Minns—The Parable of the Two Sons in Irenaeus and Codex Bezae 61As Philippe Bacq rightly observes, in Adversus haereses IV.36 Irenaeus has a two-
fold objective: the parables “décrivent le drame historique du refus d’Israël. Mais il
souligne aussi, par un série de paroles claires du Seigneur, l’actualité de ce drame qui se
joue, aujourd’hui encore, dans l’Église: ceux qui refusent l’enseignement des prophètes
subiront une condamnation semblable à celle d’Israël, plus sévère même depuis que
le Seigneur en personne est venu appeler l’homme au salut.”^20 These two themes cor-
respond to two heterodox views Irenaeus seeks to combat: first, that the Old Testament
and the New belong each to a different God; secondly, that human beings are good
or evil by nature rather than by choice.^21 The identity of the demand for the fruit of
righteousness in both Old and New Testaments indicates the one God responsible for
both, and that the fruit is asked for itself implies the freedom of human beings to meet
or refuse this request.
Often when speaking of the response of Israel, and occasionally when speaking
of the response of the Church, Irenaeus gives the impression that unfruitfulness is
identical with disobedience and unbelief, and fruitfulness identical with belief and
obedience. Thus, in his exegesis of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, these are
described as arrogant and proud and unfruitful and killers of the Lord and unbelievers,
while those to whom the vineyard is later entrusted are described as giving back the
fruits at the proper time with all obedience (Hae r. IV.36.1; cf. 36.2 and 36.4). Similarly,
the refusal of faith implied by Matthew 23:37-38 is said to be equivalent to the failure
of the fig tree to produce fruit (Luke 13:7, Hae r. IV.36.8). Despite this apparent equiva-
lence of believing and producing fruit, Irenaeus also suggests that there is a distinction
between faith and works. Thus, in the excursus on freedom of the will he says: “and
the Lord safeguarded the liberty and autonomy of human kind not only in works but
also in faith” (Hae r. IV.37.5). Such a distinction operates throughout Hae r. IV.36, when
Irenaeus speaks of the need for Christians to produce good works. Thus the collection
of sayings added to the discussion of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen are said
to have been spoken by the Lord to his disciples “preparing us to be good workers”
(Hae r. IV.36.3). The story of the man without a wedding garment (Matthew 22:11-14)
appended to the parable of the Great Feast is taken to be a demonstration of the dis-
tinction between accepting the invitation offered by Christ and producing the works
of righteousness:
He also showed that, as well as being called, we should be adorned with the works
of righteousness, so that the Spirit of God might rest on us; for this is the wedding
garment, of which the Apostle said “we wish not to be unclothed, but to be fur-
ther clothed, so that what is mortal might be swallowed up by what is immortal”
(2 Cor. 5:4). But those who are, indeed, called to God’s banquet, and because of
their evil behaviour do not receive the holy Spirit, will, he says, be thrown into
outer darkness, plainly showing that it is the same King who called the faithful
from every place to the wedding feast of his Son and gave the banquet of incor-
ruptibility, who will command to be thrown into outer darkness the one who
does not have a wedding garment, that is who is contemptuous. (Hae r. IV.36.6)