4.1.2 The Effect of the Anointing by the Spirit
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit for two anointings of the Spirit for two different purposes, one as God and one as man.
Second Orbe sets up his argument for a transcendental anointing in Prf 53 by extracting from AH 3.9.3 the interpretive principle that the end or purpose of an unction defines its nature. According to this logic, the Spirit anointed the Incarnate Word, insofar as he was human, because that anointing leads to the anointing of other human beings, that is, to their salvation. In the same way, the Word would not have received an anointing intended for the entire created universe in his humanity, but in a transcendental way that corresponds to its ultimate end.23
Orbe's logic, however, is flawed. He assumes that Irenaeus distinguishes between the created status of humanity and the created status of the rest of creation, so that the transcendental anointing can have as its object the Son himself (which would correlate to the status of the created universe), rather than the Son's created humanity (which would correlate to the status of created humanity). Yet in this regard the main point in Irenaeus' theology is to differentiate between that which is created and the Uncreated who creates, and not to differentiate between different orders of creation.24 In this respect, the universe is just as created as humanity, which leaves no room to distinguish between the two. Therefore, Orbe's interpretive principle is in fact self-defeating. To apply his logic to Irenaeus' theology of creation would result in the Incarnate Word experiencing one anointing, of his created humanity, by means of which the rest of humanity and the whole created order is anointed. We only have grounds, then, to speak of an anointing of Jesus' humanity.
4.1.2 The Effect of the Anointing by the Spirit The scope of the second question, as to what effect the anointing of the Spirit had upon the humanity and/or divinity of Jesus, has been limited by the foregoing discussion. We should speak of one anointing of Jesus, insofar as he was human, not two anointings; the second being on the Word as God.
There is universal agreement that the purpose of the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit was to prepare or enable him to fulfill the Christological mission.25 The question at hand, then, revolves around whether the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit had a qualitative effect upon his
23 Orbe (1961: 510–11).
24 e.g. AH 2.28.1–2 and 4.11.2. This is not to say that he does not acknowledge different orders of creation, cf. Fantino (1986: 86).
25 Houssiau (1955: 176–7, 179); Fabbri, CyFl 12/14 (1956: 23–4); Orbe (1961: 510); Orbe, 65
(1984: 41, 43); de Andia (1986: 191–2); Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 667, 669); Vigne (1992: 79); Fantino
(1994: 380); Orbe, Greg 76 (1995: 673); McDonnell (1996: 119–20); Smith, TS 58.4 (1997: 619).
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
humanity by which his humanity received divine attributes. Central to this determination is whether Irenaeus regards the anointing Spirit as the Holy
Spirit, or an impersonal Spirit or power of God.
4.1.2.1 The Anointing Spirit is the Holy Spirit Both Fabbri and Orbe believe that an impersonal Spirit or power of God anointed Jesus. Fabbri says the Spirit, who is the 'divine life,' gave supernatural life to Jesus' humanity, making his humanity the efficient cause and exemplar of all vivifying and sanctifying works.26 Orbe goes into more detail. He contends that the anointing Spirit is the power or dynamic quality of the Spirit of God that descended upon Christ's humanity, sanctified it, and then, gave it the physical principle of divine life.27 As 'the saving thing'28 in Christ, this power of the Spirit is the principle of divine operations common to the 'persons' of the Godhead, the salvific power that caused the flesh of Jesus to become the physical principle of salvation that is able to work salvation in himself and others.29 Thus, the anointing of the Spirit introduced a 'true newness'30 into Jesus when he was christened in his human nature by the salvific instrument (the Spirit of God, the salvific power) that he then passes to others at Pentecost.31 Daniel Smith utilizes Orbe's conclusions to argue that 'by virtue of the incarnational union' the anointing represents a communicatio idiomatum.32 This makes the baptism at the Jordan 'a key filial moment in the life of Jesus, an important step in the progressive deification of the human nature of Christ.'33
26 Fabbri CyF 12/45 (1956): for the Spirit as the divine life see esp. p. 18, p. 30 n. 64; for the effect of the anointing on Jesus' humanity, see pp. 9, 21.
