SAIσT JτSEPH’S SEMIσARY, DUNWOODIE

A THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION OF RECAPITULATION:

SCRIPTURALLY, CHRISTOLOGICALLY, AND ANTHROPOLOGICALLY VIEWED

A Thesis Submitted to
the Faculty of St. Joseph’s Seminary
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Arts in Theology

BY
REV. BRO. BERNARDINO MARIA SOUKUP, C.F.R.

YONKERS, NEW YORK

8 DECEMBER 2015
 To the Blessed Mother
on the Solemnity of her Immaculate Conception
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... V
GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: SAINT PAUL’S WORK OF RECAPITULATION.......................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4
LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS .......................................................................................................... 4
Context .................................................................................................................................... 4
Toward a Definition of Recapitulation ................................................................................... 7
LETTER TO THE ROMANS ........................................................................................................... 10
LETTER TO THE COLOSSIANS ..................................................................................................... 13
A Link with Ephesians .......................................................................................................... 13
The “Imago Dei” ................................................................................................................... 15
The Moral Life ...................................................................................................................... 17
LETTER TO THE HEBREWS .......................................................................................................... 19
The Incarnation ..................................................................................................................... 19
The Cross .............................................................................................................................. 21
PAUL’S OMISSION OF MARY AS THE “σEW EVE” ....................................................................... 21
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 2: SAINT IRENAEUS AND RECAPITULATION ............................................ 24
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 24
THE INCARNATION ..................................................................................................................... 25
A Preliminary Consideration ................................................................................................ 25
The Prologue of St. John ....................................................................................................... 28
Other Fathers of the Church .................................................................................................. 30
Adam and Christ ................................................................................................................... 32
From an Anthropological Perspective .................................................................................. 35
WORK OF REDEMPTION ............................................................................................................. 36
THE INCARNATIONATION RELATED TO THE CROSS AND THE EUCHARIST .................................. 38
The Cross .............................................................................................................................. 38

iii
 The Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ................................................................ 40
THE INCARNATION RELATED TO THE DIVINIZATION OF MAN .................................................... 42
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF RECAPITULATION ......................................................... 44
THE MARIAN DIMENSION OF RECAPITULATION ......................................................................... 46
Eve and Mary: Disobedience and Obedience ....................................................................... 46
The σecessity of Mary as the “σew Eve” ............................................................................ 47
Mary, “Co-recapitulator” with Her Son ................................................................................ 49
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 49
CHAPTER 3: ANTHROPOLOGY AND RECAPITULATION ........................................... 51
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 51
“LIFE IN CHRIST” ....................................................................................................................... 52
A Jesuit and Franciscan Perspective ..................................................................................... 52
The Perspective of Von Balthasar ......................................................................................... 55
The Perspective of John Paul II ............................................................................................ 57
A Closer Look at Man’s Innate Goodness ............................................................................ 58
THE ORIGINAL SIN OF ADAM ..................................................................................................... 64
“LIFE OF CHRIST” ...................................................................................................................... 65
A Moral Life of Grace .......................................................................................................... 65
The Work of Christ and the Holy Spirit ................................................................................ 66
MARY: THE PERFECT SHARER OF THE LIFE IN AND OF CHRIST, HER SON .................................. 68
The Immaculate Conception ................................................................................................. 69
Mary’s Fiat ............................................................................................................................ 72
The Assumption .................................................................................................................... 74
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 76
GENERAL CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 83

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In a special way, I would like to first thank Fr. Kevin τ’Reilly whose encouragement and

enthusiasm moved me, in part, to write this thesis despite my firm resolve not to burden myself

with more writing in my final year of preparation for the Holy Priesthood. The experience of

writing it has been personally fruitful—many thanks to you, Father. Secondly, I am grateful to

Fr. Michael Bruno for accepting to direct my thesis in the midst of many others and for his very

prompt and diligent editing of my initial drafts. Moreover, I thank Fr. Gene Fulton and Mother

Mary of the Sacred Heart, O.P., for assisting me with their prayers. I thank, Fr. Solanus Maria

Benfatti, C.F.R., for kindly helping me in formatting; his knowledge eased the pain of editing my

final draft. Many thanks given to Fr. Pio Maria Hoffmann, C.F.R., who graciously accepted the

task of reading—on such short notice—through my entire thesis in its final draft and promptly

offering his corrections and recommendations. I am also grateful to Msgr. Richard Henning for

his very helpful lectures on St. Paul’s corpus this semester as well as his guidance outside of

class. At Immaculate Conception Seminary in South Orange, NJ, I sincerely thank Msgr. James

Turro for reading chapter one of my thesis on St. Paul’s work of recapitulation and affirming my

research. His expertise on Paul’s writings is greatly appreciated and inspiring. At Fordham

University, I thank Fr. Joseph Koterski, S.J., for kindly reading chapter two and encouraging my

work in the midst of his very busy schedule. Finally, a special “thank you” goes to Barbara

Kelly, our gracious librarian at Stέ Joseph’s Seminary, for her expedient help on the computer

and inter-library loans. In closing, may the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Mother, be pleased to

accept this little offering to honor her on the Solemnity of her Immaculate Conception. Amen.

v
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In his book, The Lord, Roman Guardini writes about the universal and anthropological

implications of Saint Paul’s Christologyμ

St. Paul's Christ has cosmic proportions. He is no longer only the Lord of truth,
Guide and Proclaimer of a new order. Here for the first time we begin to sense the
scope of such words asμ “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). He
is the truth, is all things; not only intellectually, but in a universal surreality; not
only as Conceiver of all things, but as the Being into which they are drawn…έ
Man, and with him the world, should be in Christo in the whole literal truth of the
word, for He, the incarnate Logos, is all-inclusive.1

The “cosmic” Christ both includes in Himself and surpasses all created reality, visible and

invisible. He is the Lord of all things, “the Alpha and the τmega, the first and the last, the

beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13; cf. 21:6a; cf. 1:8). In the Gospel of John, the Evangelist

writes that Jesus Christ is the Logos or Word in the beginning of creation through whom all

things came into being and remain in existenceμ “all things were made through him, and without

him was not anything made that was made” (Jn 1:3). Hence, there is a beautiful connection

between Saints John and Paul that Guardini points outμ “John speaks of the eternal Son of God,

of the Logos per se; Paul of that Logos become flesh and blood. It is He, the God incarnate that

Paul places behind the beginning of all things. He, the God-man, is the Embracer of all that ever

was or is or will be!”2

The “beginning of all things” in creation is rooted in the Father’s gaze upon His Beloved

1
Romano Guardini, The Lord (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1996), 539-540.
2
Ibid., 538-539.

1
Son from all-eternity. Before his pontificate, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli beautifully elaborated on

this very theme of the Father’s gaze upon His Sonμ “Wishing, at the beginning of time, to create

the world in order to pour forth His love and to grant existence and happiness to others besides

Himself… God first cast His eyes on Him [His Son] who would be their Head and King.... There

is God's masterpiece, the most excellent of His works… this was assuredly what He willed first,

and in view of which He made all the rest.”3 Therefore, the Incarnation is highlighted as the

Archetype4 of all creation—“the image of the invisible God” (Col 1μ1η)—, or the divine Mold

into whom man, in particular, is cast and thus formed. Essentially, man is “summed up” in the

Incarnate Word.

As Guardini related above, it is precisely this Johannine image of the Incarnate Word that

dovetails Paul’s Christology of the “cosmic” Christέ An essential Pauline theological term that

includes the “cosmic” Christology and describes the “summing up” of all creation in Christ is

“recapitulation” (α α εφα α ώ α α ), a theme taken up by the Fathers of the Church. In

particular, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century is arguably the most prominent figure in

developing the theology of recapitulation. His contribution was a response to erroneous

teachings that began to arise during that early period of the Church’s historyέ As the Church,

sealed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, becomes “the household of God, which is the church of

the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), so too are her individual

members sealed and empowered by the same Spirit to defend the truth of Revelation and

vanquish all error in the face of heretical teachings. In this way, St. Irenaeus was raised up by

3
Pius XII, Discorsi e Panegirici (Milano: Societá Editrice “Vita e Pensiero,” 1λ3λ), θ33-634; cited in
Dominic Unger, “The Absolute Primacy of Christ and Mary according to Pope Pius XII,” Franciscan Studies 8
(1948): 417-420.
4
Cf. Paul M. Quay, The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God, vol. 161 of American University Studies, ser. VII
of Theology and Religion (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1997), 84.

2
God in the face of Gnosticism5 in all its variant forms. The strength of his defense against

Gnostics relied heavily on Paul’s theology of recapitulationέ

Hence, in this work, we will explore the meaning and significance of this theological

concept. Subsequent chapters will reveal the complexity and importance of this term in all its

multifarious meanings. Chapter one will explore recapitulation in the Pauline corpus. Chapter

two will explore Irenaeus and his conception of recapitulation. Finally, chapter three will further

explore this Pauline-Irenaean term from an anthropological perspective.

5
The basic tenet of belief for a Gnostic is that the corporeal is all-evil, produced by an all-evil god, and the
incorporeal, produced by an all-good god, is all-good. Therefore, there is a dichotomy—a separation—between the
body and the soul of man. Consequently, the body and anything that pertains to its corporeality, like marriage and
sexual intimacy, are generally viewed as evil. While, the soul remains good and of great interest to the Gnostic, who,
at the same time, claims a “secret” knowledge (gnosis) that is superior to any other knowledge because of the belief
that it is salvific in itself [cf. Christoph Markschies, Gnosis : An Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 13-15,
105-106]. Therefore, the notion of a Savior is excluded from their belief. As a result, not only was Gnosticism an
attack on the nature of man (anthropology) but also on Christ (Christology) Himself and all other subsequent truths
of revelation and Tradition entrusted to the Church by Christ.

3
 CHAPTER 1: SAINT PAUL’S WORK OF RECAPITULATION

INTRODUCTION

Saint Paul of Tarsus—a Hebrew, Pharisee, tentmaker by trade, and former persecutor of

Christians—was not only an excellent rhetorician who understood the Greek culture and

language but a profound philosopher and theologian of his day. Perhaps, one of the greatest

theological contributions to the universal Church is his theology of recapitulation. The evidence

from which his recapitulation theology can be drawn is the primary text of his letters to the small

existing Christian churches, especially Ephesians, Romans, and Colossians. These three will be

the subjection of this discussion as well as the Letter to the Hebrews, which pertains primarily to

the Incarnation as recapitulation. The Christ-Adam typology of Paul will be highlighted in his

theologyέ Moreover, Paul’s omission of the Mary-Eve typology will conclude the discussion.

LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS1

Context

1
The integrity of authorship is contested by biblical scholars. Ephesians is one of six letters that is
considered “deutero-Paulineέ” Whereas the other seven letter are considered “undisputed”μ Romans, 1 & 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon [David G. Horrell, An Introduction to the Study
of Paul, in the T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies, 2 nd ed. (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 6-7; 125.]. I prefer
the term “disputed” because the implication is that Paul still may have written itέ Moreover, I have presumed on
Paul’s authorship, since there is a very strong tradition in the Catholic Church upholding this position, undisputed in
scholarship until the late 18th centuryμ “The ancient witnesses who say it is by Paul are impressiveμ Stέ Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment, plus heretical authors: Marcion, Basilides, and
Valentinus. In addition there are allusions in Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp and St. Justin that are
likely to refer to Esphesians” [William Most, The Thought of St. Paul: A Commentary on the Pauline Epistles (Front
Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1994), 249]. Therefore, a Pauline theology of recapitulation per se can be discussed
from Ephesians.

4
 Before considering Saint Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation in chapter two, it is first

essential to look closely at the source of this term recapitulation—Ephesians 1:9-10—from

which St. Irenaeus further developed St. Paul’s theological understanding. Paul writesμ “For he

has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose

which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in

heaven and things on earthέ”2 According to Andrew Lincoln, God the Father in His infinite

“wisdom and insight” has made known to man “the mystery of his will” by uniting “all things in

[Christ],” both visible and invisibleέ3 Lincoln highlights how Paul sets these two verses against

an apocalyptic background, as suggested by the phrase “for the fullness of timeέ” Moreover,

Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida explain that “the mystery of his will” signifies “the

secret (thing/plan) God decidedήresolved to doέ” This meaning implies that Christ, as the

“instrument” and “cause” in His humanity, would thus divinely reveal God’s secret plan to man,

which would otherwise remain hidden and unknownέ The closing prepositional phrase “in him”

(“by means of him”) affirms this implicationέ4 In this context of Christian divine revelation and

eschatology, i.e., when Christ will come again at the end of time to claim all of His redeemed

creation and present it to the Father, Paul uses the Greek term α α εφα α ώ α α

(anakephalaiōsasthai; in Latin, recapitulare, to recapitulate). Hence, the future dimension is

emphasized here.

Given the epistle’s eschatological backdrop, a further contextual understanding of this

2
Emphasis added. All scriptural text that is quoted and/or cited in this thesis will come from The Holy
Bible: Revised Standard Version, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), biblical translation.
3
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42 of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W.
Barker, John D. W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1990), 30, 32-33.
4
Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, UBS
Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 19. See especially Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:1; 4:1; Col 1:26.

5
Greek term that is essential to Paul’s Christology is a heightened sense of ecclesiologyμ

“[T]he church is viewed as the sphere of activity of the cosmic Christ. The
presence of this cosmic Christ expands the horizons of the church enormously. It
is the universal church now rather than the local congregation that is emphasized.
In fact, the mystery of Christ is no longer God’s gracious work through the cross
but the way both Jew and Gentile are embraced by the universal churchέ”5

In other words, the Church makes present and effects sacramentally the recapitulating

activity of the glorified and resurrected Christ for all of humanityμ Christ’s work of salvation is

made present and visible in and through the universal Church. This salvific reality is only

possible when the Body is and continues to be connected to the Head (Christ). Christologically,

Frank J. Matera further clarifies that Christ reconciles the Gentile Christians—who, beforehand,

had been alienated from God and Israel, His chosen people—with God and all of humanity.6

This demonstrates an image of the Church Universal and her mission. Thus, the Pauline theology

of recapitulation is linked to the mission of the Church: the universal reconciliation of humanity

with God and humanity itself. Lucien Cerfaux further affirms this important Pauline

ecclesiological contextμ “The Church [ekklēsia] is no longer merely the concrete society of

believers [i.e., the church in Ephesus]; it is universal not only in fact, but by right; it is a reality

willed by God, existing in the divine mind and, for this reason, completely transcending the

5
Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 4th ed. (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1998), 143 (emphasis added).
6
Frank J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 153-155.
Matera cites Eph 2:1-3 (cf. Rom 1:18 and 1 Thes 1:10) to illustrate how the Gentiles were once alienated from God.
Paul thus writes in Ephesiansμ “And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins in
which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh,
following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. In
addition, Matera quotes Eph 2:11-12 as evidence of the Gentile’s second alienation, iέeέ, from “the commonwealth
of Israel”μ “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is
called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from
Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world” (ibidέ, 1η3-154).

6
empirical Churchέ”7 In fact, George T. Montague writes that, Christologically, the whole epistle

is “of the Church”μ “the image of head and members is further developed (1μ22ff.; 4:15ff.) and

the new image of the bride accentuates even more the moral autonomy of the Body of Christ

(5:22-32)έ”8

In summary, the given context of Ephesians suggests Paul’s use of recapitulation from a

“historical perspective” in relation to the Church, both now and at the end or “fullness of time,”

when Christ will come again as the sovereign King of all creationέ Since “Christ has been given

to the Church as head over all things (1μ22ν cfέ 4μ1ηfέ),” the recapitulation “sets in motion a

process that enables the sovereignty of Christ to assert itself through the Church before the

nations and powers (3.8ff.) and that thus lends a historical dimension to the fulfillment of the

universe (1μ23ν 4μ1ί)έ”9 Therefore, recapitulating the past is highlighted in this context.

Moreover, in the present time, the Church in Christ becomes the “whole economy (oikonomia) of

the fulness [sic] of time (plērōma tōn kairōn)… set forth from the beginning of the epistleμ

predestination, redemption, unity of all things in Christ… and on the other hand the revelation of

the mysteryέ”10

Toward a Definition of Recapitulation

In the New Testament (NT), α α εφα α ώ α α only appears again in Romans 13:9,

7
Lucien Cerfaux, The Christian in the Theology of St. Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), 519; cf.
Most, 249; Gorman, 503.
8
George T. Montague, The Living Thought of Saint Paul: An Introduction to Pauline Theology through
Intensive Study of Key Texts (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1966), 191; cf. Most, 249.
9
Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand
Rapids: Erdmans, 1998), 83. Unlike Colossians speaking of the whole universe (cf. 1:20), Ephesians highlights the
whole Church necessarily being united under Christ as Head, in order to be gathered together and presented as one
to the Father at the Second Coming of Christ or “the fullness of time” (cfέ ibidέ)έ
10
Lucien, 532-533 (emphasis added).

7
where the Ten Commandments are “summed up” in loving one’s neighbor as oneself.11 The fact

that this Greek verb only appears twice in the NT suggests a technical Pauline usage. There have

been many debates trying to settle its true meaning.12 William Most identifies three general

debated definitions: all creation being renewed in Christ; or Christ being the New Adam, hence,

creation’s subjection to Himν or all creation being reunited in Christ as its center.13 Stig Hanson

provides a close analysis of α α εφα α ώ α α μ “It is derived from εφα α ο [kephalaion],

main point, sum, and the verb means: sum up, comprise; further, repeat, bring to a conclusion,

confirmέ”14 Similarly, Nida and Johannes P. Louw define this verbμ “to bring everything together

in terms of some unifying principle or personέ”15 Lincoln points out that some writers have

mistakenly derived the word from εφα (kephala), meaning head.16 Marvin Richardson

Vincent confirms Lincoln’s analysisμ “It means to bring back to and gather round the main point

( εφα α ο ), not the head ( εφα ); so that, in itself, it does not indicate Christ (the Head) as the

central point of regathering, though He is so in fact. That [kind of gathering around Christ, the

Head] is expressed by the following in Christέ” Vincent further writes that the prefix ἀ ,

11
Cf. Bratcher and Nida, 20. A discussion on Romans 13:9 will immediately follow this one.
12
The aim here is not to settle the debated question but to analyze and come closer toward a definition of
recapitulation in Paul’s Christology. In addition, what is highlighted here is the difficulty of moving toward that
definition.
13
Most, 252.
14
Stig Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians, repr.
(Lexington: The Keystone Printery, 1963), 123; Balz and Schneider, 82; cf. Lincoln, 32.
15
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 613.
16
Lincoln, 32ν Dέ Jέ Leahy, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,
ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1121.

8
meaning “together” (not like in Latin meaning “again”), suggests thisέ17 To conclude, Hanson

provides a long list of meanings of α α εφα α ώ α α : to gather up into one like a

compendium, to stand in relation to a main (focal) point like spokes on a wheel, to comprehend

all things in one, “to reunite all things under one Head,” to harmonize all divided things into their

original harmony, to complete all things directed toward a common goal, etc.18

In order to arrive at a more precise definition, a key Pauline phrase in this discussion is

“the mystery of his willέ” God’s plan of restoration and redemption, according to Paul, is “the

mystery” of His will, iέeέ, Christ as the “climax” and revelation of this hidden mystery.19 As

suggested above, His mysterious plan is both universal and all-inclusive because sin affected all

of creation in the fall, not just man. Therefore, Hanson explains this fact that Christ recapitulates

“the cosmic atonement” of all visible creation which sin has corrupted:

Hence α α εφα α ώ α α is an expression of the cosmic unity in Christ. The

universe was comprehended in Christ as its εφα α ο μ Christ is the sum of the
universe. As its representative He is at the same time the totality of all things. The
correspondence with Christ being the εφα of the Church is evidentέ In the
atonement He represented the world, and restored the original unity of cosmos.20

The suggestion here is that God’s mysterious plan to “make all things new” (Rev 21μη) in His

Son is the salvific component in recapitulation that is necessary for Paul’s theologyέ21

17
Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, volέ 3 (σew Yorkμ Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1887), 367–368 (emphasis original); cf. Leahy, 1121. However, according to Balz and Schneider’s Exegetical
Dictionary of the New Testament, α α εφα α ώ α α could have an alternative meaningμ to “break (some train of
thought or expression) down into its major sectionsέ” Yet, Paul’s reference to “fullness” (pleroma; v. 10) implies
rather the opposite sense of the wordμ to “bring something to a εφα α ο (i.e., to the main point [of a structure]), to
recapitulate or summarize” (ibid., 82).
18
Hanson, 124.
19
Saint Paul’s Captivity Letters, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter
Publishers, 2005), 29–30; Leahy, 1121; Balz and Schneider, 83; cf. Col 1:26.
20
Hanson, 126; the original text is entirely italicized by the author for emphasis, but here only parts of it.
21
Cf. Mt 11:27; 17:11; Mk 9:12; Lk 10:22; Jn 1:3; 3:35; 13:3; Rom 11:36; 14:9; Col 1:16-17; 11:3; 1 Cor
8:6; 15:24, 27-28; Eph 1:22-23; 4:9-10; 5:23; Phil 3:21; Heb 1:2; 2:10; Rev 1:4, 8, 18; 4:11.

