The concept of a "heavenly man" or a "second god" has deep roots in early Christian and pre-Christian thought, and it surfaces in various sources, sometimes subtly, sometimes as a full-blown theological position. This notion, far from being a marginal or heretical belief, reveals a profound layer of ancient theological speculation, one that the early Christian heresiologists and apologists often wrestled with, and sometimes misrepresented. To understand the significance of this figure, one must engage with the ways it is referenced across early texts—whether in Marcionite exegesis, Apelles's doctrines, or the Jewish and Christian scriptures themselves.
The Marcionite Reading of 1 Corinthians and the Heavenly Man
A particularly striking example of this concept appears in the Marcionite interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Tertullian, in De Carne Christi, critiques what he perceives as Marcionite misreadings. However, the debate is not merely about interpretation but about the very identity of the heavenly man. The Marcionites read the text not as two Adams but rather as a distinction between "Ish" (the heavenly man) and "Adam" (the earthly one). Tertullian—or more likely Irenaeus, as the original source—argues against this view, emphasizing that Christ is called "Adam" to indicate His connection to the earthly realm and His participation in human nature. But what this criticism misses—or perhaps deliberately conceals—is that the Marcionites were not alone in proposing an elevated, spiritual counterpart to the earthly Adam.
For the Marcionites, Jesus was not the earthly Adam recapitulated but the heavenly Ish, a pre-existent divine figure. This interpretation allowed them to sidestep the messy materiality that orthodox theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian tried to impose. In this view, the heavenly man was not tainted by human generation, nor was he merely a transformed earthly being. Instead, he was the very image of the divine—an untainted and luminous counterpart, contrasting sharply with the flawed and material Adam formed from dust.
Apelles, the Fiery Angel, and the Dualistic Cosmos
Apelles, a follower of Marcion, offered a related but distinct cosmology. He argued that the world was crafted by a fiery angel, Israel’s God, who entrapped human souls in material bodies. This fiery angel was not the ultimate deity but a subordinate and flawed creator, responsible for the world's imperfections. Apelles's doctrine echoes the idea of a second god, distinct from the supreme, benevolent deity. Here, the “heavenly man” or second god takes on a redemptive role, an agent of the higher god who descends into the world to release souls from their material bonds.
This fiery angel motif has roots in Jewish apocalyptic and Samaritan thought. In Samaritan tradition, for example, Ishrael (a combination of ish meaning man and el meaning God) symbolizes a man struggling with God—hinting at a deeper, mystical meaning of man as a divine figure in tension with the creator. Apelles’s view reinterprets this tradition, aligning it with a dualistic cosmology where a higher, compassionate deity stands above the fiery angel who crafted the physical world. Apelles’s interpretation brings us back to a cosmological drama where the heavenly man, the true image, is distinct from and superior to the flawed earthly image created by lesser beings.
The Fiery Angel in the Early Gnostic Texts
The fiery angel motif extends into Gnostic literature, where we encounter similar figures associated with divine power and illumination. In texts like The Hypostasis of the Archons and The Apocryphon of John, fiery angels play pivotal roles. They act as intermediaries between the highest divine realm and the lower world, often embodying both creative and destructive powers. One particularly interesting figure is Yaldabaoth, the chief ruler in Gnostic cosmology, who is associated with fire and light. In some accounts, a fiery angel binds Yaldabaoth, highlighting the dual nature of these beings—capable of both enslaving and liberating.
These Gnostic texts emphasize a complex hierarchy of divine beings, with the "fiery ones" or "heavenly men" occupying an intermediary space. They are not the supreme deity but are higher than the archons and earthly beings, suggesting a layered cosmos where these luminous entities serve as both mediators and judges. Their presence signals a belief in a multi-dimensional reality where salvation comes not through a single, unified god but through a network of divine and semi-divine agents.
The Heavenly Man in Early Christian Exegesis
The tradition of the heavenly man also surfaces in early Christian exegesis. Clement of Alexandria, for example, identifies Christ as the image of God, the heavenly man who existed before Adam. This identification aligns with a Platonic interpretation of Genesis, where the ideal form (the heavenly man) precedes the material manifestation (the earthly Adam). In Clement’s thought, this pre-existent heavenly man is the true image according to which humanity was fashioned. The earthly Adam, created from dust, is merely a shadow of this original divine prototype.
Interestingly, Clement’s interpretation seems to echo not only Platonic thought but also Jewish mystical traditions where the heavenly man, or Adam Kadmon, preexists creation. This cosmic figure serves as the template for humanity, representing an untainted and eternal form of existence. Clement's identification of Christ with this heavenly man underscores his effort to connect Christian theology with Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish mysticism, portraying Christ as the ultimate mediator between the divine and the human.
The Jewish Roots of the Heavenly Man: Ish and Adam
In Jewish tradition, especially within Samaritan and mystical strands, the distinction between ish (man) and Adam is crucial. The ish represents the heavenly archetype, while Adam, the earthly manifestation, is often seen as a fallen or lesser version. This duality is reflected in various Midrashic and apocalyptic texts, where the creation of Adam is contrasted with the pre-existent light or image of the heavenly man.
The Marcionites, influenced by these traditions, viewed Jesus as the fulfillment of this heavenly archetype rather than the recapitulation of the earthly Adam. For them, Jesus was the Ish, the perfect, luminous man who existed before the foundations of the world. This interpretation bypasses the problematic association with the sinful, earthly Adam and instead roots Jesus in a more exalted, divine origin.
The Heavenly Man as a "Second God"
The tradition of a "second god" or divine intermediary is not exclusive to Gnosticism or Marcionism but also appears in mainstream Jewish and early Christian sources. Philo of Alexandria, for instance, speaks of the Logos as a "second god," a mediator between the transcendent and the created. Philo’s Logos bears a striking resemblance to the heavenly man concept, acting as the intermediary through which God engages with the material world.
In Christian texts, this intermediary role is assigned to Christ, who is portrayed as the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15). The Johannine tradition even goes further, identifying Christ as the Logos made flesh, the pre-existent Word who becomes the heavenly man incarnate. This theological move not only aligns with Jewish mystical thought but also positions Christianity within the broader Hellenistic framework of intermediary beings, bridging the gap between the transcendent divine and the material cosmos.
Conclusion: Recovering the Lost Tradition
The idea of the heavenly man as a second god reveals a sophisticated and multi-layered tradition within early Christianity and its Jewish roots. This figure, whether viewed as the Logos, the Ish, or the fiery angel, functions as a bridge between the human and the divine, emphasizing a cosmic hierarchy that is far richer than the simplistic binary of Creator and creation.
The heresiologists like Tertullian and Irenaeus attempted to suppress or reinterpret these ideas, framing them as heretical deviations. However, the consistency with which the heavenly man appears across Gnostic, Marcionite, and even orthodox sources suggests that this figure was not an aberration but a central part of early Christian thought—a legacy inherited from Jewish mysticism and Platonic philosophy alike.
By revisiting these sources and understanding the context in which they emerged, we gain a clearer picture of early Christian theology as a diverse and dynamic field. The heavenly man—whether as Ish, Adam Kadmon, or Christ—remains a testament to the richness of ancient religious speculation and the continued struggle to define humanity’s place in the cosmos.
