4.1.1 The Anointing of Jesus' Humanity by the Spirit
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
4.1.1 The Anointing of Jesus' Humanity by the Spirit The passage of primary importance to determining whether Jesus' humanity alone or also his divinity was anointed by the Spirit is the passage of primary importance to this topic as a whole. It is also the first place that Irenaeus discusses Jesus' anointing by the Spirit at the Jordan. In AH 3.9.3 Irenaeus is responding to the Gnostic claim that Matt. 3:16 speaks of the descent of the aeon Christ upon the man Jesus, he writes:
For Christ did not descend at that time upon Jesus, nor was Christ one and Jesus another; but the Word of God, who is the Savior of all and the Lord of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as we have shown earlier, who also assumed flesh and was anointed with the Spirit by the Father,3 [and] was made Jesus Christ. As Isaiah says, 'A stem will come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower will rise from his root. And the Spirit of God will rest on him: the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God will fill Him. He will not judge according to appearance, nor convict according to report; but He will dispense justice to the humble, and convict the renowned of the earth' [Isa. 11:1–4a]. And again Isaiah, pointing out beforehand his unction and the reason why he was anointed, says himself, 'The Spirit of God is upon me, because he has anointed me: he has sent me to preach the Gospel to the lowly, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind; to announce the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance; to comfort all that mourn' [Isa. 61.1–2]. For as far as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse and son of Abraham, insofar as this, the Spirit of God rested on him and he was anointed to preach the Gospel to the humble. But insofar as he was God, he did not judge according to appearance, nor did he convict according to report: for 'He had no need that anyone should present to him testimony about human beings, since he himself knew what was in human beings' [John 2:25]. Moreover, he called all the people who are mourning, and giving forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by [their] sins, he released them from [their] chains, about whom
Solomon says, 'And each one is bound by the ropes of his own sins' [Prov.
5:22]. Therefore, the Spirit of God descended on Him, [the Spirit] of him who by the prophets had promised that he will anoint him, in order that we, receiving from the abundance of his anointing, might be saved.4
We will return to this text later in our discussion, for now I would like to show that it establishes the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit. Irenaeus recites two texts from Isaiah to support his interpretation of Jesus' anointing by the Spirit: first, Isa. 11:1–4a, then, Isa. 61:1–2. He uses Isa. 11:1–4a to demonstrate that the Spirit descended on Jesus, who as the Incarnate Word is both human and divine. He uses Isa. 61:1–2 to establish the reason for Jesus'
3 Qui et adsumpsit carnem et unctus est a Patre Spiritu.
4 AH 3.9.3.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit anointing by the Spirit. We will address Isa. 61:1–2 and Irenaeus' comments on that text in the next section. Isa. 11:1–4a, on the other hand, is central to our present discussion.
As soon as Irenaeus finishes quoting the two passages from Isaiah, he provides a commentary on them that reveals their importance to his discussion. He first interprets Isa. 11:1–3a, writing, 'For as far as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse and son of Abraham, insofar as this, the Spirit of God rested on him and he was anointed to preach the Gospel to the humble.' According to Irenaeus, the Spirit of God anointed or rested upon Jesus only as far as he was human
('man from the root of Jesse and son of Abraham'). Only after he speaks of the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit does he then turn to speak of his divinity. The construction secundum autem quod, 'but insofar as,' alerts the reader to this change of subject matter: 'But insofar as he was God, he did not judge according to appearance, nor did he convict according to report: for "He had no need that anyone should present to him testimony about human beings, since he himself knew what was in human beings" [John 2:25].'
The grammatical construction of the passage reveals that Irenaeus has in mind a contrast: the Spirit anointed Jesus insofar as he was human, but not insofar as he was divine.5 The comments included by Irenaeus indicate the Spirit anointed Jesus' humanity but not his divinity because of the differing capabilities of each, or from the opposite point of view, the need proper to each.6 As God, Jesus does not judge on the basis of one's status or reputation, for it is proper to him to know the heart, 'what was in human beings.'7 This insight that inherently belongs to Jesus because of his divinity illustrates that he did not need the Spirit's anointing insofar as he was divine. In contrast, insofar as he was human, Jesus needed the Spirit to rest upon him, anointing him 'to preach the gospel to the humble.' We can summarize, then, that according to AH 3.9.3, Jesus needed the anointing of the Spirit to empower8 his humanity so that he could fulfill the Messianic mission, but he did not need a similar empowerment with respect to his divinity.9 Therefore, his humanity was anointed, but his divinity was not.
5 By neglecting to consider autem D. Smith understands Irenaeus to say 'insofar as' rather than 'but insofar as,' which leads him to view this passage as a comparison rather than as a contrast. As a result, Smith ascribes the faculty of judgment to both Jesus' humanity (following the anointing) and to his divinity. He explains this as an early example of communicatio idiomatum: the anointing of the Spirit, made possible by the union of Jesus' humanity with the Word, bestowed the attribute of just judgment which affected both Jesus' humanity and his divinity (Smith, TS 58.4 1997: 628).
