AH 3.24.2: Knowledge of the Creator (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 2:7)

In AH 3.24.2 Irenaeus makes a final parting critique by suggesting the Gnostics reject

a priori any conception of God within grasp of human knowledge. According to Irenaeus, the fundamental knowledge of God accessible to the human mind is the understanding of God as Creator, which Behr terms the “pedagogy of the

economy.”137 _{In making this assertion, Irenaeus implies his Gnostics opponents}

reject the basic premise of all reality, the knowledge of the God revealed in the formation of humankind. In the midst of this polemic, Irenaeus draws together a network of passages that insist the knowledge of God accessible to all is the

knowledge of the God, “who created [Gen 1:26] and formed [Gen 2:7a] and breathed into us the breath of life [Gen 2:7b] and nurtures us through creation [Gen 1:28], strengthening us by His Word [Psalm 32:6 LXX], and binding all things together in His Wisdom [Prov 8:30], this is who is the one true God” (qui fecit et plasmauit et insufflationem uitae insufflauit in eis et per conditionem nutrit nos, Verbo suo confirmans et Sapientia compingens omnis, hic est qui est solus uerus Deus).138 _{For Irenaeus, the concern}

is the connection between the Creator and the creature and the knowledge of God’s act of creation, not necessarily God’s “greatness” (magnitudinem) or even God’s “nature” (substantiam).139 _{Instead, this narratival arrangement of creation texts is}

134_{AH 3.24.1.}

135 _{In the remaining portion of AH 3.24.1 continues to describe the deposit (deposita est) of the Holy}

Spirit into the church. He characterizes the work of the Spirit with three aspects drawn from other texts: “pledge of incorruption” (arrha incorruptelae) in Eph 1:14, “confirmation” (confirmatio) in Col 2:7, and “ladder of ascent” (scala ascensionis) in Gen 28:12.

136_{AH 3.24.2. Connecting the “body” imagery envisions the Spirit as nourishment from the Mother’s}

breast and a radiant fountain. cf. 1 Thess 2:7, Psalm 22:9, Luke 11:27.

137 _{Behr, Asceticism, 67.} 138_{AH 3.24.2.}

bound up with the identity of God and the nature of God’s relationship to humanity. The movement from Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 1:28, Psalm 32:6 LXX, and Prov 8:30 is not an unusual cluster of texts for Irenaeus.140 _{The verb fecit refers to the act of creation}

in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), while plasmauit depicts the act of

forming Adam from the dust (Gen 2:7). The remaining portion of Gen 2:7b is cited in the reference to the breathing in of the breath of life. The phrase “nurtures us through creation” (et per conditionem nutrit nos) is an echo of Gen 1:28 that describes the growth and maturity of humankind in and through what is created.141 _This

connection points to the creation texts Psalm 32:6 LXX and Prov 8:30 and described the “strengthening” (confirmans) of the Word and the “binding all things together” (compingens omnia) in Wisdom.142 _{The notions of strengthening and binding are the}

economic actions of the Son and the Spirit aimed at progressing the humanity toward their appointed salvation. This is why Irenaeus considers Gnostics to produce errant aberrations of the text, because they reject the very basic

knowledge of God and the “light” (lumen) that illuminates the understanding of God as Creator.143

4.10 Conclusion

With the close of AH 3, Irenaeus has completed the first summary of his own

theological system in response to the heretics. The contribution of Gen 1-3 serves to support the activity of God from creation to glorification. First, as we have seen before, Irenaeus coordinates texts in a narratival relationship. This includes a telescoped summary of salvation history in AH 3.3.3 that begins with allusions to creation and the description of the covenantal relationship, including the Adamic covenant, in AH 3.11.8. Irenaeus provides no substantive commentary on these texts, but simply arranges them in a narrative framework to depict the continuity of salvation history.

140_{cf. AH 2.28.1; AH 3.3.3.}

141 _{The retroversion parallels the terms “nourish” τρέφοντα and “increase” αὔξοντα the latter of}

which is the same term used in Gen 1:28 LXX. cf. Epid 11, 14; AH 3.10.3; AH 3.22.4; AH 4.11.1

142 _{Although he is not explicit, the connection of these texts with the creation passages is reminiscent}

of the use of the hands imagery. The “Word” and the “Wisdom” are active in the formation and ordering of creation.

Second, Irenaeus uses Gen 1-3, alongside other texts, to order or structure his work. This is most evident in a series of chiasms he forms in the latter portions of the book. The texts of Gen 2:5 and Gen 2:7 frame the chiasm in AH 3.18.1 and AH

3.18.7, and Gen 2:7 and Gen 3:1-8 contribute to the first part of the chiasm in AH

3.19.3 and AH 3.20.1. The most developed organizational function of Gen 1-3 and the climax of his recapitulative argument is found in AH 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 the intervening sections of the chiasm draw from 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 3:23-24. 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 90:13 LXX, 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. Outside of Epid 11-16, this is the most developed and coherent reading of Gen 1-3 in all of Irenaeus’ extant work.

