6.12 Conclusion: Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 5
CHAPTER 6
He speaks of three different graduated stages of seeing God (prophetice, adoptive, paternaliter) where the faithful, though subject to corruption, continue to advance toward the perfection of the Father by means of the prophetic Spirit in the Old Testament. At last they finally receive adoption mediated by the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament, and in the final consummation they will receive the Father's promised resurrection and restoration to eternal life.
In a final rebuke of his opponents, Irenaeus suggests that not even the angels, who cannot fathom the mysteries of God, can spoil this divinely orchestrated economy of salvation (1 Pet 1:12).225 This mystery is the actualization of God's
"handiwork" (plasma) being conformed to the Son and brought to perfection (Gen 2:7).226
Irenaeus concludes his refutation by describing, once again, how the "handiwork" (plasma, Gen 2:7) of God, which is incorporated into the Son at the incarnation, will be made after the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26).227
This invokes an image where those who are raised ascend "beyond the angels"
(supergrediens angelos). The recreation of humankind in the image of God characterizes the ultimate aim of salvation in Irenaeus.228 At last, the handiwork that was fashioned from the earth in Gen 2:7, by means of the unfolding of the economy and the incarnation, is brought to share in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26) and partakes in the glory and immortality bestowed by the same Creator and Father.
6.12
Conclusion: Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 5
With the closing allusion to Gen 1:26, Irenaeus rests his argument. From beginning to end, Irenaeus' hermeneutic of scriptural consonance integrates the 225 This use of 1 Pet 1:12 is obscure and Orbe points to at least four different interpretations reflected in parallels with Clement of Alexandria and Epistola apostolorum. Orbe, Teología
V.3, 640–41.
226 The parallel use of conformatum and concorportatum are echoes of Phil 3:21 and Eph 3:6
(Haer. 1.10.3 and Haer. 5.13.3) and the use of Primogenitus must refer to Col 1:15, 18 and Rom 8:29 (Haer. 3.15.3, Haer. 16.6, Haer. 4.20.2).
227 Haer. 5.36.3. Both Adversus Haereses and the Epideixis conclude with allusions to Gen
1:26. It is not uncommon to read that the concept of recreation in the image of God is a theme that dominates both works as a whole. Wingren, Man and the incarnation, 213.
228 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 56. This imagery of ascending higher than the angels must allude back to Irenaeus' the envy of the angels in the original creation. See Epid 16. Cf. Behr,
Asceticism, 85.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body texts of Gen 1–3 into his theological reasoning, forming networks of texts in hermeneutically symbiotic relationships. He uses Gen 1–3 to interpret other passages, and brings together a variety of scriptural passages to interpret
Gen 1–3. The extensive performance of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 5 offers the culmination of Irenaeus' intertextual resourcefulness of these creation texts. Like the previous books, his intertextual networking is expressed through a series of reading strategies including: structural uses, catchwords and verbal connections, illustrative uses, typological connections, prophecy-fulfillment, generalto-particular arguments, and the intentional connections between the words of the Lord, a prophet, and an apostle. These analytical descriptions support the classifications described in previous chapters, but these arguments utilize a number of unique textual relationships. Furthermore, the reading strategies mentioned below are not mutually exclusive. In many cases Irenaeus will use a combination of these strategies to support his general polemical arguments.
First, Irenaeus continues to use key texts from Gen 1–3 to structure his theological polemic. In this case, the second half of Haer. 5 is carefully arranged
Adam-Christ typology that aims to unify the events in Gen 1–3 with the work of Christ. While the Christological events are the controlling texts for each unit, every section utilizes the narrative and imagery from Gen 1–3. 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). The arrangement of these events also elevates the importance of the temptation account in Irenaeus' thinking, because it exhibits the ultimate vanquishing of Satan in contrast to Adam's capitulation to the serpent in Gen
3:1–6. Each of these aspects of Christ's life are compared and contrasted to the events of Adam's creation (Gen 1:26, 2:7) and disobedience (Gen 3:1–6).
In one particular instance, Haer. 5.23.1–2, Irenaeus presents several intertextual readings of Gen 2:17 that draw from a diverse set of texts including: Gen
1:5, Psalm 89(90):4, John 8:44, and Eph 1:10. Thus, the structure of the whole chapter is organized around different interpretations of the divine command given to Adam. While he is comfortable with a variety of intertexts, he is principally concerned with the theological validation that God was proved true and the serpent a liar (John 8:44) when Adam disobeyed God's command in Gen 3. The final section of Haer. 5.25–35 arranges a series of eschatological events that illustrate the nature of the eschatological Sabbath predicted Gen
2:1–2. The final chapters of Haer. 5 continually return to this passage as he describes the destruction of the Antichrist, the resurrection of the faithful, and the restoration of creation. Finally, the whole work concludes with an allusion
CHAPTER 6
to Gen 1:26 in Haer. 5.36.3. Irenaeus' final book, therefore, is oriented and structured by the narrative elements and imagery resident in Gen 1–3.
