6.11 Creation and Eschatology in Irenaeus: Haer. 5.26.2, Haer. 5.28.3–4, Haer. 5.30.4, Haer. 5.33.1–4, Haer. 5.34.2, and
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body nature of day in correspondence to the fact that Adam's age did not supersede
1000 years.
In the closing lines of Haer. 5.23.2 Irenaeus, once again, summarizes these views in succession to reinforce the point that all these interpretations prove that God is true and the serpent is a liar. Irenaeus is willing to permit a spiritual interpretation of death in either a moral sense or in the more literal sense of the subjection to the power of death. He will entertain eschatological interpretations of "day" in Gen 1:5 and Gen 2:6–17 as one cosmic day of creation. Or he can interpret "day" in a highly literal and typological sense as the day before Sabbath when Adam was created in Genesis and recreated though Christ's death on the cross. Finally, he is also willing to accept the intertextual reading of "day" as a week of ages spanning 1000 years, so that Adam died before the end of the first "day" of creation. Each of these interpretations is dependent upon different reading strategies and different intertexts including: Gen 1:5,
Gen 1:24–31, Gen 5:5, Psalm 89(90):4 (2 Pet 3:8), Matt 6:12, Matt 27:62 (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54), and Eph 1:10. At the same time, the most essential intertextual relationship is the correspondence between the words of the Lord in John
8:44 and the prohibition in Gen 2:16–17. Divine veracity expressed in the words of the Lord is the hermeneutical control for all readings of the prohibition.
While the nature and timing of the day Adam and Eve died are debated, the Gnostic attempts to repeal prohibition are rejected because they subvert this basic apostolic truth that God is true and the serpent is a liar.
6.11
Creation and Eschatology in Irenaeus: Haer. 5.26.2, Haer. 5.28.3–4, Haer. 5.30.4, Haer. 5.33.1–4, Haer. 5.34.2, and Haer. 5.36.3
The chiliastic focus of Haer. 5.25–35 has long puzzled Irenaean scholars. This closing portion is often ignored, ridiculed or, as Steenberg remarks, simply set off as a kind of "chiliastic appendage."188 However, Smith's essay "Chiliasm and recapitulation" argues that this section has an important relationship to the broader contours of Irenaeus' thought. Smith notes that this last portion completes the "essential harmony of the true soteriological task," thereby linking the protological and eschatological events of creation.189 I find much agreement with Smith and Steenberg and this study of the intertextual use of Gen
1–3 supports the renewed appreciation for the full re-unification of Irenaeus' theology and exegesis. In Haer. 5.26.2 he, once again, reminds his readers that 188 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 50.
189 Smith, "Chiliasm," 329.
CHAPTER 6
the actions of the serpent are made manifest in the Gnostics. Then, in Haer.
5.28.3–4, Haer. 5.30.4, Haer. 5.33.1–4, and Haer. 5.34.2 he articulates his chiliastic vision carefully in light Gen 1–3 including the destruction of the Antichrist, the resurrection of the faithful, and the restoration of creation.
6.11.1
The Serpent and the Secrecy of Gnosis: Haer. 5.26.2 (Gen 3:1–6) In the midst of his eschatological reflection, there is another echo of the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:1–6. While explaining some of eschatological prophecies from Revelation and Daniel, Irenaeus inserts a polemical argument concerning prophecy that uses the illustration linking Satan's deception in the garden with the activity of the heretics. According to Irenaeus, those who reject the clear teaching of the prophets blaspheme their Creator. They may do so openly like Marcion or by perverting scripture like the Valentinians, but whatever the case may be they are all, like the serpent in the Garden, the "instruments of Satan" (organa Satanae).190 Irenaeus draws on the imagery of Gen 3:1–6 and interprets Satan's use of the snake as a means to conceal himself from God's awareness and seduce Adam and Eve into disobeying God's command. He would never challenge God directly or openly. This same secretive and deceptive behavior continued throughout the course of the Old Testament, and in every instance Satan believes his actions escaped the knowledge of God.
