Gregorianum

86, 4 (2005)

723-741

test or preserve?

The prohibition
of Gen 2.16-17
in the thought of two second-century
exegetes.
Why forbid the tree? Of ali the questione that arise from a reading of
the Genesis protology, that over why God prevented Adam and ve from
partaking of the tree of knowledge is of perennial curiosity. Of ali the trees
in Paradise humanity is given to eat, except that which it seems most logi
cai, and indeed desirable, for a loving God to provide to his beloved crea
tion. That which is denied is knowledge, not of evil only but also of good,
and in the most absolute manner. On the day that you partake of it, on that
very day you shall surely die (Gen 2:17). The tree of knowledge, whose
subject is so deeply at the heart of the human image of God that many rea
ders equate it, partially or fully, with the divine imago, is the only element
of existence which God forbids his newly-fashioned
creature.
Why

should

God

do

such

a thing?

Reflections

on

this

question

go

back

to the earliest days of Christian theological consideration,

predating even
the advent of what most would cali theology proper (usually attributed to
Irenaeus), figuring prominently in the work of the apologists. Yet the abi
ding fascination, and in many cases discomfort, with the dilemma reveals
its continuing centrality and importance to Christian visions of the nature
of God in his relationship to humankind.
In our own day it holds the same
to
the
Christian
mind
as
it
did in the first and second cen
power
challenge

turies ad, and thus is eminently deserving of our continued consideration.

In what follows, I shall aim to explore the contrasting answers to the que
in
stion posed by two second-century
sources: the apologist Theophilus
Antioch (fi. c. 180)1 and the heresiologist and proto-theologian
Irenaeus
1 The dates

Chronicon sets the start of his episcopacy

are difficult. Eusebius'
with the papacy of Soter. His successor, Maximus, served concurrently with
to whom Irenaeus
was commended
(177-193),
by the Church in Lyons.
lived at least past 180, since he mentions the death of M. Aurelius at Ad Autolycum
Theophilus
3.28, which took place on 17 March of that year. On the dating of Theophilus,
(hereafter AdAutol.)
- Text and Translation,
cf. R.M. Grant, Theophilus
Oxford, 1970, ix-x; F.W. Norris,
of Antioch
in
E.
of
Antioch
Ferguson,
Theophilus
Enciclopdia
ofEarly Christianity, London, 1998,1122.
for Theophilus

at ad 169, concurrent
Eleutherus
of Rome

724

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

in Lyons (c. ad 140-202/3).2 Though Theophilus'

contribution to our study
will be the shorter of the two (for his treatment of the text is less extensive
In the
than that of Irenaeus), we shall see that it is of no less importance.
views
will
in
we
the
of
these
authors
be
what
end,
brought together
might
consider a composite response to the matter at hand.
The stage is set
While

it may now be commonplace

in Pentateuchal
to
scholarship
authors
and
source
accounts
in
the
Genesis
and
protology,
identify multiple
specifcally two creation narratives in chapters 1-3 of that text, we must
note from the outset that Christian commentators
and expositors of the
second century did not share this source-critical
or its con
methodology
clusione.
For the two sources
under
consideration,
presently
namely

and Irenaeus, the account of creation in Genesis is single and

Theophilus
second
account
unifed, with modem
(i.e. Gen 2:4-25)
scholarship's
understood by both authors as a clarification and expansion of the broader
details of what modem scholarship
calls the first (Gen 1:1-2:3). The pro
of
the
creation
narrative
from
Gen 1 to Gen 2 is seen as the unfol
gression
ding revelation

of a single whole, which may be divided thematically more

than
appropriately
by source influence. Gen 1:1-25 speaks of the creation of
the cosmos and the physical world with its non-human
inhabitants; 1:26-27
recounts the creation of the human person, then situated by 1:28-2:3 into
the cosmos previously fashioned; Gen 2:4-24 goes on to focus more closely
upon this human formation in its particular elements (constitution of the
person, relationship to the earth, relationship to God). For both Theophilus
and Irenaeus, the details of Gen 2 expand on those of 1:26-27, with the nar
rative's second chapter containing what we might cali anthropology proper,
whereas Gen 1 had contained,
insofar as it touched upon man, only the
basic anthropogony
(though with the text's most potent declaration of the
fundamental
anthropological
reality of the imago Dei). In Gen 2, the cha
racter of human nature is set out in its being called forth into existence and
placed

into the context of the cosmos

prepared

for the sake of its develop

2
of ad 98 (Dodwell)
or 120 (Lightfoot) for Irenaeus'
birth
Early suggestions
130 and 140 of Osborn
(E. Osborn, Irenaeus
given way to the between
ofLyons,
recollections
of Polycarp
2001, 2) based on Irenaeus'
(d. 155/156) whom he saw
man. For Grant, this suggests a rather firm date of about ad 140 (ibid.), though
this makes Irenaeus
too young to take up the episcopacy
c. 177/178. On the date
death,

have

largely

Cambridge,
as a young
for Osborn
of Irenaeus'

the usually-ascribed
date is sometime
at the dose of the second or beginning
of the third
in agreement
with the record in Jerome's Commentary
on Isaias 64, which reports
in 202/203
as a later interpolation);
cf. R.M. Grant,
(often discounted
martyrdom

century,
Irenaeus'
Irenaeus

1997,
of Lyons, London,
martyrs de Lyon, Paris, 1978,145-52.

2; J. van der Straeten,

Saint-Irne

fut-il martyr?

in Les

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

725

ment and growth. Gen 3, then, expands on 2:16-17 (the prohibition against
the tree of knowledge), recounting the events which led to the disruption of
the intended course of that development.
In this reading the prohibition of 2:16-17 stands at the pinnacle of the
narrative of Genesis. The earth has been fashioned, filled
anthropological
and handed to humanity, and as God presents this new life and order to the

first humans, his final words in the creative monologue

access to the tree of knowledge.
And

the

Lord

God

commanded

are those forbidding

Of every
man,
saying,
of the knowledge
of good
of it you shall surely die.

the

you may freely eat; but of the tree

not eat, for in the day that you eat

tree
and

of the

garden
evil you shall

Ali that has gone before has led up to the placement of man in Paradise
and his being gifted by God with stewardship of the place. As the anthropo
gony thus concludes and the story of the human economy proper begins, it
is this - a prohibition - that serves as its initiation.
To test and inspire: Theophilus

ofAntioch

For Theophilus,
how we understand this prohibition sets the tenor of
our whole conception
of God's relationship to man, and indeed our vision
of the cosmos and humanity's place within it. He addresses his exposition
to three particular questions prone to arise from a reading of the text: Was
the tree evil? Is knowledge evil? Does (and if so, why does) God hold back his

blessings from man?