27 Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 676). See also, Orbe (1961: 541). Two points need to be made. Orbe's reference to 'divine life' is misleading. Irenaeus conceives of two modalities of the one human, physical life: temporal and eternal. For a discussion of Irenaeus' conception of temporal and eternal life, see chapter 6 of this study, esp. p. 149, p. 149 n. 5, and pp. 166–73. For what Orbe means by 'physical principle' see n. 29.
28 'lo saludable;' ibid. 677, vol. 2.
29 Ibid. See also, Orbe, Greg, 65 (1984: 41). Orbe argues from the basis of AH 3.10.3 and 3.12.7; the following pages contain a counter-interpretation of these passages.
Orbe refers to both the 'physical principle of divine life' and the 'physical principle of salvation.' He uses the term 'physical' to emphasize Irenaeus' concern with the salvation of the flesh (human material), in contrast to the Gnostics (who were concerned with the Spirit) and the Platonizing ecclesiastics (who were concerned with the soul). The 'physical principle of divine life' and the 'physical principle of salvation' are related to each other. The first is the power of the Spirit of God (the anointing Spirit itself) that his flesh received for the salvation of humanity
(including Jesus' own flesh). The 'physical principle of salvation,' then, is the ability to dynamically work salvation that the flesh of Jesus possesses once it has received the 'physical principle of divine life' (i.e., once it has been anointed by the Spirit). (Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 676–7)).
30 'verdadera novedad;' Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 673).
31 Ibid. vol. 2: 675. See also, Orbe, Greg 65 (1984: 43).
32 Smith, TS 58.4 (1997: 634, 640).
33 Ibid. p. 640.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Fabbri and Orbe derive their understanding of the anointing Spirit as the power, dynamic quality, or (principle of ) divine life from AH 3.12.7;34 Orbe also works from AH 3.10.3, which we will address after our consideration of AH 3.12.7. For both, the quotation of Acts 10:38 in AH 3.12.7 supports their contention that Irenaeus ascribes an impersonal character to the Spirit received by Jesus at his baptism. That passage reads: ' . . . Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power;35 who went around doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; because
God was with him.' The quotation is open to interpretation. Fabbri and Orbe understand it as identifying the power of God with the Holy Spirit.
They neglect, however, to take into consideration the clarifying summary of this passage that Irenaeus offers later in AH 3.12.7: 'he also has testified to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God . . . and not only this, but he also has testified that Jesus was himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ.' In this description of the incidents recounted in Acts 10, Irenaeus does not indicate that he considers virtute to define or in any way modify Spiritu sancto. Indeed, he does not even include the words 'and with power' when he reiterates the story of Acts 10. Therefore, nothing in the quotation of Acts 10:38, or in Irenaeus' own summary of that text, suggests he understands Spiritu sancto and virtute in apposition with each other, nor as being received by Jesus as divine qualities during his baptism at the Jordan. According to AH 3.12.7, then, it is the Holy Spirit who anointed
Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan.
This determination agrees with Houssiau's analysis of the different meanings the Book of Acts and Irenaeus assign to the name 'Jesus Christ.' Houssiau wrote,
'For the Book of Acts, "Jesus" designates the man from Nazareth, whereas "Christ" signifies the power and the divine dignity. For Irenaeus, on the contrary,
"Jesus" designates the divine person, that is the Word, whereas the name "Christ" is attributed to Jesus because of the humanity that he has assumed. "Jesus becomes
Jesus-Christ" simply means that "the Word becomes flesh".'36 Irenaeus' ascription of the title 'Christ' to Jesus, following his anointing by the Spirit, does not correspond to the reception of divine qualities, but in fact affirms Jesus' humanity.
Orbe also refers to Irenaeus' discussion in AH 3.10.3 to substantiate his interpretation of the Spirit. Irenaeus writes:
But the knowledge of salvation was the knowledge of the Son of God, who both is called and is in truth, Salvation (Salus), and Savior (Salvator), and Salutary
(Salutare) . . . But Salutary (Salutare), thus: 'God has made known his Salvation
34 Both Fabbri and Orbe utilize AH 3.12.7 as a proof text. Fabbri (CyF 12/45 1956: 27 n. 54) says only that Jesus' humanity was clothed with the Spirit and power at the shores of the Jordan.
Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 677) simply offers a quote.
35 AH 3.12.7: Iesum a Nazareth, quemadmodum unxit eum Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute.
36 Houssiau (1955: 185).
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
(Salutarem) in the sight of the Gentiles' [Ps. 98:2].37 For he is indeed Savior (Salvator), since he is the Son and Word of God; but Salutary (Salutare), because
[He is] Spirit: for he says, 'The Spirit of our face, Christ the Lord' [Lam. 4:20]. But Salvation (Salus), since he is flesh: for 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us' [John 1:14].38
Three titles apply to the Son, each of which contributes to our understanding of redemption. The third title, Salutare, is of particular interest to this present study for it involves the relationship between the Son and Spirit with regard to salvation. Several generations of scholars have focused on Irenaeus' use of Lam. 4:20 in connection with this title: 'but Salutary, because [He is] Spirit: for he says, "The Spirit of our face, Christ the Lord" [Lam. 4:20].' J. Armitage
Robinson first suggested that Salutare refers to the Son as 'saving principle.'39
Adelin Rousseau proposed that it refers to the common divinity, the Spirit, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.40 Orbe would have us believe that it refers to the 'salvific instrument' in Christ's flesh.41
If we were to base our determination on this portion of Irenaeus' discussion alone, it seems to me that Salutare would be best understood as a reference to the common divinity Jesus possesses: the Spirit shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.42 Still, it is difficult to understand what Irenaeus would mean by saying that Jesus is Salutare because he is God, since just before this statement he said that Jesus is Savior (Salvator) because he is the Son and Word of God. The two statements seem to overlap each other considerably—to be almost tautological. Nevertheless, Irenaeus could be saying that as God,
Jesus has saving power or is saving (is Salutare), and as Son or Word of God, he is the particular subsistence of that saving power (is the Salvatore).
37 AH 3.10.3: Salutare autem sic: 'Notum fecit Deus Salutarem suum in conspectu gentium.'
38 AH 3.10.3. The reader of the ANF translation should note that the division between AH 3.10.2 and AH 3.10.3 occurs at different places in the ANF and the SC; my references follow the SC.
39 Robinson (1970: 63). Followed by a host of others, he interprets Irenaeus' use of Lam. 4:20 here as saying, 'Christ was Spirit of God, and Christ's body was made by his Spirit. This is as much as saying that the Word of God was the agent of his own incarnation.' That Irenaeus does not intend this particular use of Lam. 4:20 to describe the process by which the Word is incarnated is evident from (1) the fact that Irenaeus discusses the incarnation under the title Salus, not Salutare; and (2) my upcoming argument, which will show the verse to support Irenaeus' explanation for the Spirit's role in bringing Salvation to humanity. Robinson's reasoning may be overly influenced by the presence of Lam. 4:20 in Prf 71, and perhaps Justin's 1 Apol 32–33 remains in the back of his mind as well. I do not, then, consider this to be a statement of Spirit-Christology; for my discussion of Spirit-Christology in Irenaeus, see chapter 7, pp. 182–93.
40 Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 272).
41 Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 674–5).
42 For a statement such as this, see Prf 71 in which Lam. 4:20 is again quoted. As note 39 indicates, however, I do not believe Lam. 4:20 is used in this way in AH 3.10.3. On Irenaeus' use of 'Spirit' to refer to the spiritual nature of God, and esp. its Stoic roots, see Barnes (2009: esp. 68–70).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit The Son or Word is God who is Spirit, who effects salvation, or something of the like.
At least three points lead us away from such an interpretation. First, in such an argument, we would expect Irenaeus to discuss Jesus first as God and then as the subsistence of God, the Word or Son of God, but Irenaeus would be doing the opposite. Second, Irenaeus consistently connects the basis of the salvation of others with Jesus' humanity, as in fact he does in the next sentence of this passage ('Salvation since he is flesh'), but here he would be connecting it with his divinity. The third point comes from an early portion of the passage that is always overlooked.