9
Furthermore, what is hinted at here is that Paul’s recapitulation is diverse in meaning. In sum,

Bratcher and Nida conclude that this α α εφα α ώ α α is “the climax, the final definition of

the goal of the whole process of salvationέ”22 As mentioned already, this is only achieved in and

through the Church, espoused to Christ, her Head. While, at the same time, she herself is being

renewed in Christ through her members being made “new creatures” called to a new life of grace

and freedom.23 The Catholic Bible Dictionary summarizes well this relationship between Christ

and the Church in Paul’s theology of recapitulationμ “Finally, the paradigmatic role of Adam as

vice-regent over all creation is recapitulated in Christ, the New Adam (Rom 5:14), who makes

the Church his body also into ‘one new man’ (Eph 2:15), and together with his body exercises

dominion over all things, which have been placed beneath his feet (cf. Gen 1:26, 28; Ps 8:3-9;

Eph 1:20-23; Heb 2:6-9).”24 Commenting on this most frequent Pauline image of Christ as the

σew Adam, David Gέ Horrell highlights the “corporate” dimension of Paul’s Christologyμ “Paul

strikingly speaks of both Adam and Christ as somehow ‘corporate’ persons, ‘in’ whom people

liveέ Life in ‘Adam’ (under the power of sin and death) is contrasted with life ‘in Christ’ (as

children of God, freed from condemnation and the dominion of sin)έ”25 Thus, the suggestion is

that communion with Christ (and His Church) is salvific. This discussion on Paul’s soteriology

(man’s salvation) in connection to his theology of recapitulation will followέ

LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Before beginning this next essential topic, however, it is first important to finish the

22
Bratcher and Nida, 20.
23
Cf. Jean Cantinat, The Epistles of St. Paul Explained (New York: Alba House, 1967), 153, 155, 158-159.
24
Scott Hahn, ed., Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 514.
25
Horrell, 67.

10
discussion on the only other use of α α εφα α ώ α α found in Romansμ “The commandments,

‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and

any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as

yourself’” (13:9). Peter Fέ Ellis writes that this verse reiterates (vέ κ)μ “τwe no one anything,

except to love one anotherν for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the lawέ” Therefore,

Paul’s understanding of the law is positively summed up in the love commandέ Ellis concludes:

“Paul here elevates love to the supreme position in the daily life of Christiansέ”26 Nida and

Barclay Moon σewman both comment that a possible equivalent of the phrase “are summed up”

may either be interpreted as “are equal to,” “are no more than” or simply “mean” the one

sentence of loving others as yourself. They further write that Paul is quoting from Leviticus

1λμ1κμ “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people,

but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” The significance of this Leviticus

text is verified by the Synoptic Gospels and other NT accounts.27 However, for Paul, there is a

significant difference between the kind of love that he has personally come to know and witness

to as a Christian and the kind of zealous, misguided love that he had once known as a Pharisee:

“the essential basis for love is christologyν thus the mercy of God, on which Jesus based the love

commandment (Luke 6:36 par), is replaced by the sacrifice of Christ on the crossέ”28

The evidence that supports this claim of sacrificial love is Paul’s use of the Greek verb

Ἀγαπ ε (agapeseis). The infinitive verb is ἀγαπ ω (agapaō), “to love,” with two cognates

26
Peter F. Ellis, Seven Pauline Letters (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982), 256. This parallels
Paul’s understanding of the command to love in 1 Corinthians 13έ
27
Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, UBS
Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1973), 250; see Mt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27;
Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8. Also, see Vincent, 165.
28
Balz and Schneider, 82-83; see Gal 5:13-24; 2:20f.; Phil 2:1-11; cf. Eph 4:32–5:2.

11
ἀγ π and ἀγαπ ό . This verb appears frequently throughout the NT.29 However, there is a

deeper theological meaning behind this verb than only a mere glance would suggest. Justin

Langford explains that the verb connotes a love that has “a deep level of affection and intimacy”μ

some examples include “Jesus’ love for people (eέgέ, Mark 1ίμ21), the Father’s love for Jesus

(e.g., John 3:35), human love for God (e.g., Mark 12:30) and a broader range of love between

people, including love for one’s neighbor and even one’s enemy (eέg., Matt 5:43–4θ)έ”30 Perhaps

the most striking example, however, is John 15:12-13μ “This is my commandment, that you love

one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life

for his friends.”

Furthermore, the word ὡ (hos), “as,” is also helpful in this discussion for greater clarityέ

There is a comparison that Paul is making by which the activity of loving is understood, i.e., by

equally comparing the love of neighbor to the love of self.31 But, for Paul, true love of self

implies a love rooted in Christ’s love as just discussedέ Hence, John MacEvilly elaborates that

the word ὡ “does not imply love in an equal degree, but love of the same kind, as is expressed

by our Redeemerέ”32 For example, MacEvilly quotes the golden rule from Matthew ιμ12aμ “So

29
The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Logos Bible Software, 2011). This verb
appears 129 times in the NT, 8 times appearing in Romans [8:28, 37; 9:13, 25 (2); 13:8 (2), 9]. See Mt 5:43, 44;
6:24; 19:19; 22:37, 39; Mk 10:21; 12:30, 31, 33 (2); Lk 6:27, 32 (2); 7:5, 42, 47 (2); 10:27; 16:13; Jn 3:16, 19, 35;
8:42; 10:17; 11:5; 13:1 (2), 23, 34 (3); 14:15, 21 (4), 23 (2), 24, 28, 31; 15:9 (2), 12 (2), 17; 17:23 (2), 24, 26; 19:26;
21:7, 15, 16, 20; 1 Cor 2:9; 8:3; 2 Cor 9:7; 11:11; 12:15 (2); Gal 2:20; 5:14; Eph 1:6; 2:4; 5:2, 25 (2), 28 (3), 33;
6:24; Col 3:12, 19; 1 Thes 1:4; 4:9; 2 Thes 2:13, 16; Heb 1:9; 12:6; Jas 1:12; 2:5, 8; 1 Pe 1:8, 22; 1 Jn 2:10, 15; 3:10,
11, 14 (2), 23; 4:7 (2), 8, 10 (2), 11 (2), 12, 19 (2), 20 (3), 21 (2); 5:1 (2), 2 (2); 2 Jn 1, 5; 3 Jn 1; Jude 1; Rev 1:5;
3:9; 20:9.
30
Justin Langford, “Friendship,” edέ Douglas Mangum et alέ, Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham
Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
31
Cf. William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1104–1105.
32
John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin;
New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 117 (emphasis added).

12
whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to themέ”

Therefore, Paul’s use of Ἀγαπ ε and ὡ , together suggesting a Christology framed by

the greatest act of love offered—totally summed up—on the cross, is an essential component to

his theology of recapitulation. In effect, the commandments are truly summed up in the person of

Christ, who “humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil

2:8), because all things are now united in Him (cf. Eph 1:10). Hence, a strong Christological

connection is apparent in both pericopes (Eph 1:9-1ί and Rom 13μλ) regarding Paul’s theology

of recapitulation. With his Christology, the related question of soteriology necessarily arises, to

which the following discussion now returns.

LETTER TO THE COLOSSIANS33

A Link with Ephesians

For a more precise definition of α α εφα α ώ α α , one must look to Paul’s connection

between cosmology (creation) and soteriology (salvation history). In other words, the Father’s

eternal plan and purpose of summing up all of creation in His Son is for the salvation of man.

Based on this connection, Lincoln and Hanson agree that Ephesians 1:10 is closely linked to

Colossians 1:20μ “and through him [Christ] to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or

in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Lincoln comments that both pericopes

“appear to presuppose that the cosmos had been plunged into disintegration on account of sin

and that it is God’s purpose to restore its original harmony in Christέ”34 Michael J. Gorman

further connects Colossians with 1 Corinthians 1:18-25:

33
τnce again, Pauline authorship is presumed since this is another of Paul’s “disputed” letters (see Most,
249; Horrell, 6-7, 125).
34
Lincoln, 33.

13
 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are
being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of
the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwartέ” Where is the wise man?
Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not
know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to
save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we
preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to
those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness
of God is stronger than men.

Consequently, he explains that Colossians expands this theme of 1 Corinthians that “Christ [is]

the power… and wisdom of Godέ”35

In his theological and exegetical study entitled Paul the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike,

Romano Penna explains in greater detail this all-important Pauline phrase of “the power of God”

(v. 18), which provides a clearer understanding of Paul’s theology of recapitulationέ He explains

that this phrase is fundamental to Paul’s kerygma of the Gospel. However, it is important to note

that both the death and resurrection of Christ are necessary components of his proclamation of

salvationέ This is the Paschal Mysteryέ For although the subject, “the word of the cross” (vέ 1κ),

is explicitly stated as the kerygma of “the power of God,” for Paul, the cross of Christ would be

devoid of its salvific content if His resurrection were not also implied. For Penna, the parallel

text in vv. 23-24 implies both of these aspects of the Paschal Mystery. 36 Thus, the cross of

Christ—“a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (vέ 23)—becomes the instrument of

His recapitulating power and wisdom, reconciling to Himself “all things, whether on earth or in

heaven” and thus “making peace by the blood of [H]is cross” (cf. Col 1:20).

In agreement with Lincoln and Hanson, D. J. Leahy comments about the context of the
35
Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul & His Letters
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 471.
36
See Romano Penna, Paul the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike, vol. 1 of A Theological and Exegetical
Study, trans. Thomas P. Wahl (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 169-180.

14
word α α εφα α ώ α α μ Christ as the Head of the body (Col 1μ1κ)έ Therefore, he writes that

the verb not only identifies Christ as the sum of all created reality, but also the way in which this

recapitulation happens, “viz. by becoming the head of the body,” the Church.37 To conclude,

Montague makes an important observation on Paul’s connection between the cosmos and the

Churchμ this relationship suggests that “Paul puts the Church above all other created entities, the

universe of matter, of men, and of angels. The reason is that the Church is Christ’s own bodyέ”38

Hence, the cosmic dimension of Christ that is mentioned here is raised up into both Paul’s

ecclesiology and soteriology at the same time. In this way, Jerome Murphy-τ’Connor rightly

states that “the concern of Colossians is not to lift its readers into the cosmic sphere, but to

ensure that they do not lose contact with the mundane,” everyday living out of Christ’s life in the

world.39

The “Imago Dei”

The scriptural basis that will more sharply focus and further ground this discussion on

Paul’s soteriology in relation to his theology of recapitulation is Colossians 1:15μ “He is the

image of the invisible Godέ” Biblical commentators have looked at this Pauline text from

different viewpoints.40

Peter Tέ τ’Brien writes that the beloved Son perfectly reveals the “very nature and

character of God,” for, while it is clear in both Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT)

that “no one has ever seen God,” John the Evangelist immediately inserts that “the only Son,

37
Leahy, 1121.
38
Montague, 188-190.
39
Jerome Murphy-τ’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 240; cf. ibid., 246.
40
Only two will be considered here that will provide an adequate understanding of its meaning.

15
who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known” (Jn 1μ1κ)έ41 In her philological study of

the Greek text, Margaret Yέ MacDonald explains the meaning of the word “image” (ε ώ ) “may

mean simply ‘resemblance,’ but that the word refers to ‘complete likeness’ is much more likely

because of the close identification between the Son and God” implied the text.42 In addition,

τ’Brien comments that this Pauline text is reminiscent of man being created in the image of God

in the first creation account of Genesis (1:26-2ι)μ “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our

image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds

of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps

upon the earthέ’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male

and female he created them.”43

In relation to this motif, τ’Brien argues that the Pauline use of “image” pertains to the

creative activity and personification of divine Wisdom so often seen in wisdom literature,

particularly and respectively in Proverbs and Wisdomμ “The LORD created me [wisdom] at the

beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old” (Pro κμ22), and, “For she [wisdom] is a breath

of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing

defiled gains entrance into her” (Wis ιμ2η)έ44 Thus, for Paul, the emphasis on the image motif in

Peter Tέ τ’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, in vol. 44 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard,
41

Glenn W. Barker and Ralph P. Martin, (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 43.
42
Margaret Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, vol. 17 of Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J.
Harrington, Sέ Jέ (Collegevilleμ The Liturgical Press, 2ίίί), ηκέ Colossians 1μ3 identifies “the Father” of Jesus Christ
and Jesus as “our Lord” ( υ ου); 1:10 identifies Christians leading “a life worthy of the Lord” ( υ ου) and
“increasing in the knowledge of God”ν 1μ1η, 1θ identifies “all creation”—“visible and invisible”—being created
“in”, “through” and “for” Christ who is Lord as the Fatherν and 1μ1ι summarizes the previous versesμ “He is before
all things, and in him all things hold together” (see Montague, 1κι-190). For Jesus is the Eternal and Incarnate Word
of the Fatherμ “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (Jn
1:1-3).
43
τ’Brien, 43-44.
44
Ibid.

16
connection to Jesus, the Incarnate Wisdom, pertains to “a re-creation, a re-making that

transforms one’s deepest roots… an ontic transformation, concretely: the reintegration of the

original condition as image of God corresponds to the original creationέ”45 Regarding this re-

making of the human being in Christ, Cerfaux’s comparison of Ephesians 1:3-14 to Romans

8:29-30 may fittingly be applied here: for man—from all eternity—was “chosen to be the

manifestation of his [God’s] glory,” iέeέ, the “eschatological glory” of the Son of Godέ 46 Recall

Paul’s words to the Romansμ “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed

to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those

whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom

he justified he also glorified” (κμ2λ-30). In other words, what the Son is by nature (ontology),

man is by participation (through grace47) in this divine nature of Godμ this is the “new creation”

of man in and through Christ and His Church.

The Moral Life

A further look into Paul’s fervent petition to the Lord on behalf of the Colossians is also

helpful on the recapitulation discussionμ “to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him,

bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (1:10).48 According to

τ’Brien, the Septuagint renders the verb “to lead” more accurately as “to walk” (πε πα ̃ α ),

45
Romano Penna, Paul the Apostle: Wisdom and Folly of the Cross, vol. 2 of A Theological and Exegetical
Study, trans. Thomas P. Wahl (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 260 (emphasis added); quoting P.
Stuhlmächer, “Erwagungen zum ontologischen Charakter der kainê ktisis bei Paulus,” EvTh 27 (1967): 2. The term
“ontic” refers to a person’s “being” undergoing permanent transformation due to a “character” or “indelible mark”
initially bestowed in the Sacrament of Baptism.
46
Cerfaux, 499.
47
This discussion will resume in chapter three on anthropology and recapitulation.
48
Emphasis added.

17
thus expressing in its infinitive form the very purpose of the Christian life—to walk in the

footsteps of Christ. This verb often appears throughout Paul’s writings, indicating a major theme

of his.49 MacDonald further comments on this Pauline themeμ “The life that is worthy of the Lord

involves walking in the world and visibly demonstrating the fruits of Christian existenceέ”50 This

means that believers must “walk [πε πα ̃ α ] not according to the flesh but according to the

Spirit” (Rom κμ4). For a Christian, to live in the Spirit is, therefore, what it means to recapitulate

Christ’s lifeέ The Catechism of the Catholic Church concludesμ “Christ enables us to live in him

all that he himself lived, and he lives it in usέ …We are called only to become one with him, for

he enables us as the members of his Body to share in what he lived for us in his flesh as our

modelέ”51 In other words, Christ, having “breathed his last,”52 poured out His Spirit from the

cross upon the Church, the members of His Bodyέ Being grafted onto Christ’s Body in baptism,

the Christian receives His Spirit and life, such that, the more he is united with Christ by his

virtuous (moral) life, the more Christ lives and moves in him. Thus, like Paul the apostle, the

Christian can exclaimμ “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ

who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved

me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2μ2ί). In this vein, the Book of Ecclesiastes foreshadows the

life of a Christian: “I turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the sum

of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness which is madness” (Ecc ιμ2η)έ

49
τ’Brien, 22έ For some examples, see Gal 5:16, 25; Rom 6:4; 8:4; 14:15; 2 Cor 4:2; Eph 2:10; 4:1; 5:2,
15; Phil 3:17.
50
MacDonald, 48.
51
CCC 521.
52
Cf. Mk 15:37, 39; Lk 23:46; Jn 20:22. Both Synoptic parallels use ἐ π ω, meaning “to expire or die”ν
whereas John uses ἐ φυ ω, meaning “to breathe [the Spirit of Christ] on” the apostles in the context of Christ’s
resurrection. Combining together the death and resurrection accounts, therefore, renders the meaning of the texts as
Christ breathing forth His Spirit—not simply dying—from the cross.

18
 This knowledge of wisdom is a key concept for Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation and

anthropology—a point that chapter two will return to. For now, it will suffice to mention the

important Pauline text referred to by Irenaeusμ that man has “put on the new nature, which is

being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col 3μ1ί). Hence, the connection

that Paul is making here is that putting on the mind of Christ (i.e., growing in the knowledge of

Christ) leads to taking on the actions of Christ. Romans 12:2 confirms this direct relationship:

“Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you

may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”53 According to this

way of obedience to the will of God, man’s image of God—which has been wounded by sin54—

is renewed and restored in Christ. Effectively, Christ becomes the personification of wisdom in

the τT that “renews all things” (cfέ Wis ιμ2ιb)έ55 Therefore, both knowledge of and obedience to

Incarnate Wisdom are necessarily salvific. In the final analysis, what remains to be highlighted is

recapitulation in relation to Christ’s obedience to the Father, particularly in the Incarnation.

LETTER TO THE HEBREWS56

The Incarnation

In the Letter to the Hebrews, the author suggests that the Incarnation of Jesus and His

obedience are connectedμ “Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he saidέέέ ‘Lo, I have

53
Cf. Rom 13:12, 14; 1 Cor 15:53; 2 Cor 5:2-3; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:22-24; 6:11, 14; Col 3:12, 14; 1 Thes 5:8.
54
A discussion on the original sin of Adam and its effects on the rest of humanity will be mentioned in
chapter three on recapitulation and anthropology.
55
Cf. Gorman, 482.
56
The authorship of this letter remains disputed, although some biblical scholars attribute it to St. Paul
(Horrell, 125). Here, it will be treated as a type of Pauline-like literature.

19
come to do thy will, O God’” (1ίμηa, ιa)έ57 In Greek, the verb “came” is actually ε ε χό ε ο

(eiserchomenos), which means “entering” or “coming”ν in a liturgical sense, the verb connotes

entering “the most holy place or into heaven itselfέ”58 Moreover, the verb εγε (legei) means

“says”, “utters” or “calls”ν it appears frequently in the Synoptics and John’s Gospel, “almost

exclusively in the words of Jesusέ”59 Hence, from this “entering into the world” in His humanity,

it is inferred that the Son of God makes his first act of obedience to the Father, which reverses or

corrects Adam’s original disobedienceέ As a result, all subsequent stages of Christ’s life are

rooted in His Incarnation. The Catechism simply states that “Christ’s whole life [of obedience to

the Father] is a mystery of recapitulation,” in other words, in what He “said, did, and sufferedέ”60

In Hebrews 10:5, the author focuses on the mystery of what the Son “says” in obedience to the

Father, not in His humanity but rather in His divinity, leading up to His Incarnation. In effect, the

Son of God “says” an eternal yes61 to the Father’s plan, thus “entering” time as the Son of Manέ

During a Wednesday Audience, St. John Paul II gave a clear and succinct catechesis on

Christ’s obedience:

By his total obedience to the Father, Christ opens the era of peace with God and
among men, reconciling dispersed humanity in himself (cf. Eph 2:16). In himself
he “recapitulates” Adam, in whom all humanity can see itself, transforms him into
a child of God and restores him to full communion with the Father. Through his
brotherhood with us in flesh and blood, in life and death, Christ becomes “the
head” of saved humanityέ Stέ Irenaeus writes againμ “Christ has recapitulated in
himself all the blood shed by all the just and by all the prophets who have lived

57
Emphasis added.
58
Balz and Schneider, vol. 1, 400-401.
59
Ibid., vol. 2, 346-347.
60
CCC 518.
61
Paul writes about His earthly obedienceμ “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among
you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and σoν but in him it is always Yes” (2 Cor 1μ1λ)έ John writesμ “Jesus
said to them [his disciples], ‘My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work’” (Jn 4μ34)έ

20
 since the beginningέ”62

Therefore, the obedience of the Son to the Father from all eternity bridges the eternal chasm

between God and man, established by sin, at the precise moment that the Son becomes incarnate

and, subsequently, obedient on earth to the Father’s plan of salvationέ Thereby, man and all

creation is reconciled and restored into communion with God once again. Consequently, Christ

grafts all of fallen humanity onto Himself, whereby He becomes the Head of the redeemed who

have become members of His Body, no longer amputated and lifeless. In this perfect manner of

Christ’s obedient and transforming love to the Father, the Incarnation—in anticipation of the

death and resurrection of Christ—thus becomes the very fruit of that love for the salvation and

sanctification of man.