The first two questions are interrelated, and the most obvious to arise
from a basic reading of the prohibition. Assuming that God is benevolent
and loving in his interactions with the human formation, one may conse
quently assume that he would only prevent from the latter's access that
which is harmful or damaging. As such, are we to understand that there is
in the tree of knowledge something which, though we may not necessarily
is in some sense negative? This seems a
wish to cali it evil, nonetheless
comes down staunchly in the negative:
feasible reading, but Theophilus
The

tree

not

was
of knowledge
as some
death,

contain

there
uses

was

nothing

itself

good,

suppose;

and
death

in the fruit but knowledge,

its fruit was

was
and

the result

For the tree

good.
of disobedience.

knowledge

is good

when

did
For
one

it properly.3

3 Ad.Au.tol.
example

2.25. Cf. the Apocalypse

Corpus (II,1) 21.21-36, for an
ofjohn in NagHammadi
of Theophilus'
that flts the caricature
tradition (ofValentinian
descent)
in the Gospel ofTruth in NagHammadi
is expressed
some. A similar sentiment

of one Gnostic

anonymous
as the some to
background,
Corpus (1,3) 17.18-20. Grant puts forward Apelles, of Marcionite
which Theophilus
Theophilus
ofAntioch, 67 . 1).
may have been referring (cf. R. M. Grant,

726

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

To attribute evil or fault to the tree or the knowledge it contains is, by

the text. There can
Theophilus'
reading, fundamentally to misunderstand
be no evil in the tree, for the tree contains but knowledge, which of itself is
- for we must
good when one uses it properly. Indeed, how could it be else
not forget that the tree was created and planted by God (cf. Gen 2:9), for
ming part of the creation which God beheld and saw that it was good, yet

very good. Whatever evil may come from the partaking of the fruit must
not, therefore, be attributed to the fruit or its contents. Rather, Theophilus
identifes the source of the evil - of the death promised in Gen 2:17 - with

the act of disobedience

by which Adam and ve partook of the fruit forbid
den them by God. It is in this, in the sin of transgression, that the tree brings
death, itself only the passive agent and focal object of the act. The conse
quence of sin, namely death, springs up from the will of man, not the fruit
of the tree.

This reading, however, only begs more urgently the great puzzle of the
narrative: why did God prohibit the eating of this particular tree in the first
statement that there was nothing in the fruit but
place? Given Theophilus'
and
knowledge,
knowledge is good when one uses it properly, God's pre
vention of man's approach to this fruit seems even more inexplicable
than
it might, were we to consider

in

the

tree

from

which

God

that there was something

was

man.

protecting

But

genuinely
the

tree

negative

is

good,

its

contents are good, and from these God holds man back. In explication of
this seeming paradox, Theophilus
puts forward a reading of Gen 2:16-17
which would, by and large, become the standard among future expositors.
He writes later in the same passage:
God
mand.

wanted
At the

to test
same

[Adam],
time,

to see

he also

whether

wanted

he would

the man

be

obedient

to remain

to his

com

and since
simple
not
duty
only befo

re for a longer
in infancy.
For this is a holy
time, remaining
re God but before
in simplicity
and without
malice.
men, to obey one's parente
And if children
must obey their parents,
how much
more must they obey the
God and Father
of the universe!

The prohibition is a test. It is not a malignant test, wrought at God's

hands as a domineering
gesture of power, but a test designed to foster
obedience
to
its
maker. God wishes to see whether Adam will be
humanity's
obedient (here a strong similarity to the Akedah, cf. Gen 22:1,12, where God

is similarly said to have wanted to see whether Abraham would be obe

also to encourage
and engender
dient), yet he wishes
obedience.
is
that one cannot be obedient without a law or
Theophilus'
implication
command
to which obedience
might be given, and thus God provides the
prohibition in order that man might learn to obey the God and Father of
the universe.
In his reading of the prohibition,

Theophilus'

point of emphasis

may be

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

727

identified as the propriety of humanity's relationship to God. The creator

establishes
the divine command
in order that proper humility and obe
dience might be engendered
in the human formation. The evil (including
death) which comes from the transgression is the result of those virtues
being distorted and abused. God sees, and ultimately man also sees, that

is not evident in humanity, and from this revelation

propriety, obedience,
the economy of salvation can be set properly in perspective.
We might also note that Theophilus hints at, but does not greatly deve
the
lop,
reality of the tree of knowledge as indicative of a dynamic relation
between
God and man. To say that knowledge is good when one uses
ship

it properly suggests that there may at some point be a time when the
discretion to do so shall lie within man's power. Theophilus
calls to mind a
drink
milk
child who must
before progressing to solid foods, and even says
outright that as one grows in age and in an orderly fashion, so one grows in

ability to think.4 The impropriety of partaking of the tree of knowledge is

does not further expand
this notion
temporary, temporal. Theophilus
within the context of the prohibition against the tree, though he does so in
other contexts in the Ad Autolycum. We find, however, that it lies right at the
heart of the reading of the prohibition put forth by Irenaeus of Lyons.
To protect and preserve: Irenaeus

of Lyons

It seems to be of importance
sente the prohibition in question,

for Irenaeus

(Gen

sgression

3),

appearing

earlier

that Gen 2:16-17, which pre

is offset from the full account of the tran
in the

text

as

part

of the

creation

narra

tive of Gen 1-2 and indeed bisecting that narrative. The verses which prece
de it describe the contente of the Garden (including the tree of life and the
tree of knowledge in 2:9), and those to follow address Adam's activities in his
new home, while the contents of 2:16-17 represent the first words, the first
of a blessing upon the
commands,
given by God since his pronouncement
six days' work (Gen 2:3). Irenaeus extrapolates, from the inser
completed
tion of this prohibition into the very heart of the creation saga in its anthro
itself forms part of the formative
pogonic element, that the commandment

work of the creator for his creation. The prohibition is an active manoeuvre
of God in fashioning his human formation, even as were the drawing up
from the dust and the breathing of the divine breath. It is not merely a nega

4 Ad.Autol.

child unable to eat solid food and thus nou

2.25. The allegory of the newborn
age, comes to solid food, is employed
by its mother's milk, but which, with increasing
at Adversus haereses (hereafter AH)
also by Irenaeus,
drawing from this text in Theophilus,
that God intends
indicates
2.26. In 2.24, Theophilus
4.38-39.
See also Ad.Autol.
specifcally
a God. Cf. A.J.
and ascend
to heaven,
Adam to grow into perfection
having been declared
rished

Droge,

Homer

1989, 104.

or Moses?

