6.9 Christ, Adam, and Restoration at the Tree: Haer. 5.16.3, Haer. 5.17.1–4, Haer. 5.19.1, Haer. 5.20.2
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body incrementally toward the true Image (substantial).139 As a result, the function of the Likeness (Spirit), is to assimilate the corporeal nature of humanity to receive the Image of God and prepare the faithful for the new life of the resurrection. Irenaeus suggests that in paradise Adam did "easily lose the similitude" (similitudinem facile amisit) after his disobedience (Gen 3:6). Orbe reasons that it was easily lost because the Image (substantial) was invisible;
Adam could not comprehend what he would become and was easily dissuaded from this eschatological vision.140 The loss of the Likeness, therefore, does not merely have anthropological implications, but also Christological and Pneumatological. After Adam, humankind lost the Likeness (Spirit) qualitatively, but not substantially.141 The loss of Likeness is a slackening of the presence of the Spirit, which is no longer able to sustain the life of humankind. In this case the "Likeness" lost in Adam but regained in Christ, is the "strength of the breath of Life" that sustained Adam in his pre-lapsarian state.142 While the Image of God (substantial) was preparing the faithful for the incarnation throughout the Old Covenant, he was also preparing them to receive back the Likeness. Irenaeus has already discussed the links between the breath with the Spirit and how the breath, which has come from the Spirit, loses is strength after Adam and Eve's disobedience. The Likeness received though the Spirit at Pentecost, therefore, is qualitatively superior, because it is eternal and lasting.
This correspondence between Likeness and the Spirit amplifies the theological implications of Irenaeus' Adam-Christ typology, and fashions intertextual links through common imagery of Likeness and Spirit.
6.9
Christ, Adam, and Restoration at the Tree: Haer. 5.16.3, Haer. 5.17.1–4, Haer. 5.19.1, Haer. 5.20.2
Following his typological reading of John 9, in Haer. 5.16.3–20.2 he extends his Adam-Christ typology with correspondence between the crucifixion and Adam's disobedience. Once again the Adam-Christ typology yields both symmetrical and asymmetrical correspondence between these figures. These typological relationships are also linked through a variety of catchwords, illustrative imagery, and prosopological interpretation of Gen 1–3 and the Gospels.
139 Haer. 5.6.1. Orbe, Teología V.2, 94.
140 Orbe, Teología V.2, 97–8. If this is the case this need to be synthesized with Irenaeus' view of Adam's pre-lapsarian immaturity. Minns, Irenaeus, 73.
141 Orbe, Teología V.2, 96–7.
142 Behr, Asceticism, 114–5.
CHAPTER 6
Whereas Adam was disobedient and offended God through his actions at the tree, Christ was obedient and remained faithful even unto death on the tree.
6.9.1
Christ's Passion and Adam's Disobedience: Haer. 5.16.3 (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6) Advancing his efforts to link the Word of God with the work of Christ, in Haer.
5.16.3 Irenaeus discusses the passion of Christ in correspondence with the disobedience of Adam. Through his passion, Christ undoes the effects of the disobedience that transpired in the beginning at the "tree" (ligno, Gen 3:6). In contrast to the disobedience of Adam (Gen 3:6), Irenaeus cites Phil 2:8 describing how the second Adam was made obedient unto death. The catchword ligno combines with the asymmetrical relationship of Adam and Christ's actions toward God. The Word of God was clear when he set forth the command in the Garden not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Irenaeus implies a general solidarity and culpability with Adam in his sin when he uses the plural inclusive "we offended in Adam" (Adam offendimus) when "he did not perform his commandment" (non facientes ejus praeceptum). The solidarity is important because Irenaeus' response describes how in the second Adam
"we are reconciled" (reconciliati sumus, Rom 5:10) to God and made obedient to death.143 These comparisons between the first and second Adam reinforces the economic parallelism between the work of Christ in the Gospels and the Word of God in Gen 1–3 and solidify the theological coherence of the activity of one God, who is Creator and Father.
