6.10 The Temptations of Adam and Christ: Haer. 5.21.1–3 and Haer. 5.23.1–2
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body 6.10
The Temptations of Adam and Christ: Haer. 5.21.1–3 and Haer. 5.23.1–2 This section constitutes the third facet of Christ's life that Irenaeus employs to unify the Creator in Gen 1–3 with the Father of Jesus. The first is the healing of the man born blind in John 9:1–7 (Haer. 5.15–16.2), the second is the crucifixion
(Haer. 16.3–20.2), and the third is the temptation account (Haer. 5.21–24.4).
Each of these aspects of Christ's life are compared and contrasted to the events of Adam's creation and disobedience in Gen 1–3.166 Rather than a chronological correspondence, this three-fold argument follows a logical association between the divine activity in Gen 1–3 and the incarnation, crucifixion, and final conquering of Satan. The reordering of the Christological events elevates the significance of the temptation account and the way it overturns the events in Gen 3. In the context of salvation history, Irenaeus uses the temptation account to show how the Son, who assumed the same flesh as Adam, was faced with the same deceptive tactics and overcame the same enemy that deceived
Adam and Eve in paradise. In Haer. 5.21.1–3 specifically, he carefully analyzes the symmetrical and asymmetrical aspects of both temptation accounts. He also explains the theological implications of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. Then in Haer. 23.1–2 he addresses the specific claim that God lied to Adam and Eve about their punishment of death, since it did not appear that they died in the "day" that they ate from the tree.
6.10.1
The Disobedience of Adam and Obedience of Christ: Haer. 5.21.1–3 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen 3:15) Beginning in Haer. 5.21.1, Irenaeus reports that Christ recapitulates (Eph 1:10) the devices of the enemy who conquered Adam. From the opening scene there is an explicit reference to the protoevangelium in Gen 3:15 that orients this entire section. His interpretation of Gen 3:15 envisions the work of Christ provoking the enemy, who had conquered Adam in Genesis (Gen 3:6), and crushing his head. He also alludes to God directing his punishment to the serpent in Gen 3:14.167 Ever since God made the proclamation to the serpent in Gen 3:15, according to Irenaeus, humankind had been diligently anticipating the birth of a man from a virgin and in the likeness of Adam. For Irenaeus, similitude between Adam and Christ denotes that the virginity of the woman was implicit in the conquering of Satan, because elsewhere he describes how Adam is
166 Haer. 5.18.1, Haer. 5.21.3, and Haer. 5.24.4.
167 Haer. 5.21.1.
CHAPTER 6
fashioned from the "virgin" earth (Gen 2:5).168 For the Bishop of Lyons, however, the prophecy of Gen 3:15 is mediated by the corresponding references to the "seed of the woman" (semen mulieris) in Gal 3:19 and Gal 4:4. 169 The fundamental problem is the injustice that is inflicted upon the events of the divine economy through the deceit of Satan. To be sure, Irenaeus does not believe that Satan has triumphed over God, but over God's creatures. In Irenaeus' reasoning the complex economic design reflected in the correspondence of Genesis and Galatians, was necessary in order to eradicate the injustice of Satan. Since the injustice was committed against Adam, only a descendant born in the likeness of Adam could rightly gain victory over the enemy. Conversely, a mere man born naturally into the captivity has no recourse to vanquish the enemy.
Furthermore, since Adam's disobedience was mediated by way of Eve, because it was Eve who ate of the tree first and then Adam in Gen 3:6. In the same way, the victory in Christ was also mediated by a woman from whom Christ received the same plasma of the original formation.170 The synthesis of these
Pauline texts with Gen 3:15 implies, for Irenaeus, that the one born of a woman is the Son of God made man, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Gen 3:15 and preparing the way for humankind's victory over death and reception of new life in Christ.171
Irenaeus' exegesis becomes more precise in Haer. 5.21.2–3 where he offers a careful evaluation of the Lord's temptation in Matthew's Gospel in correspondence to Adam and Eve's disobedience in Gen 3:6. Contrary to the Gnostic teaching, the Adam-Christ economic ties bind the Creator of Adam with the Father of Jesus. The former received the careful touches of the Creator in the beginning, but faltered by means of deception, while the latter, being born of a woman, performed the commands of the Creator and perfected humanity in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). The fulfillment of Gen 3:15 (through Gal 3:19, Gal 4:4), then, is ultimately the fulfillment of divine mandate in Gen
1:26. The triumph over the enemy through the obedience of Christ restored the plan of God for humankind to be made in the image and likeness of God.