Early

Christian

Interpretations

of the History

of Culture,

TUbingen,

MATTHEW

728

C. STEENBERG

tive proscription, but a positive affirmation of the proper limits of human

It is in this sense that Irenaeus
knowing in its present stage of development.
at
the
text
of
the
utilises
Epideixis (hereafter Epid.) 15, where
prohibition
it is placed at the end of his long treatment of the creation saga, in some
sense completing ali that has gone before:
But, in order

that the man

ted, as if he had
boldness

no Lord,

towards

God

should
and,

nor he exal
of grandeur
thoughts
of the authority
given to the man and the
his own measure,
and adopt
sin, passing
beyond
not entertain

because

his creator,

God, a law was given to him from

arrogance
against
certain
that he might know that he had as lord the Lord of ali. And he placed
of God, he would
limits upon
him, so that, if he should
keep the commandment
he should
not keep it, he
remain
as he was, that is, immortai;
if, however,
always
an atttude

of self-conceited

God,

into the earth whence

his frame was taken. And
dissolving
but of
this: You may eat ffeely from every tree of Paradise,
of good and evil, you shall not eat; for on
that tree alone, whence
is the knowledge
the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die (Gen 2:16-17).

would

become

the commandment

mortai,

was

Such words clearly demonstrate Irenaeus' understanding of the prohibi

tion against the tree of knowledge as an active work in forming the character
of man. Even as the physical limitations of the flesh provide the boundaries
within which humanity's carnai nature is meant to be expressed, so does the
divinely imposed limitation of the Edenic law provide the boundary within
which its intellect and free will shall properly function. The prohibition again
st eating from the tree of knowledge is, for Irenaeus, God's establishment of
the proper realm within which the human creature's intellect and reason may
be employed in the course of its growth. This is a unique observation on
Irenaeus' part, and one whose implications have not figured prominendy
enough in modem scholarship. Through it, Irenaeus puts forth the idea that
knowledge itself, as an element within the composite being of humankind,
must have reign only within the proper scope of its capabilities and prepa
redness at any given point in its development.
Knowledge must not exalt
man to a state of self-professed grandeur that exceeds his own measure. To

do so is to use improperly the authority, the rational faculty given to man by

God, for a purpose beyond that for which it is intended. The prohibition of
2:16-17 is a safety provided to guard against a potential danger inherent in
man's possession of a free and self-determining will.5
It is only possible to understand fully the manner of Irenaeus' analysis
if one reads Epid. 15 in the light of A/75.20.2, where he employs Gen 2:16 in
an ad hominem manner against the heretics;

5 See S.
Life on Earth in Journal of the Moscow
Korolyov, Heavenly
writer's assertion of the same point: The commandment

for a modem

the Tree of Knowledge

to Goodness.

of Good

Pairiarchate
3 (1983) 74
not to eat of the fruit of

and Evil was given in order to train man's will through

obedience

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

Itbehovesus

[...]
from

any injury
her bosom,

but

scriptum
heretical

and

doctrines,

to take

to flee to the Church

be nourished

with the Lord's

as a garden
(paradisus)
may freely eat from every

planted
You

and

toavoidtheir
them;

in this

729

and

careful
be

scriptures.
therefore

heed

lest we

suffer

in
brought
up (educari)
For the Church
has been

the Spirit of God says,

tree of the garden,
that is, you may eat from every
of the Lord, but you shall not eat with an uplifted
mind, nor touch
any
discord.
For these men profess
that they themselves
have the knowled
world;

minds
God who made
above
ge of good and evil, and they set their own impious
them. On this account
on what is beyond
the limits of under
they form opinions
Wherefore
also the Apostle
what it is fit
standing.
says, Do not be wise beyond
(cf. Rom 12:3), that we not
ting to be wise, but be wise prudently
from the paradise
of life by eating of the knowledge
of these men
ledge

which

knows

more

than

be cast forth
- that know

it should.6

If we accept the common dating of Irenaeus' two works and place the
of the Epideixis after the completion
of the Adversus haereses
composition
there
no
reason
to
is
(and
convincing
challenge this7), it seems hard not to
conclude
that Epid. 15 is a refined and generalised
summation
of what
Irenaeus had written within a narrower context at AH 5.20.2. Both passages
take as their grounding Gen 2.16-17 {Epid. 15 directly quotes both verses;
AH 5.20.2 quotes only 2:16 but makes obvious allusion to 17), and both treat

the prohibition as dealing with the fitting and proper limitations to be pla
ced on man's use of his intellect and reason. The heretics profess a full
knowledge of good and evil, and set their own impious minds above the
God who made them - precisely the state of affairs against which, Irenaeus
argues at Epid. 15, God had originally invoked the prohibition as a guard.
Irenaeus' use of Paul, via Rom 12:3, in his argument in the Adversus haere
ses clarifies that he does not regard the wisdom of the tree itself as proble
matic, or even the genuine subject of God's prohibition; rather, the com
mandment guards against the misuse of such knowledge as the tree repre
sents and grants, against

the act of being

wise beyond

what is fitting.8

6 Sources

Chrtiennes
153, 258-61. This is the only instance in the corpus where Irenaeus
to the Church.
the garden of Paradise
7 The
of J. Behr (see J. Behr, The Formation
Theology,
of Christian
intriguing sentiments
New York, 2001, 30 . 34; Id., Ori the Apostolic Preaching,
New York,
voi. 1: The Way to Nicaea,
of the validity of those argu
n. 229) and others notwithstanding,
I am unconvinced
1997,118

relates

of these texts, based in part upon what

in favour of inverting the traditional chronology
in argumentative
structure front the ad hominem motif of the Adversus
to be refnements
of the Epideixis - as for exam
haereses to the more general, and more coherent, systematisation
considera
in the two passages
presenty under review. For a more developed
ple is evidenced
ments
seem

in M.C. Steenberg, Cosmic Anthropology:

