4.1.3 Jesus' Anointing within the Context of his Incarnation and Glorification
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
humanity 'from oldness into the newness,' a qualitative change, at the time of the anointing at the Jordan. The Spirit acquired the capability to perform this work in humanity by anointing and remaining with the humanity of the Incarnate Word.51 As a result, the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Holy
Spirit could only have involved a non-qualitative empowerment.
4.1.2.3 The Unction of Christ is the Medium of Salvation The anointing of Jesus' humanity with the Holy Spirit makes it possible for human beings to receive the redemption that results from the completion of his mission. Irenaeus writes:
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.52
We have already seen that the anointing by the Spirit enabled the fulfillment of the Christological mission. We learn here that the salvation worked by Jesus Christ comes to human beings by their participation in the Unction of Jesus—the believer experiences salvation by 'receiving from the abundance of his anointing.' That is to say, the Spirit with whom the Father anointed the Incarnate Word then, as the Unction of Christ, anoints each individual believer, an anointing which results in the salvation of that person.53 When we combine this passage with AH 3.10.3, Irenaeus' conception of the believer's anointing with the Unction of Christ becomes clearer. AH 3.9.3 establishes that each believer receives the Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ. AH 3.10.3 explains that this reception involves bringing or making known Jesus—Salvation—to the believer. Therefore, the Spirit as the Unction of Christ is the medium by which believers receive Jesus, their Salvation.
4.1.3 Jesus' Anointing within the Context of his Incarnation and Glorification Now that we have arrived at a new understanding of Irenaeus' conception of Jesus' anointing with the Holy Spirit, it will be helpful to place what happened
51 Aeby (1958: 61) describes this accustomization of the Spirit as 'a comparable apprenticeship to that of the Son of God in the old theophanies'.
52 AH 3.9.3: this selection may be read in context at the beginning of this section.
53 AH 3.17.2 indicates that the anointing of the believer by the Spirit occurs at the time of that individual's baptism. Contrary to the dominant scholarly consensus, I believe that Irenaeus' discussion in AH 3.17.2 makes best sense when read in light of a two-rite baptismal ceremony.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit at this moment in his life in context with what happened to his humanity at other key moments. Indeed, while I have argued that Jesus' humanity did not undergo a qualitative empowerment at the time of his anointing, we should recognize that it experienced qualitative changes at both his incarnation and glorification. Considering together his incarnation, anointing, and glorification will not only confirm my reading of Jesus' anointing, it will also shed further light upon it, and it will add to our understanding of Irenaeus' vision of Jesus' life as a whole.
4.1.3.1 The Reception of Incorruptibility at his Incarnation De Andia has shown that according to Irenaeus, Jesus' humanity received the quality of incorruption at the time of its union with the Word in the Incarnation. She writes, 'in the mystery of the incarnation, it is the divinity, united to the humanity, which procures incorruptibility.'54 In this I agree, but she further contends that the humanity of Jesus progressed in incorruptibility throughout his life. From the time of his incarnation to his baptism in the Jordan, his incorruptibility was the result of the union of the Word with his flesh, and from the time of his baptism to his exaltation in glory it is the Spirit who transformed his flesh rendering it incorruptible in glory.55
The involvement of the Spirit in the creation of Jesus' humanity, in its resurrection, and in its glorification, is beyond doubt. De Andia, however, can provide no clear passage to support her position that the Spirit transformed
Jesus' humanity during the course of his life—between its creation and resurrection.56 In fact, Irenaeus never states that Jesus' humanity received any divine quality or attribute at any point prior to his death other than when the Word united with his humanity. For this reason we should understand him to mean that Jesus' humanity received the divine quality or attribute of incorruptibility in full at the time of his incarnation. As Irenaeus writes in AH 3.19.1:
For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been
54 De Andia (1986: 185); this is a summary statement of the preceding chapter, see esp. pp. 157–78 where she analyzes the key passages of AH 3.18.7 and AH 3.19.1.
55 Ibid. 185.
56 Her main discussion occurs in Homo Vivens, (de Andia 1986: 189–201). On p. 185, she quotes
AH 2.20.3: 'but our Lord Christ has suffered a strong and unyielding passion; not only was he himself not in danger of being corrupted, but he even established corrupt humanity by his own strength, and recalled it to incorruptibility.' Here, it is better to understand Irenaeus as saying that the effect or outcome of Jesus' passion (when completed) was the establishment of humanity in incorruptibility, rather than to say that incorruptibility was achieved during the course of the passion.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?57
The full reception of incorruptibility by Jesus' humanity occurred by means of its union with the Word at the time of the Incarnation.58 This means that there is no need to postulate a qualitative effect for the anointing of the Spirit at the Jordan in order to explain the incorruptibility or sanctification possessed by Jesus' humanity.
