THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN
IRENAEUS OF LYONS
Stephen O. Presley
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD
at the
University of St Andrews
2012
Full metadata for this item is available in
Research@StAndrews:FullText
at:
http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3167
This item is protected by original copyright
5-* .05*35*756'/ 3*(*25.10 1+ ,*0*4.4 $!& .0
.3*0'*64 1+ /8104
45*2-*0 1" 23*4/*8
5@AH I@=HAH AH HJ;CAII=< AD F9GIA9B >JB>ABC=DI >EG I@= <=?G== E> 2@")"
9I I@=
6DAK=GHAIM E> 4I" 'D<G=LH
4=FI=C;=G %#$$
THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3
IN IRENAEUS OF LYONS
STEPHEN O. PRESLEY
ABSTRACT
This thesis explores the intertextual nature of Irenaeus’ reading of Genesis 1-3. In
this study, we assume a different mode of investigation than previous works on
Irenaeus’ use of scripture. Drawing from contemporary discussions on
intertextuality in Fishbane, Boyrin, Hays, and Young, we challenge a tradition of
investigation into Irenaeus’ exegesis that has marginalized the significance of
scriptural networking inherent to his hermeneutic. This perspective is evident in
the previous works on Irenaeus’ reading of Genesis in Orbe, Jacobsen,
Kannengiesser, Steenberg, and Holsinger-Friesen. This thesis, on the other hand,
brings together an appreciation for Irenaeus’ hermeneutic with respect to his
exegesis of Gen 1-3. We show that in every instance Irenaeus interprets Gen 1-3, not
in isolation, but in correlation with other texts by means of a variety of intertextual
reading strategies that shape his theological polemic.
In chapter one we investigate the nature of Irenaeus’ hermeneutical
orientation based upon studies of patristic exegesis and his own descriptions of the
exegetical task. We show that Irenaeus purposes to interconnect texts in his
refutation and exegesis and we formulate a methodology that appreciates his
reading of Gen 1-3 within this theological networking of texts. In chapters 2-6, we
provide a literary analysis of the echoes, allusions, and citations of Gen 1-3 in each
book of Adversus Haereses. In each case we isolate the allusions to Gen 1-3 and the
corresponding interrelated texts that form a hermeneutically symbiotic
relationship with Gen 1-3. We show how these textual relationships yield a more
comprehensive appreciation for the meaning and function of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus. In
chapter 7 we conclude with a summary and cumulative evaluation of the
intertextual relationships fashioned with Gen 1-3 and the reading strategies that
guide his intertextual use of Gen 1-3. In doing so, this thesis exposes the intricacies
of Irenaeus’ theological and intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 and the various ways
that Irenaeus harmonizes scripture.
STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be
published in any format, including electronic, without the author’s prior written
permission. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged
appropriately.
DECLARATION
This work has been submitted to the University of Saint Andrews in accordance
with the regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It is my own work, and
none of it has been previously submitted to the University of Saint Andrews or in
any other university for a degree.
ii
References to Adversus Haereses
Quotations of AH 1-5 are taken from Sources Chretiennes. Translations were made in
consultation with The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1, but language has been updated.
References to Scripture
References to the LXX were made in consultation with the Ralphs’ LXX and New
Testament references are taken from Novum Testamentum Gracece, Nestle-Aland, 26th
edition.
iii
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................. i
STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ........................................................................................................... ii
DECLARATION..................................................................................................................................... ii
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................ ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Intertextual Nature of Irenaeus’ Hermeneutics........................................................... 4
1.3 Intertextuality in Modern Biblical Studies and the Ancient World ................................ 14
1.4 Toward an Intertextual Appreciation for Genesis 1-3 in Irenaeus .................................. 19
1.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................19
1.4.2 Irenaean Studies on Genesis .....................................................................................................22
1.4.3 Antonio Orbe, Charles Kannengiesser and Anders-Christian Jacobsen ................................24
1.4.4 Matthew Steenberg and Thomas Holsinger-Friesen ...............................................................25
1.5 Methodology and Qualifications ....................................................................................... 30
1.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................30
1.5.2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................31
1.5.3 Categorical Qualifications.........................................................................................................33
1.5.4 Potential Limitations .................................................................................................................35
1.5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 2: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 1 OF
ADVERSUS HAERESES .........................................................................................................................37
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 37
2.2 AH 1.5.1-6: Valentinians on Creation (Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:21)............................. 39
2.3 AH 1.9.3: The Word and the Flesh (Gen 2:7)................................................................... 41
2.4 AH 1.14.6: Marcus and the Sixth Day (Gen 1:31) ........................................................... 42
2.5 AH 1.18.1-4: The Marcosians on Creation (Gen 1:2, Gen 1:3-27, Gen 1:26, Gen 2:10)
................................................................................................................................................... 43
2.6 AH 1.22.1: Creation and The Regula Veritatis (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7) ................................ 45
2.7 AH 1.24.1-2: Saturninus on Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19)............................ 46
2.8 AH 1.28.1: Asceticism in Tatian and the Encratites (Gen 1:27-8).................................. 47
2.9 AH 1.30.1-9: The Ophites on Creation (Gen 1:2, Gen 1:7-8, Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
2:16, Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1-7, Gen 3:20, Gen 3:23) ................................................................... 48
2.10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52
CHAPTER 3: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 BOOK 2 OF ADVERSUS
HAERESES.............................................................................................................................................55
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 55
3.2 AH 2.2.5: God’s Unmediated Creation (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:3) ............................................ 56
3.3 AH 2.26.1: Knowledge and Love (Gen 2:7)..................................................................... 57
iv
3.4 AH 2.28.1: Creation and Providence (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28)............................... 58
3.5 AH 2.30.7: Paul’s Rapture to Paradise (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:15)........................... 59
3.6 AH 2.30.9: Creation by the Word and Wisdom (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8) ............... 60
3.7 AH 2.34.3-4: Formation and Progression of Body and Soul (Gen 2:1, Gen 2:7) .......... 61
3.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER 4: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 3 OF
ADVERSUS HAERESES .........................................................................................................................66
4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 66
4.2 AH 3.3.3: The Narrative of Salvation (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7)............................................... 67
4.3 AH 3.11.5,8: Son of God and God the Father .................................................................. 68
4.3.1 AH 3.11.5: Creation and Blessing (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, Gen 2:6) ...........................69
4.3.2 AH 3.11.8: The Adamic Covenant (Gen 2:16-17)...................................................................69
4.4 AH 3.18.1,7: Creation and Incarnation ............................................................................. 70
4.4.1 AH 3.18.1: The Pre-existence of the Son (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) ..............................................71
4.4.2 AH 3.18.7: Salvation and the Obedience of Christ (Gen 2:5) ................................................72
4.5 AH 3.19.3-20.1: God’s Creative Work ............................................................................. 73
4.5.1 AH 3.19.3: Creation and Resurrection (Gen 2:7) ....................................................................74
4.5.2 AH 3.20.1: Human Disobedience and God’s Creative Work (Gen 3:1-8).............................75
4.6 AH 3.21.10: Adam, Christ, and Recapitulation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7).............. 77
4.7 AH 3.22.1-4: The Typology of Adam, Christ, Eve, and Mary ........................................ 80
4.7.1 AH 3.22.1: The Blessed Meekness of the Flesh (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7)....................................81
4.7.2 AH 3.22.2-3: Christ’s Body and Adam’s body (Gen 2:7).......................................................82
4.7.3 AH 3.22.4: From Adam and Christ to Eve and Mary (Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen 3:6)..........83
4.8 AH 3.23.1-8: The Salvation and the Formation from the Dust ....................................... 89
4.8.1 Introduction: Gen 1-3 in the Chiasm of AH 3.23.1-8..............................................................90
4.8.2 AH 3.23.1: (A) The Serpent’s Deception and the Hope of Salvation (Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5)..92
4.8.3 AH 3.23.2: (B) Adam Requires Salvation (Gen 1:26).............................................................93
4.8.4 AH 3.23.3: (C) God Curses Adam, Eve and the Serpent (Gen 3:14, Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17-19)
..............................................................................................................................................................93
4.8.5 AH 3.23.4: (D) Cain’s Insolence (Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:11) .........................................94
4.8.6 AH 3.23.5: (D′) Adam’s Humility (Gen 3:7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:21) ...................95
4.8.7 AH 3.23.6: (C′) God’s Compassion in Adam’s Expulsion (Gen 2:9, Gen 3:23-24) .............96
4.8.8 AH 3.23.7: (B′) The Protoevangelium Fulfilled in Christ (Gen 3:15) ...................................96
4.8.9 AH 3.23.8: (A′) The Continuation of the Serpent’s Actions (Gen 3:5)..................................99
4.8.10 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................100
4.9 AH 3.24.1-2: The Church, the Spirit, and the Knowledge of God................................ 101
4.9.1 AH 3.24.1: The Church, the Body and the Spirit (Gen 2:7)..................................................101
4.9.2 AH 3.24.2: Knowledge of the Creator (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 2:7)................................102
4.10 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 5: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 4 OF
ADVERSUS HAERESES ...................................................................................................................... 107
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 107
5.2 AH 4.pf.3-4: The Heretics and Gen 1-3 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:1-5)..................... 108
5.3 AH 4.6.2: The Son and the Father (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 2:7) ............................... 110
5.4 AH 4.10.1: The Son Inquiring after Adam (Gen 3:9) .................................................... 111
5.5 AH 4.11.1-2: The Prophets and Salvation History (Gen 1:28)...................................... 112
v
5.6 AH 4.14.1: Why God Created Humankind (Gen 2:7).................................................... 114
5.7 AH 4.16.1: The Sign of Sabbath Rest (Gen 2:2-3)......................................................... 116
5.8 AH 4.20.1-4a: Supremacy over All Things (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7).................................. 117
5.9 AH 4.32.1: Word of God and the Unity of Scripture (Gen 1:3) .................................... 122
5.10 AH 4.33.4: Ebionites and the Incarnation (Gen 1:26; Gen 2:7) .................................. 124
5.11 AH 4.34.4: Christ the Pruning hook (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:17-8)........................................ 126
5.12 AH 4.36.2-6: Christ’s Parables and Adam (Gen 2:7)................................................... 128
5.13 AH 4.37.4: Image, Likeness, and Freedom (Gen 1:26) ............................................... 130
5.14 AH 4.38.1-4: Perfection in the Image and Likeness of God........................................ 131
5.14.1 AH 4.38.1-2: Ascendancy Toward Perfection (Gen 2:7)....................................................132
5.14.2 AH 4.38.3: Growth, Perfection, and the Original Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 2:7)
............................................................................................................................................................134
5.14.3 AH 4.38.4: Resurrection and Glorification (Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5)........................................136
5.15 AH 4.39.2: God Makes, Humanity is Made (Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7)................................. 138
5.16 AH 4.40.3: The Eschatological Judgment (Gen 3:15) ................................................. 140
5.17 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 141
CHAPTER 6: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 5 OF
ADVERSUS HAERESES ...................................................................................................................... 145
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 145
6.2 AH 5.1.1-3: Valentinians, Ebionites, Adam and Christ (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:1-6,
Gen 3:24) ................................................................................................................................ 146
6.3 AH 5.2.1: Marcion and the Salvation of Another’s Property (Gen 1:26) ..................... 152
6.4 AH 5.3.2-3: The Power of God the Weakness of the Flesh (Gen 2:7).......................... 153
6.5 AH 5.5.1-2: The Flesh in the Hands of God (Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Gen 2:15, Gen 3:23) 156
6.6 AH 5.6.1: Perfection in the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) ......................... 157
6.7 AH 5.7.1-2: The Narrative of Resurrection (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19).................................. 160
6.8 AH 5.8.1: The Spirit and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26) ...................................... 162
6.9 AH 5.10.1: The Olive Tree and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26)............................ 163
6.10 AH 5.12.1-6: The Breath of Life and the Spirit (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) ......................... 164
6.11 AH 5.14.1-2: The Reconciling Flesh of Christ (Gen 2:7)............................................ 168
6.12 AH 5:15.2-16.2: Creation, Resurrection and the Healing of the Blind Man .............. 170
6.12.1 AH 5.15.2: The Work of God and the Formation of Humanity (Gen 2:7) ........................171
6.13.1 AH 5.15.3: Christ the Creator (Gen 2:7) ..............................................................................174
6.12.2 AH 5.15.4: The Consistency of Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:8-9)........................175
6.12.3 AH 5.16.1: Bodies Made of Earth (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19) ....................................176
6.12.4 AH 5.16.2: Christ, the Spirit, and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7) ..............177
6.13 AH 5.16.3: Christ’s Passion and Adam’s Disobedience (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6) ........... 180
6.14 AH 5.17.1-4: Restoration and Friendship at the Tree .................................................. 181
6.14.1 AH 5.17.1-2: Restoration and Friendship with God (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:8) .........................181
6.14.2 AH 5.17.3-4: Disobedience and Restoration at the Tree (Gen 3:6)....................................183
6.15 AH 5.19.1: The Dispensations of Adam and Christ (Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:8)................. 183
vi
6.16 AH 5.20.2: Flee to the Church and be Nourished by the Scriptures (Gen 2:8, Gen
2:16, Gen 2:17) ....................................................................................................................... 185
6.17 AH 5.21.1-3: The Temptation of Adam and Christ (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen
3:15) ........................................................................................................................................ 187
6.18 AH 5.23.1-2: The Day Adam Died (Gen 1:5, Gen 2:16-17, Gen 3:1-5) .................... 190
6.19 AH 5.26.2: Blasphemy Against the Creator (Gen 3:1-6)............................................. 195
6.20 AH 5.28.3-4: Irenaeus’ Chiliastic Vision (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:1-2, Gen 2:7) ................ 196
6.21 AH 5.30.4: The Destruction of the Antichrist (Gen 2:2-3).......................................... 199
6.22 AH 5.33.1-4: Resurrection and Restoration (Gen 1:27-28, Gen 1:30, Gen 2:2-3)..... 199
6.23 AH 5.34.2: The Restoration of Inheritance (Gen 3:6).................................................. 201
6.24 AH 5.36.3: The Resurrection of the Just and the Final Consummation (Gen 1:26, Gen
1:31-2:1, Gen 2:2-3, Gen 2:7)................................................................................................ 202
6.25 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 205
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 210
7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 210
7.2 Irenaeus on the Gnostic Reading of Gen 1-3.................................................................. 212
7.3 Irenaeus’ Intertextual Reading of Gen 1-3 ..................................................................... 213
7.3.1 Organizational and Structural Function .................................................................................214
7.3.2 Illustrative Identification or Application................................................................................216
7.3.3 Catchwords or Verbal Connections........................................................................................216
7.3.4 Prosopological Interpretation..................................................................................................218
7.3.5 Literal or “Plain Sense” Reading............................................................................................219
7.3.6 General Theological or Typological Relationships...............................................................220
7.3.7 Narratival or Canonical Arrangement ....................................................................................224
7.3.8 General-to-Particular ...............................................................................................................224
7.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 225
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 229
vii
“After Adam, there are no nameless objects, nor any unused words,”
Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin: the dialogical principle, x.
“And all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us
perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages
which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear,
shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances
there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God
who created all things.”
AH 2.28.3
“proofs in scriptures cannot be revealed except by the scriptures themselves.”
AH 3.12.9
viii
ABBREVIATIONS
ASE
AH
AHC
AThR
ARC
Aug
ACR
BP
Bib
BibInt
BJRL
BLE
CBQ
Com
ETL
Epid
EvQ
ERT
Greg
HTR
Irén
JSJ
JECS
JR
JAAR
JTI
JTS
MAR
MT
NTA
NRT
NovT
OCP
ORA
PL
ProEc
RevB
RHR
RUO
REA
RSPT
RSR
RThom
SacE
SVTQ
SJT
SecCent
SC
StuEv
Abhandlungen zur Socialethik
Adversus Haereses, or Against the Heresies
Annuarium historiae conciliorum
Anglican Theological Review
ARC: Journal of Faculty Religious Studies McGill University
Augustinianum
Australian Catholic Record
Biblia Patristica
Biblica
Biblical Interpretation
Biblical Journal of Religious Literature
Bulletin de Literature Ecclésiastique
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Communio
Ephemerides Theologicae Louanienses
Epideixis, or The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching
Evangelical Quarterly
Evangelical Review of Theology
Gregorianum
Harvard Theological Review
Irénikon
Journal for the Study of Judaism
Journal of Early Christian Studies
Journal of Religion
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Journal of Theological Interpretation
Journal of Theological Studies
Marianum
Modern Theology
Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
Nouvelle Revue Théologique
Novum Testamentum
Orientalia Christiana Periodica
Oxford University Research Archive
Philosophy and Literature
Pro ecclesia
Revue Bénédictine
Revue de l'histoire des religions
Revue de l’université d’Ottawa
Revue des Études Augustiniennes
Revus des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
Revue des Sciences Religieuses
Revue Thomiste
Sacris Erudiri
Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly
Scottish Journal of Theology
Second Century
Sources Chrétiennes
Studia Evangelica
ix
SMSR
StuM
StuPat
StuTh
TS
ThLBer
ThQ
VetCh
VT
VC
ZAC
Studia Materiali di Storia delle Religioni
Studia Moralia
Studia Patristica
Studia Theologica
Theological Studies
Theologische Literaturbericht
Theologische Quartalschrift
Vetera Christianorum
Vetus Testamentum
Vigiliae Christianae
Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In continuity with Irenaeus’ hermeneutical perspective, no portion of this project
was accomplished in isolation. The seedbed of this study was planted by Jeffrey
Bingham over a casual lunch conversation nearly six years ago. I am indebted to his
wisdom and guidance, not only for the idea of this project, but also his support
throughout the writing process. He inspired my appreciation for the Fathers and for
Irenaeus in particular. His work on Irenaeus and his responses to my analysis of
Irenaeus’ hermeneutic continually enhanced my understanding of the Bishop’s
thought. I am also grateful for my supervisor, Mark Elliott, who was willing to
oversee this project, and, with patience and careful reflection, endured countless
drafts and revisions. His breadth of knowledge is unmatched and his insights
continually served to strengthen my work. In addition, I also want to thank Nathan
MacDonald who acted as a second supervisor during the early stages of writing and
offered some very helpful direction. Likewise, during various seminars at St.
Andrews, the faculty of St. Mary’s College was gracious enough to engage Irenaeus’
reading of Gen 1-3 and provide some insightful feedback.
I also want to thank the many postgraduate students who were eager
dialogue partners throughout my time at St. Andrews, and continually served to
sharpen my thinking and argumentation. They include: Jake Andrews, Steve Bagby,
Patrick Egan, Shawn Bawulski, Anna Blanch, Sean Cook, John Edwards, Matt Farlow,
Jeremy Gabrielson, Drew Lewis, Mariam Kamel, Tobias Karlowicz, Will Kynes, R. J.
Matava, Jarred Mercer, Meg Ramey, Jason Sexton, David Sonju, Paul Stiles, Tim
Stone, Luke Tallon, Amber and Paul Warhurst, and Jim Watkins. I am also indebted
to St. Andrew’s Church and Rev. David Wilson, who supported my family during our
time in St. Andrews, and especially the youth group who helped to make us feel at
home in Scotland. I will not soon forget the wonderful memories we shared over the
years. I am also grateful to Aaron Morris, Jeff Webster, and Glenn Kreider who
supported me throughout the project, but especially in the final days as I was
finishing up the editing process in Dallas. Jeff’s careful editorial comments on the
final draft were especially helpful. The faculty and community of Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary also provided immense support during the final days
of revisions. I am also grateful for Cody Pancamo, who diligently proofread the final
draft closely and offered helpful comments.
xi
I also want to thank my family, who with immense patience and
understanding allowed me to hide away to research and write. My sister Whitney, in
particular, was kind enough to read though portions and offer her editorial
remarks. I am thankful for my parents, Mark and Anne Presley, and my in-laws,
Richard and Cathy Thompson. Each of them supported our family in so many ways. I
do regret that this project was interrupted by the death of my father, a long-time
college professor in geological sciences. I am greatly saddened that he will not have
the opportunity to see the finished product, but I remain thankful for his example,
because he inspired my love for research and teaching.
Most of all, I recognize that this work would have never seen the light of day
without the loving support of my wife Haley. Her patience knows no limits. Words
cannot express my gratitude for her and anything I accomplish is due principally to
her sacrifice and commitment. The timeline of this project also included the birth of
our two daughters, Isla and Emma, who are the light of my life. Though daddy was
constantly hiding away at his writing desk, they always welcomed me home with a
smile and a cuddle. In spite of all other circumstances, the joy they gave me always
kept me motivated.
Finally, even though I was surrounded by this wonderful community, any
errors are solely my own.
xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This work reevaluates the methods and means of Irenaeus’ hermeneutical
orientation with respect to his reading of Genesis 1-3. This study, however, assumes
a different mode of investigation than previous works on scriptural interpretation
in the Bishop of Lyon. The premise is that the reception of any particular passage of
scripture in Irenaeus necessarily includes the reception of theologically and
hermeneutically interrelated passages. Irenaeus receives and interprets texts in
relationship. This is not an assumption imposed upon Irenaeus, but rather clearly
reflected in his own descriptions of the exegetical task and applied exegesis. Indeed,
it is the lingering effects of the assumptions and methods intrinsic to Higher
Criticism that have been imposed upon Irenaeus’ use of scripture and have
disconnected the texture of his scriptural networks in order to extract isolated
sources and isolated meanings of isolated texts.1
Beginning with Gustaf Wingren, many scholars have criticized approaches to
Irenaeus’ theological framework that encourage fragmentation. Lamenting the
divisive tendencies of earlier generation source critics, Wingren writes, “one fact is
beyond dispute: none of the modern theologians who have broken up his [Irenaeus’]
theology into two or more sections comes anywhere near Irenaeus as a systematic
theologian.”2 Contrary to those who disparaged Irenaeus’ “primitive exegesis and
obscure ideas” and applied an “atomistic system of exegetics,” Wingren argues for a
more systematic structure to Irenaeus’ thought by means of closer attention to his
1
For a summary of historical and philosophical developments of Higher Criticism see: G. A. Klingbiel,
“Historical Criticism,” In Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, eds T. Desmond Alexander and
David Baker, 401-20 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003). See also: Richard E. Burnett,
“Historical Criticism,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, eds. Kevin Vanhoozer, et
al., 290-93 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005). Hans Frei summarizes the reductionistic effects
of the historical-critical method saying, “As the realistic narrative reading of the biblical stories
broke down, literal or verbal and historical meaning were severed and literal and figural
interpretation, hitherto naturally affiliated procedures, also came apart.” Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical
Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1980), 6-7. The early chapters of Genesis in particular (along with the Gospels) received the
most intense criticism. Ibid, 17.
2
Gustof Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus (Eugene, OR: Wipf
& Stock Publishers, 1947), 104. cf. Ibid., xi, 106-10. Antonio Orbe, Teología de San Ireneo: Comentario al
Libro V del «Adversus haereses» (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autroes Crisianos, 1985), 15. Hereafter Teología
V.1-3.
biblical theology.3 He credits Irenaeus with the unique ability to fuse the scriptures
and various authorities of the early church into a “harmonious whole.”4 However,
Wingren’s search for the fundamental unity of Irenaeus’ theological reflections
overlooks the unifying features of his exegetical practice itself. The same tendency
is perceivable in John Lawson’s work that also touted Irenaeus a biblical theologian
and aimed to clarify the “biblical character” of Irenaeus’ theology in a more
systematic manner. He remarks that even the most casual reader of Irenaeus cannot
fail to observe that “chapter after chapter is nothing other than a mosaic of Biblical
quotations.”5 However, he also generally disparaged Irenaeus’ exegesis as “most
commonly allegorical.”6 As a result, his sympathetic inquiry into the patterns of
Irenaeus’ thought continued to partition the harmonious nature of his scripture
interpretation.7 Nevertheless, the legacy of their appreciation for Irenaeus’ use of
scripture initiated a generation of interest in Irenaeus as exegete.
By the late 1960’s and following the work of Wingren and Lawson, Irenaean
scholars began reevaluating the performance of scripture in the Bishop of Lyon as a
different avenue into his thought.8 These exegetical works were less concerned with
the sources lurking behind Irenaeus’ writings, and focused more on appreciating
Irenaeus’ contribution to the history of biblical interpretation. The methodological
evaluation of Irenaeus’ exegesis sought to isolate his reading of particular segments
of scripture, branching into his reading of individual passages, chapters, or books of
scripture (especially the New Testament). While this trajectory gained momentum
in the 80’s and 90’s and has showed no signs of slowing down, the methods of
scholarly inquiry applied to Irenaeus’ exegetical output continue to isolate the
performance of individual scriptures or pericopes within the Bishop’s theological
contribution.
This present study, on the other hand, endeavors to move beyond the
scriptural separatism in methodological approaches to Irenaeus’ exegesis. We
3
Ibid., 104, xxi; Orbe, Teología V.1, 3-6, 14-16.
Ibid., xvi.
5
John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: Epworth Press, 1948), 23.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid., 55-86.
8
Although the study of Irenaeus use of scripture extends back to Werner’s contribution in the 19th
century, modern treatments of Irenaeus’ use of scripture began with Antonio Orbe’s consideration of
the parables and Peretto’s analysis of Romans 1-8. Orbe, Parabolas evangelicas in San Ireneo, 2 vols
(Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1972); Pretto, La Lettera ai Romani, cc. 1-8, nell’ “Adversus
Haereses” d’Ireneo (Bari: Istituto di Litteratura Cristiana Antica, 1971).
4
2
intend to do so not by abstracting an individual pericope of scripture apart from
connection to other texts, but by making the interrelations the very object of our
examination. For this reason our inquiry into Irenaeus’ intertextual reception of
Gen 1-3 begins with an assessment of his hermeneutics rather than an argument for
the importance of the creation texts in Irenaeus’ theological framework. To be sure,
his dependence on creation passages is indisputable. It is not unusual to see
Irenaeus characterized as a “theologian of creation.”9 However, no study of
Irenaeus’ theology of creation evaluates the Bishops’ reading of Gen 1-3 from the
angle of the tissue of passages he fashions with Gen 1-3. Matthew Steenberg even
recognizes that Irenaeus’ view of creation ultimately hinges upon his exegetical
methodology that has all too often received unwarranted ridicule in light of modern
developmental models of exegesis.10 In the words of Steenberg, “it is not what one
reads in scripture, but how one reads it, that forms the basis of Irenaeus’
methodology,” and “how” Irenaeus reads scripture is fundamentally guided by his
intentional harmonization of scriptural passages.11
As we will demonstrate in this study, for Irenaeus Gen 1-3 must be
interpreted within carefully constructed scriptural networks of interrelated texts.
From this general analysis of Irenaeus’ intertextual reception of Gen 1-3, we will
argue for a particular set of conceptual descriptions that classify the kind of
intertextual exegesis that guide his scriptural networking. These strategies include:
an organizational and structural function, illustrative identification or application,
catchwords or verbal connections, prosopological (or prosopographical)
interpretation, a literal or “plain sense” reading, general theological or typological
connections, narratival or canonical arrangements, and general-to-particular
argumentation. From our discussion of the intertextual performance of Gen 1-3 in
Irenaeus, we will see how he consistently applies these networking practices in
order to weave Gen 1-3 together with a wide assortment of texts within the general
flow of his theological reasoning. On the other hand, Irenaeus’ presentation of the
Gnostic reading of Gen 1-3 in AH 1 also bears some resemblance to his own
intertextual hermeneutical practice, even if the nature of the textual relationships
are theologically distinctive. Irenaeus’ description of the Gnostic intertextual use of
9
Matthew Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 4.
Ibid., 1.
11
Matthew Steenberg, Of God and Man (New York, T&T Clark, 2009), 23.
10
3
Gen 1-3 will be framed into four similar procedural methods including: catchwords,
gematria, prosopological interpretation, and a “plain sense” reading. Clearly the
Gnostic textual networking competes with Irenaeus’ intertextual exegesis and his
reception of these creation texts. Therefore, as we will argue, an appreciation for
the way Irenaeus reads scriptures in harmony will serve to establish a framework
for a much more comprehensive understanding of the performance of Gen 1-3 in his
polemical theology than any previous study.12
1.2 The Intertextual Nature of Irenaeus’ Hermeneutics
It is reasonably clear that throughout AH Irenaeus’ primary purpose is, contra the
heretics, to organize systematically the truth of God revealed in both Testaments.13
As a result, any discussion of scriptural exegesis in Irenaeus must come to terms
with this theological integration of the prophets and the apostles in his thought.
This intertextual orientation of Irenaeus’ hermeneutical perspective is evident
explicitly in the secondary evaluations of the Bishop’s exegesis and Irenaeus’ own
summaries of the exegetical task. It is also implicit in his polemical critique of the
Gnostic misappropriation of scripture.
Evaluations of the Irenaeus’ hermeneutics have long observed that
harmonization is central to his scriptural interpretation. In an important article
Denis Farkasfalvy recognizes the continuity between Irenaeus’ theology derived
from the scriptures and his theology of scripture.14 Irenaeus’ views on the
inspiration of scripture are firmly embedded within the broader framework of
revelation. This unifies the Testaments under the provision of one God from who
are “all miracles, all divine interventions and all revelations.”15 The unification of
revelation in the ontological nature of God turns Farkasfalvy’s eye towards
Irenaeus’ use of consonare, which he determines to function as a general “technical
12
Steenberg discusses Irenaeus’ hermeneutics under three “interpretive backdrops” termed:
“discernment of the motivation or reasons behind God’s creative act,” “the conception of creation ex
nihilo,” and “the chiliastic vision of the eschaton.” While these interpretive backdrops are certainly
represented in Irenaeus, fundamentally they all participate in Irenaeus’ hermeneutical bent toward
scriptural harmony. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 21.
13
Orbe, Teología V.1, 9.
14
Denis Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture in Irenaeus,” RevBén 68 (1968): 319-33.
15
Ibid., 321.
4
term” for the Bishop’s exegesis.16 Farkasfalvy’s keen insight is worth an extended
citation:
The history of revelation as understood by Irenaeus, obliges the Christian
exegete to move constantly between the two Testaments, clarifying and
illustrating the texts by each other. The method of harmonizing is, for
Irenaeus a method postulated by the very essence of the Bible as a record of
the history of salvation. Harmonization becomes a theological norm for
exegesis: an interpretation is proved to be correct if its agreement with
other texts can be proved. The word “consonare” used by Irenaeus
repeatedly in exegetical context, sounds almost as a technical term of his
exegesis. He considers it as the principal result of his explanations that the
Scriptures could be proved to be in perfect harmony among themselves:
“omnis Scriptura a Deo nobis data consonans (symphonôs) invenietur
(2.28.3).17
For Farkasfalvy the fundamental feature of Irenaeus’ exegesis is harmony
(consonans). Scriptural harmony is the “theological norm” and the “principal result”
of his exegesis. This harmony, according to Farkasfalvy, is inherent to the history of
revelation in scripture as the interconnected trajectory of salvation history under
the Trinitarian administration of the Father, Son, and Spirit.18 In this respect,
scriptural harmony is an extension of his doctrine of revelation evidenced in his
doctrine of God and the dispensational connections within the divine economy.
Farkasfalvy points us to the important passage in AH 2.28.3, where the
Bishop of Lyon breaks off his extended refutation to summarize some principles of
proper scriptural exegesis.19 Irenaeus’ summary confirms Farkasfalvy’s
observations:
And all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found
by us consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those
passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the
meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and
through the many diversified utterances there shall be heard one
16
Ibid., 328. See also, Bertrand de Margerie, Introduction à L’historie de L’ exégèse: 1. Les Pères grecs et
orientaux (Paris: Les Édition du Cerf, 1980), 69-70. The uses of consonare and its variants include: AH
1.10.2, AH 1.14.2, AH 2.2.3, AH 2.10.1, AH 2.15.2, AH 2.25.2, AH 2.28.3, AH 3.11.8, AH 3.12.11, AH 3.12.12,
AH 3.13.3, AH 4.14.2, AH 4.18.4, AH 4.38.3, AH 4.41.4, AH 5.35.1, AH 5.36.3. A family synonyms found
throughout Irenaeus’ corpus communicates the fundamental unity and coherence of the scriptures
including: textum, constans, congruum, coaptare, and disponit. Cf. Reynders, Lexique Comparé de Adversus
Haereses de Saint Irénée (Louvian: Peeters, 1963).
17
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 328. Farkasfalvy omits nobis from his citation of AH 2.28.3.
18
He points to AH 4.33.15. Lewis Ayres also raises awareness of a related aspect of this conversation,
the need for a robust theology of the soul that unifies scriptural interpretation with Christian
formation. See Lewis Ayres, “The soul and the reading of scripture: a note on Henri de Lubac,” SJT
61.2 (2008): 173-90.
19
Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading?: A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997),
53. Cf. AH 1.10.1, AH 1.22.1.
5
harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all
things.20
The qualitative descriptions of Irenaeus’ exegesis are unmistakable. The proper
hermeneutical orientation assumes all scripture is derived from God, who created
all things, and by logical extension will be found to be perfectly “consistent”
(consonans). Not only this, any obscure passages should be read in harmony
(consonabunt) with the more obvious passages in the scriptural witness.21 Far from
ignoring the diversity of scripture, he acknowledges the diversity of the scriptural
witness is precisely the issue at hand. But despite the array of problematic texts and
confounding passages, he believes that the scriptures may be harmonized
successfully so that they will project with a single voice “one harmonious melody”
(unam consonantem melodiam).
In other contexts Irenaeus emphasizes the exegesis of texts within the
economic trajectory of salvation history, which he terms the “harmony of
salvation” (consonantiam salutis).22 Rousseau references this as an allusion to the
parable of the Prodigal Son, where the son hears the “music” (συμφωνίας) and runs
to his father’s house. In the same context, he also points to the language of φωνή
where it applies to the Spirit in Rev 1:15.23 The harmony of the music is, for
Irenaeus, representative of the harmony of salvation as it unfolds within the divine
economy.24 The historical acts of God in scripture may be harmonized, as
Farkasfalvy notes, precisely because they originate from the God who creates all
things with harmony and order.25 In AH 4.20.7 he also describes the manifold ways
that God in Christ has directed salvation history, such as the various prophecies and
theophanies with a succession of rhetorical terms that illustrate the harmonious
20
AH 2.28.3. et omnis Scriptura a Deo nobis data consonans nobis inuenietur, et parabolae his quae manifeste
dicta sunt consonabunt, et manifeste dicta absoluent parabolas, et per dictionum multas uoces unam
consonantem melodiam in nobis sentiet, laudantem hymnis Deum qui fecit omnia.
21
He believes all scripture contains “parables and allegories” (parabolae et allegoriae). AH 1.3.3. See also
AH 2.10.1, AH 2.22.1, AH 3.11.8, AH 3.12.12, AH 3.13.3.
22
AH 4.14.2. Antonio Orbe, Teología de San Ireneo IV: Traducción y comentario del Libro IV del «Adversus
haereses» (Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1996), 191 n. 23. Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology
in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 53.
23
AH 4.14.2.
24
Irenaeus refers to the story of the Prodigal Son in AH 3.19.3 and AH 4.36.7. Cf. Philippe Bacq S.J., De
l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance selon S. Irénée: unite du livre IV de l’Adversus Haereses (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de Namur, 1978), 117-8.
25
AH 4.38.3.
6
nature of all salvific events that are fittingly and properly arranged in and through
Christ.26
While Behr has observed the theological construct of the divine economy as
the necessary prolegomena for Irenaeus’ theological framework, it also applies
more concretely to Irenaeus’ exegesis.27 We see the interconnection of Irenaeus’
theology and exegesis is also evident in the Epideixis, which offers a summary
account of the structure of Christian belief through the “inner connections of the
saving truths” embodied in the regula fidei in Epid 6.28 There is a clear
methodological concern for the interconnections of scriptures organized by the
theological contents of faith summarized in the regula, and, as Hefner observes, the
regula functions as a theological framework for Irenaeus. This is most evident in AH
2.27.1 where he argue that ambiguous expressions ought to be interpreted in
correspondence with the “body of truth” (veritatis corpus) in order to yield the
“similar adaptation of its members” (simili aptatione membrorum) and avoid any
“disturbance” (concussione) of its parts.29 Irenaeus’ perspective of the unity of divine
activity throughout both Testaments implies the faithful are “justified to use all
current methods (allegory, etymology, grammatical analysis, number symbolism,
etc.) in order to discover the mysteries of Christ hidden in the text.” In other words,
all concurrent methods of interpretation are subservient to the fundamental
perspective of the unity and harmony of the scriptures.30
In a more recent study, Farkasfalvy points to Irenaeus as the first of the postapostolic age to provide widespread and consistent parallels between the Old and
New Testaments, which he terms Irenaeus’ “canonical principle.”31 This “canonical
principle” reflects a new style of exegesis in Irenaeus that “thrived on the
juxtaposition of quotations from various independent texts, demanded verbally
26
Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 159. Behr, Asceticism,
55-6.
27
Behr, Asceticism, 34. James G. Bushur, “‘Joining the End to the Beginning’ Divine Providence and the
Interpretation of Scripture in the Teaching of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon,” unpublished dissertation
(University of Durham, 2009), 72 n. 102.
28
Thomas F Torrance, “Kerygmatic Proclamation of the Gospel: The Demonstration of Apostolic
Preaching.” in Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics, 56-74 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1995),
108; Stephen Presley, “The Rule of Faith and Irenaeus's Demonstration of the order and connection of
the scriptures,” ORA (2010): 48-66.
29
AH 2.27.1.
30
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 327.
31
Farkasfalvy, Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture (Washington
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 92, 114. See also Ivor Davidson, The Birth of the
Church: From Jesus to Constantine AD 30-312, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004).
7
accurate quotations, carefully caught inexact usage, confronted variant readings,
and accused opponents of slight but nefarious alteration of certain key terms.”32
Farkasfalvy also suggests the expansion of this exegetical concern for
harmonization is due to the technological development of the codex.33 Assembling
scripture into codices meant that “scriptural texts became randomly accessible: one
was able to page through a whole codex to check the exactness of a quotation, on
parallel texts, and on various small details in the wording much more quickly than
was possible when the text was on scrolls.”34 We know from Skeat’s analysis that
Irenaeus, at the very least, possessed a codex containing the four Gospels, otherwise
his discussion of their canonical arrangement in AH 3.11.8 would be unnecessary. No
doubt those who came after Irenaeus modified this “new exegetical approach” in
the formal scriptural commentaries that developed from the third century, but, as
Frances Young confirms, this “‘compounding’ of texts with other texts seems
characteristic of second-century Christian use of the Bible.”35
Like Farkasfalvy, Eric Osborn considers consonare or consonantia a rhetorical
term comprising both “logical coherence and aesthetic fitness.”36 He reminds us of
the long history of “fitness” (aptum, πρεπον) in rhetorical traditions and classical
culture. He points to the origins of the term in the original Pythagorean sense of
harmony, but suggests that in Irenaeus it evolves into a general theological
principle of coherence. This principle, for Osborn, navigates between the scriptures
and the regula fidei/veritatis, where the regula is fashioned from harmonizing
passages.37 Jacques Fantino also develops the notion of consonare, but complements
his study by pointing us to the related concept of “order” (ordo; ordinatio). He defines
this rhetorical concept as an “existing order in a set of realities” and shows it
frequently applied to the scriptures and the regula.38 Like consonare the term is
32
Ibid., 115.
Ibid., 114-5.
34
Ibid., 115. See also Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 49-66. Colin H. Roberts and
T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: Oxford University Press, 1983).
35
Young, Biblical Exegesis, 133. The relationship between the intertextual networking in Irenaeus and
the latter tradition is well beyond the scope of this study. However, given the influences of
intertextuality mentioned below, it is evident that this was characteristic of Christian exegesis in the
ancient world. Cf. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 119-39. Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy, 31-40.
36
Osborn, Irenaeus, 159. Presley, “The Rule of Faith,” 63
37
Ibid., 159.
38
Jacques Fantino, La theologie d'Irenee. Lecture des Ecritures en reponse a l'exegese gnostique: Une approche
trinitaire (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994) 22n31. cf. AH 1.8.1, Epid 6. Orbe also notes the importance of
ταχις. Cf. Orbe, Teologia IV, 516 n. 25.
33
8
ontologically oriented because it assumes “God made all things with measure and
order” (omnia enim mensura et ordine Deus facit).39 The ordo of scripture adds a
temporal or chronological aspect to the nature of scriptural harmony.40 Young also
highlights Irenaeus’ sense of sequence and argues that, while he has a concept of
linear history, he consistently locates “anticipations, repetitions, recapitulations,
reversals, ups and downs” within the unfolding of the scriptural narrative.41 To be
sure, Irenaeus consistently summarises the history of salvation with ordered
arrangements of echoes and allusions to the events recorded in scripture, but this
does not preclude the possibility of theological and hermeneutical links between
texts and events.
The studies on the history of interpretation have largely confirmed these
views.42 Margerie identifies five categories to Irenaeus’ exegesis including: 1) the
rule of truth, 2) tradition, 3) unity and harmony of the scriptures, 4) reading obscure
passages in light of clear ones, and 5) appreciation for the transcendence of the
divine author. Although, as Farkasfalvy suggests, these rules are more interrelated
than Margerie allows, his third rule orients Irenaeus’ applied exegesis.43 This rule
assumes any interpretation is validated by its correspondence and harmony with
the rest of scripture. Margerie also confirms Farkasfalvy’s study and observes
Irenaeus’ extensive use of the term consonare in the context of exegetical
discussions. Similarly, Henning Reventlow suggests Irenaeus’ most significant
contribution to the history of biblical interpretation is that “he laid the foundation
for the concept of harmony for understanding individual passages of Scripture.”44
While Norbert Brox and Osborn both affirm the categories of Margerie, they build
39
Cf. AH 4.4.2. Fantino, La Théologie, 23.
James Kugel and Rowan Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1986),
176.
41
Frances Young, The Art of Performance: Towards A Theology of Holy Scripture (London: Darton,
Longman and Todd, 1990), 79. Young rightly contrasts the modern conceptions of “biblical theology”
as a discipline with Irenaeus’ understanding of the continuity of the biblical events. However, her
contrast between Irenaeus’ concern for the “reality” of Christ over and against the historicity of
Christ does not fully appreciate his motivations in coordinating scriptural events within his
summaries of salvation history. Ibid., 78-80. See Epid. 11-30, AH 2.2.5, AH 3.3.3.
42
See the studies: Herra, Irénée de Lyon Exégète (Etude Historique: Paris, 1920). M. Jourjon, “Saint
Irénèe lit la Bible,” in Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, 153-70 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984). De Andia,
“Irénèe théologien de l’ unité,” NRT 109 (1987): 31-48. De Andia, “Modéles de l’ unité des testaments
Semon Irénée de Lyon. StuPat 21 (1989). Simonetti, “Per Typical as vera: Note sull’ esegesi di Ireneo,
VetChr 18 (1981): 357-82.
43
Margerie, introduction, 69.
44
Henning Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation: Vol 1: From the Old Testament to Origen
(Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 173. Originally published: Epochen der Bibelauslegung
Band 1: Vom Alten Testament bis Origenes (Müchen, Verlag C.H. Beck, 1990).
40
9
upon his work with more detailed examples and few additional categories.45 Grant
and Tracy simplify the categories of Irenaeus’ exegesis, highlighting only two
methods drawn from his critique of the Gnostic exegesis in AH 1.8.1-1.9.5. The
Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, disregard the order and the context of the passages
and interpret the clear and obvious by means of the dark and obscure.46
While many secondary studies recognize the importance of scriptural
harmony in Irenaeus, we find the same emphasis throughout Irenaeus’ own
descriptions of the exegetical task. In addition to AH 2.28.3 and AH 2.27.1 mentioned
above, in AH 3.12.9 Irenaeus reports that all Paul’s epistles are “consonant”
(consonant) with his declaration that there is one God who created all things (Acts
14:15-17). In rhetorical fashion he follows his commentary on Paul with a
description of his argumentation and method of exegesis saying, “proofs in the
Scriptures cannot be proven except from the Scriptures themselves” (ostensiones
quae sunt in Scripturis non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scripturis).47 In other words, the
interpretation of scripture necessitates scripture. Irenaeus has already informed the
reader that in AH 3 he will confront his opponents with proofs from the scriptures,
but here we see that these proofs are intentionally interrelated.48 These proofs from
the scriptures yield lengthy arguments that condense the manifold witness of the
scriptures. Therefore, Irenaeus’ intertextual argumentation frequently weaves texts
into a complex set of intertextual networks. The location of this statement at the
onset of Irenaeus’ opening exegetical arguments in AH 3 also points to the
importance of this textual networking for Irenaeus’ own theological argumentation
in AH 3-5.
In another instance he draws on Paul’s imagery of the body in Eph 4:16/Col
2:19 to argue the creation of all things by means of the Word as the “head” (caput)
that orders the rest of the body. Only when an interpreter grasps this theological
“head” will the remaining part of the body of scripture be properly fitted together.49
Those who confess the true Creator will find themselves reading scripture in
45
Norbert Brox, “Irenaeus and the Bible,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, vol 1, ed. Charles
Kannengiesser (Brill, Leiden, 2004): 483-506.
46
Robert Grant and David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), 49-50.
47
AH 3.12.9. For a discussion of an epideixis as a deductive proof by means of syllogism see Scott D.
Mangeillo, “Irenaeus Rhetor,” unpublished Dissertation (University of Notre Dame, 2008), 7-15. See
also R. Dean Anderson Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Leuven: Kok Pharos, 1996).
48
AH 3.pf.1.
49
AH 4.32.1.
10
continuity with the apostolic teachings and, as a result, every word of scripture will
appear “consistent” (constabit). So creation by means of the Word is a hermeneutical
key that unlocks the door to unity of salvation history and the continuity of
scripture. Elsewhere he speaks of the consonantia of the four Gospels, the unity and
harmony of the covenants, the harmony of Paul and Luke, and the harmony
between scripture and tradition.50 These references to the intertextual nature of the
exegetical task pervade his argument and encapsulate his exegetical perspective.
Irenaeus’ intertextual perspective also surfaces indirectly in the polemical
characterizations of his opponent’s exegesis. Fundamentally he argues the
Valentinians “disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures” (ordinem
quidem et textum Scripturarum supergredientes).51 This criticism implies that Irenaeus’
irritation with Gnostic use of scripture is not necessarily the meaning of texts—
although that is surely a consequence of their procedures—but the way the Gnostics
order and connect the scriptural material, especially with their own non-canonical
traditions.52 The allegorical interpretation in Valentinus, for example, blurs the line
between text and commentary, where interpretation takes the form of a “new
composition.”53 Valentinus’ reading of scripture (and Gen 1-3 in particular) purges
the texts of any concept of temporality and alters the metaphors and characters in
the opening drama in order to produce an original narrative.54 Valentinus’ interest
in an epistemological approach to salvation, according to J. Williams, determined a
variety of “exegetical changes,” or careful alterations to the texts of scripture, in
order to convey his theological perspective.55 Similarly, Behr describes how they
purpose to isolate truths from various sources and “redeploy them in new myths.”56
He recognizes that the Gnostic interpreters reject any attempt to understand Christ
“according the Scriptures.”57 While Michael Williams has challenged the categorical
50
AH 3.11.8, AH 3.12.12, AH 3.13.3, AH 4.32.1 .
AH 1.8.1. See also AH 1.9.4.
52
Kurt Rudolph, “Bibel und Gnosis zum Verständnis Jüdisch-Biblischer Texte in Der Gnostischen
Literatur, vornehmlich aus Nag Hammadi,” in Gnosis Und Spätantike Religionsgeschichte: Gesammelte
Aufsätze, 190-209 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 208-9.
53
David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1992), 129.
54
Ibid., 133.
55
Jacqueline Williams, Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth From Hag Hammadi (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988), 190.
56
Behr, The Way to Nicaea (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 21.
57
Ibid., 22-3.
51
11
descriptions and regularity of this type of “inverse exegesis,” even he acknowledges
the examples are widespread.58
As a result, Irenaeus frequently uses polemical imagery to disparage Gnostic
exegesis.59 In each instance he speaks of the Gnostic adaptation of the elements of
scripture with other Gnostic sources. In AH 1.3.6, for example, Irenaeus describes
how the Gnostics “strive to adapt the good words [of scripture] to their own wicked
inventions” (adaptare cupientes ea quae bene dicta sunt his quae male adinuenta sunt ab
ipsis).60 Then, in AH 1.8-9 Irenaeus uses series of images to illustrate the Gnostic
misappropriation of scripture. He compares their textual networking to braiding a
rope of sand or weaving a patchwork of fables.61 His most famous critique of Gnostic
exegesis is a well-known example of the mosaic of the king in AH 1.8.1 and the
Homeric cento in AH 1.9.4. Comparing scripture passages to tiles on a mosaic
representing a king, Irenaeus describes how the Gnostic exegetes “transfer”
(transfero) passages and rearrange them to form the image of a fox or dog.62 The only
fitting solution for Irenaeus is to return the tiles to their proper arrangement.
Similarly, he cites a collection of Homeric verses arranged in a cento extracted from
both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Just as this cento comprises an assortment of Homeric
verses arranged to tell a different story, the Gnostics remove names and sayings of
scripture and adapt them to their own narratives.63 The faithful interpreter will,
according to Irenaeus, recognize the verses but not the themes of the storyline.
Only when the verses are returned to their proper order will the reader observe the
true story.64 Likewise only when the scriptures are framed within their proper order
and connection and fitted to the “body of truth” (veritatis corpusculo) will the true
meaning avail itself.
58
Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism”: An argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 56, 77; Steenberg, Irenaeus, 27.
59
AH 1.pr.1, AH 1.3.6, AH 1.8.1 and AH 1.9.4. See also: D. Jeffrey Bingham, Irenaeus’ use of Matthew’s
Gospel in Adversus Haereses (Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 16-18. Behr, The Way to Nicaea, 20.
60
AH 1.3.6. For examples see: G. P. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus
Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
61
AH 1.8.1.
62
AH 1.8.1.
63
In his article “Homeric Cento in Irenaeus,” Robert Wilken corrects Daniélou who argued that
Valentinus composed this cento. Wilken shows it to be a distinctive literary devise in the classical
world, but concludes that Irenaeus probably does not like the cento, even though he uses it as an
illustration.
64
AH 1.9.4.
12
In another instance, Irenaeus compares the isolated Valentinian
interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 to an amateur wrestler who latches onto one part (unam
partem) of his opponent’s body with a single move.65 Through a combination of moves,
his opponent has no trouble pinning the unskilled wrestler to the ground. Not to be
outdone, the conquered wrestler foolishly continues to grasp the one part of his
opponent and ludicrously tries to claim victory. In the same way, the Valentinians
latch on to one verse (1 Cor 15:50) to support their dualistic thought and, neglecting
the actual force of terms, prefer to interpret it in isolation (ipsas, μονον) from the
rest of the Pauline corpus and salvation history.66 Given that texts are inherently
theologically interconnected, reasons Irenaeus, by neglecting the true
understanding of one passage (1 Cor 15:50) they misunderstand a multitude of
others.67 Throughout his work and through a variety of illustrations, the Bishop of
Lyon returns to this same basic critique of the Gnostic division, separation, and
isolation of scripture.68
Therefore, given Irenaeus’ supreme concern for the proper integration of
scriptural revelation, any inquiry into Irenaeus’ reading of scripture, if it is to be
sensitive to Irenaeus’ own hermeneutic, must account for the harmonious
interpretative relationship of scripture in his thought and argumentation.
Interestingly, Gerard Luttikhuizen makes the same observation from his evaluation
of Gnostic readings of Genesis. Citing the contribution of Grivel, he writes: “Reading
is an act of ‘intertextualization,’ because during the reading process, the reader’s
knowledge of other oral and written texts is constantly activated. If we want to
know how a given Gnostic text is understood by ancient or modern readers, we
should therefore try to find out what are the texts in the light of which it is read.”69
Like Luttikhuizen, we recognize that the appropriate way to understand Irenaeus’
reading of scripture is to identify the intertexts he reads alongside any given text
and determine how he utilizes a variety of intertextual interpretive strategies to
arrange these textual relationships. In this study we are concerned with precisely
this web of Irenaean textual relationships or, in the words of John Lawson, the
65
AH 5.13.2. cf. AH 5.14.4.
AH 5.13.2; Orbe, Teología V.1, 618-9.
67
AH 5.13.5.
68
AH 4.pf.4; AH 5.20.1-2.
69
Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 162. See also: C Grivel, “Thèses préparatoires sur les intertexts,” in
R. Lachmann, Dialogizität, Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und der schönen Künste, 237-48
(Munich: Fink, 1982).
66
13
“mosaic of Biblical quotations.”70 This study on Irenaeus’ intertextual networking,
however, was also influenced by the discussions of “intertextuality” in modern
Biblical scholarship that raised our awareness to the practice of intertextuality in
the ancient world.71
1.3 Intertextuality in Modern Biblical Studies and the Ancient World
Within contemporary Biblical Studies the expanding interest in “intertextuality”
has generated a variety of definitions and methodologies.72 Julia Kristeva, building
upon the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, first introduced the term in 1966, with the
description that “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the
absorption and transformation of another.”73 Poststructuralist theorists lauded her
literary studies and the term “intertextuality” was met with instant approval. But
since this initial coinage, the term intertextuality has assumed a variety of
definitions. Naturally poststructuralists tend to withhold concerns about authorial
intent and historical priority, which are essential to understanding hermeneutics in
the ancient world.74 Given this ambiguity, some biblical scholars have even
suggested dropping the use of the term altogether.75
But despite its detractors clearly “intertextuality is an inescapable aspect of
biblical studies.”76 The method of intertextual study, as Stefan Alkier defines it,
assumes the task of “investigating the relationships that a text can have with other
70
Lawson, The Biblical Theology, 23.
I am persuaded to use the language of “inter-scriptural” instead of “intertextual” because I feel
that it more appropriately describes Irenaeus’ hermeneutical perspective. But due to the prevalence
of “intertextual” and “intertextuality” we continue to use these terms. Nevertheless, the language
“interscriptural” highlights Irenaeus’ self-understanding as a Christian that principally motivates his
scriptural networking.
72
For a summary of these approaches see: Stephen Moyise, “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old
Testament in the New Testament,” in Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North
ed. Stephen Moyise JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 14-41; Michael R. Stead,
The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 19-27; Stefan Alkier, “Intertextuality
and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts,” in Reading the Bible Intertextuality, eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan
Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, 1-21 (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), and Alkier, “New
Testament Studies on the Basis of Categorical Semiotics,” eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and
Leroy A. Huizenga, 223-248 (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009).
73
Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1980), 66.
74
Kristieva now prefers the term “transposition” in order to communicate more clearly the
“passages of one signifying system into another.” Kristieva, Revolution in Poetic Language (Paris,
Éditions du seuil, 1974). See also: Julia Kristeva and T. Moi, The Kristeva Reader (Oxford: Blackwell,
1986), 59-60.
75
William Irwin, “Against Intertextuality,” PL 28 (2004): 227-42.
76
Alkier, “Intertextuality,” 7.
71
14
texts.”77 He discusses the methodological implications for biblical studies by
distinguishing between “Intratextuality,” “Intertextuality,” and “Extratextuality.”
“Intratextuality” explores an isolated text within the application of literary
criticism, “Intertextuality” examines the meanings emerging from related texts,
and “Extratextuality” isolates the effect of meaning located in references to
extratextual material.78 In this present study we are concerned with a particular
nature of intertextual investigation that Alkier terms a “reception-oriented
perspective,” which aims at investigating sets of historically verifiable texts.79 As we
have argued, however, the practice of textual harmonization is not purely a modern
development of literary criticism, but explicit in Irenaeus’ own summaries of the
exegetical task and applied exegesis.
Additionally, Irenaeus’ interest in textual relationships is representative of a
broader concern for textual harmony in the ancient world. The interest of textual
relationships in Biblical Studies has isolated elements of intertextuality in Jewish,
Christian, and Hellenistic studies. 80 Michael Fishbane’s landmark work, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel, employs the term “Inner-Biblical Exegesis” and
demonstrates how the Hebrew Bible is not merely the object of exegetical analysis,
but also an exegetical work in its own right.81 Fishbane’s point is that the Hebrew
Bible was not transmitted in pristine form, but “subject to redaction, elucidation,
reformation, and outright transformation.”82 The received texts (traditum) were
blended with other traditions (traditio) through the process of transmission to form
what we now have in the Jewish Scriptures. Fishbane’s work reveals the importance
of textual interdependence and interrelationships in Hebraic culture and exegesis.
77
Ibid., 3.
Ibid., 8-9. He further qualifies intertextuality investigation with three perspectives: “a productionoriented perspective, a reception-oriented perspective, and an experimental perspective.” Ibid, 9. In
a similar framework Steve Moyise identified “intertextuality” as an umbrella concept comprising at
least three approaches including: “Intertextual Echo,” “Dialogical Intertextuality” and “Postmodern
Intertextuality.” Moyise “Intertextuality” 17-8. See also: Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the
New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian interpretation of the
scriptures of Israel: investigations and proposals, Craig A. Evans, James A. Sanders (Continuum, 1997). T. K.
Beal, “Intertextuality,” in Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A. K. A. Adam (St Louis:
Chalice, 2000), 129. T.R. Hatina, “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is
there a Relationship?,” BibInt 7 (1999): 28-43.
79
Alkier, “Intertextuality,” 9-10.
80
Bingham, Irenaeus’ use of Matthew’s Gospel, 301-02. See also: Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation:
Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 63-69, 12228.
81
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985).
82
Ibid., 542-3.
78
15
Similarly, Daniel Boyarin provided another work on rabbinic midrash entitled the
Intertextual Hermeneutic and the Dialogical Nature of Midrash. Boyarin’s study examines
the inherent “intertextual” nature of rabbinic midrash, which “builds its discourse
out of textual fragments as a biblical mosaic.”83 Boyarin’s use of “intertextual”
assumes at least three aspects: the text is always made up of a mosaic of conscious
and unconscious citation of earlier discourse; texts may be dialogical in nature; and
there are “culture codes” which influence the construction of new texts in a given
culture. While Boyarin is not the first to use the language of “intertextuality” to
describe midrash, he is the first to use this theory to examine particular sets of
midrash.84
Similarly, Richard Hays advances the notion of intertextuality in New
Testament Studies with his work on Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.85 He
defines intertextuality as “the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a
later one” and describes how this has always been a practice inherent to cultural
traditions.86 Hays defines his intertextual approach as “reading the letters [of Paul]
as literary texts shaped by complex intertextual relations with Scripture.”87 Like
Fishbane and Boyarin, Hays describes how the concept of intertextuality is a
cultural practice where a text receives an older text to meet new contexts.88 Hays’
key term, the scriptural “echo,” is synonymous with “intertextuality” and often
conflated as “intertextual echo.”89
Finally, Frances Young in her work on patristic exegesis describes how the
concept of intertextuality characterizes the complexity of early Christian exegesis
83
Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press:
1990).
84
Other discussions of intertextuality and midrash include: S. Handelman, The SlAyres of Moses: The
Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982), J. Faur, Golden
Gloves with Silver Dots: Semiotics and Textuality in Rabbinic Tradition (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1986).
85
Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989);
John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1981).
86
Ibid., 14.
87
Ibid., xi.
88
Richard Hays, “Die Befreiung Israels im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Intertextuelle Narration als
kulturkritische Praxis,” in Die Bibel im Dialog der Schriften: Konzepte intertextueller Bibellektüre, 117-136
(Tübingen: A. Francke, 2005), 118.
89
Cf. Hays, Echoes, xi-xii. For conceptual and categorical connections between apostolic exegesis and
Jewish exegesis see R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999).
16
in the post-apostolic age.90 According to Young, “Discerning cross-references was
taken up with great enthusiasm in the second century.”91 From the second century
onwards both the Old Testament and the New Testament texts are received together
in a complex web of intertextual relationships that extends apostolic exegesis. She
locates the practice of intertextual readings in the classical and rhetorical education
saying, “The fact that education was premised on the imitation of classics meant
that intertextuality was an important feature of ancient literary culture. Allusions
and quotations laced the correspondence of the literary elite, as well as public
discourse.”92 The blending and assembling of texts was an essential part of classical
education and a key aspect of rhetorical discourse. The Fathers of the church, who
were schooled in this classical education, clearly emulated these practices. In an
earlier work, she also spoke of the philological technique of “cross-referencing” in
the Fathers and the fact that early Christian theological disputes were often located
in the disagreements over what constitutes an appropriate cross-reference.93 Clark
also supports Young’s conclusions. She remarks that “‘intertextual exegesis’ is one
of the most frequently employed modes of interpretation found in patristic
literature.”94
There is also little doubt that Irenaeus’ learned some methods of textual
correspondence from his Greek education and studies in the art of rhetoric.95 Robert
Grant argues that Irenaeus Christianizes at least three key rhetorical terms:
hypothesis, oikonomia, and anakephalaiosis that serve as “structural beams” in his
theological framework.96 According to Grant these rhetorical concepts reflect the
“method of correlation” Irenaeus used to relate the concepts and ideas of the
various authorities in the tradition. These terms, primarily Pauline in nature, are
derived from grammar and rhetoric and developed from their context within the
New Testament. Similarly, in another recent study on Irenaeus’ rhetorical
argumentation, Scott Moringiello argues for appreciation of Irenaeus as a rhetorical
theologian. He reads the structure of AH in light of the five moments of classical
90
Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1997).
91
Young, Biblical Exegesis, 133.
92
Ibid., 97.
93
Young, The Art of Performance, 125.
94
Clark, Reading, 122.
95
Grant, Irenaeus, 46-53.
96
Ibid., 53. W. R. Schoedel, “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus,” VC 12
(1959): 22-32.
17
forensic speech including: prooemium, narratio (AH 1-2), probatio (AH 3), refutatio (AH
4), and recapitulatio (AH 5).97 Although others have shown Irenaeus to be dependent
upon rhetorical traditions, Moringiello shows more comprehensively that the
arrangement of Irenaeus’ refutation follows the classical rhetorical structure.
As the Bishop of Lyon in the latter part of the second century, Irenaeus
stands solidly amid this confluence of intertextual pressures.98 It is almost certain
that he spent time with Justin in Rome, whose Hellenistic training is widely
recognized.99 He wrote in Greek and came to Lyon by way of Asia Minor, where he
had known Polycarp.100 While his entire work is set against the philosophical
speculation of the Gnostics, he also mentions interactions with Jews, and notes a
number of Hellenistic writers.101 Behr, citing the work of Fishbane, Hays and Young,
among others, notes the “interconnected relationships” between Moses, Christ, the
scriptures and the Gospel implicit in the New Testament writings themselves. From
this evaluation he concludes: “This coherence of Scripture, the scriptural texture of
the apostolic preaching of the Gospel in his interpretative engagement with
Scripture, is the basis for Irenaeus’ appeal to canon and tradition, and the full use of
the apostolic writings as themselves Scriptures, in his work Against the Heresies.”102
Irenaeus is, of course, above all a churchman and concerned with reading
the scriptures in continuity with the apostolic teaching. As we have shown, his
broader doctrine of revelation, which is often expressed in the framework of the
regula, controls his textual networking. Irenaeus believed in the Spirit’s role in
interpretation, but he was much more concerned with the apostolic testimony in
the process of interpretation. Yet despite these streams of intertextual discussions
and Irenaeus exegetical orientation, no study has accentuated Irenaeus’ intertextual
networking in consideration of his applied exegesis, and sought to explain in
97
Moringiello, Irenaeus Rhetor, 7-15.
Although the precise dates of his life remain disputed, most scholars agree he was born roughly
between 130-40 C.E. and died around 201-02 C.E. Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyon (Cambridge: University
Press, 2001), 2. Grant, Irenaeus, 2.
99
M. Slusser, “How much did Irenaeus learn from Justin?,” StuPat, eds. F. Young, et al (Peeters:
Leuven, 2006).
100
Eusebius, EH V.5.8.
101
Numerous studies have evaluated the general Gnostic and Jewish influences upon his creation
theology, as well as his indebtedness to Justin and Theophilus. See Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 1120.
102
Behr, The Way to Nicaea, 26, 30. Behr also remarked a few lines earlier: “the coherence of Scripture
–the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets- in the apostolic preaching of Christ is shown most clearly
in… The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.” Ibid., 29.
98
18
analytical terms the nature of his intertextual interpretation of scripture. As we will
show in the next section, the history of Irenaean scholarship has neglected the
importance intertextuality in their analysis of his reading of scripture.
1.4 Toward an Intertextual Appreciation for Genesis 1-3 in Irenaeus
1.4.1 Introduction
While references to Irenaeus are scattered throughout the Christian tradition, the
strongly critical appraisals of Irenaeus surfaced in the nineteenth century.103
Scholars frequently characterized his thought as confused and incoherent.104
Johannes Quasten sums up this thinking by stating that Irenaeus’ work “suffers
from any clear arrangement or unity of thought.”105 This perspective was challenged
by the biblical theology movement in the mid-twentieth century that sought to
move the discussion from the realm of socio-cultural influences to the analysis of
Irenaeus’ use of the biblical text itself.106 By the late 1960’s, following this move
toward the biblical text there is a noticeable trend in the positive appraisal of
Irenaeus’ exegesis, beginning with Peretto’s analysis of Irenaeus’ reading of Rom 1-8
and Orbe’s work on Irenaeus’ reading of the Gospel parables.107 Twenty-five years
later Orbe was still advancing the thesis that a closer evaluation of the Irenaeus’
exegesis is an important avenue into the Bishop’s thought.108 The interest in
Irenaeus’ reading of particular portions of scripture has continued through the
present day, branching into a myriad of studies on Irenaeus’ reading of individual
books and passages.109
103
For a summary that is now dated but still helpful see: Mary Ann Donovan, “Irenaeus in Recent
Scholarship,” SecCen 4.4 (1984). For a brief discussion of the reception of Irenaeus in the tradition
prior to the eighteenth century see Steenberg, Of God and Man, 18-9.
104
Orbe, Teología V.1, 5. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 3-4.
105
Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1983), 289. See also Donovan,
“Irenaeus,” 222. Some of these studies include: Bousset, Jüdisch-christlicher Schuldetrieb in Alexandria
und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin, und Irenäus (Göttingen,
1915) and Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen
Quellen bei Irenaeus (Lepzig, 1930).
106
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 104.
107
Elio Pretto, “Il pensiero di S. Ireneo su Rom 1:20,” RBibIt 8 (1960): 304-23. Pretto, La Lettera ai
Romani. Orbe, Parabolas.
108
Orbe, Teología V.1, 15-16.
109
For more general studies on the performance of scripture in Irenaeus see: J Hoh, Die Lehre des hl.
Ireäus über das Neue Testament (Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919).
H. von Campenhausen, “Irenäus und das Neue Testament,” TLZ 90 (1965): 1-8.
19
The discussion of Pauline elements in Irenaeus’ thought is a well-worn path.
Older studies that question the integrity of Irenaeus’ use of Paul include Werner
(1889) and Aleith (1937).110 Recent studies paint a more positive portrait of Irenaeus’
use of Pauline literature, including Bentivegna (1968), Coolidge (1975), McHugh
(1982), Norris (1990), Balás (1992), Olsen (1992), Ruiz (1992) and Tosaus Abadía
(1995), Bingham (2005, 2012), Graham (2005), and Blackwell (2011).111 The definitive
study is the work of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret, who with a
comprehensive precision isolates and evaluates the nature of Irenaeus’ allusions
and citations of Paul in AH 1-5. Noormann is more sympathetic to the nuances of
Irenaeus’ argumentation and his use of the Pauline material. He provides a strong
critique of Werner and concludes that Irenaeus is a rather faithful interpreter of
Paul.112
Studies on Irenaeus’ use of the synoptic Gospels have also been a significant
point of focus, especially given that Irenaeus is the first to mention the four-fold
Gospel canon.113 As mentioned above, Orbe and Bacq produced several studies on
the Gospel parables and Jesus sayings, while studies on particular Matthean and
Lukan texts include: Houssiau (1953), Luckhart (1953), Siniscalco (1967), Czesz
110
Johannes Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus (Leipzig, 1889). Eva Aleith, “Paulusverständnis in der
alten Kirche,” ZNT (1937): 70-81.
111
J. Bentivegna, “Pauline Elements in the Anthropology of St. Irenaeus,” StuEvan 5 (1968): 229-33; J. S.
Coolidge, The Pauline basis of the concept of Scriptural form in Irenaeus, The Center for
Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Berkeley, California, Protocol of the eighth
colloquy, 4 November 1973 (Berkeley, CA: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975); J. McHugh,
“A Reconsideration of Ephesians 1,10b in Light of Irenaeus,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of
C.K. Barrett, ed. M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson, 302-9 (London: S. P. C. K., 1982); R. A. Norris, “Irenaeus’
use of Paul in his polemic against the Gnostics,” in Paul and the legacies of Paul, ed. W.S. Babcok, 79-98
(Dallas: SMU Press, 1990); David L. Balas, “The Use and Interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus’ Five Books
Adversus Haereses,” SecCen, 9 (1992); M. J. Olsen, Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics and the Kingdom of
God (A.H. Book V): The Debate About 1 Corinthians 15:50 (New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992); G. Ruiz,
“‘Ma puissance se déploie dans la faiblesse’ (2 Cor 12:9): An Interprétation d’Irénée de Lyon,” in
Recherches et tradition: Mélanges patristiques offerts à Henri Crouzel, S. J. sous la direction d’A. Dupleix, 259-69
(Paris: Neauchesne, 1992); J. P. Tosaus Abadía, Cristo y el universo: Estudio linguístico y themático de Ef
1:10h en Efesios y en la obra de Ireneo de Lyon, (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1995); D. J. Bingham,
“Irenaeus reads Romans 8: Ressurection and Renovation,” in Early Patristic Readings of Romans, eds
Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn, 114-32 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005); Susan L. Graham, “Irenaeus as
Reader of Romans 9-11,” in Early Patristic Readings of Romans, eds Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn, 87113 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005); Benjamin Blackwell, “Paul and Irenaeus,” in Paul and the Second
Century: The Legacy of Paul’s life, Letters, and Teaching, ed. Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson, 190-206
(London: T&T Clark, 2011); Bingham, “Irenaeus and Hebrews,” in Christology and Hermeneutics of
Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation, eds by Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier (New York:
Continuum, forthcoming).
112
Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulsinterpret (J. C. B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1994), 1.
113
There are also a number of studies on the four-fold gospel canon including: T. C. Skeat, “Irenaeus
and the Four-Gospel canon,” NovT 34 (1992): 194-99; R. Robert, “Le témoignage d’Irénée sur la
formation des évangiles,” RThom 87.2 (1987): 243-59.
20
(1977), Andia (1984) Bellinzoni (1992, 1998), and Stanton (2003) with many
additional studies on the significance of particular events in the life of Christ.114 The
most comprehensive is D. J. Bingham’s (1998) publication Irenaeus’ use of Matthew’s
Gospel in Adversus Haereses. Bingham’s volume is a careful reading of Irenaeus’ use of
Matthew, and though intertextuality is not an explicit aspect of his method, he
recognizes the importance of textual harmony for Irenaeus’ hermeneutic.
In addition to the synoptic Gospels, there has been discussion over the
influence of Johannine thought upon Irenaeus including: Ferlay (1984) and Poffet
(1990), and more recently Hill (2004).115 Most recently B. Mutschler published Irenäus
als johanneischer Theologe, which was followed two years later by a second
monograph entitled Das Corpus Johnneum bei Irenäus von Lyon.116 The later volume is a
systematic treatment of the use of John’s Gospel in the third Book of AH, while the
earlier work is a synthesis of the Johannine influence upon Irenaeus. By his own
admission he follows the methodology of Noormann, and, in doing so, Mutschler
concludes that Irenaeus is the primary Johannine theologian until Origen.117
However, this tradition of scholarship, despite recovering an appreciation
for Irenaeus as exegete, methodologically abstracted individual texts and pericopes
from the structure of Irenaeus argumentation and systematically disconnects the
textual networks Irenaeus intentionally fashioned. They have, consciously or
unconsciously, disregarded Irenaeus’ own hermeneutical perspective and the
intertextual nature of his applied exegesis. Within these studies, any discussion of
the interrelation of texts is purely coincidental because focusing upon these
relationships is not essential to their methodology. For example, more than one
114
A. Houssiau, “L’exégèse de Mt 11:27b selon S. Irénée,” ETL 29 (1953): 328-54; R. Luckhart, “Matthew
11,27 in the ‘Contra Haereses’ of Saint Irenaeus,” RUO 23 (1953): 65-79; M. Siniscalco, “La parabola del
figlio prodigo (Lc 15:11-32) in Ireneo,” SMSR 38.2 (1967): 5326-53; B. Czesz, “La parabola del figlio
prodigo (Lc 15, 11-32) in Ireneo,” AugR 17 (1977): 107-11; Y. de Andia, “L’interprétation irénéenne de
la beatitude des doux: ‘Bienheureux les doux, ils recevront la terre en héritage’ (Mt 5:5),” StuPat 18.3
(1989): 85-102, originally published “La beatitudine dei miti (Mt. V,5) nell’interpretazione di S.
Ireneo,” RSLR 20 (1984): 275-86; Bellinzoni, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century,” SecCen
9.4 (1992): 197-269; Bellinzoni, “The Gospel of Luke in the Second Century,” in Literary Studies in LukeActs, ed. R. E. Thompson and T. E. Phillips, 59-76 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998); G.
Stanton, “Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J. M.
Auwers and J. H. de Jonge, 92-109 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003).
115
P. Ferlay, “Irénée de Lyon exegete du quatrième évangile,” NRT 106.2 (1984): 222-34; J. M. Poffet,
“Indices de reception de l’évangile de Jean au IIe siècle, avant Irénée,” in Communauté johannique et son
histoire, 305-26 (Genova: Labor et Fides, 1990); Charles Hill, “Irenaeus of Lyon,” in The Johannine Corpus
and the Early Church, 95-118 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
116
Bernhard Mutschler, Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Bernhard
Mutschler, Das Corpus Johnneum bei Irenäus von Lyon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
117
Mutschler, Irenäus, 84.
21
scholar has noted frustration with Noormann’s isolation of Irenaeus’ use of Paul
apart from his use of other scriptural material, which is essential to his polemical
arguments (cf. AH 5.13.2).118 Reed compares Noormann to Bingham’s analysis that
frequently mentions texts read in continuity with Matthew, and observes in his
conclusion that Irenaeus reads Matthew “inter-textually.”119 Given this trajectory of
research, there is an obvious separation between the intertextual nature of the
Bishop’s exegesis, and the methodological approaches to studies of Irenaeus use of
scripture. Although Irenaeus’ reading of Genesis has been the subject of recent
debate, these works perpetuate the same tendencies.
1.4.2 Irenaean Studies on Genesis
While the literature evaluating some portion of the New Testament in Irenaeus is
extensive, appreciation for the Old Testament remains scant. With the exception of
Genesis, Irenaeus’ reading of any Old Testament passage or book is reserved to a few
studies on the Psalms or Isaiah.120 Clearly Genesis has received the most attention
and other than a few studies on key theological issues or persons such as Abraham
and Isaac, most studies on Genesis are reserved to the opening chapters.121 Many of
the Pauline studies mentioned previously occasionally explain the function of Gen
1-3, but most of the evaluations of Gen 1-3 are found in the theological studies, such
as works on Irenaeus’ anthropology. J. T. Nielsen (1968) was the first to offer critical
evaluation of the Adam-Christ typology in Irenaeus.122 Orbe (1969) also published his
work on the Bishop’s anthropology, which contains discussions of the key Genesis
118
Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Review of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret,” unpublished
conference presentation, Presented at the North American Patristics Society, Annual Meeting Book
Session: Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship, May 29, 2004. Pheme Perkins, Review of Rolf Noormann,
Irenäus als Paulusinterpret, CBQ 58 (1996): 762-764.
119
Bingham, Irenaeus’, 304. See also: Bingham, “Irenaeus reads Romans 8,” 128-29.
120
J. A. Aldama, “La naissance du Seigneur dans l’exégèse patristrique du Ps 21:10s (=22:10a),” RSR 51
(1963): 5-29; H.-J. Vogt, “Die Geltung des AT bei Irenäus von Lyon,” ThQ 60 (1980): 17-28; C. Basevi, “La
generazoine eternal di Cristo nei Ps 2 e 109 secondo S. Giustino e S. Ireneo,” Aug 22.1-2 (1982): 135-47.