Genesis
see my eariier comments
tion of this question,
and select Gnostic contem
1-11 in Irenaeus ofLyons, with special reference to Justin, Theophilus
poraries, D. Phil thesis, University of Oxford, 2003, 24-5.
8 This in
for example,
to the Gnostic Apocryphon
distinction,
ofjohn, where in 21.21-36
as godlessness,
whose fruit is deadly poison and its promise death: Nag
the tree is described

MATTHEW

730

Should

C. STEENBERG

human

knowledge be kept within appropriate bounds (not passing

its
own
then it is a knowledge that eats freely from
measure),
beyond
every tree of the Garden and nourishes man in his growth.9
The notion that specific proscriptions of the Law are meant to prevent
the overreaching of nature or of the bounds imposed on one's relationship
to the cosmos through his or her own nature, is found well antecedent
to

Philo had interpreted

of the Old
Irenaeus.
many of the regulations
Testament in such a manner: proscriptions against covetousness
mitigate
more deeply against uncontrolled
desire, which leads to such antisocial
activities as plunderings,
robberies, false accusations,
adulteries, even
murders;10 the Decalogue's
strives to prevent injustice

commandment
and desire
against covetousness
and warfare;11 and the proscription of murder is
handed down for the benefit of public utility ( ).12
In a similar vein, H. Maier has composed
a study on the ancient rea
ding of legai traditions through such an interpretive methodology, which in

Philo he rightly attributes to Stoic influences.13 By his analysis both of Philo

and of similar interpretations of metaphysical
from within
proscriptions
the philosophical
tradition,14 Maier conceives
primarily of social motiva
tions for such readings. His brief survey of Sirach, for example, concludes
with the declaration that regulations on wealth and riches are meant ulti
mately

to

protect

the

social

structure

of

notes, For this writer [i.e. the author

the

Israelite

of Sirach],

community.

then, the proper

Maier

use of

Corpus (II, 1) 21.21-36. Yet cf. the anonymous

Origin ofthe World in Nag Hammadi
on the tree of gnosis which shall open the mind of man. For one of the
Corpus (11,5) 110.8-111.1
few scholarly reflections on the prohibition
as protection,
see D. Ramos-Lissn,
Le rle de la
femme dans la thologie
de saint Irne in Studia Patristica 21 (1989) 167-8.
9 William Wordsworth
- if not
put forward a similar concep, showing its popularity
predo
minance - throughout history. The poet discemed
in life the need for a limitation on knowledge
and freedom, as an aid required to prevent men front becoming
those who have felt the weight of
too much liberty (Wordsworth,
The Sonnet, i). His Ode to Duty spells out a view of divine law
Hammadi

takes front Genesis:

Stern Lawgiver! yet thou dost wear / The
quite similar to that Irenaeus
Godhead's
most benignant grace; / Now know we anything so fair / As is the smile upon thy face:
/ Flowers laugh before thee on their beds, / And fragrance in thy footing treads; / Thou dost pre
serve the stars front wrong; / And the most ancient heavens, through Thee, are fresh and strong
(Ode to Duty, stanza 7). It is precisely this sense of preserving front wrong that Irenaeus detects

in the prohibition against partaking of the tree of knowledge before the appointed
time.
19See
Spec.Leg. 4.80-94.
11
See De.Dec.
152-53.
12
170. Cf. similar readings in Dee. 142; De agric. 43; Spec.Leg.
De.Dec.
1.173-74, 2.190; De
with
praem. et poen. 15; Quod omn. prob. 20, 79; De Joseph 29 ff. These and others mentioned
in H.O. Maier, Purity and danger in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:
discussion
The sin of

Valens

in social perspective
shall say more below.
13See ibid. 240.
11Ibid. 239-41.

in Journal

ofEarly

Christian

Studies

1 (1993)

240 n. 40, ofwhich

we

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

731

riches indicates an allegiance

to the ideals of the community of Israel.15
This pattern is traced through apocalyptic Judaism, where the abusers of
wealth [...] certainly bring social ills, but more importantly they symbolize
an unredeemed
realm of sin awaiting destruction,16 indicating primarily
that they are excluded from the true community of Israel. Ali this is the
preamble to the centrepiece of Maier's argument, namely that the brief refe
rence to the sin ofValens in the epistle of Polycarp [Poi. 11) reveals a similar
social context through which Polycarp understood the proscriptions of the
law. Maier's thesis here is straightforward:
In the case

danger

of Polycarp,
and

boundary

to relegate

of avarice

to connect
greed

is that it leads

avarice

with defllement

to the space
one

away

outside

is to establish

the community;

to a dangerous

state

a group

the primary

of idolatry.17

Maier may be reading a bit much into what is, after ali, an extremely
brief and almost passing reference to Valens in the Polycarpian epistle, but
his analysis of the tradition of legai interpretation through the philosophi

cal schools, into Judaism through Philo and the apocalyptic

era, right into
the Apostolic age is of interest. Throughout, he discovers an awareness on
the part of the ancient authors that the divine commandments
are to some
do
not
establish
boundaries
based
degree protective. They
simply
upon
God's authority and regal intent for his people, but based also on what is
best for that people in light of the naturai limitations or weaknesses
of its
character.18

To this end, Maier's conclusions

have hearing upon our present look at
Irenaeus' reading of the prohibition on the tree of knowledge. Just as Philo
could say that prohibitions against greed of money were meant to prevent
warfare and general immorality, and as Polycarp could imply that avari
ciousness
leads to the destruction of communal
or societal order, so can
Irenaeus come to regard the prohibition of Gen 2:16-17 as God's control
against a weakness in humanity's immature character. And even as wealth
may be good when used wisely, so, too, can the knowledge of the tree one
day come to be of good to humankind.
The relationship

and obedience

of knowledge

Ali this is in stark contrast to the Gnostic

Irenaeus

has been

attacking

throughout

view on knowledge, which

the AH and to which our above

15Ibid. 240-1.
16Ibid. 242.
17Ibid. 243.

