Jerusalem (5.25.4). It is this Antichrist that will cause great tribulations to the Church and make war with the Lamb (Rev. 17:14; Haer 5.26.1), whom “the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming” (2 Thess.2:8; Haer 5.25.3). This portrayal of Christ as carrying out judgment by the divine Word is comparable to the Messianic figure described in other Jewish apocalypses. In 4 Ezra, for example, the Messiah, in the image of the lion of Judah, destroys Israel’s archenemy with his words (4 Ezra 12:32–34). In another vision in the same apocalypse, the Messiah is represented as a man warrior, yet he holds not “a spear or weapon of war” (13:27), but destroys the enemy with the streaming fire from his mouth, the flaming breath and the storm of fiery coals from his tongue (13:10; 37–8). In 2 Baruch, on the other hand, the Messianic figure, represented by the symbol of the vine, carries out indictment of the crimes of the enemy and 32 4 Ezra 5:1–12; 6:18–25; 9:3; 2 Bar 25:2–28:2; 48:30–41; 70:2–8. 11 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions pronounces judgment and execution with his words (2 Bar 36:7–37:1).33 This comparison demonstrates shared Jewish tradition of Messianic expectations. After describing the identity and the activities of the Antichrist, Irenaeus takes up three chapters to discuss at length the interpretation of the number 666, which is the code for the Antichrist mentioned in Revelation 13. He argues that the number symbolises the six thousand years of creation during which time humanity has erred (5.28.2). He supports this interpretation with the six days of creation in Genesis 2:1— each day is equated with a thousand years (Haer 5.28.3); the six hundred years of Noah in the time of the deluge; and the six cubits of the statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar that the three youths were forced to worship (5.29.2). Irenaeus argues against the interpretation of 666 as a name; he even warns strongly about the risk of impiety which pronouncing the name of the Antichrist will incur. “If it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time,” Irenaeus argues, “it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision”; “the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit … as one who has no existence”, since “this man and those who follow him” will be sent to the lake of fire at Christ’s second coming (5.30.3–4). One may question why Irenaeus places so much emphasis on the character of the Antichrist and insists on interpreting the code 666 as a number rather than a name. The answer lies in Irenaeus’s theology of recapitulation. As Christ recapitulates the human race, the Antichrist sums up the whole of the apostasy of the rebellious angels and the fallen Adam. The number six has great significance to Irenaeus, as in it “is 33 12 The shared scriptural basis for the images of the power of divine presence and the fire from the mouth of God is found in Ps 104:32; 97:4–5; 68:2; 18:8; Micah 1:3–4; Isa 11:4, etc. On the depiction of the Messiah in 4 Ezra and 2 Bar, see Michael Stone, ‘The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra’ in Judaism and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green and Ernest S. Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 209–24. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years” (5.29.2), the entire time of creation. The Antichrist is “a recapitulation made of all sorts of iniquity and of every deceit, in order that all apostate power, flowing into the being shut up in him, may be sent into the furnace of fire” (5.29.2). In other words, the gathering of all evil in the Antichrist is a necessary part of the doctrine of the recapitulation of the entire creation in Christ. On the other hand, through his use of Scripture (i.e. the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) and apostolic writings, Irenaeus indicates how the Antichrist is declared both by the prophets and by the apostles, thus revealing the one and the same God at work (5.25.5). The Kingdom of Christ on Earth If the focus on the Antichrist reveals Irenaeus’s theology of Christ being the recapitulation of all creation, his elaboration of the kingdom of Christ on earth serves well his “theology of the flesh.” Later Second Temple apocalypses treat the Messianic Era on earth as an interim stage distinct from the World/Age to Come. In rabbinic terminology, the two are called ‫( חישׁמה ימי‬yimê hamašiaḥ) and ‫אבה םלועה‬ (ha’olam habba), respectively.34 In 4 Ezra, the Messianic Kingdom is where people who remain in the end time will “rejoice for 400 years” and they shall see wonders (4 Ezra 7:28; cf. 12:34; 13:50). At the end of the 400 years, all living things including the Messiah die, and the world returns to primeval silence for seven days (7:30). Then there is the resurrection of the dead, and God is revealed and both the righteous and the wicked are judged. In 2 Baruch, the Messianic Era on earth is for an unspecified duration of time, in which the remnant of the righteous will enjoy plentiful food, healing and renewal. (This is the tradition I will compare with Irenaeus below.) Then the Messiah returns in glory— 34 The two periods do not always appear without confusion, but overall they are fundamentally different concepts. See Joseph Klausner, ‘The Messianic Age and the World to Come’ in idem, The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, trans. W. F. Stinespring (New York: Macmillan, 1955) 408–19; Joseph Bonsirven, Le Judaïsm palestinien au temps de JésusChrist (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1934) I: 307–21. 