62 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy
Such a distinction between faith and works may even be found in Irenaeus’s exe-
gesis of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. For Irenaeus sees in this parable an
indication of a lapse of time between the handing over of the vineyard to the laborers
and the demand for the fruit of righteousness. This lapse of time allows for a period
of preparation before the fruit is called for (cf. Matt. 21:34). In fact, this parable is
presented as a brief résumé of the history of salvation. The digging of the wine press
is seen as the preparation of a “receptacle for the prophetic spirit.” Irenaeus sees in
this feature a reference to the sending of the preexilic prophets. It is only with the
post-exilic prophets that the fruit of righteousness is actually demanded, and it is
then that the laborers are said not to believe and to have the vineyard taken from
them, to be handed over to other laborers, who will bear fruit in their own time
(Hae r. IV.36.2). Irenaeus repeats these last words three times in the course of his
exegesis of this parable, and it is clear that he takes them to imply a period of time
between the handing over of the vineyard to those who were outside it (and the dig-
ging of a wine press throughout the world) and the time for the fruit to be handed
over. As the collection of eschatological sayings that Irenaeus presents in explana-
tion of “in their own time” makes plain, this time is in fact the day of judgement,
when the Word of God will give the Spirit to those who believe in him, and cause the
unfruitful fig tree instantly to wither (Hae r. IV.36.4).
This distinction between vocation and fruitfulness lies beneath Irenaeus’s com-
ments on the parable of the Two Sons. To answer the call and to produce the fruit are
both in our power, but we need exhortation to fruitfulness even after we have given
the assent of faith (Hae r. IV. 37.2-4). The need for this exhortation is not grounded in
human incapacity but precisely in human freedom: “If then it were not in our power
to do or not to do something, on what grounds did the Apostle, and much more the
Lord himself, counsel us to do some things and not to do other things” (Hae r. IV.37.4).
Moreover, because we are free our obedience to God is difficult: it can be achieved only
after contest and struggle, and just this makes the reward of obedience even more to
be sought after (Hae r. IV.37.6-7). Irenaeus takes it for granted that humankind will suf-
fer setbacks in the course of this struggle, the more so since it is a struggle with Satan
(Hae r. IV.40.3). But God is tolerant of these setbacks, and indeed, the direct experience
of evil they entail strengthens the apprehension of the good, and the resolve to adhere
to it in obedience to God (Hae r. IV.37.7; 39.1; 40.3). For Irenaeus, human freedom
itself implies some measure of divine tolerance of human apostasy. This is not to say
that producing the fruit of righteousness is not of the highest importance for Irenaeus,
but simply that, by divine dispensation, this fruitfulness need not follow immediately
upon the confession of faith. It is to be achieved at the due time. Irenaeus’s leniency
toward the second son in the parable is thus entirely compatible with the understand-
ing he develops in this section of Adversus haereses, of the nature of a human being’s
response to the call of God.
Irenaeus’s employment of the parable of the Two Sons suggests, therefore that he
knew it essentially in the form in which it is preserved by Codex Bezae. It was the
second son who said “yes” but did not go into the vineyard; that son was identified as
the one who was said to have done his father’s will, and in verse 32, the negative οὐδέ