18
Precisely the end toward
tions is aimed (cf. Barn. 10).

which

Barnabas'

interpretation

of the Mosaic

dietary

regula

732

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

For these, a knowledge that knows

text, AH 5.20.2, refers in summation.
more than it should is, provided that the knowledge in question is true and
genuine, hardly a possibility. It is only false knowledge
deception or igno
rant belief - that is harmful; the restoration of true knowledge
and true
is
indeed
the
aim
of
Gnostic
knowing
primary
praxis.19 Irenaeus, however,
insists that at humanity's creation even true and genuine knowledge, be it
in too full a measure for the limited status of the newly-formed creature, can
be harmful to man. Here he follows Theophilus
precisely, from this latter's
comments in the AdAutol. that we have already discussed. There is nothing
iniquitous in the knowledge the tree contains, which will be passed along to
the human creature who partakes of its fruit. Yet in eating of this fruit, evil
does come to the partaker, though the source of this evil lies in the disobe
dience of the one who has eaten in contradiction to God's commandment
not so to do.
Irenaeus does not disagree with Theophilus
here. There are passages
both
his
works
that
throughout
explicidy identify the sin of the tree with
to God's command,
disobedience
and more generally link together sin
and disobedience
as theological
synonyms. Indeed, disobedience
may

rightly be called the chief sin in Irenaean thought. Epid. 2 opens with a brief
definition of sin as not keeping the commandments
of God; AH4.41.3 rela
tes

the

effects

of disobedience

to the

disinheritance

one

would

receive

from

to family brings, eventually,

parents at a similar act. As disobedience
disinheritance
from family, so does disobedience
to God bring a divine
disinheritance.
At 3.18.6, Irenaeus
out
that
such disobedience
spells
which he specifically equates to sin - renders man weak, open to the devil's
captivating powers. Irenaeus is nowhere clearer in his identification of diso
bedience
and sin than in his discussions
on the parallelism
between
and
Adam/Christ.
He
shows
that
Christ
comes
to
dissolve
the old
Eve/Mary

disobedience
of Adam,20 and Mary the knot of ve,21 with specific attention
drawn to the fact that the transgression which occurred through the tree
was undone by the obedience
of the tree and virginal disobedience
recti
fied by virginal obedience.22 Christ's obedience
in the Passion and Mary's
obedience

to the word of the angel are both corrections

of the sin in
which
is
thus
a
sin
of
disobedience.
Paradise,
explicitly
This is also spelled out clearly and emphatically
in an important text
from the opening section of the Epid.:

19Cf. H.B.
Timothy, The Early Christian Apologists
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria,
Irenaeus,
Assen,

and these
knowledge
20Cf. AH
3.18.6,
21Ci. AH
3.22.4.
22
Epid. 33.

Gnostic
Epid.

37.

views.

and

Greek Philosophy
exemplified
on Irenaeus'
conception

1973, 24-5

by
of

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

are those

Sinners

- that

mandments

who

have

the knowledge

of God,

733

but

do

not keep

his com

is, the disdainful.23

This passage must be qualified in the present context, lest the identifi
cation of sinners with those who have the knowledge of God be taken in
some sense to disqualify Adam and ve from such a title, given the fact that
the tree of knowledge was precisely that of which they were forbidden to
eat. Does this fact free them from the qualifcation required by Epid. 2 for
sinners?

In the most

basic

answer is certainly no.

sense, Irenaeus'
Disobedience
comes in defance of such knowledge as man has of God, and
of good and
though Adam and ve had not partaken of the knowledge
had a direct knowledge of the God who walked with
evil, they nonetheless
them in the Garden and himself spoke in their hearing the law of life.24
Irenaeus

can say elsewhere that the disobedient do not consent to his doc
trine25 - and there was but one doctrine, one teaching, to which the first
humans had been bound - reminding his readers that the law is the com
mandment
of God.26 This latter comment is offered in reference to the
devil's activities in the Garden, summarised
by Irenaeus:
In the beginning
he enticed
into his power;
yet his

him

with

these

he bound

man

man
power

his maker's
to transgress
consiste
in transgression

law,

and

and

thereby

got
and

apostasy,

to himself.27

a know
Despite their limited knowledge, Adam and ve yet possessed
of
that
God's
sufficient
unto
their
maker's
commandment,
law,
is,
ledge
either obedience
or disobedience.
Their exercise of the latter was therefore
an act of those who have the knowledge of God, but do not keep his com
- an act of disobedience,
and thus of sin.
mandments
The dynamic

ofmaturing

knowledge

and responsibility

At the same time, the knowledge of God possessed

by Adam and ve
was weak and basic. It was sufficient for the generation in humanity of the
ability to heed or to depart from the will of God, but minimal enough to
Adam and Eve's susceptibility to a
make understandable
(if not excusable)
disobedience.
Disobedience,
suggests Irenaeus, may be exercised
provoked
at any level of knowledge. While the Israelites after Moses may have had
laws by the hundreds bound up in the covenant by which they were direc
ted to live, Adam and ve had only one; yet even this was sufficient for the

23

Epid. 2; cf. Ps 1.1.

24 Behr's sectional
title for Epid.
J.
25AH 5.27.1.
26AH 5.21.3.
27Ibid.

(Sources

Chrtiennes

15 (see J. Behr, Apostolic

153; 274-5).

Preaching,

49); cf. Epid.

6.

MATTHEW

734

C. STEENBERG

Israel's detailed Law was based on a deeper

act of obedience.
Nonetheless,
more
revealed
and
knowledge of God, was in some sense a
substantially
the
of
portion of
knowledge
good and evil greater than that to which
ve
in
Paradise.28 To be disobedient in such a state
Adam and
had been privy
than was the disobedience
in Eden, for
for
less
understandable
is,
Irenaeus,
in
a
whole
had
been
to
mature
its
humanity as
given
knowledge of God
with the
since the era of Paradise. To be disobedient
when in communion
Church and the new covenant of Christ is less understandable
stili, for the
rein has man's knowledge of God been brought to yet a higher level. This

of the right and

knowledge makes one stronger in his or her discernment
the wrong, of good and of evil, and thus makes ever less pardonable
any
disobedience
from the right. Just as a child, when maturing through her
for her actions and less able to attribute her
years, grows more accountable
falls to the influence of others, so Irenaeus sees humanity as coming to
know better than to sin as the economy unfolds. Adam and ve, however,
were young, inexperienced,
immature. They knew enough to be obedient
when tempted otherwise, but not enough fully to comprehend
the nature of
such temptation, of deceit, of wickedness. Thus will Gen 3 present the story,
not of Adam and ve spontaneously
or for reasons of self-generated desire
but so sinning at the provocation
of a
transgressing God's commandment,
deceiver.

