7.3 Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3
Conclusion they also link together groupings of four, ten, twelve, and thirty found throughout Gen 1:1–27 (Haer. 1.18.1–2). There is even a general use of gematria in the Ophite account with the six sons of Jaldabaoth (Jao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus,
Horeus, Astaphaeus), which borrow from various Hebrew titles for God. These various numbers validate the Pleromic system of aeons, and in each case they connect these numerological groupings with other scripture passages.
Contrasting the literary reading, this type of reading ignores the immediate context of the passages and the larger narratival framework of scripture.
Instead, it focuses exclusively upon the numbers or quantities represented in a given passage, and their relationship to a mythological system distinct from scripture.
Therefore, when Irenaeus and the Gnostics spar over the interpretation Gen 1–3, they are using similar intertextual strategies, but offering up different networks of texts. Whereas Irenaeus' reading demonstrates continuity between Gen 1–3, the rest of the Old Testament and the apostolic witness, the Gnostics seek to amend and correct the Mosaic account based upon their system. The distinction between Irenaeus and the Gnostic intertextual reading of Genesis, therefore, is not truly located in the style of interpretation, but in the competing theological perspectives that inform their application of these reading strategies and the distinctive textual relationships that each of them produce.
7.3
Irenaeus' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 Turning to Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3, this analysis reveals that his intertextual reception of Gen 1–3 is extensive and diverse. This includes the types of reading strategies he applies to Gen 1–3, and the diverse number of intertexts he reads alongside these creation texts. There are some repeated textual relationships, but these are rare and almost always found coupled with additional intertexts. Thus, he is not beholden to any particular sets of texts and the diversity of texts cited in connection to Gen 1–3 is wide-ranging.5 At the beginning of this study I expected to find particular groupings of texts that were tailored for his Gnostic polemic, but every successive analysis of the use of Gen 1–3 within his argument contributed fresh intertextual relationships.
Through his theological argumentation, he freely forms and re-forms interrelated networks of texts. The sophistication of these intertextual networks and the diversity of scriptural passages involved communicate a mastery of the scriptural material that cannot be assumed as mere received traditions.
5 For a summary see list of texts in appendix.
CHAPTER 7
As a result, it is also improper to conclude that Irenaeus is particularly Pauline or Johannine in his reading of creation texts. He never relies upon a singular author or genre and, in fact, in many cases his argument specifically rests on the continuity between Gen 1–3, the prophets, and the apostolic writings.
At the same time, by his own admission Irenaeus reading of Gen 1–3 is not entirely unique. Several allusions to Gen 1–3 mention his dependence on his predecessors. These include references to 1 Clement (Haer. 3.3.3), Justin
(Haer. 4.6.2), and the unnamed Presbyter (Haer. 4.32.1). Each of these sections, furthermore, indicates different reading strategies and draw upon different
Genesis passages. His summary of 1 Clement is a narrative account of the history of the divine economy beginning with creation. The sections on Justin and the Presbyter evidence his style of prosopological interpretation. This suggests that the reading strategies Irenaeus employs are common and essential to hermeneutical discussions and catechetical training in the early church.
Certainly, these are not the only places that Irenaeus' draws on the thought of his predecessors, but they are a few instances where his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 shares similarities with some of those under whom he studied.
Irenaeus' use of these reading strategies, however, is much too diverse and complex to be dependent upon these or other sources. Instead this study has shown that when Irenaeus reads Gen 1–3, his mind is actively engaging the entire corpus of scriptural material as he employs a variety of reading strategies and unites scripture together in his theological polemic. Below I define and characterize each of the particular reading strategies that Irenaeus' applies to Gen 1–3, as they have developed throughout his argument in Adversus Haereses.
7.3.1
Literary Reading of Gen 1–3 The first of reading strategies is the simple literary interpretation of Gen 1–3 that reads these texts within their literary context as a historical narrative referring to the original formation and creation of all things. Irenaeus takes the historical context of creation in Gen 1–3 seriously, and assumes the events are an accurate and authoritative representation of the formation and creation of all things. Irenaeus' literary reading is expressed when he interprets the texts of Gen 1–3 internally among themselves. He often cites clusters of texts from Gen
1–3 and then reads them in concord and harmony among themselves as a consistent and accurate description of the work of God in creation. In this sense, the immediate literary context is certainly one important context for Irenaeus' understanding of the creation accounts, though by no means the only context.
In Haer. 5.28.3, he makes this explicit when he states clearly that he reads the completion of creation in Gen 2:2–3 in two senses saying, "This is a narrative of
Conclusion 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.). In this commentary on the completion of creation in Gen 2:2–3, Irenaeus is not choosing between an ancient and future referent, but rather affirming the continuity between creation and eschatology within the ordering of the divine economy established plainly in Moses' narrative of creation.
Irenaeus literary reading of Gen 1–3 can also draw on references outside of Gen 1–3 are serve to clarify the meaning of key terms or concepts within the creation accounts. In other words, Irenaeus marshals as variety of intertexts to illuminate the meaning or background of the historical narrative of Gen 1–3.
