3.3 The Knowledge of God and the Growth of Humankind in Creation: Haer. 2.26.1 and Haer. 2.28.1
REFUTING GNOSTIC CREATION
the Gnostics teaching is incoherent. In other words, the authoritative account of creation is the ordered narratival account recorded beginning in Gen 1:1 that is congruent with the apostolic testimony. At the outset of his philosophical arguments in Haer. 2, Irenaeus clearly contrasts these two systems of interpretation and two readings of creation, and observes that the Mosaic account of creation, not the Pleromic system of the Gnostics, is harmonious with the teaching of the apostles.
3.3
The Knowledge of God and the Growth of Humankind in Creation:
Haer. 2.26.1 and Haer. 2.28.1
Following his appeal to the authority of Moses and the apostles, Irenaeus does not mention Gen 1–3 again until the latter chapters of the book in Haer 2.26–
28. This section has been part of a debate on Irenaeus' theological method and his relationship to the philosophical traditions of his day. The issue at stake is the question of the epistemological limitations and theological speculation. Building upon the work of Robert Grant and W.C. van Unnik, William
Schoedel suggests that Irenaeus drew from discussions of Empiric medicine and Skepticism as he formulated his argument that humankind should be satisfied with the revelation of God that is clear and obvious.13 The Gnostics, on the other hand, are consumed with endless cosmological speculations that are not discussed in scripture.14 According to Schoedel, Irenaeus claims that they are not content with knowing that God created all things, but concern themselves with limitless theories on why God created.15 Irenaeus' reading of Gen
1–3 pervades this whole argument, because he assumes the Mosaic account of creation is plain revelation that establishes the Creator-creature relationship.
He describes these creative events in a narratival fashion, and uses them as examples of clear and obvious revelation about protological matters.
13 William R. Schoedel, "Theological Method in Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 2.25–28),"
JThS 35 (1984): 31–49; Robert M. Grant, "Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture," in After the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967): 158–64; 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.
14 This general discussion runs through Haer. 26–28, but for his specific claims see especially: Haer. 2.26.3, Haer. 2.27.1, and Haer. 2.28.2–3.
15 Schoedel, "Theological Method in Irenaeus," 31–2.
chapter 3 3.3.1
The Humility of the Creaturely Formation: Haer. 2.26.1
(Gen 1:26–7, 2:7) In the opening lines of Haer. 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).16 This ethical aspect of knowledge frames the discussion as a whole, and he alludes to this passage again in opening lines of Haer. 2.28.6. 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 esteems the individual as perfect.17 This false knowledge is contrary to the fundamental nature of the Creator-creature relationship established in creation of humankind in Gen 2:7.18 Commenting on 1 Cor 8:1, Irenaeus writes: "there is no greater conceit [c.f. 1Cor 8:1] than to think that one is better and more perfect than he who created and formed us
[Ps 118(119):73, cf. Job 10:8, Gen 1:27, and Gen 2:7], and gave us the breath of life
[Gen 2:7], and bestowed existence."19 In this sense the passivity and humility of the creature formed from the dust of the earth in Ps 118(119):73 and Gen
2:7 exemplifies the nature of the Creator-creature distinction that should elicit the creature's affection toward the Creator who has bestowed existence. It is possible that the parallel catchwords "created and formed" ( fecerit et plasmauerit), could be general allusions to Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, but this parallel also appears in Ps 118(119):73 (ἒπλασαν . . . συνέτισον).20 Finally, Irenaeus is greatly troubled by the Gnostics claims of spiritual superiority and the assumption that they are wiser and ascend higher than the Creator in Genesis.
3.3.2
The Progressive Nature of Creaturely Formation: Haer. 2.28.1
(Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28) This section continues the same line of reasoning begun in Haer. 2.26.1, but begins with the assertion that the church possesses both the rule of truth and the scriptures that give solid and true knowledge of God. The Gnostics,
Irenaeus continues, seek our answers to speculative cosmological questions 16 Haer. 2.26.1.
17 Haer. 2.26.1.
18 Haer. 2.26.1.
19 Haer. 2.26.1.
20 This same passage uses the anthropomorphic language of God's hands creating and forming humankind, which is part of scriptural imagery for Irenaues' "two hands" description of the "Trinitarian" view of creation. For a discussion of the "hands" imagery with a list of all relevant citations see Fantino, Théologie d' Irénée, 306–9.
REFUTING GNOSTIC CREATION
that are unattainable and unknowable. Instead of seeking out answers to obscure questions, humankind should content themselves with the revelation of God that is "clearly" (aperto) proclaimed.21 While Schoedel observes the background in Skepticism and the methods of Empirical medicine in this assertion, at least in terms of the apprehension of pursuing causal explanations, Irenaeus also describes the contents of scripture that characterize this
"clear" revelation. His summary of the clear revelation in scripture includes a set of interlocking allusions and echoes depicting a narrative summary of God's creative activity including: Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28, and Heb 7:7. This arrangement is united with the imagery in Job 3:16 and Matt 3:12 that illustrates a progressive view of sanctification of the faithful.22
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.23 He supports this view with an echo of Heb 7:7, depicting a movement from a lesser to a greater advancement toward the divine likeness. The context of the Heb 7:7 is the story of Melchizedek's blessing over Abraham in Gen 14:18–20. The author of Hebrews argues that Christ is from the priestly line of Melchizedek rather than the Levitical priesthood. The uniqueness and greatness of Melchizedek is confirmed when he blesses Abraham, which allows the author of Hebrews to make the general assertion that the "lesser" (Abraham) is blessed by the "greater" (Melchizedek).
Drawing on this imagery, Irenaeus applies this logic to the growth and sanctification of the human person generally. The lesser creature (Adam) is blessed by the greater Creator (God), which entails growth and increase (Gen 1:28) toward God.
In order to illustrate this theme of growth and increase in sanctification (Heb 7:7, Gen 1:28), he also utilizes the images of childbirth drawn from Job 3:16 and wheat harvesting from Matt 3:12. The former describes the divine work of Job's formation in the womb and subsequent birth and Irenaeus applies the imagery generally to argue that God brings the infant who is conceived in the womb out into the light of day (Job 3:16). The movement from the darkness of the womb to the birth in the full light of the sun, illustrates the transition from Adam's birth (Gen 2:7) to his growth toward divine perfection (Gen 1:28). The intertextual link between these texts is the imagery of creation and increase,
21 See also Haer. 2.27.2 and Haer. 2.28.3.
22 Haer. 2.28.1.
23 Haer. 2.28.1.