6 Irenaeus' approach betrays a certain lack of development when it comes to his understanding of the integrity of Jesus' person.
7 Cf. Prf 60, where Irenaeus interprets Isa. 11:3–4 this way.
8 I will explain what I mean by 'empower' later in section 4.1.2.2.
9 The fact that Irenaeus' argument contrasts the capability of his humanity with that of his divinity presumes that Jesus possesses a particular capacity inasmuch as he is human and
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
Both Enrique Fabbri and Antonio Orbe argue from other passages that Irenaeus envisions an additional anointing, one on the Word. Fabbri argued first from Prf 49 and 53 that the eternal generation of the Son should be considered the first of three anointings,10 but Orbe's later argument for a transcendental anointing of the Word based on Prf 47 and 53 has been the most influential.11
Orbe contends that of the passages in Irenaeus that speak of Jesus' anointing by the Spirit, Prf 47 deserves interpretive priority over the rest because it alone makes it clear that the Father anointed the Son insofar as he is God.12
Assigning interpretive priority to Prf 47 permits him to state that the anointing of the Spirit substantiated by Isa. 61:1 in AH 3.9.3 cannot be the same anointing supported by Ps. 44:8 in Prf 47. For Irenaeus makes explicit in AH
3.9.3 that Isa. 61:1 refers to an anointing by the Spirit of Jesus insofar as he is human. As a result, Orbe determines that Ps. 44:8 and Isa. 61:1 are proof–texts that establish, in order, the anointing of the Son insofar as he is God and the anointing of Jesus insofar as he is human—that is both a transcendental and an historical anointing.13
Having established that Irenaeus has in mind two anointings of the Spirit, and having established proof-texts for each anointing, Orbe applies this interpretive framework to Prf 53:
And His name is twofold: in the Hebrew language 'Messiah' [means] 'Christ', and [ . . . ]'Jesus', 'Saviour'; and both of these names are the names of deeds another inasmuch as he is divine. This association of different capacities with Jesus' divinity and humanity goes against J. Behr's statement, 'Irenaeus refuses to distinguish between two beings or two elements in one and the same Jesus Christ (one part human and visible, the other part divine and invisible), preferring instead to think in terms of two states of the same Word: the invisible, incomprehensible Word, becoming visible and comprehensible' (Behr, Way to Nicaea, (2001:
132 cf. 125): 'There are not two "parts," as it were, to Jesus Christ, one of which was passible and visible, the other impassible and invisible.'). Furthermore, finding both the human and divine in Irenaeus' conception of Jesus calls into question the link Behr finds between Irenaeus on the one hand, and Zephyrinus and Callistus on the other. Behr, Way to Nicaea (2001: 145) quotes von
Harnack to support his argument, 'Indeed, as Harnack pointed out (using his categories),
"Monarchians of all shades had a common interest in opposition to Logos Christology: they represented the conception of the Person of Christ founded on the history of salvation, as against one based on the history of his nature" [von Harnack (1958, vol. 3: 62)]. Inasmuch as this was indeed their intention, Zephyrinus and Callistus stood within the tradition represented by Irenaeus' (the emphasis is von Harnack's).
10 Fabbri, CyF 12/45 (1956: 31–2, 35).
11 The arguments in support of this reading are by Vigne (1992: 80–1), de Andia (1986: 191–2; her reference to Prf 9 in this context is difficult to understand given the explicit reference to the anointing of his humanity: 'that is [on] the Word in his human advent. De Andia stands alone in her appropriation of this text to this end), and McDonnell (1996: 58, 119) follow those of Orbe. So it will be sufficient for this part of my argument to discuss the work of Orbe alone.
12 Orbe (1961: 502, 506).
13 Orbe (1961: 508–10).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit accomplished. For He is named 'Christ,' since through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things, and [because], <in> His advent as man, He was anointed by the Spirit of God His Father, as He Himself says of Himself, by Isaias, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me, to bring good tidings to the poor' [Isa. 61:1, Luke 4:18].
He contends that this passage speaks of two anointings. One active: insofar as he is God, the Word anointed all things. One passive: insofar as he was human, the Incarnate Word was anointed.
Orbe approaches Prf 53 having already determined that Irenaeus' thought involves two anointings of the Spirit, and he is working from the principle that the end or purpose of an unction defines its nature. These presuppositions enable him to conclude that the active anointing of all things by the Word cannot flow from the passive anointing of the Word as human, rather the passage presumes two additional anointings. The first additional anointing is passive: the Father by means of the Spirit anointed the preincarnate Word, so that the Word could anoint and adorn all things. The second additional anointing is active: the Incarnate Word, insofar as he is human, anoints all human beings who believe in him by means of the Spirit received from the Father at the Jordan.14 Thus, Orbe arrives at a fourfold anointing of the Spirit that includes the anointing of the preincarnate Word and of the Incarnate
Word.