For example, Irenaeus derives intertextual references between the activity of the Word of God and the Father in creation. In Haer. 4.14.1, the common glorification reflected in John 17:5 is a means to interpret the motivation for God's creative acts in Gen 1–2. The Creator-creature distinction established in Gen
2:7 communicates the sufficiency of the Creator and the need for humanity to be glorified by the Father. Irenaeus also discusses the knowledge of God and its limits in Haer. 2.26.1 with the intertextual use of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7,
1 Cor 8:1, John 15:9–10 and 1 Cor 2:2. He argues his opponents reflect the puffed up knowledge of 1 Cor 8:1 that is contradictory of the Creator-creature relationship established in Gen 1–2. The focus of interpretation in these instances are the creation narratives and the intertexts, drawn principally from the New
Testament, function as commentary on these events.
Amid these literary readings, Irenaeus gives special attention to the nature of the human person formed in Gen 1–2 and the relationship between the body and soul especially as it applies to the bodily resurrection. Two pivotal creation texts are Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7 and he frequently conflates these into a single creation account of humankind in two aspects: the creation from the dust and creation in the image of God.6 This harmonious reading focuses on the act of Adam's creation, and the theological nature of this divine decision described in both texts. In Haer. 2.34.3–4 he addresses the basic anthropological connection between the soul and the body through the harmonization of Gen 2:7, Psalm 20:5(21:4), Psalm 32(33):9 (Psalm 148(149):5–6) and Luke 16:10.
He argues that the soul does not have life naturally, but partakes of life from God. In this sense, the extent of life is dependent upon the will of the Creator.
In Haer. 5.1.1–3, he provides a theological commentary on the nature of Adam's plasma in Gen 2:7 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 the allusions to the predestination
6 Haer. 4.pf.4.
CHAPTER 7
and foreknowledge of God in Eph 1:11–12 and 1 Pet 1:2, which envisions that the creation of humanity is a highly calculated divine decision. In Haer. 5.6.1, he again conflates Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 to argue that the plasma of Adam is the substance molded after the image of God and specifically conflates Gen 1:26 with Rom 8:29 to describe the anthropological activity of the Spirit leading the human person toward perfection. The "perfect" or "spiritual" person (1 Cor 2:6,
15) is not the man formed in Gen 1–2, but the person described in 1 Thess 5:23 comprising body, soul, and Spirit. Similarly, in Haer. 2.28.1 Irenaeus describes a view of progressive sanctification from creation toward the perfection in the divine likeness through an interlocking set of textual references including: Gen
1:1, Gen 1:26/2:7, Gen 1:28, Heb 7:7, Job 3:16, and Matt 3:12.7 This is also exemplified by a series of conceptually and linguistically connected texts including:
John 17:24, Isa 43:5–7, and Matt 24:28.
However, the most intricate literary reading of Gen 1–3 is found in Haer.
3.23.1–8. In addition to Gen 1:26, Irenaeus alludes to significant portion of Gen
3–4 (Gen 3:7–8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:15, Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17–19, Gen 3:21, Gen 3:23–24, Gen 4:7–8, Gen 4:9, and Gen 4:11). The texts are not arranged chronologically, but rather crafted into a chiasm with several other intertexts as the theological conclusion to his recapitulation argument spanning Haer. 3.18.1–3.23.8. The allusion to the serpent's deception in Gen 3:5 frames the whole chiasm, and the centerpiece of the structure is the contrasting responses of Adam and Cain toward God in light of their sin. The rest of the exposition interprets the judgment episode of Adam, Eve, and serpent, as well as the Christological fulfillment of Gen 3:15, and the polemical application of Gen 3:5 as the deception of the heretical doctrines of the Gnostics. These instances prove that Irenaeus reads the texts of Gen 1–3 in accordance with its literary structure as a historical narrative, but he also utilizes a variety of other methods to interpret these creation texts.
7.3.2
Prophetic Reading of Gen 1–3 While Irenaeus reads creation texts in their literary context, he also applies a prophetic reading that interprets passages in light of future fulfillment.8
These uses of prophecy and fulfillment are less focused on the original referent, and give more attention to a referent discussed at a later stage of the divine economy. But following the citation of Haer. 5.28.3 mentioned above,
Irenaeus views his prophetic readings as entirely continuous with his literal readings. These figurative intertextual connections signify a correspondence in 7 Haer. 2.28.1.
8 Haer. 5.28.3.
Conclusion the referents of these passages that confirm the truthfulness of Moses' account through prophetic fulfillment. Proof from prophecy is a long standing tradition with roots in the New Testament and post-apostolic age, and in Irenaeus' the intricate tapestry of prophetic connections continues to flourish. To be sure, the prophecies in Gen 1–3 are relatively few and this reading strategy is obviously applied more frequently to the other prophetic section of scripture.
These prophetic connections are also formed through verbal associations or patterns, many others are linked by more general conceptual or theological association. It is common for these connections to have some Christological influence that results in theologically symbiotic relationships between these
Genesis passages and other scriptural references. Some aspects of his prophetic reading are discussed below as part of his typological use of scripture.
Irenaeus applies a prophetic reading to only two passages: Gen 3:15 and Gen 2:2–3. The discussion of Christ destroying the curse of Gen 3:15 is found in Haer. 3.23.7. The description of enmity between the serpent and the seed characterizes the nature of the postlapsarian economy (Gen 3:15). The enmity lasts until the appointed seed comes who has the power to overcome the enemy
(Gal 3:16), which casts Gal 3:19 and Gal 3:16 as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Gen 3:15. He also adds a collection of theological, narratival, and linguistic intertextual references to confirm the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 in Christ (Psalm
90(91):13, Rom 5:12, 17, Rev 20:2/12:9, Luke 10:19–20, 1 Cor 15:26 and 1 Cor 15:54–
55). A similar discussion is located in Haer. 5.21.1–2, where he again reads Gal
3:19 and Gal 4:4 as the fulfillment of the birth of Christ and the vanquishing of Satan in Gen 3:15.
