4.3 Son of God in Creation and Covenant: Haer. 3.11.5, 8
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation attention given to the covenants. The last portion of the arrangement makes a dramatic transition from the prophets to the eschatological judgment of Satan in Matt 25:41. This emphasizes the nature and activity of God the Father who administers creation throughout the unfolding of the divine economy from its conception to the eschatological fulfillment. Thus, the intertextual marker that threads these passages is the narrative element that binds these texts through a common referent to God the Father.
The absence of any mention of Christ is noteworthy, given that Irenaeus has already discussed the regula in several instances with the careful integration of the work of Christ and the Spirit.9 This implies that Irenaeus may be adhering closely to the text of 1 Clement in his summary. The nature and structure of this synopsis is what Irenaeus terms the "hypothesis" of 1 Clement, and the focus is clearly directed toward the Gnostics who reject the Demiurge in Genesis.10
The dualistic and polytheistic views of the Gnostics introduce discontinuity between the God of the Old Testament and the preaching of the church represented in 1 Clement.11 In this case, Irenaeus' summary of God's nature and activity in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7 is a theological one that identifies the nature of God, introduces the creedal narrative of the acts of God, and proves the continuity of salvation history from creation to judgment in the apostolic tradition represented in 1 Clement.12
4.3
Son of God in Creation and Covenant: Haer. 3.11.5, 8 Following the initial reference to Genesis, his next allusions to these creation texts follows Irenaeus' interpretation of the infancy narratives in the synoptic
Gospels in Haer. 3.9.1–3.10.6. Beginning in Haer. 3.11.1–6 he transitions from
Haer. 1.10.1, Haer. 1.22.1.
10 This summary of salvation history is Irenaeus' "hypothesis" of 1 Clement, implying that Irenaeus is not just summarizing salvation history, but the content 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 mentions 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. SC 210.236–7.
11 Farkasfalvy, "Theology of Scripture," 321.
12 Kannengiesser, "The 'Speaking God'," 350.
CHAPTER 4
discussing the synoptics to the Gospel of John, and 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 would have received from Polycarp. These last three sections of Haer. 3.11.7–9 defend the four-fold Gospel canon through a symbolic reading of the four living creatures in Rev 4:7.13 The intertestamental links between the incarnate Son of God and God the Father continue to pervade these sections, and with them so also the allusions to Gen 1–3. His reading applies verbal connections with the creation imagery and narratival summary of the covenants beginning with Adam.
4.3.1
Creation and Blessing of the Son: Haer. 3.11.5 (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, Gen 2:6) Using a variety of verbal and conceptual associations, 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 1–2.14 The God who made the earth in Gen 1:1, commanded it to bring forth 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
(c.f. Gen 2:10). The Son of God was with the Father in Genesis creating vegetation and water, this same person is found in the Gospels exercising authority over food and drink. While the Johannine passage involves a miracle with drink, Irenaeus also weaves this together with a miracle involving food through an allusion to the feeding of the 5000 with the loaves and fishes in John 6:11.
The imagery of creation in Gen 1 and the miracles in John are linked through the terms and concepts of "wine" (vinum), "water" (aqua), "earth" (terra), "fruit"
( fructus), "good" (bonus), "food" (esca) and "drink" (potus). Irenaeus makes the substantival connections explicit saying:
He [Christ] showed that the God who made the earth [Gen 1:1] and commanded it to bear fruit [Gen 1:11], and who established the waters
[Gen 1:9] and produced springs [Gen 2:6], this same [God] bestows upon 13 Cf. Ezek 1:6, 10.
14 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 the parable of the wedding feast in Matt
22:3. Mutschler, Das Corpus Johanneum, 222–39. cf. Rev 19:9.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation the human race the blessing of food [John 6:11] and the favor of drink
[John 2:1, 6] through His Son in these last times.15
The conceptual imagery of "earth" and "fruit" are connected with the blessing of "food," and the imagery of "waters" and "springs" are linked with the blessing of "drink." The inversion of the arrangement of the allusions to Gen 1:9 and Gen 1:11 enhance the intertextual connections, because this chronological inversion of the narrative in Gen 1–3 clarifies that the controlling images are the miracles of "food" and "drink" described in John. The primary text in view is John 2:1–6 and Irenaeus conflates this passage with the Genesis imagery in order to identify the divine nature of Jesus.
Irenaeus also observes that the first wine served at the wedding was created by God through the natural processes of the vineyard. This wine is "good" (John 2:10), which echoes the qualitative descriptions of creation throughout Gen 1 (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, etc . . .) and clearly the guests at the wedding offer no complaints about the first wine. But the wine created by the Son from the water is better. In this sense he uses the succession of the good wine and the better wine in John 2:10 to illustrate the progressive nature of sanctification. Thus, even though the Son of God had the power to create ex nihilo as he did in Gen 1–2, he chose to improve the substance of creation in the Johannine narrative.16 This associates the substance of creation and the identity of God the Father working though Son in both Genesis and John. To make this identity explicit, he offers a final allusion to John 1:18 that describes the preexistence of the Son "in the bosom of the Father" (in sinu Patris). Now, through his miracles of food and drink, the Son has revealed the invisible God by means of the visible incarnation.17 The instrumental medium for this revelation is not merely the substance of creation, but the Son who became incarnate, and worked miracles with the same substance created in Gen 1–2.