Second, Irenaeus uses a variety of verbal associations to link passages intertextually. In many cases the corresponding terms are identical, but other cases they are simply cognates or have general semantic connections between them.
In every case, the catchwords allow for broader theological correspondence and reflection between the events where Irenaeus uses these passages to frame his theological arguments. Specific identical terms that unite passages include "paradise" (paradisus) in Haer. 5.5.1, which identifies the location and description of God's presence and threads together the experiences of Enoch
(Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), and Paul (2 Cor 12:4) who are all caught up to paradise. In Haer. 5.6.1 the language of "image" links Gen 1:26 and Rom 8:29 where Christ is the true image of God. In Haer. 5.12.2–6, Irenaeus corresponds
Gen 2:7, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts 2:17 and 1 Cor 15:45 with the imagery of "breath"
(adspiratio), "Spirit" (Spiritus), and "earth" (terra). Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, and Acts
2:17 confirm the economic change from the general enlivening through the breath to the particular enlivening by the Spirit. Similarly, in Haer. 5.14.1–2
Irenaeus reads the "flesh and blood" (caro et sanguis) in 1 Cor 15:50 in correspondence to the body formed in Gen 2:7 and the language of "flesh" or "blood" in Gen 4:10, Gen 9:5–6, Matt 23:35–36 (Luke 11:50–51) John 1:14, Luke 19:10, and Col 1:22. Finally, in Haer. 5.28.3–4 his intertextual logic and chiliastic perspective unites the references to the sixth "day" (dies) in Gen 2:1–2 with the theological link between 1,000 years and a day in Psalm 89(90):4.
In other cases, Irenaeus uses general connections between terms that are more conceptually related. These verbal correspondences often require more developed explanation. For example, in Haer. 5.6.1 he conflates Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 to argue that the plasma of Adam's formation is the substance molded after the image of God. He also conflates Gen 1:26 with Rom 8:29 to describe the anthropological activity of the Spirit. The "perfect" or "spiritual" person
(1 Cor 2:6, 15), according to Irenaeus, is not the man formed in Gen 1:26 and Gen
2:7, but the person described in 1 Thess 5:23 comprising body, soul and Spirit. In Haer. 5.15.3, he also compares the original formation from the dust with Jer 1:5,
Gal 1:15, and John 9:1 to exemplify how the Son of God formed Jeremiah, Paul, and the blind man in the "womb" (venter). In fact, the whole narrative of John 9 is linked through a variety of connections between the healing from the dirt on the ground and the creation from the dust. Then, in Haer. 5.17.1 he connects the sound of God walking in paradise in Gen 3:8 with the "voice" (vocem) proclaiming the forgiveness of sins in the Gospels.
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body Irenaeus will also use other corresponding passages to define terms and concepts in Gen 1–3. In Haer. 5.1.1–3 he provides a theological commentary on the nature of plasma as a way to identify the solidarity with the whole human race in the person of Adam. In the same context, he describes the motivation for creation by linking Gen 1:26 with allusions to the predestination and foreknowledge of God in Eph 1:11–12 and 1 Pet 1:2. Therefore, creation is a calculated divine decision that providentially unfolds throughout time. Then, in Haer.
5.7.1–2 presents an interesting case where Irenaeus uses the formation from the dust in Gen 2:7 to define the phrase "mortal bodies" (mortalia corpora) in Rom 8:11. In this sense, Gen 2:7 delineates the meaning and intention of the apostle. The "mortal body" is also the same body that dissolves back into the earth in Gen 3:19, or the animal body of 1 Cor 15:44, which is contrasted with the spiritual body that is raised to new life (1 Cor 15:42–44, John 20:20).
Third, closely associated to the verbal connection between passages, Irenaeus also utilizes the narrative and imagery in Gen 1–3 to illustrate his theological perspective. In these cases Irenaeus is not merely focused on the terms, but the procedures and activates of individuals in the creation passages.
In several cases he will make a theological point based upon a separate scriptural passage, and then appeal to Gen 1–3 to illustrate this argument. He also regularly applies this same imagery to his own contemporary setting and the activity of his Gnostic opponents. In this way, Irenaeus views his setting as part of the scriptural world and continuation of the divine economy. Just as God and Satan are active in Genesis and throughout the working of the divine economy, so also are they active in his own setting. In this first case, there are particular aspects of the narrative that unite passages. For example, Irenaeus is attentive to the dialogical elements in Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:8, which he connects to Christ's speaking in John 9 (Haer. 5.15.4) and Matt 9:2 (Haer. 5.17.1–2).