The fulfillment of Gen 2:2–3, on the other hand, is the hallowed seventh day of creation. This passage functions as a general summary description of the blessedness of the eschatological state that is detailed in various prophetic and apostolic texts. In Haer. 4.16.1, the completion of creation in Gen 2:2–3 is a sign (Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13) that anticipates the expectation of God's people eternally dwelling in God's presence (Matt 6:19, Rom 8:36). He extends this eschatological vision in Haer. 5.30.4 and Haer. 5.33.1–4 with descriptions of the restoration of the faithful sitting at the table of the Lord in Matt 8:11 and enjoying life in 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 depict the restoration of creation to its original subjection in Gen 1:27–30, although the future kingdom will be even more fruitful and plentiful than the original creation. The same eschatological intertextual weaving returns in Haer. 5.36.3, where Irenaeus connects a network of citations depicting the eschatological kingdom of God.
CHAPTER 7
7.3.3
Typological Reading of Gen 1–3 Woven among his literary and prophetic readings, Irenaeus also offers a series of typological relationships that influence his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 including: Adam-Cain, Adam-Jonah, Adam-Christ, and Eve-Mary. According to Irenaeus, the theological basis for his concept of recapitulation is the "similitude" (similitudinem) between Christ and Adam, both in terms of substance and action.9 Thus a "type" has a mimetic quality expressed in the correspondence between two textual events or persons. For Irenaeus, the integrity of each person or event is retained in order to reinforce the continuity and discontinuity between type and antitype. His Gnostic polemic makes this point often, given that the effectiveness of Christ's incarnation turns upon his continuity with the substance of Adam's formation. Frequently Irenaeus will discuss these typological relationships in the context of similar Pauline texts, but Irenaeus presses the personal and environmental similitude between Adam and Christ beyond what is recorded in Paul's writings. In this sense, he is not content with merely restating apostolic sayings, but given his polemical context he applies the intertextual logic of the apostle and extends the typological connections between creation and the Christ event. Below I describe each of these typological relationships in succession and how they contribute to the complexity of Irenaeus' intertextuality.
First, the Adam-Cain typology in Haer. 3.23.4–5, as I discussed above, serves as the centerpiece of a larger chiasm in Haer. 3.23.1–8. Whereas Cain was murderous and insolent, Adam's actions were "in every way contrary" (omnia in contrarium). Irenaeus contrasts the murderous actions of Cain and his haughty attitude to God in Gen 4:7–8, Gen 4:9, and Gen 4:11 with Adam's humbling actions in Gen 3:8, Gen 3:7, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:21, and Gen 3:13. While Cain was insolent before God, Adam was contrite, and Adam's contrition is aptly described as the proper example of the fear of God (Prov 1:7). He implores the faithful to reject the model of arrogance of Cain, and follow the example of Adam's penitence before the Father.
Second, in Haer. 3.20.1 Irenaeus describes an Adam-Jonah typology, and reads Jonah 1:9, Jonah 2:1–2, and Jonah 3:1, 8–9, alongside Gen 3:5–8, 1 Cor 1:29, and the "sign of Jonah" in Matt 12:39–40. He imagines Satan as the "great whale"
(magna ceto), who overpowered the first couple in the Garden. Nevertheless, just as Jonah received an unexpected salvation from the belly of the whale, so also did Adam receive an unexpected salvation from sin and death. The typological connections are bound through the illustrious patterning of each man being overtaken by an animal, except in the case of Jonah the animal is the 9 Haer. 3.21.9.
Conclusion means of salvation not condemnation. Like Jonah, Adam would experience resurrection and salvation through the work of Christ (Matt 12:39–40). He also extends the connections by contrasting Jonah's cry from the belly of the fish with Adam's pride in his disobedience in Gen 3:5. In the same way as Adam and Jonah, the faithful will receive an unexpected salvation and rising from the dead and praise God (1 Cor 1:29).10
Third, the most extensive and consistent typological relationship is the Adam-Christ typology, and this brief summary only begins to capture the intricacies of the textual networking involved. Every phase of Christ's life from his birth to death and resurrection are woven together with intertextual references to Adam. To begin with, many typological discussions address the continuity and discontinuity surrounding Adam's original formation and Christ's incarnation. For example, in Haer. 4.33.4, he conflates Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Isa 7:14, and John 1:14 to describe similar soteriological effects of the incarnation. He argues that Christ must be greater than David, Solomon, Jonah, and even the evil one who subdued humanity (Matt 12:41–42, Matt 22:43, Matt 12:29), because humankind was formed in his image (Gen 1:26). When the Word became incarnate and was made man (John 1:14), he recapitulated humanity in himself
(Eph 1:10) and recovered the image and likeness of God that was lost in Adam (Gen 1:26).11 There is a similar soteriological summary in Haer. 3.18.1, where he binds the imagery of John 1:14, Eph 1:10, and Gen 1:26. In Haer. 3.18.7, he links
Gen 2:5 in a description of Adam as fashioned from the "virgin earth" (Gen 2:5, 7) with Christ as "born first of the Virgin." He conflates these references with Rom 5:12 and Rom 5:19, which extend Paul's asymmetrical relationship with symmetry between the births of Adam and Christ. In Haer. 3.21.10 he describes the similitude between Adam and Christ with a summary of Christ's recapitulation of the ancient substance of Adam's formation.12 This Pauline imagery introduces a network of texts including: Gen 2:5, Gen 2:7, John 1:3, Rom 5:12, 19.