4.3.2
The Covenant in Creation: Haer. 3.11.8 (Gen 2:16–17) A few paragraphs later, Irenaeus makes similar connections in the economic activities of the Father though the Son in Haer. 3.11.7. He argues that the first "principles" (principia) of the Gospel are the existence of one God, who administered over salvation history from creation to the coming of the Son. For Irenaeus, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are unified in these
15 Haer. 3.11.5.
16 SC 210.282.
17 Cf. Haer. 3.16.6; Haer. 4.20.5; Haer. 5.16.2.
CHAPTER 4
principles. In this sense, there are not four Gospels, but one Gospel in four forms, because all four Gospels are held together by one Spirit.18 The Gnostics, on the other hand, neglect the unity of the principles of the Gospel, and instead preference one Gospel over the others.19 Irenaeus claims, though, the very fact that they utilize these texts confirms of their authority. As a result, he concludes that these Gospels and no others are the authentic forms of the one Gospel.
Irenaeus supports this argument by citing aspects of the nature of the divine economy that contain a "fourfold" design, or a single composite entity contained in four elements or forms. His reasoning is also based on a theological argument of the fitness and proportion of creation derived from one God,
Father and Creator of all things.20 He is not applying a Gnostic gematria that interprets passages symbolically through their ability to represent the number four, but looking for entities that are "fourfold" (quadriforma) in nature.
Arguing from natural revelation, he remarks generally that the earth is comprised of four zones, and contains four directional winds. Within scripture, there is also the four living creatures of Rev 4:7, which he also connects this text with the description of the Cherubim in Psalm 79(80):2. He states the gospels
"harmonize" (consonantia) with nature of the creatures around Christ's throne and then identifies each face with its respective Gospel: Human-Matthew,
Eagle-Mark, Ox-Luke, and Lion-John. Each one of these faces also symbolizes the different dispensations of the Son of God. The Lion (John) symbolizes his kingly nature, the Ox (Luke)his priestly role, the man (Matthew) his humanity, and the eagle (Mark) the gift of the Spirit that he gives to the church. He also explains each of these images by appealing to the opening lines of each
Gospel.
Irenaeus uses this fourfold aspect of Christ's ministry to conclude that the economy of the Lord is fourfold. Then, Irenaeus frames the divine economy as a whole into "four covenants" (quattuor . . . testamenta) including: the Adamic
Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant.
These dispensations parallel the economic functions of the Son of God. In the times of the patriarchs, the Son of God ministered by virtue of his divinity and glory. Under the dispensation of the Law, he ministered by means of his
18 Haer. 3.11.8. Irenaeus' view of the four-fold Gospel canon, though, does not depend upon these correspondences. He has already defended the apostolicity of these and other writings in Haer. 3.1.1–3.11.6.
19 The Ebionites use only Matthew, Marcion relies on Luke, those who maintain a dualistic
Christology use Mark, and the Valentinians prefer only John.
20 Haer. 3.11.9. I have already mentioned the philosophical notion of "fitness" (to prepon) in the classical tradition in chapter 1.
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation priestly function. Then in the time of the New Covenant, he became incarnate and sent the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Adamic Covenant naturally echoes God's command in Gen 2:16–17, though even this command cannot be divorced from the rest of the events in Gen 1–3. Adam is free to eat from any tree in the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Although in this instance, he gives little indication of his views on the relationships of these covenants, he does distinguish the first two covenants by their relationship to the flood in Gen 6.21 The Adamic covenant is before the flood, and the Noahic covenant is after the flood. This is likely focused on the connections of origins of humanity reaching back to a covenant made with a singular person or family in each instance.22
In Irenaeus' thinking, however, the nature of the relationship that God and Adam enjoyed in paradise is more important than the command. The New
Covenant is the focal point of the progressive covenantal structure. The blessings of the relationship enjoyed in the Adamic covenant are extended in the Noahic Covenant in Gen 9:8–16 and the Mosaic Covenant in Exod 19–20, but ultimately they culminate in the New Covenant that sums up all things in Christ (Eph 1:10). In her analysis of the covenants in Irenaeus, Susan Graham argues that they are arranged for the growth and progress of the faithful toward
God, and serve as "forerunners and exemplars" of the kind of communion that God and humanity will ultimately enjoy.23 She refers to the relationship in the paradise as the "benchmark for all divine-human relationships," because vision of the Lord walking and conversing with Adam prefigures the New Covenant that renews this paradisiacal relationship between God and humanity through the work of Christ.24 The four-fold covenant structure, beginning with Adam forms a progressive trajectory that prepares the faithful for the communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed in paradise.
21 Irenaeus gives special attention to the covenants in Epid 8–29, but he discusses aspects of each covenant elsewhere in Adversus Haeresus. Cf. Haer. 2.24.3, Haer. 3.12.11–12, Haer.
4.16.1–2.
22 Epid 19–22 places special emphasis on the Noahic covenant for the way it prefigures the New Covenant.
23 Susan L. Graham, "Irenaeus and the Covenants: 'Immortal Diamond,' " StuPat 40 (2006):
393–98, 394.
24 Ibid., 394. Cf. Epid 44, 92. 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.