The Cross

With respect to Christ’s demise on the cross, it is important to mention Hebrews 10:5b-6:

“Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt

offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasureέ”63 This body of Christ would be laid

down on the wood of the cross for the salvation of humanity and restoration of the cosmos. The

implication here is that, without the instrument of Christ’s body in addition to the cross, there

would be no salvation or restoration possible—recapitulation of all things would remain only an

idea in the mind of Godέ Therefore, the Virgin Mary is also necessary in God’s eternal planέ

PAUL’S OMISSION OF MARY AS THE “NEW EVE”

62
John Paul II, “All Creation will be ‘Recapitulated’ in Christ (Wednesday Audience, Feb. 14, 2001), 11,”
L'Osservatore Romano, Feb. 21, 2001, accessed Sept. 15, 2015, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010214.html; quoting Adv. Haer., V.14.1: PG 7/2: 1161C; cf.
V.14.2: PG 7/2: 1161C-1162A.
63
Emphasis added.

21
 However, Paul’s only mention of Mary in the context of redemption comes in Galatians

4:4-ημ “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under

the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

Whereas Christ is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve. This Mary-Eve typology is originally

mentioned by the Fathers of the Church.64 Given the importance of Mary in God’s redemptive

plan, Paul presents a quandary in his theology of recapitulation by omitting this all-important

Marian typologyέ Benjamin Hέ Dunning calls this apparent predicament part of a “Pauline

theological logicέ” He explains that, for Paul, there is a unique hermeneutic key “driven by the

desire for the two movements of creation and redemption to yield a single field of meaning,

defined in terms of its unified fullness through the redemptive work of Christέ”65 In other words,

Dunning suggests that Paul’s omission is due to his emphasis on Christology,66 thus highlighting

the primacy of Christ. Hence, this Christological emphasis effectively grounds his theology of

recapitulationέ Yet, for Irenaeus’ recapitulation theology, Mary—the New Eve—is necessary, as

will be discussed in chapter two.

SUMMARY

Defining the term “recapitulation” in Paul’s theology remains, as this chapter

demonstrates, a complex task. It is difficult to define this term because of its multifarious

meanings and complexityέ Yet, what is suggested by its diversity and complexity in Paul’s

theology is the universality and all-inclusiveness of the Christ-event, as has been discussed in

64
Benjamin H. Dunning, Specters of Paul: Sexual Difference in Early Christian Thought (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 98. However, this does not preclude the possibility of Paul also mentioning
the New Eve typology of Mary perhaps in some other of his writings which are no longer extant or not yet found.
65
Ibid., 99.
66
Scholars have identified Paul’s Christology as “the fundamental structure” of his thought” (Penna, Paul
the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike, 11; see ibid., 11-13, regarding the evidence for this claim).

22
relation to his soteriology and ecclesiology. For Paul, the overarching significance and meaning

of his recapitulation theology is an “exalted” Christology, highlighting the divine essence of

Christ and, therefore, the universal effect of His Incarnation and later crucifixion and death on

the cross of salvation. Henceforth, with the cross of Christ, the glory of Christ now shines forth

through His resurrection, forever defeating death—the last enemy of Christ. For Christ—because

He is God the Son—recapitulates all of created reality wounded by the effects of original sin,

thus placing all of re-creation under His feet as the New Adam. Hence, Pauline recapitulation is

understood in the broadest sense of the term: Christ recapitulating the past, the present, and the

future, until all is totally re-created in Him when He returns in the fullness of time to present the

Church as the spotless Bride to the Father and the rest of redeemed creation that has been

restored to its original integrity. Chapter two will now turn to Saint Irenaeus, as the major

advocate and expander of Paul’s theology of recapitulation in the face of the Gnostic challenges

of his time.

23
 CHAPTER 2: SAINT IRENAEUS AND RECAPITULATION

INTRODUCTION

Building on Stέ Paul’s theology of recapitulation, centered on Christ as the “σew Adam,”

Stέ Irenaeus begins with the fatal event of Adam’s disobedience to God in the Garden of Edenέ In

his theology of recapitulation, Irenaeus thus contrasts this Adam-event with the Christ-event. For

on the night before to His crucifixion, Jesus most earnestly prayed (i.e., three times) to His Father

in the Garden of Gethsemaneμ “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;

nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mt 2θμ3λ)έ1 Hence, this Christological emphasis on

the obedience of Christ sets the stage for his theology.

Since Adam disobeyed God, Christ came in obedience to His Father to save and restore

what was lost and damagedέ Indeed, the consequent damage and loss of Adam’s disobedience

were both insurmountable without God’s initiative and interventionέ For the original state and

vocation of man was ruptured when Adam partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of

good and evil, the only tree in the garden from which God had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat:

“And the LτRD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the

garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you

eat of it you shall die’” (Gen 2μ1θ-17). Therefore, what man undid by the original sin of

disobedience by eating a forbidden fruit would need to be redone and set right again by the One

against whom the offense was committed—the Triune God. Because sin came into the world by

1
Emphasis added.

24
man, it is fitting that sin should be annihilated by the Son of man. Moreover, the original Fall of

Adam deprived man of God and disordered him and all visible creation. Therefore, God saw fit

to send His τnly Begotten Son for the expiation of man’s sins and the restoration of man to his

original vocation and of the cosmos by His Blood and Spirit.

Through an examination of Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation, this chapter will explore

the Incarnation as recapitulation in the Person of Christ. In Irenaeus, this concept is based upon

the cross and the Eucharist for the salvation and divinization of man. Not only does his theology

of recapitulation focus on Christ’s first Coming but His second Coming as well. In addition,

Mary’s fiat and cooperation in the Christ-event are both essential and necessary for his theology.

For this reason, Irenaeus concludes with the Marian dimension of recapitulation. In summary,

this chapter will thus sequentially focus onμ the Incarnationν Christ’s work of redemptionν the

Incarnation related to the cross and the Eucharist; the Incarnation related to the divinization of

manν Christ’s return in gloryν and the Blessed Virgin Maryέ

THE INCARNATION

A Preliminary Consideration

Irenaeus of Lyons was preeminent in the second century in developing Paul’s theology of

α α εφα α ώ α α as he fought against the Gnostics such as Marcion and Valentinus 2 by

grounding his theology in the Incarnation as recapitulation:

Whence then is the substance of the first formed (man)? From the Will and the
2
His followers, the Valentinians, were the most common group of Gnostics in the early Church who,
according to Irenaeus, argued that Christ recapitulates all things in an eschatological sense. Benjamin H. Dunning
explains Irenaeus’ view of his opponentsμ they “assert a soteriological vision in which, within the heavenly pleroma,
‘the Savior, having come forth out of all things, is the All’ [Adversus Haereses, I.3.4]—and they draw on the words
of Ephesians 1μ1ί to do so (‘in the economy of the fullness [pleroma] of time, all things are recapitulated in Christ’ή
eis oikonomian tou plērōmatos tōn kairōn anakephalaiōsasthai ta panta en tō Christō)” [ibidέ, Specters of Paul:
Sexual Difference in Early Christians Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 98].

25
 Wisdom of God, and from the virgin earth. For God had not sent rain, the
Scripture says, upon the earth, before man was made; and there was no man to till
the earth. From this, then, whilst it was still virgin, God took dust of the earth and
formed the man, the beginning of mankind. So then the Lord, summing up afresh
this man, took the same dispensation of entry into flesh, being born from the
Virgin by the Will and the Wisdom of God; that He also should show forth the
likeness of Adam’s entry into flesh and there should be that which was written in
the beginning, man after the image and likeness of God.3

According to Irenaeus, the emphasis here is on the “virgin earth, Virgin birth” analogyέ This

typological phrase, coined by Benjamin H. Dunning in his book Specters of Paul: Sexual

Difference in Early Christians Thought, captures well the essence of Irenaeus’ theology of

recapitulation: virginity of the earth from which Adam was formed by God must be connected to

the virginity of Mary from whom Christ was formed by the Holy Spirit, in order for Christ to be

the New Adam.4 Here lies an important distinction between the concept of recapitulation in Paul

and Irenaeusέ Irenaeus saw that Mary’s role is necessitated by Christν whereas, for Paul, Christ’s

role alone is emphasized.

A further analysis can be drawn from this same Irenaean text. In its variant form, the verb

α α εφα α ώ α α itself appears in the textμ “summing up [recapitulating] afresh this man

[Adam]έ” Without an oversimplification of its rich theological meaning, the emphasis here is on

the word “afreshέ” The implication is a restoration of Adam to his original state of innocence.

The Christ-event is, therefore, the key that unlocks the door for Adam return to that state. For

this reason, Hanson explains that, in general, Irenaeus uses this verb recapitulate to mean to

3
Irenaeus, Demonstratio Apostolicae Praedicationis, 32: SCh 62: 82-83, trans. Armitage Robinson with
introduction and notes (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), accessed Sept. 15, 2015,
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0130-
0202,_Iraeneus,_Demonstration_Of_The_Apostolic_Preaching,_EN.pdf.
4
Dunning entitles chapter four of his book, “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birthμ Irenaeus of Lyons and the
Predicaments of Recapitulation” (ibidέ, λι-123). In this chapter, he analyzes and explains that this analogy is
essential in order for Irenaeus to establish his theology of recapitulation on the basis of the Adam-Christ typology,
which will be explored in greater detail momentarily.

26
return to the original state of the universe, including and especially that of man.5

Yet, even more profound than this cosmic assertion is that “God so loved the world that

he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn

3:16).6 Thus, for Irenaeus, like the apostle Paul, man’s salvation is at the core of his theology of

recapitulation.7 In his analysis, Paul Quay writes that the central notion of recapitulation is “that

of going over the same ground again but with opposite outcome, …correcting what was wrong

so that the action could then be done as God had always desired that it be done by manέ” Quay

also points out that Irenaeus was not the first to discuss the theological significance of

recapitulation as he builds upon St. Justin Martyr. Quoting him, Irenaeus argues that Christ’s

redemptive work in salvation history is “His recapitulation of His own handiwork in Himselfέ” 8

This would be influential in the treatment of recapitulation in the Catechism of the Catholic

Church. Alluding to Christ’s work of redemption, it statesμ “In him human history and indeed all

creation are ‘set forth’ and transcendently fulfilledέ”9 The question that logically follows is: How

5
Hanson, 126. This is only one of many definitions for recapitulation, similar to those of St. Paul. Eric
Osborn identifies at least eleven different meaningsμ “unification, repetition, redemption, perfection, inauguration
and consummation, totality, the triumph of Christus Victor, ontology, epistemology and ethics (or being, truth and
goodness)έ” As evidence, he quotes how, in Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus insists on a “plurality” of theological
meaningsμ “And the other economies of his recapitulation, some they saw through visions, others they announced by
word, while others they indicated typically by action (4έ2ίέκ)” [ibid., Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2001), 97-98]. Scholars have identified Ephesians 1, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 as primary
Pauline texts for Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulationέ
6
Emphasis added.
7
Quay, 192. The Pauline thought of man’s sanctification (deification or divinization) in Christ by the Holy
Spirit is also connected here, which the Fathers of the Church refer to as the “wonderful exchangeέ” This will be
discussed at the end of this chapter as a prelude to chapter three. In his defense of man’s salvation against the
Gnostic notion that the body is evil and irredeemable, Irenaeus must argue, as Donald Fairbairn highlights, that both
the soul and the body are recapitulated and thus saved by Christ in His Incarnation [ibidέ, “Patristic Soteriology:
Three Trajectories,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 2 (June 2007): 294.]. Hence, the Body
of Christ in the Holy Eucharist bears witness to the fact that the human body is capable of salvation because of the
Incarnationέ This Eucharistic dimension to Irenaeus’ recapitulation will be discussed later in this chapterέ
8
Ibid., 191-192; Irenaeus quotes Justin Martyr in Adv. Haer., IV.6.2: PG 7/1: 987C.
9
CCC 668; citing Eph 1:10. Also, cf. Eph 4:10; 1 Cor 15:24, 27-28.

27
is creation “set forth” and “transcendently fulfilled” in Christ for Irenaeusς

Applying the principles just stated from Quay, Christ must correct and undo what Adam

had damaged and disfigured in himself and all of his future progeny as well as the rest of visible

creationέ Where Adam failed to take “dominion” over creation (cfέ Gen 1μ2θ, 2κ), Christ now

takes “dominion” over the re-creation of fallen man and all visible reality. Thus, the old Adam

must yield to the “σew Adam” in order to be renewed and savedέ In this way, Irenaeus’ chief

notion of correction implies that Christ is the “σew Adam” in salvation historyέ

The Prologue of St. John

Irenaeus turns to the prologue of Stέ John’s Gospel in arriving at a definition of

recapitulationέ Commenting on the prologue, Gerald τ’Collins writes that “the Word took on a

human history” at the moment of the Incarnation.10 This affirmation necessarily presupposes the

pre-existence of the Word,11 without which recapitulation would be impossible. To state the text

from the prologue will be helpful in order to explain why recapitulation would not be possible:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Godέ He was in

the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything

made that was made” (Jn 1μ1-3)έ The key phrase here isμ “In the beginningέ” There is a clear

allusion to Genesis 1:1, which begins in exactly the same way. Next, John the evangelist writes:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1μ14a)έ Therefore, he links creation and

the Incarnation. However, for Irenaeus, the Incarnation essentially means the re-creation of man,

as alluded to previously. Thus, it logically follows that, without the eternal Word becoming Man,

10
Gerald τ’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 47.
11
Cf. Jn 1:1-4, 14; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2.

28
the re-creation (recapitulation) of man would be impossible. Thereby, the salvific deeds of Jesus

Christ that followed the Incarnation further encompassed the restoration and sanctification of all

creation, most especially fallen man, as well as all of time. This Johannine unity between the

eternal Word and the incarnate Word is an essential component in Irenaeus’ definition of

recapitulation. On this basis, Quay thus explains that the closest that Irenaeus comes to a

complete definition of recapitulation is found in Adversus Haereses:

There is, then, one God, the Father… and there is one Christ Jesus our Lord, who
came throughout the entire dispensation and who recapitulated in Himself all
thingsέ Among these “all things” is also man, the moulded figure of Godέ So, He
has recapitulated man also in Himself, the Invisible become visible, the
Incomprehensible, comprehensible, the Impassible, capable of suffering, the
Word, man, recapitulating all things in Himself so that, just as the Word of God
has the primacy among supercelestial and spiritual and invisible beings, so also
He should be first among visible and corporeal beings and taking into Himself
this primacy and also giving Himself as head to the Church, He might draw all
things to Himself at a suitable season. For there exists nothing disordered or
untimely with Him, even as there is nothing unfitting with the Father. All things
are known in advance by the Father and accomplished by the Son.12

From this text and the prologue, one can draw the conclusion that, as creation came about by the

eternal Word, so re-creation comes about by the incarnate Word. In other words, the Incarnation

itself is a recapitulating event in salvation history that makes possible all other recapitulating

events in Christ.

In summary, the relationship between the mystery of the Incarnation and the theology of

recapitulation is highlighted and intimately connected in Irenaeus’ theologyέ To illustrate this

connection further, Robert Mέ Grant writes in covenantal language that, for Irenaeus, Christ’s

Incarnation as recapitulation was used “as the key to at least four events in the history of

salvation, referring to God’s series of covenants with humanityμ first in the time of Adam, second

in the time of σoah, third in the time of Moses, and fourth, ‘which renews man and recapitulates

12
Quay, 191-192 (emphasis added); quoting Adv. Haer., III.16.6-7: PG 7/1: 925C-926A.

29
everything in itself, that which by the Gospel raises men and wings them for the celestial

kingdomέ’”13 Grant contrasts Irenaeus and Paulέ Whereas Paul’s theology of recapitulation

merely consists of the old and the new, for Irenaeus, the notion of covenantal recapitulation

expands Paul’s and demonstrates a “gradual progress in God’s dealings with his peopleέ”14

Other Fathers of the Church

The Irenaean concept of the Incarnation is affirmed by St. John Chrysostom. In his

Homily on Ephesians, he writes that the Incarnation is a recapitulating event where God the

Father “has set over all one and the same Head, iέeέ, Christ according to the flesh, alike over

Angels and men…έ For thus will a union be effected, thus will a close bond be effected, if one

and all can be brought under one and the same Head, and thus have some constraining bond of

union from aboveέ”15 He further describes all created reality being “knit together” in Christ,

where He “has gathered up in Himself the dispensations carried on through a lengthened period,

that is to say, He has cut them short,” beginning with the Incarnation.16 Similarly, Tertullian

affirms Irenaeusμ “the flesh is the hinge of salvation” (caro salutis cardo).17 With this Patristic

understanding of the necessary link between the Incarnation and salvation, Eric Osborn

13
Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 1997), 52; quoting Adv. Haer., III.11.8: PG
7/1: 889B-890Aέ Grant also adds that, for Irenaeus, there is “even something like a fifth covenant, for the end will
recapitulate the beginning. The creation of matter will be recapitulated by the restoration and increase of matter.
Animals and men alike will live in peace, as they once did” (ibidέ, η3)έ Cf. Osborn, 115.
14
Ibid., 53 (emphasis added).
15
John Chrysostom, “Homily on Ephesians, Iέ1έ1ί,” PG θ2μ 1η-16, trans. Gross Alexander and ed. Philip
Schaff, in vol. 13 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing,
1889.), rev. and ed. Kevin Knight for New Advent Online, accessed Sept. 15, 2015,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230101.htm.
16
Ibid.
17
Roch A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology, rev. (New York: Alba House, 2002), 226;
quoting Tertulian, De resurrectione carnis, VIIIέ2ν see also τ’Collins, 1ι4έ

30
summarizes in his work, Irenaeus of Lyonsμ “Bodies are part of the totality of things which is

summed up in Christ (Eph. 1:10) and bodies will be raised from the dead (1 Cor. 6:14; Rom.

κμ11)έ”18 There are still other examples among the Fathers of the Church that help support this

fundamental NT claim for Irenaeus in his theology.

This key Johannine and Pauline notion of “the Word becoming flesh” (cf. Jn 1:14) and of

being “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4), thus receiving a human body with a human soul, is further

expanded upon by St. Leo the Great. Roch Kereszty, citing this great Pope, explains the essential

reason why the Incarnation is a recapitulating eventμ “God has really made our weak human

nature his own, and it is in our weak human nature that he fought with Satanέ” 19 In other words,

Adam sinned by his human nature and Christ, by His obedience to the Father in His human

nature, heals the original sin of Adam and all subsequent sins thereafter. 20 Recall here Paul in his

Letter to the Romansμ “Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's

act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For, as by one man's disobedience

many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom ημ1κ-

19). Since man sinned, therefore, in his body, so man must be restored in Christ’s Bodyέ

Henceforth, the battleground and weapon for defeating Satan, while restoring and healing what

was lost and damaged in Adam, and thus elevating man in Christ, is Christ’s assumed human

18
Osborn, 191; cf. Adv. Haer., V.7.1: PG 7/2: 1139-1140, on the resurrection of the body. This latter theme
on the resurrection of the body will be taken up again in chapter three on the Marian aspect of recapitulation.
19
Kereszty, 1ί2ν cfέ τ’Collins, 1ηηέ In the η th century, Stέ Leo the Great writesμ “And in this conflict
undertaken for us, the fight was fought on great and wondrous principles of fairness; for the Almighty Lord enters
the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the
same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin” [ibidέ, “Sermon XXIέ1έ1,” PL η4μ
191A, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe and ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, in vol. 12 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Second Series (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing,1895), rev. and ed. Kevin Knight for New Advent
Online, accessed Dec. 3, 2015, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360321.htm.
20
Cf. Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:20-23, 45-49; Phil 2:6-11.

31
nature from the Virgin Maryέ τtherwise, “the unassumed is the unhealedέ”21 Following the

Fathers’ line of thought,22 Quay further explains this recapitulation in Christ, established by God,

in terms of a “process” and “remedy that is meant to heal the scars and relics of original sin…

[by which] grace gradually undoes concupiscence in us, restores some semblance of integrity,

and brings low our prideέ”23

Adam and Christ

In relation to Adam and Christ, as mentioned above, Irenaeus describes the Incarnation

by way of Jesus having “commenced [recapitulated] afresh the long line of human beings, and

furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in

Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in

Christ Jesusέ”24 It is important to note in this text, as Anders-Christian Jacobsen observes, that,

for Irenaeus, both “the image and likeness of God” had been “lost in Adam” and, therefore,

needed to be restored and renewed in Christ.25 The Catechism, quoting Irenaeus, translates the

phrase “in a brief, comprehensive manner” as the “short cut” to salvation, which the Incarnation

makes possible, “restoring fallen man to his original vocation” and “thereby giving communion

21
τ’Collins, 1ηην quoting Gregory σazianzen, Epistola, 101.32.
22
Here the connection to Irenaeus is how Christ’s Body is the way He recapitulates Adam who sinned in
his body.
23
Quay, 146 (emphasis added).
24
Irenaeus, “Adversus Haereses IIIέ1κέ1,” PG 7/1: 932 (emphasis added), trans. Alexander Roberts and
William Rambaut and eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, in vol. 1 of The Ante-
Nicene Fathers (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.), rev. and ed. Kevin Knight for New Advent Online,
accessed Sept. 20, 2015, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm.
25
Anders-Christian Jacobsen, “The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeusέ” Zeitschrift f̈r
antikes Christentum 8, no. 2 (2004): 300.

