For, in what way could we be partakers of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. … For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation. Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: “God, true are His works.” But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.
Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. III, 18, 7
The theory of recapitulation stands at the center of Irenaeus’ theological system and describes best the role of Jesus Christ in His Incarnation. It connotes a re-beginning of the human race, now, however, back in the opposite direction where Adam originally found himself upon his creation. Christ reverses the process that hurtled sin-infected man and the entire cosmos that was under his dominion away from true Light, Life and Incorruption towards sin, chaos and death. God gathers up again in His Logos His entire work by fulfilling it according to His original plan through an intimate association with the living Logos in the individual human being, made according to this Image and Likeness of God that is Christ
George Maloney, SJ, Man, the Divine Icon. The Patristic Doctrine of Man Made according to the Image of God (Pecos, NM: Dove Publications, 1973) 43-44
I was supposed to be preparing classes on Saint Irenaeus these last couple of weeks, but my preparation was put on hold due to the necessity of finishing painting the Paschal candle, something that I left far too late! However, I have been conscious of his idea of recapitulation while working on it, of the wonder of our entire humanity being taken up in Christ and thus transformed. Christ does not simply do something for us, but in us; He reconstitutes our entire being, revealing the mystery of humanity to itself, defeating evil in all its manifestations and drawing us up into His Light.
A blessed Easter!
…
(As an aside: One of the things I have been wondering about in writing on this blog is what to do about inclusive language. This is also a problem in the posts on Zizioulas. I am enough of a – one-time? – feminist to find the generic use of “man” problematic, but I’m not sure that I have the right to edit other people’s work and find constantly inserting sic! rather pedantic. The problem is of course particularly acute when dealing Patristic anthropology and theology, where it is precisely Christ’s taking on of our entire humanity – female as well as male – that is of crucial importance: I think for instance of Gregory of Nazianzus’ “What is unassumed is unhealed”, something that appears to be being undermined in what is sometimes called “New Catholic feminism,” but more on that another time.
While on the subject, it may be worth noting that when I painted the Paschal candle four years ago, I insisted on doing an icon of the Resurrection in which the Risen Christ grasps both Adam and Eve by the hand. I am now less bothered by such “inclusivism,” for what is conveyed is the meeting between the Old Adam and the New Adam and the identification between them. And that is about humanity and has nothing to do with gender. Feminists may find that I’m selling out, but I will also argue tooth and nail with anyone – such as Balthasar and his followers – who tries to assign ontological significance to gender or to suggest that women are any less identified with Christ than anyone else!)
A vow of conversation 
March 26, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Where is it that Balthasar assigns ontological significance to gender?
March 27, 2008 at 9:05 am
Dan, I must confess that I am largely relying on secondary sources. Fergus Kerr discusses Balthasar’s gendered theology of nuptuality in his Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians and also discusses his influence on Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. I can’t say for sure whether Balthasar explicitly states that gender difference is ontological, but he certainly goes in that direction (and I don’t have access to Kerr’s book at the moment having taken it back to the library a while ago!). But the 2004 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the bishops of the Catholic Church (signed by Cardinal Ratzinger) does speak of gender differences as “belonging ontologically to creation”.
Do you know Tina Beattie’s book New Catholic Feminism (Routledge, 2006)? I have only dipped into parts of it, but if you have concerns around Balthasar and gender, then I think that you would find it very worthwhile. (And she also engages people like Lacan whom you are probably more in touch with than I am!) I find her analysis of Balthasar important – and quite alarming, especially his relationship with von Speyr, which she describes as abusive – and rather wonder to what extent such concerns have been heard among all the Balthasar fans.
However, as I said, I haven’t read Balthasar himself. From what I know of him there are aspects of his theology that I find deeply attractive, and I have wanted to read him. But I have also been increasingly put off by his gendered theology.
March 27, 2008 at 9:18 am
I have a problem with the exclusive use of “man” to mean only an adult male.
Unfortunately English makes use of one word where other languages have two: Greek has anthropos for the inclusive term, and aner for the exclusive. Latin has homo for the inclusive term, vir for the exclusive. Zulu has umuntu for the inclusive term, indoda for the exclusive.