Appealing explicitly to Justin, Irenaeus argues that the reason Satan continued to deceive God's creatures in secret was because he was unaware of his fate, since it was only prophesied enigmatically in the Old Testament.191 The words of Christ, however, made explicit that God the Father has prepared an eternal fire for Satan and his agents (Matt 25:41).192 So while Satan never blasphemed
God openly, upon learning his fate, he now openly (though not directly) blasphemed God.193
190 Haer. 5.26.2. Cf. 2 Cor 11:3; Rev 12:9, 15.
191 Cf. Gen 3:14. Haer. 3.23.3. This thought is only implicit in Justin's extant works (1 Apol.
28.1–2; 2 Apol 8.3–5); Orbe suggests the source as his lost refutation against Marcion
(cf. Haer. 4.6.2). Orbe, Teología V.3, 96.
192 Haer. 5.26.2.
193 Rousseau and Orbe prefer the present tense reading of audet rather than the imperfect audebat, because he never discusses Satan directly challenging God. The perfect implies that in the New Testament, after learning his fate (Matt 25:41), Satan blasphemes openly but not directly, while the imperfect implies that Satan blasphemed indirectly until he learned his fate and now blasphemes openly and directly. Orbe, Teología V.3, 93.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body 6.11.2
Irenaeus and the Seventh Day of Creation: Haer. 5.28.3–4 (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:1–2, Gen 2:7) In Haer. 5.28.3–4, Irenaeus details the nature of his chiliastic vision of salvation history. The function of Gen 1–3 serves as the essential framework for the eschatological Edenic state. Not only does the chiliastic portion reflect the telos of the eschatological advancement from creation to the eternal kingdom, it holds together the poles of the scriptural material by means of the trajectory of the divine economy. This eschatological kingdom is not a pure mystical or spiritual union with Christ, but an earthly, physical kingdom reflected in the prophecies of the Old Covenant.194 As Steenberg observes, this eschatological reading of Genesis is supported by the "revealed images of the millennial kingdom, as in Jeremias, Isaias, Ezekiel, and John's Apocalypse," though he does not examine the nature of the relationships with Gen 2:2–3.195 Irenaeus turns to the imagery of the prophets to illustrate the nature of the eschatological
Sabbath predicted Gen 2:1–2.196
The revelation of the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2:3–4 orients the broader section of Haer. 5.25.1–30.4.197 According to Irenaeus, the coming of the Antichrist results in the adoration and elevation of apostasy that culminates in the Antichrist's desecration of the Temple and the manifestation of his powers
(Rev 13:2–18). The closing lines of Haer. 5.28.2 cite Rev 13:14–18, which mentions the number of the beast (Rev 13:18). He identifies the number of the beast, or six hundred and sixty-six, as the name or title of the Antichrist who recapitulates the whole apostasy.198 The number, therefore, refers to both the individual and the arrangement and extent of the divine economy. Irenaeus uses this allusion to the number six that linked with the creation narratives to construct a Millenarian eschatological framework. Instead, Irenaeus unites Rev 13:18 with Gen 2:2–3 and the imagery of 1,000 years to a day in Psalm 89(90):4 (2 Pet 3:8).
Through his appeal to the conclusion of creation (Gen 2:2–3), he interprets the "days" (dies) of creation as six one thousand-year periods with the consummation of creation coming at the conclusion of the 6,000 years and the institution
194 Behr, Asceticism, 80. The mystical nature of the eschatological quickly became prominent in Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria. Ibid., 80–2. Orbe, Antropologia, 25–7.
195 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 60.
196 Ibid., 98. Although Steenberg is, by all appearances, correct to say that Irenaeus only uses this passage in exegetical contexts. The expressed duel sense (literal and prophetic) of Gen
2:1 in this context suggests that Irenaeus does not merely read this text eschatologically.