32
with God to all menέ”26 For Irenaeus, the spiritual process of grace by which this transformation

happens is well described in the article, “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the

Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyons,” by James Gέ Mέ Purvesέ He astutely points to the mutual

work of the Son and the Holy Spirit—“the Hands of God”27—as being essential for Irenaeus’

theology of recapitulation.28 This concept will be explored more in chapter three on the

anthropological view of recapitulation.

Whereas Paul’s primary concern in his theology of recapitulation is soteriology in

relation to Christ as “the second Adam,” Jέ Tέ σielsen identifies a finer distinction in Irenaeus’

understanding. This Pauline concept, as mentioned earlier by Grant, contrasts the first Adam

(old) with the second Adam (σew), yet has a more limited scope than that pertaining to Irenaeus’

use of covenantal languageέ For Irenaeus, the primary recapitulative concern for man’s salvation

is related to Christ as “the second Adamέ”29 In other words, there is a shift in Christological

focus.30 Dunning explains σielsen’s subtle theological pointμ “The inseparable connection

26
CCC 518; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III.18.7: PG 7/1: 957C; cf. II.22.4: PG 7/1: 783-784.
27
For Irenaeus’ reference to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as the Father’s “own hands,” see ibidέ,
Dem. Ap., 11: SCh 62:48-49.
28
James Gέ Mέ Purves, “The Spirit and the Imago Deiμ Reviewing the Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyons,”
The Evangelical Quarterly 68 (1996): 107-108, accessed Sept. 17, 2015, http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1996-
2_purves.pdfέ He quotes Irenaeus’ Dem. Ap., 5: SCh 62: 35-3θμ “the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and
grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is
the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God”ν and Adv. Haer., V.9.2: PG 7/2: 1144-114ημ “If,
therefore, anyone admit the ready inclination of the Spirit to be, as it were, a stimulus to the infirmity of the flesh, it
inevitably follows that what is strong will prevail over the weak, so that the weakness of the flesh will be absorbed
by the strength of the Spirit....”
29
J. T. Nielsen, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons: An Examination of the Function of
the Adam-Christ Typology in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, Against the Background of the Gnosticism of His
Time (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1968), 82 (emphasis original).
30
This shift is noted by σielsen italicizing “second” and “Adamέ”

33
between these two seminal human beings31 provides the foundation for a consummation of all

things in which every element of the end is linked to its corresponding component at the

beginning through the work of Christέ”32 In other words, Irenaeus highlights more intimately this

necessary Adam-Christ link than does Paul.33 Hence, Dunning emphasizes the importance of this

Adam-Christ typology and ontological link, without which Paul’s or Irenaeus’ theology of

recapitulation would not be properly groundedέ Quoting σielsen, he concisely explainsμ “When

Irenaeus speaks of the creation of Adam, then the relation to Christ is also presentέ”34

On this important Pauline-Irenaean image of Jesus as the “second” or “last Adam,”35

Blessed John Henry Newman beautifully and poetically summarizes:

O loving wisdom of our God!

When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight
And to the rescue came.
O wisest love! that flesh and blood
Which did in Adam fail,
Should strive afresh against the foe,
Should strive and should prevail.
…………………………………έ
O generous love! that He who smote
In man for man the foe…έ36

31
There is some ambiguity in Dunning’s description of Christ as a “human being,” because He is at the
same time a “divine being” (Second Person of the Blessed Trinity)έ The first four Ecumenical Councils of the
Church (i.e., Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon), painstakingly defined Christ as a “divine Person”
with two natures hypostatically united as one but distinct: a fully human nature and a fully divine nature. Hence,
Dunning’s Christology merits some caution hereέ
32
Dunning, 99.
33
However, this may be a disputed line of argument in modern scholarship, depending on one’s
interpretation of Paul’s Christologyέ
34
Dunning, 99; quoting Nielsen, 61.
35
1 Cor 15:45; cf. 1 Cor 15:22.
36
John Newman, The Dream of Gerontius, 5th phase (Staten Island: St. Pauls, 2001), 64-65 (emphasis
added), http://www.ccel.org/n/newman/gerontius/gerontius.htm. Hence, there are here hints of Irenaeus’ theology of
the Incarnation itself as recapitulation (see the italics). According to Juan R. Vélez, Newman is one of two main
contributors of renewing Patristics within biblical studies in the mid-nineteenth century [see ibidέ, “σewman’s

34
From an Anthropological Perspective

Before closing this discussion, it is important to mention here the Irenaean concept that

the Incarnation as recapitulation can be seen from an anthropological view as well. In his series

of spiritual conferences in nineteenth-century France, Charles Arminjon, a Catholic priest,

beautifully explains:

If you ask why God saw fit to unite, in one and the same creature, two principles
so disparate, so different in their essence and properties, as mind [soul] and
body… I will reply… that man might be truly the king and the epitome of all His
works; so that he might, after the manner of Christ, recapitulate in his personality
the totality of created elements and beings, so that he might be the center of all
things, and by bringing together mind and body, the visible and invisible order,
serve as interpreter of both, and offer them simultaneously to the Most High, in
his homage and adoration.37

In discussing the wonderful and mysterious creation that man is, Arminjon succinctly

summarizes the foregoing considerations of Irenaeus on the Incarnation as recapitulation by

saying that Christ sums up “the totality of created elements and beings” in His personality.

Moreover, Arminjon’s focus on man offering his “mind and body” back to His Creator “in his

homage and adoration” implies a fidelity—as originally intended for Adam—in Christian living

reminiscent of Irenaeus’s theology of recapitulationέ38 Similarly, in recapitulating Christ in the

Spirit, Irenaeus explains that man’s life is “the vision of God” and “for the glory of Godέ”39

Theology in the Dream of Gerontius,” New Blackfriars, vol. 82, no. 967 (2001), 387-398]. Therefore, it is even
more plausible to say that Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation has indeed influenced σewman’s poetryέ
37
Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, trans. Susan
Conroy and Peter McEnerny (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 2008), 83 (emphasis added).
38
This is also reminiscent of Paul’s understanding of offering to God spiritual worship in a corporeal senseμ
“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12μ1)έ As in the case with Paul, so in the case with
Irenaeus we see the necessity of a moral life, in order to recapitulate in Christ His fidelity to the Father’s willέ
39
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV.20.7: PG 7/1: 1057. Addressing the theological faculty in Lyons, France, in
1λκι, Stέ John Paul II explains in detail what Irenaeus really means in this textμ “It is not only in the doctrine of
recapitulation by the grace of Christ that Saint Irenaeus wanted to situate the true value of man, which was denied by
the Gnostics. He was careful to note the intrinsic dignity of man… Man's life is for him the glory of God provided

35
WORK OF REDEMPTION

Besides Christ recapitulating all created things and history in His personality, He does so

in His activity as God and man. Within the event of the Incarnation, Irenaeus, building upon the

apostle Paul, pinpoints that it is the total obedience of Christ that “completely” unties the

bondage of Adam’s disobedience and “set[s] free the weak… by destroying sin” (cfέ Mt 12μ2λ)έ40

Thus, in Christ’s obedience lies the essence of the basic notion of recapitulationέ According to

τ’Collins, where Irenaeus effectively develops his recapitulation theology is his very precise use

of Paul’s contrast between the disobedient Adam and the τbedient Adamέ He writes that, “in

presenting the story of salvation, with its centre in the redemptive and revelatory ‘recapitulation’

effected by Christ, [Irenaeus] successfully developed the possibilities of Paul’s contrast between

the first (disobedient) and the second/last (obedient) Adamέ”41 In other words, salvation and

obedience to God’s will are inseparably and perfectly united in Christ because man’s salvation is

the fruit of Christ’s recapitulative obedienceέ Similarly, Quay writesμ “Jesus sums up in His own

life and perfectly fulfils, from the moment of His conception on, Adam’s life before the fallέ” An

objection, however, immediately arisesμ How is Christ’s infancy from a virgin birth reconciled

with Adam’s adulthood42 from the moment of his earthly existence? Quay comments that

that man remains in contact with his Creator…έ Thus the life of the Christian, in faith as in future vision, is
essentially knowing and being known. This is one of the fundamental texts of Christian personalism” [Philippe
Delhaye, “Pope John Paul on the Contemporary Importance of St. Irenaeus (taken from the L'Osservatore Romano,
Feb. 9, 1987), 10,” accessed Sept. 28, 2015, http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/irenaeus.htm (emphasis added);
quoting John Paul II in his 1986 address to the “Facultés Catholiques de Lyon,” France]. Thus, Irenaeus highlights
the great dignity of man as will be discussed at length in chapter three.
40
Ibid., III.18.6: PG 7/1: 936-937; see also III.18.7.
41
τ’Collins, 1ηλν see also 1ι2έ
42
Cf. Gen 1:26-28; 2:7-8, 18, 21-23. The implication in the Book of Genesis is that, when Adam was
originally created by God, he was made in his manhood from the earth as Eve was made in her womanhood from
Adam. This has been the tradition of the Church as seen in the Fathers.

36
Irenaeus metaphorically sees Adam as an “infantέ”43 An Irenaean text supporting Quay’s analysis

comes from Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

They [Adam and Eve] however were in their perfection; but the lord, that is, man,
was (but) small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and
so come to (his) perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth
with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world,
excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, fruit, water, and all other necessaries of
life, and its name is Paradise.44

This metaphorical infancy of man allows Irenaeus to build on his previously mentioned notion of

“gradual progress” in his theology of recapitulationέ For, just as Adam had the capacity for

“nourishment and growth” in order to be perfected (completed), so Christ, in being perfected in

His humanity, “grew and became strong, filled with wisdomν and the favor of God was upon

him” (Lk 2μ4ί)έ In this way, Christ recapitulated in His literal infancy what Adam failed to

recapitulate in his metaphorical infancyέ In short, Christ “learned” by obedience what Adam

“unlearned” in the Fallμ “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;

and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Heb 5:8-

9).45 And a subsequent text of Irenaeus further states:

And Adam and Eve—for that is the name of the woman—were naked, and were
not ashamed; for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not
possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by
wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were
at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life
which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place
and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base.
And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity

43
Quay, 129. The question of whether Adam was an infant in mind and attitude alone, or physically as
well, is greatly disputed.
44
Irenaeus, Dem. Ap., 12: SCh 62: 51.
45
Emphasis added.

37
 after the manner of children.46

Therefore, Irenaeus’ contribution to theology of recapitulation is a significant one, for not

only is Adam infant-like in his innocence and “nakedness” before the Fall but he is also not yet

perfected in his relationship with God and all of creation. Jacobsen summarizes this point well in

terms of the theology of Irenaeus’ recapitulationμ “Reading the texts of Irenaeus one gets the

immediate impression that this idea of restitution determines his ideas of salvation and

eschatology. This is true, but only when the idea of recapitulation is understood correctly. The

original state of creation was not a perfect state, but a state of growth.47 Through the process of

recapitulation Man is brought back to the original state of beingέ”48 Hence, in being recapitulated

to this “original state of being” in Christ, man then can be perfected and increase in holiness by a

life of grace.

THE INCARNATION RELATED TO THE CROSS AND THE EUCHARIST

The Cross

For Irenaeus, there is a necessary connection between the Incarnation and the crucifixion

of Christ, because what has begun at the Incarnation culminates and comes to completion on the

cross with a total transformation of the man and the cosmos. As was discussed previously,

46
Ibid., 14 (emphasis original). Quay explains this Irenaean concept of “infancy”μ “As God would walk
familiarly with Adam and Eve when the evening breeze sprang up after the heat of the day (Gen 3:8), so was
prefigured the way in which the Father was present to Jesus from the moment of His conception in Mary’s wombέ
From the instant of Jesus’ first existence as a zygote onwards, the Father made Himself known to Him as His
Father” (ibidέ, 13ίν for a more detailed explanation by Quay regarding recapitulation and a theory of “felt grace”
during Christ’s infancy, see 12κ-133). See also ibid., Adv. Haer., III.22.4: PG 7/1: 958-960.
47
In the arena of theological speculation, there is room for a diversity of opinion and debate here. See, for
example, the twentieth-century debates involving Henri Cardinal De Lubac and his work Surnaturel [ibid.,
Surnaturel; ́tudes historiques (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1946)].

Jacobsen, 3ίί (emphasis added)έ This point will be further developed under the “divinization of manέ”
48

Cf. Dunning, 104-106.

38
without Christ’s resurrection, the cross, therefore, would be emptied of its recapitulatory power

and healing. Death would not have been swallowed up in victory and humanity would have

remained defeated in sin.

The apostle Paul’s double usage of α α εφα α ώ α α , as mentioned in chapter one,

can be applied here to this all-important and necessary Irenaean connection between the cross

and resurrection of Christ. To demonstrate this connection, recall that Ephesians 1:10 presents

Christ as the sum of creation in its totality, whereas Romans 13:9 presents the total, sacrificial

love of neighbor as the sum of the commandments (LawήτT)έ Commenting on Irenaeus’

theology of recapitulation, Osborn alludes to this Pauline relationship in both texts. Thus, on the

cross, Christ sums up this love of one’s neighbor in the love of His enemiesέ In summary, τsborn

writesμ “Fallen man could neither be remade nor receive salvationν but the word of God through

his Incarnation and death did both for himέ”49

Borrowing from Justin Martyr’s commentary on Jacob’s ladder as an image of the cross

and the cosmos, Irenaeus uses the importance of Jacob to clarify the relationship between the

Incarnation and the crossμ “And Jacob, when he went into Mesopotamia, saw Him in a dream,

standing upon the ladder, that is the tree which was set up from earth to heaven; for thereby they

that believe in Him go up to the heavensέ For His sufferings are our ascension on highέ” 50 For

Irenaeus, the cosmic dimension of the cross—in light of the resurrection—truly and totally

completes the Incarnation, recapitulating all of creation and salvation history.

Mary Ann Donovan confirms this Irenaean logic of the Incarnation and the cross as the

49
Osborn, 245-246 (emphasis added); the summary quote above is citing Adv. Haer., III.18.2: PG 7/1: 932.
Implication here is that the cross was not an end in itself, but rather the way to resurrection of life, which is the
definitive sign of the life of Christ (i.e., of grace) to come in dying with Him. Chapter three will expand this idea.
50
Irenaeus, Dem. Ap., 45: SCh 62: 104; citing Saint Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 86.

39
heart of his understanding of recapitulation. She quotes directly from Adversus Haereses V.18.2:

“For the Father bears the creation and His own Word simultaneously, and the Word borne by the

Father grants the Spirit to all as the Father wills. To some He gives after the manner of creation

what is made; but to others [He gives] after the manner of adoption, that is, what is from God,

namely generationέ” She explains that, in this passage, both the wood of the cross, which

symbolizes creation, and the Incarnate Son, Jesus, on the wood are “sustained by the Father”

while “the Son pours out the Spirit” who is “given to all, but differentlyέ” Thus, she maintains

that, for Irenaeus, “creation, anthropology, and soteriology meet at the cross of the Incarnate

τneέ” In short, the “pattern of recapitulation… includes creation and the Saviorέ”51 Even the

Lord Jesus Himself testifies that “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to

myself” (Jn 12μ32)έ52

The Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Having shown how the Incarnation makes possible the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross,

Irenaeus then links the Holy Eucharist to this “unity of becoming man so as to die for manέ”

From a sacramental perspective, having been recapitulated in and redeemed by Christ, visible

creation in general becomes the matter (the ‘stuff’) of our redemption, which is transformed by

the Word Incarnate to give us eternal life (through grace), e.g., the waters of Baptism, the Bread

of life and the Cup of salvationέ In the Eucharist, Christ is “truly, really, and substantially

51
Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press,
1997), 156. Donovan includes in this recapitulatory pattern of Irenaeus what has already been discussed, namely,
Adam and Christ. She also lists here Eve and Mary (who will be discussed momentarily) as well as the serpent and
the doveμ “The prudence of the serpent is vanquished by the simplicity of the dove (AH Vέ1λέ1)” (ibidέ, 1ηι)έ
52
In drawing “all men” to Himself, the implication here is that Jesus will also draw the rest of creation that
has been tainted by the Fall. This is a logical conclusion—as will be discussed in chapter three on the anthropology
of man—that derives from the nature of manέ For, since man is the pinnacle of God’s creation, then all subsequent
creation under him is also drawn to Christ on the cross and, consequently, being totally recapitulated.

40
presentέ”53 If Christ recapitulates all of creation and the redemption of man, then the Eucharist—

the Real Presence of Christ, the same glorified and risen Lord and Redeemer as in heaven—must

do the same for man. In this vein, one can more easily see how the Eucharist is “a pledge of

future glory”54 for man. According to Irenaeus, who links the ciborium and the cross to the crib,

redemption and communion with God would be impossible without the Word becoming flesh:

If the flesh is not saved, the Lord did not redeem us by His Blood, the cup of the
Eucharist is not communion in His Blood, and the bread we break is not
communion in His Body. For blood can only come from veins, flesh, and
whatever else makes up the substance of man. All this the Word of God really and
truly became, in order to redeem us by His Bloodέ As the apostle says, “In Him
we have redemption through His Blood, the remission of sins” (Col 1:14). And
because we are His members, we are nourished by means of creation, the creation
which He Himself gives us by making His sun to rise and sending the rain as He
pleases (cf. Mt 5:45).55

Hence, nourishment from the Eucharist is preeminently recapitulatory for Irenaeus. Since

death entered creation by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, so life must again re-

enter creation by eating the permitted (and necessary) fruit of the Eucharist in the Church.56 For

this reason, Joel R. Kurz offers a great insight about the nature of man and his destiny: “A

significant, yet oft-neglected aspect of Christian anthropology is the observation that humanity's

fate, from beginning to end, is bound up with foodέ”57 Moreover, he clarifies that, for Irenaeus,

53
CCC 1374.
54
Ibid., 1323; quoting St. Thomas Aquinas in Roman Breviary, Feast of Corpus Christi, Second Vespers,
antiphon to the Magnificat (cf. Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium 47); see also ibid., 1334, 1337,
1402-1405, and 1419.
55
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V.2.2: PG 7/2: 1124-1125.
56
Irenaeus explainedμ “For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore
says the Spirit of God, ‘You may freely eat from every tree of the garden’ [Gen 2:16], that is, Eat from every
Scripture of the Lordέ έ έ έ Into this paradise the Lord has introduced those who obey His call, ‘summing up in
Himself all things which are in heaven, and which are on earth’ [Eph 1μ1ί]” (Adv. Haer., V.20.2: PG 7/2: 1178A-B).
57
Joel Rέ Kurz, “The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanityμ Irenaeus of Lyons'
Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist,” Worship 83, no. 2 (March 2009): 126.

41
“the Eucharist itself stands as the strongest witness to the faith of the [C]hurch regarding creation

and the sacramental consecration, the [I]ncarnation and the consummation of all thingsέ” 58 In

conclusion, Kurz writesμ “Those who have been engrafted into Christ and his [C]hurch subsist by

the fruit of Christ's action. They have been incorporated into the obedience of the second Adam

and drawn into his process of recapitulation; Christ has restored them to the paradise of creation

and freely given them to eat of the tree of lifeέ”59

Consequently, in the Eucharist, what a Christian eats that he must also learn to imitate

and, thereby, recapitulate with Christ in action. Besides a Christian life in behavior and imitation

of Christ, man can faithfully and instantly live out his walk in and with Christ in the “Paschal

and sacrificial prayer” of the Church (iέeέ, the Mass60), during which “everything is recapitulated

in Christ: God and the world; the Word and the flesh; eternal life and time; the love that hands

itself over and the sin that betrays it; the disciples present and those who will believe in him by

their word; humiliation and glory.”61 For Irenaeus, what supernaturally follows from the

Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the divinization of man.

THE INCARNATION RELATED TO THE DIVINIZATION OF MAN

58
Ibid., 113; cf. Adv. Haer., IV.18.5: PG 7/1: 1027-1029. With regard to the Eucharistic theology of
recapitulation in Irenaeus, Kurz greatly contributes to this aspect by his detailed analysis ofμ “1) The Created and the
Consecrator: The Eucharistic Elements and Christ; 2) Humankind: Recipients of the Creator's Gifts; 3) Christ:
Recapitulator of Adam; 4) Recapitulation Within the Church; 5) From Eating to Death to Eating to Life” (ibidέ).
59
Ibidέ, 12ι (emphasis added)έ The term “subsist” is technical language found in Trinitarian theologyμ The
divine essence subsists in three hypotheses. In the case of Ecclesiology, the term connotes a lasting, historical
continuity and permanence of all elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church. In this case, man subsists in
Christ and His Church by means of the Eucharist, the food of eternal life and pledge of future glory (cf. Jn 6).
60
This is only mentioned by way of a very brief yet necessary summary in order to demonstrate the
continuity of this discussion on the Eucharist and recapitulation in Irenaeus’ thought with the Magisterium’s
teaching. There are volumes written on this theme of the Mass and recapitulation by the Church, which are beyond
the scope of this work. See Quay, The Mystery, 10, 75, 77, 97, 110, 300, 319, 346, 356, 360-380.
61
CCC 2748.