This intricate tissue of texts focuses on the recapitulation of all things in Eph
1:10 with special attention given to the role of human nature in Rom 5:12 and 5:19. He conflates these passage with reference to the virgin soil of Gen 2:5 and act of creation through the Word in John 1:3, to explain the process of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7. In Haer. 5.1.1–3, Irenaeus also interprets the incarnation in Luke 1:35 in a typological relationship with the formation of Adam in Gen
2:7. In Haer. 5.2.1, he argues that though Satan took God's creatures captive (Gen 3:1–6), Christ came to retrieve his own creation (Gen 2:7, John 1:11), which 10 Haer. 3.20.1.
11 Haer. 3.18.1.
12 Haer. 3.21.9.
CHAPTER 7
is the ancient substance of Adam's formation, and redeem it by his own flesh and blood (Eph 1:7, 1 Tim 2:6).
In these cases, Irenaeus' typological framework can pervade several chapters and comprises a seemingly endless assortment of textual relationships.
For example, the whole section of Haer. 5:15.2–16.2 that offers a complex intertextual correlation of Gen 1–2 with John 9:1–7 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, Gal 1:15, Phil 2:8, and Titus 3:5. Irenaeus believes
Christ revealed himself as the one through whom all things were created in Gen 1–2. When he heals the blind man in John 9:1–7, this becomes a reenactment of the creation from the dust in Gen 2:7. Furthermore, 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, while anticipating the future bodily resurrection and restoration of the faithful. The Adam-Christ typology is especially prominent in Haer. 5.16.2 where he links
Gen 1:26, John 1:14, Gen 3:6, and 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.
This last typological association exemplifies several other discussions that compare and contrast the nature and effects of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. For example, in Haer. 3.23.1 the bishop of Lyons describes how through the tantalizing propositions of Serpent, Adam became a possession of the Serpent. The lost sheep of Luke 15:4–7 is, for Irenaeus, human nature that was lost in Adam. Responding to Adam's predicament, the Lord has come to seek out and save lost humanity (Luke 19:10), and the Father so precisely arranged the divine economy to ensure the Word of God would successfully reverse the effects of Adam's disobedience. Like the imagery of the lost sheep, the strong man of Matt 12:29 is Satan who has captured the "vessel"
(uasa) of humankind and subjected them to the power of death. There is no question that God was patient in the recovery of Adam, but the recapitulation of Adam was fully realized when at last the second man (1 Cor 15:47) bound up the strong man who had ensnared Adam (Gen 3:5), and spoiled his goods
(Matt 12:29, 2 Tim 1:10). In addition, the vanquishing of Satan is linked to the first temptation of Matt 4:2–10. Just as Adam was deceived through eating in Gen 3:6, now Christ, even in a state of hunger, vanquished the same enemy by abstaining from eating in Matt 4:3.
Finally, as a means of extending the connections between Adam and Christ, Irenaeus applies an Eve-Mary typology. Like the Adam-Christ typology, the Eve-Mary typology depends upon several corresponding and contrasting characteristics recorded in their respective narratives and expressed through
Conclusion reflection on a network of texts. In Haer. 3.22.4 he interprets the actions of Eve in correspondence to those of Mary with reference to: Gen 1:28, Gen 2:25, Gen
3:6, Deut 22:23–24, Psalm 44:17(45:16), Matt 19:30, Matt 20:16, Luke 1:38, Luke 3:23–38, Col 1:18, and Heb 5:9. Whereas Eve became the cause of death in Gen
3:6, Mary is the cause of salvation and resurrection in Luke 1:38, Heb 5:9, and Eph 4:16/Col 2:19. This logical set of conceptual and textual interconnections, including obedience/disobedience, virginity, and betrothal reinforces the aesthetic and theological stability of the general Adam-Christ typology. Extending his analysis of Gen 3:15 and Gal 4:4 in Haer. 5.21.1–2, the notion of being 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.
In sum, these literary, prophetic, and typological readings introduce the nature of Irenaeus' intertextuality and explain some of the important ways that Irenaeus' works scripture intertextually. These are, however, not the only ways that Irenaeus' textual networking is expressed. He also utilizes a variety of other verbal, organizational, narratival, illustrative, prosopological, and rhetorical strategies that conflate a variety of texts.
7.3.4
Verbal Connections and Patterns with Gen 1–3 Irenaeus intertextual networking frequently assembles passages through a variety of verbal associations or patterns. The imagery of Gen 1–3 provides
Irenaeus a fertile seedbed of terms and concepts that produce a wide range of scriptural references. These can be identical catchwords that unite passages, although in many instances they are simply cognates or conceptually related terminology. These catchwords serve to qualify or define the meaning of related terms in other scriptural contexts. These catchwords may be a single term threading together a series of texts that emphasize a single theological concept, or a cluster of interrelated terms that binds together a grouping of texts to show the continuity of God's activity throughout the unfolding of the divine economy.