On

this

Irenaeus

account,

of the

speaks

first

humans

predomi

nantly as being involved in the transgression prompted by the devil. They

maintain personal responsibility throughout for the fact that the decision to
disobey is ultimately one made by Adam and ve as freely acting, self-deter
mining individuale, but their decision is motivated by the actions of a decei
ver they were little prepared to combat.29 Irenaeus here makes use of Jesus'
parable of the sower to prove his point:
The Lord, indeed, sowed good seed in his own field. Thus he says, The field is
the world
in the midst
this was
manship

(Mt

But

while
and

man

carne and sowed

tares
slept, the enemy
on his way (Mt 13:25).
Hence
we learn that
because
he was envious
of God's
work
enemy,

went

the apostate

and
angel
and
took up the task of rendering
(p/asma),
with God. For this cause
God has banished
from

enmity
did of his own
the

13:38).

of the wheat,

transgression:

accord
but

stealthily
he took

care

no doubt,
(neglegenter)
involved
in the disobedience.30

This passage

is dense

sow

the

that

man,
who, through
compassion
upon
but stili wickedly,
on the part of another

and speaks

28Cf. AH
3.10.2.
2.11.1,2.30.9,
29Cf. T.G.
Weinandy, St. Irenaeus
Logos 6A (2003) 24-6.
30AH4.40.3
Chrtiennes
(Sources

tares,

this workmanship
an
his presence
him who
about
is, him who brought

predominantly

and the Imago

100: 978-81).

want

of

became

of the devil who is

Dei: The Importance

of Being

Human

in

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

735

pre-eminently at fault in the sin, for it is he who actively, in a deliberate and

deceitful way acts against God and man (as later in the same passage: the
devil had designed to make man the enemy of God). Man's deception by
such a force is understandable,
and God himself takes compassion
upon his
deceived
creature. Irenaeus'
notion of knowledge
in degree of maturity
bears directly upon his conviction of guilt and responsibility.31 Nonetheless,
there remains a definite culpability in Adam and ve following their actions.

These may have sinned at the provocation of a great foe, and through want
of care (Irenaeus here implies a certain neglect (neglegenter) in Adam
and ve, promoted by the lack of need and anxiety in the Garden), but stili
wickedly. One may condemn the devil for his role in the transgression, but
itself must rest with the man and
responsibility for the act of disobedience

woman

who themselves

A prohibition

contravened

the divine command.32

but not a test

In ali this, Irenaeus

in his reading of the same
follows Theophilus
Genesis text, though he has greatly expanded upon the Antiochene's discus
to
sion. God sets forth the prohibition, and the departure from obedience
this commandment
the
tree
itself
or
the
not
brings consequences
through
of the eater. Yet Irenaeus
knowledge it presente, but from the disobedience
further
than
and
while
he
does place pronounced
goes notably
Theophilus,
Adam
as
in the transgression
and
Eve's
disobedience
at
fault
emphasis upon
of God's prohibition against the tree, he refrains from any implication that
a test of obedience
was the primary reason for that prohibition. Rather, the
commandment
is an important and integrai element in the economy of
man's maturation, preventing him from laying hold of that which he is una
ble to bear, preserving the fullness of knowledge for a time - and there will
be a time - when humanity shall be ready and able to partake of the full
knowledge God offers.33 He will be like God just as the serpent had pre
dicted, however flawed may have been the latter's intentions and under
standings. Moreover, Irenaeus does not follow the Antiochene with respect

31 Cf. V.K.
in the Second Century in Evangelical
Downing, The Doctrine of Regeneration
Review ofTheology 14.2 (1990) 110, where Adam's sin, according to Irenaeus, is not a radicai infrac
don of the Law but a moral mistake attributable to the spiritual and intellectual
immaturity of
vis--vis
Adam and ve. In this light, it is hard to accept Klebba's terminology of die Katastrophe
des hi. Irenaeus, Munster, 1894,45.
the transgression;
cf. E. Klebba, Die Anthropologie
32 On Irenaeus'
be imputed
to
for disobedience
cannot
belief that responsibility/guilt
another, seeAH4.27.2-3,
4.33.2, 5.15.2.
33 See AH
of good and evil will, at a
4.39.1, where Irenaeus
suggests that the knowledge
become
later stage in man's development,
one over the other. At 4.38.4, a knowledge
image

and likeness.

by which he shall be able to chose the

of the
and evil is considered
part-and-parcel

the foundation
of good

736

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

to the two reasons the latter had put forth in AdAutol. 2.25 for the prohibi
There is no
tion, namely, as a test and a preserver of childlike innocence.
in
Irenaeus'
treatment
of
God
to
test
and
Adam
ve. Their
question
wishing

disobedience
becomes
apparent in the transgression, but God is not pre
sented as having provoked the incident as an investigation of their respon
se. Similarly, Irenaeus
does not take up Theophilus'
comment
on God
Adam
and ve to remain in infancy for a longer period, but
wishing for
suggests simply that their infancy required such a time of expectant growth.
Irenaeus

extols the beauty and virtue of a simple and loving faith, but never
that this faith and its connected
obedience
are constrained
to
infancy and not to maturity.34 To the contrary, he makes a point of showing
that such faith and obedience
are perfected with the maturation
of
made stronger and more binding in the perfect man than
humankind,
they were in the infant Adam and ve.35 Faith becomes
friendship only in
suggests

maturity.
Where Theophilus
had intimated this idea in describing knowledge as
good when one uses it properly, as we saw above, Irenaeus is explicit in
his assertion that humanity one day will partake of the full measure of true

at AH 4.38-39,
knowledge. This is the subject of his celebrated discussion
where he speaks most clearly of the growth and development
of the human
creature into perfection. Man shall, indeed, make progress day by day
and ascend toward the perfect; that is, be approximated
to the Uncreated
to eat and drink the
One,36 but this only after he has become accustomed
Word of God through this arrangement
[...] and these harmonies, and a
of this nature - i.e., the divine economy
of salvation.37 This
sequence
growth into the receptivity of ever increasing knowledge is an essential part
of Irenaeus' larger belief in the growth of the whole person and of human
nature itself, over the course of the economy, into that which one day shall
behold in divine vision its creator and partake of the life of God.38 Man beco
mes physically able to bear such life through the accustomisation
of the
of the Son; and even as the body
Spirit made possible by the Incarnation
grows in its receptive capabilities, so too does the intellect. Ali such growth,

however, must be maintained within its due measure;39 and with respect
to the intellectual aspect in particular, God thus prohibits the free eating of
the tree of knowledge in Paradise.