13 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions supposedly to his celestial place—and there is general resurrection and the Last Judgement, and the advent of the Age to Come (2 Bar 29–30; 73–74). Irenaeus also clearly differentiates the Kingdom of Christ on earth and the Age to Come, following the Apocalypse of John (Rev 20:7–22:5). He also implicitly believes, again following John, the Messianic Era to be a thousand years.35 He differs from both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in foreseeing the First Resurrection of the just at Christ’s second coming. He argues that it is necessary that the departed wait to be raised in the body, as the Lord himself “observed the law of the dead, […] tarried until the third day ‘in the lower parts of the earth,’ then afterwards rising in the flesh,” and ascended to the Father with the risen body (5.31.2). Therefore, his followers must also wait for the time of resurrection. For Irenaeus, those who believe that “upon their death they shall pass above the heaven” are showing ignorance of or even contempt for the promise of God, as they “disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man” (5.31.1). If the dead do not go straight to heaven but wait in the “lower parts of the earth,” where do the souls of the righteous departed go? Irenaeus says that they “shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, … then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God” (5.31.2). While the “lower parts of the earth” is scriptural, the “invisible place” allotted to the righteous departed souls only finds its equivalent in 4 Ezra, where it is called the “treasuries of the souls,” and in 2 Baruch, where it is referred to as “reservoirs.” In both apocalypses, the earth will give back the dead committed to it at the resurrection.36 35 36 14 Irenaeus does not say a thousand years explicitly, but elsewhere he mentions that the duration of the world is 6000 years, and the “times of the kingdom” are equivalent to “the hallowed seventh day” (Haer 5.30.4), and one day equals a thousand years (5.28.3; 5.33.2). See Wood, ‘Eschatology’ 36, note 38. 4 Ezra 4.35, 41; 7:32, 85, 95; 2 Bar 14.12, 21.23; 30.2; 42.8; 50.2. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 But with Irenaeus, tradition is not only used; it is also rationalised. The just will rise first in the earthly kingdom, because God promised rewards to the patriarchs. It is “in the creation” that the faithful endured afflictions, death and servitude; it should be then “in that very creation” that the righteous must be the first to receive “the promise of the inheritance,” and “the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition … should be under the dominion of the righteous” (5.32.1). Tradition also has to serve Scripture. In this part of the writing, “promise” and the “earth” are key words around which Irenaeus builds his scriptural exegesis. God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed (Gen 12; 17), and that promise is not yet fulfilled until the resurrection of the just. That seed is Christ and those who have faith are the children of the promise (Gal 4:28); and Jesus himself said that the meek shall inherit the earth (Matt 5:5) and that his followers shall “receive in this world a hundred-fold, and in that to come he shall inherit eternal life” (Matt 19:29). “Promise,” “earth,” and “this world” are understood literally and within the eschatological setting. He also quotes the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Jeremiah extensively to demonstrate the necessity of the first resurrection of the just (5.34.1–3). One particular promise made to the patriarchs that must be recapitulated, or fulfilled, in the Messianic Kingdom at the end is the divine blessing of Jacob through the words of his father Isaac: God give to thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, plenty of corn and wine. And let the nations serve thee, and kings bow down to thee; and be thou Lord over thy brother, and thy father’s sons shall bow down to thee; cursed shall be he who shall curse thee, and blessed shall be he who shall bless thee.37 Irenaeus argues that since it did not happen in history, therefore, “the predicted blessing […] belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom,” when the resurrected righteous will enjoy “an abundance of all kinds of food […] from the fertility of the earth” (5.33.3). 37 Gen 27:28–29 15 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions Here for the only time Irenaeus uses an extensive piece of oral tradition that is not found in Scripture.38 Irenaeus continues, As elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.” In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.39 Irenaeus attributes the tradition to “the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord,” who heard from John, who in turn learned from Jesus himself. Many think that Irenaeus quoted book four of the now lost five-volume book, entitled “Exegesis of the Dominical Oracles/Logia” (Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις),40 written by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, 38 39 40 16 Otherwise he refers to words of “the elders” apparently on five occasions in the entire book of Against Heresies. These are collected in Enrico Norelli, Papia di Hierapolis: Esposizione degli Oraculi del Signore: I Frammenti (Milan: Figlie di San Paolo, 2005) 531–36; Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 768–73. Haer 5.33.3. The commonly seen translation of the title into English, “Exposition of the Logia of the Lord”, is avoided here, as the work of Papias is thought to be most likely exegesis of the Scriptures (OT) in the light of the gospel proclamation, rather than quotations of “sayings of the Lord”. I am indebted to Prof. Fr John Behr for this idea. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 “the hearer of John” and “companion of Polycarp” (5.33.4).41 However, Richard Bauckham thinks that the wording of Irenaeus in 5.33.3–4 shows that he had a source other than Papias.42 I tend to agree with Bauckham. Irenaeus seems to be quoting a piece of oral tradition, and to be using Papias, another bishop who was witness, to confirm and to lend more authority to the dominical oracle, or λόγιον κυριακόν, he was quoting. In the ancient Hebrew mindset, cursed is a man who plants a vineyard but cannot enjoy its fruits. A great blessing it is, then, for those who can eat and drink their reward and in abundance.43 In the apocalyptic tradition, the earliest extant use of this motif appears in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), dated to the 3rd century BC: Then all the earth will be tilled in righteousness, and all of it will be planted with trees and filled with blessing; and all the trees of joy will be planted on it. They will plant vines on it, and every vine that will be planted on it will yield a thousand jugs of wine, and of every seed that is sown on it, each measure will yield a thousand measures, and each measure of olives will yield ten baths of oil. … Then I shall open the storehouses of blessing that are in heaven, and make them descend upon the earth, upon the works and the labour of the sons of men. And then truth and peace will be united together for all the days of eternity and for all the generations of humanity.44 41 42 43 44 All that has survived of Papias’s book is a general description by Eusebius, as well as five quotations and a few references. For more on scholarships concerning Papias, see W. R. Schoedel, ‘Papias’ in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 140–42. Richard Bauckham, ‘Papias and the Gospels’ 2012, 8–9, http://austingrad.edu/ images/SBL/Papias%20and%20the%20gospels.pdf (last accessed 18 January 2019). See also Norelli, Papia 194–99, cited by Bauckam, ‘Papias’. Bauckham corrected his own previous thought, which is expressed in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 457, that Papias was the source for the tradition cited by Irenaeus here. Such curses are found, for example, in Deut 20:6; 28:30, 39; Amos 5:11; the blessings expressed in terms of building a vineyard and enjoying its fruits are expressed in Deut 6:10–11; Jer 31:3–5; Amos 9:14; Ps 107:37–38; Isa 37:30; 2 Kg 19:29. 1 Enoch 10:18–19; 11:1–2. The English translation is from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch, The Hermeneia Translation 17 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions In the story of Enoch and the rebel watchers, this is an oracle pronounced when the Most High commissions Michael to renovate the earth after the wicked angels are imprisoned and their descendants destroyed. Stephen Carlson has argued that this passage is developed from the account of Noah in Genesis 6–9; Noah is a type of the “righteous” (Gen 6:9), a man of the soil who was the first to plant a vineyard after the flood (Gen 9:20).45 Although this oracle is set within the literary context of the cleansing of the earth after the fallen angels (Gen 5–6:5), its eschatological overtone is discernible. Most importantly, the elements of the thousand-fold multiplication of wine, food and oil are already present, together with the concept of heavenly blessing descending upon the earth. Elsewhere in 1 Enoch, the heavenly gift is described as dew blown by the wind (1 En 34:1), and is even associated with manna (1 En 60:11–23).46 The elements of dew, fatness from the earth, and plentiful food and wine appear in the blessing of Jacob by Isaac, although direct textual connection is not yet clear. On the other hand, the “trees of joy” reflects of a return to the Garden of Eden at end times. It is, however, the description of the earthly Messianic Kingdom in 2 Baruch that the tradition quoted by Irenaeus bears the closest resemblance. God reveals to a downcast Baruch what will happen at the coming of the Messiah: Behemoth will be revealed from its place, and Leviathan will ascend from the sea, those two great serpents that I created on the fifth day of creation and have preserved until that day. And then they will be food for all who are left. Also, the earth will yield its fruits ten-thousand fold. A single vine will have a thousand branches, and a single branch will produce a thousand bunches of grapes, and a single bunch of grapes will produce a thousand grapes, and a single grape will produce a kor47 of wine. Those 45 46 47 18 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). Stephen C. Carlson, ‘Eschatological Viticulture in 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and the Presbyters of Papias’ Vigiliae Christianae 71 (2017) 39–41. Carlson, op. cit. 44–45. “Kor”, or “homer”, is an ancient unit of measure used in the era of the Temple in Jerusalem. The term “kor” (‫ )רכ‬appears in 1 Kings 5:2. A kor or homer is thought Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 who have hungered will rejoice. And furthermore, they will see marvels every day. For winds are going out from before me to bring every morning the fragrance