The only reasonable solution I can think of is to continue to use “man” in the inclusive sense, and to bring back “werman” for the exclusive, so we can speak of “wermen and women” instead of “men and women”.
The other, less elegant, is to come up with an alternative for the inclusive sense. My suggestion is “thpic”, which is an acronym to shorten “the human person in community”.
Then we can say, “who for us thpic and for our salvation came down from heaven”.
And instead of saying something like “reconciliation between man and man, and man and God” we can say “reconciliation between thipc and thpic, and thpic and God”.
March 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Steve, yes, I’ve heard both Zulu and German speakers expressing their frustration at this particularly English problem. But the reality is that the generic “man” does have exclusive connotations for many people and I therefore prefer to avoid it in my own writing – along with the exclusive use of masculine pronouns etc. It just gets rather awkward when one is dealing with texts that constantly use it.
March 28, 2008 at 3:31 am
I’m so happy to see you address the inclusive language issue!
I agree that it is difficult when the secondary texts you quote are using the masculine terms. I find in teaching that when students read these texts, they then adopt that sort of writing also–it seems like a never-ending cycle.
Any thoughts on the Creed? I grew up simply excluding “men” (we learned to say “for us and for our salvation…”). I wonder what the new liturgical directives will say when they give us a new translation of the mass….
I’ll have to find New Catholic Feminism.
Thanks for your insights!
March 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sophie’s daughter, Yes, it’s secondary texts that are the issue for me at the moment. (Well, also primary texts in the sense of Church Fathers etc – if my language skills were better I’d go back to the original and adapt them appropriately, although I don’t really feel confident about doing that unless it’s very obvious and even then I am now more hesitant to change an existing translation than I was previously. Okay, I did partially alter that quote from Gregory of Nyssa above; it does sort of depend on my mood!).
As for the Creed: for the last six years I’ve been saying (or rather singing) it in Dutch, in which the problem doesn’t arise. But I also come from a context in which we simply said “for us and for our salvation”. I think that that was officially approved by the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. I’m rather out of touch with the issues of the new English translation but last I knew the Vatican was firmly set against inclusive language – I fear that it’s a sort of ideological reaction to the dangers of feminism!
Another point in relation to the Creed: when I checked the Dutch translation this morning I was struck by the “and was made man” which in Dutch is “mens” (or Latin “homo”)i.e. clearly generic. And because the English is so ambivalent (not that I really have any acceptable solutions for solving the problem) we miss out on the connection with our own humanity, which is precisely what I’m connecting with in people like Irenaeus. In Dutch we use the word “mens” in multiple ways, such as “menswording” or incarnation, which refers not only to the Incarnation, but also to the process of us becoming more fully human. Those are, I think, connections that are – at least linguistically – less obvious in English.
Oh well, languages, like so many things, have their limits!
March 28, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Thanks for the insights into Dutch. I agree that language is important, particularly in the patterns that set up connotations and assumptions, not just the explicit definition.
March 29, 2008 at 3:35 am
I personally feel very comfortable with inclusive language. I find it necessary. It can be awkward at times, though. Although I did speak a number of different European languages in the past (I’m a bit rusty now but used to be fairly fluent in Czech and German), I have not really studied the nuances of these languages with regards to gender issues. Having mentioned the above, I have but one comment to contribute. When our parish priest says the Creed at Mass (a parish with 12,000 members), instead of saying “and was made man”, he says, “and was made flesh.” I’m not sure whether I like exactly how that sounds, but I most certainly give him credit for trying to be sensitive to women and our place in the world and Church.
deerose
March 29, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Byron, yes, while I am certainly no linguist, one of the things that living in a different language context has taught me is that language works on so many different levels and is rooted in so many subtle associations. That is one of the reasons why, despite what I have said above, I have become increasingly uneasy with too-easily changing the words we use.
Deerose, While I certainly appreciate the concerns of your priest, I must confess that I’ve become rather hesitant about priests taking it on themselves to change the liturgy, precisely because language often carries so many nuances…