4.5 Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection: Haer. 3.19.3–20.1
CHAPTER 4
Rom 5:12, Irenaeus remarks that death came to all humanity through the disobedience of Adam, who was "first fashioned from virgin earth" (primus de terra rudis plasmatus, Gen 2:5). The reference to "first" is positional and chronological in terms of Adam's relationship to humanity, while the "virgin earth" soil exemplifies the pristine nature of the untilled soil prior to God sending rain in Gen 2:6 or tilling the earth to form Adam in Gen 2:7. The parallel phrase refers to Christ who was "born first of the Virgin" (primus ex Virgine natus), and was obedient thereby accomplishing salvation to the faithful.31 The allusion to Gen 2:5 in this section demonstrates the way Irenaeus extends Paul's logic with his own harmonization.32 The semantic structure in Rom 5 as demonstrative of the "asymmetrical analogy" between Adam and Christ in Paul's thought.33
Whereas Paul's comparison is primarily contrastive, Irenaeus utilizes both contrastive and corresponding elements.34 This typological imagery shows that Irenaeus' is pouring over the verbal details of the descriptions of the creation of Adam and Christ's incarnation to enhance and clarify the anthropological symmetry between both.35
4.5
Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection: Haer. 3.19.3–20.1
Like the previous section, Donovan also identifies another chiastic structure in Haer. 3.19.1–21.9 directed at the Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian sect, who rejected the divinity of Jesus.36 In this section Irenaeus provides an extended reflection
31 Haer. 3.18.7. cf. Luke 1:27, 2:7.
32 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.
33 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.
34 Orbe distinguishes between the functions of Rom 5:12 and 5:19 for Irenaeus' anthropology.
The former differentiates between the obedience and disobedience of Adam, while the latter, links the sin and death. Orbe, Antropologia, 284.
35 Behr, Asceticism, 63.
36 Donovan's structure is as follows: A: To consider Jesus human only misinterprets
Emmanuel (Haer. 3.19.1), B: Jesus God and human (Haer. 3.19.2), C: Because humans could not imagine it, the sign of Emmanuel was given (Haer. 3.19.3), D: Sign of Jonah:
God's plan (Haer. 3.20.1), E: Glory of human: God. Receptacle of God's action: the human
(Haer. 3.20.2), D′: God became Savior, carrying out the plan (Haer. 3.20.3–4), C′: Sign of Emmanuel badly translated (Haer. 3.21.1–3), B′: Emmanuel sign means Jesus God and
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation on the 1 Cor 2:9 and the relationship between the weakness of the flesh and the power of God. He reasons that God permitted evil for the sake of his own glory and to display his goodness. The central piece of the chiastic structure,
Haer. 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).37 The entire chiastic structure is also oriented by the interpretation of Isa 7:14, and both Haer. 3.19.3 and Haer. 3.20.1 are positioned in the first half, or parts C-D of the chiasm. The corresponding section
(Haer. 3.21.1–3) critiques the Ebionite preference for the translation "young woman," rather than "virgin," (παρθένος) as cited in Matt 1:23. Undoubtedly,
Irenaeus must be familiar with Justin's detailed argument on this point.38 He frames human nature, created from the dust in Gen 2:7, as the substance
(plasma) that Christ retrieves and restores back to life. His intertextual reading of these texts continues to develop the typological and verbal associative strategies seen in previous sections, though there is also careful attention given to the precise mode of Adam's formation.
4.5.1
Adam's Formation and Salvation: Haer. 3.19.3 (Gen 2:7) Irenaeus begins Haer. 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.39 I have framed the elaborate textual networking of Haer. 3.19.3 in the following chart:40 human (Haer. 3.21.3–4), A′: Extended interpretation of Emmanuel, with other texts supporting this interpretation (Haer. 3.21.5–9). Donovan, One Right Reading?, 84–5.
37 Haer. 3.20.3.
38 Cf. Dial 43.8; Dial 67.1; Dial 70.3; Dial 84.3.
39 Haer. 3.19.3.
40 Haer. 3.19.3. I adapted this chart from the notes in Steenberg's translation of Haer. 3.
Steenberg, Irenaeus of Lyons, 181n27.
CHAPTER 4
Isa 7:14, Isa 7:11
For this reason the Lord himself gave us a sign in the depths below and in the heights above.
Propter hoc et ipse Dominus dedit nobis signum in profundum, in altitudinem susum Quod non postulavit homo [Ahaz], quia nec speravit Man [Ahaz] did not ask for that [sign], because he did not hope Isa 7:12
Virginem pragnantem fiery posse quae erat virgo that a virgin, as a virgin, could become pregnant, Isa 7:14a et parere filium, and that she [could] also give birth to a son, Isa 7:14b et hunc partum Deum esse nobiscum, and that this child [could] be "God with us,"
Isa 7:14c Eph 4:9, Luke 15:5–6, Gen 2:7 and that He [could] descend into the lower parts of the earth, searching for the sheep that was lost—which really was His own handiwork— et descendere in ea quae sunt deorsum terrae, quaerentem ovem quae perierat (quod quidem erat proprium ipsius plasma), Eph 4:10, Luke 15:24, 32, 1 Cor 15:20 and ascend to the heights above, there offering and recommending to the Father humanity who was found.
Thus he. In himself, offered the first fruits of the resurrection of humankind. et ascendere in altitudinem, offerentem et commendantem Patri eum hominem qui fuerat inuentus, primitias resurrectionis hominis in semetipso faciens In this complex textual latticework, he conflates Gen 2:7, Luke 15:4, and Eph
4:9 through the verbal associations of "handiwork" (plasma), "sheep" (ouem), and the "earth" (terra). Each of these scriptural images represent the physical objects 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 God's own peculiar "handiwork" (plasma) of Gen 2:7. Alongside these catchwords, there are conceptual patterns of descent and ascent in each passage. The "descending" (descendere) imagery refers to the Incarnation and brings together 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
Reading Genesis From Creation To Incarnation refers back to the substance (plasma) formed in Gen 2:7 as the object of salvation. 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 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 Haer. 3.19.3 depicts the resurrection of the body 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, 20.41 Together they serve to reinforce the same point as 1 Cor 15:20, so there is a sense in which I 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).42
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
The Disobedience of Adam and Jonah: Haer. 3.20.1 (Gen 3:1–8) Following his intertextual reading of Gen 2:7, Irenaeus continues in the next section discussing Gen 3:1–8 and argues that the repercussions of Adam's sin did not frustrate God nor impede divine providence in any way. 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 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 3:1–8 with explicit allusions 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).
41 Haer. 3.19.3.
42 Haer. 3.19.3.
CHAPTER 4
He begins by comparing the disobedience in Eden with the disobedience of Jonah.43 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 3:8–9), 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. 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 Gen 3 and the presence of the animal in the story of Jonah. Like Jonah, humanity's captivity to sin 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.
Irenaeus extends the Adam-Jonah typology by contrasting Jonah's humility in his prayer to God with Adam's pride in his disobedience (Gen 3:5), and the hope of the resurrection for 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).44 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).45
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).46
Adam and Eve became ungrateful towards God and considered themselves equal to God. In this sense, the theme of humility in each passage influences these connections. In light of these attitudes, humankind should praise God all
43 For a discussion of the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian conditions of Adam and Eve in this section see: Behr, Asceticism, 49.
44 Haer. 3.20.1. He cites both Jonah 1:9 and Jonah 2:2, though he exchanges the "belly of the fish" (έκ τῆς κοιλιάς του κητους), for "belly of hell" (de ventre inferni).
45 Haer. 3.20.1.
46 Haer. 3.20.1; cf. Epid 32–33.