First, the simple catchword "all things" (omnia) binds together a series of texts in Haer. 4.20.1–4a (Mand 1, Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6, and Matt 11:27), all of which serve as commentary on creation in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. Likewise, God speaking creation into existence in Gen 1:313 corresponds to God speaking in Psalm
32(33):9 and God creating by means of the Word in John 1:3.14 In Haer. 3.11.5
13 Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc.
14 Haer. 2.2.5.
CHAPTER 7
he draws together a series of creation texts including Gen 1:1, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, and Gen 2:6 and joins these with the miracle at the wedding feast in John 2:1,6 and the feeding of the 5,000 in John 6:11. The particular linking terms and concepts include: "earth" (terra), "water" (aqua), "fruit" (fructus), "fountain" (fons),
"good" (bonus), "wine" (vinum), "food" (esca) and "drink" (potus).15 The linking terms support the identity of the continuity of the Father working through the Son from creation to incarnation.
The most common linking term is the substance of Adam's flesh or "formation" (plasma) and a host of similar images analogous to this substance.
These linking terms substantiate the formal connection between the body that is fashioned from the dust in Gen 2:7, the incarnate Christ, and the resurrected and glorified body. For example, in Haer. 1.9.3 and Haer. 3.18.1, the imagery of "flesh" (caro) in John 1:14 parallels the substance of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7.16 Similar imagery is found in Haer. 3.18.7, but he adds the allusion to the "virgin soil" (terra rudis) in Gen 2:5. In Haer. 3.19.3 he associates
Adam's "formation" (plasma) to the lost "sheep" (ouem) of Luke 15:4, and the "earth" (terra) of Eph 4:9. These passages are also bound together with Isa 7:11 through the "descending" and "ascending" illustrative patterning, which imagines the Word of God descending and ascending to recover the lost substance
(or sheep) of Adam's formation (Gen 2:7).
In the same context the "body" imagery is connected with a host of texts referring mostly to the Pauline imagery of the body and resurrection including:
Eph 1:22/Col 1:18, Phil 3:9, 1 Cor 15:23, Col 2:19, Eph 4:16, John 14:2, Rom 12:4/1
Cor 12:12, 20. In Haer. 3.21.10 also follows with similar connections of Adam's "formation" (plasma) with the "untilled earth" (rudi terra) of Gen 2:5, the Word of God who forms all things (John 1:3) and the Adam-Christ typology of Rom
5:12, 19. In Haer. 3.22.1, when the Word of God recapitulated himself in the form of his own handiwork, he received a body from Mary that connected him to the substance of Adam's body fashioned from the "earth" (terra). The earthly substance that was used to fashion Adam is characteristically ignoble or "meek"
(mites), but when the Word assumes flesh he blesses the meek, because they shall inherit the "earth" (terra, Matt 5:5 Gen 2:7). In the same context, the emphasis of being "made" ( facio) combined with the connections with being born of a woman and the seed of David according to the "flesh" unites this with the "earth" imagery in Matt 5:5, and the same concepts in Gen 1:26, and Gen 2:7.
Then, in Haer. 3.22.2 Irenaeus explains the nature of Christ's incarnate flesh.
As characteristic of a body from the earth (Gen 2:7), Christ required food, grew
15 Haer. 3.11.5.
16 Haer. 1.9.3; Haer. 1.22.1.
Conclusion tired, was wounded, grieved, sweat blood, and was pierced, revealing blood and water (Matt 4:2, John 4:6, Psalm 68:27(69:26), John 11:35, Luke 22:44, Matt
26:38, and John 19:34). These bodily experiences of Christ form an extended commentary upon the nature and weakness of the flesh formed from the dust in Gen 2:7.
In Haer. 5.7.1–2 he focuses on the Pauline phrase "mortal bodies" (mortalia corpora) in Rom 8:11 and uses this to describe the nature of the body formed from the earth in Gen 2:7. He distinguishes the mortal body from the souls, and interprets it in relationship to the body that is fashioned from the earth in Gen
2:7 and dissolves back into the earth in Gen 3:19. This is also the animal body of 1 Cor 15:44 that is contrasted with the spiritual body that is raised to new life
(1 Cor 15:42–44, John 20:20). 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 references to "flesh" or "blood" in Gen 4:10, Gen 9:5–6, Matt
23:35–36,17 John 1:14, Luke 19:10, and Col 1:22. He argues that Christ's advent involved the assumption and salvation of flesh and blood. In a final instance, he compares the original formation from the dust with Jer 1:5, Gal 1:15, and John
9:1 to describe how the Son of God formed Jeremiah, Paul, and the blind man in the "womb" (venter).18
A number of related anthropological imagery also accompanies the emphasis on the body. In Haer. 2.34.3–4, the language of "life" (vitae) and "forever"
(saeculum) connects Gen 2:7, Psalm 32(33):9, Psalm 20:5(21:4), and Luke 16:10.
Elsewhere, he threads Gen 2:7, Isa 42:5, Isa 57:16, Acts 2:17 and 1Cor 15:45 with the imagery of "breath" (adspiratio), "Spirit" (Spiritus), and "earth" (terra).19 Isa
42:5 and Isa 57:16 confirm an economic change from the enlivening strength of the breath to the Spirit, while Acts 2:17 examples this new administration of the Spirit. He also unites the imagery of "life" (Gen 2:9, Rom 6:10), "serpent"
(serpentem, Gen 3:15, Psalm 90(91):13, Rev 12:9/20:2), "seed" (semen, Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16, 19), and the verb "to tread upon" (calcare, Gen 3:15, Luke 10:19) in Haer.