42
 In a Eucharistic sense, the Lord Jesus becomes “incarnate” anew under the veil of bread

and wine this time, so that man might partake of and participate in “the [B]read of life” (Jn θμ 3η,

48)—the very life of the Blessed Trinity—and thus be “divinizedέ” Kereszty, by way of analogy,

explains that as Divine Wisdom (Word) creates all things (visible and invisible), so Incarnate

Wisdom (Word) re-creates fallen man, in particular, and, consequently, the rest of creation.

Moreover, he elaborates that, unless Jesus crucified is God Himself, perfect solidarity and

communion with man would be impossible, because only “God can communicate God to

humankind in his fullnessέ”62 Here the words of Irenaeus are relevantμ “For it was for this that the

Word of God became man and the Son of God became the Son of Man, namely, that man,

commingled with the Word of God and receiving adoption, might become the son of Godέ” 63 Of

course, adoption and divine sonship in the Son require the action of the Holy Spirit. Therefore,

Irenaeus explains that this activity of the Spirit is made possible by Christ recapitulating both the

visible and invisible realities of creation in Himself. Through His Incarnation then, Christ

intended to unite and “accustom man to receive God [the Spirit] and God to dwell in manέ”64 In

other words, He “became the head of the Spirit and gave the Spirit to be the head of man, for it is

by the Spirit that we see and hear and speakέ”65 In this divine exchange, the Son of God had

assumed man’s corruptibility, so that man could share in God’s incorruptibilityέ66

62
Kereszty, 165, 346.
63
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III.19.1: PG 7/1: 939B; cf. also III.10.2, 16.2-3, 18.7 and 20.4; IV.33.4; V.36.3.
Jacobsen comments that this soteriological statement is common among the Church Fathers. Concerning this
statement in Irenaeus’ corpus, he writesμ “This is a core-statement about the meaning of the incarnation. The
incarnation aims thus according to Irenaeus at the restoration and completion of the likeness between Christ and
Man” (ibidέ, 3ίλ)έ
64
Ibid., III.20.2.; cf. V.20.2.
65
Ibid., V.20.2.; cf. III.18.7.
66
Ibid., III.18.7.

43
 For man to share in the inner life of the Trinity, grace must be operative by the action of

the Holy Spirit; yet grace is found in its fullness in Christ.67 Therefore, Christ recapitulates every

grace that man is ever in need of and bestows it on him by His Spirit. Quay explains that the

sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist, recapitulate every grace intended for man’s

salvation and sanctification. Thus, he writes about how man partakes personally in a process of

“Recapitulation in Christ,” especially by receiving the Eucharistέ68 In a like manner, Irenaeus

elucidatesμ “How could we be partakers of adoption as God’s sons without receiving from Him,

through the Son, the gift of communion with Him [especially in Holy Communion]? ... This is

why He passes through all ages of human life, restoring to all men communion with Godέ” 69 In

summary, John the Evangelist writesμ “And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon

grace” (Jn 1μ1θ)έ70

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF RECAPITULATION

Linked to the Holy Eucharist and this cosmic dimension of the cross is also an

eschatological dimension, which Irenaeus sees as part-and-parcel of his theology of

recapitulation. He elaborates that the cross of Christ is a sign of His “kingdom” or “government

upon his shoulderέ”71 Thus, one can see a two-fold interpretation of recapitulation (i.e., creation

and the Second Coming) in Christ “through whom all things were madeν who also at the end of

the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible,

67
Cf. Jn 1:14.
68
Quay, 194-197.
69
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III.18.7.
70
Emphasis added.
71
Irenaeus, Dem. Ap., 56: SCh 62: 118-120.

44
in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and

manέ”72 In other words, just as all things were created by the Word of God (the Second Person of

the Holy Trinity), so all things will be consummated and gathered together by Jesus Christ when

He comes again. Hence, Irenaeus includes here the resurrection of the dead, whereby Christ will

come again “from the heavens in the glory of the Father to ‘recapitulate all things’ (Eph 1μ1ί)

and raise up all flesh of the human race, so that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Savior and

King… ‘every knee should bow, of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that

every tongue should confess him’ (Phil 2μ1ί-11)έ”73

In summary of the forgoing discussion, Osborn gives a very clear overall analysis of the

whole recapitulation theology of Irenaeusέ He explains Irenaeus’ theology as centered on Christ

in whom all visible and invisible reality is “summed up,” including salvation history beginning

with Adam and ending with Christ’s glorious returnέ σot only is Christ the sum of all creation,

but He is the Lord and King of creation, the source of its recreation, restoration, renewal and

freedom from corruption as well as the end for whom creation was made—in and through whom

“we live and move and have our being” (Acts 1ιμ2κa) and without whom the perfection of

creation is impossible. Osborn thus summarizes:

What then is recapitulation? Who is the agent? It is the work of the incarnate
Christ. What is summed up? The totality of humanity and the universe is
recapitulated in Christ. What happens in recapitulation? First, the whole history of
salvation is resumed, so that beginning, middle and end are brought together
([Adv. Haer.,] 3.24.1). Secondly, the sovereignty of Christ over all things is
assumed; just as he reigns over the unseen world, so he is lord of the visible
world, which he supports by the axis of the cross. Thirdly, all things are recreated,
restored, renewed and set free. Lastly, all things achieve the purpose for which
they were made; they are not merely repaired but are brought to perfection in

72
Ibid., 5.
73
Grant, 71; quoting Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I.10.1: PG 7/1: 550.

45
 Christ.74

Thus, in developing Paul’s theology of recapitulation, Irenaeus’ recapitulation has been shown in

its intricate details and complexities—a Christologically centered theology which “reflects the

theme of inclusive totalityέ”75 However, unlike Paul’s extant corpus, the writings of Irenaeus on

this topic are also rooted in a profound Mariology, which will now conclude the discussion.

THE MARIAN DIMENSION OF RECAPITULATION

Eve and Mary: Disobedience and Obedience

Comparable to the antithetical parallel between Adam and Christ mentioned already,

there is the same kind of parallelism between Eve and Mary from which Irenaeus draws upon in

order to further develop his theology of recapitulationέ He writesμ “For just as Eve had Adam for

a husband but was still a virgin… and by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and

the whole human race, so also Mary, with a husband predestined for her but yet a virgin, was

obedient and became the cause76 of salvation for herself and the whole human raceέ” He thus

74
Osborn, 116. Osborn references an important and recent work on the theology of recapitulation in
Irenaeus by B. Sesboüé, Tout ŕcapituler dans le Christ, christologie et sot́riologie d’Iŕńe de Lyon (Paris:
Desclée, 2000). According to Osborn, Sesboüé presents in his work a very clear and detailed explanation of the
multiple layers of Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulationέ Also, see Dunning, 119-120. In addition, in his Irenaeus of
Lyons, Grant explains “some key structures” in Irenaeus’ theology as they appear in the Greek σT contextμ “He
[Irenaeus] was treating the hypothesis as the plot of the whole sacred story from creation to the coming of God’s
kingdom, while his oikonomiai are the subplots included in the plot as a wholeέ τne might even call them ‘chaptersέ’
And anakephalaiôsis explains why the events repeat one another, as well as why the story involves not progress but
restorationέ It is always going back as well as forward” (ibidέ, η3)έ
75
Osborn, 115 (emphasis added).
76
Note that Irenaeus is not removing primary causality from Christ by stating that His Mother is “the cause
of salvationέ” This is evident by the context and analogy set up by Irenaeus between two creaturesέ For Eve is “the
cause of death” but secondarily to Adam (cfέ Gen 2μ1θ-18, 21-23), just as Mary is “the cause of salvationήlife” but
secondarily to Christέ Dunning writes that Mary “becomes the means of transmission whereby Christ inherits
humanity’s likeness in continuity with Adamμ ‘For the Lord came to search for the lost sheepέ But humanity was
lost. And on account of this he did not become another formation, but being born from that one who was from the
race of Adam, he preserved the likeness of the formation (similitudinem plasmationis servavit)’” [ibidέ, 11η-116
(emphasis added); quoting Irenaeus, Epideixis 33].

46
beautifully highlights and explains Mary’s fiat in the economy of salvation historyμ “For what

has been tied cannot be loosed unless one reverses the ties of the knot so that the first ties are

undone by the second, and the second free the first: thus it happens that the first tie is unknotted

by the second and the second has the place of a tie for the firstέ”77 Hence, Mary is the undoer of

the knot of Eve’s disobedienceέ Mέ Cέ Steenberg further explains the dynamics of Mary’s roleμ

“[A]s the antitype of Eve, Mary is also in the unique position of being herself recapitulatory, not

in the same sense as Christ whose recapitulation is of human nature, but as one whose role in the

recapitulative economy is to restore the proper character of human interrelatedness that this

nature requiresέ”78 This contribution in modern scholarship is significant because, for Irenaeus,

the Virgin Mother of Christ is more than just an “aesthetic appeal to symmetryέ” 79 Indeed, as

mentioned in the beginning, she is necessary for his recapitulatory theology to be firmly rooted

in the Adam-Christ typology. This social dimension recapitulated in Mary is, for Steenberg,

enough proof of her necessary and dynamic role in the Irenaean theology of recapitulation.

The Necessity of Mary as the “New Eve”

However, Dunning’s analysis goes further than Steenberg’s emphasis on the social

dimension of Mary’s recapitulation of Eveέ As important as Steenberg’s contribution remains,

Dunning’s analysis aims at understanding “the role of Eve’s material specificity,” iέeέ, the sexual

difference in human anthropologyέ Dunning arguesμ “The sexual particularities of Adam and

Eve’s respective bodies are not simply epiphenomenalέ They are an integral and complex part of

77
Grant, 140; quoting Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III.22.4; cf. V.19.1: PG 7/2: 1175-1176.
78
Mέ Cέ Steenberg, “The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St Irenaeus of Lyons,” Vigiliae Christianae
58, no. 2 (2004): 135-136 (emphasis added).
79
Cf. Dunning, 100.

47
the larger recapitulative framework that drives Irenaeus’s theology as a wholeέ”80 Irenaeus thus

argues against the Gnostic hereticsμ “But if the first Adam was taken from the earth and

fashioned by the Word of God, it was necessary that the Word himself, working in himself the

recapitulation of Adam, possessed a like originέ”81 What is implied here is exactly what Dunning

highlights in his argument, that the “virgin earth” must be recapitulated by the “Virgin birth” in

order for the Adam-Christ typology and recapitulation to be effected.82 Accordingly, Irenaeus

answers a critical questionμ “[W]hy did God not take dust anew and why did he make what he

fashioned proceed from Mary? So that there would not be another fashioning nor another work

fashioned to be saved but that the same being might be recapitulated, with the likeness

preservedέ”83 In other words, Christ would not have come from the line of Adam as Luke

highlights in his genealogyμ “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age,

being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli… the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the

son of Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3μ23-38). Thus, Adam and his descendants would not have

been redeemed.

80
Ibidέ (emphasis added)έ Dunning’s point here is well taken, since, for Irenaeus, matter really matters,
especially in his defense of its goodness and redemption against the Gnostics.
81
Grant, 139; quoting Adv. Haer., III.21.10: PG 7/1: 954-955.
82
See Dunning, 100-117. He lays out the complexity of his argument by discussing that, for Irenaeus,
“virginity” has a multivariate meaningμ (1) a “childhood innocence”ν (2) an “unpenetrated body” both in quality and
integrityν and (3) a “paradoxical sense of fertilityέ” The essential point in the argument of Dunning is virginity as the
“unpenetrated body”μ “In fact, I will argue, it is this figure of virginity—the virgin as pristine, intact, and necessarily
female body—that allows him [Irenaeus] to move his larger recapitulative argument forward…έ By means of the
unpenetrated body and the metaphorical connections it suggests, Irenaeus makes a significant move beyond Paul’s
original framework, articulating an analogy between Adam and Christ whereby both partake of a single mode of
embodiment (unique to them as first and second Adam), in spite of the differing circumstances of their respective
births” [ibidέ, 1ίι (emphasis added)ν cfέ ibidέ, 11λ]έ
83
Grant, 139; quoting Adv. Haer., III.21.10.

48
Mary, “Co-recapitulator”84 with Her Son

As a result of Mary’s fiat, the redemption of man began in “that pure womb which

regenerates people to Godέ”85 Therefore, the Virgin Mother of God “becomes Eve’s ‘advocate’

not only because she brings forth the Christ who is humanity's one intercessor [cf. 1 Tim 2:5],

but also because she restores, in concert with the life of her Son, the character of the human

‘other’ as helper” (cfέ Gen 2μ1κ)έ86 It is fitting then that Mary be called “Co-recapitulator” with

Christ, for sin and death entered the world when both Adam and Eve sinned togetherμ “she took

of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both

were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3μθ-7).87 But now, sin and death are

forever vanquished and humanity recapitulated by both Jesus and Mary according to God’s planέ

SUMMARY

In his theological response to the Gnostics, Irenaeus painstakingly defends and shows

how the Son of God becomes the Son of Man primarily to restore what was lost (communion

with man) by saving and sanctifying man. All of creation and salvation history have been shown

to hinge upon the mystery of the Incarnation, without which the purpose of Christ’s coming, iέeέ,

to die on the cross “as a ransom for many” (Mt 2ίμ2κν Mk 1ίμ4η),88 would not have fulfilled the

Father’s eternal planέ Hence, the Virgin Mother of God and her dynamic role are essential in the

recapitulation theology of Irenaeusέ According to God’s design, she is the “σew Eve” perfectly

84
This is Steenberg’s title for Mary in her role as “co-recapitulator” of humanity with Christ, her Sonέ The
prefix “co-” implies a precise use that does not bring into doubt Christ’s soteriological roleέ
85
Dunning, 120; quoting Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV.33.11: PG 7/1: 1080B. Cf. Steenberg, 125-126.
86
Steenberg, 136 (emphasis original); citing Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V.19.1.
87
Emphasis added.
88
Cf. 1 Tim 2:6.

49
united and active with her Beloved Son, the “σew Adam,” in God’s plan of salvationέ For

Irenaeus, therefore, the Word becoming incarnate from the Virgin Mary precedes and prepares

for all the other mysteries. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of recapitulation and soteriology,

without the event of the cross and resurrection, the Incarnation would not have fulfilled its

primary goal; therefore, man would not have been freed from the grasp of Satan and the bondage

of sin. Hence, there would be no salvation—no Eucharist—without the sacrifice of the incarnate

Son of Godέ In addition, God’s eternal plan to draw all things to Himself, especially man, would

not be possible. Chapter three will now explore the anthropological view of recapitulation: man

as the sum of all creation in Christ.

50
 CHAPTER 3: ANTHROPOLOGY AND RECAPITULATION

INTRODUCTION

As seen in chapter two, the notion of re-creation or the “theosis” of man is a very

important theological concept for Irenaeus. It can be argued that this notion, in fact, is a key

component of his theology of recapitulation in Christ against the Gnostics of his time, for not

only is man saved by the Blood of Christ, but also divinized.1 Incidentally, the later third-century

Gnostic notion of dualism that views man as both evil and good because he possesses,

respectively, a body and soul—the result of a cosmic battle of good and evil gods—is thus

foreshadowed in his counter argument.2 On the basis of the biblical accounts of creation in light

of the Incarnation of the Son of God, Irenaeus argues for the essential goodness of man which

can never be lost. It is this essential goodness of man, so frequently distorted in certain

contemporary circles of academia or politics, which will be explored from a Christian

anthropology rooted in and connected with Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation.

1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III.19.1: PG 7/1: 939B; cf. also III.10.2, 16.2-3, 18.7 and 20.4; IV.33.4; V.36.3. The
Catechism quotes here Stέ Athanasiusμ “[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the
Spirit, we become communicants in the divine natureέ … For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are
divinized” (CCC 1988; quoting ibid., Ep. Serap. I.24, PG 26:585, 588).
2
The Manichaeans would arise a century later. They held this ancient Zoroaster (ca. 6 th century B.C.)
dualistic view of creation that would be vehemently challenged in the fourth century by St. Augustine of Hippo, a
former Manichaean for nine years prior to his conversion. Christoph Markschies summarizes well the dualism of
Mani, founder of this school of Gnosticismμ “Mani radicalized into a fundamental dualism the dualism between a
good principle and an evil principle which was already suggested in the preceding systems of the second and third
centuriesέ The redeemed knower knows that these two ‘did not come forth from one another or … from τne’
(Kephalaia 3, 23, 2f.) and therefore cannot be derived from an ultimate unity…έ Central to the progress of the myth
is the battle between the two elements which is started by the darkness. Since in this battle the light first of all
succumbs for tactical reasons and is imprisoned in evil matter, a mixture of good and evil comes aboutέ The ‘Father
of light’ has the world created from the bodies of the evil demons—inhabitants of the realm of darkness—now
mixed with good parts; the world thus represents a mixture of light and darkness” [ibidέ, Gnosis : An Introduction,
105-106].

51
 According to St. John Paul II, this innate goodness of man marks the relevance of

Irenaeus in the present-dayέ The Pope’s comment to theologians remains emphaticμ “What paths

for research are not to be found here for theologians rightly concerned to mark out better the

harmony between the creation and the divinization of man, between the spiritual life and

implantation in the cosmos and in time, between the Incarnation and the Redemption!” 3 Thus,

earth and heaven, body and soul, and man’s spiritual journey toward God are connected in the

Incarnation and Redemption.

With a close look at the nature of man, his essential goodness will be revealed. For recent

theological insights on the anthropology of man, Paul M. Quay, a Jesuit priest and contemporary

theologian, along with two additional twentieth-century theologians will be considered next:

Hans Urs Von Balthasar and John Paul II. Both further develop this concept of man on the basis

of anthropology and recapitulation of Irenaeus. In relation to man’s innate goodness, a Christian

anthropology of man as the complete sum of all created realities, both visible and invisible, will

now be taken up. However, a necessary distinction will be made such that the goodness (dignity)

of man will be seen as directly corresponding to his “life in Christ” as opposed to the “life of

Christ,” that may or may not be active in him in the form of graceέ

“LIFE IN CHRIST”4

A Jesuit and Franciscan Perspective

Quay makes the following claim which orients and grounds the Christian understanding

of nature (that of man) and grace (that of God)μ “when we speak of living in Jesus, we are

3
Delhaye, “Pope John Paul,” 9.
4
This title comes from Paul M. Quay, The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God, vol. 161 of American
University Studies, ser. VII of Theology and Religion (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1997), 83.

52
referring to our own selves as being some portion of the created good given to the Son by the

Father in reflection of the Father’s gift to Him of the divine essenceέ The Father, then, loves us as

part of the good He has willed for Jesusέ” What he means is that “living in Jesus” should not

simply be understood—as this Christological phrase more commonly is—in a narrow sense, i.e.,

by “faith in Him or by the supernatural life of grace or by membership in His Churchέ” Rather,

this reality of “being in Jesus” more personally pertains to “our very natureέ” 5 Frank Sheed, a

twentieth-century distinguished Catholic author and evangelist, explains that nature pertains to

“what man is”μ “a creature of God, living in a universe created by God,” yet “differs from every

other being in the world because God made him in His own imageέ” 6 Due to man’s status as a

creature of God bearing His image and God Himself being Goodness itself, man is naturally

goodέ In fact, for Irenaeus, “the key to understanding man as the image of God is unmistakably

found in the person of Jesus Christ,” who is all-good (Goodness itself).7

As quoted above in Quay’s comment, man’s innate goodness finds its origin in “the

created good given to the Son by the Father,” manifested at the moment of His Incarnationέ The

reality and true meaning of man’s life in Christ is beautifully illustrated by Saint Francis of

Assisi, founder of the thirteenth-century Order of Friars Minor. In awe, while commenting on the

dignity of man, the Saint admonishes his brothersμ “Consider, τ human being, in what great

excellence the Lord God has placed you, for He created and formed you to the image of His

beloved Son according to the body and to His likeness according to the Spirit.”8 In other words,

5
Ibid. (emphasis added).
6
Frank Sheed, Society and Sanity, repr. ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013), 17.
7
Purves, 105.
8
Francis, Admonition, V:1 (emphasis original), in vol. 1 of Francis of Assisi: Early Documents: The Saint,
131, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan
Institute of St. Bonaventure University, 1999).

53
he suggests that God the Father looked upon His only-begotten Son as if already incarnate from

all eternity and thus molded Adam in the “image” of His Beloved Son “according to the body”

and breathed into him His “likeness according the Spiritέ” Hence, the way Francis envisions the

creation of man is both temporal and eternal. With his spiritual insight and literal interpretation

of the first creation account in the Book of Genesis (cf. 1:26-27), a real Christian anthropology,

so intimately and subsequently connected to the mystery of the Incarnation, is evident.