4.1.3.2 The Reception of Communicability at his Glorification The first qualitative change of Jesus' humanity occurred at his Incarnation when its union with the Word rendered it incorruptible. The second qualitative change of his humanity occurred at his glorification or spiritualization, when the Spirit rendered his already incorruptible humanity the saving principle for the rest of the human race.
I have argued Orbe was wrong to believe that the anointing by the Spirit at the Jordan had a qualitative effect on the humanity of Jesus: giving to it the physical principle of divine life (making him Salutare), by which salvation comes to other human beings.59 Orbe's argument was based upon the understanding that the effect of the union of the Word with Jesus' humanity was incommunicable, whereas the effect of the union of the Spirit with Jesus' humanity is communicable.60 By stating that the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit gave to it the physical principle of divine life, Orbe was trying to explain how the salvation accomplished by Jesus and experienced by his own humanity comes to other human beings. He was wrong to state that this occurred at the anointing at the Jordan, and he was wrong to hold that the anointing Spirit itself was the physical principle of divine life. Orbe was not wrong, however, to suggest that Irenaeus locates the saving principle in the humanity of the Incarnate Word, nor to associate the Spirit (though I am here speaking of the Holy Spirit) with the establishment of that saving principle.
Irenaeus describes the glorification of Jesus' flesh with the following words:
57 ANF translation; cf. AH 3.18.7.
58 De Andia (1986: 177) has shown that for Irenaeus 'filial adoption is nothing other than the participation in incorruptibility'. We may say, then, that the filial adoption or deification of Jesus' humanity was completed at the time of the Incarnation.
59 Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 674–6); based on his reading of AH 3.10.3.
60 Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 670).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit . . . in order that on the flesh of our Lord might come the paternal light, and from his brilliant flesh might come to us, and so humanity might come to incorruptibility, having been enveloped by the paternal light.61
De Andia refers to this selection when she argues that the bringing of incorruptibility to the human race by the Spirit occurs after the flesh of Christ has been glorified because the incorruptibility the Holy Spirit brings to humanity is proper to the glorified flesh of Christ.62 I agree with her evaluation. However, Irenaeus does not indicate that the transformation of Christ's flesh progressed throughout his life and culminated at his glorification.
We should, then, deduce that Irenaeus assigns the qualitative changes of Jesus' humanity to two instants in time. First, the Incarnation, at which time the unification of humanity with the Word granted to Jesus' humanity the divine quality of incorruptibility (e.g. AH 3.19.1). Second, the glorification or spiritualization of Jesus' incorruptible flesh,63 at which time the Spirit produced the second qualitative change rendering it the saving principle for other human beings.
Since the incorruptibility belonging to Christ's humanity was only communicated after his glorification, we may infer that the incorruptibility possessed by his flesh prior to its glorification, the incorruptibility proper to its union with the Word, was incommunicable. The glorification/spiritualization of his flesh, then, rendered the incorruptibility proper to his own flesh communicable to the rest of the human race. Since this communicability follows the spiritualization of his incorruptible flesh by the Holy Spirit (AH 5.7.2),64 it should be considered the result of that spiritualization or glorification. His glorification, then, occurred in order to bring Salvation, the glorified Incarnate Word, to human beings (AH
3.9.3 and AH 3.10.3). Therefore, the defining characteristic of the glorified flesh of Jesus in contrast to the anointed flesh of Jesus is the communicability of the incorruptibility that belongs to the union of the Word and its humanity.
It is not a coincidence that the moment at which Jesus' incorruptibility became communicable, his glorification, was the moment that the Christological mission was accomplished. The Spirit's accustomization to humanity that 61 AH 4.20.2. For the involvement of the Spirit in the glorification of Jesus' humanity, see AH
5.6.2–5.8.1, where Irenaeus argues from 1 Cor. 6:14 and Rom. 8:11 that the resurrection and glorification of the body of Jesus and the bodies of other human beings occur by the same instrumentality of the Spirit.
62 De Andia (1986: 199; see also 186, 206). For the significance of the resurrection as the source of filial adoption for the believer, see (1986: 185–201, esp. 186, 201). See in Irenaeus, AH
3.16.3.
63 For the glorification of Jesus' flesh, see the end of AH 5.6.2 and the beginning of AH 5.7.1.
64 AH 5.7.2: 'For these are animal bodies . . . which rising by means of the Spirit become spiritual bodies, so that by the Spirit they may have life ever-lasting.' This statement refers to the resurrection and glorification of the bodies of believers, but in AH 5.6.2 and AH 5.7.1 Irenaeus quotes 1 Cor. 6:14 and Rom. 8:11 to establish that the resurrection and glorification of Jesus' body and the bodies of believers occur in the same way.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
took place by means of the Incarnation was completed at the moment of Christ's glorification, and it was then that Jesus sent the Spirit bearing the incorruptibility of his flesh to other human beings.65 The moment at which his incorruptibility was communicable was the same moment at which the Holy Spirit became able to communicate that incorruptibility,
Jesus' glorification.66
Section Conclusion According to Irenaeus, then, Jesus experienced one anointing by the Spirit, an anointing of his humanity that occurred at his baptism in the Jordan. Moreover, the Spirit who descended upon Jesus was the Holy Spirit, not an impersonal Spirit or the power of the Spirit of God. This anointing with the Holy Spirit resulted in a non-qualitative empowerment of Jesus' humanity, so that he could fulfill the Messianic mission.