3.23.6–8. This verbal association communicates the theological complexity of the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 in Christ.
Alongside the anthropological imagery, the language of "paradise" (paradisus) unites 2 Cor 12:4 with God placing Adam in paradise in Gen 2:15.20 As discussed above the imagery of Adam's formation, also joins Paul's assumption in the body and in Haer. 5.5.1 the location and description of "paradise" unites
17 Luke 11:50–51.
18 Haer. 5.15.3.
19 Haer. 5.12.2–6.
20 Haer. 2.30.7.
CHAPTER 7
the experiences of Enoch (Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), and Paul (2 Cor 12:4).
In Haer. 5.17.1, the sound of God walking in paradise in Gen 3:8 is associated with the "voice" (vocem) proclaiming the forgiveness of sins in the Gospels. In Haer. 3.23.2 he describes the condemnation of the serpent, or Satan, with the links between the curse of Gen 3:14 and the eternal fire in Matt 25:41 that prepared for those who are "accursed" (κατηραμένοι).21 Finally, in Haer. 5.28.3–4
Irenaeus' intertextual logic and chiliastic perspective unites these eschatological references to the seventh "day" (dies) in Gen 2:1–3 with Psalm 89(90):4
(2 Pet 3:8).
Besides explicit verbal connections, Irenaeus also uses conceptual patterns to relate texts. I have already mentioned the descending and ascending pattering that summarizes the salvific work of Christ and incorporates a collection of texts including Isa 7:11, Luke 15:5–6, and Eph 4:9–10.22 Other examples of patterning include Haer. 3.24.1 that describes the pneumotological conclusion to Christ's recapitulative work, and imagines the human person as a "vessel"
(vaso, Matt 12:29) containing the "precious deposit" (eximium . . . depositum) of the faith of the church. Conflating the language of the "gift of God" (Dei munus) from Eph 2:8 with the creation scene of Gen 2:7, he compares the breath of God imparted to Adam in Gen 2:7 with the gift of the Holy Spirit imparted to the church. Just as the breath of God enlivened the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7, the gift of faith entrusted to the church enlivens the faithful. Thus, he forms a patterned connection between the impartation of the breath and the impartation of the Spirit.
7.3.5
Organizational Use of Gen 1–3 Alongside Irenaeus' intensive focus on particular terms and concepts, he also frequently organizes or structures his work generally with the contents of Gen
1–3. These organizational functions repeatedly unite passages in Irenaeus' exegetical logic and expose the way his arguments are naturally guided by the conceptual imagery inherent to scripture. First, Irenaeus uses Gen 1–3, especially
Gen 1:26, to frame his work on both the general and particular level. While Genesis imagery surfaces early and often, the whole work concludes with a citation of Gen 1:26.23 In addition, based upon Migne's chapter and paragraph divisions, which are standard among scholars, approximately fifty-nine percent of the references to Gen 1–3 are contained in the opening section of any given chapter. If I included the final paragraph of any given chapter the 21 Haer. 3.23.3.
22 Haer. 3.18.7.
23 Haer. 5.36.3.
Conclusion percentage is greater than seventy. This means that the vast majority of Irenaeus' uses of Gen 1–3 are found in the opening or closing portions of the structure of his argument. To put it another way, the contents of Gen 1–3 are key transitional texts that are essential to the flow of his thought and argumentation. He is constantly cycling back to Gen 1–3 to incorporate these texts into his polemical theology.
Second, the texts of Gen 1–3 participate in specific organizational schemes such as chiasms, supportive texts, or controlling texts. First, while they are essential to his polemical representation of Gnosis in Haer. 1–2, in Haer. 3 the organizational function comes to the forefront in the chiastic arrangements of Haer. 3.18.1–18.7, Haer. 3.19.1–21.10, and Haer. 3.23.1–8. The parallel allusions to Gen 2:5 in Haer. 3.18.1–2 and Haer. 3.18.7 frame the chiasm as a means of extending the Adam-Christ typology. The allusions to Gen 2:5 and Gen 3:5 construct the first half of his anti-docetic argument in Haer. 3.19.3–20.1. The culmination of his recapitulative argument is found in Haer. 3.23.1–8 with the theological arrangement of the narrative of Gen 3–4. Gen 3:5 frames this chiasm as a whole, but he also alludes to an array of Genesis texts including: Gen
1:26, Gen 3:7–8, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:15, Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17–19, Gen
3:21, and Gen 3:23–4. In addition, Irenaeus uses a host of intertexts to interpret these passages including: Gen 4:7–8, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:11, Matt 12:29, Matt 25:41,
Psalm 90(91):13, Prov 1:7, Luke 10:19, Rom 5:12, 17, Rom 6:2, 10, 1 Cor 15:26, 54–55,
Gal 3:16, and Rev 20:2. The whole arrangement completes Irenaeus' theology of recapitulation, and reveals the Christological fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen 3:15.
Third, in terms of his intertextual focus, Gen 1–3 serves as both a supportive and/or controlling texts within the structure of his arguments. In the former instances, the scripture is a simple means to support the theological point derived from another passage of scripture, while in the later instance he uses other texts to support his interpretation of Gen 1–3. These connections may use verbal associations or patterning, but most often simply confirm the theological point made elsewhere. For example, in Haer. 4.34.4, Haer. 4.36.2–6, and Haer. 4.40.3, he comments on a series of parables that incorporate simple allusions to Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7 or Gen 3:15 to support his reading of these parables.