Lawson provides a general analysis of Irenaeus’ reading of Isaiah and select Psalms. Lawson, Biblical
Theology, 55-66.
121
D. E. Lanne, “La ‘xeniteia’ d’Abraham dans l’oeuvre d’Irénée,” Irén 47 (1974): 163-87; R. Tremblay,
“La signification d’ Abraham dans l’oeuvre d’Irénée de Lyon,” Aug 18 (1978): 434-57; J. Roldanus,
“L’héritage d’Abraham d’après Irénée,” in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal
Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijin, ed. T. Baarda, 212-24 (Kampen: Kok, 1998); B. D. Chilton, “Irenaeus
on Isaac,” in StuPat 17.2 ed. E.A. Livingstone 643-47 (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982).
122
J. T. Nielson, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyon (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968). See also:
J. A. Aldama, “Adam, typus futuri,” SE 13 (1962): 266-80.
22
passages.123 After these publications, more recent studies assessed various aspects of
the Bishop’s theological systems and, in doing so, comment on relevant Genesis
passages including: Brown (1975), Donovan (1988), Constantelos (1989), Fantino
(1986, 1992, 1998), Sesboüe (2000), Behr (2001), Weinandy (2003) and Steenberg
(2004).124 But these studies are theologically oriented, and they methodologically
systematize Irenaeus’ arguments rather than examine the scriptural basis for his
argument or the contribution of Genesis. For example, Nielsen’s critical evaluation
of the Adam-Christ typology only references Irenaeus’ use of Genesis in a few
instances, even though echoes and allusions pervade nearly all of his citations of
Irenaeus.125 They also rarely evaluate the performance (or interrelationship) of
scripture in Irenaeus’ argumentation. As a result, the assessment of Irenaeus’
interpretation of Genesis is a recent development. The importance of Genesis went
undetected in earlier works. Lawson, for example, provides a whole chapter of
Irenaeus’ exegesis and only explores Irenaeus’ reading of Isaiah, a few select Psalms,
and Romans.126 According to Lawson, Irenaeus is chiefly concerned with Old
Testament prophecy and Paul; there is no substantial reference to the function of
Genesis. This view, however, has come full-circle in recent years with HolsingerFriesen arguing that, for Irenaeus, Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 are “peerless” in relation to
all other biblical texts.127 Within this spectrum, there has been a series of studies
that endeavored to isolate Irenaeus’ reading of Gen 1-3, including works of Orbe,
Kannengiesser, Jacobsen, and Steenberg.
123
Orbe, Anthropologia.
Robert F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses IV, 38,”
SJT 28.1 (1975): 17-25. Mary Ann Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God: A key Insight in St. Irenaeus,”
TS 14.2 (1990): 99-112; J. Demetrios Constantelos, “Irenaeus of Lyon and his Central Views of Human
Nature,” SVTQ 33.4 (1989): 351-63. Jacques Fantino, L’homme, image de Dieu chez saint Irénée de Lyon,
(Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1986); Jacques Fantino, “La creation ex nihilo chez saint Irénée,” RevueSPT
76.3 (1992): 421-42; Jacques Fantino, “Le passage de premier Adam au second Adam comme
expression de salut chez Irénée Lyon,” VC 52.4 (1998): 418-29; Bernard Sesboüe, Tout Récapituler dans
le Christ: Christologie et sotériologie d’Irénée de lyon (Paris: Desclée, 2000); Behr, Asceticism. Thomas
Weinandy, “St. Irenaeus and the Image Dei: The Importance of Being Human,” Logos 6.4 (2003): 15-34;
Matthew Steenberg, “Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as ‘Infants’ in Irenaeus of Lyon,” JECS 12.1
(2004): 1-35.
125
Nielson, Adam and Christ, 17, 79.
126
Lawson, The Biblical Theology, 55-86.
127
Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis: A study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 40.
124
23
1.4.3 Antonio Orbe, Charles Kannengiesser and Anders-Christian
Jacobsen
The first works to consider Irenaeus’ reading of Genesis are three articles that, in
varying degrees, isolate the Bishop’s reliance upon these texts. Orbe composed an
article on the complex interpretation of Gen 2:17b in AH 5.23.1-2 and later analyzed
his use of Gen 3:15.128 His focused treatment on Gen 2:16-17 locates no less than five
plausible interpretations that Irenaeus offers of this divine prohibition. Each one
proves God is true and the serpent is a liar (John 8:44), because Adam and Eve truly
died the day they ate of the fruit. Orbe shows us that, in the midst of his polemics,
Irenaeus will provide highly intense readings of particular terms, phrases, and
concepts in Genesis that contribute to his theological argument. Given the breadth
of interpretive options, he is also comfortable with any interpretation that proves
the veracity of God’s prohibition in Gen 2:17. But in this article, as well as his
treatment of Gen 3:15, Orbe does not emphasize that these various readings are
dependent upon distinctive textual relationships.
While Orbe’s article is highly focused, Charles Kannengiesser’s article
entitled, “The «Speaking God» and Irenaeus’ Interpretative Pattern: The Reception
of Genesis,” is much more general as it evaluates the function of Genesis as a whole
in Irenaeus.129 Kannengiesser’s attention to the performance of Genesis discerns
several interesting features of Irenaeus’ use of Genesis passages including his
preference for texts that contain divine discourse and the way Irenaeus’ allusions to
Genesis throughout AH follows, more or less, the contours of the biblical narrative
itself. However, by his own admission, Kannengiesser’s methodology “deliberately
ignores the connections established between Genesis and other biblical books and
proceeds in a methodological abstraction to postpone more complex inquiries.”130
While his thesis and inclination is right, Kannengiesser’s move to ignore the
connections between Genesis and other passages actually inhibits his goal of
128
Orbe, “Cinco exegesis Ireneanas de Gen 2:17b adv. haer. V 23, 1-2,” Greg (1981): 75-113; Orbe, “Ipse
tuum calcabit caput, San Ireneo y Gen 3:15,” Greg 52 (1971): 71-127.
129
Charles Kannengiesser, “The «Speaking God» and Irenaeus’ Interpretative Pattern: the Reception
of Genesis,” ASE 15.2 (1998): 337-352.
130
Ibid., 339. This also does not address the fact that Kannengiesser limits his investigation to
“quotations.”
24
identifying the very “motivation” and the “methods” of Irenaeus as an interpreter
of scripture.131
Another significant article surfaced in 2004 by Anders-Christian Jacobsen
entitled “The Importance of Genesis 1-3 in the Theology of Irenaeus.”132 Similar to
Kannengiesser, Jacobsen aims for a deeper appreciation of Irenaeus’ exegetical
strategies as the “unavoidable first step” in the appreciation of his theological
framework.133 He argues for the formative role of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus’ theological
integration of creation and consummation and the anthropological implications of
humanity’s creation in the image of the divine Logos.134 Irenaeus’ vision of salvation
is the fulfillment of the conditions of creation established in the opening scenes of
Gen 1-3. He rightly argues that Irenaeus explains the central issues of the faith with
“biblical key-texts,” but Jacobsen nowhere mentions the way Irenaeus reads Gen 1-3
within theological networks or how textual networking constructs his theological
vision. He only mentions a handful of scriptures outside Gen 1-3 and concentrates
exclusively on establishing some general guidelines for the contribution of Gen 1-3
(especially Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7) for Irenaeus’ theological framework. Like
Kannengiesser, Jacobsen’s general thesis is helpful but his observations regarding
Gen 1-3 are stifled because he also overlooks Irenaeus’ scriptural networking.
1.4.4 Matthew S teenberg and Thoma s Hol singer-Friesen
Finally, recent years have witnessed the publication of two monographs on
Irenaeus’ use of Genesis: the 2008 work by Matthew Steenberg, entitled Irenaeus on
Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Sage of Redemption, and the 2009 publication by
Thomas Holsinger-Friesen entitled, Irenaeus and Genesis: A study of Competition in Early
Christian Hermeneutics. Steenberg also revised a portion of his monograph on Gen
2:16-17 and published an article that extends the previous work of Orbe on the same
131
Ibid., 339. For example, Irenaeus most frequently cites the dialogical texts in Genesis in continuity
with New Testament dialogical texts, such as Christ “speaking” in the Gospels, in order to link the
identities of both individuals. See AH 5.17.1 with the allusions to Gen 3:9 and Jn 9:1-7.
132
Anders-Christian Jacobsen, “The Importance of Genesis 1-3 in the Theology of Irenaeus,” ZAC 8
(2004): 299-316.
133
Ibid., 316. Orbe also shares this general sentiment. Orbe, Teología V.1, 10.
134
Ibid., 299. While Genesis may play a formative role in, say his theological concept of recapitulation,
it is not Gen 1-3 alone, but Gen 1-3 in dialogue with other texts (i.e. Eph 1:10, Rom 5:12, and 1Cor
15:45-47).
25
text.135 Steenberg’s volume is an analysis of Irenaeus’ use of Gen 1-11, which
attempts to read “the author’s varied cosmological and anthropological statements
within a larger interpretive framework on creation and the human person.”136 Even
though Irenaeus has long been regarded as a “theologian of creation,” Steenberg’s
work is the first systematic treatment of Irenaeus’ reading of any Old Testament
book or extended pericope.137 He also frames Irenaeus’ theology of creation within
the patterns of early Christian thought and compares his thought with Justin,
Theophilus, and the Gnostic literature. Steenberg recognizes, however, that
Irenaeus presents no single isolated treatment of the creation accounts, instead his
reflections on creation are scattered throughout his work and woven into his varied
theological and polemical reflections. Citing the language of C. R. Smith, he sets out
to prove that Irenaeus is a “consistent creationist,” thereby orienting his analysis of
Gen 1-11 toward the “interrelationships” amid Irenaeus’ protology and other
aspects of his theological perspective.138 Steenberg realizes the fallacy of packaging
Irenaeus’ theology into isolated doctrines that disrupt the integrated nature of his
theological framework. Irenaeus’ Christology and anthropology, for example, are
closely aligned with his protology and eschatology.139
Nevertheless, we cannot overlook that Steenberg’s monograph is a revised
version of his Oxford D. Phil. thesis originally titled: Cosmic Anthropology: Gen 1-11 in
Irenaeus of Lyon with special reference to Justin, Theophilus and select Gnostic
contemporaries. The title and focus of the work was altered for publication, and this
transition calls into question the extent of his conclusions.140 On one hand,
Steenberg must acknowledge that Gen 1-11 is “hardly the sole testimony to creation
135
Steenberg, “To Test or Preserve?: The Prohibition of Gen 2:16-17 in the Thought of Two SecondCentury Exegetes,” Greg 86 (2005): 723-41.
136
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 4.
137
Ibid., 5.
138
Ibid., 2, 9. C. R. Smith, “Chiliasm and recapitulation in the theology of Irenaeus [sic],” VC 48 (1994):
313-331, 320.
139
I do not prefer the language “protological” that pervades the works of Holsinger-Friesen,
Steenberg, Behr, and others. This modern categorization runs the risk of anachronism and continues
to force Irenaeus’ use of scripture into rigid categories he does not use. In other words, what
Irenaeus conceives as “protological” cannot be reserved to Gen 1-3ff, but must include reference to
other texts with creation themes and concepts. These texts, furthermore, are not altogether
disconnected from his use of other theologically and hermeneutically related texts. However, given
the prominence of this term in the literature, we continue to use it here, but when we do so it refers
to Irenaeus’ understanding of cosmogony.
140
Steenberg, “Cosmic Anthropology: Gen 1-11 in Irenaeus of Lyon with special reference to Justin,
Theophilus and select Gnostic contemporaries,” unpublished dissertation (University of Oxford,
2003).
26
contained in the scriptures,” because Irenaeus will fashion his theology of creation
without mentioning Genesis, and yet the basis of research remains the allusions and
citations to Gen 1-11, even though Irenaeus uses a range of passages outside of Gen
1-11 to fashion his theology of creation.141 Thus, the object of Steenberg’s research is
concerned with the “interrelation” of Irenaeus’ theology of creation with the rest of
his theological perspective, not appreciating the way Irenaeus exegetes Gen 1-11 or
reads these texts in continuity with other scriptures.142 Moreover, Steenberg’s
theological concerns also overlook the more fundamental analysis of terms,
phrases, images or concepts imbedded in Gen 1-3 and the way these orient the
interrelational nature of Irenaeus’ exegesis of Gen 1-3 that informs his theological
perspective. Steenberg readily acknowledges Irenaeus’ tendency to conflate Gen 1-3
with other texts and he also observes that Irenaeus reads Genesis in continuity with
the rest of salvation history.143 However, Steenberg rarely scrutinizes the host of
scriptural allusions that stand in interpretative relationship with Gen 1-3, because
evaluating these scriptural interrelationships is not essential to his methodology.144
What we have in Steenberg, therefore, is not Irenaeus’ comprehensive theology of
creation shaped by all creation passages, or the analysis of interrelated creation
texts, but Irenaeus’ theology of creation with respect to explicit allusions and
citations of Gen 1-11.145 As a result, this present intertextual evaluation will
141
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 61. For example Psalm 33:6 LXX and John 1:1-3 are essential to his theology of
creation. Furthermore, Irenaeus can speak about creation or utilize creation imagery and never
appear to reference Gen 1-3. See also: AH 4.19.2 which alludes to Isa 40:12 and Eph 3:18, 21.
Steenberg’s monograph is still organized by allusions to Gen 1-11; cf. Steenberg Irenaeus, 5, 61.
142
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 9.
143
Ibid., 66. He goes so far as to point out that AH 1.22.1, AH 2.2.5 and Epid 43 all conflate Gen 1:1 with
John 1:1-3 and the immediate context also contain allusions to Psalm 32:6 and 9, respectively. The
under appreciation for Irenaeus’ intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 is also evidenced when he claims
that “no single verse of New Testament writings is of stronger influence on Irenaeus’ cosmological
considerations than John 1:3.” While John 1:3 may be essential, as we will show it participates in a
much broader intertextual reading of Gen 1-3. Ibid., 69.
144
For examples of discussion of scriptural interactions see: Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 58-9, 66,
69, and 70-1. Generally speaking I cannot agree with Steenberg’s arbitrary analysis of Gen 1:26. He
distinguishes between intentional and unintentional references Genesis in his use of the language
“image and likeness.” There are no instances where Irenaeus uses this language that he does not, on
some level, have the creation accounts in view. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 217; cf. Ibid., 73-4.
145
While some might object to the validity of certain echoes or allusions to Gen 1-3, it is more
responsible to be exhaustive and address all potential references to Gen 1-3. As Bacq has proven,
closer scrutiny of Irenaeus’ less obvious allusions is necessary for understanding the Bishop’s
argument, structure, and exegesis. Bacq, De l’ancienne, 19-20. See also: Orbe, Teología V.1, 10, Bingham,
Irenaeus’, 12, and Donovan, One Right Reading?, 17. Louis Painchaud argues the same thesis for the use
of scripture in Gnostic literature. Louis Painchaud, “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” JECS
4.2 (1996): 129-47, 130-1. That being said, we have not been uncritical in our analysis of the uses of
27
supplement his contribution and extend his exegetical evaluation of Irenaeus’ use of
Gen 1-3.
Finally, Holsinger-Friesen offers the most recent contribution on Irenaeus’
use of Genesis. His monograph is the inaugural volume of the supplemental series to
the Journal of Theological Interpretation and, as the subtitle suggests, is more
hermeneutically focused. Following the lead of Kannengiesser, his evaluation of
Genesis is explicitly focused on illuminating Irenaeus’ exegetical methodology in
light of his interlocutors.146 Holsinger-Friesen rightly argues that theological
investigations of Irenaeus have, by and large, undervalued his more fundamental
exegetical methodology.147 But despite the implication of his title, Holsinger-Friesen
is not concerned with Irenaeus’ reading of Genesis as a whole, nor even Gen 1-2, but
with the Bishop’s reading of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, insofar as they elucidate his
“innovative manner of reading biblical texts as Christian Scripture.”148 Irenaeus’ use
of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 is a mere “test-case” to this end and his evaluation is highly
selective.149
Consequently, Holsinger-Friesen regularly devalues Irenaeus’ intertextual
connections when he chooses to evaluate Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in isolation.150 In his
analysis we see glimpses of Irenaeus’ theological weaving of scripture, and he even
acknowledges Irenaeus’ thought proceeds from the “conjunction” of texts, but
Holsinger-Friesen does not accentuate these relationships or elucidate the more
intricate nature of Irenaeus’ textual harmony.151 Instead, he focuses on the
utilitarian nature of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 within the hermeneutical disputes of the
second century, and frequently describes each as a “hermeneutical tool,” even
though Irenaeus never uses one scripture (or one “tool”) to refute the Gnostics, but
Gen 1-3 listed in BP and SC. In the introduction to each chapter we mention instances where we
disagreed with BP or SC on the cited use of Gen 1-3.
146
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 106-7.
147
Ibid., x. His work is set in opposition to the influence of Adolf von Harnack whose inflated view of
Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation, according to Holsinger-Friesen, has dominated scholarly
discussions of Irenaeus to the present day. For a similar observation See Jacobsen , “The Importance
of Genesis 1-3,” 300-1 n2.
148
Ibid., 2. He does not examine all of Irenaeus’ uses of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. His evaluation is
reserved to the Gnostic uses in AH 1.1-7 and AH 1.30.1-9 and a few selective uses in AH 3.18, AH 4.20
and AH 5.3-16.2.
149
Ibid., 142, 219.
150
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 218-21. As we have argued below there are good reasons to explore
Gen 1-3 as a unit in Irenaeus, and the way these texts contribute to his intertextual argumentation.
Ibid., 215.
151
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 38.
28
a collection of scriptures linguistically, theologically, structurally, or conceptually
bound together.152 Therefore, while Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 may be pivotal in many
instances, they are not “peerless” because they participate in the intertextual
relationships of Irenaeus’ interpretative mosaic.153 The assumption of HolsingerFriesen’s methodology also presumes they are competing over the same particular
texts, when in reality the Gnostics are not competing interpretations of the same
individual passages, but competing networks of texts, or “systems of Scriptural
interpretation” that are distinctive, even though they retain some similar individual
elements.154
Holsinger-Friesen’s primary conclusion is what he terms Irenaeus’
“protological orientation” that privileges the theological and Christological
application of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.155 This may be a helpful corrective to the earlier
studies of Steenberg and Behr who argue that Irenaeus is eschatologically oriented
even in terms of his use of Gen 1-2.156 But Irenaeus’ exegesis is not altogether
protologically oriented; rather it is clearly intertextually oriented (AH 1.8.1, AH 1.9.4,
AH 2.28.3, AH 3.12.9). He is not concerned with Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 alone at any stage
of salvation history, but instead with Genesis in connection with others texts. At
times the texts of Gen 1-3 function as controlling texts ordering his argument, while
in other instances Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 are supporting texts that buttress his
theological positions. Therefore, Irenaeus is not concerned purely with the
protological matters, but with the way all portions of scripture are ordered and
connected as they anticipate the eschatological kingdom of God.
152
Ibid., 40, 108. The better analogies are those Irenaeus uses himself including: the mosaic (AH 1.8.1),
the Homeric poem (AH 1.9.4), or the hymnic melody (AH 2.28.3); cf. AH 1.3.6; AH 3.11.8; AH 3.12.12; AH
3.13.3; AH 4.pf.4; AH 4.32.1; AH 5.13.2; 5 AH 5.2.1-2.
153
Ibid., 40. In the same context he continually refers to them as “focal texts” which also construes
the harmonious nature of Irenaeus’ hermeneutics. Ibid., 33, 39. He also separates Irenaeus’ reading
of Gen 1-2 from Gen 3, even though there is clear precedent for evaluating these chapters together.
Ibid., 38-9.
154
Moringiello, Irenaeus Rhetor, 15; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 3-4, 39-40. Elsewhere Moringiello
states that these competing “systems of belief” are best understood as hermeneutical tools meant to
aid scriptural interpretation. Ibid., 40. Holsinger-Friesen also suggests that Gen 1:26 served as a
“common starting point in the debate,” but due to the complex Gnostic revisions of the Genesis
narratives, he expands his analysis to the Gnostic reading of Gen 1-3. Ibid., 139, 51-103.
155
For a discussion of the term “protological” see n. 135.
156
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 9. He also suggests Irenaeus’ use of “image and likeness” in Gen 1:26 is
“eschatologically oriented.” Steenberg, Irenaeus, 56; cf. Steenberg, Of God and Man, 42-3. Steenberg will
use the language of “protological orientation,” but he is specifically speaking of Irenaeus’ reading of
the creation accounts as the opening scenes of the divine economy, not the reference to Genesis in
the latter stages. Steenberg, Of God and Man, 22.
29
Therefore, the works of Orbe, Kannengiesser, Jacobsen, Steenberg, and
Holsinger-Freisen all point to the need for a closer evaluation of the nature of the
Bishop’s hermeneutics and his intertextual reading of Genesis in particular. Situated
between the emphasis on the theological integration of Irenaeus’ thought in
Steenberg, and the importance of Irenaeus’ hermeneutics in Kannengiesser,
Jacobsen, and Holsinger-Friesen, we advance the understanding of Irenaeus’ reading
of Gen 1-3 by showing the sophistication of his textual networking and the way he
orders and connects Gen 1-3 through a variety of reading strategies. Contrary to the
restrictive methods applied to Irenaeus in previous studies, we will be sensitive to
Irenaeus’ intertextual scriptural interpretation, and evaluate not only the meaning
of Gen 1-3, but also the other scriptural texts exist in a interpretative symbiotic
relationship with Gen 1-3. From this evaluation we will be able to explain how the
Bishop of Lyon networks texts as he defends his understanding of the apostolic
faith.
1.5 Methodology and Qualifications
1.5.1 Introduction
For several reasons we have chosen to evaluate the intertextual reception of Gen 13 in Irenaeus. First, the material of Gen 1-3 is cited considerably throughout
Irenaeus’ corpus. Following Isaiah and the Psalms, it is the most frequently cited
portion of the Old Testament.157 In his analysis Kannengiesser casually remarks that
Gen 1-3 appears to sit at the forefront of Irenaeus’ mind due to the extensive range
of allusions.158 So, we have many and various textual relationships to compare.
Second, the creation accounts have long been recognized as central to Irenaeus’
theological framework, so much so that he is frequently characterized a “theologian
of creation.”159 If creation is essential to Irenaeus’ thought, this concentration on the
intertextual reception of Gen 1-3 will provide an array of scriptural texts that are
essential to this theological framework. Third, Irenaeus views the events of Gen 1-3
as a collective unit because they all transpire on the same “day of creation.”160 For
Irenaeus the creation of Adam and Eve, their disobedience, and their expulsion (Gen
157
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 4 n. 14.
Kannengiesser, The ‘Speaking God’, 350.
159
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 1.
160
Iain MacKenzie, Irenaeus's Demonstration of the apostolic preaching : a theological commentary and
translation (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 119; cf. AH 5.23.2
158
30
1:26-3:24) take place on the sixth day of creation. Fourth, Irenaeus’ doctrines are
inundated with references to creation. He is greatly interested in the notions of
salvation history and the economic connections between creation and eschatology.
As Steenberg puts it, “Nowhere in his thought will Irenaeus consider the later
events of the economy-the incarnation, the passion, the resurrection-without
explicit reference back to the first moments of God’s creative act.”161 Finally,
Irenaeus’ chiliastic vision of the cosmos forces him to read the “beginnings” and the
“ends” together. This aesthetic parallelism fashions decisive scriptural harmonies
between Gen 1-3 and salvation history.162 Furthermore, in AH 5.28.3, Irenaeus
explicitly states he reads the creation accounts in two senses. They are indeed a
literal account of creation, but also a “prophecy of what is to come” (futrorum
prophetia). So, while Irenaeus is concerned with the order, connection, and harmony
of all scriptures, he is particularly concerned with the relationship of Gen 1-3 to the
rest of salvation history. Given these arguments, it is necessary to evaluate Gen 1-3
as a scriptural unit, and they way Irenaeus links these texts to the rest of the
scriptural witness.
1.5.2 Methodology
Though we have argued that the method of this study extends previous analysis of
Irenaeus’ use of scripture, it is not without precedent.163 For the intertextual
analysis of scripture, Ellen Van Wolde proposes the following procedure: (1) identify
a particular intertextual relationship between two or more texts and study each
text on its own, (2) compose an inventory of the repetitions of the compared texts,
(3) analyze the new network of meaning generated from the meeting of the two
texts. S. D. Giere follows a modified version of Van Wolde’s criteria. Giere’s study is
also a diachronic analysis assessing a broad range of ancient texts. Our study, on the
other hand, is a focused synchronic examination of a singular pericope throughout
161
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 21.
Smith, “Chiliasm,” Steenberg, Irenaeus, 49-60.
163
James W. Voelz, “Multiple Signs and Double Texts: Elements of Intertextuality,” in Intertextuality In
Biblical Writing: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel (Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok: Kampen, 1989); Ellen
Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” BibInt
5.1 (1997); S. D. Giere, A New Glimpse of Day one: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1:1-5
(Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2009). Van Wolde is effectively a simplified version of Voelz’s more
detailed approach and Giere follows Van Wolde with some modifications. Stead synthesizes a
diachronic and synchronic approach in his “‘contextual’ intertextuality.” Stead, The Intertextuality of
Zechariah 1-8, 18-9.
162
31
the work of a single author. In our present study we will apply a revised version of
Van Wolde’s procedure, which has other similarities to Giere.
First, we have identified all the allusions to Gen 1-3 in Adversus Haereses.164
The basis for this identification is the indices of the critical editions in Sources
Chrétiennes (SC), and we have also cross-referenced these allusions with those cited
in Biblia Patristica (BP) to ensure that all relevant texts are identified. We have also
compared these allusions with the passages identified in Antonio Orbe’s translation
and commentaries of AH 4 and AH 5.165 BP is much more generous, and not all
suggested allusions could be verified or accepted. We have noted these instances in
the introduction to each appropriate chapter.
Second, we have identified the intertexts that are hermeneutically and
contextually linked with the allusions to Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus. In most cases these
intertexts are scripture passages, but there are also several extra-biblical
references. The identification of these intertextual allusions will rely again upon SC
and BP. The references to Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s) form the intertextual
relationship(s) that are the focus for this study. As we will show, the relationship
between Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s) sheds light upon the “meaning and function”
of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus.166 We readily admit that this notion of “text” and “intertext”
are a framework imposed upon Irenaeus and the use of “text” or “intertext” does
not assume priority or hierarchy within the rhetorical argumentation of Irenaeus.167
Third, we have identified theological, structural, or linguistic markers
uniting the texts.168 Similar to Van Wolde’s second step, these repetitions and
intertextual markers include various “signs” such as: words, semantic fields,
concepts, imagery, structures, themes, characters, actions, or narratological
representations.169 The most consistent means of connection are what Philippe Bacq
terms “linking words” or mot chrochets. 170 However, not all textual connections may
be attributed to philological connections. Some are more conceptually, theologically
164
We have identified all the uses of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus’ Epideixis, which we will mention wherever
appropriate. However, we will reserve the comprehensive evaluation of the intertextual
performance in the Epideixis for a separate publication.
165
Orbe, Teología IV, V.1-3.
166
Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7.
167
cf. Clark, Reading, 5.
168
Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
169
Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7-8; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12. Voelz refers to this as “matrixed”
saying, “…textual events or ideas are matrixed with other textual events or ideas.” Voelz, “Multiple
Signs,” 30.
170
Bacq, de l’ancienne, 20.
32
or structurally related. If we cannot identify any type of intertextual relationship, or
if the relationship is not theologically or contextually apparent, we will not make
any case for intertextual connections, and we will not argue that these texts
contribute to Irenaeus’ use of Gen 1-3. This step protects this study from the charge
of arbitrary connections that extend ad infinitum.
Fourth, similar to Van Wolde’s third step, we will analyze the “new network
of meaning” that originates from the connection of Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s).171
However, this study is distinct from Van Wolde (but similar to Giere’s) in that we
are not creating new meanings, but using intertextuality as a “foundational lens
through which to make ‘new’ observations of ‘old’ exegesis.”172 This step allows us to
make new observations of the meaning and function of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus and
examine how his networking of scripture shapes his theological perspective. Finally,
we concluded each chapter with a summary description of Irenaeus’ scriptural
networking framed by a set of conceptual terms that define the multiple aspects of
his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3.
1.5.3 Categorical Qualifications
This methodology requires a few categorical qualifications regarding the nature of
the scriptural references and interpretive perspective. First, in order to identify
direct and indirect references to the scriptural material, we have chosen to follow
Stanley Porter’s classifications and will distinguish between echo, allusion, and
citation to Gen 1-3 and the surrounding intertexts.173 Generally speaking, “echo” is
reserved for language that is thematically related to a particular text, while
“allusion” has a greater degree of specificity with identification of particular terms
or concepts related to an identifiable source. A “citation” has even more specificity,
and is identified by an explicit grouping of parallel language and terms. As Patricia
Tull has argued, these classifications are located on a spectrum of identifiability
from unknown to certain.174 In light of this fluidity, we must proceed with caution in
171
Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 8. Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
173
Stanley E. Porter, “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in
The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, eds. T. L. Broder, D. R. MacDonald,
and S. E. Porter, NTM 16, 98-110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007); S. Porter, “Allusions and
Echoes,” in As it is Written: Studying Paul’s use of Scripture, 29-40 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
174
Patricia Tull (Willey), Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 61. See also Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah, 20-21.
172
33
applying these labels stringently. Typically any more than three parallel terms
qualifies as a citation. These classifications are not without implication in Irenaeus.
Even though it is worthwhile to analyze the nature of the particular echoes,
allusions, or citations, we are more concerned with the intertextual connections
between texts than with the qualitative nature of the textual reference or similarity
of texts to their original sources.175
Second, we will not intentionally classify Irenaeus’ particular interpretations
as literal, typological or allegorical. The discussion on these terms is extensive and
the definitions are far from settled. In many cases, the intertextual relationships we
identify in Irenaeus could be classified as typological or even possibly allegorical.
Some Irenaean scholars, such as Orbe, continue to argue for the distinction between
typology and allegory in Irenaeus, but the Bishop’s use of scripture, as we will show,
is much more complicated and in many cases not straightforward.176 It is especially
problematic when Irenaeus composes a network of multifarious echoes or allusions
to disparate texts covering both Testaments.177 Peter Martens has also made the
strong case that the distinction is unhelpful and potentially misleading.178 He
proposes the need for alternative labels for the various forms of non-literal
interpretations. In light of her discussion on intertextuality, Young also suggests
the normative categories of “literal,” “allegory,” and “typology” are inadequate to
describe the practice of patristic exegesis.179 Instead, she describes patristic exegesis
as “an intertextuality of imaginative and creative play, far removed from the
historicism of modern interpretation.”180 Irenaeus does speak of Paul’s Adam-Christ
typology, but he also repudiates the use of allegory–even though he appears to
utilize allegory–because allegory is characteristic of Gnostic exegesis. For our
purposes, therefore, intertextuality simply emphasizes the more general
observation that, for Irenaeus, texts exist in relationship and we have formulated a
group of conceptual categories that explain how Irenaeus arranges these
intertextual relationships.
175
This has been a point of emphasis in many of the works mentioned previously. See for example,
Noormann, Irenäus, 28-9.
176
AH 5.35.1; Orbe, Teología V.1, 12-3.
177
For example see: AH 3.23.1-8 and AH 4.20.1-4.
178
Peter Martens, “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen, “JECS 16.3
(2008): 283-317, 315-6. See also: De Lubac, “Typologie’ et ‘allegorisme” RSR 34 (1947): 180-226. Ayres,
Nicaea, 31. Clark, Reading, 70-78.
179
Young, Biblical Exegesis, 116.
180
Young, The Art of Performance, 128.
34
1.5.4 Potential Limitations
Having delineated our methodology, we must address some potential limitations.
First, we are not concerned with influence or dependence, even though this may be
implied from our analysis. While this is an important discussion, identifying
dependence in the ancient world is a highly involved task in its own right and well
beyond the scope of this study. This chapter has noted several works that labored to
find Irenaeus’ sources and produced nominal results.181 In addition, given the nature
of Irenaeus’ intertextual orientation, there is greater need for closer scrutiny of
Irenaeus’ contributions and appreciation of his own argumentation. Second, some
scholars have claimed that intertextuality is a dubious category because
intertextual connections extend ad infinitium. There is merit to this critique and it is
true that these intertextual connections can digress into unmanageable and
unconvincing relationships. Therefore, we have limited the intertextual
connections to the texts and intertexts in the immediate context linked through
some kind of identifiable conceptual relationship. We have limited the connections
to the chapter and paragraph of AH in SC containing the allusions to Gen 1-3.
However, in a few instances we include an additional paragraph, either before or
after, if it is closely related to the same line of argumentation. This analysis also
demands close attention to Irenaeus’ overall polemic and the structure of his
argumentation. The works of Donovan, Bacq, and Orbe were important in order to
locate the structure of Irenaeus and to determine the flow of argumentation that
links these texts. As we mentioned in step three of the methodology above, if there
is no specific or discernable relationship, there is no textual relationship discussed.
Third, this mode of investigation consistently struggles against the tendency to
discuss intertexts, rather than evaluate Gen 1-3. Again and again, we have pressed
against this tendency in attempts not to leave out any potential intertextual insight.
While in certain instances it might appear as though Gen 1-3 recedes into the
background, it is because we believe the intertexts are essential for understanding
the way Irenaeus reads Gen 1-3. That being said, we have made every effort to only
discuss passages that in some way inform Irenaeus’ reading of Gen 1-3. Despite these
potential limitations, any discussion of Gen 1-3 that ignores these intertextual
181
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, xvi-ii.
35
relationships misconstrues Irenaeus’ hermeneutical perspective and the intentions
of his scriptural exegesis.
1.5.5 Conclusion
Therefore, informed by contemporary discussions on intertextuality in Fishbane,
Boyarin, Hays and Young we have gained a greater appreciation for Irenaeus’
intertextual reading of scripture. Previous studies on Irenaeus’ use of scripture
overlooked his own hermeneutical perspective, and systematically disconnected the
textual networks he intentionally fashioned. In terms of Genesis, Orbe,
Kannengiesser, and Jacobsen turned our attention to his reading of Genesis and the
significant contribution of this book to Irenaeus’ theological vision. Following these
studies, Steenberg highlighted the theological integration of Irenaeus’ thought with
respect to his use of Gen 1-11. Irenaeus’ views on creation are consistent with the
entire thrust of this theological framework. Finally, Holsinger-Friesen, in concert
with Kannengiesser and Jacobsen, continued to evaluate the nature of Irenaeus’
scripture hermeneutic. Bringing these studies together, we see the need for closer
examination of the intertextual nature of Irenaeus’ hermeneutics as it applies to
Gen 1-3, and the way he networks these creation texts with the rest of the salvation
history. In this study, therefore, we demonstrate Irenaeus’ intertextual reading of
Gen 1-3 by means of the textual relationships he fashions with these protological
texts, and outline the specific means by which Irenaeus arrives at these specific
textual relationships. With Gen 1-3 as our textual landmark, we will show how
Irenaeus utilizes these texts in continuity with other scriptural passages. This mode
of enquiry is more sensitive to Irenaeus’ expressed methods of exegesis and the
range of studies on his exegetical methodology, and this manner of intertextual
inquiry will reveal a deeper appreciation for his reading of Gen 1-3 than any study
to date. To this intertextual reception of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus we now turn.
36
CHAPTER 2: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 1
OF ADVERSUS HAERESES
2.1 Introduction
In the preface to AH 1, Irenaeus explains that he is writing to expose the origin,
nature, and doctrine of the so-called “Gnostic” communities found in Lyon and
throughout the Mediterranean region.1 In particular, he points to the Valentinian
school of thought found in the followers of Ptolemaeus.2 While Valentinus was
centered in Rome, his teaching, proliferated through his followers, was making its
way westward into Irenaeus’ own Rhone Valley.3 Irenaeus claims to have had some
interaction with Valentinus in Rome and direct communication with other sects.4
His stated purpose of “exposing” (manifestare) and “refuting” (evertere) the
theological claims of his opponents is discernable in the title provided by Eusebius,
Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-called, or the shortened form, Against
the Heresies.5
To this end, AH 1 unfolds as a carefully summarized theological catalogue of
Ptolemean Valentinianism and other related streams of Gnosticism, with particular
attention given to the theological and cosmological framework of each sect.6
Excluding the preface in AH 1.pf.1-2 and the conclusion in AH 1.31.3-4, the contents
1
AH 1.pf.1. Following the significant contributions of Michael Williams and Karen King, the labels
“Gnostic” and “Gnosticism” continue to be problematic and potentially misleading. Wherever
possible I will identify the specific school or community in view. However, some of Irenaeus’
discussions are intentionally general thus the more inclusive titles are necessary as indicators of all
the groups Irenaeus’ mentions throughout AH. See Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism.” Karen L. King,
What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003). For a similar suggestion see
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 15. For a discussion of various labels Irenaeus’ gives his Valentinian opponents
see Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the ‘Valentinians’ (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 13-22.
2
AH 1.pf.2. He also mentions Ptolemaeus in AH 1.12.1; AH 2.4.1.
3
AH 1.13.7. This is likely why Irenaeus was concerned with the Valentinians first and foremost.
Grant, Irenaeus, 21.
4
W. C. Van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A preliminary survey of the Nag Hammadi find
(London: SCM Press, 1960), 62. For a discussion on the reliability of Irenaeus’ representation see:
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 11; Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 43-50; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 1213; Perkins, “Irenaeus and the Gnostics: Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book One,”
VC 30 (1976): 193-200. The summary of the contents of AH 1 is also found in AH 2.pf.1. See David
Tripp, “The Original Sequence of Irenaeus ‘Adversus Haereses’ 1: A Suggestion,” SecCent. 8 (1991):
157-62.
5
Eusebius titles the work, Ελεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψεθδωύμου γνώσεως. HE 5.7.1 and he uses the
abbreviated title Adversus Haereses in HE 3.23.3. Irenaeus suggests this title in AH 2.pf.1, 4.pf.1, and
5.pf.1.
6
On the relationship (or lack there of) between Valentinus and the Valentinians see: Christoph
Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur Valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu
den Fragmenten Valentinus (Tübigen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992).
37
comprise three main sections. First, in AH 1.1-9 Irenaeus examines the doctrines of
Ptolemean Valentinianism, especially their cosmology and cosmogony. Second, in
AH 1.10-22 he contrasts the diversity of the heretics’ systems with the unity of the
teaching of the church. Finally, in AH 1.23-31.2 he identifies the origins and ancestry
of Valentinianism.7 While Irenaeus’ catalog of the heretics is clearly dependent
upon earlier sources, his summary of Valentinianism and related streams is the
oldest surviving catalog.8
In AH 1 Irenaeus presents the Gnostic reading of Gen 1-3 that in many ways
mirrors the scriptural networking we find in AH 2-5.9 However, the Gnostics are
evidently less concerned with the intertextual connections between scriptural
passages than with the harmonization of scripture to their various mythological
systems. Gerard Luttikhuizen observes this tendency saying, “[t]he intertextual
tension between the biblical texts and their Gnostic interpretations betrays that on
essential points the thought structure of the interpreters differed from what they
found in these texts.”10 Thus, while the early chapters of Genesis were essential to
Gnostic interpretation, they did not hesitate to correct or amend Moses when he
deviated from their own theological traditions and more recent revelation.11
Beginning with AH 1, Irenaeus describes how Gnostic intertextuality unites
the texts of Gen 1-3 with a variety of scriptural accounts and extra-biblical material.
The style of these intertextual connections may be framed within a set of
conceptual categories including: catchwords or verbal connections, gematria,
prosopological interpretation, and a literal or “plain sense” reading of Gen 1-3. For
the Gnostic, Moses’ presentation is inherently suspect because he wrote before the
full revelation of knowledge given in Christ. The Gnostics, therefore, carefully
conformed Moses to more recent revelation.12 In addition to the Gnostic perspective
on Gen 1-3, Irenaeus provides a few instances of his own intertextuality and
theological reasoning that begins to characterize his reading of scripture. From our
analysis, the Gnostic textual networking with Gen 1-3 competes with Irenaeus’
7
SC 264.28-152.
Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 9; cf. AH 1.pf.2; 1.13.3; 1.15.6; 3.17.4; 4.pf.2.
9
BP notes a reference to Gen 1:26 in AH 1.15.3, Gen 3:1 in AH 1.30.14, and Gen 3:18 in AH 1.24.2, but
these echoes were not definitive enough for consideration.
10
Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 5. Friedrich Weiss, Frühes Christentum und Gnosis: Eine
rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), 500.
11
Pheme Perkins, “Gnosticism and the Christian Bible,” in The Canon Debate, ed. L. M. McDonald and
J. A. Sanders, 355-71 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 370.
12
Giverson, “The Apocryphon of John,” 75-6; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 61, 101-3.
8
38
intertextual interpretation of these creation passages, even though the textual
networks they create are theologically distinct.
2.2 AH 1.5.1-6: Valentinians on Creation (Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:21)
In AH 1.1-3.6, the Bishop of Lyon characterizes the plan and nature of the Pleroma
and the primordial defection of Sophia.13 For the Valentinian these protological
matters are necessary prolegomena for any proper reading of Gen 1-3.14 The fall of
Sophia recorded in AH 1.2-3 is the crucial event that casts a shadow of ignorance
over the subsequent cosmological activities.15 Sophia errs, according to Irenaeus, by
attempting to comprehend the greatness of the perfect Father.16 She also does so
apart from the union with her cohort. As a result, she gives birth to an object that
bears the nature of her own “ignorance, grief, fear, and bewilderment” (ignorantia et
taedio et timore et stupore).17 The outcome of Sophia’s passion is the creation of the
Demiurge and the embodiment of ignorance in all materiality. The demiurgic
ignorance is, for Irenaeus, the “cardinal objection” to Valentinian cosmology and,
more specifically, their reading of Gen 1-3.18
In AH 1.5.1-4 Irenaeus describes the Valentinian formation of the world. The
Gnostic account of the creation of the world, according to Irenaeus, is enacted
through the cooperation of Achamoth and the Demiurge, though the Demiurge was
ignorant of Achamoth’s assistance.19 This is why after creating all things, the
Demiurge proudly admires his creation and makes the ignorant proclamation of Isa
45:5, “I am God and besides me there is no one” (Ego Deus, et praeter me nemo).20 The
13
For a representation of this system see: Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 195-96. Thomassen divides
Valentinian pleromatology into two primary camps distinguished by the “detail” they ascribe to the
personal names of the pleromic aeons and their relationship to the initial existence of the Father.
Irenaeus falls into the group that ascribes more specificity to the aeons and theorizes about the
thirty aeons coupled in syzygic pairs. Ibid., 193-6.
14
On the debate over the reliability of Irenaeus’ presentation see: Pagels, “Conflicting Versions of
Valentinian Eschatology: Irenaeus’ Treatise vs. Excerpts from Theodotus,” HTR 67 (1974): 35-53.
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 43-50.
15
Hellenistic Jewish sources, such as Philo, never cast the Creator as ignorant. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 30.
16
Many have pointed to parallels with Gnostic texts such as: Apocryphon of John, On the Origin of the
World, and the Hypostasis of the Archons.
17
AH 1.2.3.
18
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 24. The scope of this study is only concerned with the scriptural references to
Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus’ presentation of Gnosis. For an evaluation of the performance of Gen 1-3 in the
Gnostic literature see: L. Painchaud, “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” JECS 4.2 (1996): 12946; S. Giverson, “The Apocryphon of John and Genesis,” StuTh 17 (1963): 60-76; Luttikhuizen, Gnostic
Revisions, 17-81.
19
AH 1.5.3.
20
AH 1.5.4.
39
ignorance of the Demiurge infuses the creation accounts with the language of Isa
45:5.21 The Valentinian account of creation contains, however, no explicit allusion to
Gen 1-3. Some language and images bear a resemblance to the creation accounts,
such as the attributes of “heavenly” (caelestia) and “earthly” (terrena) (cf. 1 Cor
15:48), but there is no substantive reference to Gen 1-3.
In AH 1.5.5-6, Irenaeus transitions from a description of Valentinian
cosmology and cosmogony to anthropology.22 The Valentinians read the narrative
of the formation from the dust in Gen 2:7 in light of the language of the “earthly
element” (choicum) drawn from 1 Cor 15:47. For the Valentinians Adam was not
made from the “dry earth” (arida terra, Gen 2:5), but “from the invisible substance
and from fusible and fluid matter” (ab inuisibili substantia et ab effusibili et fluida
materia).23 The distinction is, as Dunning rightly observes, substantial in nature and
not a rejection of materiality altogether.24 In other words, the Valentinians,
according to Irenaeus, observe the wrong substance of creation and prefer the
Pauline imagery to the Mosaic substance.25 In this manner, the language of “earthly”
(choicum) comes to interpret the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7, rather then the
substance of the dry earth that God forms in Gen 2:5. The limited use of Genesis also
suggests a degree of separation from any dependence upon the Mosaic for the
Gnostic understanding of cosmology. They are not relying upon Gen 1-2 for an
accurate description of the formation of the human person.
The Valentinians, Irenaeus reports, argue that the Demiurge breathed into
this creature the “psychic element” (psychicum), so that the first creature is
composed of an earthly (Gen 2:7a) and psychic element (Gen 2:7b). They also
separate the terms “image and likeness” (imaginem et similitudinem) and apply them
to these two elements of the first-created man. The material or “earthly” (choicum)
element was created after the “image” (imaginem), while the “psychic” (psychicum)
element was after the “likeness” (similitudinem).26 The former is also said to come
21
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 25-6; cf. AH 2.5.3.
Holsinger-Friesen compares the Valentinian account with Plato’s Timaeus. Holsinger-Friesen,
Irenaeus, 90-92.
23
AH 1.5.5. Although this allusion is not noted in BP or SC, the reference to “dry earth” (arida terra) in
refers to Gen 2:5 prior to God watering the earth in Gen 2:6. cf. Epid 32; AH 3.18.7; AH 4.39.2.
24
Benjamin H. Dunning, “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth: Creation, Sexual Difference, and Recapitulation
in Irenaeus of Lyons,” JofR, 89.1 (2009): 57-88, 70.
25
Holsinger-Friesen is aware that the Valentinians read 1 Cor 15:47 alongside Gen 2:7, but neglects
Irenaeus’ contextual argument from the dry earth of Gen 2:5. Irenaeus and Genesis, 89-90.
26
AH 1.5.5.
22
40
near to God because it was after the image of God, but it is not of the same substance
as the pneumatic element. The psychic element was also termed the “Spirit of life”
(spiritum vitae, Gen 2:7), because it derived from a “spiritual emission” (spiritali
defluitione).27 The final stage in the formation of humankind is completed when the
creature is clothed in a “skin-like garment” (dermatinam tunicam, Gen 3:21) that
becomes the sensory fleshy substance.28 In this arrangement, the formation of the
flesh occurs after the act of disobedience. In AH 1.5.6 Irenaeus provides further
background to the Valentinian creation of humankind. Unbeknownst to the
Demiurge, Achamoth deposits the true “spiritual man” (spiritalis homo) while the
Demiurge is breathing in the breath of life (Gen 2:7), or the psychic element. This
spiritual deposit is planted as a seed into the soul of the creature and functions as a
spiritual womb.29 In time the spirit seed will grow and become the receptor of the
“perfect Knowledge” (perfectae Rationis).30 The action of Achamoth completes the
fourfold elements of humanity where the first man has “his soul is from Demiurge,
his body is from the earth, his fleshy element is from matter, and his spiritual
element is from his Mother Achamoth” (animam quidem a Demiurgo, corpus autem a
limo, et carneum a material, spiritalem uero hominem a matre Achamoth).31 Clearly each of
these four elements that constitute the Valentinian creation of Adam derived from
a conflation of the imagery resident in Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:21, 1 Cor 15:47 but
infused with the images and characters of the Valentinian myth.
2.3 AH 1.9.3: The Word and the Flesh (Gen 2:7)
Having laid the basis of the Valentinian myth, in AH 1.8-9 Irenaeus addresses
specific exegetical and hermeneutical issues with the Valentinian misappropriation
of scripture. Using the example of the Mosaic and Homeric cento (alongside other
simple polemical illustrations) he argues that the Valentinians abuse the scriptures
because they consistently “adapt” (aptare) them to the structure of their myth.32 As
an example, Irenaeus points to the opening chapter of John’s Gospel arguing, contra
the Valentinians, John never intended to reveal the Ogdoad of the Valentinian
27
AH 1.5.5.
AH 1.5.5. Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 88-9.
29
Holsinger-Friesen points to the middle-platonic background of this view. Holsinger-Friesen,
Irenaeus, 83.
30
AH 1.5.6.
31
AH 1.5.6.
32
AH 1.8.1-2.
28
41
cosmological system. John, he suggests, preached one God and one Christ Jesus, the
Word of God who became flesh (John 1:14).33 The Valentinians deny the Word
become flesh, because the Savior assumed a psychic body, which became visible and
palpable through an unspeakable mystery. In order to define the nature of “flesh”
(caro) in John 1:14, Irenaeus reads John 1:14 in continuity with the formation of
Adam from the dust in Gen 2:7.34 This is to say σαρξ is identified with the limus in
Gen 2:7. The flesh the Word assumed in John 1:14 is the same “ancient handiwork
made by God out of the earth as in Adam” (vetus de limo secundum Adam facta
plasmatio a Deo).35 He even goes so far as to suggest this intertextual connection is
John’s intention by which John aimed to dismantle their first and principal Ogdoad.
What is more, he identifies all the individual aeons comprising the Valentinian
Ogdoad (Word, Only begotten, Life, Light, Savior, Christ, Son of God) as the one and
same Son of God who became incarnate in the person of Christ. This essential link
between Gen 2:7 and John 1:14 in Irenaeus’ exegesis will resurface throughout AH 35.
2.4 AH 1.14.6: Marcus and the Sixth Day (Gen 1:31)
In AH 1.13-20, Irenaeus refutes Marcus and the Marcosians who have an acute
fascination for gematria and put forth an adapted version of the Valentinian myth.36
Gematria is the practice of interpreting a word based upon the numeric value of its
letters.37 AH 1.14.1-4 describes the narrative of revelation Marcus received from the
Tetrad who descended in the form of a woman and revealed to him the origin and
meaning of all things. The revelation is confirmed though various kinds of
numerology and allegorization that envision an ontological congruence between
“being” and “truth” in the form of speech, so that “what is spoken is at the same
time that which it speaks about.”38 This offers a philosophical grounding for the
numerical representation of divine realities within the text. In AH 1.14.6, Irenaeus
recounts a series of passages they unite through the symbolism of the number six.
33
AH 1.9.1.
AH 1.9.3.
35
AH 1.9.3.
36
Ismo Dunderberg, “The School of Valentinus,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics,’
eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Loumanen, 64-99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 82; Grant, Gnosticism and the Early
Church (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 64; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 499.
37
B. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 387, 454.
38
Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 243.
34
42
Matt 17:1 describes the transfiguration on the “sixth day” (sexta die) when Jesus took
Peter, James, and John up to the mountain and after Moses and Elijah appeared the
number of those present at the transfiguration also totaled six. In John 19:14 Jesus
prepared for the Passover at the “sixth hour” (sextam horam) and he also suffered
death on the cross in Matt 27:45 at the “sixth hour” (sextam horam).39 Of course, this
numerological conflation also includes mention of Moses’ report that humankind
was made on the “sixth day” (sexta die), echoing the creation of Adam in Gen 1:31.
The day of Adam’s creation on the sixth day is not interpreted literally, but simply
participates in Marcus’ number symbolism as a means to validate his aeonic system.
2.5 AH 1.18.1-4: The Marcosians on Creation (Gen 1:2, Gen 1:3-27, Gen 1:26,
Gen 2:10)
In AH 1.18.1-4 Irenaeus details the Marcosian theory of the creation. According to
Irenaeus, they assert the mother of the Demiurge used him as an instrument and, in
continuity with Middle-Platonic metaphysics, created the visible world after the
pattern of invisible beings. To validate their cosmology, the Marcosians utilize
complex sets of passages bound by common numerological references to typify the
Tetrad, Decad, Deodecad, and Triacontad. Irenaeus characterizes this method of
exegesis as progressive and evolving, saying that they “transpose and adapt”
(transformantes coaptant) the writings from the prophets as they continually amend
their myth.40
Beginning in AH 1.18.1, Irenaeus reports that the Marcosians find a type of
the Tetrad in Gen 1:1 with the four terms: “God and Beginning, the heavens and the
earth” (Deum et principium, caelum et terram).41 A second Tetrad, which is an offspring
of the first, is found in the terms of Gen 1:2: “deep” (abyssum), “darkness” (tenebras),
“water” (aquae), and “Spirit” (Spiritus).42 Gen 1:2 also discloses the “invisible”
(invisibile) nature of the Tetrad through Moses’ description of the unformed earth.
In AH 1.18.2, the Tetrad is found in the formation of the sun on the fourth day in
Gen 1:14-19, the colors of the curtains of the tabernacle in Exod 26:1/38:6, and the
four rows of stones on the priestly robe in Exod 28:17. He identifies the same kind of
numerology in Gen 1:3-12 that records the Decad in the ten terms: light, the day, the
39
cf. Lk 15:33.
AH 1.18.1. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 27; Dunderberg, “The School of Valentinus,” 83.
41
cf. “Beginning” in AH 1.14.1
42
AH 1.18.1.
40
43
night, the firmament, the evening, the morning, the dry land, the sea, the plants,
and the trees.43 Similarly, Gen 1:14-27 records the Dodecad including: the sun, moon,
stars, seasons, years, sea monsters, fishes, reptiles, fowl, quadrupeds, beasts, and
humans.44 The whole of Gen 1:1-27, therefore, speaks of the cohort of thirty aeons
known as the Triacontad.45
The same numerology applies to the formation of humankind and the
various components that comprise the human anatomy. The human person is
created in the “image of the Power on high” (imaginem superioris Virtutis), echoing
Gen 1:26.46 The human form possesses one fountain in the brain out of which flows
“four powers” (virtutes IIII), echoing to the rivers flowing from Eden in Gen 2:10.
These powers numerologically reflect the Tetrad, as do the four senses of sight,
sound, hearing, and taste.47 The Ogdoad is also witnessed in two ears, two eyes, two
nostrils and double sense of taste (that is bitter and sweet). The Decad is found in
the ten fingers, and the Dodecad in the twelve members of the body, which together
represent the Triacontad. The intertextual relationship between these texts is again
located in their associations and their unified representation of the Tricontad.48
Irenaeus suggests these passages are merely exemplary of their gematria. He
reports a series of other passages they use in continuity with these numerical
representations including: Gen 6-50, Exod 24-36, Josh 3-4, 1 Sam 9:22, 1 Sam 20:1-42,
2 Sam 23:13, 1 Kgs 11:21, 1 Kgs 18:31, 1 Pet 3:20 and John 20:24. Any passage
reflecting the number eight represents the Ogdoad, ten the Decad, twelve the
Dodecad, and thirty the Triacontad.49
In the same context the Bishop of Lyon summarizes the complex Marcosian
understanding of human formation. He reports that most argue Adam was formed
on the eighth day, representing the Ogdoad, but some distinguish between the
“earthly” (choicum, 1 Cor 15:47) part that was formed on the sixth day from the
43
AH 1.18.2.
AH 1.18.2.
45
Apart from this context an implicit echo in AH 5.30.4, Irenaeus never mentions any passage from
Gen 1:6-25, which is remarkable given Theophilus’ detailed analysis of this portion. For an
explanation of Theophilus’ understanding of creation see Steenberg, Irenaeus, 88-92.
46
AH 1.18.2.
47
They ignore the fifth sense of touch.
48
AH 1.18.1. In addition, according to Irenaeus, the identification of this system is based upon a
concept of inspiration where the Spirit of these realities communicates through Moses.
49
AH 1.18.3-4
44
44
“fleshy” (carnalem) part that was formed on the eighth day.50 The former reflects the
earthly part formed in Gen 2:7, while the latter is the covering of sensible skin given
in Gen 3:21.51 This anthropological distinction understands the formation of the
flesh to come after the disobedience in Gen 3. Other Marcosians, Irenaeus informs
us, partition the creation of Adam into two individual accounts, where the spiritual
man was made bisexual after the image and likeness (Gen 1:26) and the earthly man
was formed from the earth (Gen 2:7). This distinction implies that some Marcosians
view Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 as successive stages in the formation of Adam, while
others understand them as two distinct accounts forming distinct human persons.52
The Marcosians intertextual practice is inherently numerological and theological as
they attempt to reconcile the scriptural account of creation with their own myth.
2.6 AH 1.22.1: Creation and The Regula Veritatis ( Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7)
AH 1.22.1 is a highly significant section, principally due to it discussion of the regula
veritatis/fidei, which he previously mentioned in AH 1.10.1.53 His theology of creation
is an essential prolegomena for the theological structure of the regula that forms the
prelude to the divine activity throughout the scriptures. His description of the
regula comprises echoes to the creation of the world in Gen 1:1 and the formation of
Adam in Gen 2:7 alongside a host of intertexts including: Hermas, Mand 1.1, Psalm
32:6, John 1:3, Col 1:16, 2 Cor 4:18, Exod 3:654, and Eph 1:3.
The regula commences with reference to creatio ex nihilo where he represents
God as the Creator of “all things” (omnia). In a general-to-particular style of
argumentation, the meaning of “all things” (omnia), he reasons, must include both
the world and humankind. He begins with citations of the Shepherd of Hermas,
Mand 1.1 and John 1:3, but then interprets these passage with Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7,
Psalm 32:6, and Col 1:16. Noormann understands the concept of creation by means
of the Word as the linking feature for these texts, which is generally correct. But the
more precise linking concept is the creation and administration of “all things”
50
AH 1.18.2
cf. AH 1.5.5-6. Cf. Gen 1:31.
52
This discussion of “day” (die) of Adam’s formation is addressed at several points especially AH
5.33.2-3, where Irenaeus comments on the “day” (die) Adam and Eve sinned in Gen 2:16-17 and Gen
3:6. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 84-87.
53
While the regula is arguably more prominent in AH 1.10.1, we have not included a discussion of AH
1.10.1, because it does not contain any discernable allusion or echo to Gen 1-3.
54
Matt 22:29-32.
51
45
(omnia).55 Irenaeus wants to prove that God the Father by means of the Word created
all existing realities and continues to sustain them throughout their existence. In
support of Mand 1.1 and John 1:3, he fashions a narratival framework linking the
Creator of the world (Gen 1:1) and humanity (Gen 2:7) with the Father of Abraham
(Exod 3:6) and the Father of Jesus (Eph 1:3). Together these passages identify God
the Father of Abraham and Christ as the Creator of the both world and humankind,
thus demonstrating the same God who has given all things existence in Gen 1:1 and
Gen 2:7 administered over all of salvation history from Abraham to Christ. He also
argues that God did not have any assistance in the formation and preservation of
creation other than God’s own Son and Spirit. Naturally, this implies a
“foundational paradigm” or “hypothesis” where God the Creator creates as a
triunity of Father, Son, and Sprit.56 This theological paradigm, however, is what
draws together the texts of Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Psalm 32:6, John 1:3, and Col 1:16. While
we cannot deny the importance of John 1:3, clearly Steenberg overstates the case
when he asserts “no single verse of the New Testament writing is of stronger
influence on Irenaeus’ cosmological considerations than John 1:3,” because Irenaeus
does not treat John 1:3 in isolation.57 Instead, we find here and elsewhere that John
1:3 is the essential passage for detailing the creation of all things only within a
network of texts that speak the divine human relationship. Moving forward from
creation by means of the Word in Mand 1:1, John 1:3, Gen 1:1, and Gen 2:7, God
continues to be active in Israel’s history. The same God who created all things is also
the God of Abraham (Exod 3:6) and Father of Jesus (Eph 1:3).
2.7 AH 1.24.1-2: Saturninus on Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19)
In this section, Irenaeus recounts the views of Saturninus on the origin and
formation of humankind, who followed a system similar to that of Menander.58
Irenaeus’ presents his cosmological views as an unmistakable revision of Gen 1-3,
which correlates Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 3:19 with additional background
narratives.59 According to Irenaeus, Saturninus casts the unknown Father as the
55
Noormann, Irenäus, 85.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 67.
57
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 69. Epid 43, 1.8.5, 1.9.2, 2.2.5, 3.8.2-3.
58
C. Markschies, Gnosis: an Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 77.
59
BP suggests that death here refers to the command in Gen 2:17, but clearly the nature of the
allusion has the description of the dissolution of the flesh in Gen 3:19 in view.
56
46
Creator of all spiritual realities, but the world and human beings were created by
the work of seven angels.60 These angels witness a certain “shining image” (lucida
imagine, cf. Gen 1:26) from the sovereign Power above, they are unable to possess the
image so they proclaim to one another, “Let us make man after our image and
likeness” (Faciamus hominem as imaginem et similitudinem, Gen 1:26).61 The angels,
however, were not strong enough to create a true, living form so the newly
fashioned man could only wiggle along the ground like a worm. Seeing the flaccid
creature floundering on the ground, the supreme Power has pity on him because
“he was made in his likeness” (in similitudiem eius factus esset, Gen 1:26). The supreme
Power responds by emitting a “spark of life” (scintillam vitae, Gen 2:7) that
immediately enlivens the man and enables him to stand erect. After death the same
body fashioned by the angels separates again and decomposes back into the earth
(Gen 3:19), so this spark of life can return to its proper spiritual home. We also find
in AH 1.24.2 these angels created both “wicked” (nequam) and “good” (bonum)
humans. The good are the faithful ascetics who retain the spark of life, while the
wicked are those marry and beget children. The Savior who appeared as a man came
to rescue those who are good and destroy the God of the Jews.62 Irenaeus closes the
general observation regarding Saturninus’ prosopological application of Old
Testament prophecy. Every prophecy, including the portions of Gen 1:26 and Gen
2:7 mentioned previously, are spoken from the perspective of the Angelic creators,
Satan the Angel who opposes them, or the God of the Jews.
2.8 AH 1.28.1: Asceticism in Tatian and the Encratites (Gen 1:27-8)
In AH 1.28.1 Irenaeus mentions a few descendents of the Gnostics sects previously
mentioned, including Tatian and the Encratites. He has consistently admitted the
challenge of illustrating the systems and doctrines of the various Gnostic sects
because of their fluidity and inventive nature.63 New factions are constantly
evolving and inventing new systems that are “patched together” (compegerint) from
the tenets of their forbearers. His present examples are the teachings of the
60
Apparently Saturninus is aware of Meander’s unknown Father (AH 1.23.5), whom he links to Simon
Mangus. The summary of Basilidies (AH 1.24.3-5), on the other hand, does not allude to particular
passage in Gen 1-3.
61
The angelic mediation in creation is attested to in a verity of Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of
John and On Origin of the World.
62
Markschies, Gnosis, 78.
63
cf. AH 1.21.5; AH 1.28.2; AH 1.29.1.
47
Encratites and Tatian, who reject marriage, abstain from meat, and deny Adam’s
salvation.64 From this analysis, there appears to have been various forms of
Encratism known to Irenaeus.65 Allegedly they developed their beliefs from Marcion,
Cerdo, and Saturinus, whom he also reports had their rise from Simon, and their
ascetical perspective reflects an anti-corporeal dualism. While he does not present
their particular reading of Gen 1:27-28, according to Irenaeus, Tatian and the
Encratites’ ascetic position misrepresents the purpose of the propagation of the
human race reflected in the creation of male and female (Gen 1:27). They have also
rejected the implication that God created all things for humankind to enjoy (Gen
1:28). This also echoes God’s handing over all things to humankind in Gen 1:28.
According to Irenaeus, this ascetic position renders the Encratites ungrateful
towards God’s gift of creation and God’s purposes in creation. Tatian, Irenaeus
reports, follows this same teaching, but couples these ascetic views with a revised
Valentinian myth and the denial of Adam’s salvation. He addresses Tatian’s views on
Adam in more detail in AH 3.23.1-8, but for now he is clear this is Tatian’s own
invention.66
2.9 AH 1.30.1-9: The Ophites on Creation (Gen 1:2, Gen 1:7-8, Gen 1: 26, Gen
2:7, Gen 2:16, Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1-7, Gen 3:20, Gen 3:23)
In AH 1.30.1-15 Irenaeus concludes AH 1 with a description of the tenets of the
Ophites, who boast many similarities to the Valentinians mentioned in AH 1.1-7.67
Much of AH 1.30.1-9 recounts the events of the primeval world and provides a
revisionist account of Gen 1-3.68 The importance of Gen 1-3 in AH 1.30.1-9 is
unmistakable. The Ophites imagine a cosmology that conforms the imagery of Gen
1-3 to the variety of spiritual realities. Although the allusions to Gen 1-3 conclude
with AH 1.30.9, the remaining chapters (AH 1.30.10-14) frame Gen 1-3 within a larger
recounting of the whole Ophite history of salvation.69
64
cf. Col 2:16. See also Basilides on food AH 1.24.5.
William L. Petersen, “Tatian the Assyrian,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’, eds
Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 143.
66
Petersen shows the seedbed of this thought present in Tatian’s writings. Petersen, “Tatian the
Assyrian,” 150-52.
67
On the relationship of the Ophites and Valentinians see Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995) 170; Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism
(Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1983), 308-326; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 51-56.
68
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 58.
69
For Sethian Gnosticism in general, John Turner has shown that Sethian works “de-temporalized”
time into an eternal present where salvation is a self-actualized, ever present reality. John D. Turner,
65
48
Irenaeus’ account of the Ophites begins with a description of Bythus, who is
the “Father of all things” (Patrem omnium) or the “First-Man” (Primum Hominem).70
Bythus emitted the “Second-man” (Secundum Hominem) or “Son of Man” (Filium
Hominis) and below these existed the Spirit, who is also called the “First-Woman”
(Primam Feminam).71 Following the style of gematria we have seen in other accounts,
this Spirit was found hovering over the four elements of Gen 1:2: “water, darkness,
abyss, and chaos” (aquam, tenebras, abyssum, chaos).72 Then the First-Woman is
wedded to the First-Man and the Son of man and they gave birth to Christ and
Sophia, so they refer to the woman as the “Mother of the living” (Matrem uiuentium,
Gen 3:20).73 Christ is caught up to the upper regions where he joins with the Father,
Son and, Mother to be the true and holy Church, while Sophia descends into the
waters and disturbs them. From this action she assumes the substance of a fluid
body that imprisoned her divine light (Gen 1:2). She regretted this body and, being
infused by her moisture of light, she was lifted up, having spread herself out she
becomes the visible heavens (Gen 1:7-8).74 Her son, Jaldabaoth, also drew upon the
waters of Gen 1:2 and emitted a succession of seven sons in the “imitation of his
Father” (secundum patris imitationem, Gen 1:26) and these sons are the “Angels,
Archangels, Virtues, Powers, and Dominions” (Angelos et Archangelos et Virtutes et
Dominationes, Eph 1:21) that rule of heavenly and earthly things.75
The sons with Jaldabaoth sit in heaven according to their birth rank and
together they rule over all “the heavenly and earthly things.” (caelestia et terrestria,
Gen 1:1).76 However, Jaldabaoth became distressed because his sons quarreled
amongst themselves over the their individual ranks. In his sadness he fixed his
desire upon the material substance so that a son called Mind is born. This Mind
twisted himself into the form of a serpent and begot all “forgetfulness, wickedness,
jealousy, envy, and death” (obliuionem et malitiam et zelum et inuidiam et mortem).77
“Time and History in Sethian Gnosticism,” in For the Children, Perfect Instruction, ed. H. G. Bethge, et al.,
203-14 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 213.
70
AH 1.30.1.
71
AH 1.30.1.
72
AH 1.30.1. Holsinger-Friesen notes the connections with the Apoc John. Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus,
60n.70. See also Giverson, “The Apocryphon of John.”
73
AH 1.30.2.
74
AH 1.30.3.
75
AH 1.30.4-5. In the same context he also cites similar terminology including: “Heavens, Virtues,
Powers, Angels, and Creators,” (Caelos et Areothas et Virtutes et Angelos et Conditores).
76
AH 1.30.5.
77
AH 1.30.6.
49
This is the same serpent that upset the Father, Jaldabaoth, with his wickedness in
heaven and paradise (Gen 3:1-6). Then in the presence of the other Angels and his
Mother, Jaldabaoth proclaimed his preeminence with the words of Isa 45:5/46:9, “I
am the Father and God, and there is no one above me” (Ego Pater et Deus, et super me
nemo).78 When Jaldabaoth’s Mother hears this scandalous proclamation, she retorts,
“Do not lie, Jaldabaoth, for there is above you the Father of all things, who is FirstMan, and so is that Man who is the Son of Man” (Noli mentiri, Ialdabaoth, est enim
super te Pater omnium Primus Anthropus, et Anthropus Silius Anthropi).79 Since the angels
did not know of the Mother’s existence, her voice frightened them and they began
questioning the source of the voice. Unaffected by the voice, Jaldabaoth corralled
his rulers with the charge of Gen 1:26, “Come, let us make man to the image”
(Vienite, faciamus hominem ad imaginem).80 Hearing of Jaldabaoth’s plan, the Mother
seized this opportunity and gave the six other angels an idea of the human form so
that through the man she could deprive them of their power.81
Borrowing loosely from the imagery of Gen 2:7, the cohort of angels
assembled the man that was immense in breadth and length. The man, however,
could not manage to stand erect and only wriggled across the ground.82 So the
Angels brought him before Jaldabaoth, who enacts the imagery of Gen 2:7 and
breathes into the man the “spirit of life” (spiritum uitae).83 But the Mother arranged
this plan in order that when Jaldabaoth breathed into the man, he unknowingly
surrendered his power. After receiving the breath of Jaldabaoth, the newly created
man came alive. At once the enlivened man gave thanks to the First-Man and
rejected Jaldabaoth his Maker.84 Disturbed by the loss of his power Jaldabaoth,
borrowing from Gen 2:22, created a woman from his own thought in order to
deceive the man and take back his power. But no sooner was she created than
Sophia deprived her of her power by means of the serpent, when she transgressed
78
AH 1.30.6. See also the use of Is 45:5/46:9 by the Demiurge in AH 1.5.4 and the Barbelo-Gnostics in
AH 1.29.4.
79
AH 1.30.6.
80
AH 1.30.6. On the tradition of angelic mediation and the interpretation of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 see
Jarl Fossum, “Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judiasm, Samaritanism and Gnosticism,” JSJ 16.2 (1985): 203-39.
81
AH 1.30.6.
82
AH 1.24.1-2.
83
AH 1.30.6. Cf. Irenaeus speaks of a worm-like man in Saturnius and Basilides in AH 1.24.1.
84
AH 1.30.6.
50
the prohibition of Gen 2:16 and ate from the tree of Knowledge.85 What is more, the
sons of Jaldabaoth came to admire her beauty and “called her Eve” (uocasse eam
Euam, Gen 3:20) and beget sons with the woman (Gen 6:2).86 This series of blunders
continues to portray the incompetence of the Creator God to manage his own
creation and the astuteness of Sophia to recover the power from Jaldabaoth.87
According to Irenaeus, the Ophites interpret the temptation account of Gen
3:1-6 follows the text more closely than any previous account. Sophia, working
through the serpent, leads Adam and Eve “to transgress the precept of Jaldabaoth”
(supergredi praeceptum Ialdabaoth, Gen 2:17).88 Through their disobedience they
received the “knowledge of that Power which is above all things” (cognouisse eam
quae est super omnia Virtutem, Gen 3:7) and in doing so rejected their Maker.89 With
this knowledge, the lie Jaldabaoth uttered when he called himself Father of all (Isa
45:5) was exposed and the Fall reflects Sophia’s triumph over a malevolent God.90 In
the closing lines of AH 1.30.15, Irenaeus reports one variation on this account saying
that some of the Ophites identify Sophia as the serpent. In this rendering the
serpent implanted Adam and Eve with the true knowledge and, as a result, is
considered wiser than all others (Gen 3:1).91
In AH 1.30.8-9, Irenaeus reports Jaldabaoth threw Adam and Eve out of
paradise and into the world because they had transgressed his command (Gen
3:23).92 In fact the whole account of creation transpires in the heavenly realm.93
Likewise, the serpent was cast into the world and generated six sons, who are the
seven devils of the world that oppose humankind. When Adam and Eve were in
paradise they had spiritual bodies, but through their transfer into this present
world they became encumbered by their physical bodies. Even their souls,
according to Irenaeus, were languid because they only had the “mundane breath”
(insufflationem mundialem, Gen 2:7) from their Maker.94 Prounikos sees Adam and Eve
85
Holsinger-Freisen, Irenaeus, 66. She is said to send Prounikos the meaning of which is disputed. See
SC 264.303; Dominic Unger and John Dillon, St. Irenaeus against Heresies (New York: The Newman Press,
1992), 260; Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 174.
86
AH 1.30.7.
87
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 67-8.
88
AH 1.30.7. In AH 1.30.5. the Serpent is the nous of Jaldabaoth’s son.
89
AH 1.30.7.
90
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 72.
91
AH 1.30.15.
92
AH 1.30.8.
93
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 64.
94
AH 1.30.9.
51
in this sluggish and feeble state and has pity upon them. Acting in the in the
manner of Gen 3:7, he enlivened them, causing them to realize they were naked and
weighed down by a material body.95 In their wisdom, though, they knew this would
be only for a short time.
In AH 1.30.9 Irenaeus continues discussing Gen 4 and the birth of Abel along
with details of how the serpent used Cain to slay his brother Abel, and in AH 1.30.1014 he mentions Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets before moving into
commentary on Jesus traditions. Eventually the First-Man sends Christ to aid his
sister Sophia and announce the unknown Father.96 This summary demonstrates a
theological narrative that links scriptural texts to descriptions of the primordial
world to Jesus traditions. The Mosaic account of creation is not normative for the
Ophites as they order and rearrange texts to suit their theological preferences.97
They do not, however, follow the narratival or chronological trajectory of the
Genesis account as presented. Instead, through various styles of intertextuality they
carefully reconstruct the narratives in order to fashion a separate account that
conforms select scriptural texts to their own mythical system.
2.10 Conclusion
While we will reserve a comprehensive conclusion for the final chapter, we have
seen in AH 1 how the Gnostics, including the Valentinians, Marconians, Saturnius,
Encratites, Tatian, and the Ophites, all make use of narratives and imagery peculiar
to Gen 1-3. The imagery and terminology in Gen 1-3 has particular explanatory
power for their system. They are not concerned with clarifying the revelation
contained within Moses; instead they adapt, transpose, or divide passages in order
to elucidate their own distinctive cosmology and cosmogony. As a result, Irenaeus’
presentation of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1-3 exposes a diverse set of intertextual
reading practices including: catchwords or verbal connections, gemetria,
prosopological interpretation, and a literal or “plain sense” reading of Gen 1-3. In
addition, Irenaeus provides a few instances of his own theological reading of Gen 13.
95
AH 1.30.9.
AH 1.30.12.
97
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 62.
96
52
First of all, the Gnostics use catchwords or linking terms to blend Gen 1-3
with other texts. This practice, however, is not widespread since the Gnostics are
more interested in conforming their narrative to the mythological systems outside
of scripture, rather then simply harmonizing the scriptural narrative within itself.
To begin with, his presentation of Ptolemean Valentinianism cosmogony and
cosmology rarely alludes to Gen 1-3 in any explicit fashion (AH 1.5.1-4), but their
account of the formation of Adam does draw from Genesis creation texts. In doing
so, they use the descriptive language of “earthly” (choicum),” drawn from 1 Cor
15:47, to explain the substance of the man fashioned in Genesis, rather than the
plain sense reading of “dust” (limus) or “earth” (terra) in Gen 2:5-7. In AH 1.18.2, the
Marcosians provide a similar intertextual use of 1 Cor 15:47 in connection to the
formation of Adam on the sixth day in Gen 2:7, but they also add that his “fleshy”
(carnalem) part was formed on the eighth day in Gen 3:21.
