3.2 Reading Moses with the Apostles: Haer. 2.2.5 (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:3)

chapter 3 Demiurge, and he refutes the belief that the spiritual Gnostics ascend higher than their Creator. Finally, in Haer. 2.31–35, he responds to those who have followed the Valentinian traditions including among others: Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates. He rehearses many of the previous arguments against these schools of Gnosticism, but develops some new thoughts concerning ethics and the transmigration of souls. He concludes Haer. 2 with a final reference to the unity and harmony of the scriptures that testify to the existence of one true God.

Within this structure the uses of Gen 1–3 are reserved to one opening section (Haer. 2.2.5) and three latter sections (Haer. 2.26.1, Haer. 2.30.7, 9, and Haer. 2.34.4). It is not surprising that we find allusions to Gen 1–3 in the opening and closing sections; Irenaeus has a tendency to frame his work with allusions to Gen 1–3.3 The overall infrequency of his use of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 2, does not detract from the importance of these references. In Haer. 2.2.5, for example, he defends the authority and trustworthiness of the Mosaic account of creation as a whole. This clearly delineates a point Irenaeus inferred throughout Haer. 1 when he argued that the Gnostics adapt and amend Gen 1–3 according to their system.4 Irenaeus assumes the work of God in creation is an epistemological grounding for his theological framework and argumentation, which should be understood in continuity with rest of apostolic testimony. His use of Gen 1–3 in his other philosophical arguments develops the other aspects of his intertextual hermeneutic as well. He continues his use of verbal connections, as well as prosopological exegesis. But he also applies a narratival reading, and uses collections of texts for illustrative purposes.

3.2

Reading Moses with the Apostles: Haer. 2.2.5 (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:3)5 In the opening lines of Haer. 2.1.1, Irenaeus states his basic argument, or first principle, that there is one God who created all things. This theology of creation is the basis for Irenaeus' theology of revelation in general and theology of scripture in particular. The Gnostic Pleromic emanations that oppose this

3 References to Gen 1–2 are found in Epid. 11 and 97 and the closing paragraph of Haer. 5.36.3.

4 Haer. 1.8.1.

5 This is a general allusion to God "speaking" (εἰπεν) creation into existence found in Gen 1:3, 6,

9, etc. In Haer. 4.32.1, Irenaeus explicitly cites Gen 1:3 for the same purpose. Steenberg, states that Haer. 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 here and Haer. 4.32.1 is the same. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 70.

REFUTING GNOSTIC CREATION

basic confession about creation are subject to the problem of infinite regress.

This argument for the existence of one Creator God leads to his second point that the Creator required no assistance or mediation in creation. God is completely self-sufficient and capable of accomplishing all creative acts.6 In his previous book, Irenaeus has already described how Gnostics imagine that angels, or some other kind of spiritual being, contributed to the formation of the world and humankind.7

In contrast, Irenaeus remarks that God needed no "other instruments" (aliis organis) for the creation of all things.8 His own Word was a "suitable and sufficient" (idoneus . . . et sufficiens) means to accomplish creation. He supports this claim with reference to John 1:3: "through him [the Word] all things were made, and without him nothing was made" (Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil). His reading interprets the preposition "through"

(per) in an instrumental sense and emphasizes the inclusiveness of "all things"

(omnia). The created 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. To defend the notion that God created the world by means of his Word, he appeals to imagery of God speaking creation into existence saying, "Scripture tells us in Genesis; he made all things around us by his Word"

(Scriptura Geneseos dicit omnia quae sunt secundum nos fecisse Deum per Verbum suum). This syllogistic reasoning begins with the general premise that God created all things by means of his Word (John 1:3), then he observes that the earth is a subset of "all things," and finally he concludes that God created the earth by means of his Word (Gen 1:3ff). This general appeal to the creation by means of the Word in Gen 1 focuses on the various uses of "said" (dicit or εῖπεν) repeated throughout the first chapter (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). This gloss reads the verbs in a personal sense that records the activity of the Word of God, rather than mere anthropomorphic imagery.

6 God's unmediated creation of all things is a theme to which Irenaeus frequently returns:

Haer. 1.22.1, Haer. 2.2.1–5; Haer. 4.7.4; Haer. 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 Haer. 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.

7 Haer. 1.24.1, Haer. 1.30.6.

8 Haer. 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.

chapter 3 In order to strengthen this logic, Irenaeus combines this intertextual reading of Gen 1:3 and John 1:3 with Psalm 32(33):9 that also describes God speaking creation into existence.9 All three texts are united by the common imagery of God speaking (dicit) or creating all things though his Word. At the same time, he also unites the testimonies of Moses, David, and the apostle John. They all share the same testimony that God created all things by means of the Word.

The continuity between the Law, Prophets, and Apostles supports Irenaeus point that all scripture is unified in the common confession of one God who created all things by means of the Word, and that God required no angelic mediation in creation.10 For Irenaeus, it is the Gnostics intent to dissociate and disconnect the creation accounts as it suits the revelation of their system, while Irenaeus aims to unify them with the apostolic witness in a continuous narrative of divine creation and revelation.

Given these testimonies of God's activity in creation, Irenaeus recognizes that his argument rests upon the authority and integrity of the Mosaic account as it is presented in Genesis 1–2. He believes that Moses' literary account of creation is a true and coherent record of the origin of all things. He contrasts the incoherence of the Gnostics with the authority Moses and the coherence between Moses and the apostolic teaching saying:

Whom, then, will we believe more in regard to the making of the world— the heretics we mentioned above, who babble about foolish and incoherent things, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, God's faithful servant and prophet? [Num 12:7, Heb 3:5]. He it was who first narrated the origin of the world when he said: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth,' [Gen 1:1] and after that all the rest.11

Irenaeus' opening rhetorical question implies that Moses accurately recorded the creation of all things by means of the Word in Gen 1–2.12 Not only this, but in terms of creation, Moses and the apostolic teaching are in one accord.

Following the words of Num 12:7 and Heb 3:5, he describes Moses as a faithful servant and prophet of God who recorded God's narrative of creation, while