When the Son of God experienced temptation at the hands of the same enemy, the result was altogether contrary to the disobedience of Adam. When tempted in Matt 4:2–10, Christ made use of the Law as a means to thwart the 168 Haer. 3.21.10.
169 Haer. 5.21.1. In Haer. 3.23.7 he appeals to Gal 3:19 and in Haer. 4.40.3 he alludes to Gal 4:4.
Cf. Wis 2:24, John 8:44, 2 Cor 11:3, and Rev 12:9.
170 BP identifies an allusion to Gen 2:22, but the reference is directed at the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7 and Eve's involvments in Adam's disobedience in Gen 3:6.
171 Haer. 5.21.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body very schemes the enemy used to conquer Adam and expose the identity of the apostate angel who was hidden in the serpent.172 Irenaeus reports that Christ fasted before he was tempted (Matt 4:2) in order to reveal his true humanity that is continuous with Adam's formation and to provoke Satan to a duel.
Examining their corresponding actions following the temporal references (in principio . . . in fine), Orbe locates four parallel aspects of each temptation narrative: 1) Whereas Adam was prohibited to eat by means of the Law (Gen 2:16),
Satan commanded Christ to eat (Matt 4:3); 2) Adam was without hunger (Gen 2:16), while Christ had fasted for forty days (Matt 4:2); 3) While there is deceit in paradise because the enemy remained hidden in the serpent (Gen 3:1–5),
Christ exposed the identity of the tempter as Satan himself (Matt 4:10); 4) Adam ate of the tree through the persuasion of the serpent and against the command of God, while Christ withstood the persuasion of the same enemy and, following the commands of God, did not eat.173 In addition to the elements described above, Irenaeus also mentions other dissimilar facets of these events including: 1) Adam as the victim and Christ as victorious, 2) death generated in Adam and life instituted in Christ, 3) Satan empowered through Adam's sin and confounded in Christ obedience, 4) and Satan acting prideful while Christ remained humble.174 These must be held in tension with the implicit parallel aspects of these events bound by a series of typological relationships linked by parallel imagery, such as the premise of Satan tempting humankind, the common generations of Adam and Christ, the use of food, and the presence of divine Law.
Therefore, throughout Haer. 5.21.2, Irenaeus rehearses Christ's three temptations (Matt 4:3, 6, 8), and in Haer. 5.23.3 he develops the typological connections between the Law of the Creator (Gen 2:17) and the Law of Father that was proclaimed in Christ. All this continuity and discontinuity, for Irenaeus, is set in relief with the economic progress of salvation history. Through his recourse to the Law, the Savior has overthrown Satan by storming the house of the strong man Christ's obedience and recitation of the Law conquered Satan and spoiled his goods (Matt 12:29), thereby fulfilling the promise of the Creator in Gen 3:15.175
172 Epid 16. Neither BP nor SC identify references to Gen 2:16 in this context, but the comparisons of the use of the Law with Adam's disobedience to the Law (Gen 2:16) are unmistakable.
173 Orbe, Teología V.2, 380. Irenaeus also compares Satan's deceptive use of Scripture with the heretics in Haer. 5.21.2.
174 Haer. 5.21.1–2.
175 Haer. 5.21.2. Wingren, Man and the incarnation, 12, 119. Cf. Epid 8.
CHAPTER 6
6.10.2 God is True and the Serpent is a Liar: Haer. 5.23.1–2 (Gen 1:5, Gen 1:24–31, Gen 2:16–17, Gen 3:1–5) His typological reading is also expressed in the temptation accounts of Adam and Christ, in Haer. 5.23.1–2, he addresses the truthfulness of the Creator based upon the divine prohibition of Gen 2:17. In the closing lines of Haer.