Second, similar to practice of linking terms, the Gnostics use gemetria to knit
together various texts with equivalent numerological representations. In AH 1.14.6
Marcus links the “sixth” (sexta) day of creation in Gen 1:31 with other uses of the
number six in Matt 17:1, Matt 27:45, and John 19:14. In the same way, the
Marcosians in AH 1.18.1-2 link together groupings of four, ten, twelve, and thirty
found throughout Gen 1:1-27 that represent the various Pleromic cohorts of aeons.
This type of reading ignores the immediate context of the passages and the larger
narratival framework of the Genesis texts, preferring instead to focus exclusively
upon the numbers or quantities represented in a given passage.
Third, the Gnostics employ a type of prosopological interpretation whereby
they identify different persons in the Genesis narratives with figures in their own
mythical system.98 In AH 1.24.1-2, Irenaeus identifies the speakers and characters
acting in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 with the Demiurge and his angelic servants. A similar
reading is found among the Ophites in AH 1.30.1-9. They identify Jaldabaoth and his
angelic sons as the divine beings working in the creation of Adam in Gen 1:26, Gen
98
For further discussion of elarly Christian “prosopological” interpretation see: M. Slusser, “The
Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” TS 49 (1988) 461-476; C. Andresen, “Zur Entstehung und
Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes,” ZNW 52 (1961) 1-39; M.-J. Rondeau, Les commentateurs
patristiques du Psautier (IIIe-Ve siècls), 2 vols. (Rome: Oriental Institute, 1982, 1985). Andresen uses the
term “prosopographic exegesis” as a method of listing or cataloging the speaker(s) in a text, but
Rondeau and Slusser agree that “prosopological exegesis” more clearly explains this early Christian
method of exegesis, because this term implies the process of identifiying the speakers in a text.
Slusser, “Exegetical Roots,” 462-63.
53
2:7, Gen 2:17, Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:7, and Gen 3:20. They also appeal to the
divine proclamation of Isa 45:5/46:9, and the angelic imagery of Eph 1:21 to describe
the deprave nature and character of these divine beings.
Fourth, amid these other intertextual reading strategies, the Gnostics
provide a type of “plain sense” interpretion of Gen 1-3, where they read Genesis
texts within their original context as a narrative of creation. However, even though
they read these texts as a coherent narrative, they conform the original narrative
and consistently reorder the events of Gen 1-3 according to the nature of their
myth. From the Gnostic perspective the problem is that Moses wrote before the full
revelation of knowledge given in Christ, so his account must be carefully amended
where he does not conform to the Gnostic doctrines.99 For Irenaeus, the resolution
for artificial scriptural networking is found only in the proper ordering and
correspondence of scripture (AH 1.8.1, AH 1.9.4).
In addition to the Gnostic perspective on Gen 1-3, in AH 1.9.3 and AH 1.22.1
Irenaeus provides instances of his own theological intertextuality that characterizes
his reading of scripture in subsequent books. Like the Gnostics, he uses linking
terms and catchwords to unify passages. In AH 1.9.3, he links the imagery of “flesh”
(caro) in reference to Christ’s incarnation in John 1:14 with the substance of Adam’s
formation in Gen 2:7. Irenaeus even suggests that this was John’s original intention
in the composition of his prologue. In AH 1.22.1, the term “all things” (omnia)
theologically binds together Psalm 32:6 LXX, John 1:3, Col 1:16, and Mand 1.1. He also
follows a general-to-particular argument and contrasts the particular creation of
humankind in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.100 Finally, he begins to show his prosopological
interpretation when he identifies the Creator in Genesis with the “Father” (Pater) of
Abraham mentioned in Exod 3:6 and the “Father” (Pater) of Jesus mentioned in Eph
1:3, as the same Creator and Father who created all things by means of the Word
(John 1:3). This style of intertextual networking becomes more prevalent in
subsequent books as Irenaeus develops his polemical response to Gnosis.
99
Giverson, “The Apocryphon of John,” 75-6; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 61, 101-3; Grant, Irenaeus,
25.
100
For comparison of a similar type of argumentation in Justin see: W.A. Shotwell, The Biblical
Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCK, 1965), 32-33.
54
CHAPTER 3: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 BOOK 2 OF
ADVERSU S HAERES ES
3.1 Introduction
Whereas AH 1 was concerned with exposing the various Gnostic systems, AH 2 seeks
to refute them on crucial points of doctrine.1 He assures his reader that he will not
argue all possible objections, but only those that are particularly damaging to the
Valentinian system. Irenaeus believes this rhetorical strategy will expose the
contradictions in their theological perspective and refute their essential arguments.
He is acutely concerned with the passages they draw out from the scriptures and
adapt to their own theological framework.2 Therefore, in light with his own regula
and scriptural interpretation, in AH 2 he endeavors to undermine the crucial
theological pillars of the Valentinian cosmological system.
The argument of AH 2 is divisible into five sections: AH 2.1-11, AH 2.12-19, AH
2.20-28, AH 2.29-30, and AH 2.31-35.3 AH 2.1-11 evaluates the Valentinian distinction
between the Creator-God and the Pleroma. AH 2.12-19 addresses the nature of the
aeons and the salvation of the pneumatic seed. AH 2.20-28 deals with issues of
numerology in the Valentinian (and related) systems. AH 2.29-30 appraises the
Valentinian consummation and the Demiurge, and AH 2.31-35 responds to those
who have followed the Valentinian traditions. Within this structure the uses of Gen
1-3 are reserved to one opening section (AH 2.2.5) and three latter sections (AH
2.26.1, AH 2.30.7,9, and AH 2.34.4). It is not surprising that we find allusions to Gen 13 in the opening and closing sections; Irenaeus has a tendency to frame his work
with allusions to Gen 1-3.4
The textual networking in AH 2 extends Irenaeus’ intertextual reading of
Gen 1-3 that we observed in AH 1. The manner of Irenaeus’ intertextual exegesis in
AH 2 may be framed within a set of conceptual categories including: narratival
connections, linking terms, prosopological interpretations, and theological
harmonization of texts. In a general sense, Irenaeus assumes God as Creator is an
epistemological grounding for his theological framework and argumentation, and in
1
AH 2.pf.2.
AH 2.pf.1.
3
SC 293:119-20.
4
References to Gen 1-2 are found in Epid 11 and 97 and the closing paragraph of AH 5.36.3.
2
55
order to understand the work of God in creation Irenaeus argues specifically for the
necessity to read Moses in continuity with rest of apostolic testimony.
3.2 AH 2.2.5: God’s Unmediated Creation (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:3 5)
The section of AH 2.1-11 engages the nature of the Demiurge and the origin of
creation. Irenaeus begins arguing for what he considers the most essential premise
of reality: “God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that
are therein” (Demiurgo Deo, qui fecit caelum et terram et omnia quae in eis sunt, Gen 1:1).6
He did so, Irenaeus adds, without any external assistance or influence. God is
completely self-sufficient and capable of accomplishing all creative acts.7 While the
Gnostics argue that angels, or some other kind of mediary, formed the world,
Irenaeus suggests God needed no “other instruments” (aliis organis) for the creation
of all things.8 The Word was a “suitable and sufficient” (idoneus… et sufficiens) means
to accomplish creation. As we found in AH 1.22.1, John 1:3 is read in concert with the
creation accounts. He interprets the preposition δια in John 1:3 as instrumental and
emphasizes the inclusiveness of “all things” (omnia). The present world must be
contained, Irenaeus argues, within the sphere of “all things” which necessitates that
the world too was created by means of the Word. This is evidenced with the various
uses of εἰπεν in Gen 1:3.9 For Irenaeus, the instrumentality of the Word in creation
expressed in John 1:3 is the means to understand God speaking creation into
existence in Gen 1:3. Irenaeus also defends his theological reading of Gen 1:3 with
Psalm 32:9/148:5 (LXX) that reports God spoke creation into existence. This unites
the testimonies of the prophets and apostle, so that the continuity of John 1:3, Gen
5
This is a general allusion to God “speaking” (εἰπεν) creation into existence found in Gen 1:3, 6, 9,
etc. In AH 4.32.1, Irenaeus explicitly cites Gen 1:3 for the same purpose. Steenberg, states that AH
4.32.1 is the “only quotation” of Gen 1:3, which technically is correct. However, the present section
alludes to this passage generally and the purpose of citing Gen 1:3 in AH 4.32.1 and AH 2.2.5 is the
same. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 70.
6
AH 2.1.1
7
God’s unmediated creation of all things is a theme to which Irenaeus frequently returns: AH 1.22.1,
AH 2.2.1-5; AH 4.7.4; AH 4.41.1. MacKenzie, Irenaeus's Demonstration, 81-99. Steenberg frames Irenaeus’
arguments against angelic mediation into three categories, all of which are present in AH 2.2.1-5:
angelic mediation suggests angels may act in opposition of God’s will, God creates angels and
establishes their function, and God needs no aid in creation given the presence of the Son and the
Spirit. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 76 n. 46.
8
AH 2.2.1, 5. There is also the related issue of the developing Jewish apocalypticism that emphasized
angelically mediated creation exemplified in Philo. Bilde, “Gnosticism, Jewish Apocalypticism, and
Early Christianity,” in the last days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its period, eds. Jeppesen, et al.,
(Aarhus: Arhus University Press, 1994): 9-32, 22.
9
Cf. Gen 1:6, Gen 1:9, etc...
56
1:3, and Psalm 32:9/148:5 LXX all express the same reality of God creating all things
by means of the Word.
After making these theological arguments, Irenaeus raises the question of
authority that challenges the very basis of the Gnostic appeal to the Mosaic account.
Arguing for the authoritative continuity between the apostle and prophet, he poses
the rhetorical question:
Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world, these
heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently
on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a
faithful servant of God and a prophet? [Heb 3:5]. He at first narrated the
formation of the world in these words: ‘In the beginning God created the
heaven and earth,’ [Gen 1:1] and all other things in succession.10
Of course, the rhetorical question implies that Moses accurately recorded the
creation of all things by means of the Word beginning with Gen 1:1. Following the
sentiment of the author of Hebrews, Irenaeus views Moses and his writings as
authoritative and envisions Moses a faithful servant of God and a prophet. He pits
the authority of Moses’ account of creation in continuity with the “disciples of the
Lord” (discipulis Domini) against the Gnostic revisions of Moses. While the apostles
and Moses are consistent, the doctrines of the heretics and Moses are inconsistent.
In other words, the true account of creation is the ordered narratival account of
creation recorded in Gen 1:1ff that is affirmed and illuminated by the apostolic
testimony, rather than the Gnostic revisions of Genesis. Irenaeus is in effect asking
his readers to choose between these two systems of interpretation and to affirm the
authority of the Mosaic account in continuity with the teaching of the apostles.
3.3 AH 2.26.1: Knowledge and Love (Gen 2:7)
In AH 2.26.1, Irenaeus discusses the knowledge of God and its limits appealing to 1
Cor 8:1, “Knowledge puffs up but love edifies” (Scientia inflat caritas autem aedificat).11
He asserts it is better to be simple and be close to God than learned and found
among the Gnostics. Paul, Irenaeus remarks, did not believe that knowledge of God
was injurious but simply false knowledge of God that denies a love for God and
10
AH 2.2.5. Cui igitur magis credemus de mundi fabricatione, hisne qui praedicti sunt haereticis sic
fatua et at inconstantia garrientibus, an discipulis Domini et fideli famulo Dei Moysi et prophetae?
Qui et primo genesim mundi enarrauit, dicens: In principio Deus fecit caelum et terram, et deince
Psalm reliqua omnia.
11
AH 2.26.1.
57
esteems the individual as perfect.12 This false knowledge is contrary to the
fundamental nature of the Creator-creature relationship established in creation of
humankind in Gen 2:7.13 For Irenaeus the greatest offence of the Gnostics is
rejecting the very one who fashioned humankind and infused them with the breath
of life (Gen 2:7), because they imagine themselves more perfect than the God who
created them.
Challenging the speculative tendencies of the Gnostics, he charges they are
not content with knowing that God created all things, but concern themselves with
limitless theories on why God created.14 Alluding to the love between the Father and
the Son in John 15:9-10, he suggests it would be more profitable to have no
knowledge of God’s motivation for creation and to love God anyway than to be
puffed up with false knowledge of speculative matters. For Irenaeus the faithful
should seek after no other knowledge except Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified
for the salvation of God’s people (1 Cor 2:2).15 Therefore, Irenaeus reads 1 Cor 8:1,
John 15:9-10 and 1 Cor 2:2 in continuity with Gen 2:7, assuming knowledge of the
crucified Son will direct the faithful toward a more profound love for God and bring
them into submission to the God who formed humankind in Gen 2:7.
3.4 AH 2.28.1: Creation and Providence (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28)
This section continues the same line of argumentation reflected in AH 2.26.1.
Irenaeus begins by reminding the reader that the church has in their midst both the
regula veritas/fidei and the testimony about God in the scriptures as the guide to the
true knowledge of God.16 The Gnostics, Irenaeus argues, seek out unattainable
knowledge with sundry answers to vexing questions that direct them away from
true knowledge of God and abandon any love of God. Instead of seeking out
unattainable knowledge, the faithful should content themselves with the revelation
of God that is “clearly” (aperto) proclaimed (cf. AH 2.28.3). This “clear” proclamation
combines a set of interlocking allusions and echoes depicting God’s economic
12
AH 2.26.1.
AH 2.26.1.
14
William R. Schoedel, “Theological Method in Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 2.25-28),” JThS 35 (1984):
31-49; W. C. van Unnik, “Theological Speculation and its Limits,” In Early Christian Literature and the
Classical Tradition, In Honorem Robert M. Grant, Théologie historique 53 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979): 33-43.
15
AH 2.26.1.
16
AH 2.28.1.
13
58
activity throughout salvation history including: Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28, Heb 7:7,
Job 3:16, and Matt 3:12.17
His economic report describes God as the Creator of the world (Gen 1:1), the
Creator of humankind (Gen 2:7), and humankind as infused with the “faculty of
increase” (donauit incrementum), echoing Gen 1:28 characterizing the progressive
sanctification of God’s creature.18 He supports the sanctification of the faithful with
an echo of Heb 7:7, depicting a movement from the lesser to the greater in the
advancement toward divine perfection. He also links the theme of progression in
Heb 7:7 to the images of childbirth in Job 3:16 and harvesting in Matt 3:12. The
former is the transition from the formation in the womb to birth, while the latter is
the imagery of planting and harvesting. The intertextual link between these texts is
the imagery of creation and increase, with the will of God governing both. In this
way, the passages of Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7 and Gen 1:28 are linked through a narratival
framework from the creation of the cosmos and humankind to the advancement of
humankind toward perfection exemplified in Job 3:16, Matt 3:12, and Heb 7:7.
3.5 AH 2.30.7: Paul’s Rapture to Paradise (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:15)
The larger section of AH 2.29-30 concerns the nature of salvation in Valentinian
thought and summarizes the eternal destiny of the three substances: hylics,
psychics, and pneumatics. The hylics remain below and are destroyed, the psychics
ascend only to the intermediary place, and the pneumatics ascend to the Pleroma.
Fundamentally Irenaeus argues if pneumatics are saved by their nature, the notion
of a Savior is superfluous. What is more, the description of Paul’s ascension to the
third heaven in 2 Cor 12:4 appears central to the Valentinian account of salvation,
whereas Irenaeus demonstrates how Paul’s ascension is not incongruous with the
salvation of the body.
In AH 2.30.7, Irenaeus cites Paul’s rapture to Paradise in 2 Cor 12:4 and
critiques the Valentinian emphasis on the spiritual nature. While he challenges the
Valentinian interpretation of Paul’s ascension, he observes that Paul’s physical body
in 2 Cor 12:2-3 did not hinder Paul’s ability to witness spiritual visions. In his
analysis of Paul’s rapture in 2 Cor 12:4, Irenaeus describes the “spiritual mysteries”
17
18
AH 2.28.1.
AH 2.28.1.
59
(sacramenta… spiritalia) that Paul witnessed as the “operations of God” (Dei
operationes) and those who reach the height of perfection, such as Paul, may also
become “spectators” (speculatores) of the work of God. He illustrates these spiritual
mysteries or “operations of God” with a series of allusions to Gen 1-2 that recount
how God “made the heavens and the earth [Gen 1:1], and formed man [Gen 2:7], and
placed him in paradise [Gen 2:15]” (fecit cealos et terram et plasmauit hominem et posuit
in paradiso).19 The language of “paradise” (paradisus) links Gen 2:15 and 2 Cor 12:2-4,
but Irenaeus extends this connection with a narratival summary of the creation of
the world and Adam and his placement in Paradise (Gen 2:15).20 In paradise Adam
became a “spectator” (speculator) of these works of God, but now those like Paul who
come to exceed in their love of God will invert Adam’s expulsion from paradise and
become spectators of God in paradise, beholding the divine activity revealed there.
This implies that what Paul observed in paradise was the true knowledge of God as
Creator.
3.6 AH 2.30.9: Creation by the Word and Wisdom (Gen 1: 1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8)
In AH 2.30.9 Irenaeus continues the same line of argumentation and believes he has
sufficiently proven that the “spiritual” Valentinians are not superior to the Creator.
This chapter comprises an extended reflection on the nature of God and God’s
economic activity, including: Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Eph 1:21, Matt 11:27, Heb 1:3,
and Mand. 1.21 He restates his basic premise that God created all things by means of
the Word and Wisdom, which he defends with an allusion to Heb 1:3, where God
created all things by the “Word of His power” (Verbo uirtutis suae).22 He conflates
Heb 1:3 with Hermas Mand. 1 in order to unify the “Word” (Verbo) and the “Wisdom”
(Sapientia) in the creative process. Irenaeus believes the Will and Wisdom of God
form all things from his own substance.23 He also provides an allusion to Col 1:16
with the language of God creating all things including things “visible” (visibilia) and
19
AH 2.30.7. cf. Gen 2:8.
There is an implied use of Gen 3:8 in the description of the Lord walking in the garden.
21
AH 2.30.9. He also mentioned an assortment general scriptural titles or terminology such as
“heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them” (Exod 20:11, Psalm 145:6, Acts 4:24,
14, 15, and Matt 22:32) and “Father of our Lord Jesus” which is a standard Pauline introductory
formula (2 Cor 1:3, 11:31, Eph 1:3, 3:14, Col 1:3, and 1 Pet 1:3). Many of the statement are general
scriptural images and titles mingled together with allusions to other scriptural texts and
descriptions of God.
22
AH 2.30.9.
23
Fantino, La Théologie, 311-12; cf. AH 2.10.4, 2.14.4.
20
60
“invisible” (invisibilia), as well as Gen 1:1 in the language “heavenly” (caelestia) and
the “earthly” (terrena).24 These texts, for Irenaeus, depict the Word as the
instrument of the Father or, in Steenberg’s more formal definition, the “formative
actualization of the Father’s creative will.”25 While these discussions often
precipitate in the context of Gen 1:26, here we see the conflation of Heb 1:3 and
Mand. 1 framed against the notion of a mediated creation.
This Creator, according to Irenaeus, is above every “Principality, and Power,
and Dominion, and Virtue” (Principalitatem et Potestatem et Dominationem et Virtutem,
Eph 1:21) and the same God has wrought creation and salvation.26 Irenaeus frames
the activity of God with a punctuated narratival account of salvation history. He
begins with the act of creation of the world by means of the Word and Wisdom
(Psalm 145:6 LXX27) and joins this with an allusion to the formation of Adam in Gen
2:7, the formation of paradise in Gen 2:8, the Noahic account in Gen 6, and then
alludes to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt 22:32). He rounds off the
summary with a general allusion to the law, the prophets, the revelation in Christ,
the apostles, and the church.28 Linking the Creator with the Father of Jesus (2 Cor
1:329) and the Son as the revealer of the Father (Matt 11:27) with the summary of
salvation history suggests the Son has been revealing the Creator and Father since
the beginning. The events of salvation history do not merely anticipate the
incarnation of the Son, but include the revelatory activity of the Son.
3.7 AH 2.34.3-4: Formation and Progression of Body and Soul (Gen 2:1, Gen
2:7)
This section is essential for discerning the nature of the soul’s relation to the body
in Irenaeus’ thought.30 His evaluation considers the nature of the soul with respect
to the “breath of life” (aspiratio vitae) in Gen 2:7. In the closing lines of the preceding
section, he has already depicted the resurrected life as the union of the body, soul,
24
AH 2.30.9.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 79-80. Steenberg’s language of “actualization” may be problematic if he
implies the Word as the end product of God’s creative will rather than the means. Orbe, “San Ireneo y
la Creación de la material,” Greg 59 (1978): 71-127, 74-75.
26
AH 2.30.9
27
cf. Exod 20:11, Acts 4:24, and Acts 14:15.
28
AH 2.30.9
29
cf. 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 3:14, Col 1:3, and 1 Pet 1:3.
30
cf. Epid 15. Justin, Dial 5.
25
61
and Spirit.31 As a result, he carefully distinguishes between the soul and the body, as
well as the animation of the soul, or the “breath of life,” and the Spirit. Behr rightly
argues that Irenaeus is not interested in delineating the nature of the soul per se;
this speculation is reserved for the Gnostics.32 However, the Gnostics argue that if
God created the soul it necessarily would be subject to death and decay like the rest
of creation. Irenaeus denies the transmigration of the soul and argues that souls are
immortal, even though they had a beginning.33 God the immortal and eternal
Creator, according to Irenaeus, sustains and preserves all creation from beginning
to end. In AH 2.34.1 he defends this view from the healing of Lazarus, arguing that
God preserved the soul’s existence after death. He even suggests that the soul
continues in the same form as it had in the body, which Steenberg terms the
“human-shaped soul,” and remembers the deeds performed in the body.34 In AH
2.34.2 Irenaeus’ basic response is that all of God’s creation is inherently subjected to
the will of the Creator and develops this point in AH 2.34.3-4 with the aid of Gen 2:1,
Gen 2:7, Psalm 148:5-6/32:9 LXX, Psalm 20:5 LXX, and Luke 16:10.
In the opening lines of AH 2.34.3, Irenaeus alludes to the completion of
creation in Gen 2:1 and argues that just as the creation has existed for a long
duration of time, so also the soul. He connects this point with Psalm 148:5-6/32:9
LXX, where he finds the qualitative description that God has created all things to
exist “forever” (in saeculum).35 While creation had a beginning, it is prepared to exist
eternally. The same point is made in reference to humankind in Psalm 20:5 LXX. The
“life” (vitae) God bestowed upon humanity through salvation prepares the faithful
to exist “forever” (in saeculum).36 Echoing the imagery of Gen 2:7, life is not
something that originates naturally within humanity, but is given by the grace of
God.37 The description of Adam becoming a “living soul” (animam vivam, Gen 2:7)
confirms that the soul is enlivened only through participation with life imparted
31
AH 2.33.5. cf. AH 5.3.3.
Behr, Asceticism, 94; AH 1.5.5-6; AH 1.30.8-9; AH 2.34.3-4; AH 4.pf.4; AH 5.6.1. He does argue that the
soul is eternal in AH 5.7.1-2.
33
Ibid., 92.
34
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 127. Scholars have debated the “corporeal” nature of Irenaeus’ view of the
soul. Ibid., 130.
35
AH 2.34.3.
36
AH 2.34.3. Rousseau interprets “life” (vitae) in Psalm 20:5 as the “life in the Spirit” Adam enjoyed
prior to his disobedience, but Behr rightly notes that “life” is this section must be life in the body.
Behr, Asceticism, 94-6. SC 293, 345-6. Rousseau’s position was also criticized heavily by Lassiat. Lassiat,
“L’ Anthropologie d’Irénée,” NRT 100 (1978) 399-417, 405.
37
AH 2.34.3. cf. AH 1.18.1-2, AH 3.21.10, AH 5.12.2-6
32
62
from God.38 For Irenaeus, the “soul” (anima) and “life” (vitae) are separate
existences. Under the provision of the divine will, God bestowed life upon the soul
and gave it both “life and perpetual duration” (uitam et perpetuam perseuerantiam).39
To be sure, as Behr argues, the pre- and post-lapsarian life of Adam are “different
modalities of life” that prefigure the eschatological divine life.40 Those who reject
God or are ungrateful, like the shrewd manager in Luke 16:10, are separated from
the will of God and not granted eternal life, because the life given by the breath is
temporal.41
3.8 Conclusion
As we have seen, the nature of Irenaeus’ textual networking in AH 2 extends the
intertextual practices observed in AH 1. Although all the allusions to Gen 1-3 are
intentionally polemical, they continue to provide insight into his own intertextual
logic. First, what is unique to AH 2 is Irenaeus’ specific call to read the Mosaic
account of creation in continuity with the apostolic testimony (AH 2.2.5). He asserts
that Moses is a more trusted authority (Heb 3:5) on creation of all things than the
Gnostic intellectuals who continually revise or amend Genesis in accordance with
their own theological perspective.
Second, he frames several references to Gen 1-3 in a narratival or
chronological arrangement in accordance with salvation history. In AH 2.30.7,
Irenaeus interprets the “spiritual mysteries” (sacramenta... spiritalia) that Paul
witnessed while raptured to Paradise in 2 Cor 12:4 as the “operations of God” (Dei
operationes). He defines these operations as the creative acts of God in Gen 1:1, Gen
2:7, and Gen 2:15. Similarly, in AH 2.30.9 Irenaeus continues his discussion of the
nature of God and God’s economic activity using Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:8 to frame
certain events of salvation history and allusions to Noahic, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
the Law, Prophets, and Christ.
Third, he continues to bind texts together through linking terms and
catchwords. In AH 2.2.5 the imagery of God “speaking” (εἰπεν) creation into
38
AH 2.34.4.
AH 2.34.4.
40
Behr, Asceticism, 95.
41
cf. AH 5.3.3.
39
63
existence in Gen 1:3,42 corresponds with God speaking in Psalm 32:943 LXX, and God
creating my means of the Word in John 1:3. In AH 2.30.7, the language of “Paradise”
(paradisus) links 2 Cor 12:4 with God placing Adam in paradise in Gen 2:15. While
Adam was expelled from Paradise for his disobedience, Paul is raptured to paradise.
Finally, in AH 2.34.3-4, the language of “life” (vitae) and “forever” (saeculum) links
Gen 2:7, Psalm 32:9 LXX, Psalm 20:5 LXX, and Luke 16:10.
Fourth, there are prosopological readings of Gen 1-3 where Irenaeus
identifies the divine persons active in the creation accounts. In AH 2.2.5 Irenaeus
assumes the act of creation involves not only the Father, but also the Word of God
(John 1:3). Then, in AH 2.30.9, he conflates a reference to Word of God (Heb 1:3) with
the Wisdom of God in Mand 1 to prove the activity of the Word and Wisdom in the
act of creation.
Fifth, there are also general conceptual or theological connections that are
not necessarily linked through specific verbal relationships. It is common for these
connections to have some Christological influence that results in a theologically
symbiotic relationship between these Genesis passages and other scriptural
references. In AH 2.26.1, Irenaeus discusses the knowledge of God and its limits with
the intertextual use of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 8:1, John 15:9-10, and 1 Cor 2:2. He
claims his opponents reflect the puffed up knowledge of 1 Cor 8:1 that is
contradictory of the Creator-creature relationship established in Gen 1-2. The
knowledge of God as the Creator of all things is an epistemological foundation for
his theological framework. This, according to Irenaeus, is the most essential and
clear revelation available to all, and in AH 2.28.1 Irenaeus suggests the faithful
should content themselves with this clear revelation of God. He further describes
this revelation with a set of intertextual references including: Gen 1:1, Gen 1:26/2:7,
Gen 1:28, Heb 7:7, Job 3:16, and Matt 3:12. These texts are connected through
imagery that envisions a progressive sanctification moving from creation toward
perfection in the divine likeness. Finally, in AH 2.34.3-4 Irenaeus address the basic
anthropological connection between the soul and the body through the
harmonization of Gen 2:7, Psalm 32:9 LXX, Psalm 20:5 LXX, and Luke 16:10. He
argues the soul does not have life naturally but partakes of life from God, since God
42
43
Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc.
Psalm 148:5.
64
creates all things, the perpetual existence of creation is dependent upon the will of
the Creator.
These intertextual strategies become even more prevalent in AH 3-5, as
Irenaeus’ intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 serves his theological polemic. In these
books, Irenaeus moves from exposing and refuting the Gnostic theological system to
expounding his own theological perspective.
65
CHAPTER 4: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 3
OF ADVERSUS HAERESES
4.1. Introduction
Having examined the use of this pericope in Irenaeus’ ancient milieu in AH 1-2, this
third book presents a pivotal turning point in his refutation of the Gnostics. He
shifts his polemical tactics from exposing and refuting doctrines of the Gnostics in
AH 1-2 to defending and explaining the apostolic faith in light of scripture and
tradition in AH 3-5. AH 3 demonstrates the continuity, contra the Gnostics, in the
activity of God from creation to incarnation, and throughout his argument Irenaeus
keeps his focus on the person and work of Christ.
As a whole the book may be framed into four major sections: AH 3.1-5, AH
3.6-15, AH 3.16-23, and AH 3.24-25.1 In AH 3.1-5 he contrasts the teaching of the
heretics with the authoritative teaching of the Apostles, supported by a theory of
apostolic succession in the church. In AH 3.6-15 he argues for the existence of one
God, who is both Creator of all things and Father of Jesus Christ. In AH 3.16-23 he
contends, against the Valentinians, Ebionites, and Tatian, that there is only one
incarnate Son of God who recapitulates all things. Finally, in AH 3.24-25 he closes
the book with a plea for the heretics to return to the teaching of the church, which
is the true locus of the Spirit. Therefore, the general thrust of the whole book argues
for the “one God Creator of the heaven and earth” (unum Deum Factorem caeli et
terrae) and “one Christ the Son of God (unum Christum Filium Dei).”2 These claims
impose a theological pressure upon Irenaeus’ interpretation of scripture and
determine the performance of Gen 1-3 in the context of his theological exegesis.
Similar to what we witnessed in AH 1-2, although a few references to Gen 1-3
surface in the early part of the work, the latter chapters contain a concentration of
echoes, allusions, and citations.3 This is not surprising given the emphasis on
incarnation and recapitulation that is directed by a Pauline Adam-Christ typology in
the latter portion of the AH 3. These Christological references are found within
1
SC 210:171-205.
AH 3.1.2.
3
AH 3.3.3; 3.11.5, 8; 3.18.1, 7; 3.19.3; 3.20.1; 3.21.10; 3.22.1-4; 3.23.1-8; 3.24.1-2. There are several
allusions that we could not confirm including: Gen 1:1 in AH 3.15.3, Gen 2:16-17, Gen 3:6, Gen 3:15 and
Gen 3:19 in AH 3.20.2, and Gen 3:22 in AH 3.21.4. All of these echoes were too general for the present
discussion.
2
66
networks of texts that support the activity of one God and Father administering
creation by means of the Son. His theological and Christological argumentation
culminates in AH 3.23.1-8 that is organized in a chiastic structure around the
contents of Gen 3. His exegesis continues to use a variety of intertextual strategies
including: narratival and structural arrangements, catchwords, theological or
typological relationships, prosopological interpretations, and illustrative
application of texts. These reading strategies provide a conceptual framework for
his intertextual networking of scripture.
4.2 AH 3.3.3: The Narrative of Salvation (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7)
In AH 3.3.2-3 Irenaeus mentions a letter written by Clement from the church at
Rome to the church at Corinth.4 He considers this letter, commonly known as
1Clement, more authoritative since it predates the Gnostic teachers. Irenaeus reports
this letter urged the church at Corinth to declare the tradition received from the
apostles, which he qualifies with a telescoped summary of salvation history
including: creation of the world, creation of humankind, the Flood, the Exodus, the
giving of the law, the prophets and the judgment of Satan.5 These events
correspond to a set of observable scriptural allusions and echoes including: Gen 1:1,
Gen 2:7, Gen 6:17, Gen 12:1, Exod 3:10, Exod 3:4, Ex 20:1, Isa 6:8, Matt 25:41.6 This
narratival arrangement draws predominately from the Old Testament; and God as
the Creator of the world in Gen 1:1 and the creation of Adam in Gen 2:7 provide the
contents of the initial sequences.7 The latter portion of the arrangement makes a
dramatic transition from the prophets to the eschatological judgment of Satan in
4
AH 3.3.3. Irenaeus’ succession list includes Linus and Anacletus, and Clement, of whom Irenaeus
eloquently remarks had the “preaching of the Apostles still ringing [in his ears] and the tradition
before [his] eyes” (cum adhoc insonantem praedicationem apostolorum et traditionem andte oculos haberet).
This succession list has received a significant amount of attention. See Javierre, Antonio M, "In
ecclesia": Ireneo, Adv haer 3, 3, 2,” in Comunione interecclesiale collegialité - primato ecumenismo (Rome:
LAS: 1972) 221-317; Abramowski, L. "Irenaeus, Adv Haer III 3,2: ecclesia Romana and omnis ecclesia;
and ibid 3,3: Anacletus of Rome." JTS 28: (1977), 101-104; Nautin, P. “Irénée, Adv haer, III 3,2: Eglise de
Rome ou église universelle?,” RHR (1957) 151: 37-78.
5
This account of salvation history is related his rule of faith found in various forms throughout AH 3
including: AH 3.4.2, AH 3.15.3 and AH 3.16.6. The narratival character of the regula is debated. See Paul
Blowers, “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith,” ProE 6.2 (1997): 199228. Nathan MacDonald, “Israel and the Old Testament Story in Irenaeus’ Presentation of the Rule of
Faith,” JTI 3.2 (2009): 281-98.
6
AH 3.3.3.
7
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 7.
67
Matt 25:41.8 But this merely suggests the purpose of this arrangement is to argue for
the continuity of salvation history under the provision of one God and Father who
administers creation from its conception to the eschatological judgment of Satan.9
This unification of the plot of scripture is what Irenaeus terms its “hypothesis.”10
The Gnostics, on the other hand, reflect a dualistic and polytheistic tendency and
insert discontinuity between the God of the Old Testament and the preaching of the
church represented in 1 Clement.11 In this case, Irenaeus’ call upon Gen 1:1 and Gen
2:7 is a theological one that proves the continuity of the apostolic tradition
represented in 1 Clement.12
4.3 AH 3.11.5,8: Son of God and God the F ather
The larger section AH 3.9.1-3.10.6 concerns Irenaeus’ interpretation of the infancy
narratives in the synoptic Gospels in contrast with the Gnostics. In AH 3.11.1-6, he
transitions from discussing the synoptics to the Gospel of John. He even suggests
the motivation for John’s Gospel was the refutation of Cerinthus, a Gnostic working
in Asia Minor. This is the earliest reference to the authorial intent of the Gospel and
certainly a point Irenaeus received from Polycarp. These last three sections of AH
3.11.7-9 defend the four-fold Gospel canon with the numerology reminiscent of the
Gnostics. The intertestamental links between the incarnate Son of God and God the
Father continue to pervade these sections, and within this continuity Gen 1-3 is
decisive.
8
cf. AH 2.30.9, AH 3.23.3.
AH 3.3.3; cf. AH 3.5.3. The integrity of the arrangement of the Old Testament is also evidenced in Epid
8-30. Here Irenaeus identifies the direction of salvation history under the provision of the Father.
10
This summary of salvation history is Irenaeus’ “hypothesis” of 1 Clement, implying that Irenaeus is
summarizing, not just salvation history, but the meaning of 1 Clement. This explains why there is no
portion of 1 Clement that mirrors his synopsis. Rousseau located each of these episodes of salvation
history in 1 Clement generally with the exception of the fires of hell in Matt 25:41. The absence of the
Matt 25:41 from 1 Clement is an enigma. Rousseau points us to the work of B. Botte, who observes that
the fires of hell are mentioned five times in 2 Clement. Irenaeus, if he was even aware of the existence
of 2 Clement (the earliest references to 2 Clement are found in Origen), may have assumed it was a
continuation of 1 Clement. “1 Clement,” in The Apostolic Fathers I, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL 24
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 125-27; Wilhem Pratscher, “The Second Epistle of
Clement,” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, 71-90 (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2010);
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 320-24; Behr, Asceticism, 32-33. Robert Grant, Irenaeus, 47-48.
11
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 321.
12
Kannengiesser, “The ‘Speaking God’,” 350.
9
68
4.3.1 AH 3. 11.5: Creation and Blessing (Gen 1: 1, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, Gen 2:6)
In this section Irenaeus reads the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana in continuity
with the creation accounts. He alludes to John 2:1 and 2:6 that frame Christ’s first
miracle with texts depicting God’s creation of flora and water (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:11,
Gen 1:9, and Gen 2:6) in order to reveal Christ’s identity as the Creator in Gen 1-2.13
The God who made the earth in Gen 1:1, commanded it to bring fourth fruit in Gen
1:11, also created the waters in Gen 1:9 and the “springs” (fontes) that water the
earth in Gen 2:6. Now just as the Son of God was with the Father in Genesis creating
vegetation and water, the same person is found in the Gospels exercising authority
over food and drink. While Johannine passages discuss miracles involving food and
drink, Irenaeus also weaves them together with allusions to the feeding of the 5000
with the loaves and fishes in John 6:11 and the invitation to the marriage supper of
the Lamb in Matt 22:3.14 Even though the Son of God had the capability to create ex
nihilo as in Gen 1-2, he chose to take his own creation in his hands and blessed it.15
While the creation of flora and water in Gen 1 was a creation ex nihilo, the miracles
in the Gospels are the restoration of his creative substances. A final allusion to John
1:18 binds these texts together arguing, that the Son who preexisted in the “bosom
of the Father” (in sinu Patris) has now, through his miracles, manifest the invisible
God by means of the visible incarnation. He applies the incomprehensiveness of the
Father to the Son, who existed with the Father in the beginning.16 The instrumental
medium for this revelation is the physical substances where the
“incomprehensible” (incomprehensibilis) and “invisible” (invisibilis) God works by
means of physical substances. For Irenaeus, this is what the Father has been doing
through the Son from the beginning.
4.3.2 AH 3.11.8: The Adamic Covenant (Gen 2: 16-17)
The same links between the economic activities of the Father though the Son
continue in AH 3.11.7, where he argues the “first principles of the Gospel” (principia
Eugangelii) are the existence of one God, the Maker of this universe and the Father of
13
While Irenaeus is speaking about the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana in John 2, the language
inuitati errant ad nuptias is closer to Matt 22:3. Mutschler, Das Corpus Johanneum, 222-39.
14
cf. Rev 19:9
15
Rousseau, SC 210. 282.
16
cf. AH 3.16.6; AH 4.20.5; AH 5.16.2.
69
Christ. He suggests the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are
all unified in this fundamental perspective. These last three sections of AH 3.11.7-9
defend the four-fold Gospel canon using a kind of numerology that we have seen
previously. Irenaeus concludes that there are four Gospels just as there are four
quadrants to the earth, four directional winds, four pillars of the earth, four living
creatures of Rev 4:7,17 a four-fold revelatory action of the Word, and four covenants.
The “four covenants” (quattuor… testamenta) include: the Adamic Covenant, the
Noahic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant. The Adamic
Covenant naturally echoes God’s command in Gen 2:16-17. Adam is free to eat from
any tree in the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Other than
mentioning this as the only covenant prior to the Flood, he gives no further
information. However, we cannot overlook that the Adamic covenant is continuous
with the Noahic Covenant in Gen 9:8-16, the Mosaic Covenant in Exod 19-20, and the
New Covenant summarized with the language of Eph 1:10. In her analysis of the
covenants in Irenaeus, Susan Graham argues that they are real events and real
relationships between God and humankind arranged for the growth and progress of
the faithful.18 She refers to the relationship in the paradise as the “benchmark for all
divine-human relationships.”19 The vision of the Lord walking and conversing with
Adam prefigures the incarnation and New Covenant that “renovates humankind
and sums up all things in himself by means of the Gospel” (renouat hominem et
recapitulat in se omnia, Eph 1:10).20 The four-fold covenant structure, beginning with
Adam (Gen 2:16-17) forms a progressive trajectory that prepares the faithful for the
communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed in paradise.
4.4 AH 3.18.1,7: Creation and Incarnation
Donovan identifies a chiastic structure in AH 3.18.1-7 centering on a discussion of
martyrdom in AH 3.18.5.21 The bookends of this structure, AH 3.18.1-2 and AH 3.18.7,
17
Regarding the four living creatures of Rev 4:7, he states the gospels “harmonize” (consonantia) with
nature of the creatures around Christ’s throne and then he identifies each symbol with its respective
gospel: Human-Matthew, Eagle-Mark, Ox-Luke, and Lion-John.
18
Susan L. Graham, “Irenaeus and the Covenants: ‘Immortal Diamond,’” StuPat 40 (2006): 393-98, 394.
19
Ibid., 394. She also argues that the early part of Irenaeus’ Epideixis follows a covenantal framework.
Graham, “Structure and Purpose of Irenaeus’ Epideixis,” StuPat 36 (2001): 210–21.
20
AH 3.11.8.
21
Donovan’s chiastic structure is identified as follows: A. Necessity of incarnation (AH III.18.1-2); B.
Paul on the reality of Christ’s redemptive suffering, death, and resurrection (AH III.18.2-3); C. Christ’s
70
contain common allusions to Gen 1-3 and, as a result, are related structurally and
theologically.22 He combines Gen 1:26 with John 1:14 to discusses the necessity of
the incarnation. The term “flesh” or “formation” (plasmati) and a related semantic
field form strong connections between the creation accounts and the Johannine
prologue. Gen 2:5 is read in continuity with Adam-Christ typology of Rom 5-6 in AH
3.18.7.
4.4.1 AH 3.18.1: The Pre-existence of the Son (Gen 1:26, Gen 2: 7)
In AH 3.18.1 he appeals to John 1:2-3 and John 1:10 to prove the preexistence of the
Son in the beginning with the Father and his continued administration of creation
through time. He unites the preexistence and incarnation of the Son that effects the
recovery of the original creative form fashioned in the image and likeness of God. In
Irenaeus’ mind, there is an inherent link between the creation accounts and the
Johannine prologue. Referring to the formation from the dust in Gen 2:7, he
describes how the Word of God became “united to his own formation” (unitum suo
plasmati) and, alluding to John 1:14, the Word was “made a passable human”
(passibilem hominem factum).23 For Irenaeus the Word did not merely become flesh
(John 1:14), but became what was his own formation (Gen 2:7). Preexistence and
incarnation are united in Christ, who “recapitulated in himself a long narration of
human beings” (longam hominum expositionem in seipso recapitulauit) and “in summary
exhibited our salvation” (in compendio nobis salutem praestans, Eph 1:10).24 Grant
suggests that this passage expresses the loss of both the image of God in Adam’s
disobedience, but Behr rightly notes that the eschatological thrust of Irenaeus’
argument points towards the recovery of both the image and likeness in Christ and
teaching on his suffering and that of his disciples (AH III.18.4); D. If Christ did not suffer but flew
away from Jesus, by what right did he exhort disciples to follow him? (AH III.18.5); E. Suffering of the
Martyr’s: differing views (AH III.18.5); D′. If Christ’s suffering was not real, by what right did he
exhort disciples to follow him? (AH III.18.6); C′. Paul teaches that Christ was a man who by his
obedience redeemed human disobedience (AH III.18.6); B′. Christ teaches that he claimed the strong
man, freed the weak and gave salvation to the work of his hands destroying sin (AH III.18.6); A′.
Necessity of incarnation (AH III.18.7). Donovan, One Right Reading, 83. Donovan does not explicitly
combine AH 3.18.1-2, as I have here, but it is evident that the themes and content is parallel and they
should be understood as a unit in this chiastic structure.
22
Donovan, One Right Reading, 83.
23
Irenaeus also argues the Word was with the Father in the beginning and only recently united to his
own formation (plasmo). This phrase, “united to his own creation,” (unitum suo plasmati) is
particularly important for Irenaeus and parallel phrases are found throughout AH 3. see: AH 3.10.4; AH
3.16.6; AH 3.18.1, 6-7; AH 3.19.3; and AH 3.21.9-10.
24
AH 3.18.1.
71
the intertextual use of John 1:14 with Gen 1:26 supports his view.25 The validity of
this intertextual connection is sealed with an allusion to Deut 32:4 that confirms the
Adam-Christ analogy. He mentions that same passage again in AH 3.18.7.
4.4.2 AH 3.18.7: Salvation and the Obedience of Christ (Gen 2:5)
The discussion of the Incarnation resurfaces in AH 3.18.7, where Irenaeus concludes
the whole chiastic structure arguing that Christ, who was both God and man, could
have vanquished the enemy and possessed salvation securely.26 The Bishop of Lyons
remarks that unless humanity is joined to God, humankind could never partake of
incorruptibility.27 While there are a number of texts cited in this section, he
specifically harmonizes Gen 2:5 with Rom 5:12 and Rom 5:19. For Irenaeus, the
destruction of sin and death could only be accomplished through God assuming the
same substance formed from the dust in Gen 2:5. The phrase “originally molded
from virgin soil” (primus de terra rudis plasmatus) conflates Gen 2:5 with Rom 5:19 in
order to characterize the virginity of the one fashioned from the earth. The “virgin”
soil exemplifies the nature of the untilled soil prior to God sending rain in Gen 2:6 or
grasping the earth to form Adam in Gen 2:7. The creation of Adam from the “virgin
soil” of Gen 2:5 mirrors the virgin birth of Christ. Not only does Irenaeus correspond
the generations of Adam and Christ, he also contrasts Adam’s act of disobedience
with Christ’s act of obedience.28 Through disobedience the first man ushered in sin
and death for all, but through the obedience of Christ the faithful find salvation. To
validate the legitimacy between the Adam-Christ analogy Irenaeus again turns to
Deut 32:4, “God, true are his works” (Deus, uera opera eius). He links the term “work”
(opera) with the concept of the untilled soil in Gen 2:5 and the incarnation and
salvation of Christ in Rom 5:12, 19. The validity of the works of God is manifest in
Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s formation when he destroyed sin and death and
restored humankind to life.29
25
Grant, Irenaeus, 52; Behr, Anthropology, 90.
It is still worth noting that this emphasis on obedience, observed by Wingren, acknowledges the
union of the physical and ethical aspects of salvation. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 27-8.
27
There is a close relationship between the use of Gen 2:5 and related intertexts in this section with
Epid 30-34a and AH 3.21.10.
28
Behr, Asceticism, 63.
29
Here is rejects the ransom theory of atonement. Steenberg, Of God and Man, 45; Wingren, Man and
the Incarnation, 129.
26
72
The placement of Gen 2:5 in this section demonstrates the way Irenaeus
extends Paul’s logic with his own harmonization.30 Francis Watson identifies this
semantic structure in Rom 5 as demonstrative of the “asymmetrical analogy”
between Adam and Christ in Paul’s thought.31 He uses the same “as…so” (ὡσπερ...
οὑτως) framework as Paul in Rom 5:12 and 5:19, but extends the asymmetrical
relationship to include positive symmetry between the experiences of Adam and
Christ.32 Whereas Paul’s comparison is purely contrastive, Irenaeus utilizes both
contrastive and corresponding elements.33 Thus, Irenaeus extends Paul’s typological
relationship by harmonizing Gen 2:5 and Rom 5:12 in a way that develops into both
comparative and contrastive elements.
4.5 AH 3.19.3-20.1: God’s Creative Work
As we found AH 3.18.1-7, Donovan also identifies another chiastic structure in AH
3.19.1-21.9 directed at the Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian sect, who assume that Jesus
was merely human and not divine.34 The central piece of the chiastic structure, AH
3.20.3, contains the well-known Irenaean summary of the divine-human
relationship: “The glory of the human being is God; in truth, the receptacle of the
operation of God and of all God’s wisdom and power is the human being” (Gloria
enim hominis Deus, operationis uero Dei et omnis sapientiae eius et virtutis receptaculum
homo).35 The entire chiastic structure is also oriented by the interpretation of Isa
7:14, and both AH 3.19.3 and AH 3.20.1 are positioned in the first half, or parts C-D of
the chiasm. The corresponding section (AH 3.21.1-3) critiques the Ebonite
preference for the translation “young woman” (עלדה, Isa 7:14) rather than παρθένος,
30
Orbe, La antropología, 280. In the context, Irenaeus explains the tension between sin and death and
the law that develops from the intertextual linking of Rom 5:14, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:11-13. cf. Ibid., 297.
31
Francis Watson, “Is there a Story in these Texts?,” in Narrative dynamics in Paul: a critical assessment,
ed. Bruce Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002): 231-39, 237.
32
In the next sentence, Irenaeus uses the preposition sic. Rousseau notes the preposition οὐτων as a
direct allusion to Rom 5:19
33
Orbe distinguishes between the functions of Rom 5:12 and 5:19 for Irenaeus’ anthropology. The
former distinguishes between the obedience and disobedience of Adam, while the latter, links the sin
and death. Orbe, Antropologia, 284.
34
Donovan’s structure is as follows: A: To consider Jesus human only misinterprets Emmanuel (AH
3.19.1), B: Jesus God and human (AH 3.19.2), C: Because humans could not imagine it, the sign of
Emmanuel was given (AH 3.19.3), D: Sign of Jonah: God’s plan (AH 3.20.1), E: Glory of human: God.
Receptacle of God’s action: the human (AH 3.20.2), D′: God became Savior, carrying out the plan (AH
3.20.3-4), C′: Sign of Emmanuel badly translated (AH 3.21.1-3), B′: Emmanuel sign means Jesus God
and human (AH 3.21.3-4), A′: Extended interpretation of Emmanuel, with other texts supporting this
interpretation (AH 3.21.5-9). Donovan, One Right Reading?, 84-5.
35
AH 3.20.3.
73
as cited in Matt 1:23. Undoubtedly, Irenaeus must be familiar with Justin’s detailed
argument on this point.36 He frames human nature, created from the dust in Gen 2:7,
as the substance (plasma) that Christ retrieves and restores back to life.
4.5.1 AH 3. 19.3: Creation and Resurrection (Gen 2:7)
Irenaeus begins AH 3.19.3 with the logical argument that God gave humankind the
sign of the virgin birth in Isa 7:14 because they would not expect it. He appeals to
Ahaz’s refusal to test the Lord and ask for the sign in Isa 7:12, because, in Irenaeus’
reading, Ahaz would never expect a virgin could conceive. For this reason, the sign
of virgin birth in Isa 7:14 is an unexpected sign. Not only this, but the imagery of
“descending” (descendere) to the depths and the “ascending” (ascendere) to the
highest in Isa 7:11 also conditions the nature of this sign and his interpretation uses
Gen 2:7 as an intricate piece in his exegetical puzzle.37 First, he links Gen 2:7, Luke
15:4, and Eph 4:9 through the verbal associations of “handiwork” (plasma), “sheep”
(ouem), and “earth” (terra) and each of these represent the object of salvation. The
things of the “earth” (terra) in Eph 4:9 are compared with the “sheep” (ouem) of Luke
15:4 and which was indeed his own peculiar “handiwork” (plasma) of Gen 2:7.
Second, the “descending” (descendere) imagery refers to the Incarnation and
conceptually links Isa 7:11a, Gen 2:7, Luke 15:4, and Eph 4:9. The “ascending”
(ascendere) imagery unites Isa 7:11b, Gen 2:7, Luke 15:5-6, and Eph 4:10 and
completes the Christological act of salvation. Together these texts form a
sophisticated Christological summary of Incarnation and ascension with the object
of Christ’s descent and ascent as the recovery and restoration of human nature
formed in Gen 2:7. The reference to the “human” (hominem) (or human nature)
found in the allusion to Luke 15:4-5 refers back to the substance (plasma) formed in
Gen 2:7. This Christological movement also points back to the meaning of Emmanuel
(Isa 7:14), who descended and ascended to restore human nature. The subsequent
allusion to 1 Cor 15:20 completes the thought of this intertextual linking with Gen
2:7. The result of Christ’s descending and ascending is that he becomes the first
fruits of the resurrection. Human nature was found through the resurrection of
Christ “creating in his own person” (in semetipso faciens) a restored humanity.. After
36
37
cf. Dial 43.8; Dial 67.1; Dial 70.3; Dial 84.3.
AH 3.19.3.
74
Christ restores human nature in himself he ascends and entrusts his humanity to
the Father. The nature of Adam’s forming is now seen in light of his forming, or
more appropriately re-forming, in Christ.
The remaining portion of AH 3.19.3 imagines the resurrection through a
network of other texts including: Eph 1:22/Col 1:18, Phil 3:9, 1 Cor 15:23, Col 2:19,
Eph 4:16, John 14:2, Rom 12:4/1 Cor 12:12, 20.38 Together they serve to reinforce the
same point as 1 Cor 15:20, so there is a sense in which we could include these texts
in the same kind of intertextual relationship. Each of these texts touches upon some
aspect of the restoration and resurrection of the human nature created in Gen 2:7.
For example, he alludes to the resurrection imagery of Eph 4:16 and identifies Christ
as the “head” (caput) who was first resurrected following by the remaining parts of
the body. In the resurrection, the various bodily parts consisting of “joints”
(compagines) and “bonds” (coiunctiones) shall blend together and reunite so that the
body is properly fitted together and sustained by the “increase of God” (augmento
Dei, cf. Gen 1:28).39 This is the same substance of the flesh created from the dust in
Adam, tainted through disobedience and inherited by all succeeding generations.
This casts the eschatological resurrection of the flesh as a reenactment of the
formation from the dust in Gen 2:7.
4.5.2 AH 3.20.1: Human Disobedience and God’s Creative Work (Gen 3:1-8)
Irenaeus conveys that the repercussions of Adam’s sin did not frustrate God nor
impede divine providence. God remained patient because Adam dwelt within a
divinely constructed economy oriented toward the advent of the Son. From a divine
perspective, humankind remained the object and instrument of God’s divine work.
The special relationship is typified, for Irenaeus, in parallels with the Jonah
narrative. He reads the disobedience of Adam and Eve and their response in Gen 3:18 with explicit allusion to Jonah 1:9, 17, Jonah 2:1-2, Jonah 3:1 and Jonah 3:8-9. Like
Jonah, all the faithful shall receive an unexpected salvation and resurrection from
the dead depicted in the “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:39-40).
He begins by comparing the disobedience in Eden with the disobedience of
Jonah. Arguing strongly for continuity between the events in the paradisiacal life of
38
39
AH 3.19.3.
AH 3.19.3.
75
Adam and Eve, Behr believes there was no period of time when Adam was “not
engulfed” by the so-called whale, or Satan, though this overstates the case seeing
that Irenaeus distinguishes between the conditions of life before and after Adam’s
disobedience.40 There is, according to Behr, “no lost golden age of primordial
perfection.”41 He admits, however, that Irenaeus will speak about Adam’s prelapsarian condition in instances, such as AH 3.22.3, where he utilizes the AdamChrist typology.42 Behr is correct that the conditional nature of the divine economy,
even in a paradisiacal state, allowed for the activity of Satan from the beginning,
and the use of the Jonah narrative in relation Gen 3:1-6 suggests a greater degree of
continuity between the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian conditions of Adam and
Eve.43 This, as we will see, is also suggested by the use of Genesis imagery in the
descriptions of the eschatological state. The divine economy is ordered
pedagogically to acquaint humankind with their weakness and bring about their
salvation.44 Just as God allowed Jonah to be swallowed up by the whale (Jonah 1:17)
so that he might bring about the unexpected conversion of the Ninevites (Jonah 3:89), so also in the beginning God permitted humankind to be swallowed up by the
“great whale” (magno ceto) who became the author of sin (John 8:44). The “great
whale” (magno ceto) is, of course, Satan, who deceived the first couple in paradise by
means of the serpent in Gen 3:1-5.45 Naturally while the snake and whale are
distinctive species, no doubt Irenaeus is thinking of the conceptual connections
between Satan’s use of an animal in the narrative of Adam and that of Jonah. In the
end God knew humanity’s entanglement, just like Jonah’s, would not last because
God arranged a plan of salvation through the “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:39-40).
Despite Satan’s continual activity of defection, revolt, and apostasy, by means of the
Word, God ushered in salvation and the resurrection from the dead 46
Irenaeus continues describing this resurrection, which connects the
experience of Jonah with the faithful. In the same way that Jonah typifies Adam and
40
Behr, Asceticism, 49.
Ibid., 49.
42
Ibid., 49 n. 51.
43
The language “pre-lapsarian” and “post-lapsarian” may be anachronistic, but we continue to
retain the language for clarity. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 153.
44
Behr, Asceticism, 49-50.
45
AH 3.20.1. Rousseau translates the Latin fuit patiens as “a permis,” but Behr prefers “bear” after
comparing similar passages and based upon the assumption that God was actively involved in the
events. Behr, Asceticism, 45 n. 39, 48 n. 49.
46
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 48.
41
76
Eve’s fall, so also does he typify the resurrection of the faithful. Like Jonah, the
faithful will receive an “unexpected” (insperabilem) salvation and rising from the
dead and praise God in the same manner of Jonah saying, “I cried by reason of mine
affliction to the Lord my God, and He heard me out of the belly of hell” (Clamaui ad
Dominum Deum meum in tribulatione mea et exaudiuit me de ventre inferni).47 The nature
of salvation as unexpected and the emphasis on glorifying God for resurrection are
expressed with an allusion to 1 Cor 1:29 that, “all flesh should not glory in the Lord's
presence” (non glorietur in conspectus Domini omnis caro).48 Irenaeus wishes to ensure
that no one assumes salvation is inherited naturally or derived from human work.
Therefore, in conjunction with Jonah 1:9, 2:2, and 1 Cor 1:29, he returns again to an
allusion to Gen 3:5. Alluding to the words of Satan’s deception, Irenaeus argues that
the serpent deceived Adam and Eve by persuading them that they would “become
like God” (similes esset Deo).49 Adam and Eve became ungrateful towards God and
considered themselves equal to God. But in light of these attitudes, humankind
should praise God all the more when they receive an unexpected salvation and
indeed “become like God” in the resurrection.
4.6 AH 3.21.10: Adam, Christ, and Recapitulation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5,
Gen 2:7)
Irenaeus has already discussed recapitulation in AH 3.16.6 and AH 3.18.7, but the
present context (AH 3.21.10-3.23.8) offers the most developed explanation of this
theology of recapitulation. As we noted previously, this section follows a chiastic
argument on the nature and character of the Incarnation. The Incarnation unifies
the trajectory of the economy manifested in the typology of Adam and Christ.50 The
basis for recapitulation is the “similitude” (similitudinem) between Christ and Adam,
not only in terms of their formal substances, but also in their actions.
Highlighting the similitude between Adam and Christ, he begins with the
summary statement that Christ has “recapitulated himself in the ancient formation
47
AH 3.20.1. He cites both Jonah 1:9 and Jonah 2:2, though he exchanges the “belly of the fish” (έκ της
κοιλιάς τοθ κητους), for “belly of hell” (de ventre inferni).
48
AH 3.20.1.
49
AH 3.20.1; cf. Epid 32-33.
50
Behr, Asceticism, 62-3. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 109.
77
of humankind” (antiquam plasmationem in se recapitulatus est, Eph 1:10).51 This Pauline
imagery introduces a network of texts including: Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, John 1:3, Rom
5:12, 19.52 As we have seen elsewhere, he interprets the condition of the soil prior to
the creation of Adam in Gen 2:5 as “untilled and yet virgin” (rudi terra et de adhuc
uirgine) because there was no rain to agitate the soil and no one to till the ground.53
Steenberg presses the ontology of Irenaeus’ image, suggesting his reading of Gen 2:5
communicates both “divine and material in the constitution of the human
person.”54 But, as Osborn argues, under the provision of a divine economy oriented
toward the Incarnation, the focus extends beyond the original human constitution.
Adam is fashioned from the untilled soil precisely because Christ would be born
from a virgin.
Irenaeus also reminds his readers that the Word of God, through whom all
things were made (John 1:3), forms the plasma of Adam from the earth; the same
substance assumed in the Incarnation of the Word. This textual arrangement puts
Irenaeus’ logic of recapitulation on display and parallels the generation of Adam
and Christ by means of explicit intertextual connections. In fact the effectiveness of
recapitulation hangs on the “likeness” (similitudinem) of Christ and Adam. As we
have argued, Irenaeus actually extends Paul’s typology with explicit references to
particular texts in Gen 1-2, as well as other New Testament references. Nielson’s
study of Adam-Christ typology in Irenaeus neglects this points when he contrasts
the meaning of Rom 5:12 and 19 (along with 1 Cor 15) saying: “Paul is concerned
with the second Adam, Irenaeus with the second Adam.”55 Paul, Nielson assumes, is
concerned exclusively with the salvific arrangement of Adam and Christ, while
Irenaeus’ is concerned with their corresponding physical constitution. Nielson’s
evaluation erects a false contrast that disregards the intertextual networks Irenaeus
creates with the Pauline imagery. Contrary to Nielson’s assumptions, Irenaeus is not
concerned with Paul’s original intent in Rom 5:12, 19 apart from the rest of
scripture, but he is using the Pauline analogy to establish broader connections
51
AH 3.21.9.
The final clause of AH 3.21.9 is actually the intro to AH 3.21.10, see SC 211:426.215.
53
AH 3.21.10. The same emphasis on “virgin soil” is made in AH 3.18.7; Dem 32; AH 3.21.10; and AH
3.23.2.
54
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 110.
55
Nielson, Adam and Christ, 82. Emphasis is original.
52
78
between Adam and Christ throughout scripture.56 This is not to say that Irenaeus
and Paul utilize the Adam-Christ typology in the same way, but their distinction is
one of degree not kind. Irenaeus’ concern for the substance of Adam’s flesh was an
extension of the Pauline analogy that connects Rom 5:12, 19 with Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7,
and John 1:3.
Following the argument from Genesis, Paul, and John, Irenaeus continues
communicating the theological and exegetical logic of recapitulation. He provides
several rational arguments for the continuity and consistency between Adam and
Christ. First, he uses the dialectical imagery 1 Cor 15:45-47 and the imagery of
Adam’s formation in Gen 2:7 in a simple counterfactual conditional statement. He
reasons if first Adam (1 Cor 15:45) had a man for his father and was born of a “male
seed” (semine viri), then it would be right to argue that the second Adam (1 Cor
15:47) was born of Joseph.57 This clause mixes the condition of simple past tense
with the perfect “had” (habuit) in the protasis and a present subjunctive “might say”
(discerent) in the apodosis. With this change in modality, Irenaeus is conceding that
if Adam had a natural birth then one certainly could say that Christ received his
birth from Joseph.58 However, given this is a counterfactual condition, the thrust of
the argument is that Adam did not have a natural birth from a “male seed” (semine
viri) and, therefore Christ could not have a natural birth from Joseph.
To extend his first statement, Irenaeus provides a second conditional clause.
He states that if the first Adam was formed from the dust (Gen 2:7) by the Word of
God, then it is proper that the Word himself when recapitulating Adam within
himself ought to have an analogous birth. In this case the protasis and apodosis are
presented in the perfect (plamsatus est) and imperfect (oportebat) tenses respectively,
which makes this statement in Irenaeus’ view a simple fact. In other words, Adam
was certainly created from the dust; therefore, Christ was certainly formed in the
likeness of Adam. This emphasis communicates how important the creation from
the dust in Gen 2:7 is for Irenaeus’ Christology as the very nature of Christ’s
humanity hinges upon the correspondence between the virgin birth and Adam’s
formation from the dust.
56
Ibid., 68. For example, in next section (AH 3.22.3) he will comment on the Adam-Christ connections
in Luke’s genealogy.
57
AH 3.21.10. The emphasis on “male seed” (semine viri) is aimed at the Ebionites, who he has already
addressed in AH 3.19.1ff.
58
See AH 3.21.9; AH 3.22.1.
79
Given the crucial similitude between that of the Adam-Christ, Irenaeus
anticipates a question that logically follows: “Why, then, did God not again take up
the dust, but designed that the formation [Christ] should be made of Mary? (Quare
igitur non iterum sumpsit limum Deus, sed Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri?).”59 If the
similitude between Adam and Christ is so essential, as Irenaeus understands Paul to
be arguing in Rom 5:12, 19 and 1 Cor 15:45, 47, why are their specific modes of
creation not identical? Irenaeus answers this objection with the logical remark that
a second formation from the dust would produce a second race that is an altogether
separate formation (alia plasmatio), which would also require a separate means of
salvation.60 By different formation, he implies a distinct human race fashioned from
the same fleshy substance, but not in the physical line of Adam. As Paul expresses
Adam unifies all humanity in himself and through his disobedience death spreads to
all humanity. Likewise, Christ comprises all humanity in his obedience, thus
reversing the effects of Adam and reviving human nature. Irenaeus’ theological and
exegetical reflection is guided by the conviction that Christ must be analogous to
Adam in order to convey salvation to the same flesh of Adam that was formed from
the dust.
4.7 AH 3.22.1-4: The Typology of Adam, Christ, Eve, and Mary
The section of AH 3.22.1-4 continues the discussion of recapitulation from AH
3.21.10, but in this case Irenaeus’ polemic is set against the Valentinians, rather than
the Ebionites who deny the virgin birth. For the Bishop of Lyon, those who reject
Christ’s human nature reject the “similitude” (similitudinem) between Adam and
Christ. As we argued, Irenaeus’ concern is the analogy between Adam and Christ,
which he extends through a range of textual connections. His argumentation incites
a continued scriptural correlation between the first and second Adam, beginning
with the closing line of AH 3.21.10 and extending through AH 3.22.1-4. Within this
section Irenaeus links Gen 2:7 with Matt 5:5, Gal 4:4, and Rom 1:3-4 in order to
demonstrate that the meekness of the flesh derived from the earth is the same flesh
Christ assumed. He also points to the weakness of Christ’s body in the Gospel
accounts where he required food, grew tired, grieved, sweat blood, and was pierced
59
60
AH 3.21.10.
AH 3.21.10.
80
revealing blood and water. In the final two sections he extends the Adam-Christ
typology with the discussion of the Eve-Mary typology.
4.7.1 AH 3. 22.1: The Blessed Meekness of the Flesh (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7)
He begins his polemic with another conditional clause that entertains the converse
idea of the second conditional clause mentioned in AH 3.21.10 dependent upon his
concepts of image and likeness found in Gen 1:26 and linked with John 1:3, Matt 5:5,
Rom 1:3-4, and Gal 4:4. He argues that if Adam was formed from the hand of God
(Gen 2:7), but not Christ, then he would not preserve a likeness to Adam who was
made in the image and likeness of Christ (Gen 1:26). God would be an “inconsistent
Artist” (inconstans Artifex) and unable to manage his own creation.61 The term
“Artist” (Artifex), as Osborn notes, emphasizes the notions of coherence and
proportion.62 Since Adam was made in the image and likeness of Christ then the
divine Artist would preserve the likeness of Adam in Christ.63
The demand for similitude between the formations of Adam and Christ
prompts Irenaeus to correlate the substance of Adam’s flesh formed in Gen 2:7 with
Christ’s humanity. Echoing Gen 2:7, he makes the general anthropological statement
that humankind is formed from a body taken from the earth and a soul imparted by
the Spirit of God. When the Word of God recapitulated himself in the form of his
own handiwork, he received a body from Mary that connected him to the substance
of Adam’s body fashioned from the “earth” (terra). The earthly substance that was
used to fashion Adam is characteristically ignoble or “meek” (mites), but when the
Word assumes flesh he “blesses the meek, because they shall inherit the earth”
(beatificat mites, quoniam ipsi hereitabunt terram).64 For Irenaeus, the meek who inherit
the “earth” (terra) in Matt 5:5 are those who receive the same flesh fashioned from
the “earth” (terra) in Gen 2:7. In other words, assuming flesh in his Incarnation, the
Son of Man “blesses” (beatificat) the weak flesh that is inherited by all those born in
line of Adam.65 He also unites these texts with Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3-4, but he offers
virtually no commentary on these passages. Instead, bound by their verbal and
61
AH 3.22.1.
Osborn, Irenaeus, 18-20.
63
AH 3.22.1.
64
The use of the title Son of man suggests Irenaeus is drawing upon the Lukan account of the
beatitudes.
65
Wingren misunderstands Irenaeus’ interpretation of this text. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation,
186.
62
81
conceptual connections, Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3-4 are themselves commentary on the
nature of the Incarnation and the relationship between Gen 2:7 and Matt 5:5. In Gal
4:4 Irenaeus notes that Paul expresses the humanity of Christ “plainly” (manifeste)
saying “God sent His Son made of a woman” (misit Deus Filium suum, factum de
muliere) and he adds that the same point is made in Rom 1:3-4, “but His Son, who
was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (De ilio autem, inquit, euis, qui
factus est ex semine David secundum carnem).66 The phrases of “made of a woman”
(factum de muliere) and “made of the seed of David” (qui factus est ex semine David)
reflect the same theological concept as the title “Son of Man” and those who inherit
the earth in Matt 5:5. Taken together, this network of texts forms a paradigmatic
link between the body that is fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7 and flesh of the
incarnate Christ.
4.7.2 AH 3.22.2- 3: Chr ist’s Body and Adam’s body (Gen 2:7)
In AH 3.22.2, Irenaeus continues the same discussion, explaining the nature of
Christ’s incarnate flesh. As characteristic of a body from the earth (Gen 2:7), Christ
required food, grew tired, was wounded, grieved, sweat blood, and was pierced,
revealing blood and water (Matt 4:2, John 4:6, Psalm 68:27 LXX, John 11:35, Luke
22:44, Matt 26:38, and John 19:34). The networking of these texts is dependent upon
their connections to Christ’s experience in the body. Together the echoes and
allusions form an extended anthropological commentary upon the nature and
weakness of the flesh formed from the dust in Gen 2:7. After citing these passages in
succession, Irenaeus remarks they all express “signs of the flesh” (signa carnis)
formed from the earth.67
Discussion of the Adam-Christ typology continues in AH 3.22.3 and reinforces
the observations of AH 3.22.1-2. The central allusion is Luke’s genealogical account
that, as Irenaeus notes, is written backwards beginning with Christ in Luke 3:23 and
concluding with Adam in Luke 3:38. He interprets the passage theologically, as
indicating Christ had recapitulated in himself all generations between them. Thus,
the very structure of the genealogical list reflects the recapitulating acts of Christ
and his reversal of Adam’s sin. From this arrangement Irenaeus draws the
66
67
AH 3.22.1.
AH 3.22.2.
82
conclusion that the Word of God existed logically prior to Adam and ultimately
“prefigures” (praeformauerat) his Incarnation in Adam.68 In the same context
Irenaeus cites Rom 5:14, where Adam is said to be a “type of Him that was to come”
(typus futuri).69 Adam’s physical form was a type of Christ in whose image Adam was
originally formed.70 This is also supported by an allusion to 1 Cor 15:46: “God
predestined the first man should be of an animal nature, in order that he might be
saved by the spiritual” (praedestinante Deo primum animalem hominem uidelicet uti ab
spiritali saluaretur).71 This makes clear Irenaeus’ understanding of typus is highly
literal and physical.72 In the flow of Irenaeus’ argumentation, these textual allusions
in AH 3.22.3 are related to the discussion and content of AH 3.22.1-2, all of which
depend upon allusions to the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7. The texts of Luke 3:2338, Rom 5:14, and 1 Cor 15:46 are the theological links connecting the “end” (finem)
in Christ with the “beginning” (initio) in Adam so that Irenaeus envisions the whole
of Gen 1-3, and indeed the whole Old Testament, as linked with the New Testament
in a “single pattern of salvation history.”73
4.7.3 AH 3.22.4: From Adam and Chr ist to Eve and Mary (Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25,
Gen 3:6)
Following this delineation of Adam-Christ typology in AH 3.22.4, Irenaeus
transitions into a description of the Eve-Mary typology. Given Irenaeus is one of the
first theologians to comment on the Eve-Mary connections, his comments have
generated significant discussion.74 While Irenaeus comments on the Eve-Mary
68
AH 3.22.3.
AH 3.22.3.
70
AH 3.22.3. This argument is interesting because it implies Christ’s predisposition to save
necessitated something to save, which resulted in the creation of Adam. Steenberg believes this is
some form of necessitarianism and one of Irenaeus’ more controversial statements. Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 34. On the nature of this phrase see also Behr, Anthropology, 58; Orbe, Anthropologia, 491ff;
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 5-7.
71
AH 3.22.3.
72
Behr, Asceticism, 58 n. 81.
73
Donovan, One Right Reading?, 88.
74
Dunning, “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth.” Tina Beattie, “Mary in Patristic Thought,” in Mary: The
Complete Resource, ed. Sarah Jane Boss, 75-105 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 86-7.
Steenberg, “The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St. Irenaeus of Lyon,” VC 58 (2004): 117-37. Luigi
Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, trans. Thomas
Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), 56; Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her place in the
History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 42-52; D. Ramos-Lissón, ‘Le Role de la
femme dans la théologie de saint Irénée,” StuPat 21 (1989): 163-74; Orbe, “La Virgen María abogada de
la virgen Eva; en torna a s. Ireneo adv. haer. V. 19, 1),” Greg 63 (1982): 453-506; Jose Antonio de
Aldama, María en la patrística de los siglos I y II (Madrid: Editorial Catholica, 1970); Jean Plagineux, “La
69
83
typology and their respective roles elsewhere, the present section is the most
developed explanation.75 Although many studies focus on gender issues, Steenberg
provides a theologically developed understanding of this typology and argues for a
subordinate, yet necessary role of Mary as “co-recapitulator” with Christ.76 He
appreciates the inherent “social” role of Eve in relation to Adam, thereby extending
Osborn’s previous observation of mere aesthetic parallelism between the
experiences of Adam and Christ.77 Within the broader contours of Irenaeus’
argument in AH 3.22.1-4, he places the Eve-Mary typology in continuity with the
Adam-Christ typology as another means to unifying both Testaments in a single
trajectory of salvation history.
However, the theological coherence of the Eve-Mary typology continues to
guide Irenaeus’ intertextual networking in continuity with the textual matrix of the
Adam-Christ typology in the preceding sections. Like the Adam-Christ typology, the
Eve-Mary typology depends upon several corresponding (or contrasting)
characteristics recorded in their respective narratives and expressed through
reflection on a network of texts including: Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen 3:6 with Deut
22:23-24, Psalm 44:17, Matt 19:30, Matt 20:16, Luke 1:38, Luke 3:23-38, Col 1:18, and
Heb 5:9. First, following the same contrastive nature of Adam and Christ, Irenaeus
distinguishes the disobedience of Eve from the obedience of Mary. While Eve was
disobedient when she ate from the tree of knowledge in Gen 3:6, Mary is obedient
when she proclaims to the angel, “Behold your handmaid, Lord, be it unto me
according to your word” (Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum,
Luke 1:38).78 The disobedience of the former, Irenaeus surmises, became the “cause
of death” (causa… mortis), while obedience of the latter became the “cause of life”
(causa… salutis).79 Therefore, Eve and Mary are instrumental in the root causes of
death and life respectively, which are effected through the corresponding actions of
doctrine mariale de saint Irénée,” RSR 44 (1970): 179-89; Orbe, “El pecado de Eva, signo de divieion’,
OCP 29 (1963): 305-30. Steenberg hopefully frames Irenaeus’ uses of Eve-Mary typology into three
classifications: 1) anti-adoptionist, 2) anti-doectic, and 3) recapitulative. Steenberg, “The Role of
Mary,” 119.
75
cf. Epid 33. AH 3.16.7; AH 4.27.1; AH 4.33.11; AH 5.19.1.
76
Steenberg, “The Role of Mary,” 118; Dunning, “Virgin Earth,” 59-60.
77
Osborn, Irenaeus, 51,75-6, 101. There appears to be another chiasm in AH 3.21.10-22.4 centered on
recapitulation in Luke’s genealogy, which demonstrated the need for further study on the structural
nature of AH 3.
78
AH 3.22.4.
79
AH 3.22.4. The reference of “Mary the Virgin” most naturally alludes to Luke 1:34 in the immediate
context.
84
Adam and Christ. The parallelism between Adam and Christ, therefore, is
strengthened by the concurrent disobedience of Eve and obedience of Mary, who is
shown to be a “necessary and essential” means for the recapitulatory work of
Christ.80
Second, similar conceptions of virginity are found in both Eve and Mary.
While Mary’s virginity is plainly recorded in the Gospels (i.e. Matt 1:23-25, Luke 1:2734), Irenaeus cites Gen 2:25, “they were both naked in Paradise and were not
ashamed” (utrique nudi in Paradiso et non confundebantur), to prove Eve’s virginity.