6.9.2
Restoration and Friendship with God: Haer. 5.17.1–2 (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:8) Irenaeus develops the previous connections between the Adam-Christ typology in this section with additional theological connections. One significant concern is the identity of the one who established the command for Adam to abstain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Gen 2:17.
Irenaeus applies a prosopological reading and concludes that the Creator, Father, Lord, Maker, and Fashioner do not reflect, contrary to his Valentinian opponents, different beings, but all of these names speak of the activity of one and the same God.144 In fact, the reference to God as the wise "Maker and Fashioner" (Factor et Plasmator) is a combination of verbal titles drawn from the proclamation to make humankind in Gen 1:26 and the fashioning of Adam
143 BP and SC do not mention this allusion, but Orbe recognizes the language of this passage.
Orbe, Teología V.2, 115. Cf. Rom 5:19.
144 Haer. 5.17.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body in Gen 2:7.145 Together they identify the same God working in both accounts of creation, and commanding Adam to abstain.
Corresponding to this theological identity, Irenaeus remarks that the Word of God actually uttered the command in Gen 2:16. Irenaeus views the Son as the actualization of the Father's communication. So everywhere God speaks, the Word of God is active. Irenaeus' cites Gen 3:8: "Adam heard the voice of the Lord God" (Audivit . . . Adam vocem Domini Dei) as support for this theological interpretation. The Word of God is the one who speaks the command in Gen 2:16 since he is the "voice" of the Lord God. In the bishop's reasoning, the vocem of Gen 3:8 represents the activity of the Verbum of God.146 The personal
"Voice of God" (Vox Dei) is also the "Word" (Verbum) of God who manifests the commands of the Father. Utilizing the dialogical connection, he also refers to Christ statement to the paralytic in Matt 9:2, "your sins are forgiven."147 The same incarnate "Word" (Verbum) is able to proclaim the forgiveness of sins in the Gospels (Matt 9:2). In the incarnation, the Word of God became the mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5), thereby overturning the disobedience that occurred at the tree. Christ could only have the authority to forgive sins, if Adam had offended his command in Genesis. Forgiveness of Adam's disobedience is only possible if the one proclaiming forgiveness is the same one who established the law of Gen 2:17 and against whom Adam sinned in Gen 3:6. At the same time, the Word of God, who proclaimed the command of Gen 2:17 and the forgiveness of sins in Matt 9:2, did not speak of his own will, but the will of the Father.
Furthermore, Irenaeus wants to be clear that this God against whom Adam sinned is not the same Father of whom the Valentinians speak. While the Valentinians distinguish between the Father and the Creator, Irenaeus asserts that in Gen 3:6 Adam sinned against same Father who commanded, through the Word of God, not to eat of the tree in Gen 2:17. This is why, Irenaeus concludes, the Lord taught the faithful to pray, "forgive us our debts" (nobis debita nostra, Matt 6:12), because all humankind are the debtors of the Father for transgressing the command of Gen 2:17.148 These texts are linked with the catchwords including the term "forgive" (remitto) that connects Christ words
145 The titles, Factor and Plasmator (Ποιητὴς, Πλάστης) mirror the verbs in the Septuagint:
Ποιήσωμεν (Gen 1:26) and ἐπλασεν (Gen 2:7).
146 For similar parallels between vocem and Verbum see Epid. 12 and Haer. 5.15.4.
147 Cf. Luke 5:20.
148 Haer. 5.17.1. Osborn suggests that Irenaeus viewed the original sin in terms of "inherited guilt," but Steenberg denies this claim. Osborn, Irenaeus, 218. See also Haer. 3.18.7 and Haer. 3.23.2.
CHAPTER 6
to the paralytic in Matt 9:2 and the Lord's prayer in Matt 6:12. This extends the theological implications of Adam's sin to all humanity that, in turn, also requires the forgiveness of sins. He uses the combination of "propitiating"
(propitians) for the faithful and "canceling" (consolatus) the debt of Adam's sin.