The same one "speaking" in Gen 1–3 is the same one conversing in John 9 and announcing forgiveness in Matt 9:2. In fact, the whole narrative of the healing of the blind man in John 9:1–7 is a procedural reenactment of the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7. Second, he uses Gen 1–3 to illustrate theological arguments in other passages. In Haer. 5.3.1, he describes the power of God to raise the flesh in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53, and then exemplifies this power to raise the flesh with the demonstration of God's creative power in Gen 2:7. On the other hand, other passages illustrate a theological emphasis in Genesis. In Haer. 5.5.1–2, the imagery of the "hands of God" (Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7) that is the Son and the Spirit, that form Adam also communicates the notion of preservation and protection of the substance of the flesh. The characteristics of the experiences
CHAPTER 6
of Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), Jonah (Jonah 2), the longevity of the patriarchs (i.e. Gen 5:2–32, Gen 9:29), and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
(Dan 3:19–25). As I observed in the previous section, he contrasts these experiences with Adam's expulsion in Gen 3:23. Third, Irenaeus uses the imagery of Gen 1–3 in polemical illustrations. In Haer. 5.1.1–3, he cites the bread-making imagery of 1 Cor 5:6–7 to interpret the "human-making" imagery of Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. The Gnostics remain in the "old leaven" of Adam's formation that was conquered and expelled from paradise. Then, in Haer. 5.20.2 Irenaeus combines the imagery of Gen 2:8, Gen 2:16–17, Rom 12:3, and Eph 1:10 to compare the Gnostics with deception of the serpent in the Garden. The faithful, for Irenaeus, find themselves in the same position as Adam and he encourages them to eat from all trees of the garden (the scriptures), but not of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (the teaching of the Gnostics).
Fourth, his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 also uses general theological or typological connections. The primary typological connection is the AdamChrist typology that structures the second half of the work as a whole, but other typological relationships also surface including: an Eve-Mary typology and a serpent-Satan typology. In fact the whole atmosphere of Gen 1–3 is used typologically and prophetically to interpret the work of Christ and the Antichrist. Beginning with the Adam-Christ typology Irenaeus continues to explain how the work of Christ compares and contrasts with the work of Adam through a variety of symmetrical and asymmetrical correspondence.
For example, in Haer. 5.1.1–3 he reads the incarnation in Luke 1:35 in light of the creation in Gen 2:7, and these connections are substantiated by the AdamChrist typology expressed in 1 Cor 5:7 and the reference to divine plural in Gen
1:26, so that the same divine persons creating in Gen 2:7 are also active in Luke
1:35. In Haer. 5.2.1 Irenaeus provides a sophisticated soteriological connection between the substance of Adam's formation and the substance of Christ's sacrifice. Even though Satan had taken God's creatures captive (Gen 3:1–6), Christ had come to retrieve "his own" (ipsum) creation (Gen 2:7, John 1:11), which is the ancient plasma of Adam, and redeem it by his own flesh and blood (Eph
1:7, 1 Tim 2:6). In Haer. 5.12.2–6, he utilizes a Pauline anthropological tension between the first Adam and the second Adam established in 1 Cor 15:45–46, and contrasts the temporal life given by the breath in Gen 2:7, with the eternal life given by the Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45. However, the most developed group of typological connections is located in Haer. 5:15.2–16.2. Irenaeus provides a complex method of theological argumentation that correlates John 9:1–7 with Gen 1–2 through a variety of texts including: Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:6, Gen
3:9, Gen 3:19, Jer 1:5, Luke 15:4–6, Luke 19:10, John 1:14, John 5:14, John 9:1–7,
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body Gal 1:15, Phil 2:8, and Titus 3:5. He argues that Christ revealed himself as the one through whom all things were created in Gen 1–2, so that the healing of the blind man reenacts the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7. The mention of the "work of God" in John 9:3, the fashioning of the eyes from the dust in John 9:6, and the washing in John 9:7 all point to conceptual and theological connections with the creation of all things by means of the Word of God. The Adam-Christ typology surfaces again in Haer. 5.16.2 where he links Gen 1:26 with the incarnation in John 1:14 and a discussion of the passion in Gen 3:6 with Phil 2:8 to describe how the first Adam's disobedience in Gen 3:6 is overturned by the second Adam's obedience in Phil 2:8.
In other typological relationships that are closely tied to his Adam-Christ typology, he develops an Eve-Mary and serpent-Satan typology in Haer. 5.21.1–2 with his commentary on Gen 3:15 and Matt 4:2–10. The prophecy that the seed would be born of a woman overturns the nature and function of Eve in the Garden. Just as Eve was taken out of Adam and Satan deceived Adam by means of this woman, so also Christ was born of a woman so that he might vanquish the same enemy who ensnared Adam. Similarly his serpent-Satan typology is evident in the temptation account of Matt 4:2–10. Irenaeus argues that just as Adam was deceived though eating in Gen 3:6, now Christ, even in a state of hunger, vanquished the same enemy by abstaining from eating.