We cannot understand what Irenaeus means by 'Salutary, because [He is] Spirit' without taking into consideration his first step in substantiating the title Salutare.
Prior to his connection of Salutare to Lam. 4:20, Irenaeus writes: 'But Salutary
(Salutare), thus: "God has made known his Salvation (Salutarem) in the sight of the Gentiles" [Ps. 98:2].'43 Irenaeus defines Salutare as the making known of God's
Salvation. He defines Salvation as the Word Incarnate, as seen in the last sentence in the above selection: 'But Salvation, since he is flesh.' In his first definition of Salutare, then, Irenaeus gives us the information we need to understand what he means when he says a few sentences later the Son of God is 'Salutary, because [He is] Spirit.' Jesus is Salutare because he has been made known to human beings as their Salvation. Irenaeus uses Lam. 4:20 to connect the Spirit with the title Salutare because it is by means of the Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ that Jesus is made known to or brought to the rest of the human race.
Neither AH 3.10.3 nor AH 3.12.7, then, can be used to identify the Spirit that descended on Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan as an impersonal Spirit or power of God.44 Rather, both passages refer to the particular association of the Holy Spirit with the Incarnate Word that began when the Father anointed
Jesus with the Spirit at his baptism.45 The most fundamental discussion of this 43 AH 3.10.3: Salutare autem sic: 'Notum fecit Deus Salutarem suum in conspectu gentium.'
44 Insofar as Heine (JTS 49 1998: 56–91, here 69–71) has ascertained Callistus' approach to the baptismal account, Irenaeus' Trinitarian interpretation distinguishes him from the theological milieu of Callistus. Irenaeus would also differ from the opinions of the Theodotians (which Heine describes on p. 71), because his deprecation of the notion that Christ descended upon the human Jesus would apply to the Theodotians just as it does to his present adversaries.
45 Cf. AH 3.18.3: 'For in the name of Christ is implied, who anoints, the one who has been anointed, and the unction itself with which that one has been anointed. And indeed the Father anoints, the Son to be sure has been anointed, with the Spirit who is the Unction (in Spiritu qui est unctio). As the Word says through Isaiah, "The Spirit of God is upon me, because he has anointed me" [Isa. 61:1], signifying both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the Unction, which is the Spirit.'
Fabbri (12/45 1956: 30–1) interprets AH 3.18.3 as revealing a double anointing of Jesus, the first at his Incarnation and the second at his baptism. He misunderstands Irenaeus' appeal to the name of 'Christ': it does not indicate that he conceives of an anointing at the Incarnation. The point of the passage is that the Incarnate Son suffered the crucifixion. He appeals to the name
'Christ' because the three-fold referent inherent to that title proves, according to Irenaeus,
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
association of the Holy Spirit with Jesus occurs toward the end of AH 3.9.3.
Two points emerge from this passage. First, the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit resulted in a non-qualitative empowerment of his humanity for the fulfillment of the Christological mission. Second, Jesus' anointing by the Spirit is the basis for the reception of Salvation by the rest of the human race, for Salvation comes to others by means of the Spirit as the Unction of Christ.
4.1.2.2 The Non-Qualitative Empowerment of Jesus' Humanity Instead of receiving a qualitative empowerment by means of an anointing by an impersonal Spirit or the power of the Spirit of God, Jesus experienced a nonqualitative empowerment of his humanity by means of an anointing by the Holy Spirit. The appropriation of Isa. 11:1–4 and 61.1–2 by Irenaeus shows that these passages are the context for his thinking about the anointing by the Spirit.
Since there is no evidence to the contrary, we may presume that Irenaeus' understanding of anointing corresponds to the accounts he finds in the Old
Testament.46 In those accounts the descent of the Spirit onto Israelites empowered them to perform a mission or fulfill an office given to an individual by God.47 The period of empowerment lasted as long as the purpose for the empowerment existed. It was not permanent by nature, as the occasional departure of the Spirit from an anointed-one reveals.48 Since the powers given to the anointed-one ceased at the departure of the Spirit upon the completion of the mission or the removal from office, we can infer that the descent of the Spirit did not involve a qualitative change of the anointed-one.