Third, a common means of coordinating passages is vocabulary or

catchwords that make philological connections between texts. In many cases these are explanatory in nature and offer qualifications or definitions for the terms in Gen 1-3. In AH 3.11.5, he links the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana with the creation of flora (Gen 1:11), including the grapevine, and water (Gen 1:9). A particularly common linking term is the substance of Adam’s flesh or “formation” (plasma) and the related images that he connects with the substance of plasma, which is not surprising given his anti-Gnostic polemic. In AH 3.18.1, the language of “formation” (plasma) and “human being” (hominem) links Gen 2:7, John 1:14, and Eph 1:10. Similar imagery is located in AH 3.18.7, but he adds the allusion to the “virgin soil” (terra rudis) in Gen 2:5, which corresponds to the virgin birth of Christ and their subsequent contrastive acts of disobedience and obedience (Rom 5:12, 19). In AH

3.19.3 we find similar descriptions that relate Adam’s “formation” (plasma) with the lost “sheep” (ouem) of Luke 15:4, and the “earth” (terra) of Eph 4:9. Similarly, in AH

3.21.10 he connects Adam’s “formation” (plasma) that is drawn from the “untilled earth” (ruditerra) of Gen 2:5 with the Word of God who forms all things (John 1:3) and the Adam-Christ typology of Rom 5:12, 19. Then, in AH 3.22.1, Irenaeus describes

the “meek” (mites) nature of the flesh that is fashioned from the “earth” (terra, Matt 5:5, Gen 2:7). The three concluding sections of the chiasm in AH 3.23.6-8, contain the imagery of “life” (vitae, Gen 2:9, Rom 6:10), “serpent” (serpentem, Gen 3:15, Psalm 90:13 LXX, Rev 12:9/20:2), “seed” (semen, Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16,19), and “to tread upon” (calcare, Gen 3:15, Luke 10:19). These provide intricate linguistic or verbal

connections between Gen 3:15 and the person and work of Christ.

Fourth, there are also general conceptual, theological, or typological connections that are not necessarily identifiable with any particular philological relationship. In most cases these connections are crafted through his theological perspective, and often closely related to a particular aspect of the work of Christ. The relationship between these texts is theologically symbiotic in the sense that each passage supports, extends, or demarcates the interpretation of other texts. As we mentioned above, in AH 3.11.5 the connections between Gen 1-2 and John 2 are ordered by a perspective that links that identity and work of the Creator with the identity and activity of Christ. A general Adam-Christ typology in AH 3.18.1 binds together Gen 2:7 and John 1:14, and these theological connections are supported by Deut 32:4 and Eph 1:10. The same theological perspective harmonizes Gen 2:5 with Rom 5:12,19, where Irenaeus’ typological connections extend the logic of Paul’s Adam-Christ typology. The “descending” (descendere) and “ascending” (ascendere) imagery in AH 3.19.3 binds the Incarnation and the ascension though linking Isa 7:11, Luke 15:4-6, and Eph 4:9-10. The object of salvation in each case is man formed from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7). In AH 3.20.1, Irenaeus follows an Adam-Jonah typology and reads the account of Jonah in light of the events of the Garden alongside Matt 12:39-40 and 1 Cor 1:29. The “sign of Jonah” in Matt 12:39-40 is the controlling text, which serves to coordinate Jonah 1:9, Jonah 2:1-2, and Jonah 3:1, 8- 9, with an allusion to the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:5-8. In this reading, the “great whale” (magna ceto) is Satan, who deceives the first couple in the Garden, but Adam, like Jonah, received an unexpected salvation from the captivity of this “whale.” In yet another typological relationship, Irenaeus reads the actions of Eve in correspondence to those of Mary in AH 3.22.1. Whereas Eve becomes 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. Finally, the chiasm of AH 3.23.1-8 and the closing sections abound with conceptual and theological connections. There is a general connection

between creation in the image of God and salvation in AH 3.23.2, where the work of Christ has overcome the hostile force that took captive humanity that was created in the image of God. The condemnation of this evil one is confirmed in the links between the curse of Gen 3:14 and the eternal fire described in Matt 25:41. The Adam-Cain typology in AH 3.23.4-5 also continues the various typological

relationships mentioned previously. While Cain was insolent before God, Adam was contrite; and his contrition is aptly described as the proper fear of God in Prov 1:7.

Fifth, Irenaeus conflates texts with a type of prosopological

(prosopographic) interpretation where he identifies individuals in Gen 1-3 with other persons mentioned elsewhere in scripture. In AH 3.21.10, the Word of God creating all things in John 1:3 is the same person creating Adam in Gen 2:7. In the closing section of AH 3.24.2, he provides a more developed perspective on the activity of God in creation by reading the Word of Psalm 32:6 LXX and the Wisdom of Prov 8:30 in continuity with Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, and Gen 2:7.

Sixth, Irenaeus also demonstrates an illustrative application of texts, where he uses passages to exemplify a theological argument. In AH 3.23.8 he portrays the Gnostics as contemporary manifestations of the serpent, who are, like the serpent, attempting to deceive the people of God and lead them into disobedience. Then, in

AH 3.24.1 he compares the breath of God that is imparted to Adam in Gen 2:7 with the church as the vessel of Matt 12:29 that has received the precious deposit of the Spirit.

From beginning to end all of these intertextual strategies guide his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 as he crafts his theological polemic against the Gnostics. The complexities of his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3 only continue to develop in AH 4-5 as he advances his Christological and anthropological

CHAPTER 5: THE INTERTEXTUAL RECEPTION OF GENESIS 1-3 IN BOOK 4