Moreover, his vision of man is further verified by Quay who writes that the “union between

Jesus and the rest of mankind is deeper and far more extensive than usually thought. Without

man, there would be no Son of Manέ But without Jesus, there would be no mankind at allέ”9

In an infinite and eternal way, Christ, therefore, is the Truth about man, while man, in a

finite and created way, reflects the truth about the Son of God in relation to the Holy Trinity. In

short, man is an image of the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1μ1η) made visible through the

mystery of the Incarnation of His Son. Because man shares in and bears the image of the

incarnate Son of God, one can see the awesome dignity of man. From a theological point of

view, Howard Marshall explains that the term “image” expresses “the ontological identity of the

Son with the Father,” iέeέ, Jesus Christ is the precise replica of the Father’s beingέ 10

Consequently, man’s “life in Christ” mirrors “the image of God” and, thus, reflects His

Goodness. In sum, the image of God is the Son of God viewed from both temporal and eternal

dimensions, and this image according to which man is created precisely relates to the

aforementioned Franciscan-Quayan anthropology.

9
Quay, 83.
10
Howard Marshall, “Human Being: Made in the Image of God,” Stone-Campbell Journal 4 (Spring,
2002): 57, accessed Sept. 28, 2015, http://korycapps.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ih-marshall-image-of-god.pdf.

54
The Perspective of Von Balthasar

Von Balthasar writes that in Christ all things become crystallized and find their true

meaningμ “the ‘salvific order of sin’, which makes possible the revelation of God’s superbundant

[sic] mercy (Irenaeus here puts forward his boldest ideas); the self-abasement of Christ, by which

He gets down to man and lifts him up to God; the reconciliation of the world and God, of nature

and grace, which has its foundation in the one Incarnationέ”11 Without the Divine Word

becoming the Incarnate Word, the Spirit becoming Flesh, sin would not have been vanquished

and salvation and sanctification would not have been won for man. Moreover, the anthropology

of man, in the truest sense of the word, finds its fullest expression in the Incarnation. Citing

Irenaeus again, Von Balthasar comments that the Incarnation is the fulfillment of God’s first

plan12 for Adam (and all humanity)μ “That is why, at the end, ‘not by the will of the flesh or the

will of a man’ [cf. Jn 1:13], but by the good pleasure of the Father, the Hands of God made the

living Man [Jesus Christ], so that Adam might come into the image and likeness of Godέ”13

Consequently, Von Balthasar sees the Second Adam as “the repetition, in divine truth, of the first

Adam, the Adam who turned away from God”ν therefore, Jesus repeats and rectifies every stage

of man’s natural development from conception to deathέ14

Next, Von Balthasar analyzes the recapitulatory dimension of the cross of Christ in

Irenaeus’ theologyέ He recognizes that there is a “cosmic dimension of the Cross,” similar to that

11
Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies, trans. John
Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 53 (emphasis added).
12
With God, whose knowledge is infinite and unsurpassable, there was only the one plan for Adam and his
descendantsέ Sin did not nor could it thwart His original planέ Hence, the term “first” does not imply that there
would be a “second” planέ
13
Von Balthasar, 57; citing Adv. Haer., V.1.3: PG 7/2: 1123.
14
Ibid., 53.

55
of the Incarnation, that brings about in full compass (i.e., past, present, and future) the restoration

of creation, especially fallen manέ He explainsμ “But this uniting of God and world takes place in

the Passion of Christ, when He is stretched out between height and depth, breadth and length.

The cross-beams are the world’s true centre, and since it is in this sign that all creation is

redeemed, they become the ‘watermark’ of any kind of existence in the worldέ”15 In other words,

what began in Genesis regarding all of creation (and consequence thereof), reaches its apex and

culmination in being restored and perfected, according to God’s eternal plan, on the altar and

wood of the cross of Christ. For this reason, he highlights and connects the obedience of Christ.

Hence, he quotes Irenaeus in his masterful and stark contrast between Adam and Christμ “By His

obedience unto death on the Cross, He wiped out the ancient disobedience wrought on the

tree…έ He has imprinted the form of the Cross on the universe. In becoming visible, He had to

reveal the participation of the universe in His Crossέ”16

In conclusion, Von Balthasar ties into the discussion the necessity of the Eucharist for

Irenaeus, for here man meets his Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Man is more fully man when

he experiences the power of Christ in the Eucharist and, thus, is divinized and made like unto the

image of Christ—the image of God. In defense of Irenaeus’ work against Gnosticism, Von

Balthasar emphasizes the importance of the bodily redemption of man, which the Eucharist—the

Body of Christ—clearly manifestsμ “τnly when matter, Christ’s very body, is safeguarded in

God, is man redeemed. That is why Irenaeus regards the Eucharist as the pledge of redemption:

here the fruit of the dark earth itself is transformed into graceέ”17 Therefore, the contribution of

15
Ibid., 13; cf. 15-16.
16
Ibid., 15; quoting Irenaeus, Dem. Ap., 34: SCh 62: 87.
17
Ibid., 53.

56
this modern theologian can be summed up in a threefold manner, which began this discussion in

chapter two: the crib, the cross, and the ciborium recapitulate Adam and his descendants until the

end of time. For this reason, man can become holy and God-like.

The Perspective of John Paul II

Similar to the Catechism, which states that the “dignity of the human person is rooted in

his creation in the image and likeness of God,”18 John Paul II turns to the authority of Irenaeus as

a “modern-day” teacher and theologianέ In his 1λκθ address to the “Facultés Catholiques de

Lyon,” John Paul II—quoting from Against Heresies—boldly claims that, as for Irenaeus’

theology of recapitulation, “there is nothing to be added [here]έ”19 In 2001, at a Wednesday

Audience he reiterated Irenaeus’ thought on the Incarnationμ “Irenaeus extols the one Lord, Jesus

Christ, who in the Incarnation sums up in himself the entire history of salvation, humanity and all

creationμ ‘He, as eternal King, recapitulates all things in himselfέ’”20 The image that John Paul

uses to describe this summing up of creation and history in Christ is that of a Jewish parchment

or papyrus scroll containing the Word of God, and this parchment is the Incarnate Word of God.

The Pope statesμ “The image could also refer to the roller around which was wrapped the

parchment or papyrus scroll of the volume with a written text: Christ gives a single meaning to

all the syllables, words and works of creation and history.”21

18
CCC 1700; cf. John Paul II, “Redemptoris Mater (RM), Encyclical Letter (March 25, 1987), 37 § 1,”
AAS 79 (1987): 408-409, accessed Sept. 15, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html.
19
Delhaye, 9.
20
John Paul II, “All Creation,” 1ν quoting Adv. Haer., III.21.9: PG 7/1: 953-954. In the same context, he
also reiterates Paul’s concept of recapitulationμ “God's saving plan, ‘the mystery of his will’ (cf. Eph 1:9) for every
creature, is described in the Letter to the Ephesians with a distinctive term: to ‘recapitulate’ all things in heaven and
on earth in Christ (Eph 1:10)” (ibidέ, emphasis original)έ
21
Ibid. (emphasis original).

57
 According to John Paul II’s encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, man’s life and dignity far

exceeds that of any other living creatureμ “man, although formed from the dust of the earth (cf.

Gen 2:7, 3:19; Job 34:15; Ps 103:14; 104:29), is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of

his presence, a trace of his glory (cf. Gen 1:26-27; Ps 8:6).”22 In the same paragraph, what

immediately follows this statement is the connection that the Pope makes with Irenaeusμ “This is

what Saint Irenaeus of Lyons wanted to emphasize in his celebrated definitionμ ‘Man, living

man, is the glory of God.’ Man has been given a sublime dignity, based on the intimate bond

which unites him to his Creatorμ in man there shines forth a reflection of God himselfέ” 23 In

accord with the image motif, one can see the profound excellence of the creation of man.

A Closer Look at Man’s Innate Goodness

From an eternal and ontological perspective, Sheed refers to the image of God according

to a tripartite understanding: that each of the divine Persons in the Trinity is “all-powerful, all-

knowing, [and] all-lovingέ”24 Thus, man reflects all three attributes of God, though in a limited

and imperfect way. However, the emphasis here will not come from an eternal and ontological

perspective of His “image” but rather from a temporal one, which concerns all created realities,

most especially, man. The attempt will be to paint a more concrete picture of man’s ultimate

dignity in Christ. Consequently, a theological look from a Pauline-Irenaean-based recapitulation

and a Franciscan-Quayan anthropology will now follow.

Quay elaborates more on what man’s life in Christ means in light of a Pauline hymnμ “for

22
John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae (EV), Encyclical Letter (March 2η, 1λλη), 34 § 2,” AAS κι (1λλη)μ 43κ-
439, accessed Sept. 15, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html.
23
Ibid.
24
Sheed, 19.

58
in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or

dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (Col

1:16). He writes:

In Christ, therefore, rather than being a meaningless atom lost somewhere in a

universe vastly larger than he, man is, wherever he is, the true center of the
universe. For at the heart of the universe is the Heart of Christ. Through Jesus,
man is not only the heart but the head of the creation. He is the goal and purpose
of the world, even its source. All this is true not only of the material world but the
spiritual one, since Jesus is Lord of the angels and they are, for the Christian,
ministering spirits.25

Quay’s understanding of man gives the reader a comprehensive glimpse into the awesome reality

of man’s nature and purpose according to God’s planμ for all created reality, both visible and

invisible, exists for the benefit of man and his salvation. Caution must be given here, however, so

as not to confuse primary and secondary causality, for all created reality ultimately and primarily

serves God; whereas God has willed all creation, both material and immaterial, to serve man in

his life in Christ.26 Thus, God spares no expense to bring man back into communion with Him,

even at the price of His own Son’s death on the crossμ that is how much man means to Godέ

Similarly, Marshall makes reference to the uniqueness of human beings in relation to the whole

universe and invisible creation, commenting on Psalms 8:4 and 144:3-4μ “From the one angle

they are infinitesimally small compared with their own galaxy, never mind with the whole of the

universe… [t]hey seem insignificant, but perhaps all the more marvellous in that, to the best of

our knowledge, they are a unique phenomenon.”27 For what other creature is there that unites in

his very self both the corporeal and incorporeal realities of creation? Or what other creature is

25
Quay, 84.
26
See CCC 289, 299, 2402, 2452; 293-94, 314, 319, 353, 358.
27
Marshall, 48.

59
there that exists in Christ according to His image and likeness and, thereby, receives his true

meaning?

In the order of creation, Paul Haffner explains “human nature is more complete” than the

nature of an angel, even though the angel is “a more perfect being” than man due to its nature

being pure spiritέ Yet, man, unlike angels, is “a microcosm of all creation both material and

spiritualέ”28 In other words, all of creation, both visible and invisible, is completely summed up

in the creation of man, “who is at one and the same time visible and invisible, who is body and

soul in unityέ”29 The Catechism asserts that man is a composite of body and soul from a biblical

perspective of creation:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and
spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it
affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living beingέ” Man,
whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.30

Therefore, that a man is a “microcosm” of all creation is attested to by the fact that man is an

inseparable union of body and soul, material and immaterial.

Both Genesis accounts of creation make reference to this assertion that man is a

microcosm of all creation. Haffner writes: “Creation only becomes ‘very good’ after man and

woman are created as the apex of all God made, creatures endowed with intellect and free will”

(cf. Gen 1:31).31 Implied in his assertion are also incorporeal beings. Thus, all creation is at best

28
Paul Haffner, Mystery of Creation (Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1995), 34 (emphasis
added).
29
Ibid., 67.
30
CCC 362; quoting Gen 2:7.
31
Haffner, 68 (emphasis added).

60
“good”32 and somehow incomplete until man is created, as indicated by the progressive and

sequential order of created reality in the first creation account. That all of reality is somehow

incomplete until the creation of man is also suggested from a divine perspective: God created all,

even the angels, for man.33

While Quay points to this fact of creation’s purpose, the sacred Magisterium teaches and

affirms it, for “man… is the only creature on earth which God willed for itselfέ”34 This statement

suggests that all other material reality is at the service of man. With regard to all immaterial

reality, the Church teaches that the angels, too, are at the service of man from a Christological

point of viewμ “They belong to him [Christ] still more because he has made them messengers of

his saving planμ ‘Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who

are to obtain salvationς’”35 Thus, all creation can be viewed from a soteriological point of view,

which asserts that God wills for the material and spiritual realities to converge with the sole

purpose of saving man. In summary of this exalted dignity and life of man in Christ, Haffner

quotes the famous Christian poet Gerard Manely Hopkinsμ “I am all at once what Christ is, since

He was what I am, and/ This jack, joke, poor potsherd, patch, matchwood, immortal diamond/ Is

32
Cf. Gen 1:4, 8, 11, 13, 18, 21 and 25.
33
Quay, 84. Quay explains how this anthropological statement is rooted in Stέ Paul’s Christology as
appears in Col 1μ1θμ “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him (emphasis
added). The implication from this text is that Christ, as God-Man, is the center of the universe. Quay then explains
what follows from this assertionμ “In Christ… man is… the true center of the universeέ For at the heart of the
universe is the Heart of Christ. Through Jesus, man is not only the heart but the head of creation. He is the goal and
purpose of the world, even its source” [ibidέ (emphasis added)], whereby, even angels minister to man as they did to
the God-Man (cf. Mt 4:11; Mk 1:13).
34
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes (GS), Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern
World (December 7, 1965), 24 § 3,” AAS 58 (1966): 1045 (emphasis added), accessed Sept. 15, 2015,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-
spes_en.html.
35
CCC 331; quoting Heb 1:14.

61
immortal diamondέ”36 Also, it is important to note here Hopkins’ juxtaposition with the inherited

and thus concomitant frailty of man.37

As already discussed in chapter one and as alluded to now in Hopkins’ poem, one final

consideration that is essential to grasp the full meaning of man in his nature is Christ Himself,

who “assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it.”38 Recall, for Irenaeus,

this emphasis on salvation is at the heart of his recapitulation theology of Christ and man.39

Having said this, a further comment on a Pauline text will be helpful. In reference to

Colossians 1μ1θ, Quay writes that the “whole of Adam was created in Christ, not just his life of

grace, even as all of him was created for Him and through Himέ” 40 The Church teaches that

“only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light.”41

Accordingly, Christ is seen as “the Archetype of our entire race, its model and exemplar, as well

as the concrete embodiment of its perfection, its fulfillment, and its goalέ” 42 In his first papal

encyclical Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II writes that, because of the Incarnation of the Son of

God, man has been raised to “a dignity beyond compare” and, thus, Jesus has “in a certain way

united himself with each manέ” 43 For this reason, the Catechism quotes Gaudium et Spes: “In

36
Haffner, 143; see Gerard Manely Hopkins, “That Nature is a Herclitean Fire, and of the Comfort of the
Resurrection (1κκκ),” in Poems and Prose (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1963), 65-66,
https://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~melmoth/gmh.htm#tniahf.
37
The discussion on the “frailty of man,” iέeέ, the effects of original sin, will immediately follow this one.
38
CCC 461.
39
Quay, 192; Purves, 104.
40
Quay, 84 (emphasis added).
41
GS 22 § 1.
42
Quay, 84.

62
reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes

clear.” Juxtaposing this Vatican II document together with Saint Peter Chrysologus’ Sermo 117

on Paul’s Christology, the Catechism continues:

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and
Christ… The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-
giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also
received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the
first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the
name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his
own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last
knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first
and the last.”44

Because the sacred humanity of Jesus is created by the Blessed Trinity, one can thereby

see the Trinitarian dimension in all of creation. The creation of the whole human race—indeed

the whole universe—finds its full meaning in Christ, according to whose image and likeness it

was created in anticipation of His Incarnation. Quay explains this connection between material

creation and the Incarnation of the Son of Godμ “The Son, then, in taking on human nature, took

up our race and our universe in their entirety since inseparable from His manhoodέ”45 Hence, it is

Christ who gives His creation and man, in particular, his true meaning, whose existence is thus

“very good,” indicating that man is the complete sum of all creation in Christ.

Since man’s life in Christ by nature is “very good,” Evangelium Vitae reaffirms that the

destructive nature of sin, since the fall of Adam, has never removed man’s essential goodnessέ46

John Paul II, “Redemptor Hominis, Encyclical Letter (March 4, 1λιλ), κ § 2,” AAS 71(1979): 271-272,
43

accessed Sept. 15, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-

ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html.
44
CCC 359 (emphasis added); respectively, quoting GS 22, and St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 117: PL 52:
520-521.
45
Quay, 84.
46
Cf. EV 9 § 3.

63
The biblical account of Cain demonstrates this pointμ “And yet God, who is always merciful even

when he punishes, ‘put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him’ (Gen

4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign… to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill

him… Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee

this.”47 Although man’s life in Christ remains good, sin has severed his life of Christ. Yet, there

is always hope and capacity for his personal conversion in Christ.

THE ORIGINAL SIN OF ADAM

Regarding the current moral status of man since the fall of Adam, Blessed John Henry

Newman masterfully and poetically writes:

O man, strange composite of heaven and earth!

Majesty dwarfed to baseness! Fragrant flower
Running to poisonous seed! and seeming worth
Cloking corruption! weakness mastering power!
Who never art so near to crime and shame,
As when thou hast achieved some deed of name.48

σewman’s composition marvelously captures all the innate goodness and beauty of man

juxtaposed with the tragic consequences of sin in man. As already discussed, man is the

“composite of heaven and earthέ” However, the disobedience of Adam has estranged him from

God, rendering him “strange” (iέeέ, a stranger to God), “dwarfed to baseness” like a “fragrant

flower running to poisonous seed” (iέeέ, sin), cloaked with “corruption” and “weakness” (iέeέ,

concupiscence), habitually susceptible to the “crime and shame” of offending Godέ

To translate σewman’s poetic view of man into theological language, Quay is helpful

here. He explains that the original sin of Adam has subsequently brought about in the human

47
Ibid., (emphasis original).
48
Newman, Gerontius, 2nd phase, 38 (emphasis added).

64
race “the psychic deformation of each individual that is designated ‘concupiscence,’ a

deformation that is not removed in any direct way by baptismέ”49 From the moment of his

conception, man has inherited from Adam the subsequent loss of sanctifying grace, which can be

restored by the ordinary means of salvation in the Sacrament of Baptism. In other words, man is

conceived and born “spiritually dead, without likeness to Christ” and, thereby, in need of Godέ50

However, though baptism restores man to his originally intended innocence, it does not remove

his “psychic deformationέ” Therefore, Quay writes that “there remains this damage to our nature

that was an integral element of our original state of sinέ”51 Yet, this damage does not remove

man’s innate goodness, but rather harms and weakens his nature in a manner that tends to draw

him to wrongly choose sin (vice) instead of goodness (virtue).

“LIFE OF CHRIST”52

A Moral Life of Grace

As a result of man’s depraved state due to original sin, one can see that the life of Christ

is absent, because the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, is not in him. In this case, the life of Christ

is equated to the life of grace (sanctifying), which has been purchased by Christ’s blood on the

cross for the salvation of fallen and deprived humanity.

Once baptized, man is called to imitate Christ in whose image and likeness he has been

49
Quay, 119.
50
Ibid., 6.
51
Ibidέ (emphasis added)ν cfέ Paul VI, “Credo of the People of God, Apostolic Letter (June 3ί, 1λθκ), 1θ,”
AAS 60 (1968): 439, accessed Sept. 28, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-
vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html.
52
This title can be inferred from Quay’s discussion on the “life in Christ” or “being in Christ”ν see ibidέ,
The Mystery, 7, 83, 92.

65
formed by the Blessed Trinity. This Christian vocation to a Christ-like life can be best expressed

by the theology of recapitulationέ Quay explains this notion of Irenaeus in biblical termsμ “by that

grace which is our life in Christ, each Christian is meant to recapitulate in one lifetime all that

God led His people through from the fall of Adam to the death of Christ and then, in the same

lifetime, to live in the freedom of the Spirit through the time from Christ’s harrowing of hell and

resurrection till His Second Comingέ”53 By way of comparison, it is good to recall here

Arminjon’s succinct statement of Christ summing up “the totality of created elements and

beings” in His personέ54 Thereby, what is highlighted is a double recapitulation in the person of

Christ and in His salvific actions of charity and contemplation. Similarly, man is called and

empowered to recapitulate all created reality, visible and invisible, after the manner of Christ, by

living in the Spirit of Christ. In recapitulating Christ in the Spirit, Irenaeus explains that man’s

life turned toward God is “the vision of God” and “for the glory of Godέ”55 By means of

recapitulation in and through a life of grace, beginning at baptism until his earthly death, the new

Christian man is recreated and perfected in Christ’s image and likeness so that he “might be truly

the king and the epitome of all His worksέ”56

The Work of Christ and the Holy Spirit

What should be highlighted and more clearly stated about man’s life of Christ is the

53
Quay, “The Theology of Recapitulationμ Understanding the Development of Individuals and Cultures,”
in The Dynamic Character of Christian Culture: Essays on Dawsonian Themes, ed. Peter J. Cataldo (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1984), 62; cf. ibid., The Mystery, 6-8, 334.
54
See entire quote on p. 35. GS 3κ § 1 reiterates this point as wellμ “For God's Word, through Whom all
things were made, was Himself made flesh and dwelt on the earth of men [cf. Jn 1:3, 14]. Thus He entered the
world's history as a perfect man, taking that history up into Himself and summarizing it [cf. Eph 1:10].”
55
See footnote citation on p. 35.
56
Arminjon, 83.

66
Irenaean understanding of the simultaneous work of two divine agents of the Father as

introduced in chapter two. While the Son is the Savior and Redeemer of man, the Holy Spirit is

his Sanctifier and Advocate who is sent by the Father and the Son at Pentecost. Therefore,

through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit by means of the sacramental life of the Church,

man is elevated and drawn into a participation in the very life of the Blessed Trinity. Quay

crystallizes this exalted dignity of man and, therefore, the imitation of the life of Christ that must

follow: “And only by sharing in His recapitulation can His followers, in less than a lifetime, not

merely learn what true manhood and womanhood are but become true men and women, who live

in the likeness of Christέ”57 Once the Christian recapitulates the life of Christ by means of

sanctifying grace,58 the relationship with Christ deepens beyond the level of repentance and

metanoia59 and enters into a true friendship with Him. Hence, there is a movement away from sin

into a life rooted in the Spirit of Christ. As a result, the goal of Christian recapitulation is to

transition “out of recapitulation [of Christ’s pattern of life in His suffering and death] into the

beginning of the life of the Spirit,” iέeέ, “a life of infused knowledge and love of God and His

willέ”60 In other words, the life of grace by the action of the Holy Spirit enables the Christian

who recapitulates Christ’s life to move out from the “desert” (which represents “freedom” from

sin and death) into the “promised land” (which represents “freedom” for God and His glory).61

57
Quay, The Mystery, 413.
58
CCC 1λλι defines grace asμ “a participation in the life of Godέ It introduces us into the intimacy of
Trinitarian lifeμ by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Bodyέ As an ‘adopted
son’ he can henceforth call God ‘Father,’ in union with the only Sonέ He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes
charity into him and who forms the Church” (emphasis added)έ
59
Here the Greek term metanoia refers, in a Christian context, to a life of conversion and complete change
of heart by following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.
60
Quay, The Mystery, 334.
61
In an allegorical sense, the Lukan text describing Christ in and then coming out from the desert into
Galilee is the spiritual journey of every disciple of Christέ There is clear allusion here to Israelites’ forty days in the

67
Hence, there is a real transformation of the Christian from glory to glory by life in the Spirit:

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all,

with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one

degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17-18).62

This total transformation, in the fullest sense of the word, is recapitulated by the Blessed Virgin

Mary.

MARY: THE PERFECT SHARER OF THE LIFE IN AND OF CHRIST, HER SON

The Blessed Virgin Mary, as the “σew Eve,” is the perfect sharer of the “life in Christ”

by virtue of her Immaculate Conception and glorious Assumption into heaven. What Eve was

before the Fall Mary, in her exalted human nature, now recapitulates without ever losing her

innocence on earth since her conceptionέ Moreover, the “σew Eve” was assumed into heaven by

her beloved Son—the “σew Adam”—in a recapitulative manner. In other words, similar to

Jesus, Mary returns to the Father in both body and soul, as every saint will one day be reunited

and glorified in bodily form when Christ finally returns to earth in gloryέ As for her “life of

Christ,” Mary is “full of grace” (Lk 1μ2κ) and, like her Son, thereby continued to be perfected on

earth by her never-failing obedience to God’s holy and perfect will and by the power of the Holy

Spirit “overshadowing” her (cfέ Lk 1μ3η) and inspiring and guiding her every step.

desert before entering the Promised Land. Hence, Christ is recapitulating the journey of Israel into the Promised
Land. Luke writesμ “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit for forty
days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil” (Lk 4μ1-2aν emphasis added)έ And he thus concludes Christ’s forty
days in the desertμ “And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the
surrounding country” (Lk 4μ13-14; emphasis added).
62
Emphasis added.

68
The Immaculate Conception63

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX solemnly declared the dogma of the Immaculate

Conception in his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most
Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a
doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all
the faithful.64

The Catechism explains Mary’s “singular grace and privilege” by quoting Lumen Gentium: “The

‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her

conception’ comes wholly from Christμ she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of

the merits of her Sonέ’”65 This means that Mary has always been preserved from the least stain of

sin by Christ, her Son and Redeemer. Thus, she is by her very essence “the Immaculate

Conception,” that of innocence, purity and sinlessness. Her “unique holiness” relates to the fact

63
For OT references, see Gen 3:15; Prov 31:10; Sol 1:8, 2:2, 4:7, 5:9, 6:9; Isa 11:1, 61:10. For NT
references, see Lk 1:28, 41 and Eph 1:3-4. For the Church teaching, see CCC 490-493, 2177; DS 2803-2804, 2015,
2017, 1400, 1515-1516, 1973. In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, belief in the Immaculate Conception, historically,
has seen some ambiguity and even doubts. For these reasons, some will argue that the Eastern Orthodox Churches
reject this dogma of faith. However, Mark P. Shea explains that doubts by an isolated few are not equivalent to a
total rejection but rather evidence of organic development of doctrineμ “Some people have the notion the Eastern
Orthodox Churches reject the Immaculate Conception because a few early Eastern Fathers (Origen, Basil, and John
Chrysostom) expressed a couple of doubts about Mary’s sinlessnessέ τrigen thought that, during Christ’s Passion,
the sword that pierced Mary’s soul was disbelief [ibidέ, In Luc. hom. xvii]. Basil had the same notion [ibid., Epistle,
259]. And John Chrysostom thought her guilty of ambition and pushiness in Matthew 12:46 [ibid., hom. xliv; cf.
also “In Mattέ,” homέ iv]” [ibidέ, Mary, Mother of the Son: First Guardian of the Faith, vol. 2 (San Diego: Catholic
Answers, 2009), 118]. It should also be noted that even St. Thomas Aquinas had some difficulty with this notion of
Mary’s Immaculate Conceptionέ Shea thus explains that, although the question was mainly settled in the Latin
Church by a late-thirteenth century Franciscan, Blessed John Duns Scotus, less frequent debates still occurred until
the voice of the Church dispelled any further confusion in 1854 (see ibid., 122-126).

Pius IX, “Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution (December κ, 1κη4), The Definition, § 2 (emphasis
64

added),” DS 2803, accessed Sept. 15, 2015, http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm; cf. CCC 411.
65
CCC 492 (emphasis added); citing Second Vatican Council, “Lumen Gentium (LG), Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church (November 21, 1964), 53, 56,” AAS 57 (1965): 58-59, 60-61, accessed Sept. 14, 2015,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-
gentium_en.html.

69
that the Father has blessed her “more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual

blessing in the heavenly places’” and divinely elected her “in Christ before the foundation of the

world, to be holy and blameless before him in love” (cfέ Eph 1μ3-4).66 The Fathers of the East

have called her “the All-Holy” (Panagia) Mother of God who has been fully graced to keep “free

of every personal sin her whole life longέ”67 Hence, the archangel Gabriel’s greeting of Mary,

“Hail, full of grace” (Lk 1μ2κa), is fitting, for his salutation, which truly comes from the

Almighty God Himself, points to her singularly exalted state and privilege.

Interestingly, a close look at the archangel’s greeting reveals “a significant echo” of

Ephesians 1:3-4,68 quoted above by the Catechism. By this mysterious greeting, Mary is

essentially renamed “full of grace” (kecharitoméne). Perhaps it is more accurate to say, in the

words of John Paul II, that God the Father, through the angel, is greeting His beloved daughter

“as if it were her real nameέ”69 This new name is indicative of Mary’s unique role in salvation—

her own and that of the entire human race—who has been chosen by God “before the foundation

of the worldέ”70 For this reason, Mary is prepared in anticipation and made spotless to receive the

Savior of the world. From a Trinitarian perspective, John Paul II explains that “Mary’s

Immaculate Conception is the sign of the gracious love of the Father, the perfect expression of

the redemption accomplished by the Son, and the beginning of a life completely open to the

66
Ibid.; cf. Eph 1:3-4.
67
Ibid., 493.
68
John Paul, “Redemptoris Mater (RM), Encyclical Letter (March 25, 1987), 8 § 2,” AAS 79 (1987): 369,
accessed Sept. 15, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html.
69
Ibid., 8 § 3.
70
The phrase “the foundations of the world” appears identically in both 2 Sam 22μ1θ and Ps 1κμ1ηέ Its
context is being saved from one’s enemies by the Lord of all creation, who is “my rock, and my fortress, and my
deliverer” (2 Sam 22μ2ν Ps 1κμ2)έ Hence, the emphasis here elicits the strength of God manifested through Mary’s
salvific role (grounded in the OT and NT).

70
working of the Spirit.”71 Moreover, this “gracious love of the Father” for His “beloved Son” is

experienced in the greatest way by Mary, who, in “an entirely special and exceptional way… is

united to Christ, and similarly… is eternally loved in this ‘beloved Sonέ’”72 Therefore, Mary’s

Immaculate Conception demonstrates how perfectly she shares the “life in Christέ”

Since Mary is never deterred or marred by sin, her life is “completely open to the

working of the Holy Spiritέ” Hence, she perfectly experiences the “life of Christ,” iέeέ, the life of

grace. What necessarily follows is that Mary most closely mirrors Jesus, her beloved Son, who

Himself is “full of grace and truth” (cfέ Jn 1μ14)έ In addition, she most completely shows the true

dignity of man, for she is the most human of all human beings. It is no wonder then that the

Church holds up Mary as “an icon of both our true origin and our true dignityέ” 73 She is what

God intends for all of us to becomeμ “to be holy in body and spirit”74 (cf. 1 Cor 7:34) and

“spotless” (cfέ Rev 14μη)έ In fact, Ephesians 1 and 5 further verify this assertionμ for God “chose

us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him”

(Eph 1μ4), and, for this reason, sent His τnly Begotten Son, who “loved the church and gave

himself up for her, that he might sanctify her… that he might present the church to himself in

splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish”

(Eph 5:25-27).

However, holiness is only possible when one’s “life in Christ” and “life of Christ”

71
John Paul II, “Homily in Lourdes on the Occasion of the 150 th Anniversary of the Promulgation of the
Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Aug. 15, 2004), ι (emphasis original),” L'Osservatore Romano, Aug. 25,
2004, accessed Sept. 15, 2015, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2004/documents/hf_jp-
ii_hom_20040815_lourdes_en.html.
72
RM 8 § 5 (emphasis added).
73
Mark Pέ Shea, “The Mother of the Sonμ The Case for Marian Devotion,” accessed Septέ 2κ, 2ί1η,
http://www.mark-shea.com/mother.html.
74
See also Mt 5:48; 19:21; Jas 1:4.

71
converge and, thereby, mirror each other. From the moment of her Immaculate Conception to the

end of her earthly life, Mary is—both by nature and grace—the complete sum of all creation,

visible and invisible, in Christ. Man is called to imitate that holiness of life in Christ exemplified

by the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is that perfect icon of her beloved Son. As man’s relationship

(communio) with the Triune God deepens, his “life of Christ” becomes more enriched and

Christ-like, whereby he receives from His “fullness… grace upon grace” (cfέ Jn 1μ1θ)έ Therefore,

what man is and always remains by nature due to his “life in Christ,” he becomes by graceμ

morally good, iέeέ, “holy and acceptable to God” (cfέ Rom 12μ1)έ

Mary’s Fiat

Since Mary is by grace what God is by nature and, therefore, most “holy and acceptable

to God” among His creatures, her response to Him has always and only been, “Behold, I am the

handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Lk 1μ3κ)έ She is the fulfillment of

the prophecy of God to the serpent in Genesis 3:1ημ “I [the Lord] will put enmity between you

and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall

bruise his heel.”75 Whereas the serpent utterly epitomizes sin and death, “the woman” perfectly

epitomizes sinlessness and life; hence, there is an unbridgeable and everlasting chasm or

“enmity” between them and their respective offspring or “seedέ” The evidence for this claim is

the fruit of Mary’s “yes” to the will of Godμ life—Christ who is “the life” (cfέ Jn 14μθ)έ Her

“obedience of faith” (cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26) truly means the complete reversal or recapitulation of

Eve’s disobedienceμ “Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin

75
Cf. Jack P. Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed (Gen 3μ1η),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34,
no. 3 (Sep 1991): 305-3ίκέ Lewis defers primarily to Irenaeus and his theology of recapitulation to explain Mary’s
fulfillment of Gen 3:15. However, his analysis is not limited to him. Rather Lewis traces the historical multivariate
interpretations of Gen 3:15 since the early Fathers of the Church through the Reformers until some modern scholars.

72
to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in

order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's graceέ”76 For

this reason, John Paul II compares the fiat of Mary to the fiat of her Son as a perfect parallel:

This fiat of Mary—“let it be to me”—was decisive, on the human level, for the
accomplishment of the divine mystery. There is a complete harmony with the
words of the Son, who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, says to the Father
as he comes into the world: “Sacrifices and offering you have not desired, but a
body you have prepared for me.... Lo, I have come to do your will, τ God” (Heb
10:5-7). The mystery of the Incarnation was accomplished when Mary uttered her
fiatμ “Let it be to me according to your word,” which made possible, as far as it
depended upon her in the divine plan, the granting of her Son's desire.77

This incarnational dimension to Mary’s fiat is absolutely essential for salvation, and for this

reason, is highlighted here. Moreover, the fullest expression of her womanhood is summed up in

her “yes” to God in imitation of her Son’s “yes” to His Father, thus truly becoming “the mother

of all living” in place of Eve (cfέ Gen 3μ2ί)έ Having said “yes” to God, Mary perfectly reveals

what it truly means to be human: to return to God what belongs to Him—unconditional love.

This gift of unconditional love is very clearly expressed in motherhood.78 As the epitome

of womanhood, motherhood is, both symbolically and historically, seen by the recapitulating

effect of Mary’s wombέ Lyn Holness’ pithy phrase, “the earth as the womb of creation and the

womb [of Mary] as a microcosm of the earth,” is, indeed, most striking because it reaffirms

Mary as “Co-recapitulator” with her Sonέ Holness explains that “in creation we have the womb

in cosmic scale; in the latter we have the story of creation in microcosmέ” For, although the scale

76
CCC 494; citing LG ηθέ This recalls what Irenaeus said of herμ “Being obedient she became the cause of
salvation for herself and for the whole human race” (Adv. Haer., III.22.4: PG 7/1: 959A).
77
RM 13 § 3.
78
This is not said to exclude those women who, for voluntary or involuntary reasons, cannot bear children.
For their openness to life is, in itself, motherly. However, the emphasis here is on the original state of woman (Eve),
who, like the fertile earth, was blessed and commanded by God to “be fruitful and multiply” with man (Adam) in
their covenantal bond of marriage (cf. Gen 1:28).

73
differs, the pattern—according to her—is the sameμ “As Christians we believe that just as God

creates through the womb [the earth], so God also redeems or recreates through the womb. […]

Being reminded of what God did in the womb of Mary re-sacralises [sic] life….”79 In summary,

Von Balthasar beautifully implies and juxtaposes the fecundity of Mary’s fiat with her womb as

the necessary locus of salvation:

The Light would have come into its domains—for the world belongs to God—but
its subjects would not have welcomed it. Someone had to receive the Word, so
unconditionally that it staked out a space in a human being in order there itself to
become man, as the Child of a Mother. We ourselves are not this Mother, who
opens herself up and offers herself to God without holding anything back: none of
us speaks to God the unconditional Yes.80

The Assumption81

Moving from the womb of the earth to the womb of Mary, Mary’s recapitulative role in

salvation history reaches its climax in the “womb of heavenέ” The Second Vatican Council’s

document Lumen Gentium addresses Mary’s Assumption as the final course of her earthly life

and entrance into the glory of her heavenly life, body and soul, because of her immaculate state:

“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion

of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord

as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of

79
Lyn Holness, “Mary’s Womb as the ‘Space within τur Space for the Gestating Son of God,’” Religion &
Theology 16, nos. 1-2 (2009): 24-26 (emphasis original). There are clear implications here of indicting abortion,
which “sacrilegizes” the sacredness of the wombέ
80
Von Balthasar, The Threefold Garland: The World Salvation in Mary’s Prayer, trans. Erasmo Leiva-
Merikakis (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982), 20.
81
For OT references, see Gen 3:15-19; Ps 45:10-12; 1 Kg 2:19; Sir 24:10-12. For NT references, see Lk
1:39-56; Rev 11:19–12:6; Mt 27:52-53; Lk 1:28, 32-33, 2:35, 11:27-28; 1 Cor 6:20, 15:23; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tim 2:5; 1
Pet 1:18-19; Rev 12:14, 19:16. For the Church teaching, see CCC 966; DS 3903, 1973, 3273, 3900. Cf. Pius XII,
“Munificentissimus Deus (MD), Apostolic Constitution (1 November 1950),” AAS 42 (1950): 769-771, accessed
Sept. 10, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-
xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.pdf.

74
lords and the conqueror of sin and death.”82 Thus, it is important to note that the document

makes a clear allusion here to the recapitulation of Mary in its discussion of her conformity to

her Sonν for her glorious Assumption as Queen recapitulates her Son’s glorious Ascension as

King. In this way, Mary is assumed into heaven by her Son in order to be “fully conformed” to

Him and, thus, be exalted as “Queen of the universeέ”

In addition, what is implicit here is Mary’s participation in the resurrection83 of her Son.

The Catechism thus continues on this notion of her resurrectionμ “The Assumption of the Blessed

Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection

of other Christiansέ”84 Therefore, one could argue that this definition of the Church implies that

she experienced death like her Sonέ However, the question of Mary’s death still remains open for

debate. Yet, John Paul II further clarifies and develops the possibility of this assertion by the

special bond and role that Mary has with her Son:

In the mystery of the Assumption is expressed the faith of the Church, according
to which Mary is “united by a close and indissoluble bond” to Christ, for, if as
Virgin and Mother she was singularly united with him in his first coming, so
through her continued collaboration with him she will also be united with him in
expectation of the secondν “redeemed in an especially sublime manner by reason
of the merits of her Son,” she also has that specifically maternal role of mediatrix
of mercy at his final coming, when all those who belong to Christ “shall be made

82
LG 59, AAS 57 (1965): 62; cf. RM 41 § 1; MD 1ν Rev 19:16.
83
The Eastern Fathers speak of Mary’s dormition rather than her resurrection because the latter implies
death. In fact, Byzantine Liturgy celebrates Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, on August 15th (cf. CCC 966). Thus,
there is a tradition in the Church that Mary did not actually die but rather was asleep before being assumed by Christ
into heaven. Recall that Adam was placed into a deep sleep by the Lord in order to form Eve: “So the LORD God
caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
and the rib which the LτRD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the manέ” (Gen
2:21-22). Therefore, Mary could have been placed into a deep sleep by the Lord without actually dying. Yet, the
bottom line is that, whether asleep or dead, Mary, like her Son, did not experience any corruption of her immaculate
body because she never experienced sin. However, I would argue that she—being perfectly conformed to her Son—
recapitulates His death and, thus, experiences her resurrection of the body, before being assumed by Him into glory.
84
CCC 966.

75
 alive,” when “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corέ 1ημ2θ)έ85

In a similar way, the Pope continues his thought on the significance of Mary’s Assumption, yet

underscores in it her recapitulation with Christ, while anticipating His Second Coming:

Thus, she who here on earth “loyally preserved in her union with her Son unto the
Cross,” continues to remain united with him, while now “all things are subjected
to him, until he subjects to the Father himself and all thingsέ” Thus in her
Assumption into heaven, Mary is as it were clothed by the whole reality of the
Communion of Saints, and her very union with the Son in glory is wholly oriented
towards the definitive fullness of the Kingdom, when “God will be all in allέ” In
this phase too Mary's maternal mediation does not cease to be subordinate to him
who is the one Mediator, until the final realization of “the fullness of time,” that is
to say until “all things are united in Christ” (cf. Eph. 1:10).86

Hence, the discussion on Mary’s recapitulatory role in salvation history is treated in a

comprehensive manner with St. John Paul II, who beautifully summarized and interconnected the

three foregoing Marian aspects: her Immaculate Conception, her fiat, and her glorious

Assumption.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, it has been discussed that nature can never cease being what a particular

nature is. In the case of man, his nature, unlike Christ’s human nature, has been wounded and

scarred by original sin. However, what God has created inherently good, sin can never make evil.

This assertion has been shown by discussing and comparing the Quayan difference between

man’s “life in Christ” and his “life of Christέ” In this vein, one can marvel with Francis of Assisi

at how exalted and sacred is the dignity and nature of man.

τn the other hand, the Christian life entails man’s grace-filled walk in the footsteps of

85
RM 41 § 2; quoting LG 53; cf. St. Bernard, In Dominica infra oct. Assumptionis Sermo, 1-2: S. Bernardi
Opera, V, 49, 1968, 262f; Leo XIII, “Octobri Mense, Encyclical Epistle (22 September 1891)”μ Acta Leonis, XI,
299-315.
86
Ibid., 41 § 4.

76
Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which reaches its apex in the liturgy of the Church. In

this way, man recapitulates all created reality in and through the Son by the power of the Holy

Spirit. Hence, Christ in His sacred humanity is recapitulated by man. Therefore, at the heart of

the theology of recapitulation are Christian discipleship and exercise of man’s true humanity.