Irenaeus interprets this text to mean that Adam and Eve were prepubescent
children in paradise who kissed and embraced each other in all holiness and felt no
shame in their nakedness because they had no knowledge of procreation.81 This
state of childhood innocence, however, is merely the initial stage in the course of
human growth and maturity that includes procreation. This notion of
anthropological progression is located in his conflation of Gen 2:25 with Gen 1:28,
where he interprets the divine commands “increase and multiply” as sequential
stages of human growth and development.82 The term “increase” (adolescere) implies
human maturity towards the transition into adulthood, while the term “multiply”
(multiplicari) suggests human reproduction. For Irenaeus procreation has always
been part of God’s economy as a means to guide God’s creatures toward the divine
life.
Third, the virginal correspondence is complemented by their respective
betrothals. Irenaeus points to legal nature of betrothal in Deut 22:23-24 to argue
that a betrothed virgin is actually considered a wife under Mosaic Law. Therefore
Mary, who was “betrothed” (desponsatus) to Joseph, could be considered his wife.
Rousseau argues that the application of Deut 22:23-24 applies exclusively to the
80
Steenberg, “The Role of Mary,” 118.
Epid 14; Dunning, “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth,” 64; Both Behr and Donovan criticize Orbe for
pressing the Eve-Mary typology in relation to the role of the Spirit and marital intercourse beyond
the evidence in Irenaeus’ writings. See Donovan, One Right Reading?, 91-2 n. 19. Behr, Asceticism, 111 n.
70. The same criticism is warranted for Dunning’s attempt to differentiate Irenaeus’ notions of
“virginity” as a means to critique the inconsistencies in Irenaeus’ logic of recapitulation. Like Orbe,
Dunning forces Irenaeus to answer questions of gender and sexuality that are not altogether explicit
in his writings. As Donovan remarks quite clearly (following the work of Rebecca Lyman): “Absent
here [AH 3.22.4] is any suggestion of the impact of sexuality on either Eve’s sin or Mary’s obedience.”
Donovan, One Right Reading?, 88. Donovan refers us to an unpublished presentation of Lyman entitled
“Irenaeus on Eve: The Christological Connection,” where Lyman argues that what is clear in Irenaeus
is simply that both sexes, male and female, are unified in the resurrected humanity of Christ and
fully restored in the eschaton. cf. Behr, Asceticism, 210.
82
AH 3.22.4; Behr, Asceticism, 112; Dunning, “Virgin Earth,” 66.
81
85
situation of Mary because Irenaeus would recognize that Eve is espoused to Adam
and not engaged.83 For Irenaeus, this logical set of conceptual and textual
interconnections, including obedience/disobedience, virginity, and betrothal,
signifies a circling back (recirculationem significans) from Mary to Eve reinforcing the
aesthetic stability of the Adam-Christ typology.84
Summarizing their recapitulative roles, or the “circling back”
(recirculationem) from Mary to Eve, de Aldama argues the disobedience of Adam and
Eve is undone through the obedience of Mary and Christ. Emphasizing Mary’s
obedience, de Aldama shows how she unties the knot that was secured through
Eve.85 This summary, however, leaves open the question of the nature of the
“bonds” (compagines) that Eve inflicted, which Mary conversely untied. In this
context, Irenaeus uses several parallel images to speak of the relationship fashioned
between Eve and Adam including: “the binding of the bonds” (compagines
adligationis), “first union” (primae conjunctiones)– or “first bond” (primam...
compaginem)– and “knot” (nodus).86 Interpreting this “bond” between Adam and Eve,
Steenberg remarks that this “knot” (nodus) refers specifically to the fact that “Eve's
disobedience had bound the nature of human relationships into a detrimental state
bent on turning men away from the intentions of God.”87 This “knot,” therefore is
purely a metaphorical (or soteriological) “knot” illustrating the sinful condition of
human nature bound to sin through disobedience. It is strange, however, given the
context and the discussion on marriage, that no one has observed the echoes of the
union of Adam and Eve becoming one flesh in Gen 2:24 (Matt 19:6).88 While the
83
SC 210.375-6.
Given the ascetic harmony between Adam, Eve, Mary, and Christ, I think the terminology “AdamChrist typology” and “Eve-Mary typology” runs the risk of being unhelpful, because it inherently
divorces the theological interconnectiveness of these typological images. The notion of “ascetic
harmony” on the other hand is not textually (or scripturally) based and does not explain how
Irenaeus corresponds the specific characteristics of Gen 1-3 with the Gospels. Given these are the
prevailing scholarly terms, I continue to use them even if they are restrictive.
85
de Aldama, María, 278-93.
86
AH 3.24.4. He also uses the verbs colligatum est and adligauit to illustrate the act of binding.
87
Steenberg, “The Role of Mary,” 136.
88
This echo is not observed in BP or SC. Orbe recognizes all other references in this context, but does
not mention Gen 2:24 or Matt 19:6. Orbe, Anthropologia, 248-9; cf. Steenberg, “The Role of Mary,” 12930. Rousseau argues the legal imagery of Deut 22:23-24 that Irenaeus uses to prove that Mary was
Joseph’s wife even if she was merely betrothed to him could not refer to Adam and Eve, precisely
because it would be obvious to Irenaeus that Adam and Eve were espoused. In making this argument
he indirectly proves that Irenaeus is thinking in terms of Adam and Eve’s union. SC 210.375-6.
Furthermore, the contextual and linguistic support is overwhelming. Irenaeus cites Gen 2:25 in this
section as well as Matt 19:30/20:6 and alludes to marriage imagery which constitutes the themes of
Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:6. The imagery while not identical is close enough to constitute and clear echo
84
86
language is only loosely connected, Irenaeus has just concluded that Eve and Mary
are betrothed to Adam and Joseph (although Joseph is not mentioned by name). He
implicitly alludes to the actual union of marriage (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:6), which he
applies in metaphorical (although realistic) manner to illustrate the effects of Eve’s
disobedience. In other words, the “knot” between Eve and Adam is their nuptial
union that Irenaeus applies metaphorically to the binding of humanity to sin and
death. This does not imply that Irenaeus disparages marriage, but he recognizes the
physical and mystical nuptial union between the first couple (Gen 2:24), though
coordinating acts of disobedience, bound humankind to sin and death.
While Irenaeus’ exegetical acumen is praiseworthy and there is great
strength in the parallels between Adam, Eve, Joseph, Mary and Christ, it is hard to
see how this correspondence is “perfect.”89 The reason the allusions to marriage in
Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:6 are not more explicit is because it weakens the strength of
Irenaeus’ economic parallelism. The nuptial bond of union between Adam and Eve
does not mirror the mother-child relationship of Mary and Christ. In a recent
article, Dunning argues that “sexual difference” is the breakdown in Irenaeus’
recapitulative framework, yet this section reveals a more fundamental issue for the
symmetry of his ascetic parallelism.90 While there is much that is consistent, the
essential inconsistency lies in the familial relationships between Adam, Eve, Joseph,
Mary and Christ. Irenaeus is not oblivious of this point, which is why he only names
Adam outright in his discussion of their respective betrothals. He refers to Mary as
having a husband, but omits mention of Joseph’s name precisely because he is the
exception to the Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary parallelism.91 This inconsistency also
helps explain the awkward phrasing in this section and the use of the cryptic
of Matt 19:6 in the imagery of “what was bound together could not otherwise be undone...” (non aliter
quod colligatum est colueretur). Furthermore, the references to the “first union” (primae conjunctiones)
or “first bond” (primam... compaginem) in this context are easily understood as images referring to
nuptial union of Eve and Adam in Gen 2:24. The retroversion uses the language τὸ δεδεμένον, πρῶται
συνδέσεις, and πρώτην συναφὴν reflect common New Testament images for binding especially in a
prison context, it is conceptually equivalent to the imagery of Matt 19:6 (Mark 10:9): συνέζευξεν.
Several of these terms are uniquely concentrated in Paul’s body imagery, which suggests that
Irenaeus is conflating the marriage imagery with soteriological imagery (cf. Eph 4:3,16; Col 2:19; Col
3:14; cf. AH 3.19.7). This explains complicated theological and cryptic imagery of this section;
Irenaeus was wrestling with a potential weakness in the symmetry of the espousals of Eve and Mary.
For a reference to the difficulty of translating this section see this the notes in the ANF translation of
AH 3.22.4.
89
SC 210.374; Donovan, One Right Reading?, 88.
90
Dunning, “Virgin Earth,” 63.
91
AH 3.22.4.
87
binding imagery. The references to Mary’s reversal of the bonds, therefore, should
be understood as Irenaeus’ attempt to wrestle with the union imagery of Gen 2:24
and Matt 19:6 (alongside Pauline use of body imagery) in relationship to the salvific
work of Christ who was born of Mary in light of his economic parallelism.92 What is
clear is that the second bond (secunda colligatione) that overturns or looses the first
bond is not a nuptial “bond” between Mary and Christ, but the union of all
humanity in the body of Christ. This is why Irenaeus concludes that Christ (not
Mary-but through Mary) was the “first begotten of the dead,” becoming in
“himself” (ipse) the beginning of those who live contrary to Adam who became the
beginning of those who die.
The intertextual references he uses in the context confirm this point and
each of these texts is connected by the conceptual idea of “circling back”
(recirculationem) or reversal of the disobedience in Gen 3:6.93 He begins with a
citation of the Lord’s words in Matt 19:30/20:16, “indeed the first shall be last and
the last first” (primos quidem nouissimos futuros et nouissimos primos). For Irenaeus,
Christ himself is the “last” (nouissimos) who has been made first in the kingdom,
because through Christ all have found life. Likewise he cites Psalm 44:17 LXX, “In
place of your fathers will be your sons” (Pro patribus nati sunt tibi fili). The son of
Adam has taken the place of his father, because the Lord was “born the Firstbegotten of the dead,” (Primogenitus enim mortuorum natus Dominus, Col 1:18). Having
been resurrected from the dead, he now receives the ancient Fathers into his own
bosom (Isa 40:11) and regenerates them back to the life of God. 94 The climax of this
theology of reversal is the recapitulation of all things in Christ. He again mentions
the reverse chronology of Luke’s genealogy and remarks that just as Adam became
the beginning of those who die (though his union with Eve’s disobedience), so also
has Christ become the beginning of those who find life (by means of Mary’s
obedience). In general the conceptual imagery of these texts supports Irenaeus’
theology of reversal and the overturning of the effects of Adam and Eve’s
disobedience in paradise. In this way, the Eve-Mary typology is understood in
92
This is also strengthened by the fact that Irenaeus envisions the rite of marriage to cease in the
eschatological state. While he uses the marriage imagery for linking salvation history, his ultimate
concern is soteriological. Behr, Asceticism, 113; AH 2.33.5.
93
Behr, Asceticism, 64 n. 96. AH 3.22.4. See also Dial, 132.
94
AH 3.22.4. Although, several passages may be in view, Isa 40:11 is likely due to the language of “his
bosom” (sinum suum) combined with the use of “lambs” (ouem) at the start of the subsequent chapter.
88
immediate connection to the Adam and Christ typology. The Eve-Mary typology,
like all other intertextual relationships, participates in Irenaeus’ broader textual
concerns.
4.8 AH 3.23.1-8: The Salvation and the For mation from the Dust
As we have seen in the preceding sections, Donovan locates a number of chiastic
structures throughout AH 3. In AH 3.18.2-3.18.7 Irenaeus outlines the necessity of
the Incarnation against the Valentinians and in AH 3.19.1-21.9 he argues for the
complete divinity and humanity of Christ against the Ebionites. But Donovan
neglects to identify what may be the most important chiasm in AH 3: AH 3.23.1-8.
The recognition that the Incarnation was necessary (AH 3.18.2-3.18.7) coupled with
the conviction that Christ was both fully human and divine (AH 3.19.1-AH 3.21.9)
results in the logical conclusion that humanity, which is recapitulated in the person
of Christ, finally participates in salvation, thereby overturning the effects of Adam’s
disobedience (AH 3.23.1-8). Moreover, while AH 3.22.1-4 concerns the Pauline
analogy between Adam as the formation from the dust and Christ’s virgin birth, AH
3.23.1-8 is oriented around the contrary nature of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s
obedience. The chiasm in AH 3.23.1-8 is the natural theological and structural climax
of Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation and polemical argument in AH 3.95 As we will
see, Adam’s contrition before God in relation to Cain’s insolence forms the
centerpiece of the chiasm, which becomes a convenient paradigm for Irenaeus’
distinction between the soteriological standing of the faithful and his opponents.
Alluding to this section in particular, Steenberg suggests that if recapitulation is
understood as a “coherent doctrine,” it was necessary that the Word of God, the
image after whom Adam was formed, become physical.96 However, in Irenaeus’
doctrine of recapitulation it was also necessary, as this chiasm demonstrates, that
the work of Christ overturn the effects of Adam’s disobedience and destroy sin,
death, and the devil.
95
In AH 3.23-24 he transitions into an ‘epilogue’ discussing the nature of the church and introducing
the themes discussed in AH 4. Donovan, One Right Reading?, 93.
96
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 136. A summary version of this section will be published separately as Stephen
O. Presley, “The Lost Sheep who is Found: Irenaeus’ Intertextual Reading of Genesis 3 in Adversus
Haereses 3.23.1-8,” StuPat 51, 2011.
89
4.8.1 Introduction: Gen 1-3 in the Ch iasm of AH 3.23.1-8
Turning to the chiasm itself, AH 3.23.1-8 contains a web of textual allusions oriented
by the events of Gen 3 and, in particular, the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Gen
3:5. Although Irenaeus is clearly interpreting the whole narrative of Gen 3, he does
not cite every text and his reading alters the flow of the original. He also links a
variety of other scripture references with his reading of Gen 3 as he reinterprets
these passages in light of his theological polemic. Below is an overview of the main
themes in each segment of the chiasm, along with the scriptural allusions present in
each paragraph:
A. AH 3.23.1: The Serpent’s Deception and the Hope of Salvation (Gen 1:26,
Gen 3:5, Matt 12:29, Luke 15:4-797, Luke 19:10, Ac 1:7, 1 Cor 15:47, Eph 1:5, 9,
2 Tim 1:10)
B. AH 3.23.2: Adam Requires Salvation (Gen 1:26; Matt 12:2998)
C. AH 3.23.3: God Curses Adam, Eve and the Serpent (Gen 3:14,
Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17-19, Matt 25:41)
D. AH 3.23.4: Cain’s Insolence (Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen
4:11, Matt 23:35)
D′. AH 3.23.5: Adam’s Humility (Gen 3:8, Gen 3:7, Gen
3:10, Gen 3:21, Gen 3:13, Prov 1:799)
C′. AH 3.23.6: God’s Compassion in Adam’s Expulsion: Gen 3:2324, Rom 6:2, 10)
B′. AH 3.23.7: The Protoevangelium Fulfilled in Christ (Gen 3:15, Psalm
90:13 LXX, Luke 10:19, Rom 5:12, 17, 1 Cor 15:26, 1 Cor 15:54-55, Gal
3:16, Gal 3:19, Rev 20:2/12:9)
A′. AH 3.23.8: The Continuation of the Serpent’s Actions (Gen 3:5, Luke 15:4-7,
1 Cor 15:22, Rom 5:20)
Every paragraph contains allusions to Gen 3 (or Gen 4 in the case of AH 3.23.4) and,
although certain texts are rearranged in an unconventional manner, there is an
obvious appreciation for the general chronological structure of the events alongside
97
cf. Matt 18:12-14
cf. Luke 11:21-22
99
cf. Pv 9:10 and Psalm 111:10
98
90
a Christological and allegorical reinterpretation of the whole narrative of Adam and
Eve’s disobedience and expulsion from paradise. Having established the
Christological basis for recapitulation in the previous section (AH 3.19.1-AH 3.22.4)
the arrangement takes on a more anthropological turn and begins with deception of
the serpent (Gen 3:5), followed by the expressed need for salvation for the one
created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), the curses (Gen 3:14,16-19),
Cain’s response (Gen 4:7-11), Adam’s response (Gen 3:7-13,21), the preparation for
salvation in the expulsion (Gen 3:23-24), the prophesy of salvation (Gen 3:15), and
the ongoing deception of the serpent in the form of Tatian and his disciples (Gen
3:5).
Summarizing the relationship between the corresponding sections, Gen 3:5
frames the chiasm, which is found in A and A′, and not only reflects Satan’s work of
deception in paradise, but also the teaching of Tatian, a contemporary to Irenaeus.
The sections of B and B′ describe the means of salvation for the one created in the
image and likeness of God in Gen 1:26, which is predicted in the protoevangelium of
Gen 3:15 cited in B′. This theologically unites the passages of Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:15
in Irenaeus’ concept of salvation and ultimate triumph over the activity of Satan.
Adam received the prophecy of salvation in Gen 3:15, so although the one created in
the image and likeness of God is now destined to death, he will be vivified once
again when the Son of God destroys death and restores the imago Dei. The sections of
C and C′ concern the cursing of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in Gen 3:14, Gen 3:16,
and Gen 3:17-19 and Adam and Eve’s expulsion from paradise in Gen 3:23-24.
Irenaeus notes that the curse was not against Adam personally but against the
ground; instead the curse in its fullness fell upon the serpent.100 This is evident
when Irenaeus discusses the curses in reverse order, so he begins with Adam in Gen
3:17-19, then Eve, and then the serpent in Gen 3:14. God also compassionately drove
Adam out of paradise so that he might receive salvation. The centerpiece of the
chiasm is the comparison of Cain and Adam in D and D′, which casts the murderous
actions of Cain in Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, and Gen 4:11 as the inversion of Adam’s
humbling actions in Gen 3:8, Gen 3:7, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:21, and Gen 3:13. This section
reflects the focal point of Irenaeus’ argument and his reading of Gen 3:5. Irenaeus
implores the faithful to withstand the deceptions of the heretics, who are obstinate
100
cf. Epid 16.
91
like Cain, and instead choose to humble themselves before God as Adam and Eve in
paradise. In doing so, the faithful will find salvation from Christ who overcomes the
power of the serpent. This imagery of conquering the serpent in the opening and
concluding paragraphs of the chiasm utilizes the imagery of lost sheep in Luke 15:47
along side Gen 3:5 to illustrate how the work of Christ overturns the deception of
the serpent and restores the lost humanity back to God. This summary, however,
only scratches the surface of the more subtle nuances of Irenaeus’ intertextual
reading of Gen 3. Below we provide a closer evaluation of each individual section
and the textual and theological interrelationships he fashions with Gen 3.
4.8.2 AH 3.23.1: (A) The Serpent’s Deception and the Hope of Salvation (Gen
1:26, Gen 3:5)
As we have shown, the bookends of the chiasm (A and A′) allude to the activity of
the serpent that deceived Adam and Eve in paradise (Gen 3:5). This theological
clustering of texts are bound by common vocabulary and the imagery of Christ’s
restoration and recapitulation of Adam’s disobedience.101 The Bishop of Lyon
reminds the reader that this one who was deceived is the same one who was created
in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), but through the tantalizing propositions
of serpent, Adam became a “vessel in his [Satan’s] possession” (enim possessionis eius
vas, cf. Matt 12:29). The humanity lost in Adam is, for Irenaeus, the lost sheep of Luke
15:4-7. Responding to Adam’s predicament, the Lord has come to seek out and save
lost humanity (Luke 19:10). He separates out the two verbs of Luke 19:10
(requirentem, ἀναζητουντα; saluare, σωσαι) and replaces the imagery of “that which
was lost” (τὸ ἀπολωλός) with the language of God’s “handiwork” (plasma) that is
fashioned in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). However, this soteriological
recovery was not the work of the Lord alone. The power (Acts 1:7) and will (Eph 1:5,
9) of God the Father so precisely arranged the divine economy to ensure the Word
of God would successfully reverse the effects of Adam’s disobedience. Irenaeus even
draws the logical conclusion that if humankind, who had been created by God to
live, were not restored to life then Satan would have prevailed over the will of God.
Like the imagery of the lost sheep, the strong man is Satan who has captured the
“vessel” (uasa) of humankind and subjected them to the power of death (Matt
101
AH 3.19.3 combines Gen 2:7, Luke 15:4, and Eph 4:9 to draw a similar conclusion.
92
12:29). There is no question that God was patient in the recovery of Adam, but
recapitulation of Adam was fully realized when at last the “second man” (secundum
hominem, 1 Cor 15:47) bound up the strong man who had ensnared Adam and spoiled
his goods (Matt 12:29). He even parallels the spoiling of goods with the “emptying of
death” (euacuauit mortem, κατήργήσε τὸν θάνατον) in 2 Tim 1:10. So although the
first Adam (1Cor 15:47) became a vessel in the possession of Satan when the serpent
deceived the first couple and under the pretext of becoming gods (Gen 3:5), the
second Adam bound up Satan and restored the humankind to life.
4.8.3 AH 3.23.2: (B) Adam Requires Salvation (Gen 1:26)
As he alluded in the previous section, Adam is the first-formed human person
created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). By logical extension all
humanity derives its form and substance from Adam’s formation. Although he does
not name Tatian in this context, his polemic against him is evident. Since Adam is
God’s original creation, it is only fitting and just that the extant of the Lord’s salvific
work, contra Tatian, should extend all the way back to the beginning. Irenaeus
rejects the notion that some of Adam’s progeny would find salvation, but not Adam
himself. As an illustration he uses the example of a subjugating, hostile force,
borrowing from Matt 12:29. It would be simply unjust, Irenaeus reasons, if the
liberators freed only the children from captivity and not their fathers who were
first enslaved. In the same way God, who is neither powerless nor unjust, would not
release the children of Adam and not Adam himself.102 Therefore, all of Adam’s
posterity with Adam himself requires salvation.
4.8.4 AH 3.23.3: (C) God Curses Adam, Eve and the Serpent (Gen 3:14, Gen
3:16, Gen 3:17-19)
With Adam’s and his descendents in need of salvation, the third section of the
chiasm concerns the cursing of Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Even though Adam
transgressed the commands of God (Gen 3:5), Irenaeus points out that technically
God did not curse Adam personally (Gen 3:17-19), but the earth that God had used to
form Adam (Gen 2:7). For the reason, Adam must work the ground and in the end
return to the substance from which he was formed (Gen 3:19). Implicit in this
102
AH 3.23.2.
93
allusion to Adam’s curse is the penalty of death for Adam’s disobedience against
God’s command in Gen 2:16-17. He also mentions Eve in passing who receives
punishment for her disobedience (Gen 3:16). However, his primary purpose is to
convey that Satan will receive the full measure of God’s retribution when he is cast
into the eternal fire (Matt 25:41). By reversing the literary patterns of the curses, he
accentuates that the fullness of the curse fell upon the serpent. In addition, the
common language of “accursed” (κατηραμενοι) links Gen 3:14 and Matt 25:41.103
Alluding to this intertextual relationship, Irenaeus even concludes the curse of Gen
3:14 indicates the eternal fire was not originally prepared for Adam, but for the one
who led him astray.104
4.8.5 AH 3. 23.4: (D) Cain’s Insolence (Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:11)
The centerpiece of the chiasm (D and D′) is the typological contrast of the
murderous actions of Cain in Gen 4:7-9 and Gen 4:11, with the humbling actions of
Adam in Gen 3:7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:21, and Gen 3:13. Satan’s condemnation in the
conclusion of AH 3.23.3 is liked with the discussion of Cain who, according to
Irenaeus, did not make “an equitable division” (recte diuisisset) of his sacrifice, but
instead was controlled by envy and malice believing “he could domineer over him”
(posse dominari eius). Irenaeus links Cain’s desire to “domineer” (dominari) over his
brother Abel with the serpent’s actions in paradise. The actions of Cain are a
manifestation of his state of mind that escalates into his contemptuous response to
God, saying, “am I my brother’s keeper?” (numquid custos fratris mei sum ego?, Gen
4:9). His retort is both “insolent” (audaciter) and “irreverent” (irreuerenter) and
exposes the height of Cain’s arrogance. He actually believes, Irenaeus infers, that he
could “refute” (frustrari) the God who created all things. He views the act of
insolence toward God and even greater sin than the murder of Abel, because it
manifests Cain arrogant state of mind. Therefore, Irenaeus envisions Cain as a kind
of type of the serpent and his actions as manifesting the motivations of the
serpent.105
103
AH 3.23.3.
AH 3.23.3.
105
In a general sense, this central parallelism points to the centrality of martyrdom in Irenaeus’
thought and his emphasis on the martyr as the perfected Christian. See Real Tremblay, “Le martyre
selon saint Irénée de Lyon,” StudMor 16 (1978): 167–189, 177; Behr, Asceticism, 78-9.
104
94
4.8.6 AH 3.23.5: (D ′ ) Adam’s Humility (Gen 3: 7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3: 21)
Whereas Cain was murderous and insolent, Adam’s actions were “in every way
contrary” (omnia in contrarium). Adam, Irenaeus comments, was seized by fear in
Gen 3:7-8 and feels unworthy to appear before God in the midst of his disobedience.
While Cain (and the serpent) believed he could challenge God, Adam was overcome
with the fear of God (Prov 1:7). He concealed himself in shame and refused to speak
with God (Gen 3:8). Moreover, while Cain was obstinate, Adam shows himself
repentant when he grids himself with the fig leave in Gen 3:7. Irenaeus suggests that
Adam specifically chose this leaf because the irritation of the plant reflects the
gravity of his offense.106 Kugel and Greer suggest that Irenaeus reads Adam’s shame
as a “necessary stage in the human education and growth.”107 Adam loses his “childlike” state and cultivates a “lustful propensity of the flesh.”108 However, the
reference to Prov 1:7 and the act of covering themselves with fig leaves, as Behr
suggests, is a self-imposed penitential act whereby Adam denied himself God’s gift
of growth and increase.109 Steenberg, goes so far as to characterize the nature of the
post-transgression economy as oriented toward repentance.110 The comparison with
Cain and the broader chiastic framework enhances Steenberg’s thesis by linking the
opposing actions of Cain and Adam to behaviors of the heretics. Irenaeus’ reads
Adam’s contrition in relationship to Cain’s (and the serpents’) rebellion against God.
Whereas God curses Cain and the serpent, according to Irenaeus, God
responds to Adam’s humility with mercy by removing the fig leaves and covering
him with “garments of skins” (tunicas pellicias, Gen 3:21). The Valentinians, as
Irenaeus has shown, use this text to illustrate the final stage of human formation as
the sensible element of the human form.111 Behr argues that the garments of skin
simply refer to the life of Adam and Eve in apostasy, so for Irenaeus there is no
special allegorical meaning in the garments.112 Irenaeus also avoids any extended
reflection upon this passage and does not mention it elsewhere. Thus, Irenaeus
106
AH 3.23.5.
Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 167-68.
108
AH 3.23.5; Behr, Asceticism, 119.
109
Behr, Asceticism, 118-9; Steenberg, Irenaeus, 181.
110
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 180.
111
AH 1.5.5.
112
Behr, Asceticism, 119.
107
95
responds the Valentinian interpretation of this passage by merely reading the text
within the narratival context of Adam’s disobedience.113
Irenaeus also points out that though God sought after and interrogated
Adam and Eve (Gen 3:9-11), there was no need to interrogate the serpent because
God already knew he was the primary instigator of the ordeal.114 God detested the
serpent for his actions and, for this reason, the full retribution of God fell upon him.
On the other hand, God showed a propensity for compassion toward Adam.115
4.8.7 AH 3.23.6: (C ′ ) God’s Compassion in Ada m’s Expulsion (Gen 2: 9, Gen
3:23-24)
In AH 3.23.6, Irenaeus continues his discussion of God’s mercy upon Adam and
characterizes his expulsion from paradise in Gen 3:23-24 and his dissolution of the
flesh in Gen 3:19 as an act of compassion. He rejects the Gnostic suggestion that this
expulsion was related to the knowledge Adam gained from eating of the tree.
Instead, God removed him from the tree of life because God desired that humankind
not remain forever in a state of sin. He links the “tree of life” (lignum uitae, Gen 2:9)
and the one who “lives to God” (uiuere Deo, Rom 6:10) to argue that to be in the
presence of the tree of life is to have life. God removes the first couple from the tree
of life and erects a boundary to sin in death, because sin is destroyed in death when
the flesh dissolves back into the earth (Gen 3:19) and sin ceases (Rom 6:7).116 Behr
notes here the “pedagogical aspect” of death in Irenaeus’ thought that casts Adam’s
subjection to death as an act of mercy.117 While the positive evaluation of death is
found in other patristic writers, the pedagogical aspect of death is peculiar to
Irenaeus. In the framework of the chiasm, even though God curses the first couple
in Gen 3:14-16 and they are expelled from paradise and subject to death, all of these
acts mercifully prepare Adam and Eve to receive life once again.
4.8.8 AH 3.23.7: (B ′ ) The Protoevangelium Ful filled in Christ (Gen 3:15)
Prior to Adam and Eve’s expulsion from paradise, God supplied them with the
prophecy of salvation in Gen 3:15. The description of enmity between the serpent
113
AH 1.5.5, AH 1.18.2.
AH 3.23.5.
115
AH 3.23.5
116
AH 3.23.6. cf Theophilus Ad. Auto 2.26.
117
Behr, Asceticism, 52.
114
96
and the seed characterizes, for Irenaeus, the nature of the postlapsarian economy.
The opening lines of AH 3.23.7 convey intertextual relationships between Gen 3:15,
Luke 10:19, and Gal 3:16,19 united by the language of “serpent,” (serpentem)
“enemy,” (inimici) “seed,” (semen) and the verb “tread upon” (calcare).118 Irenaeus’
allusion to Gen 3:15a is a simplified version of the initial two parallel statements in
the LXX, and he converts the future tense “will put” (θήσω) into a perfect tense
“has put” (posuit).119 For Irenaeus, the prophecy of Gen 3:15 has been fulfilled, in
part, though the first advent of Christ. The parallel clauses of Gen 3:15b: “He will
bruise your head and you will strike his heel” (LXX: αὐτος σὺ τηρἠσει κεφαλὴν, καὶ
σὺ τηρήσεις αύτου πτέρναν) in Irenaeus’ reading are infused with the Christological
imagery of Luke 10:19 and Gal 3:16,19. Referring to Christ, Irenaeus converts the
future tense of “he/you will bruise” (τηρἠσει, τηρήσεις) in Gen 3:15b (LXX) to the
present passive “he is bitten” (mordetur) and “he has the power to tread upon”
(potente calcare). This is the influence of Luke 10:19 that connects the authority of
Christ over the power of Satan through the parallel imagery of “serpent” (serpentem)
and “enemy” (inimici). The economic poles of the struggles between the seed and
the serpent in Gen 3:15 and Luke 10:19 suggests, for Irenaeus, the struggle has
persisted throughout salvation history. He speaks of the serpent’s activity as
“impeding the steps of humankind” (interpediente ingressus hominis) which offers a
theological interpretation of “bruising his heel” (τηρήσεις αύτου πτέρναν) in Gen
3:15. The deception of the serpent that began in paradise continues to inhibit the
progression of salvation history and aims to make God’s creatures disobedient
toward their Creator.120
The mutual enmity between the serpent and seed, according to Irenaeus,
lasts until the appointed seed comes who has the power to overcome the enemy
(Gal 3:16). This interpretation envisions Gal 3:19 and an implied allusion to Gal 3:16
as the fulfillment of the second clause of Gen 3:15b. For Irenaeus, the seed of Gal 3:19
is, alluding to prophecy of Gen 3:15, “predestined to tread upon his head”
(praedestinatum calcare caput eius) which also links the infinitive ‘”to tread upon”
(calcare) drawn from Luke 10:19.121 The added allusion to Gen 3:16 also identifies the
118
AH 3.23.7.
AH 3.23.7.
120
A similar concept is expressed in AH 3.23.6, where God is said to “gradually” (sensim) have
compassion upon humankind.
121
AH 3.23.7
119
97
parallels between prophecy given to Eve and child who was “born of Mary” (fuit
partus Mariae).122 Therefore, the way Irenaeus weaves Gen 3:15, Luke 10:19, Gal 3:19,
and Gal 3:16, exposes the conflation of texts through his theological hermeneutic.
We have seen in AH 3.23.2 that Adam, who was created in the image and likeness of
God, requires salvation and Irenaeus balances this assertion with the fulfillment of
Satan’s demise in Gen 3:15.
Finally, the concluding portion of AH 5.23.7 presents a string of theological,
narratival, and linguistic intertextual connections to confirm the fulfillment of Gen
3:15 in Christ. This series of intertextual allusions includes: Psalm 90:13 LXX, Rom
5:12, 17, Rev 20:2/12:9, Luke 10:19-20, 1 Cor 15:26 and 1 Cor 15:54-55. This network of
scriptures are textual buttresses for Irenaeus’ theological connections between the
protoevangelium and the Christ event. First, he depicts sin’s activity in
anthropomorphic imagery as overpowering and subjecting humankind to death
(Rom 5:12,17). In relation to this imagery, he interprets the prophecy of Psalm 90:13
LXX, “you will tread upon the asp and basilisk” (Super aspidem er basiliscum
ambulabis), as the destruction of the sin and death inflicted by the serpent in
paradise. He make this connection explicit when he links the “dragon” (draconem) in
Psalm 90:13 LXX with the Antichrist, or “dragon that old serpent” (draconem illum
serpentem uetustum) of Rev 20:2/12:9. Though the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 and Psalm
90:13 LXX, the Antichrist-dragon-serpent that originally inflicted sin and death
upon Adam is at long last subject to the “power of humankind” (subiciens potestati
hominis) in the person of Christ and “trodden down” (adligans, Luke 10:19). This act
of treading upon the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, Psalm 90:13 LXX, and Luke 10:19 is
fully realized in Rev 20:2/12:9, where the serpent of old is put down and cast away.
The implication of Christ’s work is that death has been destroyed and humankind
has been liberated from the power of the serpent that subdued Adam and Eve in the
Garden (1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The destruction of death in 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55 is the
consummative fulfillment of Gen 3:15 and the essential description of the salvation
of humankind. For Irenaeus, Adam’s “salvation is death's destruction” (enim salus
euacuatio est mortis). This section brings resolution to the human need for salvation
mentioned in the corresponding section of the chiasm and the exposes the
complexities of his intertextual reading of Gen 3. The whole section is contingent
122
Although other passages may be influencing this title the connections to Gal 3:19 and Gen 3:15
support this allusion to Gal 3:16. cf. Matt 1:16, 20; Luke 2:5.
98
upon Gen 3:15, which according to Irenaeus lays the groundwork for the
understanding of the work of Christ and the overcoming of sin, death, and the devil.
4.8.9 AH 3. 23.8: (A ′ ) The Continuation of the Serpent’s Actions (Gen 3:5)
In his closing section, Irenaeus returns again to his polemical argument. According
to Irenaeus, Tatian is promoting the teaching that Adam himself is excluded from
salvation. Summarizing Tatian’s views, Petersen writes, “The key to Tatian’s system
is gnosis, ‘knowledge’”… although Adam had knowledge of God, he –through
freewill– rejected it.’123 As a result, Adam chose to reject the knowledge of God and is
excluded from salvation, but those who desire to grasp the true knowledge of God
may find salvation in gnosis. Irenaeus responds to this train of thought by arguing
that if Adam is not saved then all of Adam’s posterity remains in a state of perdition.
For Irenaeus, on the other hand, the lost sheep of humanity who had sinned
through disobedience are found in the person of Christ (Luke 15:4-7). The issue for
Tatian, according to Irenaeus, is the rejection of these intertextual connections that
demonstrate clearly how the power of God has prevailed over the serpent (Rom
5:20).
The closing lines of AH 3.23.8 contain a final allusion to Gen 3:5, which knits
together the whole structure of the chiasm (A and A′) and parallels the activity of
the serpent with the activity of Tatian and his disciples. Those who promote the
doctrines of Tatian, according to Irenaeus, are the contemporary manifestations of
the serpent’s deceptive activity. As the serpent led Adam and Eve astray by means
of deception and falsehood, Tatian and his disciples reveal themselves as “patrons
of the serpent and of death” (aduocatos se serpentis et mortis ostendunt).124 However,
just as the serpent “accomplished nothing” (nihil profecit) when he persuaded Adam
and Eve to sin in Gen 3:5, Tatian and his disciples accomplish nothing in their
exclusion of Adam’s salvation.125 Therefore, according to Irenaeus, both Adam and
the faithful face the same active deception of the serpent. Just as Adam and Eve
stood beneath the tree in paradise and gave way to the temptations the serpent, so
also do the faithful stand before the doctrines of Tatian and must choose to endure
the intellectual enticements. For Irenaeus, the true knowledge of God is found in the
123
Petersen, “Tatian the Assyrian,” 151.
AH 3.28.8.
125
AH 3.28.8.
124
99
work of Christ who has fulfilled the prophecy of Gen 3:15 and enabled the salvation
of humankind. The faithful should also learn from Adam’s mistake and, rather than
becoming obstinate like Cain (who also manifests the attitude of the serpent), model
Adam’s contrition before God.126
4.8.10 Conclusion
In conclusion, the chiasm of AH 3.23.1-8 centers on his reading of the events in Gen
3 and functions as the climax of Irenaeus’ recapitulation argument spanning AH
3.18.2-3.22.4. The Incarnation and recapitulation of all things in Christ effects the
salvation of humankind and the destruction of sin, death, and the devil. Irenaeus’
reading of Gen 3 alters the chronology of the original narrative in order to
demonstrate his theological and Christological application of the events. For
Irenaeus Gen 3 could only be properly read within carefully constructed scriptural
networks of interrelated texts. These networks include theological arrangements of
the narrative in Gen 3, as well as tissues of texts spanning both Testaments. These
networks are bound together by common imagery and theological concepts. The
entire chiasm is framed with the activity of the serpent in the narrative of Gen 3:1-5
and the corresponding teachings in the doctrines of Tatian (A and A′).127 Following
Adam’s disobedience, both he and his posterity require salvation. This is prophesied
in Gen 3:15 and fulfilled in the person of Christ (B and B′).128 Though Adam, Eve, and
the serpent were subject to God’s curses, the full measure of his retribution fell
upon the serpent and Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise in Gen 3:23-24 to
prepare them for salvation (C and C′).129 Throughout the course of the divine
economy, the serpent has been striving to impede the progression of salvation for
God’s people (Gen 3:15). In the climax of the chiasm, Irenaeus compares the
antithetical actions of Cain and Adam in response to God (D and D′).130 When God
questioned Cain he was obstinate (Gen 4:9), but Adam’s humbling actions were in
every way contrary (Gen 3:7-8). In the same way, Irenaeus implores the faithful not
to be obstinate before God like Cain, but humble as Adam. In doing so, he argues, the
126
AH 3.23.4-5.
AH 3.23.1,8.
128
AH 3.23.2,7.
129
AH 3.23.3,6.
130
AH 3.23.4-5.
127
100
faithful will find salvation from the one who has trampled upon the serpent’s head
and restored the lost sheep of humanity to the fold of life.
4.9 AH 3.24.1-2: The Church, the Spirit, and the Knowledge of God
In the closing chapters of AH 3, Irenaeus is confident he has exposed the errors of
his opposition and defended nature of God as Creator, Christ as fully divine and
human, and the comprehensive salvific work of Christ epitomized in the preaching
of the church. He also believes he has done so from the whole testimony of the
apostles and prophets in the scriptures including the “beginning, the middle and
the end” (per initia et medietates et finem).131 The Bishop of Lyon identifies the content
of the apostolic testimony as the unfolding of the redemptive history, which he
describes as a perfect process that guides the faithful towards salvation. This
imagery leads to an illustrative application of Gen 2:7 to the work of the Spirit in the
church. Conflating Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7, he also characterizes the
knowledge of God as Creator as the fundamental feature of the preaching of the
church.
4.9.1 AH 3.24.1: The Church, the Body and the Spirit (Gen 2:7)
AH 3.24.1 adds the pneumotological conclusion to Christ’s recapitulative work.
Christ unites God to the human formation in himself and then imparts the Spirit as
the means to vivify the mortal flesh of all the faithful in the church.132 He imagines
the human person as a “vessel” (vaso, Matt 12:29) containing the “precious deposit”
(eximium… depositum) of the faith of the church. 133 The change of the inflection in
the participles from perfect passive to present active signifies the tension in
Irenaeus’ thinking between the faith of the church that “has been entrusted”
(creditum est) and the Holy Spirit that “has been deposited” (deposita est) with the
people of God who are “receiving” (percipientia) them. By means of the Holy Spirit,
the faith of the church continually renews the life of the vessel preserving the
youthful nature of the vessel itself. Conflating the language of the “gift of God” (Dei
131
AH 3.24.1. In the context the beginning middle and end appear to be the Old Testament, the
Apostolic writings and the Church. cf. Laws of Plato IV, 715,
132
Behr, Asceticism, 66.
133
As we have seen vaso is a common Irenaean image: AH 3.8.2, AH 3.18.6, AH 3.23.1, AH 4.33.4, and AH
5.22.1.
101
munus) from Eph 2:8 with the creation scene of Gen 2:7, Irenaeus imagines the
impartation of the breath of God in Gen 2:7 as the same manner of the gift of the
Holy Spirit being imparted to the church.134 Just as the breath of God enlivened the
formation of Adam in Gen 2:7, the gift of faith entrusted to the church enlivens the
faithful.135 This life is also sustained though the operations of the Spirit in 1 Cor
12:11, who are the apostles, prophets and teachers mentioned in 1 Cor 12:28. Those
who remain outside the church, again echoing the imagery of Gen 2:7, “defraud
themselves of life” (fraudant a uita).136
4.9.2 AH 3. 24.2: Knowledge of the Creator (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 2:7)
In AH 3.24.2 Irenaeus makes a final parting critique by suggesting the Gnostics reject
a priori any conception of God within grasp of human knowledge. According to
Irenaeus, the fundamental knowledge of God accessible to the human mind is the
understanding of God as Creator, which Behr terms the “pedagogy of the
economy.”137 In making this assertion, Irenaeus implies his Gnostics opponents
reject the basic premise of all reality, the knowledge of the God revealed in the
formation of humankind. In the midst of this polemic, Irenaeus draws together a
network of passages that insist the knowledge of God accessible to all is the
knowledge of the God, “who created [Gen 1:26] and formed [Gen 2:7a] and breathed
into us the breath of life [Gen 2:7b] and nurtures us through creation [Gen 1:28],
strengthening us by His Word [Psalm 32:6 LXX], and binding all things together in
His Wisdom [Prov 8:30], this is who is the one true God” (qui fecit et plasmauit et
insufflationem uitae insufflauit in eis et per conditionem nutrit nos, Verbo suo confirmans et
Sapientia compingens omnis, hic est qui est solus uerus Deus).138 For Irenaeus, the concern
is the connection between the Creator and the creature and the knowledge of God’s
act of creation, not necessarily God’s “greatness” (magnitudinem) or even God’s
“nature” (substantiam).139 Instead, this narratival arrangement of creation texts is
134
AH 3.24.1.
In the remaining portion of AH 3.24.1 continues to describe the deposit (deposita est) of the Holy
Spirit into the church. He characterizes the work of the Spirit with three aspects drawn from other
texts: “pledge of incorruption” (arrha incorruptelae) in Eph 1:14, “confirmation” (confirmatio) in Col
2:7, and “ladder of ascent” (scala ascensionis) in Gen 28:12.
136
AH 3.24.2. Connecting the “body” imagery envisions the Spirit as nourishment from the Mother’s
breast and a radiant fountain. cf. 1 Thess 2:7, Psalm 22:9, Luke 11:27.
137
Behr, Asceticism, 67.
138
AH 3.24.2.
139
AH 3.24.2.
135
102
bound up with the identity of God and the nature of God’s relationship to humanity.
The movement from Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28, Psalm 32:6 LXX, and Prov 8:30 is not
an unusual cluster of texts for Irenaeus.140 The verb fecit refers to the act of creation
in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), while plasmauit depicts the act of
forming Adam from the dust (Gen 2:7). The remaining portion of Gen 2:7b is cited in
the reference to the breathing in of the breath of life. The phrase “nurtures us
through creation” (et per conditionem nutrit nos) is an echo of Gen 1:28 that describes
the growth and maturity of humankind in and through what is created.141 This
connection points to the creation texts Psalm 32:6 LXX and Prov 8:30 and described
the “strengthening” (confirmans) of the Word and the “binding all things together”
(compingens omnia) in Wisdom.142 The notions of strengthening and binding are the
economic actions of the Son and the Spirit aimed at progressing the humanity
toward their appointed salvation. This is why Irenaeus considers Gnostics to
produce errant aberrations of the text, because they reject the very basic
knowledge of God and the “light” (lumen) that illuminates the understanding of God
as Creator.143
4.10 Conclusion
With the close of AH 3, Irenaeus has completed the first summary of his own
theological system in response to the heretics. The contribution of Gen 1-3 serves to
support the activity of God from creation to glorification. First, as we have seen
before, Irenaeus coordinates texts in a narratival relationship. This includes a
telescoped summary of salvation history in AH 3.3.3 that begins with allusions to
creation and the description of the covenantal relationship, including the Adamic
covenant, in AH 3.11.8. Irenaeus provides no substantive commentary on these
texts, but simply arranges them in a narrative framework to depict the continuity of
salvation history.
140
cf. AH 2.28.1; AH 3.3.3.
The retroversion parallels the terms “nourish” τρέφοντα and “increase” αὔξοντα the latter of
which is the same term used in Gen 1:28 LXX. cf. Epid 11, 14; AH 3.10.3; AH 3.22.4; AH 4.11.1
142
Although he is not explicit, the connection of these texts with the creation passages is reminiscent
of the use of the hands imagery. The “Word” and the “Wisdom” are active in the formation and
ordering of creation.
143
AH 3.24.2; Behr, Asceticism, 87, 110-12.
141
103
Second, Irenaeus uses Gen 1-3, alongside other texts, to order or structure
his work. This is most evident in a series of chiasms he forms in the latter portions
of the book. The texts of Gen 2:5 and Gen 2:7 frame the chiasm in AH 3.18.1 and AH
3.18.7, and Gen 2:7 and Gen 3:1-8 contribute to the first part of the chiasm in AH
3.19.3 and AH 3.20.1. The most developed organizational function of Gen 1-3 and the
climax of his recapitulative argument is found in AH 3.23.1-8 with the theological
arrangement of the narrative of Gen 3-4. Gen 3:5 frames this chiasm as a whole, but
the intervening sections of the chiasm draw from an array of Genesis texts
including: Gen 1:26, Gen 3:7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:15, Gen 3:16, Gen
3:17-19, Gen 3:21, and Gen 3:23-24. In addition, Irenaeus uses a host of intertexts to
interpret these passages including: Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:11, Matt 12:29, Matt
25:41, Psalm 90:13 LXX, Prov 1:7, Luke 10:19, Rom 5:12, 17, Rom 6:2, 10, 1 Cor 15:26,
54-55, Gal 3:16, and Rev 20:2. The whole arrangement completes Irenaeus’ theology
of recapitulation, and reveals the Christological fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen
3:15. Outside of Epid 11-16, this is the most developed and coherent reading of Gen
1-3 in all of Irenaeus’ extant work.
Third, a common means of coordinating passages is vocabulary or
catchwords that make philological connections between texts. In many cases these
are explanatory in nature and offer qualifications or definitions for the terms in Gen
1-3. In AH 3.11.5, he links the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana with the creation
of flora (Gen 1:11), including the grapevine, and water (Gen 1:9). A particularly
common linking term is the substance of Adam’s flesh or “formation” (plasma) and
the related images that he connects with the substance of plasma, which is not
surprising given his anti-Gnostic polemic. In AH 3.18.1, the language of “formation”
(plasma) and “human being” (hominem) links Gen 2:7, John 1:14, and Eph 1:10. Similar
imagery is located in AH 3.18.7, but he adds the allusion to the “virgin soil” (terra
rudis) in Gen 2:5, which corresponds to the virgin birth of Christ and their
subsequent contrastive acts of disobedience and obedience (Rom 5:12, 19). In AH
3.19.3 we find similar descriptions that relate Adam’s “formation” (plasma) with the
lost “sheep” (ouem) of Luke 15:4, and the “earth” (terra) of Eph 4:9. Similarly, in AH
3.21.10 he connects Adam’s “formation” (plasma) that is drawn from the “untilled
earth” (rudi terra) of Gen 2:5 with the Word of God who forms all things (John 1:3)
and the Adam-Christ typology of Rom 5:12, 19. Then, in AH 3.22.1, Irenaeus describes
104
the “meek” (mites) nature of the flesh that is fashioned from the “earth” (terra, Matt
5:5, Gen 2:7). The three concluding sections of the chiasm in AH 3.23.6-8, contain the
imagery of “life” (vitae, Gen 2:9, Rom 6:10), “serpent” (serpentem, Gen 3:15, Psalm
90:13 LXX, Rev 12:9/20:2), “seed” (semen, Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16,19), and “to tread upon”
(calcare, Gen 3:15, Luke 10:19). These provide intricate linguistic or verbal
connections between Gen 3:15 and the person and work of Christ.
Fourth, there are also general conceptual, theological, or typological
connections that are not necessarily identifiable with any particular philological
relationship. In most cases these connections are crafted through his theological
perspective, and often closely related to a particular aspect of the work of Christ.
The relationship between these texts is theologically symbiotic in the sense that
each passage supports, extends, or demarcates the interpretation of other texts. As
we mentioned above, in AH 3.11.5 the connections between Gen 1-2 and John 2 are
ordered by a perspective that links that identity and work of the Creator with the
identity and activity of Christ. A general Adam-Christ typology in AH 3.18.1 binds
together Gen 2:7 and John 1:14, and these theological connections are supported by
Deut 32:4 and Eph 1:10. The same theological perspective harmonizes Gen 2:5 with
Rom 5:12,19, where Irenaeus’ typological connections extend the logic of Paul’s
Adam-Christ typology. The “descending” (descendere) and “ascending” (ascendere)
imagery in AH 3.19.3 binds the Incarnation and the ascension though linking Isa
7:11, Luke 15:4-6, and Eph 4:9-10. The object of salvation in each case is man formed
from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7). In AH 3.20.1, Irenaeus follows an Adam-Jonah
typology and reads the account of Jonah in light of the events of the Garden
alongside Matt 12:39-40 and 1 Cor 1:29. The “sign of Jonah” in Matt 12:39-40 is the
controlling text, which serves to coordinate Jonah 1:9, Jonah 2:1-2, and Jonah 3:1, 89, with an allusion to the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:5-8. In this reading,
the “great whale” (magna ceto) is Satan, who deceives the first couple in the Garden,
but Adam, like Jonah, received an unexpected salvation from the captivity of this
“whale.” In yet another typological relationship, Irenaeus reads the actions of Eve in
correspondence to those of Mary in AH 3.22.1. Whereas Eve becomes the cause of
death in Gen 3:6, Mary is the cause of salvation and resurrection in Luke 1:38, Heb
5:9, and Eph 4:16/Col 2:19. Finally, the chiasm of AH 3.23.1-8 and the closing sections
abound with conceptual and theological connections. There is a general connection
105
between creation in the image of God and salvation in AH 3.23.2, where the work of
Christ has overcome the hostile force that took captive humanity that was created
in the image of God. The condemnation of this evil one is confirmed in the links
between the curse of Gen 3:14 and the eternal fire described in Matt 25:41. The
Adam-Cain typology in AH 3.23.4-5 also continues the various typological
relationships mentioned previously. While Cain was insolent before God, Adam was
contrite; and his contrition is aptly described as the proper fear of God in Prov 1:7.
Fifth, Irenaeus conflates texts with a type of prosopological
(prosopographic) interpretation where he identifies individuals in Gen 1-3 with
other persons mentioned elsewhere in scripture. In AH 3.21.10, the Word of God
creating all things in John 1:3 is the same person creating Adam in Gen 2:7. In the
closing section of AH 3.24.2, he provides a more developed perspective on the
activity of God in creation by reading the Word of Psalm 32:6 LXX and the Wisdom
of Prov 8:30 in continuity with Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7.
Sixth, Irenaeus also demonstrates an illustrative application of texts, where
he uses passages to exemplify a theological argument. In AH 3.23.8 he portrays the
Gnostics as contemporary manifestations of the serpent, who are, like the serpent,
attempting to deceive the people of God and lead them into disobedience. Then, in
AH 3.24.1 he compares the breath of God that is imparted to Adam in Gen 2:7 with
the church as the vessel of Matt 12:29 that has received the precious deposit of the
Spirit.
From beginning to end all of these intertextual strategies guide his
intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 as he crafts his theological polemic against the
Gnostics. The complexities of his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 only continue to
develop in AH 4-5 as he advances his Christological and anthropological
considerations.
106
CHAPTER 5: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 4
OF ADVERSUS HAERESES
5.1 Introduction
Having evaluated the meaning and function of Gen 1-3 in the first three books we
see that the intertextual performance of these passages in Irenaeus’ own thought is
beginning to take shape. At every turn we discover that Irenaeus is not so
concerned with the isolated and individual meaning of any singular Genesis text,
but the theological interaction of texts. For Irenaeus, the meaning of Gen 1-3 is
bound up in the correspondence of texts. As a result, the intertextual performance
of Gen 1-3 continues to flourish in AH 4. We have already noted, following Bacq’s
groundbreaking study on this book, AH 4 is organized around scripture.1 Bacq
argues convincingly that the “words of the Lord” give unity and coherence to AH 4
that was heretofore unrecognized.
The purpose of AH 4, following the Christological arguments of AH 3, is to
prove the existence of one God who is active throughout all salvation history.
According to Bacq’s structure, the content of AH 4 may be framed in four larger
sections. Following a short introduction, AH 4.1-19 argues there is one God who is
both Creator and Administrator throughout both Testaments as evidenced in the
words of the Lord. AH 4.20-35 anticipates the prophecy of the Old Testament in the
New and some writers in the post-apostolic age. Finally, in AH 4.36-41 he
concentrates on the proof of one God who is active throughout salvation history, as
evidenced in the parables of Christ. The closing section, AH 4.41.4, provides a short
conclusion summarizing the unity of God in the Lord’s words and previews the
argument for the resurrection of the body in AH 5.
Within this purpose and structure, several chapters boast meaningful
intertextual uses of Gen 1-3.2 The methods of intertextual networking in this
1
Bacq, De l’ancienne. While he does not achieve the magnitude of his work on AH 5, Antonio Orbe’s
translation and commentary on AH 4 is a pivotal for understanding the nature of this book. Orbe,
Teología IV.
2
AH 4.pf.4, 4.6.2, 4.10.1, 4.11.1-2, 4.14.1, 4.16.1 4.20.1-4, 4.32.1, 4.33.4, 4.34.4, 4.36.2-6, 4.37.4, 4.38.1-4,
4.39.2, and 4.40.3. BP also lists other possible echoes including: Gen 3:1-6 in AH 4.2.7 and AH 4.24.1 (cf.
Num 21:4-9), Gen 1:27 in AH 4.15.2 (cf. Matt 19:7-8), Gen 2:7 in AH 4.31.2 and AH 4.41.4, Gen 3:8 in AH
4.11.1, and Gen 1:26 in AH 4.37.7 (cf. Rom 8:29). In each of these instances there is no clear echo of Gen
1-3 and in most cases Irenaeus has another passage in mind (even if these text are not always
distinguishable from his use of Gen 1-3).
107
chapter also display the full spectrum of Irenaeus’ uses of Gen 1-3 including:
narratival connections, catchwords, a “plain sense” reading, theological or
typological connections, prosopological interpretations, illustrative application of
texts, general-to-particular argumentation, and specific canonical arrangements of
texts that coordinate a prophetic text, a Gospel text, and an apostolic text. These
intertextual connections formed with Gen 1-3 continue to reveal the pivotal nature
of Gen 1-3 in the thought of the Bishop of Lyon.
5.2 AH 4.pf.3-4: The Heretics and Gen 1-3 (Ge n 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:1-5)
The preface to AH 4 reminds the reader of Irenaeus’ overall purpose: the detection
and refutation of Gnosis by way of exposing the fallacies of their doctrinal systems.
What concerns Irenaeus most is the representation of the Creator as defective and
ignorant. In contrast to the heretics, Irenaeus appeals to the authority of the
apostleswhom Irenaeus reminds us were “eye-witnesses” (speculators, Luke 1:2) of the
Lord’s work. These same apostlesnot only witnessed the Christ event, but petition
their disciples to reject the contentious opinions of the heretics because the “weakminded” (simpliciores, 2 Tim 2:23) may be led astray.3 In the spirit of the apostles,
Irenaeus envisions his own work as protecting the simple from the exploitation of
the heretics. He goes so far as to cast the deceptive teaching of his opponents as
manifestations of the seductions of the serpent in Gen 3:1-5.4 For Irenaeus, those
who claim to have “superior knowledge and ineffable mysteries” (majorem
agnitionem et mysteria inenarrabilia, 2 Cor 11:3) carry out the same deception as the
serpent.5 Like Eve, in the Garden, those who are deceived by the heretics become
apostate from the church and subject to death.6 In this way, Irenaeus identifies the
Gnostics as those who Paul condemns in 2 Cor 11:3, and those who offend the
apostolic teaching mentioned in Luke 1:2. He does so, accoding to Irenaeus, to
protect the “weak-minded” (2 Tim 2:23, simpliciores) in the faith.
Irenaeus recognizes that for all their differences the various Gnostic sects
are unified in the general rejection of the Creator God in Genesis, which Irenaeus
3
AH 4.pf.3. Irenaeus identifies himself as one of these disciples with the first-person plural pronoun
“us” (nobis). This means that, in a certain sense, Irenaeus views his refutation against the Gnostics as
following the commission of the apostlesthemselves.
4
cf. AH 3.23.8.
5
AH 4.pf.4
6
AH 4.pf.4
108
believes inherently disparages salvation. Echoing the imagery of Gen 2:7, he
describes the composition of humanity as a “mixed organization of soul and flesh”
(temperatio animae et carnis).7 The union of the soul and the flesh is reflective of the
fashioning of the body and the impartation of the breath/soul derived from Gen 2:7,
where God, taking dust from the earth moulds the man and breathes into him the
breath of life. He conflates Gen 1:26 with his description of a bipartite formation
where humankind “was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands,
that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, ‘Let Us make man’”
(secundum similitudinem Dei formatus est et per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est per
Filium et Spiritum, quibus et dixit: Faciamus hominem).8 The emphasis on the firstperson plural subjunctive verb, “Let Us make” (Faciamus), is found here and in AH
4.20.1 and most naturally applies to the activity of the Son and the Spirit.9
The Valentinians and other Gnostics applied the plural pronoun to a variety
of angelic beings and powers. Irenaeus mentioned the function of angels in his
summaries of Valentinus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates.10 Those
who have departed from the notion of God as Creator have rejected the “salvation
of God’s workmanship, which is the flesh.”11 Salvation, as Irenaeus will make
explicit a few lines later, is the restoration of the whole person that is soul and flesh.
He has one creation event in mind and each passage contributes something to the
formation of humanity. Gen 2:7 describes the constitution of the human person,
including body and soul, while Gen 1:26 describes how this human person is made in
the image and likeness of God. The rejection of the salvation of the whole person is
the link between 2 Cor 11:3 and the activity of Satan in the Garden and the
promulgation of the Gnostic teaching. As the serpent deceived Adam and Eve and
led them to death, so now the Gnostics are deceiving the faithful and turning them
away from the church.
7
AH 4.pf.4
AH 4.pf.4
9
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 74. The same manner of interpretation is found in Epid 55, 4.20.1, 5.1.3, 5.15.4
10
See AH 1.23.5; AH 1.24.1-4; AH 1.25.1.
11
AH 4.pf.4.
8
109
5.3 AH 4.6.2: The Son and the Father (Gen 1:26, Gen 1: 28, Gen 2:7)
This chapter is crucial for determining Irenaeus’ dependence upon Justin. Focusing
upon this section, Michael Slusser recently summarized the various positions and
argued persuasively that Irenaeus learned “all that Justin had to teach him.”12 This
is, after all, the only instance where Irenaeus cites a portion of Justin’s lost work
against Marcion. The citation of Justin in AH 4.6.2 acts as an inclusio to Irenaeus’
general anti-Gnostic polemic against the Valentinian reading of Matt 11:27.13 The
whole of AH 4.6.1-7 concerns the interpretation of this Gospel logion and the
revelatory nature of the Father-Son relationship in the Incarnation. Orbe has an
extensive treatment of this chapter evaluating the competing Irenaean and
Valentinian readings of Matt 11:27 (along with Origen).14 The Valentinians convert
ἐπιγινώσκεi in Matt 11:27 into an aorist, arguing no one “knew” (cognovit, ἔγνω) the
Father except the Son, so the Father announced by the prophets is not the same
Father of Christ revealed in the Son.15 Prior to the New Covenant, this Father was
unknown. Although, as Orbe observes, it is not altogether clear if Irenaeus rejects
the variant reading in particular or the Valentinian application of the verb, most
likely the latter, but either way Irenaeus’ exegesis exploits the present tense
ἐπιγινώσκεi (cognoscit).16
The citation of Justin in AH 4.6.2 begins with an echo of Christ’s words in
John 5:31, but Justin reinterprets the language to say, “I [Justin] would not have
believed even the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our
framer, maker and nourisher” (Ipsi quoque Domino non credidissem alterum Deum
annuntianti praeter Fabricatorem et Factorem et Nutritorem).17 For Justin (and Irenaeus),
contra Marcion, the relationship between the Father and the Creator and the Son is
12
Slusser, “How Much,” 520. One of the more significant disagreements is the length of his citation of
Justin. The last clause refers to Christ’s work of recapitulation, which, if original, may suggest that
Irenaeus derived his doctrine of recapitulation from Justin. Among other arguments, scholars who
opt for the shorter reading point to the parallel citation in Eusebius who omits the final clause.
Slusser, “How Much.” 518; Eusebius H.E. 4.18.9; See also Steenberg, Irenaeus, 17-18; Grant, Irenaeus, 39.
13
Slusser, “How Much,” 519. Eusebius mentions this work, as well as Photius. See EH 4.18.9.
14
Orbe, “La Revelacion Del Hijo Por el Padre Segun San Ireneo (Adv. Haer. IV,6): Para la exegesis
precivena de Matt 11,27,” in Teología De San Ireneo IV: Traducción y Comentario del Libro IV del «Adversus
haereses» (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1996): 50-103, originally published in Greg 51
(1970): 5-83.
15
AH 4.6.1. Orbe, “La Revelacion,” 53, 100; Slusser, “How Much,” 519; cf. AH 1.20.3.
16
Orbe, “La Revelacion,” 52-53; AH 4.6.1,3; Slusser, “How Much,” 519-20.
17
AH 4.6.2. Similar argument and imagery is found in AH 4.6.6 and AH 4.7.4.
110
so essential that Justin would not believe the incarnate Son if he denied his
relationship to the Creator.18 Only the Creator, who is revealed in Christ, is able to
form, nourish, and bring humanity to their appointed consummation.19 The three
titles “Framer” (Fabricatorem), “Maker” (Factorem) and “Nourisher” (Nutritorem) are
echoes of the creation of humanity in Gen 1-2. Although the verbs are not exactly
parallel, the three-fold allusion must mirror the three creation texts: Gen 1:26, Gen
2:7, and Gen 1:28. Irenaeus uses a variety of verbal cognates to describe the creation
and preservation of Adam.20 These are not incremental or progressive in
relationship—that is the interpretation of the heretics—but the three-fold use of the
verbal titles indicates his harmonious reading of Gen 1-2, where all the titles refer to
the same divine being.21 The harmonious reading of creation texts in Gen 1-2 is also
buttressed with echoes of Gen 1-2 that refer to the Son of God who “made this
world” (mundum fecit), “formed” (plasmavit) humanity and “administers”
(administrat) all things. The administration over creation anticipates the
Incarnation, where he “recapitulates his own handiwork in himself” (suum plasma in
semetipsum recapitulans, Eph 1:10).22 The language of plasma is a common reference
to the substance of Adam’s formation in Gen 2:7.23 For Justin and Irenaeus the
echoes of the creation of the world, creation of humankind, and the administration
of “all things” fashion links between creation and the Incarnation that support the
connections between the Creator and the Father of Christ. This reference to Justin
also links Irenaeus’ reading of Matt 11:27 to the Son’s creative activity in Gen 1-2.
5.4 AH 4.10.1: The Son Inquir ing after Adam (Gen 3:9)
As we found in the previous section, the typological and prophetic connections
between the Testaments are central to the Irenaean-Gnostic disputes. The general
argument surfaces in AH 4.10.1 where he attempts to validate Old Testament
18
EH 4.18.9. Eusebius notes that Irenaeus cites Justin, but his citation only mentions the language of
“Creator” rather than of the three titles.
19
Orbe, “La Revelacion,” 58.
20
He typically cites faciamus in Gen 1:26 (AH 4.20.1, AH 5.1.3), plasmavit in Gen 2:7 (AH 4.11.1, AH 4.20.1)
and crescite et multiplicamini in Gen 1:28 (AH 4.11.1). However, Irenaeus’ style and argument
frequently employs cognates and parallels. For example, in AH 4.11.1 he states that God “formed”
(plasmavit) Adam for “growth and increase” (augmentum et incrementum) and he also uses factus AH
3.23.3 to refer to Gen 1:26.
21
See also AH 2.28.1; AH 3.24.2; AH 4.38.3; and the discussion of scriptural titles in AH 3.7.2.
22
AH 4.6.2.
23
Behr, Asceticism, 38.
111
Christological prophecy with allusions to John 5:39-40 and John 5:46. Drawing upon
Christ’s own assertion that Moses spoke of him in John 5:39-40, Irenaeus suggests
that the “Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his Scriptures”
(inseminatus est ubique in Scripturis ejus Filius Dei).24 As general evidence he lists a
series of Christophanies in the Mosaic writings, including the Son of God conversing
with Adam in Gen 3, Abraham in Gen 18, Noah in Gen 6, and Moses in Exod 3. These
appearances are merely exemplary because he concludes there are countless
instances where Moses reveals the Son.25 His reference to the Son’s “inquiring after
Adam” (autem quaerens Adam) in Gen 3:9 reflects the moment when Adam and Eve
hid from God following their disobedience in Gen 3:6. In this context he offers little
commentary because his point is not to explain why the Son conversed with Adam,
but to show this passage participates in a number of theophanic accounts where the
Son of God is found interacting with creation. Gen 3:9 is the first of many
Christophanies and prophecies hidden in the Mosaic writings and illustrating where
Moses spoke of Christ (John 5:39-40; John 5:46).
5.5 AH 4.11.1-2: The Prophets and Salvation History (Gen 1:28)
In Irenaeus’ thought the purpose of creation is never separated from the economic
nature of salvation history. The opening lines of AH 4.11.2 summarize this view with
a well-known Irenaean axiom: “God makes, but the human being is made” (Deus
quidem facit, homo autem fit).26 The present tense of facit and fit, suggest creation is
not a singular event but an ongoing process whereby God perpetually forms the
human person and prepares them for ressurection. Behr describes this view as the
“unalterable fact of creation.”27 God is always the same, but humanity must receive
a “beginning, middle, and addition with increase” (initium et medietatem et
adjectionem et augmentum).28 For Irenaeus, God is completely self-sufficient, while
the creature has unremitting need.29 This need is epitomized in the salvation and
24
AH 4.10.1; Orbe, Teología IV, 135.
AH 4.10.1; cf. Epid 43-46.
26
AH 4.11.2.
27
Behr, Asceticism, 37
28
AH 4.11.2; Steenberg identifies a parallel passage in Philo, who also cites Plato. Steenberg, Irenaeus,
35.
29
D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Christianizing Divine Aseity: Irenaeus reads John” in The Gospel of John in
Christian Theology, eds. Richard Bauckam and Carl Mosser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008): 53-67, 55.
25
112
perfection of humanity achieved through the organized trajectory of salvation
history and this trajectory is nowhere more evident than the creation mandate of
Gen 1:28: “Increase and multiply” (Crescite et multiplicamini). Irenaeus’ reading of Gen
1:28 creates a salvific paradigm for the growth and advancement of humankind
toward God. The divine activities of the Word in the Old Testament detail the means
of this “growth and increase” (augmentum et incrementum) which also reflects the
progressive nature of human salvation.30 He explains this clearly in connection to
Gen 1:28 saying, “For He formed him for growth and increase, as the Scripture says:
Increase and multiply” (Plasmavit enim eum in augmentum et incrementum,
quemadmodum Scriptura dicit: Crescite et multiplicamini).31 Steenberg undervalues the
broader influence of this passage, only mentioning the citation of Gen 1:28 in this
context and a second allusion in AH 3.22.4.32 The latter allusion he sets aside as
“incidental.”33 But his evaluation of Gen 1:28 is correct when he describes how
Irenaeus uses Gen 1:28 “to establish the necessity for the course of humanity’s
growth via the implication of a temporal ascendancy in the command.”34 This is an
advancement from Behr, who, despite framing an entire chapter on “human
growth” in Irenaeus’ anthropology, rarely attributes this growth to Irenaeus’
reading of Gen 1:28.35 Furthermore, Steenberg rightly emphasizes the human
aspect, but neglects the Trinitarian activity initiated by this command. Orbe points
us to the two-fold implication of Gen 1:28: the Word of God continually forms the
human person and the human person continually maintains obedience in faith.36
The Son, obeying the Fathers’ command, actively enables the human advancement
in salvation. What is more, throughout salvation history the messianic expectation
of the OT prophets is evident. Citing Matt 13:17, Irenaeus reasons that the prophets,
throughout every episode of salvation history, desired to see the advent of the Son.
He specifically mentions the activity of the Word of God conversing with his
Steenberg distinguishes between spatial, temporal, and cooperative self-sufficiency. Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 73.
30
Behr does not develop Irenaeus’ concept of “human growth” with respect to Irenaeus’ reading of
Gen 1:28. Behr, Anthropology, 38. See also AH 3.22.4, AH 4.38.3.
31
AH 4.11.1.
32
Irenaeus alludes to Gen 1:28 in several other contexts: Epid 11, AH 1.28.1, AH 2.28.1, AH 3.24.2, AH
4.38.3, and AH 5.33.3-4.
33
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 97
34
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 96; cf. Bacq, De l’ancienne, 96 n. 2. Behr Asceticism, 37 n. 12.
35
Behr, Asceticism, 116-27. He mentions Gen 1:28 several times, but does not develop Irenaeus reading
of this text. Behr, Asceticism, 37-38 n. 12, 112.
36
Orbe, Teología IV, 143.
113
creatures and dictating the law, along with the general description of the times
where God reproved and exhorted his people. All of these actions are organized in
such a manner to bring Adam to a state of perfection, because Adam is by nature
formed for growth and increase. This distinction, therefore, demonstrates the
personal and progressive nature of Irenaeus’ reading of Gen 1:28 that directs the
faithful toward sanctification and glorification.
In AH 4.11.2 Irenaeus uses the notions of “growth and increase” (augmentum
et incrementum) found in Gen 1:28 to contrast divine aseity with human necessity.
The Bishop of Lyon argues that God is perfect, but humankind receives
“advancement and increase towards God” (percipiens et augmentum ad Deum).37 In
other words, God creates, while humanity is created. God gives, while humanity
receives.38 Nevertheless, the human person must allow God to work out his or her
salvation.39 Those who are grateful toward God become receptors of God’s goodness.
They are the “good and faithful servant” (serve bone et fidelis) of Matt 25:21 who are
continually given an increasing amount of administration and continuously bearing
fruit unto eternal life. But those who reject the creative activity of God become the
receptors of his judgment.40 In the reading of Irenaeus, Matt 25:21 is a confirmation
and quality of growth and increase in Gen 1:28 that incrementally and continually
prepares the faithful to receive God.41
5.6 AH 4.14.1: Why God Created Humankind ( Gen 2:7)
The question of God’s primordial activity is not a subject Irenaeus considers with
any regularity. But in reaction to the extensive primordial speculations of the
heretics, AH 4.14.1 is one of a few instances where he contemplates God’s motivation
for creation.42 For Irenaeus, God’s creative impulse is the ultimate glorification of
humanity as an outworking of the mutual glorification of the Father and the Son.
37
AH 4.11.2.
Orbe, Teología IV, 146.
39
Behr, Asceticism, 40.
40
AH 4.11.2.
41
Behr has read this passage in light of AH 3.22.4 to communicate the developing sexuality in the
prelapsarian Adamic state, which has some merit, but Steenberg is right to point to the
Christological focus of this passage. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 97; Behr, “Irenaeus AH 3.23.5, and the Ascetic
ideal,” StVTQ 36.4 (1993), 309-10.
42
Orbe, Teología IV, 189. According to Rousseau AH 4.14.1 is really a continuation of the
argumentation in AH 4.13.4. He frames AH 4.13.4 into two sections. The first section includes SC
100:534.79–536.103, while the latter section spans SC 100:536.104–546.65 and includes AH 4.14.1-2.
38
114
Irenaeus initiates AH 4.14.1 explaining how God did not form Adam out of necessity,
echoing Gen 2:7, but so that God might confer the blessing of glorification upon
him.43 He turns to the sacerdotal prayer in John 17 and, citing John 17:5, reflects
upon the common glorification of the Father and Son before all creation that is
poured out incrementally upon the formation of Adam. Irenaeus’ vision of God’s
aseity imagines the eternal perfection of the inter-Trinitarian relationship that
eliminates any dependence whatsoever upon creation; the Creator “stands in need
of nothing and no one.”44 Furthermore, God did not require the service of humanity,
but called them out to follow after God so that they might participate in salvation.
For Irenaeus, the glory of humankind is to remain permanently in God's service.45
For this reason he argued in the previous section that God did not befriend
Abraham out of necessity, but so that Abraham might experience the “Trinitarian
life of glory.”46 This unilateral relationship characterizes the interaction between
God and humanity from creation.47 As Steenberg writes, “As much as it is inherent
in man’s nature to be made, so it is inherent in the nature of God to make, to create,
and to fashion.”48 Of course, in the myth of his opponents perfection is reserved for
the unknown Father; the Gnostic Demiurge is delinquent and defective.49
Irenaeus supports the nature of this unilateral relationship between God and
creation with a collection of texts including: John 15:16, John 17:24, Isa 43:5-7, and
Matt 24:28.50 They are linked through parallel language and concepts of
preexistence, creation, and glorification. The intention of God from creation is the
glorification of the human person through divine fellowship and service of God.
This God, contra the Marcionites and Valentinians, is the Creator of Adam in
Genesis and the Father of Jesus.51 In the manner of an “architect” (architectus), God
43
AH 4.14.1.
Bingham, “Christianizing Divine Aseity,” 55.
45
AH 4.14.1.
46
Behr, Anthropology, 36.
47
This section is essential to Behr’s portrayal of Irenaeus’ understanding of the divine economy.
Behr, Asceticism, 36-37.
48
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 35.
49
Bingham, “Christianizing Divine Aseity,” 58.
50
The key passage for Christ’s preexistence is John 8:58 cited in AH 4.13.4
51
Orbe, Teología IV, 189.
44
115
sketches out the “construction of salvation” (fabricationem salutis) that unifies the
trajectory of salvation history recorded in scripture.52
Therefore, just as the Word formed Adam in Gen 2:7 so that he might confer
blessing upon him, so also, citing the dominical saying of John 15:16, the Bishop of
Lyon says Christ chooses the disciples to follow him. Likewise, Christ does not need
his disciples but his disciples are glorified when in fellowship with the Son. The
disciples did not choose to follow Christ any more than Adam chose to be created.
He then adds an allusion to John 17:24, explaining how the disciples, beholding the
glory of Christ, participate in his glory. Isa 43:5-7 also follows the same logic and
explicitly mentions the divine intention of glorification for the one whom God
formed.53 Finally, Matt 24:28 completes this collection of passages supporting
Irenaeus’ vision of unilateral nature of the divine-human relationship from
creation. The text is part of Christ’s apocalyptic warnings that characterize the
dreaded “Day of the Lord” with a “proverb-like” saying: “Wherever the corpse is,
there the eagles will gather” (ubicumque est cadaver, illuc congregabuntur et aquilae).54
He interprets the eagles gathered around the carcass as the resurrected faithful
gathered around the glorified body of the Son of God and participating in his
glory.55 Together these passages theological illustrate the mutual glorification of
the Father and the Son that is motivating the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7. God’s
aseity that initiates creation instructs humankind through a unilateral divinehuman relationship that characterizes all interactions throughout salvation history
so that the blessing of glorification innate to the Father and the Son is bestowed
upon Adam and his posterity.