of aromatic fruits, and at the end of the day clouds sprinkle dew of healing. And at that time, the reservoir of manna will again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years, because these are the ones who have reached the consummation of time.48 Compared with the passage in 1 Enoch, the tradition here appears to be further developed. The appearance of mythical beasts Behemoth and Leviathan at the end is also attested in 4 Ezra (6:49–52);49 their being used as food perhaps represents the “fatness of the earth” in the blessing of Jacob. Moreover, the descriptions of both the thousand-fold multiplication of agricultural and viticultural production and the heavenly dew and manna are further expanded. The “fragrance of aromatic fruits” alludes to a recovery of Eden.50 The theme of eschatological return to paradise is made further clear in another oracle in 2 Baruch: Then healing will be descending in the dew, and disease will vanish, and concern and sorrow and groans will pass from among humans, and gladness will walk about the entire earth. And no one will again die untimely, nor will any peril suddenly befall. And judgments and blame and schisms and vengeance and blood and covetousness and envy and hatred and all those that are like these will go into condemnation when they will be removed, for it is these that have tilled this world [or age] with evils, and because of them the life of human beings has greatly been distributed. Animals will come from the forest and serve humans, the snake and dragons will come out of their holes to subject themselves to an infant. Then women will no longer be in pain when they 48 49 50 to be the equivalence of approximately 230 litres, according to Oxford Biblical Studies Online (“Weights and Measures”, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies. com/resource/WeightsAndMeasures.xhtml, OUP, 2019; accessed Jan 28, 2019). 29:4–8. English translation is taken from Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013). The mythical beast, Leviathan, is mentioned in Isa 27:1; Ps 74:14; Ps 104:26; Job 3:8; 40:25; Behemoth appears in Job 40:15. Also L.A.B. (Pseudo-Philo) 32:8; 1 En 24–25; Rev 22:2. 19 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions bear, nor will they be tormented when they give the fruits of the womb. And in those days the harvest will not grow tired, nor will the builders grow weary, for the works will progress quickly by themselves together with those who do them with much rest.51 Echoes to the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah are loud and clear. The Messianic banquet (Isa 25:6) is filled with bounties of meat, wine, fruits and manna from heaven. Humanity is healed of sickness and disease (Isa 35:5–6) and full of gladness and joy (Isa 25:8; 35:10). Animals coexist with humanity in peace and harmony (Isa 11:6–9). In addition, ancestral transgressions will be reversed; no more pain in childbirth for Eve, nor toil for Adam, nor envy and bloodshed between brothers. The tradition quoted in Irenaeus certainly shares the same Jewish apocalyptic religious background with 2 Baruch, but shows further development. Compared with the thousand-fold multiplication, the abundance of wine and wheat is ten thousand fold. There is apparently a word play between the Hebrew words “abundance” (‫)בר‬, which appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gen 27:28), and “ten thousand” ‫)ובר( רבו‬.52 If this word play is intentional, it demonstrates a more explicit reference to the blessing of Jacob, and the Hebrew or Aramaic origin of the oral tradition.53 In other words, we can trust that Irenaeus has preserved an authentic piece of tradition from earlier Jewish Christian circles, in particular the circles associated with John. Irenaeus has made the scripture connection to Genesis 27:28 entirely explicit, using it as the eschatological fulfillment on earth of the patriarchal blessing. Compared with 2 Baruch, the abundance of both the wheat and the wine are made more prominent (albeit in reverse order), reflecting a Christian interest in the Eucharist. Like 2 Baruch, it contains both a reference of fruit trees, which also indicates a return to Eden, and an 51 52 53 20 73:1–74:1. Carlson, op. cit. 47 n54, and 54. In ‘Midrash and Papias of Hierapolis’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012) 34, Tim Hegedus argues that neither Irenaeus nor Papias knew Hebrew, and the Greek word for “abundance” is πλῆθος, bearing no resemblance to the word “ten thousand” in Gen 27:28 LXX, μυριάς. Cited in Carlson, op. cit. 54, note 78. ‫רב‬ Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 allusion to Isaiah 11:6–9 about a peaceful coexistence of animals at the end time. By comparing the tradition in 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch and Irenaeus, one perceives both common features and different applications. Some of the most significant common features include an eschatological interpretation of Scripture, the concept of an eschatological fulfillment of patriarchal promises, and the idea of the eschaton as a return to the beginning of creation. Irenaeus preserves all these features in his use of the tradition; in addition, he uses it to serve his theological propositions, namely, the Kingdom of Christ is a recapitulation of Creation, and it is necessary and fitting for humans to be restored in their physical body, together with the material world created by God. His emphasis on the flesh and creation is so thoroughgoing that in his scheme of the earthly Kingdom, there