He also speaks of the true "remission" (remissionem) of sin in the mediation of mercy through the Son (Luke 1:78).149 Through the combination of incarnation and obedience, the incarnate Word of the Father reestablishes communion with the "Creator" (Factorem) that was lost through Adam's disobedience and cancels the debt of Adam's sin. Therefore, through the verbal and personal correspondence between the prohibition in Gen 2:17, the forgiveness of sins unites the activity of God in both accounts.
6.9.3
Disobedience and Restoration at the Tree: Haer. 5.17.3–4 (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6) Following the argument in the previous section, the intertextual discussion of Adam's disobedience (Gen 3:6) against the command of God (Gen 2:17) and the activity of the Word incarnate continues in Haer. 5.17.3–4. Irenaeus also fashions more intertextual relationships through a variety of linking terms and concepts. The healing of the paralytic and Christ's proclamation of the forgiveness of sins (Matt 9:2, Luke 5:24), alongside the petition for forgiveness of debts in the Lord's prayer are supported references to the power of the Lord to forgive sins in Psalm 31(32):1–2 and cancellation of debts in the crucifixion in Col 2:14. The case of the former, Psalm 31(32):1–2 announces through the Psalmist that the blessed will find forgiveness of sins. The catchword, "forgiven" (remitto) links this passage with the discussion of Gen 2:17, Matt 9:2, and Matt 6:12 above. But Irenaeus alludes to Psalm 31(32):1–2 as evidence that forgiveness was announced before the coming of Christ. On the other hand, Col
2:14 also uses the phrase, "he has destroyed the handwriting of our debit and affixed it to the cross" (delevit chirographum debiti nostri et affixit illud cruci).
This passage draws on the language of "debts" (debiti) and "cross" (cruci) to connect the whole argument back to the command not to eat from the tree in Gen 2:17, and the disobedience of Adam at the tree in Gen 3:6. By means of a tree, all were made debtors to God, so also by means of a tree there is forgiveness of sins. These references also draw together a prophet (Psalm 31(32):1–2), the Lord's words (Matt 9:2 and Matt 6:12), and an apostle (Col 2:14).
In Haer. 5.17.4 Irenaeus supports this typological association between the tree of disobedience with the tree of the cross with a variety of interrelated symbols of the cross. For example, while cutting down trees in the 149 Haer. 5.17.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body construction of the tabernacle, the disciples of Elisha negligently loose the axe head in the water (2 Kgs 6:1–7). So Elisha threw "wood" (lignum) into the water and the axe head miraculously floated to the surface. He interprets this recovery of the axe head as the recovery of the Word of God who was "hidden" (absconditum) from humanity at the tree of disobedience and found at the tree of the cross.150 Alongside the "wood" (lignum) imagery, he uses the closely related imagery of an "axe" (securis) in Matt 3:10 and Jer 23:29. He also contemplates the four regions of the cross in Eph 3:18, and the extended hands of Christ on the cross as the unification of the two people together under the provision of one God (Eph 4:6).151 They are brought together under the "head"
(caput) of Christ whose death on the "wood" (lignum) recovers what was lost by means of a tree in Gen 3:6. United by these various catchwords, these passages extended the theological continuity and discontinuity between the work of Adam and Christ.
6.9.4
The Dispensations of Adam and Christ: Haer. 5.19.1 (Gen 3:1–6, Gen 3:8) The theological and exegetical harmony between the dispensation of Adam's disobedience (Gen 3:1–6) and the dispensation of Christ persists in Haer. 5.19.1.
Irenaeus argues that the heretics ignore the integrative nature of these divine economies.152 In summary fashion, he points to several theological intertextual connections, many of which appear in previous books: the Creator assuming the very flesh he created, Adam's disobedience overturned by Christ's obedience, the Virgin Mary becoming an advocate for the virgin Eve, the sin of the first-created (protoplasti) man undone by the first-begotten (primogeniti), the serpent conquered by a dove (Matt 10:16), and humanity being freed from subjection to death. These typological relationships are united through parallel imagery and terminology, and together they harmonize various theological aspects of the dispensations of Adam and Christ. All this imagery of recapitulation points to the loosening of the "bonds" (alligati) that bind humanity to death. Thus, the centerpiece of this interconnection is the crucifixion, where the invisible Word became incarnate for the salvation of the world and was obedient unto death upon a cross.