197 Haer. 5.25.1.
198 Haer. 5.28.2.
CHAPTER 6
of the eschatological Sabbath.199 As Steenberg concludes, "Irenaeus follows the Asiatic chiliastic tradition in asserting a relationship between the timing or chronology of the Genesis creation narrative (read through the interpretive lens of Apoc 19:11–21:27) and the whole economy."200 In the same number of days that the world was created, in that same number of millennial periods will the world be consummated (consummatur).201 While he reads Gen 2:1–2 literally as the description of the cumulative work of God's creative activity, it is also a prophecy pointing toward the final consummation of all things.
He describes the dual sense of reading Gen 2:1–2 saying: "This is a narrative of things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come" (Hoc autem est et ante factorum narratio quemadmodum facta sunt et futurorum prophetia).202 Thus, God has created all things with a purpose and trajectory oriented toward consummation, and there is a dialectical tension between narrative and prophetic aspects of Gen 2:2–3.
However, the timing of the divine economy is not the only reason for Irenaeus' appeal to Gen 2:2–3. He focuses on the language of consummare in Gen 2:2–3 as the fulfillment of God's eschatological trajectory. He correlates this concept with the previous works of creation ( fecit) in the same passage
(and the earlier descriptions of God's creative acts). The contrast between fecit and consummavit reflects the distinction between the literal, or narratival, and prophetic readings of Gen 2:2–3. In Haer. 5.28.4 he develops these connections between the creation of Adam on the sixth day and the consummation of humankind at the conclusion of the sixth thousandth year. He mentions that the same "hands of God" (the Son and the Spirit), who fashioned Adam in the beginning in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), are also molding the faithful throughout the progression of the economy. Orbe notes that unlike
Philo and Origen, Irenaeus does not conceive of two creations (Gen 1:26; Gen 2:7), but of one creation with two aspects.203 Gen 2:7 depicts the formation from the earth, while Gen 1:26 relates the continual formation throughout the unfolding economy that prepares the faithful to receive immortality.204 From the very beginning the creation is fixed on an eschatological course toward
199 Haer. 5.28.3. Smith, "Chiliasm," 315. Cf. Haer. 4.16.1 and Epid 96.
200 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 52.
201 Haer. 5.28.3.
202 Haer. 5.28.3. Behr, Asceticism, 82. In classical rhetoric a narratio is second stage of oration where the orator gives a narratival account of the nature of the case. Quin 4.2.
203 Orbe, Teología V.3, 192.
204 This perspective is supported by a number of passages discussed previously that conflate allusions to Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body the consummative fulfillment in the kingdom of God. He links this discussion with the separation of the wheat and the chaff in Matt 3:12, which is the faithful and the apostate, and the theme of martyrdom, where the suffering of the faithful prepares them for the resurrection. He argues that the tribulation will purify the faithful and prepare them to be formed once again in the image and likeness of God.205
6.11.3
The Destruction of the Antichrist: Haer. 5.30.4 (Gen 2:2–3) In continuity with the previous section, Haer. 5.30.4 considers the Antichrist's revelation and subsequent destruction. Irenaeus crafts a succinct eschatological outline beginning with the reign of the Antichrist that lasts three and a half years. His reign is interrupted by the Parousia (Matt 16:27), and three concurrent events accompany this event: Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire
(Rev 19:20), the righteous will be gathered into the kingdom on the hallowed seventh day (Gen 2:2–3), and the just will receive the Abrahamic promises
(Matt 8:11).206 His allusion to the ingathering of the just includes mention of the eschatological "rest" (requietionem, Gen 2:2) when the faithful will recline at the Father's table and feast with Abraham and all the faithful (Matt 8:11).
Therefore, with these texts, Irenaeus weaves an eschatological cento, the climax of which is the restoration of the "hallowed seventh day" (septimam diem sanctificatam) of Gen 2:2–3.
6.11.4
Resurrection of the Faithful and Restoration of Creation: Haer.