5.22.2, he conflates the deception of Satan in the temptation account in Luke 4:6 with the Lord's words in John 8:44. He also alludes to John 8:44 in closing lines of Haer. 5.23.2, so structurally his allusions to John 8:44 in Haer. 5.22.2 form an inclusio that frame his reading of Gen 2:16–17 in Haer. 5.23.1–2 as a whole. For Irenaeus, Satan's deceit in the temptation of the Lord is characteristic of his actions from the initial scene of creation (Gen 3:1–5). For the Gnostics, especially the Valentinians and Ophites, the serpent is an instrument of Sophia who compassionately leads Adam and Eve away from the trickery of the Demiurge. They point out that though the Creator said Adam and Eve would die in the day they ate the fruit, yet they did not appear to die a physical death on the same day. This communicates that the prohibition of Gen 2:16–17 is nothing more than an empty threat to intimidate the first couple into submission. According to the Gnostics, the serpent was truthful and the Creator deceived Adam and Eve.176
Irenaeus asserts that the Lord's words in Gen 2:16–17 were, in fact, a loving and gracious command. The divine prohibition places a moral boundary on Adam and Eve in order that might enjoy the holiness and blessedness of the Edenic state. Satan's interpretation, on the other hand, distorts the good purposes of God. He points to the serpent's subtle perversion of the Lord's command in Gen 3:1–5. In Irenaeus' reading, the serpent's query is his first act of deception, because he knowingly and maliciously construes the Lord's command.177 He accentuates the prohibition against the tree of knowledge and insinuates that God's command is overtly authoritarian. Eve, according to Irenaeus, exposed the deceit of his assumption simply by reporting the full version of God's command, which the serpent had omitted, and explaining that God permitted them to eat from every tree, except one (Gen 3:2–3). The serpent persisted in his deceit, even in the midst of the paradise of God, as if the omniscient God was unaware of his true intent. Irenaeus assumes that Satan was jealous of Adam and Eve and ignorant of the "greatness" (magnitudinem) of God.178 This assumption is also reflected in what Irenaeus identifies as the serpent's second lie; the enticement of becoming as gods and endowed
176 Cf. Haer. 1.30.7.
177 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 172.
178 Haer. 5.23.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body with the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:4–5). Unaware of the deception hidden in the serpent's words, Eve was deceived when the serpent openly challenged the consequences of the Lord's command. Irenaeus isolates Gen 3:4 and inverts the order of the serpent's dialogue, in order to accentuate what
Irenaeus identifies as the third and ultimate lie: Adam and Eve would not die if they ate from the prohibited tree of knowledge (Gen 3:4). For Irenaeus, this is a direct assault on the nature and integrity of God. The Bishop of Lyons takes up the interpretation of Gen 3:4 in careful detail in Haer. 5.23.2. What is clear, for Irenaeus, is that the theological control on his reading of Gen 3:4 is the nature of God in distinction to the nature of the serpent. God is true, while the serpent is a liar (John 8:44).179 The fact that they eventually died proves that God was speaking the truth. He concludes logically, or a posteriori, that "God was true, and the serpent was a liar, was proved by the result, death having passed upon them who had eaten" (Sed quoniam Deus verax, mendax autem serpens, de effectu ostensum est, morte subsecuta eos qui manducaverant). The result of death proves the veracity of God's command, and ultimately serves as the basic theological point that governs the rest of the interpretations.
The problem remains, however, that Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but lived prolonged lives.180 Irenaeus' response comprises a complex assortment of no less than five plausible interpretations of Gen 2:16–17 that prove
God is true and the serpent is a liar, because Adam and Eve truly died the day they ate of the fruit. The first two concentrate on the relationship of disobedience and death and the legal nature of the penalty, while the latter three are successive attempts to interpret the timing of Adam's sin and death in relation to the meaning of "day" (dies). These interpretations are interrelated, and the distinctions between them largely depend upon the variety of reading strategies he applies to these passages and the diversity of intertexts Irenaeus reads alongside Gen 2:16–17 (Gen3:4). For Irenaeus, any true reading of Gen 2:16–17 must account for the nature of divine veracity expressed in John 8:44.