34 See AH 2.26.1:
should

It is better

believe in God and continue

35See AH 4.38.4.
36AH
4.38.3.
37
AH 4.38.1.
38
See AH4.38.4,4.39.1.
38Cf.
again Epid. 15.

[...] that one

in his love;

should
4.12.2.

have

no knowledge

whatever

[...]

but

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

The fall ofknowledge

737

and knowing

Irenaeus thus employs the prohibition of Gen 2:16-17 at Epid. 15 and

AH 5.20.2 to considerable
in
effect, and its importance may be encapsulated
the observance
that the divine commandment
of those verses, the sole
prohibition of Eden, is interpreted anthropocentrically
by Irenaeus as per
taining to the life and growth of man, and not primarily to the sovereignty
or otherwise independent
will of God who therein tests his new creation. It
is not the exertion of God's authority, but evidence of his dedication to the
perfection of the human handiwork. The third passage in which Irenaeus
makes use of Gen 2:16-17 (and where he in fact makes far more extensive
and contextualised
use of these verses than he does in the passages addres
sed above) demonstrates
this same characteristic of interpretation, though
it does so by addressing the prohibition front a different perspective: the

devil's deception of Adam and ve with regard to the command.

Irenaeus'
intention at AH 5.23 is primarily to demonstrate the character of the devil as
deceiver, and in this regard the primary example of such deception is found
in his manoeuvre regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Irenaeus sets
up the situation with a complete quotation of the present verses, then pro
ceeds to explicate the devil's actions, along with Eve's responses, through
quotations of Gen 3:1-5 interspersed with his own commentary. In this dia
logue, pride of place is given to Gen 3:4-5, the devil's response to Eve's reas
sertion of the divine prohibition, and the promised consequence
that on
the day one eats of the fruit, on that day he will surely die:
Then
that

the serpent
said to the woman,
in the day you eat of it your eyes

knowing

good

and

You

will

not

will be opened,

surely die. For God knows

and you will be like God,

evil.40

Irenaeus goes on to explain the content of the deception wrapped up

in the devil's words. First, he speaks of God as absent, as if the creator were
not present in the garden with him and ve; and then he lies, since the pro
mise of death was indeed true.41 Irenaeus is again careful to explain that this
for disobe
death was not caused by the fruit but by man's disobedience,
dience

to God entails death.42

wording at the dose

Irenaeus'
For
they

along
did

with
eat

the fruit

they

did

of AH 5.23.1 is especially
also

fall under

the

power

interesting:
of death,

because

in disobedience.43

40

Quoted at AH5.23.1
41 Cf. AH 5.23.1. The

153, 288-9).
(Sources Chrtiennes
Irenaeus'
defence of the
section constitutes
principal
subsequent
notion that the on the same day you eat of it of Gen 2.17 was not proved false by the long life
of Adam and ve.
42Afi 5.23.1.
43 Sources

Chrtiennes

153, 290-1,

emphasis

mine.

738

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

The fruit itself, the potential for genuine knowledge of good and evil,
in humanity, is, together with that
the capability for godly knowledge
the
become
forfeit
to
death
in
to the
humanity,
eating. Man's disobedience
divine prohibition not only entails the death of his personal being, the
immediate
and direct consequence
of his defance of God's economy;
it
entails also the disruption of the very nature of his potential within the eco
nomy designed and wrought for his sake. Adam and Eve's eating in disobe
dience does not disturb solely the eaters, but the very fruit of which they
are partaking. This represents a substantial Irenaean insight. The forfeiture
of life is both personal and historical: Adam and ve will die on that same

day, but so also will ali human generations from that time forward perish
and the fruit of the tree of knowledge will become more elusive stili.

Irenaeus does not expand further upon his comment on the fruit fal
ling together with man under the forfeiture to death, but his consideration
of the expulsion from the Garden proffers the same essential point. Adam
and ve are expelled from Paradise upon their transgression; God put the
man far from his face.44 To behold God, to attain to the divine vision, is for
Irenaeus

the very definition of full and true knowledge.45 The casting of

humanity out of the Garden, away from God's face and thus from pure
vision, represents the same anthropological
teaching as the falling of the
fruit of the tree into the sway of death. The perfection of true knowledge, so
much the goal of the rational human being that God planted this tree at the
very centre of Paradise, moves outside the grasp of humankind
upon its
Adam's
for
in
the
course
of
the
transgression.
potential
growth
economy has
been altered. This loss shall require restoration.
Thus Irenaeus,
like
uses
the
and
as
means
for
Theophilus, ultimately
prohibition
transgression
the
framework
of
salvation.
establishing
Synthesis
and Irenaeus we thus perceive two dif
Through the eyes of Theophilus
fering pictures of the prohibition and its purpose. Each ascertains a lack of
negative value or evil character to the knowledge of the tree itself, but the
reason for the prohibition against it differs between them. For Theophilus,
God forbids the fruit primarily as a test. For Irenaeus, he does so primarily

to safeguard the proper limitation of knowledge in an immature humanity.

fra
How, then, might these two views converge in a broader theological
mework?
As has already been mentioned,
of the
Theophilus'
understanding
is
that
which
has
Yet
of
itself,
prohibition
predominated
throughout history.

Epid. 16.
5 See
AH4.20.5,

cf. E. Osborn,

Irenaeus,

204-5.