5.33.1–4 (Gen 1:6–25, Gen 1:27–28, Gen 1:30, Gen 2:2–3) In continuity to the previous discussion, in Haer. 5.33.1–4, Irenaeus illustrates the nature of the eschatological seventh day of creation with a series of interrelated prophetic passages. Steenberg suggests this section summarizes
Irenaeus' chiliastic vision of creation, where the creation narratives find their telos in the "cosmic 'Sabbath' "207 Irenaeus speaks of this Sabbath in terms of the Abrahamic blessing and then reminds his readers of Christ's words at the 205 Irenaeus turns to the martyrdom of Ignatius for an example of this purification. He cites
Ignatius' words illustrate his point, "I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God." ( frumentum sum Christi, et per dentes bestiarum molor, ut mundus panis Dei inveniar). Ign, Rom 4.1.
206 Haer. 5.30.4. Orbe, Teología V.3, 282. Cf. Haer. 4.16.1, Haer. 5.28.3, Haer. 5.32.2, and Haer.
5.30.1. He suggests Titan (Teitan), Euanqas (Evanthas) and Lateinos (Lateinos), and also concludes the name was suppressed in preference for the number, because the name is not worthy to be proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.
207 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 53.
CHAPTER 6
last supper where he proclaimed to his disciples that he would drink wine again with them in the renewed kingdom of God (Matt 26:27–28). This kingdom would be a renewed earth enjoyed by the faithful who are raised to new life (Psalm 103(104):30).208 In contrast to his Gnostic opponents, this earth and wine is not a celestial place where wine is consumed spiritually without a body, but the renewed earth that produces wine for those resurrected in flesh.
In Haer. 5.33.2 he describes the nature of life in the eschatological seventh day (Gen 2:2–3) with the imagery of Christ's invitation of the lame, blind, and poor to dinner, rather than friends and neighbors (Luke 14:12–13), and proclaims recompense for those who abandon their earthly possessions for the sake of Christ (Matt 19:29). Alluding to Gen 2:2–3, he describes how the seventh day of creation was sanctified when "God rested from all the works He created" (requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus quae fecit).209 Thus, the same will be true of the faithful who dwell in the kingdom of God. They will not engage in any work, but God will prepare them a lavish table overflowing with all kinds of foods.210 The episodes of Luke 14:12–13 and Matt 19:29 are the "times of the kingdom" (regni temporibus) reflecting the nature of the cosmic seventh day of creation, which he interprets literally and emphasizes the corporeal and material aspects.
In continuity with the nature of life in the eschaton, in Haer. 5.33.3–4, Irenaeus discusses the nature of creation in eschatological seventh day.
Irenaeus uses intertextual connections to illustrate the nature of life in the kingdom and confirm the eschatological imagery of the fecundity of the earth.
This imagery reflects the original divine intention for creation where Adam lives in obedience to God and creation is peacefully subject to Adam.211 This line of argumentation links Gen 1:27–28 and Gen 1:30 with Isa 11:6–9 and Isa
65:25. The texts from Isaiah depict the apocalyptic imagery of a harmonious creation where the wolf and the lamb lie down together, the lion eats straw, and the serpent does not even harm an infant. Irenaeus recognizes that some of his contemporaries interpret this imagery allegorically as the conversion of the pagans who come into harmony with righteous faith and, though he agrees that this rendering is plausible, he prefers a literal reading depicting the 208 Haer. 5.33.1.
209 Haer. 5.33.2.
210 Haer. 5.33.2. Cf. Haer. 5.30.4. On this day Abraham received his promised inheritance as cited in Matt 8:11. Irenaeus will support these texts with additional passages in Haer.
5.34.1–4.