5.7 AH 4.16.1: The Sign of Sabbath Rest (Gen 2:2-3)
In AH 4.16.1 Irenaeus argues that God created circumcision and Sabbath as signs of
identification for the children of Abraham. He states that these signs are not
without purpose because they “prefigured” (praefigurabat) the coming of the Spirit
52
AH 4.14.2; Behr, Asceticism, 53. Bacq suggests this is an allusion to the construction of the Ark in Gen
6:13-16; Bacq, De l’ancienne, 117.
53
AH 4.14.1.
54
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
2005), 199.
55
Luz notes this allegorical reading is common from Hippolytus onwards. Luz, Matthew 21-28, 200 n.
158. Orbe, Teología IV, 188 n. 12.
116
and the eschatological Sabbath (Gen 2:2-3). Following his discussion of circumcision
as a sign, his reference to the Sabbath begins with an allusion to Exod 20:12, Exod
31:13 and Rom 8:36.56 Both Exod 20:12 and Exod 31:13 describe the Sabbath as a
“sign” (signo) between God and his people, which symbolizes the expectation for the
people of God to live perpetually in God’s service. Orbe determines two senses of the
Sabbath rest: 1) immediate rest from work, and 2) the continual service of God
involving the perpetual sacerdotal exercises and service at the table of God.57 While
Orbe only explicitly applies Gen 2:2-3 to the former sense, through his practice of
linking scriptures, the latter sense is expressed though a series of theologically
interlocking passages. He characterizes this continual divine service with the
imagery of preparing “sheep for the slaughter” (oves occisionis) in Rom 8:36.58 The
people of God are like the sheep prepared for the sacrifice, which he understands as
the people ministering continually and persevering in the faith. They abstain from
all greed and, drawing upon the language of Matt 6:19, do not store up for
themselves treasures on earth. This imagery of the “earth” (terra) inspires a
reference to the Sabbath rest instituted at the conclusion of creation in Gen 2:2-3.
Here the Sabbath rest in Gen 2:2-3 is a “sign” (signa) that points toward the
eschatological Sabbath when humankind will perpetually dwell in the kingdom of
God. Connecting Rom 8:36 and Gen 2:2-3, Irenaeus suggests the person who
preservers in the service of the Lord will experience the peace of the Sabbath rest in
the eschatological kingdom of God and dine at the table of the Lord.59
5.8 AH 4.20.1-4a: Supremacy over All Th ings ( Gen 1:26, Gen 2: 7)
This section presents another shift in Irenaeus’ work with great attention given to
Old Testament prophecy. The focal point of this section may be characterized by the
well-known Irenaean axiom: “the glory of God is a living person” (gloria enim Dei
vivens homo).60 He believes the Son takes the creation into his divine life and, as a
result, creation participates in the glory of God.61 The Valentinian emphasis on
56
The discussion of circumcision links Gen 17:9-11, Deut 10:16, and Col 2:11.
Orbe, Teología IV, 208.
58
Noormann, Irenäus, 198.
59
Orbe, Teología IV, 207 n. 10. Irenaeus will develop this argument in AH 5.33.2.
60
AH 4.20.7.
61
Orbe, “Gloria Dei vivens homo: Análisis de Ireneo, adv. haer. IV, 20, 1-7,” Greg 73.2 (1992): 205-68.
Behr, Asceticism, 262-63.
57
117
ignorance is directly opposed to Irenaeus’ identification of God’s goodness or love as
the primary motivation for creation.62 He cites Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in AH 4.20.1,
and these connect with a network of texts spanning AH 4.20.2-4a that argue for the
creation of all things by means of the Word and Wisdom.63 The language of “all
things” (omnia) links these passages, as well as a general-to-particular rhetorical
argumentation.64 The end of this section is signified by summary statement that
God has formed all things by his Word and Wisdom in AH 4.20.4a.
In AH 4.20.1 Irenaeus describes the greatness of God and its relationship to
the notion of creatio ex nihilo and utilizes a general-to-particular mode of
argumentation. This is not a God who forms from preexistent matter, but a God who
creates out of nothing.65 God in Himself, Irenaeus argues, has “established, selected,
adorned and contains all things, and among all things is us and this world”
(constituit et fecit et adornavit et continet omnia, in omnibus autem et nos et hunc
mundum).66 In this claim Irenaeus distinguishes himself from the Gnostic and
Middle-Platonic doctrines of the origin of the world.67 In this context he is not
concerned with the Gnostics interpretation of Gen 1:26 but with their doctrine of
God informing their reading.68 Irenaeus makes the general point that all things have
been made by God and nothing exists that God has not created. At the same time, he
wants to particularly emphasize humankind and the world as a subset within “all
things” (omnia) that God has created. Gen 2:7 describes the particularity of the
creation of humankind within “all things” (omnia) when reaching down “God
formed the man, taking the dust of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath
of life” (Et plasmavit Deum hominem, limum terrae accipiens, et insufflavit in faciem ejus
flatum vitae). Irenaeus uses Gen 1:26, on the other hand, to depict the means by
which God created, namely God created humankind within God.69 His argument, as
62
AH 1.2.3; Steenberg, Irenaeus, 36-8; Mackenzie, Irenaeus’s Demonstration, 95.
Donovan, 116.
64
cf. Shotwell, Biblical Exegesis, 32-33.
65
AH 2.10.4; cf. Theophilus, Ad Autol 2.4.
66
AH 4.20.1.
67
Gerhard may, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, trans.
A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 168; Orbe, Teología IV, 276; cf. AH 4.38.3; AH 2.25.3; and AH
5.4.2.
68
Steenberg, Of God and Man, 25.
69
If we break down Gen 2:7 into three sections: Gen 2:7a “God reached down taking dust from the
earth and formed the man,” Gen 2:7b: “and breathed into the man the breath of life,” Gen 2:7c: “and
the man became a living being.” This is the only occasion where he provides a complete citation of
Gen 2:7ab and at no point does Irenaeus cite Gen 2:7 in full.
63
118
Orbe points out, inverts the Gnostic notions of the distinctive creative actions of the
Demiurge.70 As Irenaeus argued in AH 4.14.1-2 and throughout AH 1, God stands in
need of nothing to accomplish creation, because he possess his own Hands, that is
the Son and the Spirit. This is God creating all things within God when the Father
speaks to the Son and the Spirit saying, “Let Us make humankind after our image
and likeness” (Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem).71 There is, of course,
much debate around the Trinitarian discussions of these pre-Nicene Fathers and
anachronism is always a danger. But while some have argued Irenaeus is
“terminologically-contradictory,” the degree of overlapping Trintarian terminology
is unmistakable.72 Mackenzie goes so far as to say, “There is little, if anything, in the
Nicene formulae which is not present in embryonic or directional form in the works
of Irenaeus.”73 Conceptually speaking the act of creation necessarily includes the
activity of all three persons, so that “He taking from Himself” (ipse a semetipso)
formed all things by means of the Son and the Spirit communicates the creation of
humanity is the corporate action united in will and purpose. The Father provided
the substance of the clay, the Son acted as the paradigm for the formation of the
man, and the Spirit enlivened the form.74 This presentation of the “mutual
interrelatedness of the Trinitarian persons” is a striking example of the theological
interpretation of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.75 For this reason, the creation of human life,
Irenaeus asserts, could not have been the work of angels, or powers, or any other
creature, because they “are not able to create an image of God” (neque… poterant
imaginem facere Dei, Gen 1:26).76
This theological reading is structurally connected to a cento of eight
passages that are laced together through there connection to the notion of creatio ex
nihilo and his reading of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.77 The texts in AH 4.20.2 are arranged
in the following order: Mand 1, Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, Matt 11:27, Rev 3:7, John 1:3, 1 Pet
2:23, and Col 1:18, while the passages in AH 4.20.3 include: Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25,
70
Orbe, Teología IV, 276.
AH 4.20.1. Parallel uses are found in Epid. 55; AH 5.1.3; and AH 5.15.4.
72
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 64.
73
Mackenzie, Irenaeus’ Demonstration, 29; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 105.
74
Behr, Asceticism, 87; Orbe, Teología IV, 275 n. 9.
75
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 114.
76
AH 4.20.1; cf. AH 1.5.5; AH 1.18.6; AH 1.30.4-5.
77
AH 4.20.2-3. For a discussion of creatio ex nihilio in Irenaeus: Orbe, “San Ireneo y la creation”; J.
Fantino, La téologie, 265-337; Fantino, La crátion ex nihilo chez saint Irénée” RSPT 76.3, (1992), 421-42;
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 38-49.
71
119
and Prov 8:27-31. It is observable that Irenaeus makes the same general-toparticular argument as he did in the first section and the links between these texts
is the language and concept of “all things” (omnia). The first four passages (Mand 1,
Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, and Matt 11:27) all contain the language of “all things” (omnia) and
are related to the creation of all things generally to Gen 1:26 and the creation of
humans in particular to Gen 2:7. He provides only brief commentary; in Irenaeus’
thinking the connections between these texts are self-explanatory and explicit.
These texts are themselves commentary on Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. Hermas describes
how God, “established all things” (omnia constituit), while Mal 2:10 uses the same
language asking the rhetorical questions, “Is there not one God who has established
us? Have we not all one Father?” (Nonne unus Deus qui constituit nos? Nonne Pater unus
est omnibus nostrum?).78 Eph 4:6 describes God the Father as “above all and in us all”
(super omnes et in omnibus nobis), while Matt 11:27 records the Lord saying, “All
things have been delivered to me by my Father” (Omnia… mihi tradita sunt a Patre
meo).79 Although Irenaeus is not explicit about the timing of God’s deliverance of all
things to the Son (Matt 11:27), it seems right that, as Orbe suggests, this transpires
at the Incarnation where the Son assumes the same substance of Adam’s
formation.80 In addition to the catchword omnia, Orbe carefully observes that this
intertextual argumentation draws together an Old Testament reference (Mal 2:10),
an apostle (Eph 4:6) and the words of the Lord (Matt 11:27).81 The canonical linkage
is a means for Irenaeus to marshal the entire corpus of divine revelation in one
continuous witness to the Father’s creation of all things by means of the Word.
In the remaining passages of Acts 10:42, Rev 3:7, John 1:14, 1 Pet 2:23, and Col
1:18, the emphasis is placed upon “all” human persons as a subset within all
things.82 These latter five texts do not use the language or conceptual imagery of
“all things” and, as a result, require commentary and connection. First of all, given
78
O’Neill argues the citation of Hermes elevates it to ‘creedal status” of creation ex nihilo, but
Steenberg rightly notes this overstates the case. J. C. O’Neill, “How early is the doctrine of creatio ex
nihilo?” JTS 53.2 (2002), 455, 63; Steenberg, ‘Scripture graphe, and the status of Hermas in Irenaeus,’
SVTQ 53.1 (2008): 29-66.
79
AH 4.20.2.
80
Orbe, Teología IV, 278 n. 16.
81
Orbe, Teología IV, 280.
82
Holsinger-Friesen uses this section to describe the immediacy of God within the creation through
Gen 1:26, but he neglects the main point that inclusiveness of God’s creation is dependent upon Gen
1:26, while immediacy is dependent upon Gen 2:7. These readings are supported by a variety of
intertexts. Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 118-119.
120
all things have been given over to the Son, now the Son has the authority to judge
the living and the dead (Acts 10:42). The inclusiveness of both the living and the
dead comprises all persons, living and deceased. For this reason, alluding to Rev 3:7
and Rev 5:2, 3 and 9, only the Son has the authority to open the book of the Father
because of his atoning sacrifice: a sacrifice, Irenaeus argues, that resulted in his
receiving power over all things from the same God who “made all things by the
Word and adorned them by his Wisdom (omnia Verbo facit et Sapientia adornavit).83
The Son alone has the power to judge all people, both the living and the dead. The
preeminence of Christ over all things is also explained by the citation of John 1:14.
The Son of God became flesh so that he might have “sovereignty in earth” (terra
haberet principatum) as he has sovereignty in heaven. His sovereignty on earth,
according to Irenaeus, is located in his righteous life depicted in 1 Pet 2:23. His
authority over those things “under the earth,” (sub terra) is also, according to Col
1:18, established in the fact that he is the first-born from the dead. The result of his
preeminence is that “all things … will behold their King” (et ut viderent omnia… suum
Regem). This final allusion speaks of both the first and the second coming of the Lord
where the incarnate Son returns to consummate the kingdom. Continuning his
argument in AH 4.20.1, God has created all things and in all things are both the
living and the dead. In this way, Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 are key texts that must be
supplemented theologically with an array of supporting texts, all communicating
the theological notion that God created all things generally and humankind in
particular.
Following this eight verse cento, Irenaeus cites Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25,
and Prov 8:27-31 in AH 4.20.3, but he reserves his commentary on these texts for the
opening lines of AH 4.20.4. These texts convey that God the Father existed with the
Son and Spirit before all creation and refer back to the commentary on Gen 1:26 in
AH 4.20.1. The two verbs fecit and aptavit, alongside the reference to Verbo and
Sapientia, inspire the links between these texts.84 Prov 3:19-20 describes how “God
by wisdom founded the earth” (Deus sapientia fundavit terram).85 Likewise in Prov
8:22-25, it is Wisdom who is in the beginning with God before the creation of the
83
AH 4.20.2.
Orbe, Teología IV, 282.
85
AH 4.20.3. Orbe suggests that Verbo et Sapientia in the opening line refers to Psalm 32:6 LXX, but the
connections are too obscure to be certain. Orbe, Teología IV, 282n24.
84
121
earth, while Prov 8:27-31 describes how Wisdom rejoiced with God at the
completion of creation.86 The Wisdom of Prov 8:22 is the personal Spirit that is
imparted through the Word of God.87 These texts fill out the theological reality of
the primordial world where the Son and the Spirit are present with the Father prior
to creation in Genesis, and support the reality that the Father created all things by
His Word and Wisdom in Gen 1:26. Through the intertextual reading of Gen 1:26,
Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25, and Prov 8:27-31, Irenaeus is able to say in AH 4.20.4, with
the confidence of his scriptural harmony: “There is therefore one God, who by the
Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things” (Unus igitur Deus, qui Verbo et
Sapientia fecit et aptavit omnia). In other words, in Irenaeus’ mind Gen 1:26, Prov 3:1920, Prov 8:22-25, and Prov 8:27-31 reflect the Father, Son and Spirit existing before
the foundation of the world. Clearly Irenaeus is reading Gen 1:26 in correspondence
with these texts expressing Christ’s preexistence and activity from the opening
pages of the scriptural narrative. The proclamation of Gen 1:26, “Let Us make”
(Faciamus), expresses a divine reality that is already true and supported by an array
of interrelated scriptures. Irenaeus closes with the summary statement that the
Father is known though the Word, “through whom he established all thing” (per
quem constituit omnia), which connects with the similar language in Mand 1 and Mal
2:10 in AH 4.20.2 and the opening lines of AH 4.20.1.
5.9 AH 4.32.1: Word of God and the Unity of S cripture (Gen 1:3)
This section is part of a long debated passage describing the teaching of an
undisclosed certain “presbyter, a disciple of the apostles,” who argues for the unity
of the two Testaments under the activity of one God who is the Creator of all things.
Charles Hill has argued convincingly that the presbyter is Polycarp.88 In this section,
Irenaeus frames both his appeal to Genesis and the relationship of Gen 1-3 to the
rest of salvation history as the teaching of this presbyter.89 To claim “angels” or
86
AH 4.20.3.
Orbe, Teología IV, 282.
88
Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author
of Ad Diognetum. Hill, “Polycarp Contra Marcion Irenaeus’ Presbyterial Source in AH 4.27-32,” StuPat
40 (2006): 399-412.
89
In keeping with his intertextual perspective, Irenaeus notes the result of departing from the unity
of the Testaments results in “inconsistency” (incongruentiam) and “contradictions” (contradictiones).
The only difference in this instance is that Irenaeus’ is attributing this intertextual perspective to
Polycarp.
87
122
“another power” other than God created the world will not unite the teaching of the
Old and the New Testaments. On the other hand, Irenaeus writes that those who
believe one God made all things by the Word affirm the most basic theological
assumption and the key that unlocks scriptural exegesis. This places the
intertextual reception of Gen 1-3 and the apostolic teaching in the New Testament
at the forefront of Irenaeus’ objectives.
Irenaeus’ exegesis of Gen 1:3 is distinctly “Trinitarian.” He finds in the
allusions to God “speaking” a clear delineation of the divine roles in creation.90
Steenberg is right to note that Irenaeus ignores the imagery of “light” (lux), which
is so essential to Philonic and Gnostic readings of Gen 1:3, to concentrate solely on
the “triune nature of God’s creative activity.”91 He begins with the claim that God
created all things by the Word, alluding to John 1:3, and then cites Gen 1:3 saying,
“God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (Et dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est
lux).92 The emphasis is placed on the verb “spoke” (dixit) as representative of the
Son’s involvement in creation with God the Father. Irenaeus cites Gen 1:3
specifically because it reflects the first act of speaking creation into existence,
thereby communicating the notion that the Son is with the Father from the
beginning of creation. He could have included any number of texts that contain God
speaking creation into existence, such as Gen 1:6, Gen 1:9, and so on.93
These specific “verbal” links are supported by a range of Pauline and
Johannine texts including: John 1:3, Eph 4:5-6, and Eph 4:15-16/Col 2:19. Together
with Gen 1:3, all these texts communicate the unity of God in creation and the
efficiency of his Word.94 We have already mentioned that Irenaeus alludes to the
activity of the Word in creation in John 1:3, but he also adds a citation that even
more clearly expresses the concept that all things were made in and through the
Word. The use of Eph 4:5-6 expresses the singularity of God and the three-fold
90
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 70. While Steenberg is right to say this is his only “quotation” of Gen 1:3, the
parallel allusion to Gen 1:3 in AH 2.2.5 is unmistakable and supported by common textual referents.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 70.
91
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 71 n. 24. Orbe makes attempts to interpret lux Christologically, but the context
does not support this rendering.
92
AH 4.32.1. The emphasis on the consistency of the words (omnis sermo ei constabit) contributes to the
notion of intertextuality in Irenaeus.
93
It seems his use of Gen 1:3 is unusual, and one would expect Gen 1:26 in this context because he
typically uses this text to speak of the divine proclamations. For this reason, I suspect in this case
Irenaeus is actually reading or citing the teaching of the Presbyter.
94
Orbe, Teología IV, 448 n. 6.
123
expression that God the Father is above all, in all, and through all.95 Irenaeus uses
this three-fold expression of Eph 4:5-6 as evidence of a triune God, who is over all
creation. For Irenaeus, the blending of these three texts Gen 1:3, John 1:3, and Eph
4:5-6 teach that the Father created all things by means of His Son. The sources of
these allusions also point to the unity between Moses, the Gospels, and the apostolic
in their teaching that there is “one God who also made all things by the Word.” This
belief, for Irenaeus, is the “head” (caput) or foundation upon which all beliefs (or
scriptures) rests.
He joins these three allusions with another echo of Paul’s imagery of the
body in Eph 4:16/Col 2:19, which he applies to his intertextual perspective of
Genesis in an anti-heretical manner.96 The short introduction to this citation, “this
one will first of all hold the head,” (hic primo erit tenes caput) alludes back to the “one
who believes in one God, who also made all things by the Word” (credat quis unum
Deum et qui Verbo omnia fecit) mentioned a few lines earlier.97 When the interpreter
of scripture grasps the “head” (caput) of the (scriptural) body (Eph 4:15-16/Col 2:19),
which is the doctrine of the creation of all things by means of the Word of God
expressed in Gen 1:3, John 1:3, and Eph 4:5-6, then this doctrinal “head” will guide
the interpreter in the proper reading of scripture so that every part of the body of
scripture will fit together in its appropriate arrangement.98 Irenaeus goes so far as
to say that every word will be “in harmony” (consonare) for those who read the
scriptures in contunity with the apostolic teaching that is found within the
tradition of the church.
5.10 AH 4.33.4: Ebionites and the Incarnation (Gen 1:26; Gen 2:7)
On the heels of the previous section, in AH 4.33.1 Irenaeus appeals to 1 Cor 2:15 and
then delineates the heretical groups who are subject to the judgment of the
“spiritual disciple” (discipulus… spiritalis). In AH 4.33.4 he depicts the Ebionites and
questions their perspective on the Incarnation. In doing so, he combines a number
of allusions and echoes including: Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Isa 7:14, Matt 12:41-42, Matt
22:29, and Matt 22:43. He questions their understanding of salvation and how even
95
cf. Epid 5, AH 2.2.5-6; and AH 5.17.4.
Noormann, Irenäus, 243.
97
AH 4.32.1.
98
Orbe, Teología IV, 448 n. 7-8.
96
124
they could escape the corruption of their bodies unless God had given them a “sign
of salvation” (signum… salutis, Isa 7:14).99 With a set of rhetorical questions, he
explains how Christ, who was of the same fleshy substance as David, Solomon, or
Jonah, could be greater than them and powerful enough to subdue the one who is
“stronger than men” (hominem fortis erat), echoing the role of Satan in Adam’s
disobedience (Gen 3:1-6).100 His closing question and final statement function
rhetorically as responses to all these theological dilemmas. Alluding to the created
of humankind in Gen 1:26, Irenaeus asks, “but who else is more superior and
excellent than the man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of
God, after whose image man was created?” (Melior autem eo homine qui secundum
similitudinem Dei factus est et praecellentior, quisnam sit alius nisi Filius Dei, ad cujus
similitudinem factus est homo?, Gen 1:26).101 Christ must be greater than humankind
because humankind was formed after his image and likeness. So also he is greater
then David, Solomon, and Jonah (Matt 12:41-42, Matt 2:43), and the strong man, that
is Satan, who subdued humanity (Matt 12:29, i.e. Gen 3:1-6). He was also God who
was made human and received the birth from a virgin (Isa 7:14), thereby enacting
the salvation from death.102 Irenaeus summarizes this conception of salvation in the
closing lines with reference to the Incarnation and the conflation of John 1:14, Gen
1:26, and Gen 2:7 saying: “For this reason in these last days he has revealed the
similitude; for the Son of God was made human, assuming the ancient formation
into his own nature” (Et propter hoc in fine ipse ostendit similitudinem Filius Dei, homo
factus, antiquam plasmationem in semetipsum suscipiens). The language of Son of God
“became human” (homo factus) and “ancient formation” (antiquam plasmationem)
calls to mind the imagery of the Word becoming flesh in John 1:14 and the
formation from the dust in Gen 2:7.103 Salvation, therefore, is enacted in the
recaptulatory nature of the Incarnation as reflected in similitude between Adam
and Christ’s formation.
99
AH 4.33.4; cf. Orbe, “En torno a los Ebionitas,” Aug 33 (1993): 315-37.
Matt 12:29, Matt 12:41-42, and Matt 22:43.
101
AH 4.33.4.
102
AH 4.33.4.
103
The echo of John 1:14 is not referenced in either BP or SC.
100
125
5.11 AH 4.34.4: Christ the Pruning hook (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:17-8)
In AH 4.34-35 Irenaeus focuses his critique on Marcion, Valentinus, and their
followers. He begins his criticism by challenging them to read scriptures and the
writings of the apostlescarefully because the whole life of Christ is predicted in them.
In AH 4.34.4, it is the prophecy of the New Covenant that concerns Irenaeus. He
addresses those who wish to take up the position of the Jews and interpret the New
Covenant and the construction of the temple under Zerubbabel.104 Irenaeus argues
that during this time no new covenant was given because they were still function
under the Mosaic Law.105 But from the time of Christ the new covenant, which
brings peace and life has gone out to the whole earth. This peace is not merely the
peace between God and humanity, but also the peace between Jews and Gentiles.
The new covenant, inaugurated through the life of the incarnate Son of God,
becomes the “law of life” (vivificatrix lex), or “law of liberty” (libertatis lex), as he will
later state, that fulfills the Law of Moses.106 He interprets the law of life or the “law
of liberty” as the “word of God” (verbum Dei) preached by the apostles, who went out
from Jerusalem into all the earth proclaiming the coming of this peaceful
transformation. To this point, Irenaeus adds, that they used these instruments for
peaceful purposes and, following Matt 5:39, when struck they did not retaliate but
instead offered their other cheek.107 This transformation, however, is in toto applied
to Christ. Irenaeus appeals to the language of John 4:37, “in him is the saying true”
(hoc est sermo verus), to suggest that in Christ the proclamation of peace in Isa 2:3-4 is
realized.108
In his discussion of Isa 2:3-4, he finds the figuration of the Christ event in the
imagery of the people of God transforming their swords into “ploughshares” (aratra)
and their spears into “pruninghooks” (falces).109 Irenaeus remarks that the prophets
spoke these words about no one other than the Son of God. He understands the
same Son of God himself (ipse) as having introduced both the plough and the
104
1 Esdr 3:7-13, 2 Chron 36:21, Dan 9:2-24, and Zach 1:2.
Irenaeus appears to link the stone temple constructed by Zerubbel with the stone tablets of the
Decalogue. This, for him, is the Law of Moses. cf. Orbe, Teología IV, 475 n. 35.
106
Orbe, Teología IV, 475 n. 36.
107
Matt 5:39.
108
The text of John 4:37 is the conclusion to Jesus’ discussion about the workers for the harvest in
John 4:31-38. The context of reaping and sowing is a natural correlation to the farming imagery of
ploughshares and pruning hooks.
109
AH 4.33.4.
105
126
pruning hook; he is both planting and harvesting.110 The distinction between the
former and the latter is the mediation of these activities at distinctive economic
stages through different human mediators. In the beginning, Adam and Abel
prefigure the salvific activity of Son of God in Gen 2-4, while in the “last” days
Christ-crucified and the apostolic preaching mediate the fulfillment of salvation.
First of all, in the earlier dispensation, the Son of God introduced the
“plough” (aratrum) at the “formation of Adam” (Adam plasmatio) from the dust in
Gen 2:7. He characterizes the act of formation in Gen 2:7 as the “first semination”
(primam seminationem), drawing upon the Middle-Platonic imagery of planting and
semination.111 The Son of God is, quite literally, tilling the ground and planting the
first human form upon the earth.112 Orbe vividly describes this event saying: “El
Verbo labró la tierra virgen, sembrando en ella, con Adán, el humano plasma; y lo
recogió con Cristo, fructificado ya a Su imagen y semejanza.”113 Although informed
by an economic understanding, there is little doubt that the “earth” (terra) imagery
in both texts informs this intertextual connection. In the New Convent, the
“plough” (aratrum) is revealed in the crucifixion when “wood joined with iron”
(lignum copulatum ferro) so that Christ’s bodily sacrifice “cleansed his earth”
(expurgavit ejus terram). This imagery points to Christ’s crucified body nailed to the
cross with iron spikes as the purification and atoning sacrifice. Through his bodily
sacrifice on the cross, Christ, in a sence, “ploughs” the earth, thereby purifying the
formation of Adam from the “earth” (terra) in Gen 2:7. Although Orbe implies a
connection in the respective forms of the cross and the plough, this is not explicit.
The explicit substantival connection is that the plough, like the nails in the cross, is
a mechanism “fixed with pins” (tali confixus).114 The crucified body of Christ that is
fashioned from the earth is fixed to the cross with iron pins, just as a plough, and it
combines wood and iron as a means to till the earth. But even more specifically,
110
Orbe, Teología IV, 476 n. 42. cf. I Apol, 55.
The language of “semination” (seminationem) has roots in Middle-Platonism as expressed in
Justin’s thought, but here we find scriptural background. M. Edwards, “On the Platonic Schooling of
Justin Martyr,” TS 42.1(1991): 17-34.
112
This agricultural imagery calls to mind the language of Gen 2:5 where no one was found to work
the ground and the planting of the Garden in Gen 2:8.
113
Orbe, Teología IV, 476 n. 43.
114
Orbe only discusses their connection in form. Orbe, Teología IV, 476 n. 46.
111
127
Christ’s atonement “cleaned the overgrown earth” (emundavit silvestrem terram).115
This cleansing overturns the curse God places upon the earth in Gen 3:17-18.
Alongside Adam, Irenaeus also links the “pruning hook” (falcem) to the
protological imagery of Abel’s murder, which typifies the apostolic preaching
leading to the gathering of the righteous.116 He appeals to the imagery of Isa 57:1
that contemplates the trouble of a righteous person dying with no recompense or
justification. The reason Irenaeus turns to Abel for the “prunning hook” imagery is
that a pruning hook performs the function of cutting or trimming vegetation. It is
Cain who, in a sense, “pruned back” the innocent Abel and cut short his life. The
death of Abel, therefore, anticipates and prefigures the ingathering of the righteous
through the salvific work of Christ. Irenaeus is, however, quick to point out that the
liberation of the righteous from evil was anticipated before Abel, declared by the
prophets, and accomplished in the person of Christ.117 Therefore, having utilized his
intertextual argumentation Irenaeus draws together Gen 2:7, Isa 2:3-4, Isa 57:1, Matt
5:39, John 4:37, and the narrative of Abel’s murder in Gen 4 to depict the prophetic
fulfillment of a bodily resurrection and the salvation of the righteous.
5.12 AH 4.36.2-6: Christ’s Parables and Adam (Gen 2:7)
In this section, Irenaeus relates a series of parables depicting, in various ways, the
narrative of salvation history. At three distinct points, AH 4.36.2, 4 and 6, an echo or
allusion to Gen 2:7 surfaces within the flow of Irenaeus’ argumentation. In each of
these instances, there is a reference to Adam as the “formation” (plasma) of God. In
AH 4.36.1-2, he relates the parable of the wicked tenants in Matt 21:33-43. The
master of the house in the parable is the Father, the vineyard is the human race, the
servants are the prophets, and the son is Christ. In terms of the allusion to the
formation of Adam, Irenaeus writes, “For God planted the vineyard of the human
race when at the first He formed Adam and chose the fathers” (Plantavit enim Deus
vineam humani generis primo quidem per plasmationem Adae et electionem patrum).118 He
spiritualizes the interpretation by connecting the formation of Adam with the
115
Although it is not noted in SC or BP, this must be an echo of Gen 3:17-8 and the effects of the curse
upon the ground.
116
cf. Gen 4:10.
117
cf. AH 4.30.4.
118
AH 4.36.2. cf. AH 4.14.2.
128
planting of the vineyard. While Irenaeus sometimes uses the “vineyard” imagery for
the nation of Israel, here the imagery reflects humankind in general.119 But he also
joins this interpretation of the vineyard with the echo of the calling of the
patriarchs. This short echo alludes to texts such as the calling of Abraham in Gen 12,
which connects Irenaeus’ interpretation of the parable with the trajectory of
salvation history, so that Gen 2:7 is understood in terms of its relationship to the
narrative history of salvation.
Following his spiritual interpretation of the parable of the wicked tenants, in
AH 4.36.4, Irenaeus provides a series of warning passages predicting the judgment of
those who reject the true God. He cites several passages including: Luke 21:34-35,
Luke 7:35-36, Matt 24:42, Matt 11:23-24, and especially the reference to the “days of
Noah” (temporibus Noe) in Luke 17:2-6.120 Irenaeus takes up the interpretation of the
“days of Noah” (temporibus Noe) in connection to the Nephalim in Gen 6:2-4. He
describes the wickedness of the people following this episode in Gen 6:5 and
suggests that because the angels sinned in comminging with the sons of Adam, God
brought on the deluge in order to restrain the sins of humanity and “preserve the
true archetype, the formation of Adam” (servaret vero archetypum, Adae
plasmationem).121 Orbe notes a possible alternate reading for “archetype”
(archetypum) as arcae typum, or the “form of the ark.” In the former case, God
destroys sinful humanity while at the same time preserving a purified form of the
nature and character of the one formed from the dust. The latter case, on the other
hand, actually applies the imagery of “ark” (arcae) to the human form fashioned
from the dust, so God preserves the figure of the ark, the human form.122 Although
this alternate reading is possible and appealing in some respects, the reference to
Adam seems to imply the original formation and thus the “archetype.” The
argument of this section joins this flood narrative with the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah to express the idea that God privileges those who believe in him and
judges those who reject him.
119
Orbe, Teología IV, 487 n. 37.
Matt 11:23-24 evokes the imagery of Sodom and Gomorrah, which parallels the discussion of Noah
in AH 4.36.3-4. In the immediate context, he also alludes to John 4:14, Matt 21:19, 2 Thess 1:5, Matt
3:10 and Matt 7:19. But these passages have only loose theological connections to the echo to Gen 2:7.
121
AH 4.36.4.
122
Orbe, Teología IV, 491 n. 72. Orbe points to Hugo Rahner analysis of sea symbolism in patristic
thought see, H. Rahner, Symbole der Kirche (Salzburg: Otto Muller, 1964), 272-303, 516.
120
129
Finally, in AH 4.36.6, Irenaeus continues the theme of judgment with another
echo of Gen 2:7 within a discussion of Psalm 23:1 LXX, Matt 5:45, Matt 22:7, and Rom
13:1-6. In continuity with the previous sections, he argues that God has providence
over all things and administers his provision and retribution judiciously. For those
who are ungrateful, Irenaeus writes that God “sent his armies” (mittens exercitus suos,
Matt 22:7) to impose the penalty of his wrath. He focuses on the possessive pronoun
“his” (suos) to argue this reveals all humankind is the property of God because God
is their Creator. He supports his point with citations of Psalm 23:1 LXX and Rom
13:1-6 to argue the earth and everything within it including the powers and
authorities are all subject to the administration of their Creator. This is also why,
following the allusion to Rom 13:1-6, he describes the activity of God within
salvation history in summary fashion including mention of the giving of the Law,
the sending of the prophets, and the creation of all things. He also concludes with
another reference to “his armies” (exercitus suos) in Matt 22:7 alongside an echo of
Gen 2:7, saying that they are “his” (suos) armies because every human is his own
creation even though they may be ignorant of this fact (Gen 2:7).123 To emphasize
the inclusiveness of God’s creative acts, he closes with the description of God
causing the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sending rains upon the just and
unjust alike (Matt 5:45). Once again the formation from the dust in Gen 2:7
contributes to the theological argumentation and intertextual interpretation, by
means of unifying all humanity in the original formation from the earth in Gen 2:7.
5.13 AH 4.37.4: Image, Likeness, and Freedom (Gen 1:26)
The broader focus of this passage considers why God made humankind free. In AH
4.37.1-2, he argues that God’s will is good and he grants humankind the power of
free choice, in order that God might judge them justly. In AH 4.37.3, he laces
together several passages expressing the independent will of humankind, while in
AH 4.37.4 he organizes a series of texts to communicate human’s power to disobey
God. AH 4.37.1 begins by citing Christ’s desire to gather up his children in Matt
23:37, suggesting that this expression, which communicates the “ancient law of
human liberty” (veterem legem libertatis hominis, Gen 2:17-18) necessitates human
123
AH 4.36.6.
130
beings possess free will from the beginning.124 A similar phrase is echoed at the
conclusion of AH 4.37.4, only in this case, Irenaeus uses the language of “likeness”
(similitudinem, Gen 1:26). He suggests humanity has the power to freely act in
accordance with the divine command or reject God outright. This is because,
alluding to Gen 1:26, in the beginning humankind was created with “free will”
(liberae sententiae) in the “likeness” (similitudinem) of God because God possess “free
will” (liberae sententiae). However, even though they possess free will humankind is
subject to the nature of the divine economy, while God is not.125 As rational
creatures within God’s economy (not irrational as other created substances), human
beings have the ability to differentiate between good and evil works. Those,
according to Irenaeus, who of their own free will choose to be disobedient toward
God will be subject to God’s judgment, while those who choose to be obedient to God
will be granted divine blessing. For Irenaeus, the nature of free will in humankind,
which they have possessed from the beginning, is validated by the myriad of
scriptures that petition the faithful in obedience to commands of God. He reasons
that Paul would not give the faithful these examples to practice and abstain from
certain practices (contra Gnostic asceticism), if they did not possess the capacity to
do so. Irenaeus exemplifies this concept of universal human freedom with allusions
to 1 Cor 6:12, Eph 4:25, Eph 4:29, Eph 5:8, and 1 Pet 2:16. All of these passages support
the concept of humans as created in the likeness of God and possessing the power to
act freely from the beginning.
5.14 AH 4.38.1-4: Perfection in the Image and Likeness of God
As we have seen in earlier sections, God was motivated to create beings that might
partake in divine glory. In continuation of this theme, AH 4.37-9 considers the
“ancient law of liberty” (veterem legem libertatis).126 He raises the question of the
imperfection of Adam and Eve in Genesis and considers why God did not create
them perfect, or as “gods” (deus), in the beginning.127 While Irenaeus acknowledges
that all things are possible with God, he instead appeals to the distinctive natures of
Creator and creature. He emphasizes, contra the Valentinians, the corporeal nature
124
AH 4.37.1; Orbe, Teología IV, 508 n. 29.
AH 4.37.4.
126
AH 4.37.1; Behr, Asceticism, 44; Constantelos, “Irenaeus of Lyon,” 355-56.
127
AH 4.38.4.
125
131
of Adam and his capacity to become accustomed to divine immortality.128 Here again
we encounter the contrast between divine aseity and human necessity; for Irenaeus
the creature could not be created perfect in the same sense as the Creator. A
creature is by nature inferior to his or her creator, because he or she is of a more
recent origin. For this reason the first couple in Genesis was “infantile” (infantilia)
and “unaccustomed to and unexercised in perfect discipline” (insueta et inexercitata
ad perfectam disciplinam).129 The first couple is, as Behr suggests, categorically
“imperfect” in the sense that they require growth and logically subject to the
conditions and properties of their nature as a created substance.130 Created
substances are subject to time, change, and require growth from imperfection to
perfection.131 In this context, Irenaeus combines an echo of the formation of
humankind in Gen 2:7 with 1 Cor 3:2-3 and Heb 5:12-14 in AH 4.38.1-2 to examine the
infantile nature of Adam and Eve that necessitated growth and maturity toward
perfection in the divine life.132 Then, in AH 4.38.3, he weaves together Gen 1:26, Gen
1:28, Gen 2:7, and Wis 6:19 as exemplary of the harmonious creation where Adam
and Eve were perfectly situated to receive growth and advancement towards God.
Finally, in AH 4.38.4 his combination of Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5, Psalm 81:6-7 LXX, and 1
Cor 15:53 anticipates the future resurrection and glorification of the faithful who
are at last perfected in the image and likeness of God.
5.14.1 AH 4.38.1-2: Ascendancy Toward Perfection (Gen 2:7)
This section has been the source of much debate going back to the work of Wendt
and his fundamental distinction between the restorative and transformative line of
Irenaean soteriology.133 Wingren corrected Wendt by noting the concept of
“growth” and the formation of Adam as a “child” to be the formal link between this
soteriological bifurcation.134 Steenberg’s treatment of Adam and Eve as infants
begins with a citation of this passage, but he neglects the argument of Wendt (or
Harnack’s reception of it), instead preferring to question to philosophical nature of
the imperfection of creation. Steenberg regards AH 4.38.1 as the “single most
128
Orbe, Teología IV, 513 n. 2, 519-20.
AH 4.38.1.
130
Behr, Asceticism, 46-7; See also Dennis Minns, Irenaeus, 73-4.
131
Orbe, Teología IV, 513 n. 3-4.
132
Orbe identifies an echo of Heb 7:19 in the language proximamus as Deum.
133
H. H. Wendt, Die christlich Lehre von der menschlichen Volkommenhiet (Göttingen, 1882), 22.
134
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 101.
129
132
important passage” in the discussion of Adam and Eve as children in paradise.135
These studies reveal the significance of this section, but neglect Irenaeus’
intertextual references mutually interpret the echoes of Gen 1-2. Alluding to the
nature of God’s formative creation of Adam in Gen 2:7, Irenaeus suggests that the
infantile and corporeal form in which Adam was fashioned was incapable of
receiving the full divine perfection God might grant. He reasons that even if God
granted Adam complete divine perfection, his infantile, corporeal nature could not
have contained divine perfection, much less managed to retain it throughout their
lives.136 The infantile nature of the first couple in the pre-lapsarian state simply
could not bear God’s divine perfection. Furthermore, the Son of God came into the
world as an infant, Irenaeus adds, to prepare humankind to receive God from the
beginning.137
In the flow of Irenaeus’ argument, the nature of Adam and Eve’s infantile
creation in Gen 2:7 is supported by several Pauline allusions. In AH 4.38.1-2 he
illustrated this ascendancy toward perfection by alluding to a baby that is nourished
with his mother’s milk before receiving strong food, derived from 1 Cor 3:2-3 and
Heb 5:12-14.138 In a similar way, the Son prepares the faithful for immortality
through nourishment that increases during the course of life. The passages are
linked through the concepts of the immature nature of Adam in Gen 2:7 and the
imagery of infant food and drink in 1 Cor 3:2-3 and Heb 5:12-14. The “milk” (lac) of 1
Cor 3:2 is the advent of the Lord while the “meat” (escam) is the reception of the
Spirit. Irenaeus identifies those whom Paul chastens in 1Cor 3:3 as the ones who had
acquaintance with the apostolic teaching but have dissensions among them because
they have not received the Spirit. Paul had the power to give them strong meat (1
Cor 3:2), because the apostleslaid hands on people and imparted the Holy Spirit who
is the “food of life.” Not everyone, however, was able to receive the Spirit. Alluding
to the narrative of Acts 8:17-19, Simon the Magician could not receive the Spirit
from Peter and John and, as a result, offered to pay money to posses the Spirit. The
only other uses of this passage are located in Irenaeus’ anti-Gnostic polemic.139 In
135
Steenberg, “Children in Paradise,” 15.
AH 4.38.2.
137
Orbe makes the intriguing connection to the description of the Lord’s growth in wisdom in Luke
2:40. He points to Justin for a similar comparison in Dial 88.2; Orbe, Teología IV, 517 n. 30.
138
AH 4.38.2.
139
AH 1.23.1; AH 2.32.3.
136
133
essence, Irenaeus compares those who are not able to receive the Spirit, such as
Simon and those at Corinth, to the original formation of Adam that was
undisciplined and incapable of receiving the divine perfection.140
5.14.2 AH 4.38.3: Gr owth, Perfection, and the Original Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen
1:28, Gen 2:7)
As we have seen the creation of Adam is not a singular event of a purely
transcendent deity, but the activity of an imminent Creator working with the very
matter of creation. It is, as Behr describes, a “hands-on affair.”141 The “hands”
imagery is a classic Irenaean anthropomorphic image of God and the only consistent
anthropomorphism he uses to depict the creative activity of God.142 The interTrinitarian creation of Adam is portrayed clearly in AH 4.38.3 with the Father
commanding the Son and the Spirit, the Son performing the work of creation, and
the Spirit nourishing all that is created. The dynamism of this divine activity
produces a formation fittingly positioned for growth and perfection. The personal
activity of God and the progressive nature of human perfection is, for Irenaeus,
grounded in the textual references to Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28 and Wis 6:19. He
argues God’s power and goodness are simultaneously exhibited in a harmonious
creation fashioned ex nihilo. With an intricate intertextual weaving, Irenaeus depicts
the divine activity in the harmonious creation of Genesis 1-2. The nature of
Irenaeus’ intertextual reading is a natural consequence of his anthropological
perspective of the ascendancy towards perfection reflected in this Trinitarian
reading of Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7. The opening lines set the stage of
Irenaeus’ harmonious (convenientiam) economic understanding of history as the
inter-Trinitarian activity moves humanity progressively toward the divine life.143 In
the earlier portion of this chapter, he has already described how all creation itself is
one harmonious and consistent whole.144 This extended chronological trajectory
orients the faithful towards growth into the image and likeness of God. The allusion
to Gen 1:26, with its declaration of creation in the image and likeness of God,
initiates the actualization of creation in Gen 2:7 and the augmentation of creation in
140
AH 4.38.2. cf. Acts 8:17-19.
Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology, 38.
142
Fantino, Théologie d’Irénée, 306.
143
AH 4.38.3.
144
AH 4.38.3.
141
134
Gen 1:28. Irenaeus frames these three texts (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 1:28) with an
economic Trinitarian perspective with the Father planning and commanding (Gen
1:26), the Son executing and performing the work of creating (Gen 2:7), and the
Spirit nourishing and increasing the creation (Gen 1:28).145 This theological and
intertextual depiction of creation orients humanity toward the “growth” of
humankind in the image and likeness of God. Steenberg highlights the relationship
between Gen 1:26 and 2:7, but neglects to frame all three texts in their proper
theological interaction.146 Irenaeus describes this ascendancy toward perfection in
terms of developmental stages from creation to glorification and immortality using
Gen 1:28.147 Deification, for Irenaeus, is not an instantaneous event, but an
incremental process. The process begins, Irenaeus suggest, with the creation
(factum) of humanity, which most naturally refers to Gen 2:7. This is followed by a
series of stages including: “grow” (augeri), “strengthen” (corroborari)148, “abound”
(multiplicari), “recover” (convalescere), “glorify” (glorificatum), and the final stage of
seeing (videri) God. The two initial commands of Gen 1:28: “be fruitful” (augeri) and
“multiply” (multiplicari) are linguistically connected to the aspects of growth and
abounding in this progression in sanctification.149 Although he neglects the
connection to “growth” (augeri), Orbe identifies “abound” (multiplicari) as an
allusion to Gen 1:28 and interprets this as a reference to multiplication through
procreation.150 Given the connection to Gen 1:28 and the scale of sanctification, it is
difficult to imagine that Irenaeus merely has procreation in view. Instead, what we
see here is how Gen 1:28 in continuity with Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 forms a sanctifying
paradigm for human history that assumes procreation, but is more concerned with
the historical nature of salvation. What is perhaps most interesting is the
qualification “strengthen” (corroborari) that is situated between these texts, and
“recover” (convalescere) that follows afterwards. The former term is found in
references to the sinful state of humankind necessitating strength to overcome
their lowly state. Irenaeus frequently uses the language of “strengthen” (corroborari)
145
Holsinger-Friesen assumes Irenaeus imposes the notion of ascendancy on Gen 1:26, but clearly this
notion is drawn from Gen 1:28. Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 136-137.
146
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 106.
147
Behr, Asceticism, 124-5.
148
The verb σθενόω is only found in 1 Pet 5:10 as part of a description of the perfection and
glorification of the faithful.
149
The succession comprises: creation, growth (αὐξῆδαι), strengthen, multiply (πληθυνθῆναι),
recover, and be glorified. The term αὐξῆδαι is only found in Eph 4:16 and Col 2:19. See AH 4.32.2
150
Orbe, Teología IV, 517 n. 32.
135
to characterize the depraved state of humanity that requires the impartation of the
Spirit.151 The latter term, “to recover” (convalescere), according to Orbe, is equivalent
to maturity that prepares the faithful for the next stage of glorification.152 The
emphasis on maturity is helpful, but must be understood soteriologically and
Christologically. Elsewhere Irenaeus describes the “recovery” of the image and
likeness in Christ that was lost in Adam.153 So it is not merely maturity, but
soteriological restoration of the image and likeness that was lost in Adam’s
disobedience. Therefore, whereas growth characterizes the pre-lapsarian state, in
the post-lapsarian state the disobedient Adam and Eve require strengthening and
multiplication as God prepares the humanity for recovery and glorification
throughout salvation history. These texts, joined with Wis 6:19 depict the
deification and glorification of the faithful who partake in immortality. In this
sense, Gen 1:26 and Wis 6:19 form the bookends of Irenaeus’ anthropological
progression toward immortality, while the language of creation in Gen 2:7 is
complemented by the progressive language of Gen 1:28 that anticipates the
glorification and salvation of the faithful.
5.14.3 AH 4.38.4: Resurrection and Glorification (Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5)
In the final paragraph of AH 4.32.4, Irenaeus concludes his discussion of the
perfectible nature of humankind. For Irenaeus, God’s goodness endowed humankind
with free will that allows growth and development into the divine likeness. Contra
the Valentinians, salvation history comprises a single linage of corporal humanity
(rather than three distinctive human natures) that follows a trajectory culminating
in the salvation and deification of the faithful. God did so, Irenaeus argues, because
human nature could not have sustained the power of divinity if God had given it to
them. It was not out of envy or rivalry that God did not make humanity gods in the
beginning, but out of goodness and compassion. This reality, for Irenaeus, is
expressed most clearly in Psalm 81:6-7 LXX, which is read in continuity with Gen
1:26, Gen 3:5, and 1 Cor 15:53. Psalm 81:6 LXX and the proclamation “You are gods”
151
cf. 3.6.4, 3.12.3,6, 3.19.3, 3.20.1-3, 4.6.2, 4.33.11, 5.2.3, 5.3.1. In AH 3.5.2 he cites the Lord’s description
of himself as a physician come to heal the sick and, in the next paragraph, describes the work of God
over creation saying God “by means of His creation, did nourish, increase, strengthen, and preserve
them” (per conditionem suam aleret et augeret et constabiliret et eis esse praestaret). The reason for this act
of preservation is so that the faithful might be prepared for glorification.
152
Orbe, Teología IV, 517 n. 33.
153
AH 3.18.1.
136
(Dii estis) depicts the goodness of God in the divine promise of deification and
glorification of the faithful, while Psalm 81:7 LXX reflects upon the infantile nature
of humankind that could not possibly bear the power of divinity because they will
“die as humans” (velut homines moriemini) and be subject to the conditions of
mortality.154 The reason Irenaeus emphasizes the teaching of the Psalmist is that,
contrary to the Valentinians, the God of the Old Testament makes this
proclamation. Therefore, deification, in Irenaeus’ reading, was not a revelation
peculiar to the New Testament or Pauline literature, but was taught by the Psalmist
and, more importantly, characteristic of the creation accounts themselves.
Deification is a process that began at the origin of creation itself. Through his
reading of Psalm 81:6-7 LXX, Irenaeus laces together 1 Cor 15:53, Gen 1:26, and Gen
3:5, and these texts reflect a narratival trajectory from creation to immortality
mirrored in the two-fold reality of Psalm 81:6-7 LXX. In the first creation,
humankind is born with freedom, which is why they are described as being given
the knowledge of good and evil. The means of the human progression toward
deification is a system based upon freedom. As Behr argues, this economic
appreciation for experiencing good and evil implies that human person must
become completely involved in the activity of this present life.155 It is a system of
merit where those who are faithful towards God receive the blessing of divine
likeness. This eschatological reality is, for Irenaeus, also depicted in 1 Cor 15:53
when the death, which is mentioned in Psalm 81:7 LXX, is overcome and the
believer is resurrected in the image and likeness of God. Linking these texts
Irenaeus also communicates how freedom not only characterizes the original
creation, expressed in the Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:5, but that the eschatological vision of
these passages, read in continuity with 1 Cor 15:53, implies that human freedom
remains in the sanctified, resurrected state.156 Taken together these texts are all
understood in terms of order and a salvific trajectory where Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5, and
Psalm 81:7 LXX portray the original nature and destiny of the human creature that,
conditioned by free will, anticipates participation in the divine nature as expressed
154
Orbe, Teología IV, 519 n. 45.
Behr, Asceticism, 125.
156
Orbe, Teología IV, 519 n. 47. Irenaeus has already argued extensively the commands of obedience
in Paul validate the implicit freedom of human nature. cf. AH 4.37.4.
155
137
in Psalm 81:6 LXX, an eschatological reading of these creation, and the Pauline
language of 1 Cor 15:53.
5.15 AH 4.39.2: God Makes, Humanity is Mad e (Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7)
Continuing his description of the freedom of human nature, in this portion Irenaeus
emphasizes the necessity for humans to progress morally through obedience.
Following this Irenaeus suggests that to obey God is good and to disobey God is evil.
Through experience with good and evil, human being become more resolute in
their obedience toward God, which allows the creative hands of God to re-fashion
the corruptible aspects of human nature.157 Anticipating the future second creation
from the dust, where the faithful are resurrected and recreated in the image and
likeness of God, Irenaeus offers a poetic description that blends together the
imagery of the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7 with Exod 25:11 and Psalm 44:12
LXX.
The final re-creation, for Irenaeus is not a singular event set apart from the
creative activity of God in the present, but in Gen 1:26 the Father’s work of creation
by means of the Son and the Spirit is a “continuous creation” throughout salvation
history.158 This universal truth is summarized in the Irenaean axiom: “For you did
not make God, but God made you” (Non enim tu Deum facis, sed Deus te facit).159 The
unilateral creation of God in Gen 2:7 informs this saying and the designation of
humanity as the “workmanship of God” (opera Dei). As a result, Irenaeus pleads with
his readers to “await the hand of your maker” (manum artifices tui exspecta) referring
to the “hand” (manum) of God that formed Adam in Gen 1:26. In continuity with his
argument for patient, progressive sanctification and his understanding of the
structure of the divine economy, he suggests that God creates everything in due
time.160 Extending the imagery of Gen 2:7 to the present state of sanctification, he
beseeches his readers to offer a softened, malleable heart to God so that they
“preserve the form” (custodi figuram) in which the Creator has fashioned them. This
form is characterized by “moisture” (humorem) that calls to mind the imagery of
rain on the earth in Gen 2:5, which becomes clear in the next line when Irenaeus
157
cf. AH 4.11.2
Orbe, Teología IV, 524 n. 23.
159
AH 4.39.2.
160
Vogel, “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus and the Fall and
Redemption,” AThR 89 (2007): 443-59.
158
138
refers to the “moist clay” (lutum) of Adam’s formation.161 This is the most illustrative
use of the potter imagery that has characterized Irenaeus’ interpretation of Gen 2:7
to this point. For Orbe, the reference to water in this context, which most naturally
alludes to Gen 2:5, is a reference to the Spirit who, alongside the Son (cf. Gen 1:26), is
active in the creation of Adam.162
On the other hand, those who remain hardened and obstinate towards God
lose “the impressions of His fingers” (amittas vestigia digitorum ejus), because the Son
and the Spirit are not actively forming them.163 In doing so, they “reject His
workmanship” (respuas artem ejus) and will loose both God’s “workmanship and life”
(artem… et vitam).164 The language of artem and vitam refer back to the artful
formation from the dust in Gen 2:7 where Adam became a living being. Thus, while
creation may be motivated by the goodness of God, it is the nature of humanity to
be created.165 Although it is clear that the “hand” (manus) of God is never separated
from his creation, but actively involved in a continual act of creation, the key is the
receptivity of the creature towards the Creator. The creature can become hardened
and obstinate toward the Creator and in turn deny the formative presence of the
Spirit.166 On the other hand, the faithful who are open and submissive to the Creator
allow themselves to be fashioned by God.167
The creative imagery that characterizes Irenaeus’ reading of Gen 1:26 and
Gen 2:7 naturally evokes reference to the construction of the Ark of the Covenant in
Exod 25:11 and the king’s admiration for his bride in Psalm 44:12 LXX.168 With highly
specific dimensions, Exod 25:10 describes how the ark should be formed out of
wood, while Exod 25:11 directs Moses to cover the wood with a layer of pure gold.
Irenaeus applies this imagery to the resurrected body, where God will figuratively
cover the mortal form of flesh fashioned from feeble dust with a layering of “pure
gold and silver” (auro puro et argento). The quality of the elements reflects the
immortal nature of the resurrected body that receives the perfection God intended
161
AH 4.39.2; Orbe, Teología IV, 524 n. 27.
Orbe, Teología IV, 524 n. 23, n. 27-28.
163
AH 4.39.2.
164
AH 4.39.2.
165
AH 4.39.2. See a similar reference to goodness as the motivation for creation in AH 3.25.5.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 33.
166
For the contrary positions on free will in Irenaeus and the Valentinians see: Orbe, Teología IV, 5278.
167
Behr, Asceticism, 117.
168
Orbe, “El hombre ideal en la teología de san Ireneo,” Greg 43 (1962), 464-68.
162
139
in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. Likewise, Irenaeus also mentions Psalm 44:12 LXX, which
compares a king’s admiration for the beauty of his daughter to the beauty of the
resurrected body and the pleasure God will take in the resurrected, perfected
humanity. Steenberg submits that the concept of God’s goodness motivating
creation is borne principally out of the Gospels—not necessarily Gen 1-2—where the
same substance of the flesh is assumed and recovered in the Incarnation, but in the
present context we find that Exod 25:11 and Psalm 44:12 LXX describe the beautiful
nature of God’s creative activity.169 As we have seen above, when Irenaeus uses the
language “creation” (facere) the creation accounts are at the forefront of his mind,
but not the creation accounts alone. The original creation motivated by the
goodness of God, initiates the active, ongoing work of creation in throughout time
that gradually directs the believer towards perfection. The beauty of this creation is
expressed in the imagery of Exod 25:11 and Psalm 44:12 LXX.
5.16 AH 4.40.3: The Eschatological Judgment (Gen 3:15)
The final allusion to Gen 1-3 in AH 4 is found in AH 4.40.3, where he argues God has
prepared “good things” (bona) for those who remain faithful, but the Devil and those
who rebel from God will be cast into the fire mentioned in Matt 25:41.170 In Irenaeus
thinking, Adam and Eve’s disobedience was not the result of a self-motivated
rebellion, but of the schemes of a carefully calculating provocateur. Certainly Adam
and Eve’s immaturity contributed to their indiscretion, and they (and their
posterity) remain culpable for their actions, but for Irenaeus, this deceiver, rather
than the humans, receives full measure of God’s retribution.171 The larger section
explains the nature of divine justice, so in AH 40.1-2a he details this eschatological
division of persons and in AH 4.40.2b-40.3 he discusses the parable of the wheat and
the tares in Matt 13:24-30; 36-43.172 Amid his exposition of the parable, Irenaeus
turns the discussion from the eschatological judgment toward a reflection upon the
original enmity in Gen 3:5.
Irenaeus opens AH 4.40.3, with the citation of Matt 13:24, where Christ
interprets the parable and identifies the Lord as the one who sows the good seed
169
Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 33.
AH 4.40.1.
171
Victor K. Downing, “Doctrine of Regeneration in the Second Century,” ERT 14.2 (1990): 99-112, 110.
172
Bingham, Irenaeus’ use of Matthew’s Gospel, 50.
170
140
and links the “field” (ager) with the “world” (saeculum). Here he moves the
discussion from the parable in Matt 13 to the narrative of apostasy in Gen 3:1-6.
Envious of Adam as God special creation, the Devil (the enemy of Matt 13:25) came
and sowed tares in the Garden that produced Adam and Eve’s transgression in Gen
3:6. Through his actions the enemy of God desired to introduce enmity between God
and humanity, thereby upsetting their privileged relationship. The devil, however,
failed to inflict enmity between God and humanity because he had compassion on
the first couple and, as a result, the responsibility of the transgression fell upon the
serpent. According to Irenaeus, Adam did not desire to commit apostasy against
God, but rather was deceived by the enemy of God.173 Following Adam and Eve’s
transgression God banished the Devil from his presence (cf. Gen 3:14-5, Matt 13:42)
and, what is more, the work of Christ overturns the enmity the Devil desired to
inflict between God and humanity. According to Irenaeus, the means of the
overturning of this enmity is the Incarnation where Christ was born of a woman”
(de muliere factus, Gal 4:4). The act of apostasy begins with the serpent conquering
the woman (Gen 3:6) and concludes with a woman gaining victory over the snake
(Gal 4:4).174 In this sense, Irenaeus implies the Incarnation is the fulfillment of
serpent’s destruction in Gen 3:15. The vengeance of God that the Devil desired to
come upon Adam and Eve by making them the “enemy of God” (inimicum Deo), was
instead enacted upon Satan for his principal role in the transgression. For this
reason, the Devil and his angels are subject to judgment and cast into the fire (cf.
Matt 13:41, Matt 25:41).
5.17 Conclusion
Having evaluated the performance of Gen 1-3 in AH 4, it is evident that at every turn
Irenaeus conflates and harmonizes the texts and images of Gen 1-3 within the flow
of his theological arguments. In most instances there is no introductory formula to
signify a reference to Genesis. Instead the imagery and patterns of these texts
simply weave their way into the flow of his argumentation. Beginning with the
early chapters, the references to Genesis support his interpretation of select Gospel
parables or the themes of inter-testamental unity and prophecy-fulfillment. First of
173
174
Orbe, Teología IV, 532 n. 17-8.
Orbe, Teología IV, 532 n. 20.
141
all, in AH 4 Irenaeus extends his narratival arrangment of texts. In AH 4.6.2, he reads
the creative acts of God in succession including allusions to Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and
Gen 1:28, and he also conflates this imagery of creation with his theology of
recapitulation in Eph 1:10. In AH 4.11.2, Irenaeus reads Gen 1:28 as a paradigm for
human growth that is realized in the unfolding of salvation history. Throughout the
growth of the divine economy, the ancients longed to see the advent of the Son
(Matt 13:17).
Second, Irenaeus persists in using catchwords or linking terms to unite texts
exegetically. In AH 4.20.1-4a the language of “all things” (omnia) unites a series of
passages including: Mand 1, Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, and Matt 11:27. He offers no
commentary on these texts, but instead views the passages as themselves
commentary upon the creation in Gen 1-2.
Third, Irenaeus provides a “plain sense” reading of Gen 1-3 that emphasizes
the interpretation of these passages as a literal account of creation, without
extended or explicit reference to texts outside of Gen 1-3. In AH 4.pf.4, Irenaeus
conflates Gen 1:26 and 2:7 into one creation account of humankind, where the hands
of God create Adam from the dust and in the image of God.
Fourth, Irenaeus continues to use a variety of conceptual, theological, or
typological connections, which are crafted through his theological perspective and
closely related to a particular aspect of the work of Christ. These conceptual
connections do not imply hierarchy, and the texts of Gen 1-3 may serve as a primary
or supportive text depending upon the context. His Christology informs his reading
of the common glorification of the Father and the Son in John 17:5 as a means to
interpret the motivation for God’s creative acts in AH 4.14.1. Furthermore, the
Creator-creature distinction established in Gen 2:7 informs a series of conceptually
connected texts: John 17:24, Isa 43:5-7, and Matt 24:28. Through various
illustrations, all three texts support the sufficiency of the Creator and the need for
humanity to be glorified by the Father. He turns to Christology in his response to
the Ebionites and describes how Christ must be greater than David, Solomon, Jonah,
and even the evil one who subdued humanity (Matt 12:41-42, Matt 2:43, Matt 12:29),
because humankind was formed in his image (Gen 1:26). In AH 4.33.4 he also
conflates Isa 7:14, John 1:14, Gen 1:26, and Gen 2:7 to describe the salvific nature of
the Incarnation. His eschatological interpretation of the Sabbath day of rest in Gen
142
2:2-3 that is prevelant in AH 5 emerges in AH 4.16.1. In this sense Gen 2:2-3 is a sign
(Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13) that anticipates the conditions of life the faithful will enjoy
when they dwell eternally in God’s service (Matt 6:19 and Rom 8:36).
Fifth, the same prosopological (or prosopographic) style of reading
continues in AH 4, where Irenaeus identifies the particular divine persons that are
active in the creation texts. In AH 4.pf.4. Irenaeus interprets the proclamation of
Gen 1:26 as the two hands of God, the Son and the Spirit. Likewise, in AH 4.6.2 he
converts the verbal forms of the acts of creation into titles for God as a means to
identify the Creator. The same dialogical emphasis in located in AH 4.10.1 with an
allusion to the Son of God inquiring after Adam in Gen 3:9. In AH 4.20.4, Irenaeus
uses Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25, Prov 8:27-31 in connection with Gen 1:26 to explain
the “Trinitarian” nature of God creating in Genesis, and likewise in AH 4.32.1 he
alludes to John 1:3, Eph 4:5-6, 15-16, and Col 2:19 to argue that the Word of God is
with the Father creating in Gen 1:3.
Sixth, Irenaeus frequently applies texts in an illustrative fashion, where
various textual images are applied to the theological disputes and figures in his own
contemporary setting. Appealing to the language of 2 Cor 11:3, in AH 4.pf.4 he
observes that the Gnostics seek out ineffable mysteries, and carryout the same
deception as the serpent in the Garden.
Seventh, Irenaeus uses the classical style of argumentation that moves from
the general-to-particular. In AH 4.20.1-4, Irenaeus weaves together a set of texts that
argue logically from the general concept that God created all things to the more
particular point that God created humankind as a subset within the creation of all
things (Acts 10:42, Rev 3:7, John 1:14, 1 Pet 2:23, and Col 1:18). These texts are not
linked by any particular catchword, but conceptually describe the inclusive nature
of God’s creative activity and the power of the Son to accomplish the Father’s
creative will.
Eighth, he argues for a canonical arrangment of texts that intentionally links
texts from various dispensations of salvation history. Most often this takes the form
of stringing together texts drawn from the Prophets (Old Testament), Gospels, and
apostles. In AH 4.16.1 his eschatological reading of Gen 2:2-3 links Exod 20:12, Exod
31:13, Matt 6:19, and Rom 8:36. Irenaeus makes the same point when he links Mal
2:10, Matt 11:27, and Eph 4:6 in AH 4.20.1. These describe the creation of all things by
143
means of the Word in Gen 1-2, and the truth of this reality is confirmed throughout
every dispensation.
Throughout AH 4, Irenaeus’ reading of Gen 1-3 builds steadly toward the
final chapters, where he discusses the temporal ascendancy of humankind toward
perfection in the image and likeness of God, the resurrected bodily form, and the
eschatological judgment with the fulfillment of the serpent’s destruction. In AH 5,
however, the complexity of Irenaeus’ theological treatment of these themes reaches
its climax, and provides the most detailed and extended intertextual reflection on
these early chapters of Genesis.
144
CHAPTER 6: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 5
OF ADVERSUS HAERESES
6.1 Introduction
As we have seen in the previous chapters, there is an intertextual logic to Irenaeus’
exegesis. The final book in Irenaeus’ five-part refutation of the Gnostics presents a
fitting conclusion and culmination to his intertextual reception of Gen 1-3. This
chapter provides the most consistent and extensive set of intertextual relationships
formed with Gen 1-3 than any of the previous books. With his Christology and
theology proper firmly established in AH 3-4 and his anti-Gnostic polemical
objectives still in view, the purpose of AH 5 is to solidify his refutation with a careful
argument for the creation, preservation, and resurrection of the flesh that is in
every respect the work of God.1
In light of the focus on the creation and preservation of the flesh, Gen 1-3 is
pivotal. The creation accounts function as the authentic account of the creation,
while at the same time they establish a prophetic paradigm anticipating the
unfolding of salvation history and the nature of the eschatological kingdom.2 Orbe’s
extensive three-volume commentary on AH 5 continues to be an invaluable
resource for understanding Irenaeus’ argument. He organizes the book into three
main sections: AH 5.1-14, AH 5.15-24, and AH 5.25-36.3 AH 5.1-14 discusses the
resurrection of the flesh, contra the Gnostics, as the culmination of human salvation
begun at creation. The second section, AH 5.15-24, argues for the harmony between
the activity of the person and work of Christ in the Gospels and the original
creation. Third, AH 5.25-36 focuses on Irenaeus’ eschatological vision and treats a
number of prophetic texts in light of God’s progressive plan of redemption in
salvation history. A short conclusion in AH 5.36.3 fills out the work with a summary
of the essential argument for resurrection and the glorified body fashioned once
again in the image of God.
1
AH 5.15.2.
AH 5.28.3.
3
Orbe, Teología V.1, 14; W. Overbeck, Menschwerdung: eine Untersuchung zurliterarischen und teologischen
Einheit des fünften Buches ‘Adversus Haersus’ des Irenäus von Lyon (Peter Lang, Bern, 1995).
2
145
Within the structure of these arguments there are forty-eight allusions of
Gen 1-3, which are found in half of the thirty-six chapters.4 He opens with a
refutation of the docetic and dualistic perspectives of his opponents, then argues for
the salus carnis which relies upon intertextual reading of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. He
utilizes several Genesis passages to depict the progressive nature of sanctification
and respond to the Gnostic reading of 1 Cor 15:50. His argument in AH 5.15.2-16.2
offers an extended commentary on the theological interrelationship between the
creation in Gen 1-2 and the healing of the blind man in John 9. He also concentrates
on the nature and consequence of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s ultimate
triumph over Satan. The closing portion completes his refutation with an
eschatological portrait of the Sabbath day of rest in Gen 2:1-3. In the closing lines he
refers to Gen 1:26 and the final consummation when God’s creatures will at last
fulfill the Fathers intention and be made in the image and likeness of God. Within
these theological discussions Irenaeus continues to utilize the variety of
intertextual practices that have characterized his exegesis to this point including:
organizational or structural functions, catchwords or linking terms, theological or
typological analysis, illustrative application and general-to-particular arguments.
Together, these classifications clarify in analytical terms precisely how Irenaeus
reads scripture intertextually.
6.2 AH 5.1.1-3: Valentinians, Ebionites, Adam and Christ (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7,
Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:24)
Irenaeus commences AH 5 with formal defense for the necessity for the Incarnation
in response to the Ebionites, Valentinians, and Marcion.5 Beginning in AH 5.1.1 he
argues that had not the Word become flesh, the revelation of God would have
remained obscure and unattainable.6 The Incarnation is, for Irenaeus, instructive.7
4
AH 5.1.3; AH 5.2.1; AH 5.3.2; AH 5.5.1; AH 5.6.1; AH 5.7.1-2; AH 5.8.1; AH 5.10.1; AH 5.12.2; AH 5.14.2; AH
5.17.1; AH 5.19.1; AH 5.20.2; AH 5.21.1-2; AH 5.23.1-2; AH 5.24.3; AH 5.26.2; AH 5.28.3-4; AH 5.30.4; AH
5.33.1-4. As in previous books, there are several references in BP that were unidentifiable including:
Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in AH 5.11.2 (cf. 1Cor 15:49-50), Gen 3:19 in AH 5.17.1, Gen 3:1-6 in AH 5.24.3 (John
8:44), and Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 in AH 5.33.1-4.
5
AH 5.1.1-2.3. Sakari Häkkinen, “Ebionites,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics,’ 24778. Häkkinen suggests that he derived his views from a revised catalog of heresies developed from
Justin’s Syntagma. See also Orbe, “Errores de los ebionitas (Analisis de Ireneo, Adversus haereses, V, 1,
3)” Mar 41 (1979): 147-70.
6
AH 5.1.1.
7
Orbe, Teología V.1, 52-53.
146
After all, Irenaeus reminds his readers that no one knows the mind of God or offers
God counsel (Rom 11:34). With the revelation of the Word, however, one who has
held council with God the Father (John 1:18) has joined the ranks of humankind and
offered spiritual instruction. As a result the faithful, through communion with the
Son of God (1John 1:6) are able to perform the commands of his teaching (James
1:22) and advance towards divine perfection. This sophisticated intertextual
description of the incarnation’s didactical nature forms the backdrop for Irenaeus’
explanation of the content of Christ revelatory instruction.
He characterizes revelation of the Word with notions of salvific perfection in
the image and likeness of God and redemption from apostasy, both of which
comprise subtle echoes of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7 and Gen 3:1-6.8 The echo of Gen 1:26
describes the qualitative nature of Adam’s as being “formed after his [Christ’s]
likeness” (ad eum similitudinem facti, Gen 1:26). The reference to creation in the
likeness of Christ is the qualitative description of humanity as “predestinated”
(praedestinati) for immortality (Eph 1:11-12) by the “foreknowledge” (praescientiam)
of the Father (1Pet 1:2) though the preexistent economic administration of the
Word.9 The divine command in Gen 1:26 is not a momentary, impulsive decision, as
it was for the Gnostics, but a carefully calculated salvific arrangement designed to
lead humanity incrementally towards the divine likeness.10
Furthermore, in AH 5.1.1 Irenaeus’ vision for humankind as a creature
destined for immortality flows into an assessment of redemption from the apostasy
committed in Gen 3:1-5, when the serpent “obtained dominion over us at the
beginning” (initio dominabatur nostri).11 The redemption offered though Christ
overcomes the Devil, who by means of cunning persuasion, captured humanity and
tormented God’s creatures until the Incarnation. As we have seen in several cases,
the human person is the “ancient handiwork of God” (antiqua plasmatio Dei), which
always connotes the physical body of Adam fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7.12
When Christ assumed humanity, he became the means of physical redemption.
Twice in this context Irenaeus characterizes redemption from apostasy with the
8
While Orbe identifies this as an allusion to Gen 1:26 it is not mentioned in BP or SC. Given the
contextual description it seems certain Irenaeus has the imagery of Gen 1:26 in view. Orbe, Teología
V.1, 60-1; See also Fantino, L’homme, 114.
9
cf. AH 4.38.3, James 1:18.
10
AH 1.5.5; AH 1.18.2; AH 1.24.1-2; AH 1.30.6.
11
AH 5.1.1.
12
Orbe, Teología V.1, 87. cf. AH 3.18.7; AH 4.36.2,4; AH 5.14.1-2; AH 5.15.3; AH 5.21.1.
147
blood redemption language of Eph 1:7 and the ransom text of 1 Tim 2:6.13 Through
his death and resurrection Christ offered himself as a “redemption” (redemptionem)
payment to the Father for all those who had been led into captivity through the
exploits of the devil.
This summary of the divine vision for creation and redemption serves as the
preface to his critique of the docetic Valentinians in AH 5.1.2 that suggested the
Word only appeared to become incarnate, but did not in reality assume flesh.
Against the Valentinian docetism he adds another brief allusion to Gen 2:7. If Christ
merely appeared to become incarnate then it is logical to assume he received
nothing from Mary. However, the redemption of the body necessarily assumed that
he received from Mary true flesh and blood. In so doing, he recapitulated in himself
(Eph 1:10) the “ancient formation of Adam” (antiquam plasmationem Adae).14 For
Irenaeus, it is not logically consistent that Christ could recapitulate Adam’s
formation in himself only in appearance and, more to the point, he could not
merely appear to redeem the body that is subject to death. He must do so in reality,
which means he must have assumed in himself the substance of Adam’s flesh.
While the Valentinians deny the humanity of the incarnate Word, the
antithetical error is the Ebionite refusal to accept the deity of Christ. The Ebionites
regard Jesus as the Messiah, but reject the virgin birth.15 Orbe isolates some
interesting linguistic parallels in first and second part of AH 5.1.3, which correspond
to Irenaeus’ polemical summary with his theological rebuttal.16 The result of his
theological argumentation is a concluding demonstration of the efficiency of the
“Hands of God,” (drawn from a citation of Gen 1:26) to execute the will of God.
Irenaeus’ polemic is, of course, laced with Genesis creation imagery and set in
continuity with Luke 1:35, John 1:13, 1 Cor 5:7, and 1 Cor 15:22.17
For Irenaeus, the Ebionite denial of the Incarnation is more fundamentally a
denial of the potentiality for union, or “mixture” (commixtionem), between God and
the human person.18 He lays out the ontological problem with this view using, first
13
SC notes Col 1:14, but the redemption language of sanguine alludes to Eph 1:7.
AH 5.1.2
15
Häkkinen, “Ebionites,” 247-78. Irenaeus is the first to mention the Ebionites among his analysis of
heretics and we have seen him do so on several occasions: AH 1.26.2, 3.11.7, 3.21.1, and 4.33.4.
16
Orbe, Teología V.1, 88-89. The two sections comprise SC 153.24.61–26.71 and SC 153.26.71-83.
17
AH 5.1.3.
18
Here Irenaeus appears to be employing Eucharist imagery with the composite nature of wine,
verses mere water. For the complex interpretation of this term see Orbe, Teología V.1, 101-2.
14
148
of all, the Pauline culinary imagery of bread-making in 1 Cor 5:6-7. 19 The rejection of
the union of God and man in the person of Christ, for Irenaeus, implies the Ebionites
“remain in the old leaven of birth” (veteri generationis perseverantes fermento).
Following Orbe’s scheme, this imagery of 1 Cor 5:7 is paralleled with Adam who was
“conquered” (victus, Gen 3:6) and “expelled from paradise” (projectus es de paradiso,
Gen 3:23).20 For Irenaeus, the old leaven of 1 Cor 5:7 illustrates Adam’s post-lapsarian
condition. All humankind, including the Ebionites, who are in the line of Adam,
inherits the nature of this condition.