On the other hand, in Haer. 4.38.1–4 the texts of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Gen 3:5 are drawn to the forefront and become controlling texts arguing for perfection in the image of God, and other texts are brought alongside Gen 1–3 to clarify the interpretation of these passages.
Fourth, the most complex structural function of Gen 1–3 occurs in Haer.
5. While texts throughout Haer. 5 continue to serve in a supporting role, the entire section of Haer. 5.15.1–24.4 is an organized attempt to re-read the events
CHAPTER 7
of Gen 1–3 in light of three principal features of the Christ event: incarnation, crucifixion, and temptation. Each of these episodes of Christ's life is read with Gen 1–3 in one hand and the Gospels in the other. In Haer. 5.15.2–16.2, in particular, there is a complex method of theological argumentation that is arranged around the connections between John 9:1–7 and Gen 1–2. In 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 (2 Pet 3:8), John
8:44, and Eph 1:10. While he provides a series of intertexts alongside Gen 2:17, in each case he is concerned principally with the theological demonstration that God was proved true and the serpent a liar (John 8:44) when Adam disobeyed
God's command in Gen 3. Finally, the allusion to the Sabbath day of rest in Gen 2:1–2 is a general organizational reference to the whole eschatological picture of the kingdom of God in the closing chapters Haer. 5.28–36.
7.3.6
Narratival or Creedal Reading of Gen 1–3 In addition to these other reading strategies, Irenaeus also coordinates texts in a narratival or chronological relationship. Frequently this takes the form of a summary of the covenants or decisive events in the divine economy surrounding these episodes. These narratival summaries can also assume a creedal form that provides a more detailed theological explanation of the trinitarian nature of God. Another specific subset of these narratival connections is an argument that intentionally coordinates a passage drawn specifically from the law, the prophets, and the apostolic writings in order to prove the consistency of divine revelation. In most cases, there is little or no substantive commentary on these texts, Irenaeus simply arranges scriptural echoes or allusions to portray the continuity of God's action in salvation history, though he does not always cite these passages in chronological order.
First, Irenaeus describes the spiritual mysteries that Paul witnessed in his rapture to paradise (2 Cor 12:3–4) with a narrative of the creative acts of God in Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7, and Gen 2:15.24 In Haer. 2.30.9, he uses God's economic activity in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:8 to frame certain events of salvation history including allusions to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Law, Prophets, and Christ. In Haer. 3.3.3, he provides a similar telescoped outline of salvation history, and in Haer. 3.11.8 he summarizes the covenantal structure in a progressive fashion beginning with the Adamic Covenant, Noahic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, and culminating in the New Covenant that sums up all things in Christ (Eph
1:10). The commandment of God in the Adamic covenant and the vision of the Lord walking and conversing with Adam exemplifies and prefigures the New
24 Haer. 2.30.7.
Conclusion Covenant that renews the harmony of this paradisiacal relationship between God and humanity through the work of Christ. In Haer. 4.6.2, he reads a summary of the acts of God in succession beginning with allusions to Gen 1:26,
Gen 2:7, and Gen 1:28. Finally, in Haer. 4.11.2 Irenaeus reads Gen 1:28 as a paradigm for human growth that is realized in the unfolding of salvation history.
Second, he also presents canonical arrangements of texts that intentionally unite passages from the prophets and apostolic writings. The canonical linkage is a means for Irenaeus to marshal the entire corpus of divine revelation in one continuous witness to the Word working though the Father from creation to glorification. He demonstrates this style of intertextual argumentation in Haer. 4.20.1 where he draws together an Old Testament reference (Mal 2:10), an apostle (Eph 4:6) and the words of the Lord (Matt 11:27). In a similar fashion, in Haer. 4.16.1 he provides an eschatological reading of Gen 2:2–3 that links Moses
(Exod 20:12, Exod 31:13), Christ (Matt 6:19), and Paul (Rom 8:36).
Third, Irenaeus arranges texts in a creedal fashion that bears some resemblance to the narrative accounts above. For example, in Haer. 3.3.3 he summarizes the apostolic tradition of 1 Clement with a narrative account of the history of salvation that includes, among others, echoes of Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7.
Unlike the rest of the summary the key verbs in these echoes function as verbal nouns that identify the nature of God as Creator all things and Maker of man.
The remaining narratival arrangement is dependent upon these descriptions.
It contains passages depicting God's activity throughout covenantal history, and culminating in the judgment of Satan (Matt 25:41).25
Finally, one qualification of the narrative function is that Irenaeus does not always cite the events according to the original sequence as presented in the text, but for theological purposes can report a narrative in an alternative progression. For example, in order to communicate that the fullness of the curse fell upon the serpent he discusses the curses of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in reverse order, beginning with Adam in Gen 3:17–19, then Eve, and then the serpent in Gen 3:14.26 In another instance he cites the arrangement: Gen 1:1, Gen
1:11, Gen 1:9, and Gen 2:6, in order to connect the creation of flora in the former two passages, and the creation of water in the latter two texts.27
7.3.7
Prosopological Reading of Gen 1–3 Another style of intertextual reading is prosopological interpretation, which is a method of literary analysis that identifies the interlocutors within the 25 Haer. 1.10.1, Haer. 1.22.1.
