5.16 Conclusion: Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 4
Genesis, the Creation, and the Divine Economy Gen 3:1–6. Envious of Adam as God's 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 could not resist the deception of the enemy. Following Adam and Eve's transgression God banished the Devil from his presence (cf. Gen 3:14–5, Matt 13:42), and ultimately the work of Christ eradicates the enmity the Devil desired to inflict between God and humanity. Irenaeus emphasizes the prosopological aspect of Gen 3:15, when he highlights that God spoke to the serpent the prophecy of Gen 3:15. This prophecy is fulfilled in the incarnation when 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 Christ, through a woman, gaining victory over the snake (Gal 4:4). In this sense, Irenaeus implies the incarnation is the fulfillment of the promise of the 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 role in the transgression. For this reason, the Devil and his angels are subject to judgment and cast into the eternal fire (cf. Matt 13:41,
Matt 25:41).
5.16
Conclusion: Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 4
In Haer. 4, Irenaeus conflates and harmonizes the language and imagery of Gen 1–3 with a variety of other scriptures. In most instances there is no introductory formula to signify a reference to Genesis, instead he blends this imagery into the flow of his argumentation. This intertextual use of scripture in Haer.
4 continues to sharpen the specific reading strategies that have characterized his reading of Gen 1–3 in the previous books. In Haer. 4, he applies similar reading strategies including: narratival arrangements, catchwords, literary reading, typology, prosopological interpretation, illustrative uses, general-to-particular arguments, and specific canonical arrangements. Not all of these categories are mutually exclusive, but often work in harmony as he reads creation. In addition, the book is framed by two references to his predecessors (Justin and the Presbyter) who also contribute to his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3. In each of these instances, Irenaeus continually returns to the language, imagery, and
chapter 5 events of Gen 1–3 as a means to interpret other passages and images with in the rest of the scriptural witness. Irenaeus' scripture hermeneutic is governed by these intertextual references, as he works through his polemical response to his opponents and explains his own theological system.
Beginning with his references to Justin (Haer. 4.6.2) and the Presbyter (Haer.
4.32.1), Irenaeus reveals that his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 is not entirely unique. These two sections evidence Irenaeus' dependency on two individuals who have guided his intertextual reflection of Gen 1–3. These are not the only places that Irenaeus' draws on the thought of his predecessors, but they are two instances where his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 shares similarities with some of those under whom he studied. Justin shows his tendency for prosopological readings of Gen 1–3 that identify the divine persons with the titles: "Framer," "Maker," and "Nourisher." He also frames Gen 1–3 alongside references to the incarnation that unites the Father of Jesus with the Creator in Genesis. Similarly, his reference to the teaching of the Presbyter applies a prosopological reading of Gen 1:3 that identifies the activity of the Word of God with God speaking creation into existence. This prosopological interpretation is also supported by an array of other intertexts including: John 1:3, Eph
4:5–6, and Eph 4:15–16/Col 2:19. There is no doubt that Irenaeus extends the teaching of Justin and the Presbyter, but these instances express the learned aspect of Irenaeus' intertextuality and his reading of Gen 1–3 in particular.
Turning to his intertextual strategies in Haer. 4, first of all, Irenaeus continues to extend the nature of his narratival arrangement of texts. In these instances, Irenaeus frames a series of scriptural allusions in varying chronological relationships. The imagery of Gen 1:28, in particular, provides a theological paradigm for human growth that is realized in the unfolding of salvation history. He makes this point explicit in Haer. 4.11.2, where he also argues that throughout the growth of the divine economy, the ancients longed to see the advent of the Son (Matt 13:17). But this also includes the way that he reads the texts of Gen 1–3 together as a single unified narrative account of creation, as well as reading these creation texts in correspondence with later revelation.
The former case is clear in Haer. 4.pf.4 where Irenaeus conflates Gen 1:26 and 2:7 into one creation account of humankind. The "hands of God" create Adam from the dust and in the image of God. Irenaeus emphasizes the interpretation of these passages as a literal account of creation, without any extended or explicit reference to texts outside of Gen 1–3. In the later sense, Irenaeus balances his harmonious reading of creation texts by drawing together their connection to later revelation. In Haer. 4.6.2 he describes the creative acts of God in successive allusions to Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 1:28, and then he conflates this imagery of creation with his theology of recapitulation in Eph 1:10. Finally,
Genesis, the Creation, and the Divine Economy Irenaeus focuses on the covenantal structure of scripture and gives close attention to the way the covenants, beginning with Adam, unify the divine economy.
In Haer. 4.34.4, Irenaeus discusses how the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Christ restores and extends God's creative work in Gen 1–2.