The metaphor of leaven and bread-making in 1 Cor 5:7 and the nature of
Adam’s fallen human condition naturally leads into the imagery of human-making
in Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. Not only do the Ebionites rebuff the proper understanding
of Adam’s fallen nature, but they also misunderstand the creative performance of
the Word and Spirit from the creation to the Incarnation.21 By means of the
dialectical Adam-Christ typology (Rom 5:12, 1Cor 15:22), Irenaeus oscillates between
Adam’s “formation” (plasmationis) in the “beginning” (initio, Gen 2:7), and Christ’s
formation in the “end” (fine, Luke 1:35).
Beginning with the creation in Adam, he alludes to the flesh as the “ancient
substance of Adam’s formation” (antiquae substantiae plasmationis Adae, Gen 2:7). The
term plasma is a way Irenaeus identifies the solidarity of the whole human race in
Adam.22 But, again alluding to Gen 2:7, the plasma without the adspiratio vitae
remains inanimate. The infusion of the breath of life renders the man a “living
human” (animavit hominem, Gen 2:7) and a “rational being” (animal rationabile).
Rationality is a key component of the imago dei and Irenaeus’ view of human
freedom. The use here is particularly polemical. Since, in Irenaeus’ view, the
Ebionites are in the line of Adam and endowed with human freedom and rationality,
they willingly choose not to “understand” (intelligere) or consider (contemplantes) the
validity of the Incarnation. Their choice, for Irenaeus, has soteriological
implications.
19
AH 5.1.3. Orbe points to a similar idea in Jesus’ warning against the yeast of the Pharisees and
Sadducees in the Gospels (Matt 16:6,11; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1), which may also be part of this use of 1
Cor 5:7. He also errantly labels 1 Cor 5:7 as 1 Cor 4:7. Orbe, Teología V.1, 90, 99.
20
cf. AH 3.23.7. The language non recipientes, referring to the Ebionites, introduces each
allusion/echo.
21
In this case the similar language of neque intelligere volentes quoniam and non contemplantes quoniam
links these concepts.
22
Behr, Asceticism, 38.
149
His use of the creation imagery in Gen 2:7 serves as validation that human
plasma can in fact receive divine unction and he finds Gen 2:7 a clear expression of
union of God and man. The Incarnation, thus, is literally a mirror image of the
creation with similar imagery and divine activity at work. He argues that the
Ebionites do not accept his reading of Luke 1:35, but actually what they reject is the
proper connections between the incarnation in Luke 1:35 and Adam’s formation in
Gen 2:7. While the language of “Holy Spirit” (Spiritus sanctus) in Luke 1:35 is selfevident, he interprets the “Power of the Most High” (Virtus Altissimi) as the “Son of
the Most High God and Father of all” (filius Altissimi Dei Patris omnium), thereby
distinguishing between the Author of the Incarnation (the Father) and the object of
the Incarnation (the Son).23 Through the Trinitarian activity expressed in Luke 1:35,
the child born of Mary was united with the “ancient substance of Adam’s
formation” (antiquae substantiae plasmationis Adae), so that, once again, the substance
of Adam’s formation becomes “living and perfect” (viventem et perfectum) in the
person of Christ.24 He describes this new incarnate union between God and man,
following the Pauline imagery of 1 Cor 5:7-8, as a “new generation” (novam…
generationem).25 This new generation of Christ is the “new lump” (νέον φύραμα) of 1
Cor 5:7 that is properly “animated” (animavit) and imparts life to the faithful (1 Cor
15:22).26 Irenaeus conflates allusions to 1 Cor 5:7 with the notion of “life” (vita)
inherited from Christ in 1 Cor 15:22. All who remain joined to Adam’s formation (i.e.
the Ebionites) are subject to death, while all that remain faithful to Christ will be
made alive.27
The tenor of Irenaeus’ objection to Ebionite Christology, therefore, is not
necessarily their reading of Luke 1:35 (or their rejection of Luke’s Gospel altogether
i.e. AH 1.26.2), but their lack of a coherent understanding of salvation history and
vision for the man formed in Gen 1-2. Irenaeus makes it clear that any dispute over
Luke 1:35 (not to mention how this passage interprets Isa 7:14) must also address
the apparent economic continuity‒evidenced in the Adam-Christ dialectic of 1 Cor
5:7 and 15:22‒between the substance of Adam’s formation and Christ’s Incarnation.
23
For the implicit connections between Luke 1:3 and Isa 7:14 in Irenaeus’ exegetical response to the
Ebonites see: Orbe, Teología V.1, 93-4.
24
AH 5.1.3
25
AH 5.1.3. cf. Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, Col 3:9.
26
AH 5.1.3.
27
cf. Rom 5:12.
150
This becomes most evident in the closing lines of AH 5.1.3 where, citing Gen 1:26,
Irenaeus formulates clear Trinitarian theology of history and economic trajectory of
salvation. Irenaeus uses the imagery of Gen 1:26 in connection with his imagery of
“hands” (manus) as a Trinitarian analogy depicting the immediacy of God’s presence
in the formation of Adam (both in the beginning and throughout salvation history).
The Son and the Spirit are the “hands of God” (manus Dei) in Gen 1:26 to whom he
proclaims, “Let Us make man in our image and likeness” (Faciamus hominem ad
imaginem et similitudinem nostram).28 Noting the intertextual connections between
Gen 1:26 and Luke 1:35, the “hands” imagery in this context is linked to the two-fold
mention of the Son and the Spirit in Luke 1:35. These same “Hands” are at work in
the Incarnation in Luke 1:35, fashioning Christ in the same pattern as Adam.
Through the imagery of hands, the two-fold mention of the “Holy Spirit” (πνεῦμα
ἁγιον) and the “Power of the Most High” (δύναμις ὑψίστου) in Luke 1:35 become the
paradigm through which to understand the plural pronoun in the proclamation
“Let Us make” (Faciamus) in Gen 1:26. As it was the Spirit and the Power in Luke 1:35,
so it is the Spirit and the Word in Gen 1:26. Building upon the imagery of the Hands
of God in Gen 1:26, Irenaeus concludes with an allusion to John 1:13, suggesting that
the Incarnation is a divine act and not the work of human desire or will. Therefore,
Christ cannot be a mere human, but is a “living man” (vivum… hominem, Gen 2:7)
born out of the good pleasure of God for the sake of Adam.29 When John 1:13 is set in
continuity with Gen 2:7, John 1:13 expresses Christ as the ideal man of Genesis.30 For
Irenaeus, John 1:13 is the natural theological conclusion to the creation of Adam.
While Irenaean scholars generally agree that Irenaeus is relatively
inconsistent in his use of imago and similitudo, to date Fantino’s study, L’ homme.
Image de Dieu chez saint Irénée de Lyon continues to be the most comprehensive
evaluation of this vocabulary in AH.31 Fantino’s concludes, by and large, the imago,
located in the flesh, refers to the incarnate Son of God, while the likeness refers to
the faculty of reason or free will endowed to the creature and the Spirit that
conforms the faithful to likeness of Christ’s image.32 Orbe, commenting on the
function of these terms in this section, argues for a Trinitarian reading of these
28
AH 5.1.3
AH 5.1.3; cf. Col 1:19 (Phil 2:13).
30
Orbe, Teología V.1, 111,
31
For a comparative chart of all relevant uses see: Ibid.,184-6.
32
Fantino, L’homme, 128-34.
29
151
terms where the image is the Word of God and likeness is the Spirit.33 The
soteriological function of the Word as the image and the Spirit as the likeness in Gen
1:26 is confirmed when this text is read in continuity with Luke 1:35 and John 1:13
(not to mention the Pauline Adam-Christ typology). Orbe comes close to making this
argument when he suggests in passing that pre-incarnate readings of Gen 1:26 (and
post-incarnate readings of the Ebionites) did not understand the “scope” (alacance)
of Gen 1:26 until the revelation of the Incarnation in Luke 1:35 and John 1:13.34 The
titles and activity of the divine persons in Luke 1:35 also solidifies the personal
distinction between image and likeness. With the revelation of the incarnate Son,
the close reader of scripture discovers the Son is the image and the Spirit is the
likeness of Gen 1:26. Of course this theological distinction cannot be separated from
the anthropological object of salvation. It is the human form that is the locus of the
Word and Spirit’s activity throughout history. As we can see, Irenaeus does not
debate the Valentinian and Ebionites over any particular passage from Gen 1-3, but
through a community of texts read alongside these creation texts.
6.3 AH 5.2.1: Marcion and the Salvation of An other’s Property (Gen 1:26)
Following closely with the previous section, in this chapter Irenaeus counters the
Marcionite distinction between the Creator in Genesis and the Father of Jesus.35
Irenaeus argues that Marcion believes the supreme God has no association to the
material world; it belongs wholly to the Demiurge of Genesis, who is also Yahweh
the God of the Jews.36 The sensible world and humankind are in every way alien to
the Supreme God. This Supreme God, who retains power over the creation sent a
Savior to a world that did not belong to him to redeem a people that were not his
own. Marcion draws a sharp distinction between the creation of humankind in
Genesis and the coming of the Savior in the Gospels.
Irenaeus identifies humankind as God’s property by nature, which he
reiterates in the opening of AH 5.2.1.37 The Father sent the Son, Irenaeus states, to
33
Orbe, Teología V.1, 110-11, 13-15.
Orbe, Teología V.1, 111.
35
cf. AH 4.18.4.
36
There is much debate regarding the accuracy of Irenaeus’ presentation of Marcion. Orbe, Teología
V.1, 121; Harnack, Marcion, 295.
37
AH 5.1.1. Orbe also suggests alienavit may have origins in Col 1:21 or Psalm 54:7. Teología V.1, 67.
34
152
redeem his own creation or property.38 According to Tertullian, the language of
coming “to another’s property” (in aliena) is essential terminology of Marcion drawn
from John 1:11.39 His polemic in this context focuses on two aspects of Marcion’s
thought: 1) the unjust nature of redeeming another’s property and 2) the ineffectual
nature of redemption without blood.40 The former addresses the reading of John
1:11, the latter contains echoes of Eph 1:7, and both are set in relationship to Gen
1:26.41 First, Irenaeus argues a priori that to steal the property belonging to another
is “unjust” (Non… justus). Even if humanity belonged to the Demiurge and is alien
(John 1:11) to the true God, it is not right or lawful to steal. Second, redemption that
does not involve physical, bodily sacrifice (Eph 1:7) does not redeem the true nature
of humanity. Without bodily sacrifice, the Savior did not truly become human and,
as a result, humanity remains subject to mortality. Corresponding to the both
positions, Irenaeus appeals to the fundamental principle that humankind was made
in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). Humankind is not the property of
another, but God’s very own creation. Not only this, but the Incarnation assumes
Christ took possession of his own creation and assumed flesh, thereby effecting the
redemption of the people that are “His very own” (suo propria).42 At the Incarnation
the divine decree of Gen 1:26 comes to fruition and “emerges as an effective
reality.”43
6.4 AH 5.3.2-3: The Power of God the Weakness of the Flesh (Gen 2:7)
AH 5.3.1 begins a new section in the overall structure of book 5 that addresses the
salus carnis. Having worked his way through a critique of the Valentinians, Ebionites
and Marcion, Irenaeus now sets his sights on the close evaluation of the Gnostic
reading of 2 Cor 12:9.44 It is obvious that Irenaeus is familiar with competing Gnostic
38
Although he does not mention Marcion specifically, we know Irenaeus is speaking of Marcion here
because of the parallel passage in AH 3.11.2.
39
Tertullian, Marc. 3.6.2; 3.9.10. See Orbe, Teología V.1, 118; Harnack, Marcion, 266-88. Orbe locates an
allusion to John 1:11 in this citation, but it is not noted in SC or BP. Orbe, Teología V.1, 123.
40
Orbe, Teología V.1, 121.
41
Rousseau cites this passage as Col. 1:14, but the presence of sanguine here and in Eph 1:7 make the
latter the more likely passage in consideration.
42
AH 5.2.1.
43
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 23.
44
Orbe notes that Irenaeus comments are not set against any particular heretic (docetists,
Marcionites, Gnostics), but against all of them equally. He suggests that he speaks in general terms to
include any person who would reject the salus carnis. Orbe, Teología V.1, 167.
153
interpretations of this passage defending the renunciation of the corrupt body
fashion by an incompetent Demiurge. The language of 2 Cor 12:9 orients AH 5.3.15.5.2 and is cited in full in AH 5.3.1. The discussion focuses upon the interpretation
of the language of “weakness of the flesh” (infirmitatem… carnis) and the “power of
God” (potentiam Dei), extends though AH 5.5.2.45 In the hands of Irenaeus, this
Pauline text becomes a theological axiom manifesting the power of God over human
weakness. This section follows the scheme identified by Bacq. Irenaeus announces
the text of 2 Cor 12:7-9 and cites the passage in the opening lines of AH 5.3.1. He
then comments on this text through linking terms that unite a series of related
texts including: Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 15:53, and Heb 11:19. His argument is framed into two
logical claims: 1) God has the power to raise the flesh and 2) the flesh is fit and
capable of receiving vivification. Within this rhetorical structure, Gen 2:7 is a key
validation for Irenaeus’ understanding of the relationship between God’s creative
power and the resurrection.
Discussing the power of God in 2 Cor 12:9, Irenaeus connects the description
of the resurrection and the “power” (virtutem) mentioned in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor
15:53, with the demonstration of God’s creative power in Gen 2:7.46 Heb 11:19
describes the “power” (virtutem) God has to raise the dead, while 1Cor 15:53 more
explicitly describes the imagery of the power of God to raise the corruptible body to
incorruption.47 The power made perfect in weakness in 2 Cor 12:9 is the power to
raise the flesh expressed in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53; therefore, it illustrates the
power of God to form and enliven the flesh. What is more, Irenaeus adds that the
original creation in Gen 2:7 is even “more difficult and incredible” (multo difficilius et
incredibilius) than the resurrection from the dead, because it was creatio ex nihilo.48
The resurrection in 1 Cor 15:53 and Heb 11:19 is a mere reassembling of the original
form that decomposed into the earth. In the first instance, Irenaeus views the
mortality of the flesh as experientially pedagogical, through which humankind
becomes aware of the power of God.49 He goes so far as to define the weakness of the
flesh as being “mortal by nature” (natura mortalis) and there is no hint of humanity’s
45
AH 5.3.2. cf. AH 2.34.3-4.
AH 5.3.1 Orbe suggests the background of Eph 1:19-20 and Rom 8:11 (see AH 5.10.2). cf. AH 3.19.9; AH
3.22.1; Orbe, Teología, 1.179.
47
AH 5.3.1.
48
AH 5.3.2.
49
AH 5.3.1.
46
154
relationship to sin.50 Mortality is the natural condition of created beings that are, by
nature, imperfect. As a result, death is not retributive but a natural consequence of
creaturely existence.51
Nevertheless, even if God has the power to raise the flesh, Irenaeus reasons
that the body must have the aptitude to receive life again. Appealing to the logical
analysis of the form fashioned in Gen 2:7, he argues both that God has power to
form flesh from the earth and the flesh is capable of receiving the life imparted by
God. As a result, this section entertains the contrast between the temporal life in
the body and the eternal life given by the Spirit. We have seen how Irenaeus
distinguishes between two “modalities of Life” that are separated by degree not
nature.52 The distinction between the present life and the resurrected life is not a
distinction in nature, but a distinction in degree, from a “weaker” or “temporal” life
to a “stronger” or “eternal” life.53 This reading is borne out of intertextual
connections with 2 Cor 12:9. He draws out the imagery of the fashioning of the body
in Gen 2:7, including the harmonious binding of the various body parts, such as the
sensitivity of the sensory organs and the agility of the muscular system. The
aesthetic harmony of the body reveals the “wisdom of God” (sapientia Dei) in
creation that is indicative of God’s power. Utilizing his rhetorical arsenal he
compares the flesh to a sponge or a torch.54 Just as the sponge is fit to absorb water
and the torch to possess fire, so also is the flesh, as Gen 2:7 testifies, “found fit and
capable of receiving the power of God” (Invenietur autem perceptrix et capax caro
virtutis Dei).55 Just as the body has the capacity to receive the power of God in Gen
2:7, so also in the resurrection.56
50
AH 5.3.1. Altermath, “The Purpose of the Incarnation,” 65.
Brown, “On the necessary imperfection of creation,” 21; cf. Orbe, “El hombre ideal en la teología de
s. Ireneo,” Greg 43 (1967): 449-491, 455.
52
Behr, Asceticism, 95-6; See AH 2.34.3-4.
53
Behr, Asceticism, 96.
54
AH 5.3.3.
55
AH 5.3.2. In the following section, AH 5.3.3, Irenaeus develops this argument and suggests the life
the Gnostics enjoy now supports the capability of the flesh to participate in life.
56
This section confirms that Behr and others are right to correct Rousseau on his assertion that “life”
in AH 2.34.3-4 is something other than bodily existence. Rousseau, “L’Eternité des peines”, 843; cf.
Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God,” 289.
51
155
6.5 AH 5.5.1-2: The Flesh in the Hands of God (Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Gen 2: 15, Gen
3:23)
Continuing his discussion of the salus carnis, in AH 5.5.1-2 Irenaeus exploits the
longevity of the patriarchs and the nature of paradise as he elucidates, in response
to 2 Cor 12:9, the power of God to raise the flesh. Joining his anthropology and
eschatology, he describes the economic vision for Adam’s formation. God’s two
Hands, the Son and the Spirit, who form Adam in Gen 2:7, continue to sustain
creation throughout salvation history. In Adam, Irenaeus writes, the hands of God
became accustomed “to join together, to preserve, to sustain, to bring his form and
place him where they pleased” (coaptare et tenere et bajulare suum plasma et ferre et
ponere ubi ipsae vellent).57 The last three verbs (bajulare, ferre, ponere) are derived from
Gen 2:8 (cf. 2:15), where God planted a garden in paradise and placed Adam there for
growth and maturity.58 The former two verbs (coaptare, tenere) explain the Son and
the Spirit’s role in holding simultaneously sustaining the bonds and preserving the
life of the created form. This characterization of the inter-Trinitarian activity is not,
in Irenaeus’ view, reserved to Adam’s pre-lapsarian life. He has already noted that at
no time did the “Hands of God” ever abandon Adam, because the existence and
preservation of the flesh depends wholly upon the will and pleasure of God.59
Irenaeus joins his citation of Gen 2:8 with an allusion to Adam’s expulsion
from the Garden in Gen 3:23. While God’s will and desire for Adam was the Edenic
life, Adam relinquished this opportunity in his disobedience. For Irenaeus, however,
following Gen 3 any scriptural account involving the preservation or protraction of
the body is explained in relationship to the Hands of God and the nature of paradise
including: the translation and assumption of Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings
2:11), the preservation of Jonah in the whale (Jonah 2), and the preservation of
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the furnace (Dan 3:19-25).60 This also includes
the longevity of the patriarchs (i.e. Gen 5:3-32, Gen 9:29) who enjoyed their
prolonged life for no other reason than the pleasure and will of God. In each
instance the same “Hands” that fashioned Adam and place him in paradise are the
57
AH 5.5.1.
Orbe, Teología V.1, 239.
59
AH 5.1.3; Orbe, Teología V.1, 225.
60
AH 5.5.2.
58
156
same “Hands” extending and preserving life throughout the unfolding of the divine
economy.
While the preservation of the body is reserved for the Hands of God, the
experiences of Enoch and Elijah raise the question of the location of paradise.61 For
Irenaeus paradise is a sensible, intermediate realm separate from the earth, where
the just and righteous dwell in anticipation of resurrection and immortality.62 He
links the experiences of Adam, Enoch, and Elijah, with Paul’s rapture to paradise in
2 Cor 12:4. All four are linked through the language of “paradise” (paradisus) in each
passage and, in the case of the latter three, the experience of being caught up to
heaven. Adam, on the other hand, had existed in heaven and after his disobedience
was cast out into this world.63 In this sense, Enoch, Elijah and Paul serve to invert
Adam’s expulsion from paradise in Gen 3:23 and function as a paradigm for “the
consummation” (consummationem) where all the faithful will make their way back
into paradise to dwell in the presence of God.64 Against the Gnostics, their physical
bodies are no hindrance to the paradisiacal life.
6.6 AH 5.6.1: Perfection in the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7)
Having used the testimonies of the faithful in the Old Testament to communicate
the power and providence of God over the preservation of the flesh within the
economy, in AH 5.6.1 Irenaeus provides a more focused treatment of the nature the
final resurrection in the image and likeness of God. He explicitly links the image of
God with the flesh when he states emphatically it is “the flesh that was moulded
according to the image of God” (carni quae plasmata secundum imaginem Dei).65
Irenaeus also links reason and freedom with the imago dei, but he explicitly rejects
any notion of locating the image in the immaterial.66 Irenaeus does not come to this
conclusion merely from his contemplation on Gen 1:26, a common
misunderstanding, but from the intertextual association with Rom 8:29.67 Fantino,
for example, does not mention Rom 8:29 in his evaluation of this passage and only
61
cf. Epid 10.
Orbe, Teología V.1, 224-3, 240-1; cf. Epid 12.
63
AH 5.5.1.
64
AH 5.5.1; Orbe, Teología V.1, 241.
65
Behr, Asceticism, 89.
66
Fantino, L’ Homme, 87-9; Dem 11; AH 4.37.4.
67
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 109-11.
62
157
mentions it elsewhere in passing as a purely eschatological reality.68 We have
already noted that the bishop is relatively “inconsistent” in his usage of these
terms.69 When he does distinguish them, the distinction may be understood as “the
ontological formation of the human person (image) and the actualization of the
human nature in an individual’s lived life (likeness).”70 The former applies most
properly to the person of the Son, while the later applies to the activity of the Spirit,
but Irenaeus arrives at this rendering of likeness through linking Rom 8:29 and Gen
1:26, which are connected through the language of “image” and the concept of
“conformable” (conforme).71 Alluding to this Pauline passage, Irenaeus argues that
the flesh was created to be conformable (conforme) and adapted (adaptans), by means
of the Son and Spirit, to the image of the incarnate Son.72 When Irenaeus reads Gen
1:26 in continuity with Rom 8:29, he interprets the notion of being conformed to the
likeness as the activity of the Spirit transforming the faithful into the glorified and
perfected image of the resurrected Christ.73 This transformation is not an
instantaneous event but a prolonged plasmatio hominis that extends throughout the
course of the divine economy to the final consummation.74
The whole person, as Irenaeus will go on to argue, and not merely part of the
person, was made in the image and likeness of God. The complete human person is
one who is composed of body, soul, and Spirit and the three elements express the
participation in the “triune reality” of the Father, Son, and Spirit.75 The Gnostics
(especially the Valentinians), on the other hand, erect a dualism of human
components and partition humanity in three distinctive natures: hylic, psychic, and
spiritual.76 The psychic human is fashioned after the likeness of the Demiurge, the
pneumatic after the likeness of Sophia, and the body of the hylic after the image of
68
Fantino, L’homme, 18, 125-28. For similar uses of Rom 8:29 see AH 4.20.8 and AH 4.37.7.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 138; Fantino, L’homme, 4-44; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 82; Osborn,
Irenaeus, 211.
70
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 138. Fantino suggests that the likeness is “presence of the Spirit,” but it seems
Behr is right to connect it with the breath of life that is lost in the apostasy. Behr, Anthropology, 115;
Fantino, L’homme, 117-8.
71
AH 5.6.1.
72
Orbe suggest a possible conflation with Phil 3:21 that contains similar imagery and the language of
“transform” (μετασχηματίζω), but Irenaeus never mentions this text elsewhere. However, as Orbe
also points out, the subject performing the work of transformation is Christ (cf. Phil 3:20).
73
Fantino, L’homme, 18, 178; Orbe, Teología V.1, 268.
74
Orbe, Teología V.1, 270.
75
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 136; Orbe, Teología V.1, 270.
76
AH 1.5.1-5.
69
158
Anthropos.77 In essence, Irenaeus argues in Gen 1:26 that God did not say “Let Us
make the soul after the image and likeness of God,” but God said “Let us make the
man after the image and likeness of God”. For Irenaeus, the soul and the Spirit are
both part of the person, but they do not constitute the “perfect” (perfectus) person.
The perfected human person is not merely body and soul, but also requires
the indwelling of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:6).78 Irenaeus appeals to the two terms “perfect”
(perfectus) and “spiritual” (spiritalis), which he views as synonymous, derived from 1
Cor 2:6 and 2:15 and related to the person formed from the dust and after the image
of God in Gen 1:26 and 2:7.79 Irenaeus’ view, contra the Valentinians, is
fundamentally unitary, with the anthropological “commingling and union”
(commixtio et adunitio) of the soul receiving Spirit along with the “admixture”
(admixtae) of the body fashioned in the image of the incarnate Son (i.e. Gen 1:26, Gen
2:7).80 Thus, his anthropological framework is essentially tripartite, consisting of a
body and soul that is infused with the Spirit of God. He will often use this
philosophical definition of the human person as composed of body and soul.81
Irenaeus’ reading of 1 Cor 2:11 is consistent with his anthropological framework; the
Spirit of a man in 1 Cor 2:11 is the Spirit of God.82 But his use of 1 Cor 2:11 implies
that the presence of the Spirit alone, without the presence of the body is not a
perfect or spiritual person. This is, as Behr notes, Irenaeus’ primary point of
emphasis when he closes with a citation of 1 Thess 5:23.83
The composite nature of Irenaeus’ anthropological discussion from Gen 1:26,
Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 2:6,11, and 15 is expressed in toto in the language of 1 Thess 5:23. 1
Thess 5:23 is the crucial tile that unites the anthropological poles of Genesis and
77
Orbe, Teología V.1, 272-3, 283.
Behr, Asceticism, 99-100.
79
In AH 1.8.3, Irenaeus describes how the Valentinians appeal to 1 Cor 2:14-15, along with 1 Cor 15:46,
to explain their three-fold distinction of persons. 1 Cor 15:46 speaks of the “earthly” (choicum) 1 Cor
2:14 speaks of the “animal” (animale) and 1 Cor 2:15 speaks of the “spiritual” (spiritale). Irenaeus has
already mentioned that the Valentinians refer to themselves as spiritual and perfect and in the
context of AH 1.8.4, he cites the Valentinian use of 1 Cor 2:6 that finds Paul speaking of the mysteries
of the Pleroma.
80
AH 5.6.1; cf. 1 Cor 3:1. He also alludes to 1 Cor 12:7 as those who bring to light the mysteries of God.
81
Behr, Anthropology, 100; cf. AH 2.33.5; Dem 7.
82
AH 5.6.1
83
AH 5.6.1; Behr, Anthropology, 100. Behr provides a good discussion of the interpretative difficulties
of this passage presented in Rousseau’s translation. Rousseau wants to render the homo spiritus, as
the human soul, but as Behr notes, Irenaeus never does so. So the Spiritus is the Spiritus Dei as the
one who owns and inhabits the human creature. Behr, Anthropology, 99 n. 51. Likewise, Orbe (contra
Rousseau) consistently identifies the spiritus hominis with the spiritus Dei. Behr and Orbe are right to
observe that in Irenaeus, the spiritus is always divine, comes from God to humankind, and is
considered an essential component of the perfect human. Orbe, Teología V.1, 274-5; cf. SC 152.227-32.
78
159
Paul. It mentions all the component parts of the human person: body, soul, and
Spirit, along with the language of “perfect” (perfectus).84 Arguing from 1 Thess 5:23,
those who are “perfect” are those who present to the Lord all three parts in
concord. Contrary to the breath of life that infuses the formation from the dust, the
flesh is vivified and made spiritual by the Spirit. These exegetical relationships
communicate the creation of humankind and the eschatological perfection of the
human person who is created in the image and likeness of God.
6.7 AH 5.7.1-2: The Narrative of Resurrection (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19)
In AH 5.7.1-2 Irenaeus continues his discussion of Pauline resurrection texts with a
discussion of 1 Cor 6:14 and Rom 8:11.85 In previous sections, Irenaeus mentioned
how the incarnate Christ is the true image of God (Rom 8:29), but the present offers
the full development of this thesis where Christ’s resurrected and glorified body is
paradigmatic for the resurrection of the faithful.86 In continuity with Bacq’s pattern,
Irenaeus announces and cites 1 Cor 6:14 and then discusses this passage through a
series of interrelated texts including: Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19, John 20:20, Rom 8:11, Psalm
21:31 LXX, and 1 Cor 15:36,42-44.87 In doing so, Irenaeus interprets a Pauline
theology of the body as a logical economic conclusion to the anthropology of Gen
2:7 and Gen 3:19.
Irenaeus begins with an allusion to Christ’s resurrection appearance in John
20:20 linked with 1 Cor 6:14 and Rom 8:11. Referring to the corruptible nature of the
human form in Rom 8:11, he asks the fundamental exegetical question, “What, then,
are mortal bodies?” (Quae sunt ergo mortalia corpora).88 Paul’s language of “mortal
bodies,” Irenaeus reasons, cannot refer to the soul or the Spirit, because these are
naturally immortal. Neither is this a type of Gnosticized “spiritual” body. Instead,
turning to Gen 2:7 he argues souls are incorporeal and bodies are corporeal. The
flatum vitae that enlivens the man in Gen 2:7 must be, contrary to the mortal body
fashioned from the earth, immortal. Logically it also follows that if the flatum vitae is
immortal then the soul is immortal also, since Adam became a “living soul” (animam
84
AH 5.6.1; cf. AH 2.33.5.
Rosseau’s re-ordering of chapter divisions to include the last lines of AH 5.6.2 as the opening lines
of AH 5.7.1 is appropriate, as it corresponds both in content and structure to the rest of AH 5.7.1-2.
86
Orbe, Teología V.1, 323.
87
In SC 153:84.78ff. See also: SC 152, 173.
88
AH 5.7.1; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 206 n. 69.
85
160
viventem, Gen 2:7).89 Irenaeus also finds the incorporeal nature of the soul in the
parallel terminology of Psalm 21:31 LXX, “my soul shall live to Him” (anima mea illi
vivet), arguing that David speaks as if the soul is immortal and not subject to
corruption. For Irenaeus, then, Paul’s term “mortal bodies” must refer to the
corporal substance fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7 that receives the flatum vitae
from God.
Given this exegetical discussion, Irenaeus discerns two basic principals of the
soul in contradistinction to the body: 1) simplicity and 2) effectual life.90 While the
body is composite and fashioned from various components (i.e. joints, ligaments,
etc.), the soul is simple.91 The soul cannot decompose or breakdown. Second, the
soul is also the effectual life of the body. Without the soul, the body is quite literally
inanimate. The body receives the breath of life, or soul, and then becomes a “living
soul” (animam viventem, Gen 2:7). As Behr notes, “Irenaeus is not interested so much
in the soul itself, as a principle of interiority, as in this animation of the flesh. … The
soul does not simply animate the body, but uses the body as an artist uses an
instrument.”92 Death does not apply to the soul because the soul is the breath of life,
rather in death the body becomes “without breath” (sine spiratione) or “inanimate”
(inanimalis) and, according to Gen 3:19, dissolves back into its original substance.
Having established the meaning of mortal bodies, in AH 5.7.2 Irenaeus
describes how the “power of God” (virtute… Dei) is able to resurrect the mortal flesh
referring back to 1 Cor 6:14. In the previous discussion, Irenaeus concluded that the
mortal body of Rom 8:11 is the same body that decomposed back into the earth, but
now he must complement this discussion with the eschatological vision of the
resurrection of the same mortal body. The allusion to the power of God incites an
allusion to 1 Cor 15:43b, which also connects back to the dissolution of the flesh in
Gen 3:19. The use of 1 Cor 15:42-44 sets up the eschatological dialectic between the
natural body and the spiritual body. The Valentinians, on the other hand, identify
the “mortal body” of Rom 8:11 and the “animal body” of 1 Cor 15:44 with the soul, or
the psychic element, that is by nature corruptible, mortal, and resuscitable.93 The
pneumatics, or the spiritual bodies, are altogether of a different quality and nature.
89
Orbe, Teología V.1, 331; cf. AH 2.34.4.
Orbe, Teología V.1, 341.
91
On the composite nature of the body see AH 5.3.2 and AH 5.6.1-2.
92
Behr, Asceticism, 96; cf. AH 2.29.3.
93
Orbe, Teología V.1, 349-50.
90
161
For Irenaeus, however, the “natural body” (corpus animale) suffers from
“corruption” (corrtpuione), “dishonor” (ignobilitate), and “weakness” (infirmitate).
This is the body that is “sown” (seminas) in 1 Cor 15:36, which links with the “earth”
(terra) as the substances from which the body was cast (Gen 2:7).94 Just as the “moral
bodies” of Rom 8:11 are identified as the corporeal body, so also is the seed sown in
1 Cor 15:36 identified with the flesh, not the soul.
The language of “sowing” (semino) and the imagery of the decaying body
mentioned in 1 Cor 15:36 and 1 Cor 15:42 are drawn together with several
characteristics of the body mentioned in 1 Cor 15:43-44. While Gen 3:19 is set as a
backdrop to all these descriptions of the flesh, Irenaeus makes the passage explicit
when he remarks the flesh is weak because it is composed of “earth” (terra). The
ignoble images of dust and seeds communicate, for Irenaeus, the humility and
fragility of the human form. In itself, the flesh does not have the power to overcome
its own inherent weakness.95 That power, according to Irenaeus, must be supplied
by the power of God that resurrects the same animal body that is sown in weakness
as a glorified spiritual body (Gen 3:19, 1Cor 15:43-44).96 He conflates the
decomposition imagery of Gen 3:19 with the first half of 1Cor 15:43a, because, for
Irenaeus, the dissolution of the flesh only applies to the “animal body.” The
glorified body, or spiritual body, that was sown into the earth in Gen 3:19 is raised in
power in 1Cor 15:43-44.
6.8 AH 5.8. 1: The Sp irit and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26)
Having provided a highly involved exegetical discussion of the resurrection of the
flesh, in AH 5.8.1, Irenaeus extends this argument with a closer evaluation of the
Spirit’s function in the resurrection of the faithful. Irenaeus argues the “pledge”
(credentes) of the Spirit, mentioned in Eph 1:14, renders the faithful spiritual even in
the present dispensation of the divine economy.97 The indwelling of the Spirit
occurs in the flesh, not by removing or setting aside the flesh. Thus in a certain sense
the mortal is, even in the present, swallowed up by immortality (2Cor 5:4). This
point explains Rom 8:9 where Paul argues that the faithful are not in the flesh but in
94
cf. John 12:24.
AH 5.7.2.
96
AH 5.7.2.
97
AH 5.8.1.
95
162
the Spirit. Contrary to the Gnostics, being “spiritual” (spiritualis) was not
characteristic of select individuals temporarily united to a body and soul, but those
who, with body and soul, have received the Spirit.98 The faithful who receive the
Spirit as a pledge, according to Rom 8:15, are able to cry out “Abba Father” (Abba,
Pater) as they groan for their future resurrection when they shall see God face to
face 1 Cor 13:12. This argument from the scriptures moves from part to whole; the
pledge of the Spirit in the present (Eph 1:14, Rom 8:9, 15) is a portion of the
“universal grace of the Spirit” (universa Spiritus gratia) that will be the fullness of the
Spirit imparted to the faithful by God the Father at the final consummation (Gen
1:26, 1 Cor 13:12).99 The pledge is a promise for what the faithful will receive in the
resurrection when they are rendered, once again, “in the image and likeness of
God” (secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei).100 However, this is not a return to the
Edenic state, but a restoration of the similitude to God that finally accomplishes the
“perfect will” (perficiet voluntatem) of the Father set forth in the beginning (Gen
1:26). This is one of the few instances where the Spirit, rather than the Son,
explicitly accomplishes the fulfillment of Gen 1:26, although the Son must be in
view because, for Irenaeus, the Son always executes the will of the Father.101 In this
case, we also find the Father’s will is embodied in Gen 1:26 and is realized when the
pledge of the Spirit that leads the faithful incrementally toward perfection, gives
way to the fullness of the Spirit that renders them in the image and likeness of God.
6.9 AH 5.10.1: The Olive Tree and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26)
The section of AH 5.9.1-14.4 concerns the interpretation of 1Cor 15:50 and the
enigmatic saying, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (caro et
sanguis Dei hereditare non possunt). The Gnostics term this passage “decisive
evidence” against any claim for a future bodily resurrection.102 Irenaeus’ response
entails the complex intertextual argumentation where he concludes that flesh and
blood, in their present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but must be
98
Orbe, Teología V.1, 380.
AH 5.8.1. He uses 2 Cor 5:4 to argue implicitly for both positions.
100
AH 5.8.1.
101
Orbe, Teología V.1, 376-7.
102
Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 85;
cf. AH 5.13.2.
99
163
inherited by the Spirit.103 The controlling text in this section is the imagery of the
wild olive tree in Rom 11:17, which he interprets as the flesh that is engrafted to the
Spirit as the good olive tree. Those who are not engrafted with the Spirit are,
according to Matt 7:9, cut off and thrown into the fire. These same individuals are
fruitless and expose themselves as the tares sown among the wheat in the parable
of Matt 13:25. Those engrafted to the good olive tree, on the other hand, “receive
the Word of God engrafted” (insertionem accipientes verbum Dei), which ensures their
progress toward “the pristine nature of humankind” (pristinam… hominis naturam).
Irenaeus describes this “pristine nature” the original formation of Adam in the
image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). This qualification of a “pristine nature”
connotes a pre-lapsarian condition of Adam, but also, given the contextual
scriptural imagery (Rom 11:17, Matt 7:9, and Matt 13:25), describes the salvific
trajectory of the divine economy that tends towards the eschatological perfection of
the faithful. The faithful who are, at present, engrafted to the good olive tree of the
Spirit will receive the engrafting of the Word that forms them in the image and
likeness of God.
6.10 A H 5.12.1-6: The Breath of Life and the Spirit (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7)
Irenaeus’ reading of 1 Cor 15:50 contrasts the experiences of life and death, but in
AH 5.12.1-6 the Bishop of Lyon clarifies his anthropological perspective. For
Irenaeus death and life are ontologically contrasting conditions; they cannot
mutually coexist within the same person. The flesh, for its part, remains a bystander
that may be drawn in the direction of corruption or incorruption. But Irenaeus must
address the reality that, in the present, even those who experience life are still
subject to death and corruption. For this reason, he speaks of “life” (vitae) in two
senses that distinguish the present life within the divine economy given by the
breath of God, which remains subject to death, and the eschatological glorified and
incorruptible life in the Spirit.104 Each section in AH 5.12-2-4 contains echoes or
allusions to Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 set in intertextual relationship to other texts
103
104
Behr, Asceticism, 105
Similar to arguments he has made in AH 5.3.2 and AH 5.7.1-2
164
including: Isa 25:8, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts 2:17, 1 Cor 15:22, 1 Cor 15:45-46, and Gal
1:15-16.105
In the opening paragraph of AH 5.12.1, Irenaeus sets up the contrasting
natures of life and death. While death, he reasons, has the power to overtake the
human and drive life away, life bestowed by the Spirit must also posses the power to
overcome death and restore the human to life with God (Rom 6:11). Irenaeus finds
this idea taught in Isa 25:8 where the reality of death’s champion over life gives way
to the eschatological life of God that swallows up death and wipes away every tear
and sorrow.106 Commenting on this passage, Irenaeus offers the principal contrast
between the temporal life and the eternal life. The former life was given by the
breath of God (Gen 2:7), while eternal life is given by the Spirit. This distinction
raises the question of the nature and quality of life in both economic stages. If the
former life was expelled by death how can the faithful be certain that the eternal
life will not be subject to the same influence of mortality? The distinction between
the present life and the resurrected life is transition from a weaker imperfect
condition of life to a stronger perfected condition of life. 107 There is no qualitative
difference in the temporal life and the eternal life; the difference is the quantitative
degree of life.108 Both the former life of Adam and the glorified life of Christ are
sourced in the Spirit, but Adam was only recently created and the life given by the
breath was imperfect and undeveloped. For this reason it was easy for death to
overtake the weak portion of the Spirit given to Adam, in contrast to the vigorous
life given by the Spirit under the New Covenant cannot be subject to the power of
sin and death.
This quantitative distinction of the Spirit, for Irenaeus, establishes an
exegetical contrast between the breath of life that animated Adam in Gen 2:7, with
the vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 that causes the human to become spiritual. The
ephemeral life given by the breath to Adam, gives way to the spiritual life bestowed
by the Spirit through Christ. Irenaeus’ union of Genesis and Paul is confirmed with
reference to Isaiah. Citing Isa 42:5, the same God who fashioned the earth also
imparted breath to all and the Spirit to those who walk upon the earth. He
105
cf. AH 5.18.1-2.
The verb κατεπίνω (devoro) in Isa 25:8 LXX is the same term Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:54 and 2 Cor 5:4.
107
Behr, Asceticism, 95-6; See AH 2.34.3-4; AH 5.3.3.
108
Orbe, Teología V.1, 532-3.
106
165
distinguishes between the collective nature of the breath that is imparted to all
people, and the Spirit given only to those “who walk upon it [the earth]” (qui calcant
illam). All humanity has inherited the “earth” (terra), that is the substance God uses
in Gen 2:7 to fashion Adam, but now only those who have received the Spirit have
sufficiently overcome or “tread down their earthly desires” (inculcant terrenas
concupiscentias).109 Likewise, in Isa 57:16 the breath is “common throughout
creation” (communiter in conditione) as a part of the creative work and, therefore,
ephemeral and vulnerable.110 The Spirit, on the other hand, is consubstantial with
God, and proceeds outward from God (Acts 2:17) remaining permanently in its place
within the human form.111
Continuing the contrast between the breath and the Spirit, Irenaeus applies
the Adam-Christ typology of 1 Cor 15:45-6 to reinforce the salvific and economic
trajectory of this relationship. He employs Adam and Christ as paradigms for the
qualitative distinction between the breath in Gen 2:7 and vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor
15:45.112 The breath of life given to Adam (and by extension to all humanity) is
provisional and temporary, abandoning the body after death. The Spirit, which
follows after the breath, is eternal and permanent. Following the logic of 1 Cor
15:45, the first Adam is animated or rational, while the second Adam is spiritual.
Contrary to the Gnostic sensibilities, the spiritual does not precede the rational
(humanly speaking); the progression moves from the breath to the Spirit, or the
animal to the spiritual. The need for the Spirit was introduced because the one who
was made a “living soul” (animam) in Gen 2:7 forfeited his life though
disobedience.113 Elsewhere Irenaeus has argued in Epid 15 that had Adam and Eve
been obedient to God’s command they would have remained immortal. As a result
the animating breath lost its strength and requires the vivification of the Spirit
through adoption.114 Those who do not possess the Spirit of God by adoption retain
only the breath of life. The distinction turns upon each person’s “receptive
capacity” for the animating breath of life, which is temporal and mortal, or the
109
AH 5.12.2.
Behr, Asceticism, 105-6.
111
Orbe, Teología V.1, 541-2.
112
Ibid., 535.
113
AH 5.12.2.
114
Behr, Asceticism, 106-7.
110
166
vivifying Spirit, that is eternal and immortal.115 Behr also reminds us that there are
not two sources of life, but one and only one life-giving Spirit who imparts the
breath of God in Gen 2:7 and is poured out in fullness upon the faithful (Acts 2:17).
Irenaeus’ interpretation of the breath of life in Gen 2:7 is only properly understood
within the economy of salvation and the vivifying Spirit of 1 Cor 15:45.
In AH 5.12.3-6 Irenaeus bolsters this anthropological argument by
establishing the economic continuity and discontinuity between the breath of life in
Gen 2:7 and the vivifying Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45. In AH 5.12.3 he notes for the strict
continuity in the substance of the flesh that receives life. Although there are two
modalities or degrees of life, one temporal and the other eternal, there is only one
substance of the flesh partaking of both degrees of life. The same substance that
dies and dissolves back into the earth (Gen 3:19) is the same substance that receives
the vivifying Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).116 Whereas the same lost sheep is the one that is
found (Luke 15:4-6), the same body of Christ that experiences corruption is raised to
new life in the Spirit. For this reason, just as there is solidarity with Adam in death,
so also is there solidarity with Christ in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:22).
This soteriological tension between solidarity with Adam in death and
solidarity with Christ in life (1Cor 15:22) is supported by a series of Pauline texts (Col
3:5, Col 3:9-10, and Phil 1:22) and an allusion to Gen 1:26. The transition from one
degree of life to the other happens by setting aside not the substance of the flesh,
contrary to the Valentinians, but the lusts (concupiscentias) of the flesh (Col 3:5). This
is, for Irenaeus, the “old man” (veterem hominem, Col 3:9), or the former way of life
(pristinae… conversationis), not the “ancient formation” (veterem… plasationem, Gen
2:7) that was fashioned from the earth, because to live in the flesh is the work of the
Spirit (Phil 1:22).117 Instead, those who desire solidarity in Christ’s resurrection must
put on the “new man” (novum hominem) who is being renewed through the true
knowledge of God and conformed to the image of the Creator (Col 3:10). Connected
through parallel imagery, Irenaeus interprets Paul’s reference to the “image of the
Creator” (imaginem conditoris) as confirmation of the fulfillment of God’s intention
115
Ibid., 107.
AH 5.12.3.
117
AH 5.12.4. The pejorative use of the Pauline imagery veterem hominem should not be confused with
the frequent positive portrayal the antiquam plasmationem that is the physical substance of Adam’s
body. Orbe, Teología V.1, 87.
116
167
for humanity to be made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).118 This new
man of Col 3:9 is, for Irenaeus, the recapitulation of the same one created in the
beginning to partake of the divine life.
In the closing sections of AH 5.12.5-6, we find two more echoes of the
original formation of the flesh in Gen 2:7. Given the soteriological orientation of this
section, the substance of the flesh continues to be linking imagery that threads
together his arguments and texts. In the same manner as others, Paul was born of a
woman (Gal 1:15-16) and received “ancient substance of flesh” (antiqua carnis
substantia, Gen 2:7). Later he persecuted the church until he had direct converse
with the Lord, then he preached the gospel in the flesh.119 In the same manner as the
Pauline old man/new man dialectic (Col 3:9-10), the very life of Paul reveals a
continuity of substance before and after conversion.120
The conversion of Paul is theologically analogous to Christ’s miraculous
healing accounts in the gospels, because they both exemplify a transition from the
temporal life to eternal life in the Spirit. He argues that those who received physical
restoration at the hands of Christ, who formed Adam in the beginning (ab initio
plasmavit hominem), did so in the same substance of the flesh. The various parts of
the body such as the eyes or the hands were not taken from a different substance,
but retained the nature of their original form in a healthy condition. However,
distinguishing between the particular and the universal, healing the particular
members of the body typifies the universal restoration of the whole body in Christ,
who confers life upon every portion of the flesh. There is no part or member that
does not experience incorruption and life as one integrated whole. Therefore, the
same one who created and organized the human form in the beginning is the same
one who confers life upon his handiwork in the end.
6.11 AH 5.14.1-2: The Reconciling Flesh of Christ (Gen 2:7)
This section brings closure to Irenaeus’ extended reflection on 1 Cor 15:50.121 While
the Valentinians believe this Pauline language obviously refutes a bodily
resurrection, Irenaeus builds his case for the salus carnis through a series of
118
AH 5.12.4.
cf. AH 3.12.9.
120
Orbe, Teología V.1, 586.
121
Olson, Irenaeus. For the Valentinian reading of 1 Cor 15:50 see Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, 85-86.
119
168
intertextual networks (especially Pauline) oriented around the interrelated
scriptural imagery that continually draw in Gen 1-3. In AH 5.13.2, Irenaeus divulges
what he perceives as the exegetical root of the problem.122 According to Irenaeus,
the Valentinians interpret the two terms, “flesh” (caro) and “blood” (sanguis),
without respect for Paul’s intended meaning and neglect to scrutinize the actual
force (virtutem) of the terms themselves. Instead, they examine the merely the
“terms themselves” (ipsas dictiones), apart from any association the rest of
scripture.123 As an illustration he compares the Valentinian exegesis of 1Cor 15:50 to
an amateur wrestler who, with only single move, latches on to one part (unam partem)
of his opponents body.124 With a combination of moves, his adversary has no trouble
overcoming the inexperienced wrestler. Nevertheless, conquered wrestler
continues to maintain his grasp on the one part of his opponent’s body and, to the
amusement of all the spectators, declare victory. In the same way, the Valentinians
refuse to consider the meaning of parallel imagery found throughout the Pauline
corpus and ignore the way this imagery participates in the history of salvation.125 By
separating terms from their natural Pauline context, they force the apostle into
contradiction.126 Even the description of the mortal assuming immortality in the
immediate context of 1 Cor 15:54 communicates, according to Irenaeus, the
salvation of the flesh. As a result, by neglecting the true understanding of one
passage (1 Cor 15:50) they misunderstand a multitude of others.127
Considering the nature of Irenaeus’ exegetical concerns and the tissue of
Pauline passages using “flesh” (caro) and “blood” (sanguis) he argues Paul cannot
intend to devalue the flesh because elsewhere these terms are essential for
defending Christ’s human nature and the salvation of flesh.128 In both cases, the
nature of the flesh in Gen 2:7 occupies a formative role. First, Irenaeus reasons that
the blood of the righteous must be required otherwise the Lord would not have
spilled blood. From Abel (Gen 4:10), to Noah (Gen 9:5-6), to Christ (Matt 23:35), the
blood of the righteous has always been required. These three passages necessitate
122
AH 5.13.2.
AH 5.13.2; Orbe, Teología V.1, 618-9.
124
AH 5.13.2; cf. AH 5.14.4.
125
He provides a number of examples throughout AH 5.13.3-4 including: Phil 3:20-21, 2 Cor 5:4, 1 Cor
6:20, 2 Cor 4:10-11, 2 Cor 3:3, Phil 3:10-11, 1 Cor 15:13-21, 32.
126
AH 5.13.3,5.
127
AH 5.13.5.
128
Donovan, One Right Reading?, 150.
123
169
that Christ, receiving the same flesh and blood as the original formation of Adam
(Gen 2:7), recapitulated the shedding of the righteous blood in his own person and
redeemed what was lost in Adam.129
Second, against any notion of docetic Christology, Irenaeus argues that flesh
requires salvation otherwise the Incarnation would be pointless. Using Gen 2:7 to
interpret the language of flesh in 1 Cor 15:50, Irenaeus designates flesh as the very
substance created from the dust. If life in the body required a different substance
then, Irenaeus reasons, the Father would have moulded Adam from some other
substance. However, as Gen 2:7 illustrates, God moulded the man from the dust of
the earth and, after he became disobedient, the entire economy of salvation
converged upon the advent of the Lord, when he assumed the same flesh and blood.
In the words of D’Alès, he was “chair de notre chair.”130 In the incarnation he sought
out the same substance that has perished (Luke 19:10) and recapitulated in himself
the very same flesh and blood, in order to redeem the body of flesh (Col 1:21-22)
that was under bondage to sin and bring it into friendship and concord with God.131
Wingren expresses this essential connection saying, “Sin is never in itself anything
human, but on the contrary is the Devil’s destruction of man as God made him.”132
Through the rest of the chapter, Irenaeus argues for consistent correlation between
the flesh and blood of the first and second Adam through a series of texts.133 In the
end he concludes, contra the Valentinians, that flesh and blood in 1 Cor 15:50 should
not be interpreted properly (non proprie), but metaphorically (and intertextually) as
referring to the carnal works of the flesh that deprived humankind of life in the
beginning.134
6.12 A H 5: 15.2-16.2: Creation, Resurrection and the Healing of the Blind Man
To this point in Irenaeus intertextual argumentation, we have witnessed a rigorous
defense of bodily resurrection from a copious amount of New Testament (especially
Pauline) passages. In AH 5.15.1, Irenaeus broadens his approach in order to unify the
129
Orbe, Teología V.1, 661-2; cf. Gen 3:6.
D’ Alès, “La doctrine de la récapitulationen Saint Irénée.” RSR 6 (1916): 185–211, 193.
131
AH 4.14.2.
132
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 86-87.
133
He alludes to Rom 6:6, Rom 6:12-13, Rom 6:19, Rom 7:5, 1 Cor 15:50, Eph 1:7, Eph 2:13, 14-15, Col
1:22, Col 2:19, and 1 Pet 2:22.
134
AH 4.14.4.
130
170
purpose of God, Creator and Father, throughout the divine economy. The
resurrection taught in the New Testament is not, as it were, an innovation, but
supported by prophetic testimony.135 The God of the Old Testament has, according
to Irenaeus, repeatedly promised the resurrection from the dead and immortality
for the faithful. This intra-testamental focus paves the way for Irenaeus’ reflection
on a series of three events from Christ’s life that epitomize the narrative of
salvation. The first of these is an extended commentary spanning AH 5.15.2-16.2 on
the healing of the blind man in John 9:1-7 that he reads in continuity with the
formation of Adam from the dust in Gen 2:7.136 In essence, Irenaeus interprets Jesus
miraculous act as a pedagogical illustration revealing the personal
interrelationships between the Christ and the creative Word of God and between
the Word of God and the Father/Creator. It also confirms the resurrection and
immortality for those who are destined for corruption.137 As he binds together these
poles of the Son’s mediating creative activity, he draws together a myriad of passage
that support his reading of Genesis and John.
6.12.1 AH 5.15.2: The Work of God and the Formation of Humanity (Gen 2:7)
The argument of AH 5.15.2 advocates that John 9:1-7 reveals Christ as the Word of
God who mediates the creative purposes of God the Creator and Father. Christ
revealed the Creator and Father to humankind, in order to pacify those whom,
driven by confusion or madness, might abandon the true God. He does so by
showing his disciples that he is the same one who, following the command of his
Father, moulded Adam from the dust and breathed into him the breath of life (Gen
2:7). However, not all of Christ’s miracles are transmitted in the same manner.
There is a distinctive subtlety to this healing account in John 9:1-7 that lies in the
mode of communication and the origin of the infirmity.138 In most cases, Christ
healed by means of a word (sermonem) because this manner of healing is sufficient
for all infirmities that derive from sin.139 He points to the healing of the lame man at
135
Orbe, Teología V.2, 5. In AH 5.15.1 he cites Isa 26:19, Isa 66:13-14,22, Ezek 37:1-10,12-14 and Rom 8:11.
The commentary on the crucifixion comprises AH 5.16.3-20.2, while the temptation account spans
AH 5.21.1-24.4.
137
Orbe, Teología V.2, 24.
138
Orbe, Teología V.2, 27-8.
139
AH 5.15.2. Steenberg asserts this section denies the imputation of guilt from one generation to the
next, but the language “sin of disobedience” (inobaudientiae peccatum) is singular, while “infirmities”
(languores) is plural. This implies some type a relational inheritance between the original
136
171
Bethesda where Christ’s conversation with the man exposes sin as the origin of his
affliction (John 5:1-15). After Jesus tells the man to get up and walk, he implores him
to abstain from sin so that nothing worse comes upon him. For those born with
physical abnormalities or imperfections, Christ heals by means of a work
(operationem). The physical restoration of the body requires the immediacy and
labor of the creative Word.140 The miracle of John 9 exemplifies the latter case. The
poor beggar who was born blind (John 9:1-2) received healing, not by means of a
spoken word, but by means of the work of a hand because his deformity was not the
result of personal sin. His remedial actions reveal himself to be the same “Hand of
God” (manum Dei) forming Adam from the dust in Gen 2:7.141
Christ’s intent to reveal himself as the Creator in Genesis is, for Irenaeus,
evident from the opening query of the disciples. They ask Christ to explain the
origin of the man’s blindness (John 9:2), to which he responds that personal sin was
not the issue (contrary to lame man at Bethesda), but the purpose of his blindness
was to manifest in him the “works of God” (opera Dei, John 9:3).142 From this key
phrase in John 9:3 Irenaeus derives what may be one of his most essential axioms. In
a declarative manner, Irenaeus writes: “Now the work of God is the fashioning of
humankind” (Opera autem Dei plasmatio est hominis).143 Behr calls this statement the
“basic structure of Irenaeus’ thought.”144 By all appearances, the “works of God” do
not include the works fashioned on the other days of creation, nor does it include
angels.145 The designation “work(s) of God” is reserved solely for the shaping and
forming of human nature. To speak of the “works” (opera) of God in the plural or the
singular (opus) makes no difference, because the plural has a collective sense
sourced in the singular aspect of God’s creative activity.146 The foremost
demonstration of this theological axiom is, of course, Gen 2:7, which details the
“process” (operationem) of God’s creative agenda: “And the Lord took dust from the
transgressor and the sins committed in subsequent generations, but Irenaeus is not explicit enough
to draw any definitive conclusions. Steenberg also points to AH 4.27.2-3 and AH 4.33.2, but there is
even less in these sections to support this claim. Steenberg, Of God and Man, 46 n. 72.
140
AH 5.15.2.
141
AH 5.15.2.
142
AH 5.15.2. This point gives more support to Steenberg’s thesis on the anthropological focus of
creation in Irenaeus.
143
AH 5.15.2.
144
Behr, Asceticism, 116.
145
Orbe, Teología V.2, 37.
146
For the interchange of the plural opera and the singular opus see AH 4.32.2; Orbe, Teología V.2, 37.
172
earth and formed man” (Et sumpsit Dominus limum de terra, et plasmavit hominem).147
In the same way, when the Jesus chooses to restore the blind man’s eyes he repeats
the same process of creation: “and the Lord spat on the ground and made clay and
smeared it on the blind man’s eyes” (Dominus expuit in terram et fecit lutum et
superlinivit illud oculis, John 9:6).148 The corresponding accounts (Gen 2:7 and John
9:3) are linked through the “earth” (terra) imagery, including “dust” (limum) and
“clay” (lutum), the procedural use of the “hand” (manus) and, although he does not
make the connection explicit, the moisture of the spittle could match the rain in
Gen 2:5 that waters the ground prior to Adam’s formation. For Irenaeus, Gen 2:7
forms a functional paradigm for God’s anthropological purposes and, though a
series of conceptual links, follows this pattern stringently.
The repetition of process also points to the parallel identity of the divine
“artist” (artifex) in both accounts. Irenaeus states very clearly that Jesus’ intention
was to point out his role to the original creation of Adam and manifest the “Hand of
God” (manum Dei manifestans) that performed the work of creation. The “hand of
God,” as we have said, is a common Irenaeus’ analogy and, in reference to the hand
of Jesus that healed the blind man, serves as a metonym for the person of the Word.
This connection between Christ and the Word, as Irenaeus acknowledges, is not
purely straightforward. There is some economic discontinuity between Gen 2:7 and
John 9:6. In the first account, Adam knew God and held converse with the Word, but
the connection between Jesus and the Creator in Gen 2:7 requires faith and
“understanding” (intellege).149 Irenaeus believes Jesus desires to keep his disciples
from seeking after another hand that fashioned Adam (Luke 19:10). He even
suggests that the Word of God omitted to form the eyes in the womb, or in secret, so
that he could manifest his creative identity in public (John 9:3,6). The public
demonstration was a pedagogical and revelatory necessity because, while he formed
Adam visibly, he forms all others invisibly in the womb. Only by an outward action
could Jesus show that he is the one who both formed Adam and all his posterity.
This also indicates that the Word is capable of restoring all other physical
abnormalities and redeeming the corrupt human nature that was lost in Adam. The
147
AH 5.15.2. The exchange of Deus for Dominius, reflects the influence of the Gospel account upon his
reading of Gen 2:7.
148
AH 5.15.3.
149
Orbe, Teología V.2, 41; cf. AH 5.16.2.
173
particular healing of the blind man becomes its own paradigm for the restoration of
humanity in general. Christ came to seek out “lost” (perditos, Luke 19:10).150 The lost
sheep in Luke 15:4-6 represent humanity crippled by sin, but through his creative
powers that span the entire trajectory of the divine economy, Christ is able to hoist
the sheep of humanity upon his shoulders and restore it to the fold of life.
6.13.1 AH 5.15.3: Christ the Creator (Gen 2:7)
Against his Valentinian opponents, Irenaeus has made every effort to link the
creative Word with the person of Christ through the corresponding accounts of Gen
2:7 and John 9:1-7.151 Now, in order to seal his argument, he must link the visible
Word of God with the Father of Jesus. Without both of these arguments, Irenaeus
fails to unify the divine activity in both Testaments.152 Continuing his reflection on
the fetal development of the blind man in John 9:3, Irenaeus makes the general
assertion: “Now the Word of God forms us in the womb” (in ventre plasmat nos
Verbum Dei). This in vitro imagery calls to mind the formation of the prophet
Jeremiah in the “womb” (vulva) in Jer 1:5 and Apostle Paul’s formation in the
“womb” (utero) in Gal 1:15.153 The one who formed the blind man in the womb (John
9:3) is the same one who formed Jeremiah and Paul in the womb and, when set in
continuity, they reveal the identity of the one who formed Adam in the beginning.
Throughout the entire divine economy, including the prophets, apostles and all
others, the same God forms humankind in the womb. In this line of argument he
identifies the healing of the eyes as synecdoche for the formation of the whole
person. Even though the Word fashions all humanity from beginning to end, the
original decision to form the man was the will of the Father.154 The creative activity
of the Word was not motivated by an independent agenda, but a direct fulfillment of
the command of the Father established in the beginning. 155
Finally, similar to the function of the Lukan parable of the lost sheep,
Irenaeus closes AH 5.15.3 with a reference to the restoration of the body by means of
the “washing of regeneration” (lavacro regenerationis, Titus 3:5). Through the
150
This connection is similar to what we found in AH 5.14.2 with the allusion to Luke 19:10, only in
the present case he combines this passage with the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:4-6.
151
cf. AH 5.15.4.
152
Orbe, Teología V.2, 24.
153
AH 5.15.3; See Jer 1:5 in Epid 43.
154
AH 5.15.3; cf. Gen 1:26.
155
AH 5.15.3.
174
transgression of Adam, his formation had become subject to corruption and
mortality (Gen 3:6).156 In the context Irenaeus does not mention baptism, but instead
simply refers to the Lord’s command to the man to go and wash in the pool of
Siloam (John 9:7).157 While there may be baptismal implications from his connection,
what is clear is that the washing serves to restore the man’s sight. His sight,
moreover, is reflective of his new understanding (cognosceret, cf. John 9:37-38). By
means of Christ’s revelatory act the one who healed his eyes is the same Word of the
Father who created Adam from the dust of the earth.
6.12.2 AH 5.15.4: The Consistency of Creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:8-9)
In terms of Valentinian theology, Irenaeus uses the correlation of the healing of the
blind man in John 9:1-7 and Gen 1-3 to challenge them on two points.158 First, he
argues the Valentinians reject Adam’s formation from the earth and claim that he
was formed from a kind of fluid matter.159 If the blind man’s eyes were formed from
the substance of the earth (John 9:3), but his body from a different substance,
Irenaeus reasons, the substance of their eyes would be incompatible with the
substance of the body. Logically, Irenaeus asserts, if the eyes of the blind man were
formed from the earth (John 9:6), naturally the substance of the flesh is also from
the earth (Gen 2:7). Second, the compatibility of substance also points to the
consistency of the Creator. It is contradictory if the Savior, who is spiritual,
fashioned the eyes in the Gospels, but the Demiurge, who is animal, fashioned the
body. For Irenaeus the very same Word of God, who fashioned Adam from the dust
of the earth (Gen 2:7), at the Father’s command (Gen 1:26), became incarnate in the
person of Christ and refashioned the eyes of the blind man (John 9:6).
In a move to explain what he perceives as the second exegetical fallacy, he
locates continuity with the divine discourse of the Father proclaiming, “Let Us
make” (Faciamus) in Gen 1:26, and he brings to the surface the other analogous
dialogical aspects of each account.160 Following their disobedience, Adam and Eve
were overcome by shame and fear and hid themselves from the presence of the
156
This is a clear echo of Adam’s transgression in Gen 3:6, though it is not noted by BP or SC. Orbe,
Teología V.2, 58-9.
157
For a discussion on baptismal regeneration in Irenaeus see Orbe, Teología V.2, 57.
158
Orbe, Teología V.2, 63.
159
AH 5.15.4; cf. AH 1.5.5.
160
AH 5.15.4.
175
Lord (Gen 3:8). In Gen 3:9 the Lord, walking in Garden in the evening, calls to Adam,
“Where are you?” (Ubi es) seeking out his creature that was cowering behind a grove
of trees.161 According to Irenaeus, the central aspects of the Lord’s response of Adam
in Gen 3:7-9, sin, concealment, and dialogue, function as prophecies of Christ’s
actions in John 9 when he healed the man born blind.162 Just as Adam and Eve
concealed themselves behind the trees in the Garden, so also does the Lord come to
people blinded by disobedience. In Irenaeus’ view, the work (opera) of the Lord lay
hidden and people were unaware of the true Creator.163 The healing of the blind
man, however, brought to light the work of God (John 9:3, 6) and reminded all of
God’s creative purposes. Irenaeus also parallels the Lord walking in the “evening”
(vespere, Gen 3:8), with Christ’s incarnation coming in the waning years of history,
or the “last times” (novissimis temporibus), to offer salvation.164 Finally, just as the
Lord, looking for Adam and Eve, called out to them, by means of the same voice
(eadem vocem) the Lord call out in search of Adam’s posterity. When he conversed
with the blind man and restored his sight, Christ revealed himself to be the creative
Word of the Father that fashions humanity from beginning to end.165 We find in the
next paragraph that the Word in Gen 3:9 and John 9 is not speaking on his own, but
proclaiming the words of the Father.166 Throughout the divine economy, the same
Father who commanded the Son and the Spirit to perform the work of creation (Gen
1:26) is conversing with his creatures by means of the Word, drawing them back to
the divine likeness. Thus, for Irenaeus, the logical inconsistency in the creative
beings of the Valentinian system is a contrast with the uniformity of the creation
accounts in Genesis and John.
6.12.3 AH 5.16.1: Bod ies Made of Earth (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19)
In the previous section Irenaeus proposed two logical inconsistencies in the
Valentinian system. The first is the incompatibility of creative substances and the
161
AH 5.15.4.
AH 5.15.4. Irenaeus refers to Gen 3:6-9 as scripture “signifying what would be” (significans quod
futurum erat).
163
cf. AH 5.15.2-3.
164
AH 5.15.4.
165
AH 5.15.4. It is not exactly clear which text Irenaeus has in mind when he alludes to Christ’s
speaking in John 9. The first time Christ speaks to the man is in John 9:7. But Irenaeus could be
alluding to the people’s questioning of Jesus’ whereabouts in John 9:12 as a connection to the
questioning of Adam and Eve’s whereabouts in Gen 3:9. The other possibility is that Irenaeus is think
of the conversation that Jesus has with the blind man after his trial in John 9:35-41.
166
AH 5.16.1.
162
176
second is the inconsistency in creative beings. The latter was taken up in more
detail in the preceding discussion, while the former directs the focus of the present
section. Now Irenaeus argues from the perspective of Adam’s death and, citing Gen
3:19, he notes that when humans die their bodies return to the substance of the
earth. If bodies return to earth then it is reasonable to conclude they have their
substance from the earth. The substance of body that dissolves back into the earth
(Gen 3:19) is, therefore, the same substance from which the body was created (Gen
2:7). He reiterates that this same substance Christ used to fashion the blind man’s
eyes in John 9:6. Therefore, throughout the divine economy, from Genesis to John,
the same Word of God, who is always present with his creation, continually fashions
humankind from the same substance at the command of the one and same God and
Father. Summarizing the anthropological conclusions drawn from the intertextual
reading of Gen 2:7 and John 9:6, Irenaeus deduces that their must be only one God
who “from the beginning even to the end forms us and prepares us for life, and is
present with his handiwork, and perfects it after the image and likeness of God
(quae ab initio usque ad finem format nos et coaptat in vitam et adest plasmati suo et perficit
illud secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei).”167
6.12.4 AH 5.16.2: Christ, the Spirit, and the Image and Likeness (Gen 1:26,
Gen 2:7)
In correspondence to the closing allusion to Gen 1:26 in the previous section,
Irenaeus transitions to a discussion of the imago dei (AH 5.16.2) and the
recapitulatory nature of Christ’s passion (AH 5.16.3). Throughout the dispensation of
the Old Testament, the faithful knew that humanity was made after the image and
likeness of God, but the one made in the image of God had offended God though
disobedience. As a result, the true image remained hidden and invisible.168 In the
first instance, Irenaeus’ offers two implications of the revelation of the image of God
in Christ.169 First, he revealed the true form of the perfect man made in the image of
God (Gen 1:26). The Incarnation manifested clearly the fulfillment of God’s
command in Gen 1:26. God the Father had proclaimed that humankind would be
made in the image and likeness of God, but as salvation history began to unravel the
167
AH 5.16.1.
Although he does not make this point explicitly it seems the blindness of the man in John 9 could
be part of this argument for the invisibility of the image.
169
Orbe, Teología V.2, 87.
168
177
fulfillment God’s original command was not visible until the Word of God, the Image
of God, became flesh (John 1:14). The relation of the imago dei to the corporeal flesh
has long been recognized, and more than one scholar has rightly suggested that
Irenaeus distinguishes between the image and likeness. However, these studies all
too often continue to bracket out his anthropology from the rest of his theological
and exegetical discussions.170 Brunner, for example, distinguishes between the
anthropological applications of image and likeness and locates the “image” in
human rationality, but neglects the broader theological contours of Irenaeus’
thought. Irenaeus’ evaluation of the economic harmony of the creation in the image
and likeness in Gen 1:26 and with the Incarnation in John 1:14 forms a complex
understanding of the Imago Dei. Fantino’s extensive study of image of God in
Irenaeus remains the most developed study of these terms. Fantino makes the
distinction in the interpretation of similitudo as a translation of ὁμοίωσις or
ὁμοιότης.171 The former he characterizes as the soteriological work of the Spirit that
leads the human person incrementally toward the perfection of the divine likeness.
The latter is an anthropological category that comprises the human likeness to God
manifested in freedom or rationality. This thesis, however, remains preliminary
without original copies of Irenaeus’ work. Orbe, on the other hand, published his
volume just one year later, offers some penetrating commentary on the
interconnections of image and likeness in this section that has received surprisingly
little attention, even though his summary is textually and theologically persuasive.
He argues that Irenaeus speaks of the Image of God in two senses, the Image
(personal) and the Image (substantial).172 The distinction is not located in identity
but in visibility; that is, the invisibility or visibility of the Image within the timing of
the divine economy. The Image (personal), the Word of God, was with the Father at
creation and throughout the dispensation of the Old Testament. The Image
(substantial) communicates the knowledge of the transcendent Father as visible and
sensible. When Adam was created in image and likeness of God he was created by
means of the Image (personal), the Word of God the Father, and set on a
soteriological trajectory toward the Image (substantial), the Word-incarnate. This is
170
Fantino, L’homme, 83; Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God,” 294. Meijering, searching for elements
of neo-platonic background, contrasts this view with Plotinus’ understanding of the image of God.
Meijering, “God Cosmos History,” 262; cf. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 125 n. 82; Minns, Irenaeus, 74.
171
Fantino, L’homme, 117-8.
172
Orbe, Teología V.2, 92-3.
178
what Irenaeus means when he writes that it was “said” (dicebatur) that humankind
was created in the image and likeness of God, referring to the divine command in
Gen 1:26, but it was not “revealed” (ostendebatur), precisely because the “Word was
invisible” (invisibile erat Verbum) in creation and throughout the dispensation of the
Old Covenant.173 When the Image of God became incarnate (John 1:14), or the Image
(substantial), “indeed image was truly revealed” (imaginem enim ostendit verum). The
invisible Image of God became the visible and sensible Image of God, assuming the
very nature of the creature that was “his own image” (imago ejus).174 Of course, the
Image (substantial), the resurrected glorified Christ, is also the exemplar of the true
Image of God and reflects the destiny of the faithful, who are gradually being
assimilated to this Image.175 Thus, Irenaeus can speak about the image of God with
reference to the flesh because humanity was created in anticipation of the
Incarnation, or the Image (substantial) and the future communion of the Word of
God with the flesh. In this way the texts of John 1:14 and Gen 1:26 are theologically
bound together in his understanding of the imago Dei.
Second, Irenaeus tells us that the Image (substantial) established the
likeness.176 If the Word is the personal Image of God, then it logically follows that
the Likeness is, in some sense, the Spirit of God.177 As with the Image, the Likeness,
or the Spirit of God, is linked with the physical and corporeal aspect of Adam and
essentially functions as the spiritual or divine quality tending the faithful
incrementally toward the true Image (substantial).178 As a result, the function of the
Likeness, or the Spirit, is to assimilate the corporeal nature of humanity to receive
the Image of God and prepare the faithful for the new life of the resurrection.
Irenaeus reminds us that in paradise, Adam did “easily lose the similitude”
(similitudinem facile amisit) after his disobedience (Gen 3:6). Orbe reasons that it was
easily lost because the Image (substantial) was invisible; Adam could not
comprehend what he would become and was easily dissuaded from this
173
AH 5.16.2. Note the both dicebatur and ostendebatur are in the singular referring specifically to
divine command in Gen 1:26 and the revelation of the incarnation in John 1:14.
174
AH 5.16.2.
175
Orbe, Teología V.2, 93-4.
176
There is debate about the reading of constituit in AH 5.16.2 Rousseau, following the Armenian,
replaces and uses restituit instead of constituit. SC 153.217. But I follow Orbe, who prefers constituit,
because there is no restoration (restituit) of the likeness until there is installation (constituit) of the
Spirit in the person of Christ. Orbe, Teología V.2, 103; See Donovan, One Right Reading?, 161 n. 3.
177
Minns, Irenaeus, 74.
178
AH 5.6.1; Orbe, Teología V.2, 94.
179
eschatological vision.179 Then, the image and likeness of God were lost. While the
Image of God (substantial) was preparing for the Incarnation, the humankind lost
the Spirit qualitatively, but not substantially.180 There is a slackening of the Spirit in
the loss of likeness, which is no longer able to sustain the human in life. In this case
the “likeness” lost in Adam but regained in Christ, is the “strength of the breath of
Life” that sustained Adam in his pre-lapsarian state.181 We have already evaluated
several discussions linking the breath with the Spirit and how the breath, which has
come from the Spirit, loses is strength after Adam and Eve’s disobedience. It is
incapable of sustaining their lives. There is, however, an economic distinction in the
“likeness” of God, where the likeness received though the Spirit at Pentecost is the
likeness that is qualitatively superior, because it is eternal and lasting.
6.13 AH 5.16.3: Christ’s Passion and Adam’s Disobedience (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6)
Continuing his efforts to link the work of Christ with the Word of God, in AH 5.16.3
Irenaeus offers a discussion of the passion of Christ in correspondence with the
disobedience of Adam. Through his passion, Christ undoes the effects of the
disobedience that transpired in the beginning at the “tree” (ligno, Gen 3:6). In
contrast to the disobedience of Adam (Gen 3:6), Irenaeus cites Phil 2:8 describing
how the second Adam was made obedient unto death. The catchword ligno combines
with the asymmetrical relationship of Adam and Christ’s actions toward God. The
Word of God was clear when he set fourth the command in the Garden not to eat of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Notably, Irenaeus uses the plural
inclusive “we offended in Adam” (Adam offendimus), when “he did not perform his
commandment” (non facientes ejus praeceptum), implying solidarity and culpability
with Adam in his sin. The solidarity is important because, in response, Irenaeus
describes how in the second Adam “we are reconciled” (reconciliati sumus, Rom 5:10)
to God and made obedient to death.182 These comparisons between the first and
second Adam, for Irenaeus, extend the economic parallelism between the work of
179
Orbe, Teología V.2, 97-8. If this is the case this need to be synthesized with Irenaeus’ view of Adam’s
pre-lapsarian immaturity. Minns, Irenaeus, 73.
180
Orbe, Teología V.2, 96-7.
181
Behr, Asceticism, 114-5.
182
BP and SC do not mention this allusion, but Orbe identifies the allusion. Orbe, Teología V.2, 115; cf.
Rom 5:19.
180
Christ in the Gospels and the Word of God in Gen 1-3 and solidify the theological
coherence of the activity of one God, who is Creator and Father.
6.14 AH 5.17.1-4: Restoration and Friendship at the Tree
Locating the economic harmony in the nature of God has been to this point an
important part of Irenaeus’ flow and argumentation. In AH 5.17.1-2, he continues his
reflection on the identity of God with respect to the divine activities in Gen 1-3 and
the Gospels. While the Valentinians distinguish the Demiurge from the Father
Bythus, Irenaeus finds unity and continuity in the activity of one God and Father
throughout both Testaments.