will be an earthly Jerusalem “rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above” (5.35.2). Certainly, the heavenly Jerusalem will eventually descend from heaven (Rev 21:2), and the “dead, great and small,” good and evil, will be summoned for the Last Judgment (Rev 21:11), but this will only be “after the times of the kingdom” (5.35.2). In other words, the rebuilt earthly Jerusalem in the earthly kingdom is distinctly different from the heavenly Jerusalem, of which it is a copy. Irenaeus is not the only early Christian thinker who insisted on an earthly reign of Christ; according to Wood, this traditional teaching, often named “chiliasm” or “millenarianism,” is also attested in Didache, Ignatius, Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr and Tertullian.54 However, 54 Wood, ‘Eschatology’ 36. While “chiliasm” is only implied in some of the early sources, such as the Didache (16:6–8), Barnabas (15.8), it is more clearly stated in Justin Martyr (for example, 1 Apology 52; Dialogue with Trypho, 113.3–5; 139.5) and Tertullian (for example, Adversus Marcionem 3.24). See also Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Charles E. Hill’s Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) offers a more detailed analysis of early Christian sources for the 21 Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions it is in Irenaeus that the idea receives a full treatment and is used to argue for a theological point. The earthly kingdom plays a crucial role in his understanding of how the One God, one Lord creates the one human race in His one economy. Just as apostasy and tribulations serve a didactic purpose in the divine plan of fashioning the true human being, it is by means of the blessing of the Kingdom that “those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature” (5.32.1). Irenaeus stresses that these things are not to be allegorised, For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically …. And as he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father. Then, when all things are made new, he shall truly dwell in the city of God. … And this is the truth of the matter. For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment, that they vanish not away among nonexistent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence.55 Conclusion We have seen Irenaeus’s use of the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that emphasises the earthly Messianic Kingdom in the eschaton as a recapitulation of the protological status of creation. His vision is the one 55 22 presence or absence of the “chiliastic” idea. Hill proposes that the earthly Messianic Kingdom was not part of Irenaeus’s Christian belief and transmitted tradition; rather, Irenaeus “made his decisive adoption” (184) of this “peculiar notion” out of the “increasing urgency of the confrontation with Gnosticism” (187). There is no doubt that Irenaeus placed an emphasis on corporeality as a response to his opponents; however, evidence from Jewish apocalypses such as 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, as well as Revelation, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, indicates that the earthly rule of the Messiah as part of the eschatological expectation was indeed a “standard” component of the trusted tradition in the very early centuries. Thus Justin Martyr could claim that he and many others “who are right-minded Christians on all points” are “assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem” (Dial. 80.2). Haer 5.35.2–5.36.1. Phronema Volume 34(1), 2019 God the Father, who willed the fashioning of the perfect human being even through its apostasy, and the one Son, who accomplished His Father’s will by descending to the moulded creature and raising it to the “image and likeness of God.” The end times serve as the last stage of that process of making the human race. Irenaeus certainly believed in a form of deification, himself being counted among the earliest Christian writers who affirmed that “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself” (Haer 5 Pr.); and again, that “the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God” (Haer 3.19.1).56 Irenaeus also certainly knew about the other strand of apocalyptic tradition and did not shun the idea of the heavenly ascent of the human to have converse with God and to behold God face to face.57 In the Age to Come, according to Irenaeus, those who are saved, that is, those who have progressed and grown in the newness of life, “ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father” (Haer 5.36.2), even “passing beyond the angels” to be “made after the image and likeness of God” (5.36.3).58 Yet, it never occurred to Irenaeus that a perfected human being should turn into an angel. The apocalyptic tradition which he chose to use fully accentuates the “theology of the flesh” of his. It is precisely the human nature of God’s handiwork fashioned from the earth that had Irenaeus’s full attention. “For,” in his own words, “the glory of God is a living human being” (Haer 4.20.7). 56 57 58 However, Clement of Alexandria, his younger contemporary, is the first Christian writer to use the vocabulary of deification, mostly θεοποιέω and ἐκθεόω, as technical terms. See Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 121. See Y. de Andia, Homo Vivens: Incorruptibilité et Divinisation de l’Homme chez Irénée de Lyon (Paris: Ėtudes Augustiniennes, 1986) especially 327–28. Cf. 2 Bar, “And the excellence of the righteous will be greater than that of the angels” (51.12). 23