1.
Wicked
Husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-45; AH 4.36.1-4)
2.
Great Supper
(Matt. 22:1-14; AH 4.36.5-6)
3.
Prodigal Son
(Luke 15:11-32; AH 4.36.7)
4.
Workers in the
Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16; AH 4.36.7).
5.
Pharisee and
the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14; AH 4.36.8).
6.
Two Sons
(Matt. 21:28-32; AH 4.36.8)
7.
Barren Fig
Tree (Luke 13:6-9; AH 4.36.8).
8.
Sheep and
Goats (Matt. 25:31-46; AH 4.40.2)
9.
Wheat and
Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; AH 4.40.2)
The first three parables
signify that “the prophets were sent from one and the same Father” (4.36.5), an
argument that strikes directly at Marcion’s claim that the God of the Hebrew
Bible was different from the Christian God. The parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen, for example, demonstrates the unity of the God of the “Mosaic
dispensation” and the God of Jesus, because it is the same “householder”
(Jesus’ Father) who sends both his servants (i.e., the prophets) and his son (i.e.,
Jesus). God now rejects those who rejected the Son of God—those of the “former
dispensation to whom the vineyard was formerly entrusted”—and has given the
vineyard to the Gentiles—the Church—who were formerly outside the vineyard.
Irenaeus’s discussion of
the Workers in the Vineyard provides an excellent example of his parable
interpretation: The householder is God and the workers called at different
times of the day demonstrate the continuity between the God of the Hebrew Bible
and the Christian God:
the
same God is declared as having called some in the beginning, when the world was
first created; but others afterwards, and others during the intermediate period
[i.e., the time between Moses and Jesus; cf. AH 4.25.1], others after a long lapse of time, and others again in
the end of time; so that there are many workmen in their generations, but only
one householder who calls them together. For there is but one vineyard, since
there is also but one righteousness, and one dispensator, for there is one Spirit
of God who arranges all things; and in like manner is there one hire, for they
all received a penny each man, having [stamped upon it] the royal image and
superscription, the knowledge of the Son of God, which is immortality. And
therefore He began by giving the hire to those [who were engaged] last, because
in the last times, when the Lord was revealed He presented Himself to all [as
their reward].
Irenaeus’ use of allegory
is rather restrained in comparison to other early interpreters, such as the Gnostics
against whom he writes, and this example does not take interpreters much
farther down an allegorical path than does the author of Matthew’s Gospel.
Reventlow suggests that it was in fact Irenaeus’s “anti-gnostic attitude” that
led him to downplay the allegorical “spiritual” meaning (i.e., not separating a
“bodily” meaning and a “spiritual” meaning) more than later interpreters.
In this section of Against Heresies, Irenaeus continually
focuses on the role of the fathers in the parables, whom he interprets as
symbolizing God, because he wants to stress that the God of the old
dispensation is the same as the God of the new dispensation. In addition, since
Irenaeus argues that interpretations of the parables must in harmony with the
other part of Scriptures, whatever is unclear or ambiguous in the parables can
be elucidated by other passages that are clear and unambiguous. Therefore, in
his parable interpretations, Irenaeus often “prooftexts”—citing other Scripture
passages without regard for the context because of a perceived relationship in
words or ideas to the first passage.
An example of such
prooftexting can be found in Irenaeus’s interpretation of the “parable” of the
Fig Tree: The tree’s barrenness signifies that Israel, from the time of the
prophets, was barren of “the fruit of righteousness” and that the tree
therefore should be cut down. Irenaeus then explains by citing Matthew
23:37-38, where Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem because, even
though he desired to gather them “as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,”
they had killed the prophets and were rejecting him.
The parable of the Good
Samaritan also demonstrates the continuity of God: the same “Spirit of God”
(the Comforter/Paraclete) given to Gideon, Isaiah, and others in the Hebrew
Bible has now been conferred upon the church (Against Heresies 3.17.3). Here Irenaeus also laid the foundation
for later allegorical interpretations of the parable. He implies that the
Samaritan represents Jesus who had compassion upon and tended to the wounds of
the injured man, who symbolizes the human race. Jesus also pays “two royal
denaria” to the innkeeper, who represents the Holy Spirit and who is our
advocate against the “accuser” (i.e., the devil).
Irenaeus was a pioneer in
many ways. He emphasized not only harmony of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian
scriptures, but he was one of the first writers who treated Christian writings
as authoritative scripture on the same level as the Hebrew Bible.
I like how Robert Grant states
it. Irenaeus, he says,
gathered
up and combined the traditions of his predecessors from Asia Minor, Syria, and
Rome and used them to refute the Gnostics who were subverting the Gospel. He
built up a body of Christian theology that resembled a French Gothic cathedral,
strongly supported by columns of biblical faith and tradition, illuminated by
vast expanses of exegetical and logical argument, and upheld by flying
buttresses of rhetorical and philosophical considerations from the outside. In
his own person he united the major traditions of Christendom from Asia Minor,
Syria, Rome, and Gaul (1997: 1).
In addition to the general
works about the early church I mentioned in previous posts, here are a couple
works specific to Irenaeus that I found particularly helpful.
Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading?: A Guide to Irenaeus. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1997.
Robert Grant, Irenaeus
of Lyons. London: Routledge, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment