Presley—Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology 169the texts of scripture and discerns a host of persons functioning in and through the
texts. This is not the only method Gnostic exegetes use, but it is an essential one. Like
Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others, these dialogical texts attract the Gnostic and
through them they have means to convey their particular theological framework.The Irenaean Response
Irenaeus responds to these descriptions of Gnostic prosopological exegesis in a num-
ber of places, but there is a concentrated effort in Hae r. III.6.1-5. This chapter forms
a pivotal turning point in the overall structure of Irenaeus’s work as he moves from
exposing the Gnostic systems in the first two books, to defending his own theological
framework from the scriptures in the last three. The whole of Hae r. 3.6.1-5 is aimed at
proving that the Old Testament speaks of no other God besides the one true God and,
in so doing, serves as a basic Irenaean lesson on the exegesis of scripture.
Beginning in Hae r. III.6.1-2, Irenaeus manages to cite no less than eleven Old Tes-
tament passages, nearly all of which are dialogical texts. These texts form a network
of scriptures bound together by the presence of multiple divine titles in each passage
and divine discourse between the persons mentioned or implied in the passage. In this
discussion, the distinctiveness of Irenaeus’s approach becomes apparent. He begins
this section saying: “Therefore neither the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles
would have ever named him God, who was not definitely and absolutely God, unless
he were truly God; nor would they have named anyone in their own person (ex sua per-
sona) Lord, except God the Father ruling over all things, and His Son who has received
authority from His Father over all creation.”^27 This opening statement and the subse-
quent network of scriptural texts contain all the prosopological markers. Irenaeus is
speaking of the interpretation of divine titles and the identity of God. Even the lan-
guage of “person” (proso ̄pou, persona) is found in the citation.^28 But in this statement,
Irenaeus treads a slightly different path from that of his orthodox contemporaries. He
follows two lines of argumentation: first, the scriptures would not attribute the title of
“God” or “Lord” to someone other than the one true God and second, the scriptures
would not have named anyone “in their own person” Lord except the Father and the
Son. His former point argues that the very nature of the scriptures as derived from the
Lord, Holy Spirit, or the Apostles would never have used the title of “Lord” in refer-
ence to any other God, except the one true God. His latter point is a qualification of
the first in that the language of “Lord” or “God” in the scriptures can only refer to the
one true God and, therefore, must refer to either the Father or the Son. According to
Irenaeus, this implies that when an exegete arrives at the language of “God” or “Lord”
in the text, the interpreter must acknowledge the only possible divine referents are the
Father and the Son. This is not an assumption the Gnostics share and, in light of Gnos-
tic prosopological exegesis, Irenaeus must provide the theological qualification to his
prosopological methodology.
To demonstrate his points, Irenaeus utilizes his network of dialogical texts begin-
ning with Psalm 110:1.^29 He cites this well-known passage and comments on it saying,
“In this instance, it [scripture] reveals the Father speaking with the Son; He who gave
him the inheritance of the nations and subjected all his enemies to him. Therefore,