6.14.1 AH 5.17. 1-2: Restoration and Friendship with God (Gen 2:17, Gen 3: 8)
The Son of God, for Irenaeus, is known by many titles. He is the love of the Father,
the Lord with power, and the wise Maker and Fashioner.183 These names do not
reflect, contrary to his Valentinian opponents, different beings, but all of these
names speak of the activity of the same divine being working throughout the
history of salvation. The combination of the Word as the wise “Maker and
Fashioner” (Factor et Plasmator) refers to the general proclamation to make
humankind (Gen 1:26) and the gentle forming of Adam from the delicate earth (Gen
2:7).184 The titles, Factor and Plasmator (Ποιητὴς, Πλάστης) mirror the verbs in the
Septuagint: Ποιήσωμεν (Gen 1:26) and ἐπλασεν (Gen 2:7).
However, this God who designed humankind also established the command
to abstain from eating of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17). Having transgressed this
command in Adam (Gen 3:6), all humanity has become an enemy of the Creator.
According to Irenaeus, we know the Word of God gave this command because his
presence is perceivable in Gen 3:8: “Adam heard the voice of the Lord God”
(Audivit... Adam vocem Domini Dei). The appeal to Gen 3:8, in this instance, seems an
odd choice especially since the Lord clearly gives the command in Gen 2:17.
Nonetheless, in the bishop’s reasoning, the vocem of Gen 3:8 is an analogy for the
Verbum of God.185 The personal “voice” (vocem) of God is the “Word” (Verbum) of God
who manifests the commands of the Father. Referring to the healing of the paralytic
183
AH 5.17.1.
Orbe, Teología V.2, 124.
185
Orbe, Teología V.2, 142. For similar parallels between vocem and Verbum see Epid. 12 and AH 5.15.4.
184
181
in Luke 5:24, he terms Christ the “Voice of God” (Vox Dei), who proclaimed the
commands of God (Gen 2:17). In Adam, humanity transgressed the commands and,
extending the imagery of Luke 5:24, “paralysis” (paralysis) followed as a
consequence of Adam’s sin.
For this reason the same incarnate “Word” (Verbum) is able to proclaim the
forgiveness of sins in the Gospels (Matt 9:2).186 In the incarnation, the Word of God
became the mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5), thereby overturning
the disobedience that occurred at the tree. The Word of God, who proclaimed the
command of Gen 2:17 and the forgiveness of sins in Matt 9:2, did not speak of his
own will, but the will of his Father. He also proceeds to argue conversely that Christ
cannot forgive the sins of those he did not create. Forgiveness of Adam’s
disobedience is only possible if the one proclaiming forgiveness is the same one who
established the law of Gen 2:17 and against whom Adam sinned in Gen 3:6.
Irenaeus wants his reader to be clear that this God is not the same Father of
whom the Valentinians speak. While the Valentinians distinguish between the
Father and the Creator, Irenaeus asserts that in Gen 3:6 Adam sinned against same
Father who commanded not to eat of the tree in Gen 2:17.187 This is why, Irenaeus
concludes, the Lord taught the faithful to pray, “forgive us our debts” (nobis debita
nostra, Matt 6:12), because all humankind are the debtors of the Father for
transgressing the command of Gen 2:17.188 Implicitly he alludes to the Father as the
recipient of the prayer (Matt 6:9) in order to unite the activity of the Word of God
acting out the will of the Father throughout salvation history. He uses the
combination of “propitiating” (propitians) for the faithful and “canceling”
(consolatus) the debt of Adam’s sin. He also speaks of the true “remission”
(remissionem) of sin in the mediation of mercy through the Son (Luke 1:78).189
Through the combination of Incarnation and obedience, the incarnate Word of the
Father reestablishes communion with the “Creator” (Factorem) that was lost
through Adam’s disobedience and cancels the debt of Adam’s sin.
186
cf. Luke 5:20.
Orbe, Teología, V.2, 121.
188
AH 5.17.1. Osborn suggests that Irenaeus viewed the original sin in terms of “inherited guilt” But
Steenberg denies this claim. Osborn, Irenaeus, 218; see also AH 3.18.7 and AH 3.23.2.
189
AH 5.17.1.
187
182
6.14.2 AH 5.17.3-4: Disobedience and Restoration at the Tree (Gen 3:6)
The intertextual discussion of Adam’s disobedience (Gen 3:6) against the command
of God (Gen 2:17) and the activity of the Word incarnate continues in AH 5.17.3-4. As
we have seen, the healing of the paralytic and Christ’s proclamation of the
forgiveness of sins (Luke 5:24, Matt 9:2), alongside the petition for forgiveness of
debts in the Lord’s prayer, are supported references to the power of the Lord to
forgive sins in Psalm 31:1-2 LXX and cancellation of debts that are “assigned to the
cross” (addixit illud cruci) in Col 2:14. All of these passages, for Irenaeus, point to the
parallels between the disobedience of Adam at the tree in Gen 3:6 and the obedience
of Christ upon the tree of the cross. By means of a tree, all were made debtors to
God; so also by means of a tree is there forgiveness of sins.
The association of the tree of disobedience with the tree of the cross
continues in AH 5.17.4 with a variety of interrelated symbols of the cross. For
example, while cutting down trees in the construction of the tabernacle, the
disciples of Elisha negligently loose the axe head in the water (2 Kgs 6:1-7). So Elisha
threw “wood” (lignum) into the water and the axe head miraculously floated to the
surface. He interprets this recovery of the axe head allegorically as the recovery of
the Word of God who was “hidden” (absconditum) from humanity at the tree of
disobedience and found at the tree of the cross.190 Alongside the “wood” (lignum)
imagery, he uses the closely related imagery of an “axe” (securis) in Matt 3:10 and Jer
23:29. He also contemplates the four regions of the cross in Eph 3:18, and the
extended hands of Christ on the cross as the unification of the two people together
under the provision of one God (Eph 4:6).191 They are brought together under the
“head” (caput) of Christ whose death on the “wood” (lignum) recovers what by
means of a tree in Gen 3:6.
6.15 AH 5.19.1: The Dispensations of Adam and Christ (Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:8)
The theological and exegetical harmony between the dispensation of Adam’s
disobedience (Gen 3:1-6) and the dispensation of Christ persists in AH 5.19.1. The
heretics, Irenaeus argues, are ignorant of the integrated nature of these divine
190
AH 5.17.4.
cf. Epid 34. The imagery of the extended hands on the cross is attributed to an elder, which also
implies that this intertextual argumentation is partly received.
191
183
economies (dispositiones).192 In summary fashion, he points to several theological
intertextual connections, most of which we have seen elsewhere: the Creator
assuming the very flesh he created, Adam’s disobedience overturned by Christ’s
obedience, the Virgin Mary becoming an advocate for the virgin Eve, the sin of the
first-created (protoplasti) man undone by the first-begotten (primogeniti), the serpent
conquered by a dove (Matt 10:16), and humanity being freed from subjection to
death. Together these aspects serve to theologically harmonized dispensations of
Adam and Christ. All this imagery of recapitulation points to the loosening of the
“bonds” (alligati) that bind humanity to death. Thus, the centerpiece of this
interconnection is the crucifixion, where the invisible Word became incarnate for
the salvation of the world and was obedient unto death upon a cross.193
Of all these recapitulatory relationships, the Eve-Mary typology receives the
most attention. Corresponding Eve’s actions in paradise with the Annunciation,
Irenaeus focuses on the serpent that deceived the “virgin Eve” (virgo Eva, Gen 3:1-5)
in contrast to the truth proclaimed by the angel to the virgin Mary (Luke 1:30-35).
The former was led astray by the word of an angel and fled from the presence of
God (Gen 3:8), but the latter received angelic communication and was obedient.
Pointing to the aesthetic coherence between the obedience of Mary and the
disobedience of Eve, Irenaeus characterizes Mary as an “advocate” (advocata) for
Eve. As we have argued, the Eve-Mary typology serves to complement and
illuminate the intricacies of the Adam-Christ typology.194
The Eve-Mary typology is not the only theological connection driving the
correspondence between the dispensations of Adam and Christ. Echoing the
narrative of Gen 3:1-6, Irenaeus correlates the language of serpent in Matt 10:16 to
the activity of the serpent in paradise. He casts the “serpent” (serpentis) and the
“dove” (columbae) imagery of Matt 10:16 in a recapitulatory relationship where the
innocence of the dove overcomes the shrewdness of the serpent. Similarly, the sin
of the first-created man (protoplasti, Gen 2:7) was corrected (emendationem) by the
punishment (correptionem) of the first-begotten man (primogeniti, Luke 2:7). In this
context, we see clearly that, for Irenaeus, the peccatum of Adam in the Garden (Gen
3:6) is the object and basis for the atonement; Christ receives the punishment for
192
AH 5.19.2.
Orbe, Teología V.2, 256; Donovan, One Right Reading?, 157.
194
Orbe, Teología V.2, 256.
193
184
Adam’s sin. This action unties (resolutis) the bonds that bound Adam, and his
posterity, to death.195 Therefore, this mosaic of typological relationships drawn from
the imagery of Gen 3:1-6 are all interconnected and realized in the crucifixion of the
incarnate Word of God. The same Word, who created Adam, assumed the flesh of his
creation and was obedient unto death on the cross in order to correct the sin of
Adam’s disobedience.
6.16 A H 5.20.2: Flee to the Church and be Nourished by the Scriptures (Gen
2:8, Gen 2:16, Gen 2: 17)
This section contains a strong polemic where Irenaeus portrays the doctrines of the
heretics with the imagery of the blind leading the blind (Matt 15:14) and those who
incessantly seek after truth in vain (2 Tim 3:7). They deviate from the true path and
wonder down various unmarked roads, with the result that their opinions have no
agreement or connection (inconsonanter et inconsequenter).196 For the Bishop of Lyon,
the church, on the other hand, boasts the collective unity and agreement in
doctrine, grounded in the organized economic revelation of the Father, Son and
Spirit. He portrays the church with Edenic imagery and compares the seduction of
Adam and Eve with the contemporary actions of the heretics. Like Adam and Eve,
the faithful are in the midst of the “tree of Gnosis” and must withstand the
temptations of their seductive intellectual fruit.
For this reason, Irenaeus implores the faithful to seek refuge in the church to
be nourished by the scriptures. The nature of the Garden of Eden prefigures the
church, which becomes the manifestation of paradise in the present age.197 Orbe
points to the possible influence of Matt 15:13, where the unfaithful will be uprooted
like trees, which is likely given the reference to the blind leading the blind in the
immediate context (Matt 15:14).198 While the faithful are planted in the church, the
unfaithful will be uprooted and cast out. Elsewhere Irenaeus refers to the church as
a vineyard planted in Adam with his sons representing the trees.199 This imagery of
being “nourished” (enutriri) by the church corresponds to the imagery of “planting”
195
cf. AH 3.22.4.
AH 5.20.1.
197
Behr, Asceticism, 66; see also the discussion of the church as the locus of the Spirit in AH 3.24.1.
198
Orbe, Teología V.2, 328. BP and SC do not recognize this allusion.
199
AH 4.36.2; Orbe, Parábolas I, 251; cf. AH 5.10.1.
196
185
(plantata) Eden in Gen 2:8 and the Lord’s command in to eat freely from the Garden,
except of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:16-17).200 Irenaeus uses the plural
manducabitis, rather than the singular manducabis, which reflects the influence of
Eve’s recitation of the command in Gen 3:2.201 He links the divine command to eat
from every tree in Gen 2:16 with the reading of the scriptures, where “every tree”
(omni… ligno) becomes “every Scripture” (omni Scriptura).202 Within the paradise of
the church the faithful are encouraged to partake of every truth found in the
scriptures. He also terms them the “Lord’s Scriptures” (dominicis Scripturis) in
reference to the source of their inspiration and the object of their teaching.203
Conversely, the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil (Gen 2:17, cf. Gen 3:3) is reinterpreted as a command to abstain from the
teaching of the heretics.204 In the same way, Eve conversed with the tempter, so now
the faithful stand before the tree of Gnosis and in the presence of the intellectual
temptations of the heretics. He reinterprets the prohibition of Gen 2:17 (Gen 3:3) for
the faithful of the church: “but you shall not eat with an elevated understanding nor
touching any heretical dissension” (a superelato autem sensu ne manducaveritis neque
tetigeritis universam haereticam dissensionem).205 The second clause, with the use of
tetigeritis, refers Eve’s reiteration of the divine command (Gen 2:17) in Gen 3:3. Eve
extends the prohibition from not eating, to not even touching (tetigeritis) the fruit.
By all appearances, Irenaeus believes Eve reported the command accurately,
because he characterizes this conflation of Gen 2:17 and Gen 3:3 as the command of
the Spirit of God.206 Therefore, the faithful should not merely abstain from partaking
of their doctrines, but avoid all contact with the heretics. In addition, the use of
superelato (τῆς ὑπερφρονήσεως) is taken from Rom 12:3 and reflects Irenaeus’
understanding of the mental state of the serpent and the heretics who claim to have
“the knowledge of good and evil” (agnitionem… boni et mali, Gen 3:5 and 22) that
surpasses the wisdom of the true God.
200
cf. AH 5.5.1. The imagery of nourishment also typically echoes the command of Gen 1:28.
Orbe, Teología V.2, 330-2; SC 152.306. The three variants in the context are all plural (manducabitis,
manducate, manducavertitis); cf. Epid 15, AH 5.23.1.
202
AH 5.20.2.
203
Orbe, Teología V.2, 327.
204
cf. AH 5.23.1.
205
AH 5.20.2.
206
Orbe, Teología V.2, 333.
201
186
Therefore, the prohibition in Gen 2:16-17 (Gen 3:2-3) acknowledges the limits
and constrains of human reason. Irenaeus implores his readers to “be wise with
prudence” (sapere ad prudentiam, Rom 12:3) in order to keep from duplicating the
disobedience of Adam and Eve. 207 Those who heed the command of God, contrary to
Adam, Eve, the serpent, and the heretics, remain securely within the “paradise of
life” (paradiso vitae), but those who partake of the doctrines of the heretics will
surely be cast out of paradise (Gen 3:23).208 Irenaeus depicts the contemporary
application of the command of God (Gen 2:17) as the obedience to the preaching of
the church understood in terms of the recapitulation, or restoration, the
communion of the God and humankind in the person of Christ (Eph 1:10) and
through the union with the Spirit.209 In the paradise of the church, the life the
faithful enjoy though the Spirit is life in flesh and blood and the command is simply
a means to manage human immaturity and protect the faithful from repeating the
sin of Adam.210
6.17 AH 5.21.1-3: The Temptation of Adam and Christ (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:6, Gen 3:15)
This section constitutes the third facet of Christ’s life that Irenaeus employs to unify
the Creator in Gen 1-3 with the Father of Jesus. The first was the healing of the man
born blind in John 9:1-7 (AH 5.15-16.2), the second was the crucifixion (AH 16.3-20.2),
and the third is the temptation account (AH 5.21-24.4). Each of these aspects of
Christ’s life are compared and contrasted (Irenaeus prefers the term contrario) to the
events of Adam’s creation and disobedience in Gen 1-3.211 Rather than a
chronological correspondence, this three-fold argument follows a logical assertion
that links the divine activity in Gen 1-3 with the Incarnation, crucifixion, and final
conquering of Satan and his devices. In the context of salvation history, Irenaeus
uses the temptation account to show how the Son, who assumed the same flesh as
Adam, was faced with the same deceptive tactics and overcame the same enemy
that deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden.
207
AH 5.20.2; Steenberg, Irenaeus, 156-7. The use of manducabitis suggests this passage is conflated
with Gen 3:2; see AH 5.23.1.
208
AH 5.20.2; Orbe, Teología V.2, 337. BP and SC do not identify this allusion; cf. AH 3.23.6.
209
AH 5.20.2.
210
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 158.
211
AH 5.18.1; 5.21.3; 5.24.4.
187
The recapitulation of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10), Irenaeus reports, also
includes the recapitulation of the devices of the enemy who conquered Adam. From
the opening scene there is an explicit reference to the protoevangelium in Gen 3:15
that orients this entire section. His interpretation of Gen 3:15 envisions the work of
Christ provoking the enemy, who had conquered Adam in Genesis (Gen 3:6), and
crushing his head.212 Ever since God made the proclamation to the serpent in Gen
3:15, Irenaeus reasons, humankind had been diligently anticipating the birth of a
man from a virgin, which he also understands as being born in the flesh in the
likeness of Adam. For Irenaeus, similitude between Adam and Christ denotes that
the virginity of the woman was implicit in the conquering of Satan, because
elsewhere he describes how Adam is fashioned from the “virgin” earth (Gen 2:5).213
For the Bishop of Lyon, however, the prophecy of Gen 3:15 is mediated by the
corresponding references to semen mulieris in Gal 3:19 and Gal 4:4. 214 The
fundamental problem is the injustice that infected the fabric of the divine economy
through the deceit of the serpent who has gained victory over humanity.215 Satan
has not, to be sure, triumphed over God, but over God’s creatures. In Irenaeus’
reasoning the complex economic design reflected in the correspondence of Genesis
and Galatians, was necessary in order to eradicate the injustice of Satan. Since the
injustice was committed against Adam, only a descendant born in the likeness of
Adam could rightly gain victory over the enemy. Conversely, a mere man born
naturally into the captivity has no recourse to vanquish the enemy. Furthermore,
since Adam’s disobedience was mediated by way of Eve, because it was Eve who ate
of the tree first and then Adam in Gen 3:6, the victory in Christ was also mediated by
a woman from whom Christ received the same plasma of the original formation.216
The synthesis of these Pauline texts with Gen 3:15 implies, for Irenaeus, in the
fullness of time, that the one born of a woman is the Son of God made man, thereby
fulfilling the prophecy of Gen 3:15 and preparing the way for humankind’s victory
over death and reception of new life in Christ.217
212
AH 5.21.1. He also alludes to God directing his punishment to the serpent in Gen 3:14.
AH 3.21.10.
214
AH 5.21.1. In AH 3.23.7 he appeals to Gal 3:19 and in AH 4.40.3 he alludes to Gal 4:4; cf. Wis 2:24, John
8:44, 2 Cor 11:3, and Rev 12:9.
215
Orbe, Teología V.2, 358-9.
216
BP identifies an allusion to Gen 2:22, but the reference is directed at the formation of Adam in Gen
2:7 and the mediation of Adam’s disobedience by way of Eve in Gen 3:6.
217
AH 5.21.1.
213
188
As we have seen previously, what concerns Irenaeus’ exegesis is the
interrelation (or antithesis) of the actions of Adam and Christ as a means to unify
the activity of one God and Father throughout the divine economy. In AH 5.21.2-3 he
offers a careful evaluation of the Lord’s temptation in Matthew’s Gospel in
correspondence to Adam’s disobedience. The Adam-Christ economic ties bind,
contra the Gnostics, the Creator of Adam with the Father of Jesus. The former
received the careful touches of the Creator in the beginning, but faltered by means
of deception, while the latter, being born of a woman, performed the commands of
the Creator and perfected humanity in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).
Here we see the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 (through Gal 3:19, 4:4) is ultimately the
fulfillment of divine mandate in Gen 1:26. The triumph over the enemy though the
obedience of Christ restored the plan of God for humankind to be made in the image
and likeness of God.
When the Son of God the Father, therefore, experienced temptation at the
hands of the same enemy, the result was altogether contrary to the disobedience of
Adam. When tempted in Matt 4:2-10, Christ made use of the Law as a means to
thwart the very schemes the enemy used to conquer Adam (Gen 2:16) and expose
the identity of the apostate angel who was hidden in the serpent.218 Irenaeus reports
that Christ fasted before he was tempted (Matt 4:2) in order to reveal his true
humanity that is continuous with Adam’s formation and to provoke Satan to a duel.
Examining their corresponding actions following the temporal references (in
principio… in fine), Orbe locates four parallel aspects of each temptation narrative: 1)
Whereas Adam was prohibited to eat by means of the Law (Gen 2:16), Satan
commanded Christ to eat (Matt 4:3); 2) Adam was without hunger (Gen 2:16), while
Christ had fasted for forty days (Gen 4:2); 3) While there is deceit in paradise
because the enemy remained hidden in the serpent (Gen 3:1-5), Christ exposed the
identity of the tempter as Satan himself (Matt 4:10); 4) Adam ate of the tree through
the persuasion of the serpent and against the command of God, while Christ
withstood the persuasion of the same enemy and, following the commands of God,
did not eat.219 Therefore, throughout AH 5.21.2, Irenaeus rehearses Christ’s three
218
Epid 16. Neither BP nor SC identify references to Gen 2:16 in this context, but the comparisons of
the use of the Law with Adam’s disobedience to the Law (Gen 2:16) are unmistakable.
219
Orbe, Teología V.2, 380. Irenaeus also compares Satan’s deceptive use of Scripture with the heretics;
AH 5.21.2.
189
temptations (Matt 4:3, 6, 8), and in AH 5.23.3 he develops the connections between
the Law of the Creator (Gen 2:17) and the Law of Father that was proclaimed in
Christ.
In addition to Orbe’s summary, Irenaeus also mentions other dissimilar
facets of these events including: 1) Adam as the victim and Christ as victorious, 2)
death generated in Adam and life instituted in Christ, 3) Satan empowered through
Adam’s sin and confounded in Christ obedience, 4) and Satan acting prideful while
Christ remained humble.220 These must be held in tension with the implicit parallel
aspects of these events bound by a series of typological relationships linked by
parallel imagery, such as the premise of Satan tempting humankind, the common
generations of Adam and Christ, the use of food, and the presence of divine Law. All
this continuity and discontinuity, for Irenaeus, is set in relief with the economic
progress of salvation history. Through his recourse to the Law, the Savior has
overthrown Satan by storming the house of the strong man Christ’s obedience and
recitation of the Law conquered Satan and spoiled his goods (Matt 12:29), thereby
fulfilling the promise of the Creator in Gen 3:15.221
6.18 AH 5.23.1-2: The Day Adam Died (Gen 1: 5, Gen 2:16-17, Gen 3:1-5)
From the preceding sections, it is evident that Irenaeus is concerned with the
proper intertextual reading of the creation accounts. In the closing chapters of AH 5,
the recapitulation of the events in Gen 1-3 takes center stage. In the present context
he addresses the truthfulness of the Demiurge. For the Gnostics, especially the
Valentinians and Ophites, the serpent is an instrument of Sophia who
compassionately leads Adam and Eve away from the trickery of the Demiurge. They
point out that though the Creator said Adam and Eve would die in the day they ate
the fruit, they did not die. The prohibition of Gen 2:16-17 is nothing more than an
empty threat to intimidate the first couple into submission. Therefore, the serpent
was truthful and the Creator deceived Adam and Eve.222
Irenaeus’ rebuttal comprises a complex assortment of no less than five
plausible interpretations of Gen 2:16-17 that prove God is true and the serpent is a
liar, because Adam and Eve truly died the day they ate of the fruit. Following an
220
AH 5.21.1-2.
AH 5.21.2; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 12, 119; cf. Epid 8.
222
Orbe, Teología V.2, 472-4, 480; Donovan, One Right Reading?, 159-60; cf. AH 1.30.7.
221
190
allusion to John 8:44 in the closing lines of AH 5.22.2, he commences AH 5.23.1 with a
citation of Gen 2:16-17, which appears to follow Bacq’s scheme.223 He points to the
serpent’s subtle perversion of the Lord’s command in Gen 3:1-5. In Irenaeus’
reading, the serpent’s query is his first act of deception, because he knowingly and
maliciously construes the Lord’s command.224 He accentuates the prohibition
against the tree of knowledge and insinuates that God’s command is overtly
authoritarian. Eve, according to Irenaeus, exposed the deceit of his assumption
simply by reporting the full version of God’s command, which the serpent had
omitted, and explaining that God permitted them to eat from every tree, except one
(Gen 3:2-3). The serpent persisted in his deceit, even in the midst of the paradise of
God, as if the omniscient God was unaware of his malevolent assertions. Irenaeus
assumes that Satan was jealous of Adam and Eve and ignorant of the “greatness”
(magnitudinem) of God.225 This assumption is also reflected in what Irenaeus
identifies as the serpent’s second lie; the enticement of becoming as gods and
endowed with the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:4-5). Unaware of the serpent’s
true intent and the deception hidden in his words, Eve was deceived when the
serpent openly challenged the consequences of the Lord’s command. Irenaeus
isolates Gen 3:4 and inverts the order of the serpent’s dialogue, in order to
accentuate what Irenaeus identifies as the third and ultimate lie: Adam and Eve
would not die if they ate from the prohibited tree of knowledge (Gen 3:4). For
Irenaeus, this is a direct assault on the nature and integrity of God. The Bishop of
Lyon takes up the interpretation of Gen 3:4 in careful detail in AH 5.23.2. What is
clear, for Irenaeus, is that the theological control on his reading of Gen 3:4 is the
nature of God in distinction to the nature of the serpent. God is true, while the
serpent is a liar (John 8:44).226 The fact that they eventually died proves that God was
speaking the truth.227
The problem remains, however, that Adam and Eve did not immediately die,
but lived prolonged lives.228 Thus, the Gnostics portray Gen 2:16-17 as the empty
223
The passage itself may be framed in three segments: the command to eat of every tree (Gen 2:17a),
the prohibition to abstain from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17b), and the
consequence that the day they eat from the forbidden tree they will die (Gen 2:17c).
224
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 172.
225
Orbe, Teología V.2, 472.
226
AH 5.23.1. Orbe also suggests the background of Rom 3:4. Orbe, Teología V.2, 478.
227
AH 5.23.1.
228
cf. Gen 5:5.
191
threat of a lesser deity. Throughout the course of AH 5.23.2, Irenaeus outlines five
aspects of the Gen 2:17 (Gen 3:4).229 The first two deal with the relationship of
disobedience and death and the legal nature of the consequence, while the latter
three are successive attempts to interpret the timing of Adam’s sin and death in
relation to the meaning of “day” (dies). These interpretations are interrelated, and
the distinctions between them depend largely upon the intertexts Irenaeus reads
alongside Gen 2:17 (Gen 3:4).
First, Irenaeus interprets the passage straightforwardly; they died the
moment they sinned because they were handed over to the power of death. The
eventual outcome of Adam’s death (Gen 5:5) proves the veracity of the threat. For
Irenaeus, the Gnostics misplace their emphasis on the prohibition and the nature of
the tree of knowledge, rather than the nature of true Creator. Death does not
necessarily imply immediate bodily death, but rather that Adam’s disobedience and
subjection to the corruptive power of death. To be disobedient to God is death. Orbe
observes that Irenaeus, unlike his contemporaries, does not distinguish between
bodily and moral or spiritual death, but between physical death and the ultimate
death of the composite human person as result of sin.230 They are corruptible and
excluded from the kingdom of God with no hope for the incorruptible life.
Extending the effects of Adam’s disobedience, Steenberg reflects upon
Irenaeus’ language, “For along with the fruit they did also fall under the power of
death” (Simul enim cum esca et mortem asciverunt) and infers that the “fruit,”
representative of the “potential for genuine knowledge of good and evil,” along
with (cum) Adam and Eve are also subject to the effects of their disobedience.231 Not
only are Adam and Eve personally subject to death, but also there is a
comprehensive disruption of the potential for growth and maturity within the
divine economy. While his position is certainly interesting, Irenaeus is not
describing the cosmic effect of sin, but simply referring to the location of Adam and
Eve with respect to the fruit at the moment they suffered death.232 At the same
moment Adam and Eve were together with (cum) the fruit, they did die.
229
Orbe, Teología V.2, 480; cf. Orbe, “Cinco exégesis.”
Orbe, Antropologia, 450-57; AH 4.37-39; Donovan, One Right Reading?, 159-60.
231
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 167.
232
Orbe recognizes the fruit is the vehicle or instrument for death. In addition, given the importance
of the temporal nature, this could be an ablative of time. Orbe, Teología V.2, 478, 480.
230
192
Second, Irenaeus employs legal imagery to interpret the consequence of
Adam and Eve’s disobedience; through their disobedience they became lawfully
beholden to death. This interpretation is closely related to the first (evidenced in
the linking phrase propter hoc) interpretation that contemplates the nature of God.233
The moment they transgressed the law of God, they were condemned by divine law
to die and, as a consequence, became “death’s debtors” (debitores mortis).234
Third, following his explanation of the nature of death and its consequences,
he offers three justifications for the timing of Adam’s death with respect to the
“day” (dies) he sinned. Even though Irenaeus distinguishes between subjection to
the penalty of death and the ultimate bodily death as a means to understand the
delay in Adam’s death, he must explain how the final death transpired on the same
day as the disobedience. He observes that in Gen 1:5 a day of creation comprises
evening and morning. In this instance he translates the text as “one day” (dies unus)
rather than the “first day” (dies prima). This interpretation understands “day” (dies)
from a cosmic perspective, where the “day of creation” (conditionis dies) is one cosmic
day.235 Generally speaking, this is similar to Philo who points to the Septuagint use
of μία rather than προτως. However, Philo understands this as the intelligible world
of Platonic ideas, but for Irenaeus this is the eternal day of the sensible and material
world of creation.236 As a creature of God, Adam lived and died within the natural
course of created existence and, therefore, he was disobedient and subject to death
on the same universal day of creation.
Steenberg misses Irenaeus’ use of Gen 1:5 in this context and conflates
Irenaeus’ first and second attempt to interpret “day” in Gen 2:16-7. According to
Steenberg, a “day” of creation, reflected in Gen 1:5, implies “God’s creative activity
began at a specific moment… and progressed in a series of distinct stages defined as
‘days.’”237 These days, according to Steenberg, are predictive for Irenaeus of the
phases in the economy of salvation reflected in his chiliastic vision. While there is
no doubt that Irenaeus presents a chiliastic vision of the economy, Orbe is correct to
distinguish Irenaeus’ first interpretation of the magna dies of creation that perceives
the existence of all creation as “one day.” This is clear in Irenaeus’ transition from
233
AH 5.23.2.
AH 5.23.2; cf. AH 3.19.1; AH 4.22.1.
235
Orbe, Teología V.2, 481-3.
236
Philo, Opif, 15.
237
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 85-6.
234
193
speaking about the (or The) “one day” (dies unus) in terms of cardinal numbers in his
first interpretation to contemplating the succession of days as ordinal numbers
(prima… secundum… tertia…).238 Steenberg’s point applies to Irenaeus’ second
interpretation of “day” (dies) mentioned below, not his uses of Gen 1:5.
Fourth, in continuity with the framework of Irenaeus’ doctrine of
recapitulation (Eph 1:10), the Bishop of Lyon correlates the timing of Christ’s death
with both days of Adam’s disobedience and death. This interpretation assumes the
literal or normative sense of “day” (dies), as simply a one day within the weekly
cycle of days. Here Irenaeus departs from the Septuagint reading with cardinal
numbers (μία, δευτέρα, etc…) and interprets the days as ordinal number (prima,
secunda, etc…) as the are arranged in Gen 1. In Irenaeus’ reasoning, since Christ died
on Friday, or the sixth day (sexta… dies) of the week, logically it follows that Adam
died on a Friday.239 Furthermore, given that the formation of Adam and his
disobedience transpired on the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:24-31), Irenaeus deduces
that Adam died on the same day, that is the sixth day of the week (or Friday), the
very same day of the week that Adam ate of the forbidden tree in Gen 3:6. This
explains why Christ died on the sixth day of the week, since it was the same day that
Adam sinned.
Since the day of Adam’s death is not mentioned (Gen 5:5), Irenaeus solidifies
the correspondence between Adam and Christ by extending the recapitulative
framework. He links Adam and Christ chronologically in order to suggest Christ has
recapitulated in himself Adam and all his posterity who have suffered the effects of
death. He also stresses that Adam’s death occurred though disobedience to the
Father’s command, while Christ’s death occurred though obedience to the same
Father. Finally, having determined though his recapitulative logic that Adam died
on the sixth day of the week, he deduces that Adam’s formation from the substance
of the earth (Gen 2:7) and Adam’s death occurred on the same day. The
corresponding death of Christ on the same day in the same substance of the flesh
produces a “second creation” (secundam plasmationem) by means of death.240
238
AH 5.23.2.
AH 5.23.2.
240
AH 5.23.2. Irenaeus does not refer to the resurrection, which, of course, did not occur on the same
day; see Orbe, Teología V.2, 491-2.
239
194
Finally, Irenaeus interprets the “day” (dies) of Adam’s death from the
perspective of the chiliastic vision of the economy. Following 2 Pet 3:8 (Psalm 89:4),
Irenaeus draws on the equation that a day of the Lord equals 1000 years.241 Adam did
not live beyond 1000 years and, therefore, he ate of the fruit and died on the same
day of the Lord.242
In the closing lines Irenaeus summarizes these views in succession.243
Depending upon the context, Irenaeus can read Gen 2:17 in light of Gen 1:5, Gen
1:24-31, Eph 1:10, 2 Pet 3:8 (Psalm 89:4 LXX), and other implied references
mentioned above. Irenaeus is unconcerned with the assortment of interpretations
and he does not care to defend one perspective over the others.244 On the contrary,
multiple interpretive vantage points actually strengthen his theological perspective
because all prove the truth of the apostle’s words; God is true and Satan is a liar
(John 8:44).245 For Irenaeus, the reason the Gnostic interpretations are rejected is
simply because they subvert this basic apostolic truth and make the Creator out to
be a liar.
6.19 AH 5.26. 2: Blasphemy Against the Creator (Gen 3:1-6)
As in previous sections, here we find another echo of the disobedience of Adam and
Eve in Gen 3:1-6. While explaining some of the eschatological prophecies from
Revelation and Daniel, he breaks off his discussion and inserts a polemical argument
concerning prophecy. According to Irenaeus, those who reject the clear teaching of
the prophets blaspheme their Creator. They may do so openly like Marcion or by
perverting scripture like the Valentinians, but whatever the case may be they are
all, just like the serpent in the Garden, the “instruments of Satan” (organa
Satanae).246 Irenaeus interprets Satan’s use of the snake as a means to conceal
himself from God’s awareness and seduce Adam and Eve into disobeying God’s
241
cf. AH 5.28.3.
While he accepts its legitimacy, it is not altogether certain that Irenaeus prefers this view because
he qualifies it, contrary to the previous positions, as the perspective of others (Quidam autem…).
Nevertheless, Steenberg and Smith affirm it as a key Irenaeus position in their discussions of
Irenaeus’ Chiliasm. Orbe, Teología V.2, 493. Orbe suggests this is from Justin; cf. Dial, 81.3; Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 84-86; cf. Smith, “Chiliasm,” 16-18.
243
AH 5.21.2.
244
Orbe, Teología V.2, 500.
245
He clearly accommodates the Pauline saying that God is true and all men are liars (Rom 3:4),
applying the latter portion to the nature of the serpent. Orbe, Teología V.2, 478. Both BP and SC omit
this allusion, but as Orbe shows the parallel language is unmistakable.
246
AH 5.26.2; cf. 2 Cor 11:3; Rev 12:9, 15.
242
195
command. He would never challenge God directly or openly. This same secretive
and deceptive behavior continued throughout the course of the Old Testament, and
all along Satan believes his actions escaped the knowledge of God. Appealing
explicitly to Justin, Irenaeus argues that the reason Satan continued to deceive
God’s creatures in secret was because he was unaware of his fate. It was only
prophesied enigmatically in the Old Testament.247 The words of Christ, however,
made explicit that God the Father has prepared an eternal fire for Satan and his
agents (Matt 25:41).248 So while Satan never blasphemed God openly, upon learning
his fate, he now openly (though not directly) blasphemed God.249
6.20 AH 5.28.3-4: Irenaeus’ Chiliastic Vision ( Gen 1:26, Gen 2: 1-2, Gen 2:7)
The chiliastic focus of AH 5.25-35 has long baffled Irenaean scholars. This closing
portion is often ignored, ridiculed or, as Steenberg remarks, simply set off as a kind
of “chiliastic appendage.”250 However, Smith’s in his essay “Chiliasm and
recapitulation” argues that this section has an important relationship to the
broader contours of Irenaeus’ thought. Smith argued that this last portion
completes the “essential harmony of the true soteriological task,” thereby linking
the protological and eschatological events of creation.251 We find much agreement
with Smith and Steenberg and our study of the intertextual use of Gen 1-3 supports
the renewed appreciation for the full re-unification of Irenaeus’ thought and
exegesis.
The function of Gen 1-3 serves as the essential framework by which Irenaeus
makes sense of the eschatological Edenic state. Not only does the chiliastic portion
reflect the telos of the eschatological advancement from creation to the eternal
kingdom, it holds together the poles of the scriptural material by means of the
trajectory of the divine economy. This eschatological kingdom is not a pure mystical
247
cf. Gen 3:14; AH 3.23.3. This thought is only implicit in Justin’s extant works (1 Apol. 28.1-2; 2 Apol
8.3-5); Orbe suggests the source as his lost refutation against Marcion (cf. AH 4.6.2). Orbe, Teología V.3,
96.
248
AH 5.26.2.
249
Rousseau and Orbe prefer the present tense reading of audet rather than the imperfect audebat,
because he never discusses Satan directly challenging God. The perfect implies that in the New
Testament, after learning his fate (Matt 25:41), Satan blasphemes openly but not directly, while the
imperfect implies that Satan blasphemed indirectly until he learned his fate and now blasphemes
openly and directly. Orbe, Teología V.3, 93.
250
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 50.
251
Smith, “Chiliasm,” 329.
196
or spiritual union with Christ, but an earthly, physical kingdom reflected in the
prophecies of the Old Covenant.252 As a result, the eschatological reading of Genesis,
as Steenberg notes, is supported by the “revealed images of the millennial kingdom,
as in Jeremias, Isaias, Ezekiel, and John’s Apocalypse,” but he does not examine the
nature of the relationships Irenaeus fashions with Gen 2:1-3.253 As a result, we
advance the thesis of Smith and Steenberg with an analysis of Irenaeus’ intertextual
reading of Gen 2:1-2 that anticipates the advancement of the believer towards
maturity in Christ-likeness.254
The broader section of AH 5.25.1-30.4 is oriented by the revelation of the
Antichrist in 2 Thess 2:3-4 and in general portrays the recapitulation of all apostasy
in the person of the Antichrist.255 The coming of the Antichrist will erect division,
and all will be subject to the just judgment of God.256 The height of apostasy is the
Antichrist’s desecration of the Temple and the manifestation of his powers, which
results in the adoration and elevation of apostasy (Rev 13:2-18). The closing lines of
AH 5.28.2 cite Rev 13:14-18, which mentions the number of the beast (Rev 13:18).
The number of the beast is six hundred and sixty-six, which he identifies as
the title of the Antichrist who recapitulates the whole apostasy (recapitulationem
universae apostasiae) that has transpired during the previous six thousand years.257
The number, therefore, refers to both the individual and the arrangement and
extent of the divine economy. Irenaeus uses this allusion to the number six that
linked with the creation narratives to construct a Millenarian eschatological
framework, but Irenaeus is not a strict millennialist because he never presents the
1000-year reign of Christ in an earthly kingdom. Instead, Irenaeus unites Rev 13:18
with Gen 2:1-2 and the imagery of 1,000 years to a day in 2 Pet 3:8 (Psalm 89:4 LXX).
Through his appeal to the conclusion of creation (Gen 2:1-2), he interprets the
“days” (dies) of creation as six one thousand-year periods with the consummation of
creation coming at the conclusion of the 6,000 years and the institution of the
252
Behr, Asceticism, 80. The mystical nature of the eschatological quickly became prominent in Origen
and Dionysius of Alexandria. Ibid., 80-2; Orbe, Antropologia, 25-7.
253
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 60.
254
Ibid., 98. Although Steenberg is, by all appearances, correct to say that Irenaeus only uses this
passage in exegetical contexts. The expressed duel sense (literal and prophetic) of Gen 2:1 in this
context suggests that Irenaeus does not merely read this text eschatologically.
255
AH 5.25.1.
256
AH 5.26.1-28.1.
257
AH 5.28.2.
197
eschatological Sabbath.258 As Steenberg concludes, “Irenaeus follows the Asiatic
chiliastic tradition in asserting a relationship between the timing or chronology of
the Genesis creation narrative (read through the interpretive lens of Apoc 19:1121:27) and the whole economy.”259 In the same number of days that the world was
created, in that same number of millennium periods will the world be consummated
(consummatur).260 While he reads Gen 2:1-2 literally as the description of the
cumulative work of God’s creative activity, for Irenaeus it is also a prophecy
pointing toward the final consummation of all things. He defends the dual sense of
reading Gen 2:1-2 saying: “This is a narrative of things formerly created, as also it is
a prophecy of what is to come” (Hoc autem est et ante factorum narratio quemadmodum
facta sunt et futurorum prophetia).261 Thus, God has created all things with a purpose
and trajectory oriented toward consummation. For Irenaeus, there is a dialectical
tension between narrative and prophecy.
However, while Steenberg is certainly correct, the timing of the divine
economy is not the only reason for Irenaeus’ appeal to Gen 2:1-2. He focuses on the
language of consummare in Gen 2:1-2, as the fulfillment of God’s anthropological
trajectory implicitly correlates this concept with the previous works of creation
(fecit) in the same passage (and the earlier descriptions of God’s creative acts). The
contrast between fecit and consummavit reflects the distinction between the literal
(narratival) and prophetic readings of Gen 2:1-2. In AH 5.28.4 he develops these
connections between the creation of Adam on the sixth day and the consummation
of humankind at the conclusion of the sixth thousandth year. He mentions that the
same “hands of God” (the Son and the Spirit), who fashioned Adam in the beginning
in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), are also moulding the faithful
throughout the progression of the economy. Orbe notes that unlike Philo and
Origen, Irenaeus does not conceive of two creations (Gen 1:26; Gen 2:7), but of one
creation with two aspects.262 Gen 2:7 depicts the formation from the earth, while
Gen 1:26 relates the continual formation throughout the unfolding economy that
258
AH 5.28.3. Smith, “Chiliasm,” 315; cf. AH 4.16.1; Epid 96. Steenberg does not appreciate the nuances
of Irenaeus’ appeal to Gen 2:1-2 and is also mistaken when he suggests this is Irenaeus’ only allusion
to this passage. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 98.
259
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 52.
260
Orbe, Teología V.3, 185.
261
AH 5.28.3; Behr, Asceticism, 82. In classical rhetoric a narratio is second stage of oration where the
orator gives a narratival account of the nature of the case. Quin 4.2.
262
Orbe, Teología V.3, 192.
198
prepares the faithful to receive immortality. The projection of creation, for the
Bishop of Lyon, is from the very beginning set on an eschatological course toward
the consummative fulfillment in the kingdom of God. He links this discussion with
the separation of the wheat and the chaff in Matt 3:12, which is the faithful and the
apostate, and the theme of martyrdom, where the suffering of the faithful prepares
them for the resurrection.263 He argues the tribulation will purify the faithful and
prepare them to be formed once again in the image and likeness of God.264
6.21 AH 5.30.4: The Destruction of the Antichrist (Gen 2:2-3)
In continuity with the previous section, AH 5.30.4 considers the Antichrist’s
revelation and subsequent destruction. Irenaeus crafts a succinct eschatological
outline beginning with the reign of the Antichrist that lasts three and a half years.
His reign is, then, interrupted by the Parousia (Matt 16:27), and three concurrent
events accompany the Parousia: Satan will be cast into the lake of Fire (Rev 19:20),
the righteous will be gathered into the kingdom on the hallowed seventh day (Gen
2:2-3), and the just will receive the Abrahamic promises (Matt 8:11).265 His allusion to
the ingathering of the just includes mention of the eschatological “rest”
(requietionem, Gen 2:2) when the faithful will recline at the Father’s table and feast
with Abraham and all the faithful (Matt 8:11). Therefore, with these texts, Irenaeus
weaves an eschatological cento, the climax of which is the restoration of the
“hallowed seventh day” (septimam diem sanctificatam) of Gen 2:2-3.
6.22 AH 5.33.1-4: Resurrection and Restoration (Gen 1:27-28, Gen 1:30, Gen
2:2-3)
In continuity to the previous discussion, in AH 5.33.1-4, Irenaeus illustrates the
nature of the eschatological seventh day of creation with a series of interrelated
prophetic passages. Steenberg suggests this section summarizes Irenaeus’ chiliastic
263
Behr, Asceticism, 77. He compares this to the Eucharist.
Irenaeus turns to the martyrdom of Ignatius for an example of this purification. He cites Ignatius’
words illustrate his point, “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts,
that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (frumentum sum Christi, et per dentes bestiarum molor, ut
mundus panis Dei inveniar). Ign, Rom 4.1
265
AH 5.30.4; Orbe, Teología V.3, 282; cf. AH 4.16.1; AH 5.28.3; AH 5.32.2; AH 5.30.1. He suggests Titan
(Teitan), Euanqas (Evanthas) and Lateinos (Lateinos), and also concludes the name was suppressed in
preference for the number, because the name is not worthy to be proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.
264
199
vision of creation, where the creation narratives find their telos in the “cosmic
‘Sabbath’”266 Irenaeus speaks of this Sabbath in terms of the Abrahamic blessing and
then reminds his readers of Christ’s words at the last supper where he proclaimed
to his disciples that he would drink wine again with them in the renewed kingdom
of God (Matt 26:27-28). This kingdom would be a renewed earth enjoyed by the
faithful who are raised to new life (Psalm 103:30 LXX).267 In contrast to his Gnostic
opponents, this earth and wine is not a celestial place where wine is consumed
spiritually without a body, but the renewed earth that produces wine for those
resurrected in flesh.
In AH 5.33.2 he describes the nature of life in the eschatological seventh day
(Gen 2:2-3) with the imagery of Christ’s invitation of the lame, blind, and poor to
dinner, rather then friends and neighbors (Luke 14:12-13), and proclaims
recompense for those who abandon their earthly possessions for the sake of Christ
(Matt 19:29). Alluding to Gen 2:2-3, he describes how the seventh day of creation
was sanctified when “God rested from all the works He created” (requievit Deus ab
omnibus operibus quae fecit).268 Thus, the same will be true of the faithful who dwell in
the kingdom of God. They will not engage in any work, but God will prepare them a
lavish table overflowing with all kinds of foods.269 The episodes of Luke 14:12-13 and
Matt 19:29 are the “times of the kingdom” (regni temporibus) reflecting the nature of
the cosmic seventh day of creation, which he interprets literally and emphasizes the
corporeal and material aspects.
In continuity with the nature of life in the eschaton, in AH 5.33.3-4, Irenaeus
discusses the nature of creation in eschatological seventh day. Irenaeus uses
intertextual connections to illustrate the nature of life in the kingdom, and confirm
the eschatological imagery of the fecundity of the earth. This imagery reflects the
original divine intention for creation where Adam lives in obedience to God and
creation is peacefully subject to Adam.270 This line of argumentation links Gen 1:2728 and Gen 1:30 with Isa 11:6-9 and Isa 65:25. The texts from Isaiah depict the
apocalyptic imagery of a harmonious creation where the wolf and the lamb lie down
266
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 53.
AH 5.33.1.
268
AH 5.33.2.
269
AH 5.33.2; cf. AH 5.30.4. On this day Abraham received his promised inheritance as cited in Matt
8:11. Irenaeus will support these texts with additional passages in AH 5.34.1-4.
270
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 55; Orbe, Teología V.3, 442.
267
200
together, the lion eats straw and the serpent does not harm an infant. Irenaeus
recognizes that some of his contemporaries interpret this imagery allegorically as
the conversion of the pagans who come into harmony with righteous faith and
while he agrees that this rendering is plausible, he prefers a literal reading
depicting the fulfillment in the eschatological kingdom with actual lions and
lambs.271 This harmonious creation is, for Irenaeus, consistent with the divine
intention for creation to be in subjection to humankind (Gen 1:27-28). This also
entails that the animals return to their original vegetarian diet (Gen 1:30) they
enjoyed before Adam’s disobedience.272 Thus, in Irenaeus’ perspective, the
harmonious nature of the original pre-lapsarian creation of Gen 1:27-30 is restored
in the eschatological kingdom mentioned in Isa 11:6-9 and Isa 65:25. However, the
relationship is one of degree not kind because the state of creation illustrated in Isa
11:6-9 and Isa 65:25 is a more rich and bountiful creation. He even reflects upon the
quality and magnitude of the fruit in the kingdom where a lion can be satisfied by
such a meager meal.273 As we noted earlier, Irenaeus nowhere mentions the texts of
Gen 1:6-25 except in his discussion of Marcosian interpretations. In the present
context, however, it is possible to infer his views of the nature of the original
creation in Gen 1-2.274 This is Steenberg’s suggestion when he cites Irenaeus’ reading
of Gen 1:11-12 and Gen 1:24-25.275
6.23 AH 5.34.2: The Restoration of Inheritance (Gen 3:6)
Like previous sections, this portion also presents a separate network of texts
depicting the nature of the eschatological earthly kingdom following the
resurrection. To illustrate this new creation, Irenaeus cites Isa 30:25-26 that
concludes with the description of the Lord promising his people that he will heal
271
AH 5.35.4. In AH 5.35.1, Irenaeus notes those who allegorize these prophecies are inconsistent with
themselves.
272
AH 5.33.4.
273
The first citation in AH 5.34.1-4 is Isa 26:19, which describes the joy of creation at the resurrection
of the just, but the rest of the passages more specifically describe the promise and nature of the
physical resurrection: Ezek 37:12-14; Ezek 28:25-26; Matt 3:9/Luke 3:8; Jer 16:14-15, 23:7-8; Isa 30:2526; Gen 9:27; Isa 58:14; Luke 12:37-38; Rev 20:6; Isa 6:11-12; Dan 7:27; Dan 12:13; Jer 31:10; Matt 12:5; Isa
31:9-32:1; Isa 54:11-14; Isa 65:18-22.
274
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 93; cf. Epid 34; AH 5.18.3.
275
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 55-6; cf. Orbe, Teología V.3, 443. In AH 5.22.4, Irenaeus also references Papias as
his source for this material, which implies Papias is the conduit though which the Asiatic chiliastic
tradition came to Irenaeus and disseminated to the later tradition. Danielou, Theology of Jewish
Christianity, 382; cf. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 54.
201
the “pain of the stroke” (dolorem plagae). The “pain of the stroke” (dolorem plagae),
for Irenaeus, is closely related to Adam’s disobedience and the death inflicted upon
him as a penalty of his sin (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6).276 The mode of healing is, of course,
the resurrection of the faithful who are granted the “inheritance of the fathers”
(patrum hereditatem) and the blessing of Japeth (Gen 9:27).277 This reference to
inheritance also accompanies an allusion to the earth as the inheritance of those
who are resurrected from the dead (Isa 58:14).278 Together these texts remind the
reader that the penalty of death imposed in Gen 1-3 is healed by means of the
resurrection and restoration of what the inheritance of was lost through Adam’s
disobedience.
6.24 AH 5.36.3: The Resurrection of the Just and the Final Consummation
(Gen 1:26, Gen 1:31-2:1, Gen 2: 2-3, Gen 2:7)
In the closing paragraph of his magnum opus, Irenaeus appears confident that he
has demonstrated his eschatological vision for the salvation of the flesh that has
dominated the work as a whole. In his final statements, Irenaeus carries on the same
intertextual practice that has characterized his exegesis to this point.279 He
continues his strong literalist understanding of the eschatological kingdom with a
commentary on the blessings imparted to the faithful. These texts center upon the
one Father, the one Son, and the one human race that experiences the promise of
bodily resurrection and recreation in the image and likeness of God.280
A portion of this section survives only in a late Armenian manuscript.
Rousseau considers it original and suggests it brings more clarity to the thought of
this section. Orbe, on the other hand, evaluates the section and raises some
significant questions about its authenticity. While it is clear that the tone is
Irenaean, which suggests a close relationship to Irenaeus himself, the insertion
276
Orbe points to the common vocabulary in Rev 13:3, 12 and also suggests the background of Num
21:8. Orbe, Teología V.3, 458; cf. AH 5.28.2.
277
AH 5.34.2. The citation of Gen 9:27 is absent from the Latin mss, although Rousseau believes it is
original. SC 152.342.
278
Smith, “Chiliasm,” 318.
279
See SC 153:462.55; Orbe, Teología V.3, 616-617.
280
Donovan, One Right Reading?, 169. Both Adversus Haereses and the Epideixis conclude with allusions
to Gen 1:26. It is not uncommon to read that the concept of recreation in the image of God is a theme
that dominates both works as a whole. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 213.
202
breaks the flow of the passage and the balance of scriptural material.281 He also
suspects that the insertion is the result of a scribal addition in order to clarify
Irenaeus’ chiliasm and early Christian debates over the nature of the resurrection(s)
in relation to the Millennial Kingdom. He compares this insertion with a similar one
from Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel that is clearly inauthentic, and concludes
that Irenaeus was subjected to a similar manner of correction. Even though the
intertextuality in this section is characteristic of the way Irenaeus reads scripture,
but the intertexts are different.282
This is important because this insertion cites Gen 1:31-2:2 to speak of the
consummation of creation on the sixth day of creation, or the 6000 years, and the
eternal rest that proceeds on the seventh day (2 Pet 3:8, Psalm 89:4). Here these
texts are interpreted in the same manner as AH 5.28.3, but the intertexts are
different. The insertion begins immediately following an allusion to the
resurrection of the faithful who dwell in the Millennial Kingdom and eat and drink
with Christ (Matt 26:29). In connection to this imagery, Irenaeus calls on Christ’s
words in John 5:25, 28-29 and the Psalmist’s description of the Lord’s rest (requies,
Psalm 131:14/Psalm 117:20 LXX) communicate the nature of the “first resurrection”
(primos resurgere), or the resurrection to life prior to the Millennial kingdom. This is
set in contrast to the final resurrection to judgment at the consummation. For the
author of this insertion, Gen 1:31-2:2 and Psalm 131:14/Psalm 117:20 LXX confirm
the nature and timing of the two resurrections mentioned in John 5:25, 28-29 in
relation to the Millennial Kingdom, which is a distinctly Irenaean way of reading
texts, and suggests the person was well acquainted with Irenaeus’ thought.283
Having summarized this intertextual Millenarian presentation, the
remaining portion of AH 5.36.3 depicts the nature of the resurrection of the just
(Rev 20:5-6) and their inheritance of a restored earthly kingdom (Rom 8:21). He
describes how the prophets “harmoniously” (consonanter) prophesy this
281
For Orbe, the introduction seems to break to flow of argument, however, given the Irenaean tone
and dependence on scripture, he also suggests that this could be an authentic Irenaean insertion in a
later draft. Orbe, Teología V.3, 618.
282
Compare, for example, the closing lines of Irenaeus’ Epideixis (Epid 97-100), which are also debated.
A key objection to its authenticity is the lack of any scriptural reference, which is not the case for
this insertion.
283
It is also important to note that Psalm 131:14/Psalm 117:20 LXX appear nowhere else in Irenaeus
and John 5:25, 28-29 is found only here and AH 5.13.1.
203
resurrection of the faithful and restoration of the earth.284 These things, Irenaeus
concludes, are the work of the same God and Father, who “fashioned humankind”
(plasmavit hominem, Gen 2:7) in the beginning and gave them the promises of the
future resurrection and the inheritance of the kingdom of God. We have seen how
the Father, by means of the Word, is forming humankind throughout the unfolding
of the divine economy and preparing the faithful for resurrection.285 The fulfillment
of these promises, Irenaeus assures the reader, is something that remains unseen (1
Cor 2:9). Orbe provides an extended commentary on the vision of God with respect
to 1 Cor 2:9 and in relation to AH 4.20.5.286 He speaks of three different graduated
stages of seeing God (prophetice, adoptive, paternaliter) where the faithful, though
subject to corruption, continue to advance toward the perfection of the Father by
means of the prophetic Spirit in the Old Testament, finally receive adoption
mediated by the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament, and in the final
consummation they receive the Father’s promised resurrection and restoration to
eternal life. In a parting shot at his opponents, Irenaeus suggests that not even the
angels, who cannot fathom the mysteries of God, can spoil this divinely
orchestrated economy of salvation (Pet 1:12).287 This mystery is the actualization of
God’s “handiwork” (plasma) being conformed to the Son and brought to perfection
(Gen 2:7).288
Irenaeus concludes his refutation by describing, once again, how the
“handiwork” (plasma, Gen 2:7) of God, which is incorporated into the Son, will be
made after the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).289 This invokes an image where
those who are raised ascend “beyond the angels” (supergrediens angelos). The
recreation of humankind in the image of God characterizes the ultimate aim of
salvation in Irenaeus. Describing the reciprocal relationship between Genesis and
these passages, Steenberg writes: “The ‘image and likeness’ into which humanity
was created is fulfilled and brought to full fruition in the kingdom, and thus
284
AH 5.36.3.
AH 5.14.1; AH 5.15.1-3.
286
Orbe, Teología V.3, 626-28, see also 628-33, 646-51. The use of paternaliter in AH 4.20.5 is a key link
between these sections.
287
This use of 1 Pet 1:12 is obscure and Orbe points to at least four different interpretations reflected
in parallels with Clement of Alexandria and Epistola apostolorum. Orbe, Teología V.3, 640-41.
288
The parallel use of conformatum and concorportatum seems to echo Phil 3:21 and Eph 3:6 (AH 1.10.3,
AH 5.13.3) and the use of Primogenitus must refer to Col 1:15, 18 and Rom 8:29 (AH 3.15.3, 16.6, 4.20.2).
289
AH 5.36.3. Steenberg suggests Irenaeus alludes to Gen 1:11-12 and 1:24-25, but this is nowhere
explicit. While they may be implied, his argument would have been strengthened if he had
developed the uses of Gen 1-3 present in Irenaeus’ argument.
285
204
through the imagery of the kingdom the nature and character of that image and
likeness can be determined.”290 At last, the handiwork that was fashioned from the
earth in Gen 2:7, by means of the unfolding of the economy and the Incarnation, are
brought to share in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), partaking in the glory
and immortality bestowed by the same Creator and Father.
6.25 Conclusion
With the closing allusion to Gen 1:26, Irenaeus rests his argument. From beginning
to end, the texts of Gen 1-3 are integrated into his theological reasoning, forming
networks of texts in hermeneutically symbiotic relationships. The extensive
performance of Gen 1-3 in AH 5 demonstrates the height of Irenaeus’ intertextual
resourcefulness. As we have seen in previous books, the intertextual performance of
Gen 1-3 is shaped by a variety of strategies.
First, Irenaeus continues to use Gen 1-3 to structure his theological polemic.
As we have mentioned, in AH 5:15.2-16.2 there is a complex arrangement of
theological argumentation that coordinates the narrative of creation in Gen 1-2
with the healing of the blind man in John 9:1-7. In AH 5.23.1-2, Irenaeus presents
several intertextual readings of Gen 2:17 that draw from a diverse set of texts
including: Gen 1:5, Psalm 89:4 LXX, John 8:44, and Eph 1:10. Thus, the structure of
the whole chapter is organized around different interpretations of the divine
command given to Adam. While he is comfortable with a variety of intertexts, he is
principally concerned with the theological validation that God was proved true and
the serpent a liar when Adam disobeyed God’s command in Gen 3.
Second, Irenaeus uses a variety of catchwords to intertextually link passages.
In AH 5.5.1, the location and description of “paradise” (paradisus) threads together
the experiences of Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Paul (2 Cor 12:4),
although each one inverts the experience of Adam’s expulsion from paradise in Gen
3:23-24. In AH 5.7.1-2 he focuses on an exegetical treatment of the phrase “mortal
bodies” (mortalia corpora) in Rom 8:11, which he distinguishes from souls, and
connects to the body fashioned from the earth in Gen 2:7. The “mortal body” is the
same body that dissolves back into the earth in Gen 3:19, or the animal body of 1 Cor
290
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 56. This imagery of ascending higher than the angels must allude back to
Irenaeus’ the envy of the angels in the original creation. See Epid 16; cf. Behr, Asceticism, 85.
205
15:44, that is contrasted with the spiritual body that is raised to new life (1 Cor
15:42-44, John 20:20). In AH 5.12.2-6, Irenaeus links Gen 2:7, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts
2:17 and 1 Cor 15:45 with the imagery of “breath” (adspiratio), “Spirit” (Spiritus), and
“earth” (terra). Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, and Acts 2:17 confirm the economic change from
the general enlivening through the breath to the particular enlivening by the Spirit.
In AH 5.14.1-2 Irenaeus reads the “flesh and blood” (carnis et sanguinis) in 1 Cor 15:50
in correspondence to the body formed in Gen 2:7 and the language of “flesh” or
“blood” in Gen 4:10, Gen 9:5-6, Matt 23:35-36,291 John 1:14, Luke 19:10, and Col 1:22. In
AH 5.15.3, he also compares the original formation from the dust with Jer 1:5, Gal
1:15, and John 9:1 to exemplify how the Son of God formed Jeremiah, Paul, and the
blind man in the “womb” (venter). Then, in AH 5.17.1 he connects the sound of God
walking in paradise in Gen 3:8 with the “voice” (vocem) proclaiming the forgiveness
of sins in the Gospels. Finally, in AH 5.28.3-4 Irenaeus’ intertextual logic and
millenarian perspective unites the reference to the sixth “day” (dies) in Gen 2:1-2
with the connection of 1,000 years to a day in Psalm 89:4 LXX.
Third, in AH 5 the general theological or typological connections abound.
These connections are not located in any specific catchwords, but instead these
intertextual relationships are determined theologically and conceptually. Beginning
with his anthropology, in AH 5.1.1-3 Irenaeus provides a theological commentary on
the nature of plasma as a way to identify the solidarity with the whole human race
in the person of Adam. In the same context, he describes the motivation for creation
by linking Gen 1:26 with allusions to the predestination and foreknowledge of God
in Eph 1:11-12 and 1Pet 1:2. Therefore, creation is a calculated divine decision that
providentially unfolds throughout time. In AH 5.6.1, he conflates Gen 1:26 and Gen
2:7 to argue that the plasma of Adam’s formation is the substance moulded after the
image of God. He also conflates Gen 1:26 with Rom 8:29 to describe the
anthropological activity of the Spirit. The “perfect” or “spiritual” person (1 Cor 2:6,
15), according to Irenaeus, is not the man formed in Gen 1:26/2:7, but the person
described in 1 Thess 5:23 comprising body, soul and Spirit.
Irenaeus’ Christology surfaces in AH 5.21.1-2 where he envisions the
protoevangelium is fulfilled in Gen 3:15. The seed in Gen 3:15 is the seed in Gal 3:19
and the one born of a woman in Gal 4:4. He is also the Son of the Father who
291
Luke 11:50-51.
206
proclaims the command in Gen 3:15. Furthermore, the notion of being born of a
woman overturns the nature and function of Eve in the Garden. Just as Eve was
taken out of Adam and Satan deceived Adam by means of this woman, so also Christ
was born of a woman so that he might vanquish the same enemy who snared Adam.
In addition, the vanquishing of Satan is linked with the first temptation of Matt 4:210.292 Just as Adam was deceived though eating in Gen 3:6, now Christ, even in a state
of hunger, vanquished the same enemy by abstaining from eating.
Finally, the concluding chapters of AH 5 provide some eschatological
reflection on the nature of the kingdom of God and the “hallowed seventh day” of
creation. Irenaeus weaves an eschatological cento in AH 5.30.4 that concludes with
the restoration of creation on the “hallowed seventh day” of Gen 2:2-3. This day is
characterized by a number of events and passages that describe the restoration of
the faithful sitting at the table of the Lord in Matt 8:11. The same perspective on the
eschatological seventh day of creation is seen in AH 5.33.1-4 where Irenaeus
envisions the faithful are raised to life on a restored creation (Gen 27:27-29, Matt
13:38, Luke 14:12-13, and Matt 19:29). In the same context, the passages of Isa 11:6-9
and Isa 65:25 describe the restoration of the kingdom to its original subjection and
harmony in Gen 1:27-30. The future kingdom depicted in Isa 11:6-9 and Isa 65:25,
will be even more fruitful and plentiful than the original creation in Gen 1:27-30.
The same kind of eschatological intertextual weaving returns in the closing chapter
of AH 5.36.3, where Irenaeus connects a network of citations linked through a
theological vision for the eschatological kingdom of God.
The Adam-Christ typology also pervades Irenaeus’ intertextual exegesis in
AH 5. In AH 5.1.1-3 he reads the Incarnation in Luke 1:35 in light of the creation in
Gen 2:7, and these connections are substantiated by the Adam-Christ typology
expressed in 1 Cor 5:7 and the reference to divine plural in Gen 1:26, so that the
same divine persons creating in Gen 2:7 are also active in Luke 1:35. In AH 5.2.1
Irenaeus provides a sophisticated soteriological connection between the substance
of Adam’s formation and the substance of Christ’s sacrifice. Even though Satan had
taken God’s creatures captive (Gen 3:1-6), Christ had come to retrieve “his own”
(ipsum) creation (Gen 2:7, John 1:11), which is the ancient plasma of Adam, and
redeem it by his own flesh and blood (Eph 1:7, 1 Tim 2:6). In AH 5.12.2-6, Irenaeus
292
Luke 4:6-7.
207
utilizes a Pauline anthropological tension between the first Adam and the second
Adam established in 1 Cor 15:45-46, and contrasts the life given by the breath in Gen
2:7, which is temporal, with the life given by the Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45, which is
eternal. However, the most developed group of typological connections are located
in AH 5:15.2-16.2. Irenaeus provides a complex method of theological argumentation
that correlates John 9:1-7 with Gen 1-2 through a variety of texts including: Gen
1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen 3:9, Gen 3:19, Jer 1:5, Luke 15:4-6, Luke 19:10, John 1:14,
John 5:14, John 9:1-7, Gal 1:15, Phil 2:8, and Titus 3:5. Irenaeus argues that Christ
revealed himself as the one through whom all things were created in Gen 1-2, so
that the healing of the blind man becomes a reenactment of the creation from the
dust in Gen 2:7. Furthermore, the mention of the “work of God” in John 9:3, the
fashioning of the eyes from the dust in John 9:6, and the washing in John 9:7 all
point to conceptual and theological connections with the creation of all things by
means of the Word of God. The Adam-Christ typology surfaces again in AH 5.16.2
where he links Gen 1:26 with the Incarnation in John 1:14 and a discussion of the
passion in Gen 3:6 with Phil 2:8 to describe how the first Adam’s disobedience in Gen
3:6 is overturned by the second Adam’s obedience in Phil 2:8.
Fourth, Irenaeus continues to utilize the images in Gen 1-3 to illustrate his
theological perspective and the activity of his opponents. In AH 5.1.1-3, he utilizes
the bread-making imagery of 1 Cor 5:6-7 to interpret the “human-making” imagery
of Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. The Gnostics, for Irenaeus, remain in the “old leaven” of
Adam’s formation, who was conquered and expelled from paradise. In AH 5.3.1, he
addresses the power of God to raise the flesh in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53, and then
exemplifies this power to raise the flesh with the image of God’s creative power in
Gen 2:7. In AH 5.5.1-2, the “Hands of God,” drawn from allusions to Gen 1:26 and Gen
2:7, communicate the notion of preservation and protection of the substance of the
flesh, which is substantiated by the experiences of Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings
2:11), Jonah (Jonah 2), the longevity of the patriarchs (i.e. Gen 5:2-32, Gen 9:29), and
Shadrach, Mechach, and Abednego (Dan 3:19-25). In AH 5.20.2, Irenaeus combines
the imagery of Gen 2:8, Gen 2:16-17, Rom 12:3, and Eph 1:10 to compare the
Gnostics with deception of the serpent in the Garden. The faithful, for Irenaeus, find
themselves in the same position as Adam and he encourages them to eat from all trees
208
of the garden, that is all the scriptures, but not of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil, which is the teaching of the Gnostics.
Fifth, Irenaeus continues to use the classical general-to-particular manner of
argumentation. In AH 5.8.1, the faithful received the Spirit as a pledge (Eph 1:14,
Rom 8:9, 15) leading them to the fullness of the Spirit that is given in the final
consummation (Gen 1:26, 1 Cor 13:12). Similarly, he argues that the breath is given
to all, while the Spirit is given particularly. In AH 5.12.2, he develops the contrast
between the universality of the breath and the particularity of the Spirit with
allusions to Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 15:45, Isa 42:5, and Isa 57:16.
Therefore, from the opening pages of his refutation to his closing citation of
Gen 1:26, every decisive aspect of his theological argumentation includes mention of
these early creation accounts read in continuity and harmony with the rest of the
scriptural witness. Irenaeus is nowhere content to read Genesis apart from the rest
of scriptural revelation, but following his intertextual perspective he applies a
variety of reading strategies and theological perspectives that serve to unite a
variety of texts within his argumentation.
209
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
7.1 Introduction
This evaluation of the intertextual reception of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus exposes the
wide range of texts that commune with the creation accounts in his argumentation
and exegesis. With Gen 1-3 as our textual landmark, we have shown how Irenaeus
reads scripture in continuity with other scriptural texts. For Irenaeus, therefore, Gen
1-3 must be read within a network of interrelated texts, which naturally
characterizes his exegesis as intertextual (or inter-scriptural).1 Farkasfalvy, writing
nearly 50 years ago, concluded that the fundamental feature of Irenaeus’ exegesis is
harmony (consonans), and subsequent studies have substantiated his view.2
Scriptural harmony is the “theological norm” and the “principal result” of Irenaeus’
exegesis.3 Likewise, the recent discussions on intertextuality in Fishbane, Boyarin,
Hays, and Young have raised our awareness of the diversity and influence of
intertextuality in the ancient world. We have seen how, for Irenaeus, scripture
passages are like carefully crafted tiles framed within the mosaic of a king (AH 1.8.1),
or lines in a Homeric poem properly set in their narratival arrangement (AH 1.9.4),
or finely tuned instruments projecting a single hymnic melody to God (AH 2.28.3).
The interpretation of any one part of scripture requires the involvement of other
scripture passages (AH 3.12.9). It is fitting and necessary that the interpreter of
Irenaeus reads Irenaeus as he reads scripture.
However, over the last 50 years the scholarly interest in Irenaeus as an
exegete has gained significant momentum and produced some excellent
monographs, but as we observed this trajectory of Irenaean scholarship has
overlooked the intertextual nature inherent to Irenaeus’ own hermeneutical
project. These studies applied critical methods that isolated his reading of particular
segments of scripture, including his reading of individual passages, chapters, or
books, and which necessarily disconnected the textual networks and scriptural
harmonies that defined his exegetical practice. While this is evident in studies on
Pauline and Johannine literature, recent works on Genesis also reflect this
1
AH 2.27.1; AH 2.28.3; AH 3.12.9.
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 328; Margerie, Introduction, 69-70; Reventlow, History, 173;
Brox, “Irenaeus,” 483-506; Grant and Tracy, A Short History, 49-50.
3
Farkasfalvy, “Theology of Scripture,” 328.
2
210
perspective. We have shown that, in terms of Genesis, Orbe, Kannengiesser, and
Jacobsen argued for a closer scrutiny of Irenaeus’ hermeneutical practice as an
avenue into his thought.4 Steenberg went a step further and provided an integrative
analysis of Irenaeus’ theology of creation based upon allusions to Gen 1-11, but the
integration that characterizes his theological perspective is also true of his applied
exegesis.5 Finally, Holsinger-Friesen continued to press the importance of Irenaean
hermeneutics, but his isolation of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 apart from the Bishop’s
textual networking continued to marginalize the more fundamental and
sophisticated aspects of Irenaeus’ use of scripture.6 Moving beyond these
contributions, this present work has investigated the performance of Gen 1-3 in
Irenaeus, not by isolating these passages from their natural textual connections, but
instead making these relationships the focus of our inquiry. From these intertextual
relationships we were able to discern an array of reading strategies that Irenaeus
employs as he articulates his theological arguments.
In this conclusion we provide a measure of synthesis and general analysis
regarding Irenaeus’ use of Gen 1-3. In the first part, we underscore Irenaeus’
presentation of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1-3 that, as he observes, bears some
resemblance to his own intertextual hermeneutical practice, even if the nature of
the textual relationships are theologically distinct. Irenaeus’ description of the
Gnostic intertextual use of Gen 1-3 was framed into four procedural methods
including: catchwords, gametria, prosopological interpretation, and a “plain sense”
reading. In the second part, we provide synthesis and summary of Irenaeus’ reading
of Gen 1-3 through analyzing the particular function of Gen 1-3, and the variety of
intertextual methods that guide his reading. From our analysis we have delineated a
set of conceptual classifications that characterize his practice, including: an
organizational or structural function, illustrative identification and application,
catchwords or verbal connections, prosopological (or prosopographical)
interpretation, a literal or “plain sense” reading, general theological or typological
connections, narratival or canonical arrangements, and a general-to-particular
4
Orbe, “Cinco exegesis”; Kannengiesser, “The «Speaking God»”; Jacobsen , “The Importance of
Genesis 1-3.”
5
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 4.
6
Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 2, 222-5.
211
argumentation. We will discuss each of these below in summary form and describe
how these methods served Irenaeus’ intertextual reading of Gen 1-3.
7.2 Irenaeus on the Gnostic Reading of Gen 1- 3
Irenaeus’ refutation of Gnosis is most frequently set in terms of rejecting their
exegesis of scripture. Irenaeus is acutely concerned with Gnostic adaptation,
transposition, and/or division of passages from their proper linguistic, narratival,
and theological framework.7 However, like Irenaeus, the Gnostics use catchwords or
linking terms to blend passages within scripture. This is not a widespread practice
in Irenaeus’ summation of Gnosis since they are much more interested in
conforming the narrative to their mythological system than harmonizing the
scriptural narrative within itself. A key catchword found among both the
Valentinians and Marcosians is the language of “earthly” (choicum) drawn from 1
Cor 15:47.8 This description is used to explain the substance of the man fashioned
from the “dust” (limus) or “earth” (terra) in Gen 2:5-7. Some Marcosians even
contrast this formation with Adam’s “fleshy” (carnalem) part formed in Gen 3:21.
Second, the Gnostics use gametria, which is a numerological method of
connecting texts. Marcus and the Marcosians are drawn to the “sixth” (sexta) day of
creation in Gen 1:31, but the Marcosians also link together groupings of four, ten,
twelve, and thirty found throughout Gen 1:1-27. These various numbers validate the
Pleromic system of aeons, and in each case they connect these numerological
groupings with other scripture passages.9 This type of reading ignores the
immediate context of the passages and the larger narratival framework of scripture,
but preferring instead to focus exclusively upon the numbers or quantities
represented in a given passage, and their relationship to a mythological system
distinct from scripture.
Third, the Gnostics employ a type of prosopological interpretation whereby
they identify the figures in their own mythical system with different persons in the
Genesis narrative. In AH 1.24.1-2 and AH 1.30.1-9, the speakers and characters in Gen
1:26 and Gen 2:7 are the Demiurge and his angelic servants. Ophites also identify
Jaldabaoth and his angelic sons as the divine beings proclaiming the command of
7
AH 1.pr.1; AH 1.3.6; AH 1.8.1; AH 1.9.4; AH 4.pf.4; AH 5.13.2; AH 5.20.1-2.
AH 1.5.5; AH 1.18.2.
9
AH 1.14.6; AH 1.18.1-2.
8
212
Gen 2:17 and working through the activity of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Gen
2:22, Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:7, and Gen 3:20. They frequently draw from the divine
proclamation of Isa 45:5/46:9, and the angelic imagery of Eph 1:21 to describe the
nature and character of these divine beings.
Finally, the Gnostics do provide a type of “plain sense” reading of Gen 1-3 in
the sense that the read the texts in light of their immediate literary context. In
other words, they read Gen 1-3 as a coherent, literal description of creation.
However, they carefully amend the identity of the characters and the significance of
the events. From the Gnostic perspective the problem is that Moses wrote before
the full revelation of knowledge given in Christ, so his account must be revised
where he does not conform to the Gnostics doctrines.10 As a result, their theological
synthesis unifies diverse passages by means of underlying patterns of connection in
order to elucidate the Gnostic myth.11 These methods of Gnostic intertextuality
compete with similar methods that Irenaeus employs in the latter books of Adversus
Haereses.