First, Irenaeus interprets the nature of "death" in a spiritual sense and suggests that it is possible that they died the moment they sinned because they were handed over to the power of death.181 In this reading, he assumes that disobedience against God is itself death. The eventual outcome of Adam's
179 Haer. 5.23.1. Orbe also suggests the background of Rom 3:4. Orbe, Teología V.2, 478.
180 Cf. Gen 5:5.
181 Steenberg identifies an immediate transference of the effects of death from Adam and Eve to all creation through the fruit, but Orbe rightly notes that the fruit is merely the vehicle for the act of disobedience that produces death. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 167. Orbe,
Teología V.2, 478–80.
CHAPTER 6
death (Gen 5:5) proves the veracity of their condemnation. For Irenaeus, the Gnostics misplace their emphasis on the prohibition and the nature of the tree of knowledge, rather than the nature of true Creator. Death in this sense does not necessarily imply immediate bodily death, but rather that Adam's disobedience and subjection to the corruptive power of death. Unlike his contemporaries, Irenaeus does not develop the distinction between bodily and moral or spiritual death, because he recognizes the potential in this argument to devalue the physical body and the importance of bodily resurrection. Rather he distinguishes between physical death and the ultimate death of the composite human person as result of sin.182 They are corruptible and excluded from the kingdom of God with no hope for the incorruptible life. Nevertheless, he offers this as one option that makes sense of the ambiguities in the passage.
Second, rather than spiritualizing death, his second interpretation is literal reading that applies legal imagery to the penalty of the prohibition. Irenaeus uses the legal imagery to emphasize that through their disobedience Adam and Eve became "death's debtors" (debitores mortis).183 The moment they transgressed the divine prohibition, death ruled over them and they were condemned to die by divine law. According to Orbe, Irenaeus preferred this second reading, which Orbe terms Irenaeus' "personal and spontaneous" view that developed in the midst of his debates with his Gnostic interlocutors.184 As opposed to the first, this view holds the tension between the "spiritual" death, and the importance of the physical nature of the body. Thus, they died the moment they sinned because they were handed over to the power of death, and the eventual outcome of Adam's death in Gen 5:5 proves the veracity of the threat.185
Third, following his two explanations of the nature of "death," Irenaeus shifts his focus to the nature and timing of the "day" Adam sinned and subsequently died. In contrast to the first two interpretations, he provides more commentary and explanation of these views, because the nature of "day" is truly the crux of the issue of the Creator's apparent deception. No one disputes that Adam died
(Gen 5:5), but disagreement abounds over the meaning of "day" in Gen 2:16–17 with regards to the length of Adam's life, but he must explain how the final death transpired on the same day as the disobedience.
182 Haer. 4.37–39. Orbe, Antropologia, 450–57; Donovan, One Right Reading?, 159–60.
183 Haer. 5.23.2.
184 Orbe, "Cinco Exegesis," 89. He goes on to summarize this view succinctly saying "They made themselves mortal" (Hiciéronse mortals).
185 Haer. 5.23.2. Cf. Haer. 3.19.1 and Haer. 4.22.1.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body Irenaeus' third interpretation begins with the observation that in Gen 1:5 a day of creation comprises evening and morning. He follows the Septuagint closely and notices that Gen 1:5 contains the cardinal number "one day" (dies unus) of creation as opposed to the ordinal number "first day" (dies prima).
The remaining days of creation after Gen 1:5 all use the ordinal numbers and portray the beginning of the natural cycle of days in creation. In this sense, the "day" (dies) of Gen 2:16–17 is the same single "day" (dies) of creation in Gen
1:5. In other words, the "day" of creation is the perpetual existence of the life in the created cosmos. If Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit at any point in the life of this created order they would die. It matters not how long they lived because eventually they will die before the cessation of the created world.186 This view is not identical to the Philo and Origen who interpret Gen
1:5 in a Platonic sense as the world of ideas, because for Irenaeus this is the sensible world of creation understood from a cosmic perspective as the great
"day of creation" (conditionis dies).