211 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 55. Orbe, Teología V.3, 442.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body fulfillment in the eschatological kingdom.212 This harmonious creation is more consistent with the divine intention for creation to be in subjection to humankind (Gen 1:27–28). This also entails that the animals return to the original vegetarian diet (Gen 1:30) they enjoyed before Adam's disobedience.213 Thus, in Irenaeus' perspective, the harmonious nature of the original pre-lapsarian creation of Gen 1:27–30 is restored in the eschatological kingdom mentioned in Isa 11:6–9 and Isa 65:25. However, the relationship is difference of degree not kind, because the state of creation illustrated in Isa 11:6–9 and Isa 65:25 is a more rich and bountiful creation. He even reflects upon the quality and magnitude of the fruit in the kingdom where a lion can be satisfied by such a meager meal.214 Interestingly, Irenaeus nowhere mentions the texts of Gen 1:6–25 except in his discussion of Marcosian interpretations. In the present context, however, it is possible to infer his views of the nature of the original creation in Gen 1–2.215
6.11.5
The Restoration of Inheritance: Haer. 5.34.2 (Gen 3:6) Like previous sections, this portion also presents a separate network of texts depicting the nature of the eschatological earthly kingdom following the resurrection. To illustrate this new creation, Irenaeus cites Isa 30:25–26 that concludes with the description of the Lord promising his people that he will heal the "pain of the stroke" (dolorem plagae). He links the "pain of the stroke"
(dolorem plagae) to Adam's disobedience and the death inflicted upon him as a penalty of his sin (Gen 2:17, Gen 3:6).216 The mode of healing is, of course, the resurrection of the faithful who are granted the "inheritance of the fathers"
212 Haer. 5.35.4. In Haer. 5.35.1, Irenaeus notes those who allegorize these prophecies are inconsistent with themselves.
213 Haer. 5.33.4.
214 The first citation in Haer. 5.34.1–4 is Isa 26:19, which describes the joy of creation at the resurrection of the just, but the rest of the passages more specifically describe the promise and nature of the physical resurrection: Ezek 37:12–14, Ezek 28:25–26, Matt 3:9/Luke
3:8, Jer 16:14–15, 23:7–8, Isa 30:25–26, Gen 9:27, Isa 58:14, Luke 12:37–38, Rev 20:6, Isa 6:11–12,
Dan 7:27, Dan 12:13, Jer 31:10, Matt 12:5, Isa 31:9–32:1, Isa 54:11–14, and Isa 65:18–22.
215 This is Steenberg's suggestion when he cites Irenaeus' reading of Gen 1:11–12 and Gen
1:24–25. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 55–6. Cf. Orbe, Teología V.3, 443. In Haer. 5.22.4 Irenaeus also references Papias as his source for this material, which implies Papias is the conduit through which the Asiatic chiliastic tradition came to Irenaeus and disseminated to the later tradition. Danielou, Theology of Jewish Christianity, 382.
216 Orbe points to the common vocabulary in Rev 13:3, 12 and also suggests the background of Num 21:8. Orbe, Teología V.3, 458. Cf. Haer. 5.28.2.
CHAPTER 6
(patrum hereditatem) and the blessing of Japheth (Gen 9:27).217 This reference to inheritance also accompanies an allusion to the earth as the inheritance of those who are resurrected from the dead (Isa 58:14).218 Together these texts remind the reader that the penalty of death imposed in Gen 1–3 is healed by means of the resurrection and the faithful, once again, receive the inheritance that was lost through Adam's disobedience.
6.11.6
The Resurrection of the Just and the Final Consummation: Haer.
5.36.3 (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:31–2:1, Gen 2:2–3, Gen 2:7) In the closing paragraph of Haer. 5, Irenaeus brings his argument for the physical resurrection to a close. He appears confident that he has demonstrated his eschatological vision for the salvation of the flesh that has dominated the work as a whole. In his final statements, Irenaeus carries on the same intertextual practice that has characterized his exegesis to this point. He continues his strong literalist understanding of the eschatological kingdom with a commentary on the blessings imparted to the faithful. These texts center upon the one
Father, the one Son, and the one human race that experiences the promise of bodily resurrection and recreation in the image and likeness of God.219
A portion of this section survives only in a late Armenian manuscript.