Of all these recapitulatory relationships, the Eve-Mary typology receives the most attention. Irenaeus describes both symmetrical and asymmetrical aspects between Eve's actions in paradise with the Annunciation. He contrasts
150 Haer. 5.17.4.
151 Cf. Epid 34. The imagery of the extended hands on the cross is attributed to an elder, which also implies that this intertextual argumentation is partly received.
152 Haer. 5.19.2.
CHAPTER 6
the lies of the serpent that deceived the "virgin Eve" (virgo Eva, Gen 3:1–5) to the truth proclaimed by the angel to the virgin Mary (Luke 1:30–35). The former was led astray by the word of an angel and fled from the presence of God
(Gen 3:8), but the latter received angelic communication and was obedient.
Pointing to the aesthetic coherence between the obedience of Mary and the disobedience of Eve, Irenaeus characterizes Mary as an "advocate" (advocata) for Eve. The Eve-Mary typology serves to complement and illuminate the intricacies of the Adam-Christ typology.
Other theological connections support the correspondence between the dispensations of Adam and Christ. Echoing the narrative of Gen 3:1–6, Irenaeus correlates the language of serpent in Matt 10:16 to the activity of the serpent in paradise. He casts the "serpent" (serpentis) and the "dove" (columbae) imagery of Matt 10:16 in a recapitulatory relationship where the innocence of the dove overcomes the shrewdness of the serpent. Similarly, the sin of the first-created man (protoplasti, Gen 2:7) was corrected (emendationem) by the punishment
(correptionem) of the first-begotten man (primogeniti, Luke 2:7). He treats the peccatum of Adam in the Garden (Gen 3:6) is the object and basis for the atonement, so that Christ receives the punishment for Adam's sin. This action unties (resolutis) the bonds that bound Adam, and his posterity, to death.153
Therefore, this mosaic of typological relationships drawn from the imagery of Gen 3:1–6 are all interconnected and realized in the crucifixion of the incarnate Word of God. The same Word that created Adam assumed the flesh of his creation and was obedient unto death on the cross in order to address the sin of Adam's disobedience.
6.9.5
Flee to the Church and Be Nourished by the Scriptures: Haer. 5.20.2
(Gen 2:8, Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17, Gen 3:3) This section concludes Irenaeus reflection on relationship between Adam's disobedience at the tree and Christ's obedient death on the cross. He applies this imagery to his own theological context and portrays the doctrines of the heretics as contemporary manifestations of the serpent's deception. He illustrates the blind leading the blind (Matt 15:14) and those who incessantly seek after truth in vain (2 Tim 3:7) to characterize their lies. According to Irenaeus, their teaching deviates from the true path and they wonder down various unmarked roads, so that their opinions have no agreement or connection
(inconsonanter et inconsequenter).154 The church, on the other hand, boasts the collective unity and agreement in doctrine, grounded in the organized
153 Cf. Haer. 3.22.4.
154 Haer. 5.20.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body economic revelation of the Father, Son and Spirit. Irenaeus portrays the church with Edenic imagery and compares the deception of Adam and Eve with the contemporary actions of the heretics. Like Adam and Eve, the faithful are in the midst of the "tree of Gnosis" and must withstand the temptations of their seductive intellectual fruit.