The Holy Spirit's identity as the Unction of Christ allowed him to become accustomed to working and dwelling in the human race. The ability of the Spirit to bring Salvation to the rest of the human race is contingent upon this period of accustomization. After the completion of his accustomization, after Jesus' glorification, the Spirit as the Unction of Christ became the uniquely capable agent who mediates the presence of Christ to believers. This mediation of the Spirit as the Unction involves bringing to humanity the requisite knowledge for redemption, the knowledge of the Incarnate Word, who is
'Salvation, since he is flesh.'
Irenaeus, then, envisioned a Christological mission that rested on a codependent relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that relationship involves a specific sequence of events. The anointing of the Incarnate Word by the Holy Spirit made possible the fulfillment of the Messianic mission and the accustomization of the Spirit to humanity. The Messianic mission culminated in the glorification of Christ by the Holy Spirit, at which time the incorruptibility that was the exclusive possession of Jesus' humanity was rendered communicable and the Holy Spirit became eligible to bring the incorruptibility of the glorified Christ to believers. The glorified Christ then sent the Spirit to those who believe in him. It is at this sending that the anointing of Christ, the Spirit as the Unction, was poured out to the rest of humanity, anointing believers and bringing to them their Salvation.
65 As de Andia writes, 'the knowledge or the gnosis of the Son, and, in him, that of the Father, is the source of eternal life. It is "the knowledge of the Son of God which is incorruptibility" [AH
4.15.2]' (1986: 184).
66 Contra Orbe's statement that Irenaeus never explains why the Spirit is not given to other human beings after Jesus' baptism at the Jordan, but rather after his ascension (1961: 528).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit
4.2 THE UNCTION OF THE CHURCH
In our consideration of the Spirit as the Unction of Christ, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Irenaeus addresses this topic in order to explain how the activity of the Spirit at Pentecost, and beyond, fulfills the promise of Joel 2:28 to pour out the Spirit 'in the last times.'67 The anointing of the Son-made-man with the Spirit served as the precondition and conduit for the transmission of the Spirit to other human beings for their salvation and edification. When Christ's time walking upon the earth came to an end, the Spirit, who had become accustomed to dwell and work among humanity, continued a new form of that work as the newly promised gift of the Savior. In AH 3.17.1 the Spirit who anointed Christ, and the Spirit who worked in Peter to testify to the Lord's identity (the quotation of Matt. 10.20), is the same Spirit behind the 'power of regeneration into God' given to the disciples, so that they could fulfill the Great Commission.68 Expounding upon this latter stage of the Spirit's activity, the activity that follows his sending by Christ, is Irenaeus' chief concern in AH 3.17.2–3.
The majority of AH 3.17.2 and the whole of AH 3.17.3 describe how the Spirit, the Unction of Christ, adapts believers to God: 'For this reason also the Lord promised to send the Paraclete, who would adapt us to God (qui nos aptaret Deo).'
These two sections contain two themes with regard to the work of the Spirit in the Church: the establishment of unity and the establishment of productivity.69
He opens his account with two analogies that illustrate these topics:
For just as from dry wheat one lump of dough cannot be made without water, nor one loaf of bread, so neither can we many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water which is from heaven.70 And just as dry ground, if it does not receive moisture does not bear fruit, likewise even we, who are at first a dry tree may never bear the fruit of life without the willing rain from above.71
Irenaeus expands upon the analogy of the dry wheat in the remaining sentences of AH 3.17.2; he addresses the analogy of the dry tree in AH 3.17.3.
67 AH 3.17.1. De Andia's division of the passages that refer to the Spirit as water of life into two categories (first, a Christological context in which Christ gives the Spirit; second, a Pentecostal context) suggests Irenaeus never uses this particular metaphor of the Spirit to connect the giving of the Spirit by Christ and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (de Andia 1986: 212). Yet, this is the very framework of AH 3.17.
68 AH 3.17.1; quoted in the previous section. For the Lucan idea of the Spirit as the power given by Jesus Christ at Pentecost in order to fulfill the mission of the Church, see Lampe
(1957:193–94).
69 De Andia also recognizes the Spirit as the source of unification and production in this passage (1986: 210–13).
70 For the scriptural background for understanding the Spirit as the water from heaven, see de
Andia (1986: 212 n. 41).
71 AH 3.17.2.