Second, the collection of catchwords and more general verbal associations that Irenaeus uses to link texts continues to develop in this book. There is also particular attention given to the imagery surrounding Adam's formation from the earth. In most cases, Irenaeus offers little or no commentary on these texts, but instead views the passages as themselves commentary upon the creation in Gen 1–2 or vice-versa. They all testify to God as the Creator of all things. In many cases the terms are not cognates, but share common features or general classifications. Beginning in Haer. 4.16.1, Irenaeus connects the "sign" of the "Sabbath" in Exod 31:13 and Ezek 20:12 with the description of Sabbath rest in Gen 2:1–2. In Haer. 4.20.1–4a the language of "all things" (omnia) is the specific term that unites a series of passages including: Mand 1, Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, and Matt 11:27. In Haer. 4.34.4 the general "farming" imagery connects the harvesting imagery of the New Covenant in Isa 2:3–4 with the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7 and reverses the curse in Gen 3:17–18. Similar imagery surfaces in Haer. 4.36.1–2, with reference to the planting of a vineyard in the parable of the wicked tenants (Matt 21:33–43).
Third, Irenaeus continues to use a variety of typological connections, especially in Haer. 4.33–36. These are crafted through his intertextual perspective and closely related to a particular aspect of the work of Christ. These typological relationships include an Adam-Abel-Christ, Adam-Noah, Adam-Christ, and David-Solomon-Jonah-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. For example, responding to the Ebionites, he 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 Haer. 4.33.4, his AdamChrist typology conflates Isa 7:14, John 1:14, Gen 1:26, and Gen 2:7 to highlight the correspondence between salvation and the incarnation. He also unites the figures of Adam, Abel, and Christ in Haer. 4.34.4 where the formation of Adam prefigures the incarnation and the death of Abel prefigures the ingathering of the righteous. In addition to the allusions to Gen 2–4, his typology draws on Isa 2:3–4, Isa 57:1, Matt 5:39, and John 4:37. The Adam-Noah typology involves the interpretation of the "days of Noah" in Luke 17:2–6, and the Nephilim in Gen 6. Irenaeus understands the judgment upon Noah as a means for God to preserve the formation of Adam (Gen 2:7) from complete destruction. Besides the personal typological relationships, his eschatological interpretation of the
chapter 5 Sabbath day of rest in Gen 2:2–3, which is more prevalent in Haer. 5, emerges in Haer. 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).
Fourth, the prosopological style of interpretation that punctuated other books continues in Haer. 4, where Irenaeus identifies particular divine persons functioning in correspondence to creation texts. Beginning in Haer. 4.pf.4. He interprets the proclamation of Gen 1:26 as the two hands of God, the Son and the Spirit that participate in the work of creation. Similarly, in Haer. 4.6.2, a section dependent upon Justin, the verbal forms of God's creative activity are used as specific titles for God in order to identify the Creator in Gen 1:26, 1:28, and 2:7. These titles include God as "Framer," "Maker," and "Nourisher." This kind of interpretation also involves the way Irenaeus reads theophanies, such as the allusion in Haer. 4.10.1 to the Son of God inquiring after Adam in Gen
3:9. In this instance, Irenaeus borrows from Christ's words in John 5:39–40 that Moses spoke of him, and uses this passage to identify a series of texts that record Christ's theophanic appearances in the Old Testament. Finally, in Haer.
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 Haer. 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.
Fifth, Irenaeus frequently applies texts in an illustrative fashion, where he appeals to the imagery or patterning within a passage to explain a theological concept. This includes the use of the language in Gen 1–3 as an illustration for a theological point drawn from a separate passage, or the use of other scriptures to illustrate and interpret Gen 1–3. His illustrative use of texts also includes the application of scriptural figures or events to his contemporary setting. Along the lines of this second point, he appeals to the language of 2 Cor 11:3 in Haer.
4.pf.4 and remarks that the Gnostics believe they have discovered ineffable mysteries, which promotes same deception as the serpent in the Garden (Gen
3:1–5). The Gnostics, then, manifest the deception of the serpent in Irenaeus' own setting. In Haer. 4.10.1 Irenaeus alludes to Christ's words in John 5:39–40 that Moses wrote of him, and then he cites a series of theophanies, including
Gen 3:9, as illustrations of the presence of the Son of God in the Old Testament.
Finally, in Haer. 4.39.2, he appeals to the imagery of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7, along with other passages, to explain the nature and beauty of the resurrected body.
Sixth, Irenaeus also applies a classical general-to-particular or part-to-whole style of argumentation. In Haer. 4.20.1–4, Irenaeus weaves together a set of texts that argue logically from the general concept that God created all things to
Genesis, the Creation, and the Divine Economy 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. In these instances his choice of intertexts is directly connected by the inclusiveness of image within the passage.
Seventh, he argues for a canonical arrangement of texts that intentionally link texts from different portions of scripture. Most often this takes the form of stringing together texts drawn from the prophets, the words of the Lord in the Gospels, and apostolic writings. These passages often bound by other verbal connections, but he also selects these texts from disparate portions of scripture in order to unify the scriptural witness. In Haer. 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 Haer. 4.20.1. These passages describe the creation of all things by means of the Word in Gen 1–2, and the truth of this reality is confirmed at every stage of the divine economy.
Throughout Haer. 4, Irenaeus applies a diversity of reading strategies to Gen 1–3 as he steadily build his case for the unity of both testaments and the growth of humankind toward perfection in the image and likeness of God, the resurrection of the body, and the eschatological judgment. These reading strategies demonstrate the way Irenaeus' intertextual reading is expressed within his applied exegesis. In Haer. 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.