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

739

such a test-based vision poses the same ethical problems for readers today
that it did in the second century, when the so-called Gnostics were keen
to point out the cruelty of such an action, attributing it to a renegade
of the true divinity. Marcion's solu
demiurge rather than the benevolence
tion was more radicai stili. The parallel in Theophilus'
language vis--vis the
in
to
the
the
of
Abraham's
near-sacrifice
of Isaac,
event,
language
story

inadvertently points to the unease with which many readers encounter

both texts: why be it in the nature of a good God to test in such a manner
that which he has created? Either the test is a joke, given that God knew the
true fabric and merit of what he had made, and in any case as omniscient
would already know the outcome of any such test; or God is not in control
of his creation, unable to know internally the ilk and intention of his own

creatures. Neither is a supposition

to most Christian readers.
plausible
What then to make of the test?
Irenaeus' response is to go to the other extreme: there was in fact no test
at ali. God was not challenging but defending his creation. In the face of
knowledge which, when apprehended
improperly can so easily become
knowledge falsely so-called (its moniker in the full title of the Adversus hae
reses), God lays down a commandment
designed to hold back the full breadth
of that knowledge until such time as newly-created man has grown into a ful
ler measure of cognitive capability. It is only of love and in a spirit of paternal

shepherding that God forbids the fruit of this tree, and precisely because it is
that which might seem so appealing to humanity in its immaturity.
Yet there is an inherent problem in Irenaeus' reading if taken in extrac tion. If there is no element of a test in the prohibition, if there is solely pre
is in
ventative limitation in its intention, then its weight as commandment
some sense diminished. Such a reading makes the prohibition a part of the
naturai law - knowledge is limited as an aspect of humanity's rational fini
tude; its fullness is proscripted not arbitrarily, but necessarily. Man ought
not eat of the fruit of the tree because he cannot receive what it contains.
The prohibition becomes, to some degree, part of the naturai order of laws
in the cosmos and loses its particularity as a command,
Irenaeus will not,
of its role as harbinger of obedience.
of course, allow this - his reading of the transgression is always sourced
of Adam and ve to the divine law; but he is able to
from the disobedience
do this only because he believes that these in some sense failed a test never
and fundamentals

which is the source

explicitly given as such. God did not actively test his creation in proscribing
the fruit of this tree, but in fading to heed the divine guidance which forba
with
de it, Adam and ve failed the universal test of human communion
to the divine will.
God: obedience
and Irenaeus are not so far apart. The lat
In the end, then, Theophilus
ter may disagree with the former on the nature of the prohibition qua prohi
bition as itself a test, but this is only as regards the specific intention of the

740

MATTHEW

C. STEENBERG

divine proclamation.
In effect, if not in cause, humanity's obedience
was
tested by the primal law. And Theophilus, in turn, is not wholly without the
notion of prohibition as preventative limitation which dominates the rea
- there is
ding of Irenaeus. Knowledge is good when one uses it properly
a proper use, but one not available at this stage in humanity's existence.
God guards against knowledge improperly attained and employed by pre
venting access to the tree that represents its fullness.
Modern-day
theological readings of the Genesis protology, and speci
in
fically anthropology, must likewise balance the two views emphasised
these second-century
authors. Each dismisses outright the notion (ali too
common in modem perceptions)
that there is something negative in true,
full and genuine knowledge, or that God for whatever reason simply did not
want humanity to possess it. Then, in the mix, they offer a balance on inter

preting the nature of the prohibition. If we read Gen 2:16-17 as only God's
authoritative demand and test, we lose sense of God's sovereignty over the
economy and existence as one who acts always for the benefit and growth
of his creation. Thus Irenaeus teaches us to see economie
purpose in the
ali
law works to
not
ali
are
beneficiai
at
and
God's
times,
prohibition:
things
his
the
creation
from
bounds
of
that
which
it
is able pro
protect
exceeding

perly to access and contain. Yet there is always something of a test in obe
dience, always a challenge to humanity's freely determining and acting will.
To be obedient is to obey, and to obey is a choice, a determination.
And if
children must obey their parents, how much more must they obey the God
and Father of the universe!46 Theophilus
thus balances Irenaeus with the
reminder that God's law, however economie
and salvific its purpose, is
a
set
human
freedom.
That
ali things are possible,
always
challenge
against
but not ali things beneficiai (cf. 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23) is the basic presupposi
tion of both our authors. Possibility is set into the context of beneficiality God holds back what is ultimately good until we are ready to receive it, la
Irenaeus. Yet, as in the thought of Theophilus, we must heed God's refrain,
should we ever attain to that goodness.
University of Oxford
Fellow in Patristic Theology
and Early Church History
Greyfriars Hall
Iffley Road
Oxford 0X4 1SB

'Ad.Autol.

2.25.

Matthew

C. Steenberg

 TEST OR PRESERVE?

741

SUMMARY
Of ali the questions
the tree?
that arise
from a reading
of the
Why forbid
Genesis
that over why God forbade
Adam
and ve the fruit of the tree of
protology,
is of perennial
The present
article examines
the exegesis
of two
knowledge
curiosity.
of Antioch
and
Irenaeus
of Lyons,
of
each
Theophilus
of
in
and
question
profound
importance
anthropological
reflections.
An emphasis
on the prohibition
as a test in Theophilus
alternate
of the prohibition
in
as a formative
construct
interpretation

second-century
whom
considered
soteriological
meets
the

sources,
the

defining

the limits

of human

explored

in detail,

and

that

prohibition
Perch

makes

vietare

intellectual

at the article's
use

of both

l'albero?.

Di

to Irenaeus.
These
are
capability
according
in a reading
are synthesised
of the Genesis
of emphasis.
points
end

tutte

le questioni

che

sorgono

dalla

lettura

della

protologia della Genesi quella riguardante il perch Dio vieti ad Adamo ed Eva il
frutto

dell'albero

esamina

due

della
fonti

del

conoscenza
II secolo,

suscita
Teoflo

da sempre
curiosit.
Il presente
articolo
di Lione,
d'Antiochia
e Ireneo
ciascuno
dei

dal punto
di vista
consider
la questione
d'estrema
riflettendovi
importanza
e soteriologico.
Un'enfasi
sulla
come
in Teofilo
prova
antropologico
proibizione
formativo
nel
incontra
alternativa
della proibizione
come
concetto
l'interpretazione
quali

definire i limiti della capacit intellettiva umana secondo Ireneo. Queste posizioni
sono

zione

esaminate
della

Genesi

e sintetizzate,
della
infine, in una lettura
dettagliatamente
i punti di vista.
che tenga
conto
dell'enfasi
di entrambi

proibi