Fifth, in a method closely associated with his general Adam-Christ typology, he also uses a type of prophecy-fulfillment to interpret key texts in Gen
1–3. In the previous section, Haer. 5.21.1–2, Gen 3:15 is interpreted prophetically as anticipating the virgin brith of Christ and the destruction of Satan.
The seed in Gen 3:15 is the seed in Gal 3:19 and the one born of a woman in Gal 4:4. He is also the Son of the Father who proclaims the command in Gen
3:15. The concluding chapters of Haer. 5 also reflect on the prophetic fulfillment of the kingdom of God and the "hallowed seventh day" of creation in Gen 2:1–2 (Haer. 5.28.3). He weaves an eschatological cento in Haer. 5.30.4 that concludes with the restoration of creation on the "hallowed seventh day" of Gen 2:2–3. This day is characterized by the restoration of the faithful sitting at the table of the Lord in Matt 8:11. The same perspective on the eschatological seventh day of creation is found in Haer. 5.33.1–4 where the faithful are raised to life on a restored creation (Gen 27:27–29, Matt 13:38, Luke 14:12–13, and Matt
19:29). In the same context, the passages of Isa 11:6–9 and Isa 65:25 describe the restoration of the kingdom to its original subjection and harmony in Gen
1:27–30. The future kingdom depicted in Isa 11:6–9 and Isa 65:25 will be even more fruitful and plentiful than the original creation in Gen 1:27–30. The same kind of eschatological intertextual weaving returns in the closing chapter of
CHAPTER 6
Haer. 5.36.3, where Irenaeus connects a network of citations linked through a theological vision for the eschatological kingdom of God.
Sixth, Irenaeus continues to use the classical general-to-particular or partswhole style of argumentation. In these cases he will use texts that make a particular theological point and bring other passages alongside that describe a more general premise. These arguments are usually differentiated along the lines of the economic unfolding of salvation history. In Haer. 5.8.1, the faithful received the Spirit as a pledge (Eph 1:14, Rom 8:9, 15) leading them to the fullness of the Spirit that is given in the final consummation (Gen 1:26, 1 Cor
13:12). Similarly, he argues that the breath is given to all, while the Spirit is given particularly. In Haer. 5.12.2, he develops the contrast between the universality of the breath and the particularity of the Spirit with allusions to Gen 2:7, Isa
42:5, Isa 57:16, 1 Cor 15:45. The breath is given to all, but the Spirit is only given to the faithful.
Seventh, there are a few instances of prosopological interpretation, though it is not nearly as prevalent as in other books, because the focus of this book is the resurrection, and not necessarily Christology. But the few instances of prosopological interpretation include the connection between Christ speaking in John 9 and the identity of the one speaking in Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:8 in Haer. 5.15.4. In the same general context, Irenaeus identifies the Son and the Spirit as the Image and Likeness of Gen 1:26, though he differentiates between the Image (personal) creating in Gen 1–2, and the Image (substantial) that is revealed in the New Testament (Rom 8:29). Then, in Haer. 5.17.1 he uses the verbal titles of "Maker" and "Framer" taken from Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 to identify the God that is active in Creation. He also draws connections between the Christ announcing the forgiveness of sins in the Gospels and the "Voice of God" (Vox Dei) active in creation and speaking the divine commands.
Eighth and finally, he intentionally connects passages from separate portions of scripture as a way to show the theological continuity of divine revelation. This includes the words of Moses, a prophet and an apostle, or the words of the Lord, a prophet, and an apostle. This canonical linkage allows Irenaeus to exhibit the theological continuity throughout the unfolding of the divine economy. For example, in the section discussed above, Haer. 5.12.1–2, he corresponds Gen 2:7 (Moses), Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16 (prophet), and 1 Cor 15:45 (apostle), as a means to explain the progression of the unfolding of the Spirit in relation to salvation history. Then, in Haer. 5.17.3 he links the words of the Lord in Matt
9:2 announcing the forgiveness of sins with the forgiveness of sins predicted in Psalm 31(32):1–2 (prophet), and confirmed in Col 2:14 (apostle).
From Creation to the Resurrection of the Body Therefore, from the opening pages of his refutation in Haer. 1 to his closing citation of Gen 1:26 in Haer. 5, the decisive aspects of his theological argumentation includes the use and application of these early creation accounts that are read in continuity and harmony with the rest of the scriptural witness.
Irenaeus is nowhere content to read Genesis apart from the rest of scriptural revelation, but following his intertextual perspective he applies a variety of reading strategies and theological perspectives that serve to unite a variety of texts within his argumentation. In the final chapter, I will summarize all the reading strategies applied to Gen 1–3 throughout Adversus Haereses and how they shape Irenaeus' intertextual approach to scriptural interpretation.