In the case of the anointing of Jesus, then, the Spirit empowered his humanity so that the Incarnate Word could fulfill the Messianic mission: 'he that the Son was truly present in the flesh at the time of his anointing at the Jordan (the Incarnate
Son was anointed by the Father with the Spirit). This same Incarnate Son, who was anointed and received the title 'Christ,' is the one who died on the cross (against the claim that the 'Christ' departed Jesus prior to his passion).
In addition to Fabbri and Orbe, a non-Trinitarian reading of Jesus' anointing with the Spirit by the Father is supported by von Harnack (1958, vol. 2: 267 n.2) who says, 'the personality of the Spirit vanishes [in 3.18.3]'; and Smith (TS 58.4 1997: 624), who does not consider the Spirit to be distinct in identity but to be the Spirit or power of the Father (or to be the divinity of the Son in 'the case of conception').
A Trinitarian reading is supported by Aeby (1958: 60–1), Rousseau (SC 210 1974: 248),
Jaschke (1976: 214–15), de Andia (1986: 189–90), Vigne (1992: 79–80), Fantino (1994: 380), and McDonnell (1996: 118–19).
46 Indeed, he speaks of Isaiah as 'pointing out beforehand his (Jesus') unction and the reason why he was anointed . . . ' (AH 3.9.3).
47 See S. Tengström, '' , ַחּוד13 (2004: 390–4). That Irenaeus understands the descent of the Spirit as missional is evident from the connection he makes between the descent of the Spirit and the Christological mission in the passage above: 'the Spirit of God rested on him and he was anointed to preach . . . '.
48 e.g. the departure of the Spirit of the Lord from Saul after Samuel anointed David as Saul's successor in 1 Sam. 16:13–14.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit was anointed to preach the Gospel to the lowly . . . 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.'49 The empowerment of Jesus' humanity never ends, not because it involves a qualitative change, but because the very purpose of the Word's incarnation is to fulfill the Messianic mission. That is to say, the Spirit never departs his humanity because the Messianic mission is its raison d'être.
A passage that occurs a little later in Book 3 confirms that the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit resulted in a non-qualitative empowerment of his humanity. Those who argue that Jesus' humanity was invested with divine attributes by means of the Spirit's anointing undervalue or neglect the accustomization of the Spirit that occurred during Jesus' life. Irenaeus speaks of this accustomization in AH 3.17.1:
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, 'Go, teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' [Matt. 28:19]. This (Spirit), indeed, he promised by the prophets to pour out in the last times on [his] servants and maid servants so that they might prophesy; and for this reason [the Spirit] descended on the Son of God made the Son of Man, with him becoming accustomed (cum ipso adsuescens) to dwell in the human race, to rest in human beings, and to dwell in the formation of God, working the will of the Father in them and renewing them from oldness into the newness of Christ.
The beginning of AH 3.17.1 parallels AH 3.9.3. As Irenaeus himself observes, he once again deploys Isa. 61:1–2 to combat the notion that the aeon Christ, rather than the Holy Spirit, descended upon Jesus at his baptism. This text, however, provides an added detail: Irenaeus believes that the Spirit became accustomed
(adsuesco) to dwell, rest, and work among human beings as Christ's Unction.
Irenaeus considers the anointing of Jesus to involve not only the Spirit acting on Jesus but also the Spirit as acted upon. He does not say here that the Spirit created an environment within the humanity of Jesus suitable to his presence and work. Instead, he says the Spirit himself had to become accustomed to dwelling, resting, and working in the human environment.
The need for the Holy Spirit to become accustomed to 'working the will of the Father' in human beings and to 'renewing them from oldness into the newness of Christ' entails the presupposition that the Spirit was not prepared to perform and so could not have performed such works prior to the period of accustomization.50 As a result, the Spirit could not have renewed Christ's own
49 AH 3.9.3.
50 De Andia states that the anointing of the Spirit on Jesus has the same effect as the anointing of the apostles because of accustomization (1986: 206). According to my understanding, accustomization signals the Spirit could not have had the same effect on Jesus prior to being accustomed as it had on the apostles once the accustomization had been accomplished.