In developing this understanding of Irenaeus, Orbe fails to engage the work of Albert Houssiau beyond an occasional notation for reference. Houssiau's conclusion is opposite to that of Orbe: Irenaeus speaks of one anointing by the Spirit, upon the humanity of the Incarnate Word. Houssiau argues from AH
3.9.3 and AH 3.17.1–4 that the incarnation is the precondition for the Spirit's descent on Christ because the descent of the Spirit was the first realization of the charismatic effusion in the human race.15 Orbe's failure to interact with Houssiau is unfortunate, since the later critique of Rousseau showed Orbe's interpretation of Prf 47 to be mistaken.
Rousseau undermined the foundation of Orbe's position by demonstrating that Irenaeus does not use Ps. 44:8 to refer to the preincarnate Word but to the Incarnate Word in AH 4.33.11, and in particular, in Prf 47 where the psalm occurs in a series of Old Testament prophecies announcing the human coming of the Son. Irenaeus is saying that the anointed one is the Incarnate Son who is
God, not that the anointed one is the Son as God.16 The limited possibilities 14 Orbe (1961: 515–16); for the principle that the end of an unction defines its nature, see pp. 510–11.
15 Houssiau (1955: 175–7, 179). The reader should note, however, that even Houssiau considered Irenaeus' discussions on the anointing by the Spirit in AH 3.6.1 and Prf 47 to be somewhat unclear (p. 181).
16 Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 248–52). See also, Fantino (1994: 379–80).
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
for translating the Armenian text do not include an anointing of the Son as God. Such a reading of Prf 47 would be a 'flagrant misinterpretation.'17
Rousseau concludes by reaffirming Houssiau's evaluation: the anointing by the Spirit concerned Jesus' humanity alone.18
Despite the clear and convincing statements by Rousseau, Orbe's argument has continued to be persuasive. It appears, then, that Orbe's contentions need further deconstruction. Toward this end, I will offer two comments that concern Orbe's discussion of AH 3.9.3 and Prf 53. First, Orbe argues that by differentiating between the divine and human in Jesus in AH 3.9.319 Irenaeus intends to say that the Incarnate Word acted or could act as God or as a man.
He could even have received some missions that pertained to his divinity and some that pertained to his humanity.20
Orbe's reading is incorrect: Irenaeus' goal in AH 3.9.3 is to safeguard the unity of Jesus Christ.21 Jesus is the Word made man who became the Christ at the descent of the Spirit. Jesus was not a mere man who received supernatural qualities at the descent of the aeon Christ. Orbe's contention that the Incarnate
Word could act as either God or man suggests that Irenaeus is making a counterproductive argument: being able to act as either God or man would jeopardize the very unity of the Incarnate Word, which is the point of the passage.
Irenaeus does not differentiate between the two natures of Jesus in order to say that he could act as either God or as a man. Instead, he differentiates between the two natures in order to explain why the Spirit needed to descend on the Incarnate Word. He is aware that his opponents could ask him why
Jesus needed to receive the Spirit at all if Jesus was already divine as the Sonmade-man.22 His answer is that the Incarnate Word, insofar as he was God, did not need to be anointed by the Spirit, but insofar as he was human Jesus needed the Spirit to fulfill his mission. This passage, then, does not leave room
17 Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 252): 'un contresens flagrant.'
18 Rousseau does not take into consideration the comparison that follows and seems to be the particular context for Ps. 44:7–8 in Prf 47. Irenaeus says, 'the Son receives . . . the oil of anointing above his fellows.' He defines the 'oil of anointing' as the Spirit, and 'his fellows' as the prophets, the righteous, the apostles, his disciples—all who participate in his kingdom. The comparison makes no sense if Irenaeus is comparing other human beings to the Son insofar as he is God, for two reasons: (1) the most natural meaning of the phrase 'his fellows' is the shared identity of the Son as human and his disciples as other human beings; and (2) it would be pointless to argue that the Son is 'above' human beings if we are speaking of the Son insofar as he is divine.
19 AH 3.9.3: 'as far as the Word of God was man . . . insofar as this, the Spirit of God rested on him and he was anointed to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But insofar as he was God, he did not judge according to glory, nor did he convict according to speech: for "He had no need that anyone should present to him testimony about human beings, since he himself knew what was in human beings" [John 2:25].'
20 Orbe (1961: 609).
21 Houssiau (1955: 177, 185).
22 Trypho asks Justin a version of this question in Dial 87.2.