Fourth, Irenaeus also provides a highly literal interpretation of day that emphasizes the particular day of the week that Adam sinned, but he also applies it typologically. He observes that all events are bound by time and the regular weekly cycle of days, and given the repetition he offers a solution based upon a finely tuned understanding of the divine economy. This interpretation assumes the literal or normative sense of "day" (dies) as a twentyfour hour period within the weekly cycle of days. This reading also unites the intertextual echoes of Irenaeus' theology of recapitulation (Eph 1:10), the general references to sixth day of creation (Gen 1:24–31), and the death of Christ on the sixth day of the week or "the day before Sabbath" (pridie ante sabbatum). The references to Christ's death on the day before Sabbath are found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54).
186 Steenberg misreads Irenaeus' use of Gen 1:5 in this context and conflates Irenaeus' first and second attempt to interpret "day" in Gen 2:16–7. According to Steenberg, a "day" of creation, reflected in Gen 1:5, implies "God's creative activity began at a specific moment . . . and progressed in a series of distinct stages defined as 'days.' " These days, according to Steenberg, are predictive for Irenaeus of the phases in the economy of salvation reflected in his chiliastic vision. While there is no doubt that Irenaeus presents a chiliastic vision of the economy, Orbe is correct to distinguish Irenaeus' first interpretation of the magna dies of creation that perceives the existence of all creation as "one day."
This is clear in Irenaeus' transition from speaking about the (or The) "one day" (dies unus) in terms of cardinal numbers in his first interpretation to contemplating the succession of days as ordinal numbers (prima . . . secundum . . . tertia . . .) Steenberg's point applies to Irenaeus' second interpretation of "day" (dies) mentioned below, not his uses of Gen 1:5.
Steenberg, Irenaeus, 85–6.
CHAPTER 6
In Irenaeus' accounting, the formation of Adam and his disobedience transpired on the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:24–31), which is the present dispensation following Adam's disobedience. He only interprets the seventh day of creation in an eschatological sense, like other chiliasts such as Barnabus, and supplied with all the New Covenant imagery in the prophets. This locates the disobedience on the same day as Adam's formation. This is also implicit in the text where there is no mention of the conclusion of the seventh day. Reading these passages alongside Gen 2:16–17 and Gen 3:1–6, Irenaeus links Adam's disobedience on the sixth day of the week, with Christ's death on the sixth day of the week. Ultimately this economic continuity confirms the truthfulness of the Lord's command in Gen 2:16–17, because in the same day of the week that Adam sinned, Christ, who recapitulated Adam in himself and dies on the same sixth day of creation. In this sense, Adam is subject to mortality when he disobeys the command, but the condemnation to death ultimately anticipates the death of the one who recapitulates Adam in himself. Just as Adam was created on the sixth day of creation, Christ's death on the sixth day of the week provides salvation and resurrection, or a "second creation" (secundam plasmationem) out of death.
Finally, Irenaeus completes his interpretations of "day" (dies) with an intertextual correspondence between Psalm 89(90):4 (2 Pet 3:8) that states a day of the Lord is as 1000 years. Since Adam only lived 930 years (Gen 5:5), he did not live beyond 1000 years and did not surpass a "day" from the perspective of the Lord. While Irenaeus accepts the legitimacy of this interpretation, he does not seem to prefer it since he qualifies it as the perspective of others. No doubt he at least has Justin in view given that Justin defends this view in Dial
81.3, though he could also be refereeing to Barnabus, Polycarp, or Papias, from whom he drew his millennial views. This intertextual and eschatological reading, however, takes into account the theological correspondence between the "day" in Gen 2:16–17 and "day" in Psalm 89(90):4 (2 Pet 3:8), alongside the length of Adam's life in Gen 5:5. Irenaeus will use this same passage (Psalm 89(90):4
(2 Pet 3:8)) to support a chiliastic reading of the days of creation, where each day corresponds to a one thousand-year period with the eschatological Sabbath coming at the consummation of the 6,000 years. Daniélou terms this reading of creation as a week of ages, "paradisal millennialism." The true Sabbath is the eschatological "day" of the renewed temporary earthly kingdom, when righteous "shall not be engaged in any earthy occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes."187 In this context, however, Irenaeus applies this paradisiacal millennialism to the 187 Haer. 5.33.2.