For this reason, Irenaeus implores the faithful to seek refuge in the church to be nourished by the scriptures. The nature of the Garden of Eden prefigures the church, which becomes the manifestation of paradise in the present age.155 Orbe points to the possible influence of Matt 15:13, where the unfaithful will be uprooted like trees, which is likely given the reference to the blind leading the blind in the immediate context (Matt 15:14).156 While the faithful are planted in the church, the unfaithful will be uprooted and cast out. Elsewhere
Irenaeus refers to the church as a vineyard planted in Adam with his sons representing the trees.157 This imagery of being "nourished" (enutriri) by the church corresponds to the imagery of "planting" (plantata) Eden in Gen 2:8 and the Lord's command in to eat freely from the Garden, except of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:16–17, cf. Gen 1:28).158 Irenaeus uses the plural "we may eat"
(manducabitis), rather than the singular "you may eat" (manducabis), which reflects Eve's recitation of the command in Gen 3:2.159 He links the divine command to eat from every tree in Gen 2:16 with the reading of the scriptures, where "every tree" (omni . . . ligno) becomes "every Scripture" (omni Scriptura).160
In this sense, while the faithful dwell within the paradise of the church the faithful are encouraged to partake of every truth found in the scriptures.
Conversely, the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17, cf. Gen 3:3) is reinterpreted as a command to abstain from the teaching of the heretics.161 In the same way, Eve conversed with the tempter, so now the faithful stand before the tree of Gnosis and in the presence of the intellectual temptations of the heretics. He reinterprets the prohibition of Gen 2:17 (Gen 3:3) for the faithful of the church: "but you shall not eat with an elevated perception nor touching any heretical dissension"
155 Behr, Asceticism, 66. See also the discussion of the church as the locus of the Spirit in Haer. 3.24.1.
156 Orbe, Teología V.2, 328. BP and SC do not identify this allusion.
157 Haer. 4.36.2. Orbe, Parábolas I, 251. Cf. Haer. 5.10.1.
158 Cf. Haer. 5.5.1.
159 Orbe, Teología V.2, 330–2. SC 152.306. The three variants in the context are all plural (manducabitis, manducate, manducavertitis). Cf. Epid 15 and Haer. 5.23.1.
160 Haer. 5.20.2.
161 Cf. Haer. 5.23.1.
CHAPTER 6
(a superelato autem sensu ne manducaveritis neque tetigeritis universam haereticam dissensionem).162 The second clause, with the use of tetigeritis, refers
Eve's reiteration of the divine command (Gen 2:17) in Gen 3:3. Eve extends the prohibition from not eating, to not even touching (tetigeritis) the fruit. By all appearances, Irenaeus believes Eve reported the command accurately, because he characterizes this conflation of Gen 2:17 and Gen 3:3 as the command of the Spirit of God. Therefore, the faithful should not merely abstain from partaking of their doctrines, but avoid all contact with the heretics. In addition, the use of "elevated" perception (superelato . . . sensu, τῆς ὑπερφρονήσεως) corresponds to Rom 12:3 and reflects Irenaeus' understanding of the mental state of the serpent and the heretics who claim to have "the knowledge of good and evil"
(agnitionem . . . boni et mali, Gen 3:5 and 22) that surpasses the wisdom of the true God.
In Irenaeus' reading, the prohibition in Gen 2:16–17 (Gen 3:2–3) acknowledges the limits and constrains of human reason and warns against any capitulation to heretical doctrine. He implores his readers to "be wise with prudence"
(sapere ad prudentiam, Rom 12:3) in order to keep from duplicating the disobedience of Adam and Eve.163 Those who heed the command of God, contrary to Adam, Eve, the serpent, and the heretics, remain securely within the "paradise of life" (paradiso vitae), but those who partake of the doctrines of the heretics will surely be cast out of paradise (Gen 3:23).164 Irenaeus depicts the contemporary application of the command of God (Gen 2:17) as the obedience to the preaching of the church understood in terms of the recapitulation, or restoration, the communion of the God and humankind in the person of Christ (Eph
1:10) and through the union with the Spirit. In the paradise of the church, the life the faithful enjoy through the Spirit is life in flesh and blood and the command as a means to manage human immaturity and protect the faithful from repeating the sin of Adam.165
162 Haer. 5.20.2.
163 Haer. 5.20.2. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 156–7. The use of manducabitis suggests this passage is conflated with Gen 3:2. See Haer. 5.23.1.
164 Haer. 5.20.2. Orbe, Teología V.2, 337. BP and SC do not identify this allusion. Cf. Haer. 3.23.6.
165 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 158.