Finally, the aforementioned Quayan model has also served well in demonstrating how

Mary, the Immaculate Conception, is a perfect sharer of both “life in and of Christέ” Whereas,

sinful man—if completely separated from God due to sin—lacks at that moment the “life of

Christ” within himέ Hence, while Mary, like her Son, was totally preserved from all effects of

original and actual sin, the rest of humanity was not. Yet, like Mary, man is innately good

because of his “life in Christ,” in whose image and likeness he has been created by the Triune

God. All that remains for man is his personal conversion and life of holiness in imitation of

Christ’s lifeέ But this is primarily a work of God by His grace operating in manέ In the words of

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, however, grace should not be cheapened: “Cheap grace is the grace we

bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance,

baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…έ Cheap grace is grace

without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnateέ”87

87
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost Of Discipleship (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 36.

77
 GENERAL CONCLUSION

It is not enough that man is essentially good because he has been made in the image and

likeness of God. Ultimately, man is a relational being made to be in communion with the other.

Genesis 2μ1κ is clear about this assertionμ “Then the LτRD God said, ‘It is not good that the man

should be aloneν I will make him a helper fit for himέ’”1 Therefore, God created woman for man

as his most fitting helper and companion in life. According to his nature, communion is

necessary for man’s proper human flourishing in his innate goodness. First and foremost, this

communal relationship constitutes being really and concretely in relationship with all visible

creation, especially with “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2μ23)έ This corporeal

dimension of communion is foundational for its more profound spiritual dimension.

Since man is both a body-soul unity, communion must also and essentially be a spiritual

realityέ However, original sin broke man’s communion with his helper and companion as well as

all visible creation. Not only had that happened but original sin broke communion with all

invisible reality, most especially with God. Hence, the total effect of sin is a break in communion

of both physical and spiritual realities. Consequently, chaos and rebellion spiraled out of control

and man became alienated from creation and God. For reason of alienation, the integrity of

man’s communion had to be restored and reconciled by God, against whom the original sin of

Adam and Eve caused an infinite chasm that only God Himself could bridge. Bridging this gap

between God and man, the Incarnation of Christ Jesus made possible what had been impossible

1
Emphasis added.

78
for man on his own. Both Paul and Irenaeus saw the Christological implications here and applied

them to a theology of recapitulation, as has been shown.

This theological language of recapitulation established by Paul and expanded by Irenaeus

has been shown in its complexity and multilayered meanings. Because of the total inclusivity of

this word, “recapitulation,” Irenaeus develops a theology that has universal implications of man’s

salvation and sanctification. In other words, the communion once lost is now forever restored,

renewed, reconciled, and reunited because of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. The

emphasis here is on the “present” time being recapitulated in Christέ However, in order to effect

Christ’s recapitulative power in man, man must freely respond by his “obedience of faith” (cfέ

Rom 1μην 1θμ2θ) to God’s grace. In his response, therefore, he must choose to live a grace-filled

Christian life in order to manifest and undergo a continuous process of recapitulative

transformation. Although man is already recreated in Christ by Baptism, the Christian is not yet

fully perfected, but rather restored to his original innocence. Therefore, he must continue to

imitate Christ, who “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man” (Lk

2:52), and thus be transformed by Him.

The meeting point of both Christology and anthropology, for Paul and Irenaeus, has been

shown to be foundational in their theology of recapitulation. As Christ recapitulates all of

creation and salvation history, so too in Christ by participation, man recapitulates the various

stages of his spiritual journey toward God the Father, the Origin and End of man. This

participation in Christ’s recapitulation is empowered by the Holy Spirit (i.e., grace). In

recapitulating, man must continue to be reconciled and restored to communion with God and

one another. Being reconciled, man lives in total freedom “from” sin and deathέ Here marks the

beginning process of transformation. Yet, this process of sanctification must endure persecutions

79
(cf. Mt 5:11-12) and trials (cf. Jas 1:2, 12; 1 Pt 1:6) in order to experience a total freedom “for”

God and His gloryέ In this way, man already elicits God’s glory by his authentic Christian living,

yet not entirely, because he is not yet perfected. This ongoing transformation of man makes him

more and more “the vision of God” and “for the glory of God,” until the consummation of time

when Christ will return and gather man and all creation as a single and final “spotless” offering

to His Father.

Unlike Paul, Irenaeus, as has been shown, makes use of a Marian consideration of

recapitulation. This further highlights the communal aspect in recapitulation that is necessary, for

man was created as a social being always in relation to another of his own kind. This reason has

been demonstrated by both Genesis accounts of creation, namely, Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:18.

Moreover, not only is this social aspect of recapitulation necessary due to the creation of man in

“the image and likeness” of God, but it is also true due to the de-creation of man in his

disfigurement after the Fall of Adam and Eve. Hence, the communal “σo” to God must be

recapitulated by a communal “Yes” to Him, in order to set all visible reality aright againέ Mary’s

fiat has been shown to be key here. Consequently, in communion with her beloved Son who is

the “σew Adam,” Mary becomes the “σew Eveέ” In becoming the “σew Eve,” she is thus

instrumental and necessary in salvation history according to the will of God. Because without her

“obedience of faith” to God’s salvific plan, there would be no “epiphany Christology”2 and all

2
Cf. Matera, 158-172. Here, the Christological reference is the Incarnation as the “first epiphany” of
Christ’s comingέ Mary’s fiat cooperated with the Holy Spirit in the salvific plan of God, without which the “first
epiphany” would not have taken placeέ Hence, salvation is contingent on her “Yes” to Godέ Stέ Bernard of Clairvaux
in his homily, “In Praise of the Virgin Mother,” beautifully summarizes Mary’s critical fiatμ “You have heard, τ
Virgin, that you will conceive and bear a son; you heard that it will not be by man but by the Holy Spirit. The angel
awaits an answer; it is time for him to return to God who sent him. We too are waiting, O Lady, for your word of
compassion; the sentence of condemnation weighs heavily upon us. The price of our salvation is offered to you. We
shall be set free at once if you consent. In the eternal Word of God we all came to be, and behold, we die. In your
brief response we are to be remade in order to be recalled to life…έ This is what the whole earth waits for, prostrate
at your feet. It is right in doing so, for on your word depends comfort for the wretched, ransom for the captive,
freedom for the condemned, indeed, salvation for all the sons of Adam, the whole of your race” [ibidέ, “Homily

80
that flows from it (Christian anthropology, cosmology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology,

etc.). It is this Marian dimension in Irenaeus’s theology of recapitulation that illustrates the

perfect imitation of her Son’s life as a Christian, to which all Christians are calledμ “You,

therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt ημ4κ)έ Having faithfully

fulfilled this command and exhortation of Christ to His disciples on the Sermon of the Mount,

the Virgin Mary is the model Christian for all other Christians to imitate on the road to perfection

in Christ. Mary, thus, anticipates that universal transformation of humanity that still will come

when Christ returns in glory at the end of time.

Therefore, the practical implications of Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation can be

derived from the example of Maryέ The image of Mary’s recapitulation of Eve that best

illustrates her perfect imitation of her Son is her life of virtue. Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

summarizes well her virtuous life without sinμ “Her ten principal virtues areμ deep humility,

lively faith, blind obedience, unceasing prayer, constant self-denial, surpassing purity, ardent

love, heroic patience, angelic kindness, and heavenly wisdomέ”3 The fundamental basis of

recapitulation is that its theological significance consists of a Christian life of heroic virtue. By

living an exemplary life of virtue like that of Mary, the Christian recapitulates the life of Christ

by his life in Christ. So that what man is by his nature, he exemplifies by his virtuous deeds and

thus grows in a Christian life of holiness and “divine” wisdomέ As Irenaeus observed,

recapitulation by a Christian culminates with the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross.4

By reason of man’s participation in the cross of Christ and its effect on him, Saint James

IV.8-9: Opera Omnia, Edit. Cisterc. 4 (1966), 53-54, in The Liturgy of the Hours, vol. 1 of Advent Season, trans.
International Committee on English in the Liturgy (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1975), 345].
3
Louis Marie de Montfort, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin or Preparation for the Reign of Jesus
Christ (Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1990), 51.
4
See quote from Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V.18.2 on pp. 39-40.

81
concludesμ “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the

testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you

may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (Jas 1μ2-4).5 This pericope captures well what

it means for a Christian to move beyond recapitulating Christ in the world to recapitulating the

Spirit of Christ:6 living in freedom “from” sin and death and in freedom “for” the glory of Godέ

This shift emphasizes a spiritual transformation from the corporeal to the incorporeal aspects of

recapitulation, thus, completing the process of redemption and holiness begun and effected by

the Incarnation and cross of Christ.

5
Emphasis added.
6
Cf. Quay, The Mystery, 334.

82
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAGISTERIAL SOURCES

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic
Conference—Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000.

Denzinger, Heinrich. Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith

and Morals. Forty-Third English edition. Edited by Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund
Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

John Paul IIέ “All Creation will be ‘Recapitulated’ in Christ (Wednesday Audience, February 14,
2ίί1)έ” L'Osservatore Romano, February 21, 2001. Accessed September 15, 2015.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-
ii_aud_20010214.html.

έ “Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical Letter (March 2η, 1λλη)έ” AAS κι (1λλη)μ 4ί1-522.
Accessed September 15, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html.

έ “Homily in Lourdes on the τccasion of the 1ηίth Anniversary of the Promulgation of

the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Augέ 1η, 2ίί4)έ” L'Osservatore Romano,
August 25, 2004. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/homilies/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20040815_lourdes.html.

έ “Redemptor Hominis, Encyclical Letter (March 4, 1λιλ)έ” AAS 71 (1979): 257-324.

Accessed September 15, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html.

έ “Redemptoris Mater, Encyclical Letter (March 2η, 1λκι)έ” AAS 79 (1987): 361-433.
Accessed September 15, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html.

Leo XIIIέ “Divinum illud munus, Encyclical Letter (May λ, 1κλι)έ” ASS 29 (1896/1897): 646-
653. Accessed November 18, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-
xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_09051897_divinum-illud-munus.pdf.

Paul VIέ “Credo of the People of God, Apostolic Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio (June 30,
1λθκ)έ” AAS θί (1λθκ)μ 433-446. Accessed September 28, 2015.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-
proprio_19680630_credo.html.

83
Pius IXέ “Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution (December κ, 1κη4)έ” DS 2κί3έ Revised and
edited by Kevin Knight for New Advent Online. Accessed September 15, 2015.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm.

Pius XIIέ “Munificentissimus Deus, Apostolic Constitution (σovember 1, 1ληί)έ” AAS 42

(1950): 753-773. Accessed September 10, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-
xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-
deus.pdf.

Second Vatican Councilέ “Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (σovember
1κ, 1λθη)έ” AAS ηκ (1λθθ)μ κ1ι-836. Accessed November 2, 2015.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.

έ “Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

(December ι, 1λθη)έ” AAS ηκ (1λθθ)μ 1ί2η-1120. Accessed September 15, 2015.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html.

έ “Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (σovember 21, 1λθ4)έ” AAS
57 (1965): 5-71. Accessed September 14, 2015.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.

έ “Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (December 4,

1λθ3)έ” AAS ηθ (1λθ4): 97-138. Accessed November 2, 2015.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html.

PRIMARY SOURCES

St. Francis. The Admonitions. In volume 1 of Francis of Assisi: Early Documents: The Saint.
Edited by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short. St.
Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University, 1999.

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. Second edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

The Liturgy of the Hours. Volumes 1-4. Translated by International Committee on English in the
Liturgy. New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1975.

Stέ Irenaeusέ “Adversus Haeresesέ” Books I-V: PG 7: 433-1224. Translated by Alexander

Roberts and William Rambaut and edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and
A. Cleveland Coxe. Volume 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo: Christian Literature
Publishing, 1885. Accessed September 20, 2015.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm.

έ “The Demonstration of Apostolic Preachingέ” SCh θ2μ 2ι-170. Translated with

84
 introduction and notes by Armitage Robinson. London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1920. Accessed September 15, 2015.
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0130-
0202,_Iraeneus,_Demonstration_Of_The_Apostolic_Preaching,_EN.pdf.

St. Leo the Great. “Sermon XXIέ” On the Feast of the Nativity 1.1: PL 54: 191A. Translated by
Charles Lett Feltoe and edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. In volume 12 of The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing,
1895. Revised and edited by Kevin Knight for New Advent Online. Accessed December
3, 2015. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360321.htm.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort. True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin or Preparation for the Reign of
Jesus Christ. Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1990.

Stέ John Chrysostomέ “Homilies on Ephesiansέ” Homily Iμ PG θ2μ λ-16. Translated by Gross
Alexander and edited by Philip Schaff. In volume 13 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. First series. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing, 1889. Revised and edited
by Kevin Knight for New Advent Online. Accessed September 28, 2015.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2301.htm.

The UBS Greek New Testament: Reader’s Edition with Textual Notes. Fourth revised edition.
Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Arminjon, Charles. The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life.
Translated by Susan Conroy and Peter McEnerny. Manchester: Sophia Institute Press,
2008.

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2000.

Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Volumes
1-3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Beattie, Tinaέ God’s Mother, Eve’s Advocateμ A Marian σarrative of Women’s Salvationέ σew
York: Continuum, 2002.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost Of Discipleship. New York: Macmillan, 1959.

Bratcher, Robert G., and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. In
the UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Cantinat, Jean. The Epistles of St. Paul Explained. New York: Alba House, 1967.

Cartwright, Sophieέ “The Image of God in Irenaeus, Marcellus, and Eustathiusέ” In Irenaeus:

85
 Life, Scripture, Legacy, edited by Paul Foster and Sara Parvis, 173-181. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2012.

Cerfaux, Lucien. The Christian in the Theology of St. Paul. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967.

Delhaye, Philippeέ “Pope John Paul on the Contemporary Importance of Stέ Irenaeus (taken from
the L'Osservatore Romano, λ February 1λκι)έ” Accessed September 19, 2015.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/irenaeus.htm.

Donovan, Mary Ann. One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1997.

Dunning, Benjamin H. Specters of Paul: Sexual Difference in Early Christians Thought.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

έ “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birthμ Creation, Sexual Difference, and Recapitulation in Irenaeus
of Lyonsέ” Journal of Religion 89, no. 1 (January 2009): 57-88.

Ellis, Peter F. Seven Pauline Letters. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982.

Fairbairn, Donaldέ “Patristic Soteriologyμ Three Trajectoriesέ” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 50, no. 2 (June 2007): 289-310.

Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul & His
Leters. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.

Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Guardini, Romano. The Lord. Introduction by Joseph Ratzinger. Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Publishing, 1996.

Haffner, Paul. Mystery of Creation. Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1995.

. They Mystery of Mary. Mundelein, IL : Hillenbrand Books, 2004.

Hahn, Scott, ed. Catholic Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 2009.

Hanson, Stig. The Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians.
Reprint. Lexington: The Keystone Printery, 1963.

Harrison, σonna Vernaέ “Eve, the Mother of God, and τther Womenέ” The Ecumenical Review
60, nos. 1-2 (January-April 2008): 71-81.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, and John J.
Wynne, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the
Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church. 15 vols. New
York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913.

Holness, Lynέ “Mary’s Womb as the ‘Space within τur Space for the Gestating Son of God,’”

86
 Religion & Theology 16, nos. 1-2 (2009): 19-34.

Hopkins, Gerard Manely. Poems and Prose. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1963.

Horrell, David G. An Introduction to the Study of Paul. In the T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical
Studies series. Second Edition. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

Jacobsen, Anders-Christianέ “The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeusέ”

Zeitschrift f̈r antikes Christentum 8, no. 2 (2004): 299-316.

Kariatlis, Philipέ “‘Dazzling Darkness’μ The Mystical or Theophanic Theology of St. Gregory of
σyssaέ” Phronema 27, no. 2 (2012): 99-123. Accessed September 10, 2015.
http://www.sagotc.edu.au/sites/default/files/files/kariatlis/PHRONEMA_20122_Kariatlis.
pdf.

Kereszty, Roch A. Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology. Revised. New York: Alba House,
2002.

Kurz, Joel Rέ “The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanityμ Irenaeus of Lyons'
Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharistέ” Worship 83, no. 2 (March 2009): 112-132.

Langford, Justinέ “Friendshipέ” Edited by Douglas Mangum et alέ Lexham Theological

Wordbook. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

Leahy, D. J. The Epistle to the Ephesians. In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Edited
by Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe. Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas
Nelson, 1953.

Lewis, Jack Pέ “The Woman’s Seed (Gen 3μ1η),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
34, no. 3 (Sep 1991): 299-319.

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Logos Bible Software, 2011.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Lincoln, Andrew L. Ephesians. In volume 42 of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books
Publisher, 1990.

MacDonald, Margaret Y. Colossians and Ephesians. Volume 17 of Sacra Pagina Series. Edited
by Daniel J. Harrington, S. J. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

MacEvilly, John. An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles. Volume
1. Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898.

Markschies, Christoph. Gnosis: An Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2003.

Marshall, Howardέ “Human Beingμ Made in the Image of Godέ” Stone-Campbell Journal 4
87
 (Spring, 2002): 47-67. American Theological Library Association Serials. Accessed
September 28, 2015. http://korycapps.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ih-marshall-image-of-
god.pdf.

Matera, Frank J. New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Montague, George T. The Living Thought of Saint Paul: An Introduction to Pauline Theology
through Intensive Study of Key Texts. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1966.

Most, William. The Thought of St. Paul: A Commentary on the Pauline Epistles. Front Royal,
VA: Christendom Press, 1994.

Müller, Gerhard Ludwig. Priesthood and Diaconate: The Recipient of the Sacrament of Holy
Orders from the Perspective of Creation Theology and Christology. Translated by
Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.

Murphy-τ’Connor, Jeromeέ Paul: A Critical Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Volume 41. In the Good
News studies. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995.

Nielsen, J. T. Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons: An Examination of the
Function of the Adam-Christ Typology in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, Against the
Background of the Gnosticism of His Time. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1968.

Newman, Barclay Moon and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Newman, John. The Dream of Gerontius. Staten Island: St. Pauls, 2001.

τ’Brien, Peter Tέ Colossians, Philemon. In volume 44 of Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by

David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker and Ralph P. Martin. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

τ’Collins, Geraldέ Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.

Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

έ “Love of Enemies and Recapitulationέ” Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 1 (2000): 12-31.

Parvis, Paulέ “Who Was Irenaeusς An Introduction to the Man and His Workέ” In Irenaeus: Life,
Scripture, Legacy, edited by Paul Foster and Sara Parvis, 13-24. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2012.

Penna, Romano. Paul the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike. Volume 1 of A Theological and
Exegetical Study. Translated by Thomas P. Wahl. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1996.

. Paul the Apostle: Wisdom and Folly of the Cross. Volume 2 of A Theological and
88
 Exegetical Study. Translated by Thomas P. Wahl. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1996.

Purves, James Gέ Mέ “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the Anthropology of Irenaeus of
Lyonsέ” The Evangelical Quarterly 68 (1996): 99-120. Accessed September 17, 2015.
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1996-2_purves.pdf.

Quay, Paul M. The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God. Volume 161 of American University
Studies. Series VII of Theology and Religion. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1997.

έ “The Theology of Recapitulationμ Understanding the Development of Individuals and

Culturesέ” The Dynamic Character of Christian Culture: Essays on Dawsonian Themes.
Edited by Peter J. Cataldo. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984.

Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. Fourth edition. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

Saint Paul’s Captivity Letters. The Navarre Bible. Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press;
Scepter Publishers, 2005.

Saint Paul’s Letters to the Romans & Galatians. The Navarre Bible. Dublin; New York: Four
Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005.

Shea, Mark P. Mary, Mother of the Son: Modern Myths and Ancient Truth. Volume 1. San
Diego: Catholic Answers, 2009.

. Mary, Mother of the Son: First Guardian of the Faith. Volume 2. San Diego: Catholic
Answers, 2009.

. Mary, Mother of the Son: Miracles, Devotion, and Motherhood. Volume 3. San Diego:
Catholic Answers, 2009.

έ “The Mother of the Sonμ The Case for Marian Devotionέ” Accessed September 2κ,
2015. http://www.mark-shea.com/mother.html.

Scheeben, M. J. Mariology. Translated by T. L. M. J. Geukers. Volumes 1–2. St. Louis: B.

Herder Book, 1947.

Sheed, Frank. Society and Sanity. Reprint edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013.

Slusser, Michaelέ “The Heart of Irenaeus’s Theologyέ” In Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy,
edited by Paul Foster and Sara Parvis, 133-139. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Steenberg, Mέ Cέ “The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St Irenaeus of Lyonsέ” Vigiliae

Christianae 58, no. 2 (2004): 117 –137.

έ “Tracing the Irenaean Legacyέ” In Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, edited by Paul
Foster and Sara Parvis, 199-211. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

89
Unger, Dominic. “The Absolute Primacy of Christ and Mary according to Pope Pius XII.”
Franciscan Studies 8 (1948): 417-420.

Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume 3. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1κκιέ

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies.
Translated by John Saward. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990.

. The Threefold Garland: The World Salvation in Mary’s Prayer. Translated by Erasmo
Leiva-Merikakis. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982.

90