26 Haer. 3.23.3.
27 Haer. 3.11.9.
CHAPTER 7
fabric of the textual dialogue. Specifically, this style of exegesis focuses on the particular characters, speakers, titles, pronouns, or persons, who are active in the narrative of Gen 1–3, and connects these specific individuals with a particular person of the trinity. Often this takes the form of citing or conflating sets of scripture passages to prove the activity of the Word and Wisdom with the Father in creation.
In Haer. 1.22.1, he links the identity of the Creator in Genesis with the "Father"
(Pater) of Abraham (Exod 3:6) and the "Father" (Pater) of Jesus (Eph 1:3), and this same Creator and Father fashioned all things by means of the Word (John
1:3). Irenaeus also assumes the act of creation involves not only the Father, but also the Word and Wisdom of God. Beginning in Gen 1:3, he describes how God created all things by means of the Word (John 1:3).28 In Haer. 2.30.9 he conflates references to Word of God in Heb 1:3 and the Wisdom of God in Mand
1 in order to communicate the activity of the Word and Wisdom in creation.
In Haer. 3.11.5, the connections between Gen 1–2 and John 2 are arranged to identify the Creator in Gen 1 with the one who performed the miracle at the wedding in Cana. In Haer. 3.21.10, he again links John 1:3 and Gen 2:7, and then in Haer. 3.24.2 he alludes to the Word of Psalm 32(33):6 and the Wisdom of Prov 8:30 in continuity with Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7. In Haer. 4.pf.4,
Irenaeus interprets the proclamation of Gen 1:26 as the two "hands of God," the Son and the Spirit, and then in Haer. 4.6.2 he converts the verbal forms of the acts of creation into titles for God as a means to identify the Creator. The same dialogical emphasis is found in Haer. 4.10.1, where Irenaeus alludes to the Son of God inquiring after Adam in Gen 3:9. 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. The same theological reading of creation is found in Haer. 4.32.1, where he alludes to John 1:3, Eph 4:5–6, 15–16, and Col 2:19. In Haer. 5.1.1–3, Irenaeus also interprets the incarnation in Luke
1:35 in a typological relationship to the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7, and the reference to divine plural in Gen 1:26. The same divine persons creating Adam in Gen 2:7 are also active in the incarnation in Luke 1:35. Finally, in Haer. 5.5.1–2 the "hands of God," drawn from allusions to Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, communicate the notion of preservation and protection of the substance of the flesh. All of these instances are derived from the literary analysis of the text and attention to the divine persons active in the narrative.
28 Haer. 2.2.5.
Conclusion 7.3.8
Illustrative Application of Gen 1–3 In a strategy that is similar to his prosopological reading, Irenaeus also applies the images and language of Gen 1–3 in an illustrative fashion. In these instances, either the images in Genesis exemplify a particular theological concept expressed elsewhere in scripture, or other scriptures are used to exemplify
Irenaeus' reading of Gen 1–3. In many cases Irenaeus uses these textual images for polemical purposes and identifies those of his contemporary setting with particular characters and images in the Genesis creation accounts.
First, his most frequent application is the characterization of the Gnostics as contemporary manifestations of the serpent (Haer. 3.23.1, 8, Haer. 4.pf.4, and Haer. 5.26.2). Just as the serpent deceived Adam and Eve in Gen 3:1–5, the heretics are deceiving the faithful and leading them away from the true knowledge of God. Irenaeus encourages the faithful to learn from the example of Adam and Eve, and reject the teaching of the heretics. In Haer. 3.23.8 and Haer. 5.26.2 he also adds that the eternal fire of Matt 25:41 was not prepared for the faithful, but for Satan and his companions who continually deceive God's people.
Similarly, in Haer. 5.1.1–3 he utilizes the bread-making imagery of 1 Cor 5:6–7 to interpret Gen 2:7 and Luke 1:35. The Gnostics, for Irenaeus, remain in the "old leaven," which is the "old" substance of Adam's formation that was conquered and expelled from paradise.
Second, he uses the imagery of Gen 1–3 to illustrate general aspects of his theological framework. In Haer. 3.24.1 he imagines the breath of God that is imparted to Adam in Gen 2:7 as the church, or the "vessel" of Matt 12:29, has received the precious deposit of the Spirit. In Haer. 5.20.1–2, Irenaeus describes the church as the manifestation of paradise in the present age and petitions the Gnostics to flee to the church and be nourished by the scriptures. Combining the imagery of Gen 2:8, Gen 2:16–17, Rom 12:3, and Eph 1:10, he imagines that the faithful find themselves in a position similar to Adam. Just as God commanded Adam, he encourages the faithful to partake from all the trees of the garden, or all the scriptures, but refrain from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the teaching of the Gnostics. Finally, in Haer. 5.3.1, he alludes to the power of God to raise the flesh in Heb 11:19 and 1 Cor 15:53 and then illustrates this power with God's original creative work in Gen 2:7.
7.3.9
General-to-Particular Reading of Gen 1–3 The last of his reading strategies is the classical general-to-particular or partwhole style of argumentation. These texts are not united through their verbal connections or patterning, but the way they represent either the general or particular aspect of a specific theological term or concept. In Haer. 1.22.1 and Haer. 4.20.1–4 he binds general allusions to Psalm 32(33):6, John 1:3, Col 1:16,