Irenaeus

Presley—Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology 171

is no other God mentioned in scripture except for the one true God. This theme also
dominates successive chapters of Hae r. III.7-12. Similarly, this discussion of divine
identity resurfaces in the opening of book IV. Bacq notes that the preface to book IV
and Hae r. IV.1 are dependent upon III.6.1ff.^34 The last lines of the preface to book IV
remind one of Hae r. III.6.1, “Therefore, since this is firm and steadfast, no other God
and Lord is proclaimed by the Spirit, except the God who rules over all things with His
Word and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.” There is none other called God
by the scriptures except the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption.^35 In
other words, the language of “God” in scripture applies only to the Father, Son and the
faithful. As we mentioned earlier, Irenaeus recognizes that the scriptures do term the
faithful as “gods” in Psalm 82:1, 6-7 and elsewhere.^36 And Irenaeus reiterates himself in
Hae r. IV.1.1 where neither the prophets nor the apostles nor the Lord himself did name
and identify any God who was not truly God. Once again, he distinguishes between
those who are “god” in name only and the one who is truly God, and he states that it is
an error of doctrine to confuse these.^37
In conclusion, we have argued that prosopological exegesis is a significant method
in early trinitarian discussion and the development of the trinitarian concept of “per-
son.” Although Irenaeus is not prominent in these discussions, it is not because he is
unaware of this methodological practice. It is, on the contrary, the fact that his Gnos-
tic opponents were utilizing this method in the revision of narratival and dialogical
accounts in scripture. There is little doubt that he agrees with the interpretations of
Justin, as he expresses in Dem. 49, but in the midst of Gnostic competition, Irenaeus
realized the theological framework an exegete brings to the text naturally shapes the
method of identifying speakers in a given text. The prosopological method did not pre-
clude the Gnostic from discerning a multitude of deities within the fabric of the textual
dialogues. Thus, Irenaeus revealed that the interpretation of divine titles and discourse
in scripture largely depends upon, to borrow Irenaeus’s question: “Who is meant by
God?”^38 It is to Irenaeus’s credit that he recognizes this issue calls for a framework or
regula fidei that grounds the kind of prosopological exegesis carried out by Justin, Ter-
tullian, and others. This analysis affords Irenaeus a key role in the early development of
trinitarian theology and the understanding of the trinitarian concept of person.