7.3 Irenaeus’ Intertextual Reading of Gen 1-3
In addition to the Gnostic intertextuality Irenaeus describes in AH 1, this study also
discloses the wide-ranging diversity of intertextual relationships that Irenaeus
forms with Gen 1-3. Guided by his own theological framework, Irenaeus reads a
remarkable assortment of texts in continuity with Gen 1-3. He is not necessarily
beholden to particular sets of relationships, but rather, through his theological
argumentation, freely forms (and re-forms) interrelated networks of texts. As a
result, it is improper to conclude that Irenaeus is particularly Pauline or Johannine
in his reading of creation.12 He never relies upon a singular author or genre and, in
fact, in many cases his argument rests on the continuity between Moses, the
prophets, and the apostles. He makes this argument clear in AH 2.2.5 where he
remarks that the faithful must read the Mosaic account of creation in continuity
with the apostolic testimony. The Mosaic account, according to Irenaeus, is a more
trusted authority (Heb 3:5) on creation than the Gnostic intellectuals who
10
Giverson, “The Apocryphon of John,” 75-6; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 61, 101-3.
Grant, Irenaeus, 25.
12
Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, xx.
11
213
continually revise or amend Genesis in accordance with their own theological
perspective.
Therefore, from beginning to end every decisive aspect of his theological
argumentation includes mention of these early creation accounts read in continuity
and harmony with the rest of the scriptural witness. Irenaeus is no where content to
read Genesis apart from the rest of scriptural revelation, but following his
intertextual perspective he applies a variety of reading strategies and theological
perspectives that serve to unite a variety of texts within his argumentation. The
sophistication of these intertextual networks communicates a mastery of the
scriptural material that cannot be assumed as mere received traditions.13
7.3.1 Organizational and Structural Function
To begin with, the Bishop of Lyon frequently organizes or structures many of his
arguments with the contents of Gen 1-3. These organizational functions repeatedly
unite passages in Irenaeus’ exegetical logic and expose the way his arguments are
naturally guided by the conceptual imagery inherent to scripture. First, Irenaeus
uses Gen 1-3, especially Gen 1:26, to frame his work as a whole. While Genesis
imagery surfaces early and often, the whole work concludes with a citation of Gen
1:26.14 We have also observed that the majority of the allusions to Gen 1-3 surface in
the opening sections of the chapter and paragraph divisions in AH. By our
calculation well over half (59%) of the sections we evaluated contained an allusion
to Gen 1-3 in the initial paragraph. If we include the final paragraph the percentage
is greater than 70%. This suggests that Irenaeus tends to allude to Gen 1-3 in the
opening or closing portions of his argument. To put it another way, the contents of
Gen 1-3 function as transitional texts within the flow of his thought.
Second, the texts of Gen 1-3 participate in specific organizational schemes
such as chiasms, supportive texts, or structural markers. While they are essential to
his polemical representation of Gnosis in AH 1-2, in AH 3 the organizational function
truly comes to the forefront in the chiastic arrangements of AH 3.18.1-18.7, AH
3.19.1-21.10, and AH 3.23.1-8. The parallel allusions to Gen 2:5 in AH 3.18.1-2 and AH
3.18.7 frame the chiasm as a means of extending the Adam-Christ typology. The
13
14
Orbe, Teología V.1, 13-23.
AH 5.36.3. Gen 1:26 is cited in the closing line of the argument portion of the Epideixis (Epid 97).
214
allusions to Gen 2:5 and 3:5 drive the first half of his anti-docetic argument in AH
3.19.3-20.1. The climax of his recapitulative argument is found in AH 3.23.1-8 with
the theological arrangement of the narrative of Gen 3-4. Gen 3:5 frames this chiasm
as a whole, but he also alludes to an array of Genesis texts including: Gen 1:26, Gen
3:7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:15, Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17-19, Gen 3:21, and Gen
3:23-4. In addition, Irenaeus uses a host of intertexts to interpret these passages
including: Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:11, Matt 12:29, Matt 25:41, Psalm 90:13 LXX, Prov
1:7, Luke 10:19, Rom 5:12, 17, Rom 6:2, 10, 1Cor 15:26, 54-55, Gal 3:16, and Rev 20:2.
The whole arrangement completes Irenaeus’ theology of recapitulation, and reveals
the Christological fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen 3:15. In AH 4, Gen 1-3 functions
predominately as a supporting text for the interpretation of the words of the Lord
and the Gospel parables. AH 4.34.4, AH 4.36.2-6, and AH 4.40.3, for example, offer
commentary on a series of parables that incorporate an allusion to Gen 1:26, 2:7 or
3:15. However, in AH 4.38.1-4 Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 3:5 are drawn to the
forefront and become controlling texts arguing for perfection in the image of God.
Finally, the most complex structural function of Gen 1-3 occurs in AH 5. While texts
throughout AH 5 continue to serve in a supporting role, the entire section of AH
5.15.1-24.4 is an organized attempt to re-read the events of Gen 1-3 in light of three
principal features of the Christ event: Incarnation, crucifixion, and temptation.15
Each of these episodes of Christ’s life is read with Gen 1-3 in one hand and the
Gospels in the other. In AH 5.15.2-16.2, in particular, there is a complex method of
theological argumentation that is arranged around the connections between John
9:1-7 and Gen 1-2. In AH 5.23.1-2, Irenaeus presents several intertextual readings of
Gen 2:17 that draw from a diverse set of texts including: Gen 1:5, Psalm 89:4 LXX,
John 8:44, and Eph 1:10. While he provides a series of intertexts to read alongside
Gen 2:17, in each case he is principally concerned with the theological
demonstration that God was proved true and the serpent a liar when Adam
disobeyed God’s command in Gen 3. Finally, the Sabbath day of rest in Gen 2:1-3
organizes the prophetic picture of the kingdom of God in the closing chapters AH
5.28-36.
15
Orbe, Theología V.2, 3, 104-5, 345; See also Donovan, One Right Reading?, 153-4.
215
7.3.2 Illustrative Identification or Application
Irenaeus also applies the images and language of Gen 1-3 in an illustrative manner.
In many cases Irenaeus uses these textual images for polemical purposes and
identifies those of his contemporary setting with particular characters and images
in the protological accounts. His most frequent application is the characterization
of the Gnostics as contemporary manifestations of the serpent (AH 3.23.1, 8, AH
4.pf.4, and AH 5.26.2). Just as the serpent was leading Adam and Eve astray in Gen
3:1-5, so also are the heretics deceiving the faithful and leading them away from the
true knowledge of God. In AH 3.23.8 and AH 5.26.2 he adds that the eternal fire of
Matt 25:41 was prepared for Satan and his companions who attempt to deceive
God’s people.
Then, in AH 3.24.1 he imagines the breath of God that is imparted to Adam in
Gen 2:7 as the church, or the vassal of Matt 12:29, that has received the precious
deposit of the Spirit. Similarly, in AH 5.1.1-3, he utilizes the bread-making imagery
of 1 Cor 5:6-7 to interpret Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. The Gnostics, for Irenaeus, remain
in the “old leaven,” which is the “old” substance of Adam’s formation, who was
conquered and expelled from paradise. In AH 5.3.1, he alludes to the power of God to
raise the flesh in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53 and then illustrates this power with
God’s creative work in Gen 2:7. In AH 5.20.1-2, Irenaeus describes the church as the
manifestation of paradise in the present age and petitions the Gnostics to flee to the
church and be nourished by the scriptures. Combining the imagery of Gen 2:8, Gen
2:16-17, Rom 12:3, and Eph 1:10 he imagines that the faithful are in same position as
Adam. Just as God commanded Adam, he encourages the faithful to partake from all
the trees of the garden, or all the scriptures, but refrain from the tree of knowledge
of good and evil, that is the teaching of the Gnostics.
7.3.3 Catchwords or Verbal Connections
Irenaeus also coordinates passages through common vocabulary or catchwords that
make philological connections between texts. The imagery of Gen 1-3 provides
Irenaeus a seedbed of images that serve to draw connection with a wide range of
scriptural references. In most cases these intertextual connections qualify or define
the meaning of related terms in other scriptural contexts. First, the creation
216
imagery in Gen 1, and particularly God speaking creation into existence in Gen 1:316
corresponds to God speaking in Psalm 33:9 LXX17 and God creating by means of the
Word in John 1:3. The imagery of creating flora (Gen 1:11), including the grapevine,
and water (Gen 1:9) relate to the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana where Jesus
changes water into wine.18 The catchword “all things” (omnia) is the linking
reference for several texts in AH 4.20.1-4a (Mand 1, Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, and Matt
11:27), all of which serve as commentary on Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.
The most common linking term is the substance of Adam’s flesh or
“formation” (plasma) and a host of similar images analogous to this substance. In AH
1.9.3 and AH 3.18.1, the imagery of “flesh” (caro) in John 1:14 parallels the substance
of Adam’s formation in Gen 2:7.19 Similar imagery is located in AH 3.18.7, but he adds
the allusion to the “virgin soil” (terra rudis) in Gen 2:5. In AH 3.19.3, we find
analogous descriptions that relate Adam’s “formation” (plasma) in connection to the
lost “sheep” (ouem) of Luke 15:4, and the “earth” (terra) of Eph 4:9. AH 3.21.10 also
follows with similar connections of Adam’s “formation” (plasma) with the “untilled
earth” (rudi terra) of Gen 2:5, the Word of God who forms all things (John 1:3) and
the Adam-Christ typology of Rom 5:12, 19. In AH 3.22.1, Irenaeus describes the
“meek” (mites) nature of the flesh that is fashioned from the “earth” (terra, Matt 5:5,
Gen 2:7). Then, in AH 5.7.1-2 he focuses on an exegetical treatment of the phrase
“mortal bodies” (mortalia corpora) in Rom 8:11, which he distinguishes from souls,
and links to the body fashioned from the earth in Gen 2:7. The “mortal body” is the
same body that dissolves back into the earth in Gen 3:19 or the animal body of 1 Cor
15:44, which also stands in contrast to the spiritual body that is raised to new life (1
Cor 15:42-44, John 20:20). In AH 5.14.1-2, Irenaeus reads the “flesh and blood” (carnis
et sanguinis) in 1 Cor 15:50 in correspondence to the body formed in Gen 2:7 and
references to “flesh” or “blood” in Gen 4:10, Gen 9:5-6, Matt 23:35-36,20 John 1:14,
Luke 19:10, and Col 1:22. He argues that Christ’s advent involved the assumption and
salvation of flesh and blood. He compares the original formation from the dust in
AH 5.15.3 with Jer 1:5, Gal 1:15, and John 9:1 to describe how the Son of God formed
Jeremiah, Paul, and the blind man in the “womb” (venter).
16
Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc.
Psalm 148:5 LXX.
18
AH 3.11.5.
19
AH 1.9.3; AH 1.22.1.
20
Luke 11:50-51.
17
217
In addition to the imagery of the body, the language of “life” (vitae) and
“forever” (saeculum) connects Gen 2:7, Psalm 32:9 LXX,21 Psalm 20:5 LXX, and Luke
16:10 in AH 2.34.3-4. Elsewhere, Irenaeus threads Gen 2:7, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts 2:17
and 1Cor 15:45 with the imagery of “breath” (adspiratio), “Spirit” (Spiritus), and
“earth” (terra).22 Isa 42:5 and Isa 57:16 confirm the economic change in the
enlivening strength of the breath and the Spirit, while Acts 2:17 examples the new
administration of the Spirit. AH 3.23.6-8 boasts the connecting imagery of “life”
(vitae, Gen 2:9, Rom 6:10), “serpent” (serpentem, Gen 3:15, Psalm 90:13 LXX, Rev
12:9/20:2), “seed” (semen, Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16,19), and the verb “to tread upon”
(calcare, Gen 3:15, Luke 10:19).
Alongside the anthropological imagery, the language of “paradise”
(paradisus) links 2 Cor 12:4 with God placing Adam in paradise in Gen 2:15.23 In AH
5.5.1, the location and description of “paradise” (paradisus) unites the experiences of
Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Paul (2 Cor 12:4). In AH 5.17.1, the sound
of God walking in paradise in Gen 3:8 is linked with the “voice” (vocem) proclaiming
the forgiveness of sins in the Gospels. Then, in AH 3.23.2 he describes the
condemnation of the serpent, or Satan, with the links between the curse of Gen 3:14
and the eternal fire in Matt 25:41 that prepared for those who are “accursed”
(κατηραμενοι). Finally, in AH 5.28.3-4, Irenaeus’ intertextual logic and Millenarian
perspective unites the reference to the sixth “day” (dies) in Gen 2:1-2 with Psalm
89:4 LXX.
7.3.4 Prosopological Interpretation
Irenaeus follows a style of prosopological (or prosopographical) interpretation
where he identifies the characters, titles, or activities of Gen 1-3 with distinctive
divine persons. He appeals to a variety of passages to prove the activity of the Word
and Wisdom with the Father in creation. In AH 1.22.1, he links the identity of the
Creator in Genesis with the “Father” (Pater) of Abraham (Exod 3:6) and the “Father”
(Pater) of Jesus (Eph 1:3), and this same Creator and Father fashioned all things by
means of the Word (John 1:3). Irenaeus also assumes the act of creation involves not
only the Father, but also the Word and Wisdom of God. Beginning in Gen 1:3, he
21
Psalm 148:5-6.
AH 5.12.2-6.
23
AH 2.30.7.
22
218
describes how God created all things by means of the Word (John 1:3).24 In AH 2.30.9,
he conflates references to Word of God in Heb 1:3 and the Wisdom of God in Mand 1
in order to communicate the activity of the Word and Wisdom in creation. In AH
3.11.5, the connections between Gen 1-2 and John 2 are arranged to identify the
Creator in Gen 1 with the one who performed the miracle at the wedding in Cana. In
AH 3.21.10, he again links John 1:3 and Gen 2:7, and then in AH 3.24.2 he alludes to
the Word of Psalm 32:6 LXX and the Wisdom of Prov 8:30 in continuity with Gen
1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7. In AH 4.pf.4, Irenaeus interprets the proclamation of Gen
1:26 as the two Hands of God, the Son and the Spirit, and then in AH 4.6.2 he
converts the verbal forms of the acts of creation into titles for God as a means to
identify the Creator. The same dialogical emphasis is found in AH 4.10.1, where
Irenaeus alludes to the Son of God inquiring after Adam in Gen 3:9. In AH 4.20.4,
Irenaeus uses Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25, Prov 8:27-31 in connection with Gen 1:26 to
explain the “Trinitarian” nature of God creating in Genesis. The same theological
reading of creation is found in AH 4.32.1, where he alludes to John 1:3, Eph 4:5-6, 1516, and Col 2:19. In AH 5.1.1-3, Irenaeus interprets also the Incarnation in Luke 1:35
in a typological relationship to the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7, and the reference
to divine plural in Gen 1:26. The same divine persons creating Adam in Gen 2:7 are
also active in the Incarnation in Luke 1:35. Finally, in AH 5.5.1-2 the “Hands of God,”
drawn from allusions to Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, communicate the notion of
preservation and protection of the substance of the flesh.
7.3.5 Literal or “Plain Sense” Reading
In a few instances, Irenaeus will provide a “plain sense” reading of Gen 1-3 that
interprets these passages as a literal account of creation, without explicit reference
to texts outside of Gen 1-3. Generally speaking, he frequently conflates Gen 1:26 and
Gen 2:7 into one creation account of humankind in two aspects: the creation from
the dust and creation in the image of God.25 In AH 2.30.7 he also reads Gen 1:1, Gen
2:7, and Gen 2:15 as a summary of God’s creative acts. However, AH 3.23.1-8 provides
a literal or “plain sense” reading of Gen 3, even though the texts are crafted into the
structure of a chiasm. While Gen 3:5 frames the whole chiasm, he cites an array of
24
25
AH 2.2.5.
See, for example, AH 4.pf.4.
219
Genesis texts including: Gen 1:26, Gen 3:7-8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:15,
Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17-19, Gen 3:21, and Gen 3:23-24. In doing so, he describes the
disobedience and judgment of Adam, Eve, and the serpent as the fulfillment of Gen
3:15. These instances prove that the original context is a context to read Gen 1-3,
but by no means the most important context.
7.3.6 General Theological or Typological Relationships
There are also general conceptual or theological connections that are not
necessarily linked though specific verbal relationships. It is common for these
connections to have some Christological influence that results in theologically
symbiotic relationships between these Genesis passages and other scriptural
references. While Irenaeus is not necessarily thinking in terms of traditional
theological disciplines, clearly Irenaeus’ doctrine of God, revelation, anthropology,
Christology, and eschatology guide his reading of Gen 1-3. To be sure, these
doctrines are not mutually exclusive and are carefully integrated in his polemical
arguments. In addition, Irenaeus offers a series of typological relationships that
influence his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 including: Adam-Cain, Adam-Jonah,
Adam-Christ, and Eve-Mary.
In the first instance, the knowledge of God as the Creator of all things is an
epistemological foundation for his theological framework. These textual referents
communicate the revelatory aspect of God’s creative acts and the nature of the
Creator-creature distinction. Irenaeus discusses the knowledge of God and its limits
in AH 2.26.1 with the intertextual use of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 8:1, John 15:9-10 and
1 Cor 2:2. He argues his opponents reflect the puffed up knowledge of 1 Cor 8:1 that
is contradictory of the Creator-creature relationship established in Gen 1-2. A few
chapters later, he suggests the faithful should content themselves with this clear
revelation of God, which he describes with a view of progressive sanctification that
moves from creation toward perfection in the divine likeness through an
interlocking set of textual references including: Gen 1:1, Gen 1:26/2:7, Gen 1:28, Heb
7:7, Job 3:16, and Matt 3:12.26 Finally, the whole section of AH 5:15.2-16.2 offers a
complex intertextual correlation of John 9:1-7 with Gen 1-2 through a variety of
texts including: Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen 3:9, Gen 3:19, Jer 1:5, Luke 15:4-6,
26
AH 2.28.1.
220
Luke 19:10, John 1:14, John 5:14, John 9:1-7, Gal 1:15, Phil 2:8, and Titus 3:5. For
Irenaeus, Christ revealed himself as the one through whom all things were created
in Gen 1-2, so that the healing of the blind man becomes a reenactment of the
creation from the dust in Gen 2:7. Furthermore, the mention of the work of God in
John 9:3, the fashioning of the eyes from the dust in John 9:6, and the washing in
John 9:7 all point to conceptual and theological connections with the creation of all
things by means of the Word of God.
While Irenaeus’ reflection on anthropology is controlled by an Adam-Christ
typology, he also reflects more generally on the nature of the human person, the
relationship between the body and soul, and the bodily resurrection. In AH 2.34.3-4
Irenaeus addresses the basic anthropological connection between the soul and the
body through the harmonization of Gen 2:7, Psalm 20:5 LXX, Psalm 32:9 LXX,27 and
Luke 16:10. He argues that since the soul does not have life naturally but partakes of
life from God, the extent of life is dependent upon the will of the Creator. In AH
5.1.1-3, he provides a theological commentary on the nature of plasma as a way to
identify the solidarity with the whole human race in the person of Adam. In the
same context, he describes the motivation for creation by linking Gen 1:26 with the
allusions to the predestination and foreknowledge of God in Eph 1:11-12 and 1 Pet
1:2, which envisions that the creation of humanity is a highly calculated divine
decision. In AH 5.6.1, he conflates Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 to argue that the plasma of
Adam’s formation is the substance moulded after the image of God. He also
conflates Gen 1:26 with Rom 8:29 to describe the anthropological activity of the
Spirit. The “perfect” or “spiritual” person (1 Cor 2:6, 15) is not the man formed in
Gen 1-2, but the person described in 1 Thess 5:23 comprising body, soul, and Spirit.
Irenaeus also derives intertextual references from his Christology and the
nature of the relationship between the Word of God and the Father. In AH 4.14.1, the
common glorification reflected in John 17:5 is a means to interpret the motivation
for God’s creative acts in Gen 1-2. The Creator-creature distinction established in
Gen 2:7 communicates the sufficiency of the Creator and the need for humanity to
be glorified by the Father. This is also exemplified by a series of conceptually and
linguistically connected texts including: John 17:24, Isa 43:5-7, and Matt 24:28. In AH
4.33.4, he also conflates Isa 7:14, John 1:14, Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 to describe the
27
Psalm 148:5-6 LXX.
221
salvific nature of the Incarnation and argues that Christ must be greater than David,
Solomon, Jonah, and even the evil one who subdued humanity (Matt 12:41-42, Matt
22:43, Matt 12:29), because humankind was formed in his image (Gen 1:26). Finally,
the “descending” (descendere) and “ascending” (ascendere) imagery in AH 3.19.3 binds
the Incarnation and the ascension though linking Isa 7:11, Luke 15:4-6, and Eph 4:910. The object of salvation in each case is man formed from the dust of the earth
(Gen 2:7).
The performance of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus’ eschatology focuses on his reading
of Gen 2:2-3, and his understanding of the hallowed seventh day of creation. In AH
4.16.1, the completion of creation in Gen 2:2-3 is a sign (Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13) that
anticipates the expectation of God’s people eternally dwelling in God’s presence
(Matt 6:19, Rom 8:36). He extends this eschatological vision in AH 5.30.4 and AH
5.33.1-4 with descriptions of the restoration of the faithful sitting at the table of the
Lord in Matt 8:11 and enjoying life in a restored creation (Gen 27:27-29, Matt 13:38,
Luke 14:12-13, and Matt 19:29). In the same context, the passages of Isa 11:6-9 and
Isa 65:25 describe the restoration of creation to its original subjection in Gen 1:2730, although the future kingdom will be even more fruitful and plentiful than the
original creation. The same eschatological intertextual weaving returns in AH 5.36.3,
where Irenaeus connects a network of citations depicting the eschatological
kingdom of God.
Alongside his general theological reflections, Irenaeus imagines a series of
typological relationships with the characters of Gen 1-3 including: Adam-Christ,
Adam-Jonah, Adam-Cain, and Eve-Mary typology. First of all, the Adam-Cain
typology in AH 3.23.4-5 serves as the centerpiece of a larger chiasm in AH 3.23.1-8,
and Irenaeus contrasts the response of Cain to God, with the response of Adam.
While Cain was insolent before God, Adam was contrite, and Adam’s contrition is
aptly described as the proper fear of God in Prov 1:7.
Second, in AH 3.20.1 Irenaeus follows an Adam-Jonah typology and, following
the “sign of Jonah” in Matt 12:39-40, reads the account of Jonah in light of the
events of the Garden and 1 Cor 1:29. He specifically links Jonah 1:9, Jonah 2:1-2, and
Jonah 3:1, 8-9, with an allusion to the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:5-8. He
imagines Satan as the “great whale” (magna ceto), who overpowered the first couple
in the Garden by means of a carefully calculated deception. But just as Jonah
222
received an unexpected salvation from the belly of the whale, so also did Adam
receive an unexpected salvation from sin and death.
Third, the most extensive and consistent typological relationship continues
to be the Adam-Christ typology. The Pauline analogy contributes a framework that
Irenaeus extends and expands with a variety of intertextual references. A general
Adam-Christ typology in AH 3.18.1 binds together Gen 2:7 and John 1:14, and these
theological connections are supported by Eph 1:10 and Deut 32:4. The same
theological perspective harmonizes Gen 2:5 with Rom 5:12, 19. In AH 5.1.1-3,
Irenaeus also interprets the Incarnation in Luke 1:35 in a typological relationship
with the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7. In AH 5.2.1, Irenaeus argues that though
Satan had taken God’s creatures captive (Gen 3:1-6), Christ came to retrieve “his
own” (ipsum) creation (Gen 2:7, John 1:11), which is the ancient plasma of Adam, and
redeem it by his own flesh and blood (Eph 1:7, 1 Tim 2:6). The Adam-Christ typology
surfaces again in AH 5.16.2 where he links Gen 1:26 with the incarnation in John 1:14
and a discussion of the passion in Gen 3:6 with Phil 2:8 to describe how the first
Adam’s disobedience in Gen 3:6 is overturned by the second Adam’s obedience in
Phil 2:8. In AH 5.21.1-2, he draws together Gen 3:15 with Gal 3:19 and Gal 4:4, so that
the protoevangelium is presented as a prophecy through which he views the birth of
Christ and the vanquishing of Satan. In addition, the vanquishing of Satan is linked
with the first temptation of Matt 4:2-10. Just as Adam was deceived though eating in
Gen 3:6, now Christ, even in a state of hunger, vanquished the same enemy by
abstaining from eating in Matt 4:3.
The Eve-Mary typology is the last typological relationship that guides
Irenaeus reading of Gen 1-3. In AH 3.22.1 he interprets the actions of Eve in
correspondence to those of Mary. Whereas Eve becomes the cause of death in Gen
3:6, Mary is the cause of salvation and resurrection in Luke 1:38, Heb 5:9, and Eph
4:16/Col 2:19. Extending his analysis of Gen 3:15 and Gal 4:4 in AH 5.21.1-2, the
notion of being born of a woman overturns the nature and function of Eve in the
Garden. Just as Eve was taken out of Adam and Satan deceived Adam by means of
this woman, so also Christ was born of a woman so that he might vanquish the same
enemy who snared Adam.
223
7.3.7 Narratival or Canonical Arrangement
Irenaeus coordinates texts in a narratival or chronological relationship. In most
cases, there is no substantive commentary on these texts, Irenaeus simply arranges
scriptural allusions to depict the continuity of salvation history. In AH 2.30.7,
Irenaeus also understands the “spiritual mysteries” (sacramenta... spiritalia) that Paul
witnessed while raptured to paradise in 2 Cor 12:4 as the “operations of God” (Dei
operationes), which he defines as the creative acts of God in Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, and Gen
2:15. In AH 2.30.9, Irenaeus describes the nature of God and God’s economic activity
using Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:8 to frame certain events of salvation history including
allusions to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Law, Prophets, and Christ. In AH 3.3.3,
he provides another telescoped summary of salvation history and in AH 3.11.8
summarizes the covenantal structure of scripture beginning with a reference to the
Adamic Covenant. In AH 4.6.2, he reads a summary of the acts of God in succession
beginning with allusions to Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 1:28. Finally, in AH 4.11.2
Irenaeus reads Gen 1:28 as a paradigm for human growth that is realized in the
unfolding of salvation history.
He also presents canonical arrangements of texts that intentionally links
texts from the prophets, Gospels and apostolic writings. The unification of these
disparate portions of scripture demonstrates, for Irenaeus, the continuity of the
work of God from creation to glorification. As we mentioned earlier, this argument
is found in AH 2.2.5. Similarly, in AH 4.16.1, he provides an eschatological reading of
Gen 2:2-3 that links Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13, Matt 6:19, and Rom 8:36, and in AH 4.20.1
he links Mal 2:10, Matt 11:27, and Eph 4:6.
7.3.8 General-to-Particular
Finally, Irenaeus uses the classical general-to-particular style of argumentation. In
AH 1.22.1 and AH 4.20.1-4 he binds general allusions to Psalm 32:6 LXX, John 1:3, Col
1:16, and Mand 1.1 through the linking terms of “all things” (omnia), and contrasts
these general references with the particular creation of humankind in Gen 1:26 and
Gen 2:7. In AH 5.8.1 he contrasts the Spirit as a pledge given specifically to the
faithful (Eph 1:14, Rom 8:9, 15) with the fullness of the Spirit given in the final
consummation (Gen 1:26, 1 Cor 13:12). Then, in AH 5.12.2, he develops the contrasts
the breath in Gen 2:7 and the Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 with allusions to Isa 42:5 and Isa
224
57:16. Both of these passages confirm the universality of the breath given to all in
creation and the particularity of the Spirit given to the faithful.
7.4 Conclusion
When Irenaeus turns to Gen 1-3, he reads these texts in harmony and continuity
with the rest of scripture. He is never concerned with reading particular texts in
isolation and explicitly challenges his opponents with a reading of Moses that is in
continuity with the apostolic teaching.28 This view unifies God’s creative intentions
with the economic unfolding of salvation history. Irenaeus is certainly a “consistent
creationist,” to cite the label of Steenberg, but he is also a consistent exegete who
reads creation texts within the context of salvation history and articulates his
theological vision by means of the careful integration of texts. 29 In Irenaeus’ words
the “proofs in the Scriptures cannot be proven except from the Scriptures
themselves” (ostensiones quae sunt in Scripturis non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis
Scripturis).30 We have found that, for Irenaeus, Gen 1-3 is a pivotal piece within a
larger exegetical and theological mosaic of texts. As a result, this study also reveals
the need for fresh analysis of the intertextual performance of scripture in Irenaeus.
In doing so, we will continue to see how texts, such as the opening pages of Genesis,
are carefully crafted into his theological vision that intentionally unites the diverse
utterances of scripture so that “there will be heard one harmonious melody in us,
praising in hymns the God who created all things.” (unam consonantem melodiam in
nobis sentiet, laudantem hymnis Deum qui fecit omnia).31
28
AH 2.2.5.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 2, 9; cf. Smith, “Chiliasm ,” 320.
30
AH 3.12.9.
31
AH 2.28.3.
29
225
APPENDIX
GENESIS 1-3 AND RELATED INTERTEXTS IN AH 1-5
1
2
3
4
1.5.1-6
1.9.3
1.14.6
1.18.14
5 1.22.1
6 1.24.12
7 1.28.1
8 1.30.19
9
10
11
12
13
14
2.2.5
2.26.1
2.28.1
2.30.7
2.30.9
2.34.34
15 3.3.3
Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7
Gen 1:31
Gen 1:2, Gen 1:3-12, Gen
1:14-27, Gen 1:26, Gen
2:10
Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:19
Gen 1:27-28
Gen 1:2, Gen 1:7-8, Gen
1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:16,
Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1-7, Gen
3:20, Gen 3:23
Gen 1:1, Gen 1:3
Gen 2:7
Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28
Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:15
Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8
Gen 2:1, Gen 2:7
1 Cor 15:47
John 1:14
Matt 17:1, Matt 27:45, John 19:14
Exod 26:1/36:8, Exod 28:17, 1 Cor 15:46-7
Psalm 32:6 LXX, John 1:3, Col 1:16, 2 Cor 4:18,
Exod 3:6, Matt 22:32, Eph 1:3, Mand 1
Isa 45:5-6/46:9, Eph 1:21
John 1:3, Psalm 33:9/148:5 LXX, Heb 3:5
John 15:9-10, 1 Cor 2:2, 1 Cor 8:1
Matt 3:12, Heb 7:7
2 Cor 12:2-4
Eph 1:21, Matt 11:27, Heb 1:3. Mand 1
Psalm 148:5-6/32:9 LXX, Psalm 20:5 LXX,
Luke 16:10
Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7
Gen 6:17, Gen 12:1, Exod 3:10, Exod 3:4, Exod
20:1, Isa 6:8, Matt 25:41
16 3.11.5 Gen 1:1, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, John 1:18, John 2:1, John 2:10, John 6:55, Matt
Gen 2:6
22:2-10
17 3.11.8 Gen 2:16-17
Gen 9:8-16, Exod 19-20, Eph 1:10
18 3.18.1 Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
John 1:14
19 3.18.7 Gen 2:5
Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19, Rom 6:20-21
20 3.19.3 Gen 2:7
Isa 7:11, Isa 7:12, Isa 7:14, John 14:2, Eph 4:910, Luke 15:4-6, 1 Cor 15:20
21 3.20.1 Gen 3:1-8
Jonah 1:9, Jonah 2:1, Jonah 2:2, Jonah 3:1,
Jonah 3:8-9, Matt 12:39-40, 1 Cor 12:9
22 3.21.10 Gen 1:26, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7 John 1:3, Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19, 1 Cor 15:45, 47
23 3.22.1 Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
John 1:3, Matt 5:5, Rom 1:3-4, Gal 4:4
24 3.22.2- Gen 2:7
Psalm 68:27 LXX, Matt 4:2, Matt 26:38, Luke
3
22:44, Luke 4:6, John 11:35, John 19:34
25 3.22.4 Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen
Deut 22:23-24, Psalm 44:17 LXX, Matt 19:30,
3:6
Matt 20:16, Luke 1:38, Luke 3:23-38, Col 1:18,
Heb 5:9
26 3.23.1 Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5
Matt 12:29, Luke 15:47, Luke 19:10, Acts 1:7, 1
Cor 15:47, Eph 1:5, 9, 2 Tim 1:10
27 3.23.2 Gen 1:26
Matt 12:29/Luke 11:21-22
28 3.23.3 Gen 3:14, Gen 3:16, Gen
Matt 25:41
226
31 3.23.6
32 3.23.7
3:17-19
Gen 4:7-8, Gen 4:9, Gen
4:11
Gen 3:7, Gen 3:8, Gen 3:10,
Gen 3:13, Gen 3:21
Gen 3:23-24
Gen 3:15
33 3.23.8
Gen 3:5
34 3.24.1
Gen 2:7
35 3.24.2
Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen
2:7
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:1-5
Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen
2:7
Gen 3:9
Gen 1:28
29 3.23.4
30 3.23.5
36 4.pf.34
37 4.6.2
38 4.10.1
39 4.11.12
40 4.14.1
Gen 2:7
41 4.16.1
42 4.20.14
Gen 2:2-3
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
43 4.32.1
44 4.33.4
Gen 1:3
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
45 4.34.4
46 4.36.26
47 4.37.4
Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7
48 4.38.12
49 4.38.3
Gen 2:7
50 4.38.4
51 4.39.2
52 4.40.3
53 5.1.1-3
Gen 1:26
Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen
2:7
Gen 1:26, Gen 3:5
Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7
Gen 3:15
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:1-6, Gen 3:24
Matt 23:35
Prov 1:7
Rom 6:2,10
Psalm 90:13 LXX, Luke 10:19, Rom 5:12,17,
1Cor 15:26, 1 Cor 15:54-55, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:19,
Rev 20:2/12:9
Matt 18:12-14/Luke 15:4-7, 1 Cor 15:22, Rom
5:20
Gen 28:12, Jer 2:13, John 4:10, John 7:37-38,
Matt 7:7/Luke 11:9, Matt 7:24-27, 1 Cor 12:11,
1 Cor 12:28, Eph 1:14, Eph 3:19, Col 2:7, 1 John
5:6, Rev 22:1
Psalm 32:6 LXX, Prov 8:30
Luke 1:2, 2 Cor 11:3, 2 Tim 2:23
John 5:31, Eph 1:10
John 5:39-40, John 5:46
Matt 13:17, Matt 25:21/19:17
Isa 43:5, Matt 24:28, John 8:58, John 15:16,
John 17:5, John 17:24
Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13, Matt 6:19, Rom 8:36
Prov 3:19-20, Prov 8:22-25, Prov 8:27-31, Mal
2:10, Matt 11:27, John 1:14, Acts 10:42, Eph
4:6, Col 1:18, 1 Pet 2:22, Rev 3:7, Rev 5:3, Rev
5:9, Rev 5:12, Mand 1
John 1:3, Eph 4:5-6, Eph 4:15-16, Col 2:19
Isa 7:14, Matt 12:41-42, Matt 22:29, Matt
22:43, 1 Cor 2:15
Isa 2:3-4, Isa 57:1, Matt 5:39, John 4:37
Gen 6:2-5, Psalm 23:1 LXX, Matt 5:45, Matt
21:33-43, Matt 22:7, Rom 13:1-6
1 Cor 6:11, 1 Cor 6:12, Eph 4:25, Eph 4:29, Eph
5:8, 1 Pet 2:16
1 Cor 3:2-3, Heb 5:12-14
Wis 6:19
Psalm 82:6-7 LXX, 1 Cor 15:53
Exod 25:11, Psalm 44:12 LXX
Matt 13:24-25, Matt 13:38-43, Matt 25:41, Gal
4:4
Luke 1:35, John 1:13, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 15:22
227
54 5.2.1
55 5.3.2-3
56 5.5.1-2
57 5.6.1
58 5.7.1-2
Gen 1:26
Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7, Gen 2:8, Gen 2:15,
Gen 3:23-24
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19
59 5.8.1
60 5.10.1
Gen 1:26
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:15
61 5.11.2
62 5.12.26
63 5.14.12
64 5.15.2
65 5.15.3
66 5.15.4
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7
67 5.16.1
68 5.16.2
69 5.16.3
70 5.17.12
71 5.17.34
72 5.19.1
73 5.20.2
74 5.21.13
75 5.23.12
76 5.26.2
77 5.28.34
78 5.30.4
79 5.33.14
80 5.34.2
81 5.36.3
Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:8-9
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen
3:19
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6
Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6
Gen 2:17, Gen 3:8
Gen 3:6
Gen 3:1-8
Gen 2:8, Gen 2:16, Gen
2:17
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6,
Gen 3:15
Gen 1:5, Gen 2:16-17, Gen
3:1-5
Gen 3:1-6
Gen 1:26, Gen 2:1-2, Gen
2:7
Gen 2:2-3
Gen 1:27-28, Gen 1:30,
Gen 2:2-3
Gen 3:6
Gen 1:26, Gen 1:31-2:1,
Gen 2:2-3, Gen 2:7
John 1:11, Rom 11:35, Eph 1:7
1 Cor 15:53-54, 2 Cor 12:9, Heb 11:19
Gen 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11, Dan 3:19, Jonah 2, 2
Cor 12:4
Rom 8:29, 1 Cor 2:6, 15, 1Thes 5:23
Rom 8:11, Psalm 22:31 LXX, John 20:20, 1 Cor
6:14, 1 Cor 15:36,42-44, 1 Cor 8:9,12, 1 Pet 1:8,
1 Cor 13:9,12
Rom 8:9,15, 1 Cor 15:53, Eph 1:13-14
Matt 7:9, Matt 13:25, Rom 11:17, 1 Cor 15:50,
James 1:21
1 Cor 6:11, 1 Cor 15:49-50, Gal 5:19
Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts 2:17, 1 Cor 15:45-46,
Gal 1:15-16
Gen 4:10, Gen 9:5-6, Matt 23:35-36, Luke 19:10,
John 1:14, 1 Cor 15:50, Col 1:22
John 5:14, John 9:3,6, Luke 15:4-6, Luke 19:10
Jer 1:15, John 9:3,7, Gal 1:15, Titus 3:5
John 9:3, 7
John 1:14, Phil 2:8
1Tim 2:5, Matt 6:9,12, Matt 9:2/Luke 5:20,
Luke 1:78
Luke 5:21, Matt 6:12, Psalm 31:1-2 LXX, Col
2:14, 2 Kings 6:1-7, Matt 3:10, Jer 23:29, Eph
3:18, Isa 11:12, Eph 4:6
Matt 10:16, Luke 1:30-35
Matt 15:14, 2 Tim 3:7, Rom 12:3, Eph 1:10
Matt 4:2-10, Luke 4:6-7, Gal 3:19, Gal 4:4
Gen 5:5, Psalm 89:4 LXX, John 8:44, Eph 1:10
Matt 25:41
Psalm 89:4 LXX, Matt 3:12, Rev 13:18,
Ignatius, Rom 4.1
Matt 8:11, Matt 16:27, Rev 19:20
Gen 27:27-29, Isa 11:6-9, Isa 65:25, Psalm
103:30 LXX, Matt 19:29, Luke 14:12-13, Papias
Gen 9:27, Isa 30:25-26, Isa 58:14
Psalm 131:14/Psalm118:20 LXX, Matt 26:29,
John 5:25, 28-29, Rom 8:19-21, 1 Cor 2:9, 1 Pet
1:12, Rev 20:5
228
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
The Apostolic Fathers. LCL 24-25. Translated by B. Ehrman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2003.
Behr, J. On the Apostolic Preaching. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,
1997.
Evans, E. Tertullian Adversus Marcionem. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Grant, R. M. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Routledge, 1997.
. Theophilus of Antioch: To Autolycus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
MacKenzie, I. Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological
Commentary and Translation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.
Marcovich, M. Apologies: Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis. Berlin: De Gruyter,
1994.
. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew: Iustini martyris dialogues com Trophone. Berlin:
De Gruyter, 1997.
Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994.
Robinson, J. A. St. Irenaeus: The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. London: SPCK,
1920.
Rousseau, A (et al.) Contre les hérésies, Livre 1. 2 vols. Sources Chrétiennes, nos. 263-64.
Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1979.
. Contre les hérésies, Livre II. 2 vols. SC 293, 294. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1982.
. Contre les hérésies, Livre III. 2 vols. SC 210, 211. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974.
. Contre les hérésies, Livre IV. 2 vols. SC 100, 2 vols. Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1965.
. Contre les hérésies, Livre V. 2 vols. SC 152, 153. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969.
. The Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique. SC 406. Paris: Éditions du
Cerf, 1995.
Smith, J. P. St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. ACW 16. New York: Newman,
1952.
Unger, D. J., and J. J. Dillon. St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies: Book 1. New York:
229
Paulist Press, 1992.
Secondary Sources
Abadía, J. P. T. Cristo y el universo: Estudio linguístico y themático de Ef 1:10h en Efesios y en
la obra de Ireneo de Lyon. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1995.
Abramowski, L. “Irenaeus, Adv Haer III 3,2: ecclesia Romana and omnis ecclesia; and
ibid 3,3: Anacletus of Rome.” JTS 28 (1977): 101-104.
Alkier, S. “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts.” In Reading the Bible
Intertextuality, 1-21. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A.
Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.
. “New Testament Studies on the Basis of Categorical Semiotics.” In
Reading the Bible Intertextuality. eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy
A. Huizenga, 223-248. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.
Allenbach, J. (et. al.). Biblia Patristica: Index Des Citations Et Allusions Bibliques Dans La
Littérature Patristique. Vol. 1. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique, 1975.
Altermath, F. “The Purpose of the Incarnation according to Irenaeus.” StuPat 13
(1971): 63-8.
Anderson, G. A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian
Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Anderson, R. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Louvain: Kok Pharos, 1996.
Andresen, C. “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes.”
ZNW 52 (1961) 1-39.
Armstrong, G. T. Die Genesis in der Alten Kirche: Die drei Kirchenväter. Tübigen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1962.
Aubineau, M. “Incorruptibilite at divinization selon saint Irénée.” RSR, 44.1 (1956):
25-52.
Ayres, L. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
. “The soul and the reading of scripture: a note on Henri de Lubac.” SJT
61.2 (2008): 173-90.
Bacq, P. De l’ancienne à la nouvelle alliance selon s. Irénée: unité du livre IV de l’Adversus
Haereses. Paris: Editions Lethielleux, 1978.
230
Balás, D. “The Use and Interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus’s Five Books Adversus
Haereses.” SecCen 9 (1992): 27-39.
Balthasar, H. U. von. Scandal Of The Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981.
Barnard, L. W. “The Old Testament and Judaism in the Writings of Justin Martyr.”
VT 14.4 (1964): 395-406.
Barr, J. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis – A study of terminology.” BJRL
51.1 (1968): 11-26.
. “Jewish apocalyptic in recent scholarly study.” BJRL 58, no.1 (1975): 9-35.
Barthes, R. “From Word to Text.” In Image – Music – Text. Edited by S. Heath. Glasgow:
Fontana, 1977.
Barthoulot, J. “Traduction integral de la Démonstration de la Predication
Apostolique.” RSR 6 (1916): 368-432.
Basevi, C. “La generazoine eternal di Cristo nei Ps 2 e 109 secondo S. Giustino e S.
Ireneo.” Aug 22.1-2 (1982): 135-47.
Bavaud, G. “Saint Irénée, docteur de l'Immaculée Conception de Marie.” In Virgo liber Verbi,
121-131. Rome: Marianum, 1991.
Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1972.
Beal, T. K. “Intertextuality.” In Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 128-130.
Edited by A. K. A. Adam. St Louis: Chalice, 2000.
Beattie, T. “Mary in Patristic Thought.” In Mary: The Complete Resource, 75-105. Edited
by S. J. Boss. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Behr, J. “Irenaeus AH 3.23.5, and the Ascetic ideal.” SVTQ 36. 4 (1993): 309-10.
. “Scripture, the Gospel, and Orthodoxy.” SVTQ 43.3-4 (1999): 223-48.
. “The Word of God in the Second Century.” ProEc 9.1 (2000): 85-107.
. Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
. The Way to Nicaea. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.
Bellinzoni, A. “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century.” SecCen 9.4 (1992):
217-54.
231
. “The Gospel of Luke in the Second Century.” In Literary Studies in LukeActs, 59-76. Edited by R. E. Thompson and T. E. Phillips. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 1998.
Benoît, A. Saint Irénée: introduction à l’étude de sa théologie. Paris: Presses universitaires
de France, 1960.
Bentivegna, J. “Pauline Elements in the Anthropology of St. Irenaeus.” StuEv 5
(1968): 229-33.
Beuzart, P. Essai sur la Théologie d’ Irénée. Paris: Leroux, 1908.
Bilde, P. “Gnosticism, Jewish Apocalypticism, and Early Christianity.” In In the last
days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its period, 9-32. Edited by Jeppesen
(et al.). Aarhus: Arhus University Press, 1994.
Bingham D. J. Irenaeus’ use of Matthew’s Gospel in Adversus Haereses. Leuven: Peeters,
1998.
. “Hope in Irenaeus of Lyons.” ETL 76.4 (2000): 265-82.
. “Irenaeus reads Romans 8: Ressurection and Renovation.” In Early
Patristic Readings of Romans, 114-32. Edited by K. Gaca and L. L. Welborn. New
York: T&T Clark, 2005.
. “Knowledge and love in Irenaeus of Lyons.” StuPat 36 (2001): 184-199.
. “Irenaeus and Hebrews.” In Christology and Hermeneutics of Hebrews:
Profiles from the History of Interpretation. Edited by J. Laansma and D. Treier.
New York: Continuum, forthcoming.
. “Irenaeus on Gnostic Biblical Interpretation.” StuPat 40 (2006): 367-79.
. “Christianizing Divine Aseity: Irenaeus reads John.” In The Gospel of John
in Christian Theology, 53-67. Edited by Richard Bauckam and Carl Mosser.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Blackwell, B. “Paul and Irenaeus.” In Paul and the Second Century: The Legacy of Paul’s
life, Letters, and Teaching, 190-206. Edited by M. Bird and J. Dodson. London:
T&T Clark, 2011.
Blanchard, Y. M. Aux sources de canon, le temoignage d’Irenee. Paris: Cerf, 1993.
Blowers, P. “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith.”
ProE 6, no.2 (1997): 199-228.
Boersma, H. “Irenaeus, Derrida and hospitality: on the eschatological overcoming of
violence.” MT 19.2 (2003): 163-80.
232
Böhlig, A. and C. Markschies. Gnosis und Manichäismus: Forschungen und Studien zu
Texten von Valentin und Mani sowie zu den Bibliotheken von Nag Hammadi und
Medinet Madi. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994.
Bonwetsch, N. Die theologie des Irenäus. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925.
Bousset, W. Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische
Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus.
Göttingen, 1915.
. Kyrios Christos: a history of the belief in Christ from the beginnings of
Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970.
Bouteneff, P. C. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington, IN, Indiana
University Press, 1990.
Brown, R. F. “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses
IV, 38.” SJT 28.1 (1975): 17-25.
Brox, N. “Irenaeus and the Bible.” In Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, Vol 1, 483-506.
Edited by Charles Kannengiesser. Brill: Leiden, 2004.
. “Rome and ‘jede Kirche’ im 2 Jahrhundert: Zu Irenäus, adv. haer. III, 3,2.”
AHC (1975): 42-78.
Brunner, E. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. Translated by Olive Wyon.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947.
Bushur, J. G. “‘Joining the End to the Beginning’ Divine Providence and the
Interpretation of Scripture in the Teaching of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.”
Unpublished dissertation. University of Durham, UK, 2009.
Campenhausen, H. von. “Irenäus und das NT.” ThLBer 90 (1965): 1-8.
Chilton, B. D. “Irenaeus on Isaac.” in StuPat 17.2 ,643-47. Edited by E.A. Livingstone.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.
Clark, E. “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam and Eve: Interpretation of Genesis 1-3 in the
Later Latin Fathers.” In Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith: Essays on Late Ancient
Christianity, 367-82. Edited by E. Clark. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1986.
. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
233
Constantelos, J. D. “Irenaeus of Lyons and his Central Views of Human Nature,”
SVTQ 33.4 (1989): 351-63.
Czesz, B. “La parabola del figlio prodigo (Lc 15, 11-32) in Ireneo.” Aug 17 (1977): 10711.
Daley, B. The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Cambridge:
University Press, 1991.
Daniélou, J. “S. Irénée et les origins de la théologie de l’histore.” RSR 34 (1947): 22731.
Davidson, I. The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine AD 30-312. Vol. 1. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Dawson, D. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992.
De Aldama, J. A. “Adam, typus futuri (San Ireneo Advers. Haer. 3.22.3).” SacE 13 (1962):
266-80.
. “La naissance du Seigneur dans l’exégèse patristrique du Ps 21:10s
(=22:10a).” RSR 51 (1963): 5-29.
. María en la patrística de los siglos I y II. Madrid: Editorial Catholica, 1970.
De Alès, A. “La doctrine de la récapitulationen Saint Irénée.” RSR 6 (1916): 185–211.
De Andia, Y. Homo vivens: Incorruptibilité et divinization de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyon.
Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1986.
. “Irénèe théologien de l’ unite.” NRT 109 (1987): 31-48.
. “L’interprétation irénéenne de la beatitude des doux: ‘Bienheureux les
doux, ils recevront la terre en héritage’ (Mt 5:5).” StuPat 18.3 (1989): 85-102,
originally published “La beatitudine dei miti (Mt. V,5) nell’interpretazione di
S. Ireneo.” RSLR 20 (1984): 275-86.
. “Modèles de l'unité des testaments selon Irénée de Lyon.” StuPat 21
(1989): 49-59.
De Andia, Y. and D. L. Schindler, Jr “The ‘Science So Falsely Called’: Seduction and
Separation.” Com 24 (1997): 645-70.
Donovan, M. A. “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship.” SecCen 4:4 (1984): 219-241.
. One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1997.
234
. “Alive to the Glory of God: A key Insight in St. Irenaeus.” TS 14.2 (1990):
99-112.
Downing, Victor K. “Doctrine of Regeneration in the Second Century.” ERT 14.2
(1990): 99-112.
Driscoll, J. “Uncovering the dynamic lex orandi – lex credendi in the baptismal
theology of Irenaeus.” ProEc, 12.2 (2003): 213-25.
Dunderberg, Ismo. “The School of Valentinus.” In A Companion to Second-Century
Christian ‘Heretics,’ 64-99. Edited by A. Marjanen and P. Loumanen. Leiden:
Brill, 2005.
Dunning, B. H. “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth: Creation, Sexual Difference, and
Recapitulation in Irenaeus of Lyons.” JR 89.1 (2009): 57-88.
Edwards, M. “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers.” JTS 40(1) (1989): 2647.
Ehrman, B. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Fantino, J. L’homme, image de Dieu chez saint Irénée de Lyon. Paris: Editions du Cerf,
1986.
. “La creation ex nihilo chez saint Irénée,” RSPT 76.3 (1992): 421-42.
. La theologie d'Irenee. Lecture des Ecritures en reponse a l'exegese gnostique: Une
approche trinitaire. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994.
. “Le passage de premier Adam au second Adam comme expression de
salut chez Irénée Lyon.” VC 52.4 (1998): 418-29.
Farkasfalvy, D. “Theology of Scripture in St. Irenaeus.” RevB 68 (1968): 319-33.
. Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture.
Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010.
Farmer, W. R. “Galatians and the second century development of the regula fidei.”
SecCen 4.3 (1985): 143-70.
Farrow, D. B. “St Irenaeus of Lyons: The Church and the World.” ProEc 4 (1995): 33355.
. “The Doctrine of the Ascension in Irenaeus and Origin.” ARC 26 (1998):
31-50.
Faur, J. Golden Gloves with Silver Dots: Semiotics and Textuality in Rabbinic Tradition.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
235
Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
Ferguson, T. C. K. “The Rule of Truth and Irenaean Rhetoric in Book 1 of Against
Heresies.” VC 55.4 (2001): 356-75.
Ferlay, P. “Irénée de Lyon exegete du quatrième évangile.” NRT 106.2 (1984): 222-34.
Flesseman-van Leer, E. Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church. Assen: Van Gorcum,
1954.
Fossum, J. “Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judiasm, Samaritanism and Gnosticism.” JSJ 16.2
(1985): 203-39.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
Frishman, J. The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. Louvin:
Peeters, 1997.
Gambero, L. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic
Thought. Translated by Thomas Buffer. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999.
Gamble, Harry. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.
Giere, S. D. A New Glimpse of Day one: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis
1:1-5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.
Giverson, S. “The Apocryphon of John and Genesis.” StuTh 17 (1963): 60-76.
Gonzalez-Faus, J. I. Creación y progreso en la teología de San Ireneo. Barcelona: San Cugat
del Valles, 1968.
. Carne de dios: Significado Salvador de la Encarnación en la teología de San
Ireneo. Barcelona: San Cugat del Valles, 1968.
Graham, S. L. “Structure and Purpose of Irenaeus’ Epideixis.” StuPat 36 (2001): 210–21.
. “Irenaeus and the Covenants: ‘Immortal Diamond.’” StuPat 40 (2006): 39398.
. “Irenaeus as Reader of Romans 9-11.” In Early Patristic Readings of Romans,
87-113. Edited by K. L. Gaca and L.L. Welborn. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
Grant, R. M. “Scripture, Rhetoric and Theology in Theophilus.” VC 13 (1959): 33-45.
. “Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture.” HTR 42 (1949): 41-51.
. Gnosticism and the Early Church. New York: Columbia University Press,
1966.
236
. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. London: SCM, 1988.
. Irenaeus of Lyons. London: Routledge, 1997.
Grant, R. M. and D. Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984.
Greer, R. A. “The dog and the mushrooms: Irenaeus's view of the Valentinians
assessed.” In Rediscovery of Gnosticism, 146-171. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Grillmeier, A. Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic age to Chalcedon. Vol. 1.
Translated by J. Bowden. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975.
Grivel, C. “Thèses préparatoires sur les intertexts.” Dialogizität, Theorie und Geschichte
der Literatur und der schönen Künste, 237-48. Edited by R. Lachmann. Munich:
Fink, 1982.
Guevin, B. “The natural law in Irenaeus of Lyons’ Adversus haereses: a metaphysical
or a soteriological reality?” StuPat 36 (2001): 222-225.
Häkkinen, S. “Ebionites.” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics,’ 247-78.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Harnack, A.von. “Der Presbyter-Prediger des Irenäus (IV,27,1-32,I): Bruch-stücke
und Nachklänger der ältesten exegetisch-polemischen Homilien.” In
Philotesia: Paul Kleinert zum LXX Geburtstag, 1-37. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1907.
. History of dogma. 7 vols. New York: Dover Publications, 1961.
. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Translated by J. E. Steely and L. D.
Bierma. Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1990.
Hart, T. “Irenaeus, recapitulation and physical redemption.” In Christ in our Place,
152-81. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1989.
Hays, R. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.
. “Die Befreiung Israels im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Intertextuelle
Narration als kulturkritische Praxis.” In Die Bibel im Dialog der Schriften:
Konzepte intertextueller Bibellektüre, 117-136. Tübingen: A. Francke, 2005.
Hatina, T. R. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is
there a Relationship?” BibInt 7 (1999): 28-43.
Hauke, M. Heilsverlust in Adam: Stationen griechischer Erbsündlehre: Irenäus-OrigenesKappadozier. Paderborn, Germany: Bonifatius, 1993.
Hefner, P. “Theological Methodology and St. Irenaeus.” JR 44 (1964): 294-309.
237
Herra, S. Irénée de Lyon Exégète. Etude Historique: Paris, 1920.
Hill, C. E. “Polycarp contra Marcion Irenaeus’ Presbertial Source in AH 4.27-32.” SP
40 (2006): 399-412.
. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter
and the Author of Ad Diognetum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006
. “Irenaeus of Lyons.” In The Johannine Corpus and the Early Church, 95-118.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Hitchcock, F. R. M. and H. B. Swete. Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A Study of His Teaching.
Cambridge: University Press, 1914.
. “Loof’s Theory of Theophilus of Antioch as a Source of Irenaeus.” JTS 38
(1937): 130-39; 255-66.
Hoh, J. “Die Lehre des hl. Irenäus uber das Neue Testament.” NTA 7 (1919): 189-197.
Hollander, J. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1981.
Holsinger-Friesen, T. Irenaeus and Genesis: A study of Competition in Early Christian
Hermeneutics. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Holzhausen, J. “Irenäus und die valentinianische Schule: zur Praefatio von Adv. Haer.
1.” VC 55.4 (2001): 341-55.
Houssiau, A. “L’exégèse de Mt 11:27b selon S. Irénée.” ETL 29 (1953): 328-54.
. La christologie de Saint Irénée. Louvain: Publications universitaires de
Louvain, 1955.
Irwin, W. “Against Intertextuality.” PL 28 (2004): 227-42.
Jacobsen, A.-C. “The Importance of Genesis 1-3 in the Theology of Irenaeus” ZAC 8
(2004): 299-316.
. “The Philosophical Argument in the Teaching of Irenaeus on the
Resurrection of the Flesh.” StuPat 36 (2001): 256-261.
Javierre, A. M. “‘In ecclesia’: Ireneo, Adv haer 3, 3, 2”, In Comunione interecclesiale
collegialité - primato ecumenismo, 221-317. Rome: LAS, 1972.
Jourjon, M. “Saint Irénèe lit la Bible.” In Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, 153-70. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1984.
Kannengiesser, C. “The «Speaking God» and Irenaeus’ Interpretative Pattern: the
Reception of Genesis.” ASE 15.2 (1998): 337-52.
238
. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. Brill: Leiden, 1999.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.
King, K. L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
. Images of the feminine in Gnosticism. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1988.
Klebba, E. Die Anthropologie des hl. Irenaeus. Münster: Verlang von Heinrich
Schöningh, 1894.
Kristeva, J. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1980.
. Revolution in Poetic Language. Paris: Éditions du seuil, 1974.
Kristeva, J. and T. Moi. The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Kugel, J. and R. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Phiadelphia: Westminister Press,
1986.
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. New York: Clarendon, 1961.
Lanne, D. E. “La ‘xeniteia’ d’Abraham dans l’oeuvre d’Irénée.” Irén 47 (1974): 163-87.
. “Nom de Jésus-Christ et son invocation chez saint Irénée de Lyon.” Irén
48.4 (1975)” 447-67.
. “Saint Irénée de Lyon, artisan de la paix entre les Églises.” Irén 69 (1996):
451-76.
Lassiat, “L’ Anthropologie d’Irénée.” NRT 100 (1978) 399-417.
. Promotion de l’homme en Jésus Christ d’après Irénée de Lyon. Tours: Mame,
1974.
Lawson, J. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. London: Epworth Press, 1948.
Layton, B. The Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1995.
Logan, A. H. B. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A study in the History of Gnosticism.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Loewe, W. P. “Myth and Counter-Myth: Irenaeus’ Story of Salvation.” In Interpreting
Tradition: The Art of Theological Reflection, 39-54. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1984.
. “Irenaeus’ Soteriology: Christus Victor Revisited.” AThR 67.1 (1985): 1-15.
239
Loofs, F. Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen
Quellen bei Irenaeus. Lepzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1930.
Luckhart, R. “Matthew 11,27 in the ‘Contra Haereses’ of Saint Irenaeus.” RUO 23
(1953): 65-79.
Luttikhuizen, G. P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. Leiden:
Brill, 2006.
Luz, U. Matthew 21-28: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 2005.
MacDonald, N. “Israel and the Old Testament Story in Irenaeus’ Presentation of the
Rule of Faith.” JTI 3.2 (2009): 281-98.
Macrae, G. W. “Why The church Rejected Gnosticism.” in Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition, 126-33. Edited by E. P. Sanders. London: S. C. M. Press, 1980.
Margerie, B. de. Introduction à L’historie de L’ exégèse: 1. Les Pères grecs et orientaux. Paris:
Les Éditions du Cerf, 1980.
Markschies, C, Valentinus Gnosticus?: Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit
einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins. Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1992.
. Gnosis: An Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2003.
Markus, R. A. “Pleroma and fulfillment: the significance of history in St. Irenaeus’
opposition to Gnosticism.” VC 8.4 (1954): 193-224.
Martens, P. “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen.” JECS
16.3 (2008): 283-317.
May, G. Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian
Thought. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
McHugh, J. “A Reconsideration of Ephesians 1,10b in Light of Irenaeus.” In Paul and
Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett, 302-9. Edited by M.D. Hooker and
S.G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982.
Meijering, E. P. “God Cosmos History: Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine
Revelation.” In God Being History: Studies in Patristic Philosophy, 52-80. New
York: American Elsevier, 1975.
. “Irenaus zum zeitlichen Anfang der Welt.” VC 54.1 (2000): 1-11.
Miller, P. C. “Words with an Alien Voice: Gnostics, Scripture and Canon.” JAAR 57
(1989): 459-83.
Minns, D. Irenaeus. London, G. Chapman, 1994.
240
Moringiello, S. D. “Irenaeus Rhetor.” Unpublished Dissertation. University of Notre
Dame, 2008.
Moyise, S. “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New
Testament.” In Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North,
14-41. Edited by Stephen Moyise. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Mutschler, B. Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
. Das Corpus Johnneum bei Irenäus von Lyon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Nautin, P. “Irénée, Adv haer, III 3,2: Eglise de Rome ou église universelle?” RHR 151
(1957): 37-78.
Nielson, J. T. Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. Assen: Van Gorcum,
1968.
Normann, R. Irenäus als Paulusinterpret: zur Rezeption und Wirkung der paulinischen und
deuteropaulinischen Briefe im Werk des Irenäus von Lyon. Tubingen: JCB Mohr,
1994.
Norris, R. A. God and World in Early Christian Theology. New York: The Seabury Press,
1965.
. “Irenaeus’ use of Paul in his polemic against the Gnostics.” In Paul and the
legacies of Paul, 79-98. Edited by W.S. Babcok. Dallas: SMU Press, 1990.
. “Theology and Language in Irenaeus of Lyon.” AThR 76.3 (1994): 285-97
. “The Insufficiency of Scripture: Adversus Haereses 2 and the Role of
Scripture in Irenaeus’s Anti-gnostic Polemic.” In Reading in Christian
Communities, 63-79. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002.
Olsen, M. J. Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics and the Kingdom of God (A.H. Book V): The
Debate About 1 Corinthians 15:50. New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992.
O’Neil, J. C. “How early is the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?” JTS 53.2 (2002): 449-65.
Orbe, Antonio S. J., “El hombre ideal en la teología de san Ireneo.” Greg 43 (1962):
464-68.
. “El pecado de Eva, signo de divieion.” OCP 29 (1963): 305-30.
. “Homo nuper factus: En torno a s. Ireneo, Adv. haer. IV,38,1.” Greg 46
(1965): 481-544.
. Anthropogía de San Ireneo. Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1969.
241
. “La Revelacion Del Hijo Por el Padre Segun San Ireneo (Adv. Haer. IV,6):
Para la exegesis precivena de Matt 11,27.” In Theologia De San Ireneo IV:
Traducción y Comentario del Libro IV del «Adversus haereses», 50-103. Madrid:
Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1996, originally published in Greg 51 (1970):
5-83.
. “Ipse tuum calcabit caput (S. Ireneo y Gén 3:15).” Greg 52 (1971): 85-149;
215-69.
. Parabolas evangelicas in San Ireneo. 2 vols. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores
Cristianos, 1972.
. “San Ireneo y la Creación de la material.” Greg 59 (1978): 71-127.
. “Errores de los ebionitas (Analisis de Ireneo, Adversus haereses, V, 1, 3).”
Mar 41 (1979): 147-70.
. “San Ireneo y la doctrina de la reconciliación.” Greg 61.1 (1980): 5-50.
. “Cinco exegesis Ireneanas de Gen 2:17b adv. haer. V 23, 1-2.” Greg (1981):
75-113.
. “La Virgen María abogada de la virgen Eva; en torna a s. Ireneo adv. haer.
V. 19, 1).” Greg 63 (1982): 453-506.
. Teología de San Ireneo: Comentario al Libro V del «Adversus haereses». Madrid:
Biblioteca de Autroes Crisianos, 1985.
. Theología de San Ireneo: Comentario al libro V del Adversus Haereses. 3 vols.
Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1988.
. “Gloria Dei vivens homo: Análisis de Ireneo, adv. haer. IV, 20, 1-7.” Greg
73.2 (1992): 205-68.
. “En torno a los Ebionitas.” Aug 33 (1993): 315-37.
. “El Espíritu en el bautismo de Jesús (en torno a san Ireneo).” Greg 76.4
(1995): 663-99.
. “Sobre los ‘Alogos’ de san Ireneo (adv haer III, 11, 9).” Greg 76.1 (1995):
47-68.
. “El signo de Jonás según Ireneo.” Greg 77.4 (1996): 637-57.
. Theología de. San Ireneo: Comentario al libro IV del Adversus Haereses. Madrid:
Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1996.
Osborn, E. “Reason and the Rule of Faith.” In The Making of Orthodoxy. Festschrift for
Henry Chadwick, 40-61. Edited by R. Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
242
. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Pagels, E. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. New York: Abingdon Press, 1973.
. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1975.
. “Exegesis and Exposition of the Genesis Creation Accounts in Selected
Texts from Nag Hammadi.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity,
257-286. Edited by C. Hedrick and R. Hodgson. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005.
Painchaud, L. “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature.” JECS 4.2 (1996): 129-47.
Pelikan, J. Mary Through the Centuries: Her place in the History of Culture. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
Perkins, P. “Gnosticism and the Christian Bible.” In The Canon Debate, 355-71. Edited
by L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
. Irenaeus and the Gnsotics: Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus
Haereses Book One.” VC 30 (1976): 103-200.
. “Ordering the cosmos: Irenaeus and the Gnostics.’ In Nag Hammadi,
Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, ed. C.W. Hedrick, J. Hodgson, 221-38.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.
. “Review of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret.” CBQ 58 (1996): 76264.
Petersen, W. L. “Tatian the Assyrian.” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian
‘Heretics,’ 125-58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Plagineux, J. “La doctrine mariale de saint Irénée.” RSR 44 (1970): 179-89.
Poffet, J. M. “Indices de reception de l’évangile de Jean au IIe siècle, avant Irénée.” In
Communauté johannique et son histoire, 305-26. Genova: Labor et Fides, 1990.
Poirier, P. H. “Pour une histoire da la lecture pneumatologique de Gn 2:7: Ouelques
jalons jusqu’à Irénée de Lyon.” REA 40 (1994): 1-22.
Porter, S. E. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment
on Method and Terminology.” In Early Christian interpretation of the scriptures
of Israel: investigations and proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans, James A.
Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
. “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New
Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and
Practice, 98-110. Edited by T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007.
243
. “Allusions and Echoes.” In As it is Written: Studying Paul’s use of Scripture,
29-40. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Pratscher, W. “The Second Epistle of Clement.” In The Apostolic Fathers: An
Introduction, 71-90. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2010.
Presley, S. “The Lost Sheep who is Found: Irenaeus’ Intertextual Reading of Genesis
3 in Adversus Haereses 3.23.1-8.” StuPat 51 (2011): Fourthcoming.
. “The Rule of Faith and Irenaeus's Demonstration of the order and
connection of the scriptures.” ORA (2010): 48-66.
Pretto, E. La Lettera ai Romani, cc. 1-8, nell “Adversus Haereses” d’Ireneo. Bari: Istituto
di Litteratura Cristiana Antica, 1971.
Purves, J. G. M. “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the Anthropology of
Irenaeus of Lyons.” EvQ 68 (1996): 99-120.
Quasten, J. Patrology. Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1983.
Rahner, H. Symbole der Kirche. Salzburg: Otto Muller, 1964.
Ramos-Lissón, D. “Le Role de la femme dans la théologie de saint Irénée.” StuPat 21
(1989): 163-74.
Reventlow, H. G. History of Biblical Interpretation: From the Old Testament to Origen. Vol.
1. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Originally published: Epochen
der Bibelauslegung Band 1: Vom Alten Testament bis Origenes. Müchen: Verlag C.
H. Beck, 1990.
Reynders, B. Vocabulaire de la “Demonstration” et des fragments de saint Irénée.
Chevetogne: Editions de Chevetogne, 1958.
. Lexique comparé du texte grec et des versions latine, arménienne et syriaque de
l’Adversus Haereses de saint Irénée. Louvain: Peeters, 1963.
Rhee H. Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries.
London: Routledge, 2005.
Robbins, G. A. Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden. Lewiston, NY:
E. Mellen Press, 1988.
Robert, R. “Le témoignage d’Irénée sur la formation des évangiles.” RThom 87.2
(1987): 243-59.
Roberts, C. H. and T.C. Skeat. The Birth of the Codex. London: Oxford University Press,
1983.
Robinson, J. M. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
244
Roldanus, J. “L’héritage d’Abraham d’après Irénée.” In Text and Testimony: Essays on
New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijin, 212-24. Edited
by T. Baarda. Kampen: Kok, 1998.
Rondeau, M.-J. Les commentateurs patristiques du Psautier (IIIe-Ve siècls). 2 Vol. Rome:
Oriental Institute, 1982, 1985.
Rousseau, A. “L’Eternité des peines de l'enfer et l'immortalité naturelle de l' âme
selon saint Irénée.” NRT 99 (1977) 834-64.
Rudolph, K. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983.
. “Bibel und Gnosis zum Verständnis Jüdisch-Biblischer Texte in Der
Gnostischen Literatur, vornehmlich aus Nag Hammadi.” In Gnosis Und
Spätantike Religionsgeschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze, 190-209. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Ruiz, G. “‘Ma puissance se déploie dans la faiblesse’ (2 Cor 12:9): An Interprétation
d’Irénée de Lyon.” In Recherches et tradition: Mélanges patristiques offerts à Henri
Crouzel, S.J. sous la direction d’A. Dupleix, 259-69. Paris: Neauchesne, 1992.
. “L’enfance d’Adam selon saint Irénée de Lyon.” BLE 89 (1998): 97-115.
Sagnard, F. M. M. La gnose valentinienne et le témoignage de saint Irénée. Paris: J. Vrin,
1947.
Sanders, J. N. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Its Origin & Influence on Christian
Theology up to Irenaeus). Cambridge: University Press, 1943.
Schmidt, W. A. Die Kirche bei Irenäus: akademische Abhandlung. Helsingfors, 1934.
Schoedel, W. R. “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus.” VC
12 (1959): 22-32.
. “Theological Method in Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 2.25-28).” JTS 35
(1984): 31-49.
Seeberg, R. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Lepzig: 1908.
Sesboüe, B. Tout Récapituler dans le Christ: Christologie et sotériologie d’Irénée de lyon.
Paris: Desclée, 2000.
Shotwell, W. A. The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr. London: SPCK, 1965.
Simonetti, M. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to
Patristic Exegesis. Edited by A. Bergquist and M. Bockmuehl. Translated by
John A. Hughes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
. “Per Typical as vera: Note sull’ esegesi di Ireneo.” VetChr 18 (1981): 35782.
245
Siniscalco, M. “La parabola del figlio prodigo (Lc 15:11-32) in Ireneo.” SMSR 38.2
(1967): 5326-53.
Skeat, T. C. “Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel canon.” NovT 34 (1992): 194-99.
Slusser, M. “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology.” TS 49 (1988) 461-476.
. “How much did Irenaeus learn from Justin?” StuPat 40 (2006): 515-20.
Smith, C. R. “Chiliasm and recapitulation in the theology of Ireneus [sic].” VC 48
(1994): 313-331.
Smith, D.A. “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus.” TS 58 (1997): 618-42.
Smith, J. P. “Hebrew Christian Midrash in Ireaneus Epid, 43.” Bib 38 (1957): 24-34.
Stanton, G. “Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.” In The
Biblical Canons. Edited by J. M. Auwers and J. H. de Jonge. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 2003.
Stead, M. R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.
Steenberg, M. C. “Cosmic Anthropology: Gen 1-11 in Irenaeus of Lyons with special
reference to Justin, Theophilus and select Gnostic contemporaries.”
Unpublished dissertation. University of Oxford, 2003.
. “Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as ‘Infants’ in Irenaeus of Lyons.”
JECS 12.1 (2004): 1-35.
. “The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator in St. Irenaeus of Lyons.” VC 58
(2004): 117-37.
. “To Test or Preserve?: The Prohibition of Gen 2:16-17 in the Thought of
Two Second-Century Exegetes.” Greg 86 (2005): 723-41.
. Irenaeus on Creation. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
. Of God and Man. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.
Thomassen, E. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the ‘Valentinians’. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Tiessen, T. L. Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevangelized. London: The Scarecrow
Press, 1993.
. “Gnosticism and Heresy: The Response of Irenaeus.” In Hellenization
Revisited, 339-59. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994.
246
Todorov, T. Mikhail Bakhtin: the dialogical principle. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1984.
Torrance, T. F. “Kerygmatic Proclamation of the Gospel: The Demonstration of
Apostolic Preaching.” In Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics, 56-74.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Tortelli, K. M. “Some methods of interpretation in St Irenaeus.” VetCh 30 (1993): 12332.
Tosaus Abadía, J. P. Cristo y el universo: estudio lingüístico y temático de Ef 1:10b, en Efesios
y en la obra de Ireneo de Lión. Univ Pontificia de Salamanca, 1995.
Tremblay, R. “La signification d’ Abraham dans l’oeuvre d’Irénée de Lyon.” Aug 18
(1978): 434-57.
. “Le martyre selon saint Irénée de Lyon.” StuM 16 (1978): 167–89.
. La manifestation et la vision de Dieu selon saint Irénée de Lyon. Münster:
Aschendorff, 1978.
. Irénée de Lyon: «L’empreinte des doigts de Dieu». Rome: Editiones Academiae
Alfonsianae, 1979.
Tripp, D. “The Original Sequence of Irenaeus ‘Adversus Haereses’ 1: A Suggestion.”
SecCen 8 (1991): 157-62.
Tull (Willey), P. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second
Isaiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Turner, J. D. “Time and History in Sethian Gnosticism.” In For the Children, Perfect
Instruction, 203-14. Edited by H.-G Bethge. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Valle, G. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. Waterloo,
Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981.
Van Unnik, W. C. Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A preliminary servey of the Nag
Hammadi find. London: SCM Press, 1960.
. “An interesting document of Second Century Theological Discussion
(Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.10.3).” VC 31 (1977): 196-228.
. “Theological Speculation and its Limits.” In Early Christian Literature and
the Classical Tradition, In Honorem Robert M. Grant, 33-43. Paris: Beauchesne,
1979.
Van Wolde, E. “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives.” BibInt 5.1 (1997): 1-28.
247
Voelz, J. W. “Multiple Signs and Double Texts: Elements of Intertextuality.” In
Intertextuality In Biblical Writing: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel.
Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok: Kampen, 1989.
Vogel, J. “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus
and the Fall and Redemption.” AThR 89 (2007): 443-59.
Vogt, R. J. “Die Geltung dea Alten Testaments bei Irenäus von Lyon.” ThQ 160 (1980):
17-28.
Wanke, D. Das Kreuz Christi bei Irenäus von Lyon. New York: De Gruyter, 2000.
Watson, F. “Is there a Story in these Texts?” In Narrative dynamics in Paul: a critical
assessment, 231-39. Edited by B. Longenecker. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 2002.
Weinandy, Thomas. “St. Irenaeus and the Image Dei: The Importance of Being
Human.” Logos 6.4 (2003): 15-34.
Weiss, Friedrich. Frühes Christentum und Gnosis: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie.
Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008.
Wendt, H. H. Die christlich Lehre von der menschlichen Volkommenhiet. Göttingen, 1882.
Werner, J. Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus. Leipzig, 1889.
Wilchen, J. “Irenaeus’ Doctrine of a ‘living man.’” ACR 59 (1982): 74-82.
Williams, J. Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth From Hag Hammadi.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Williams, M. A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Wilson, R. M. “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1:26.” StuPat 1 (1957): 420-37.
Wingren, G. Man and the Incarnation. A study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus.
Translated by R. Mackenzie. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959.
Wood, A. S. “Eschatology of Irenaeus.” EvQ 41 (1969): 30-41.
Xintaras, Z. C. “Man, the Image of God: According to the Greek Fathers.” GOTR 1.1
(1954): 48-62.
Young, F. The Art of Performance: Towards A Theology of Holy Scripture. London: Darton,
Longman and Todd, 1990.
. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
248
249