Rousseau considers it original and suggests it brings more clarity to the thought of this section. Orbe, on the other hand, evaluates the section and raises some significant questions about its authenticity. He also suspects that the insertion is the result of a scribal addition in order to clarify Irenaeus' chiliasm and early Christian debates over the nature of the resurrection(s) in relation to the future earthly kingdom. He compares this insertion with a similar one from Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel that is also apparently inauthentic, and concludes that Irenaeus was subjected to a similar manner of correction. Nevertheless, the tone is Irenaean, which suggests a close relationship to Irenaeus himself. The intertextual use of scripture also parallels his use of scripture in previous section, though, the intertexts are different than previous sections.220 In my view, these stylistic similarities present a good argument for its authenticity.
217 Haer. 5.34.2. The citation of Gen 9:27 is absent from the Latin mss, although Rousseau believes it is original. SC 152.342.
218 Smith, "Chiliasm," 318.
219 Donovan, One Right Reading?, 169.
220 Compare, for example, the closing lines of Irenaeus' Epideixis (Epid 97–100) that are also debated. A key objection to its authenticity is the lack of any scriptural reference, which is not the case for this insertion. For Orbe, the introduction seems to break to flow of
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body In relation to Gen 1–3, the insertion is important because it contains another citation of Gen 1:31–2:2. It speaks of the consummation of creation on the sixth day of creation, or the 6000 years, and the eternal rest that proceeds on the seventh day (Psalm 89(90):4 and 2 Pet 3:8). Here these texts are interpreted in the same manner as Haer. 5.28.3, but the intertexts are different. The insertion begins immediately following an allusion to the resurrection of the faithful who dwell in the future earthly kingdom and eat and drink with Christ
(Matt 26:29). In connection to this imagery, Irenaeus appeals to Christ's words in John 5:25, 28–29 and the Psalmist's description of the Lord's rest (requies,
Psalm 131(132):14/Psalm 117:20(118:19)) in order to communicate the nature of the "first resurrection" (primos resurgere), or the resurrection to life prior to the earthly kingdom. This is set in contrast to the final resurrection to judgment at the consummation. In this section, Gen 1:31–2:2 and Psalm 131(132):14/
Psalm 117:20(118:19) confirm the nature and timing of the two resurrections mentioned in John 5:25, 28–29 in relation to the Millennial kingdom. This is a distinctly Irenaean way of reading texts, and suggests that if this section is not original, the author was well acquainted with Irenaeus' style of exegesis.221
Having summarized this intertextual Millenarian presentation, the remaining portion of Haer. 5.36.3 depicts the nature of the resurrection of the just
(Rev 20:5–6) and their inheritance of a restored earthly kingdom (Rom 8:21). He describes how the prophets "harmoniously" (consonanter) prophesy this resurrection of the faithful and restoration of the earth.222 These things, Irenaeus concludes, are the work of the same God and Father, who "fashioned humankind" (plasmavit hominem, Gen 2:7) in the beginning and gave them the promises of the future resurrection and the inheritance of the kingdom of God. The same Father, who by means of the Word, forms humankind throughout the unfolding of the divine economy and prepares the faithful for resurrection.223
The fulfillment of these promises, Irenaeus assures the reader, is something that remains unseen (1 Cor 2:9). Orbe provides an extended commentary on the vision of God with respect to 1 Cor 2:9 and in relation to Haer. 4.20.5.224 argument, however, given the Irenaean tone and dependence on scripture, he also suggests that this could be an authentic Irenaean insertion in a later draft. Orbe, Teología
V.3, 618.
221 It is also important to note that Psalm 131(132):14/Psalm 117:20(118:19) appear nowhere else in Irenaeus and John 5:25, 28–29 is found only here and Haer. 5.13.1.
222 Haer. 5.36.3.
223 Haer. 5.14.1. Haer. 5.15.1–3.
224 Orbe, Teología V.3, 626–28. See also 628–33, 646–51. The use of paternaliter in Haer. 4.20.5 is a key link between these sections.