4.2.1 The Analogy of the Dry Wheat
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
4.2.1 The Analogy of the Dry Wheat His discussion of the first analogy begins immediately after the above quotation with the following sentence: Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam quae est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animae autem per Spiritum ('For our bodies have received unity by means of that laver which leads to incorruptibility, but our souls by means of the Spirit.'). The suggestion that the body receives some sort of unity by means of baptism poses an interpretive problem. Irenaeus never makes a similar statement elsewhere, which means that our present version of this passage could be the result of a translation error. Instead of 'unity which leads to incorruptibility,' Irenaeus could have written, 'union with incorruptibility.'72 This latter wording could find support in a similar statement in AH 3.19.1: 'Indeed, in no other way could we receive incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality.'
Two main problems exist with regard to this emendation. First, it disregards the careful construction of the sentence. It would require quae to refer to unitatem when its placement in the sentence, in addition to the presence of illam, suggests that Irenaeus intends for it to refer to lavacrum. 'That baptism' is the one 'which leads to incorruptibility.' Irenaeus is saying that the unity occurs by the laver 'which leads to incorruptibility'—incorruptibility is not received at the time of the laver, or by means of the laver; rather baptism conducts the neophyte toward incorruptibility.73 Second, the suggestion forces an awkward reading upon the analogy of dry wheat that Irenaeus means for this sentence to explain. The natural reading of the analogy involves the unification of many elements into one body by means of the Spirit (the water from heaven), referring to the unification of individual believers into the one body of Christ by the work of the Spirit.74
Irenaeus is saying, then, that the unity a believer receives as a part of the body of Christ follows the reception of incorruptibility granted by the Spirit, which itself follows the washing of baptism. In order to secure this reading, we need to answer three questions. First, why does Irenaeus link the body to baptism, but not the soul? Second, given that baptism 'leads to' incorruptibility and does not produce incorruptibility itself, when and how does the neophyte receive incorruptibility? Third, how does the Spirit unite individual believers into the one body of Christ?
72 Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 329).
73 The reception of the Spirit in the baptismal ceremony is a precondition for the ultimate reception of incorruptibility that occurs following the vision of God (AH 4.20.5) and could be understood in that sense as leading to incorruptibility. This, however, does not explain the differentiation between body and soul that forms the context of this statement.
74 De Andia (1986: 210–11, 213).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit The explanation for why Irenaeus links the body to baptism but not to the soul lies in the use of the word lavacrum.75 Outside of our present passage lavacrum occurs twice in Against Heresies, both in a single passage in AH 5.15.3. In that passage, Irenaeus recounts the story of the blind man who was healed when he washed off the paste of clay and spittle with which Jesus had anointed his eyes. Twice during the telling of this story, Ireneus refers to the 'laver of regeneration' (lavacro regenerationis; lavacrum regenerationem) as the means by which the body was restored. Irenaeus uses the story of the blind man to illustrate the salvation of the flesh and to prefigure the future resurrection of the body from the dead—two themes that play a prominent role in this portion of AH 5, which focuses on the redemption of the body. The washing in water healed the body by restoring its sight, thus tying the use of lavacrum to the restoration of the body in particular. This particular use of lavacrum, then, suggests that the washing of baptism in AH 3.17.2 refers to the purification of the body alone, and not to the purification of the soul.
Irenaeus does not seem to be alone in this type of reasoning. Hippolytus says the third cup the neophyte drinks after baptism contains water 'as a sign of the washing, so that the inner person, which is made up of the soul, should receive the same as the body.'76 The idea seems to be that the soul, which dwells inside the body, can only be cleansed by water that enters inside the body and not by the baptismal water that touches the exterior of the body alone. By separating the soul from the washing of baptism, Irenaeus may be working with the same idea as Hippolytus: the baptismal water affects the outside of the person, the body, and not the inner person, the soul. Instead of saying that the soul is washed by means of internal water, Irenaeus says that the soul is cleansed per Spiritum, 'by means of the Spirit.'77 So according to Irenaeus, 'both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God.'78 The body of the catechumen must be cleansed by water and the soul by the Spirit.79
75 A Library of Latin Texts search shows that baptism* occurs 32 times in Against Heresies, but in none of those occurrences does Irenaeus discuss the baptismal liturgy as he does here.
The majority (19) of the references refer to Jesus' baptism at the Jordan.
76 Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21.29 (2001). Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of the Apostolic Tradition are taken from this text.
77 De Andia is correct to point out (1986: 221) that in AH 5.6.1 Irenaeus states that the soul experiences a direct union with the Spirit, but the body experiences an indirect union with the Spirit through the soul. Yet, I do not believe that Irenaeus intends to make this point in this passage, nor do I believe that this passage indicates that the soul receives the Spirit in the washing of baptism. A separate point: while the parallel is not exact, a certain similarity of logic exists between Irenaeus' understanding here and his argument in AH 2.30, esp. AH 2.30.8, that only the Spiritual can produce the Spiritual. We should also note that his discussion of baptism in Prf 41
('cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit') is ambiguous.
78 AH 3.17.2; ANF translation.
79 Both writers seem far from Tertullian's understanding that the Spirit empowers the baptismal waters to sanctify both the spirit and the flesh of the catechumen (Bapt. 4.4 [1999]).
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
The second question. We can explain how and when the catechumen receives incorruptibility, since baptism only 'leads to' incorruptibility, by recognizing the baptismal liturgy that Irenaeus has in mind. The liturgy that best fits his comments is one that involves two rites. In the first, baptism cleanses the catechumen's sins, thus paving the way for the second, the postbaptismal reception of the Spirit,80 whether by an imposition of hands or by an anointing with chrism.81
Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were all familiar with two-rite liturgies.82
Hippolytus records a liturgy that involved both baptism and a post-baptismal anointing: '"Lord God, you have made them (the neophytes) worthy to deserve the remission of sins through the laver of regeneration: make them worthy to be
80 Both Benoît (1953: esp. 204–5, 224) and Lampe (1951: 193) have argued that no postbaptismal rite existed for the bestowal of the Spirit during the second century, or at least no important rite. Lampe does state that a variety of practices emerged at the beginning of the third century, which is not far from the date of AH 3 (pp. 196–7). And after arguing otherwise, Benoît also acknowledges the possibility that a two-rite baptismal liturgy existed during Irenaeus' time
(pp. 207–8). Marsh ITQ 40 (1973: 126) has already challenged their conclusions with regard to baptismal practice during the second century by pointing out the weakness of arguments from silence. Benoît (1953: 204) says that Irenaeus would have opposed the Gnostic understanding of anointing if he had been familiar with such a practice in the church.
With regard to Irenaeus in particular, Benoît makes two positive arguments (1953: 203). First, the proximity of the metaphors of 'water from heaven' for the Spirit and of 'washing' for baptism indicate the Spirit is given in baptism (the 'water' in the 'washing'), but this is a logical non sequitur.
Second, he affirms Barthoulot's translation and note (PO12.5 1917: 760 n.1) that Prf 7 states that the neophytes bear the Spirit when they have been taken up from the baptismal waters (p. 207). But J. Smith has already pointed out (1952: 144 n. 45), that the grammatical construction is just a doublet that cannot bear Barthoulot's rendering, nor sustain Benoît's argument.
De Andia follows Benoît in saying the Spirit is given in baptism in AH 3.17.2 (1986: 219–21) but her final comments (p. 221) acknowledge that Benoît's explanation does not account for Irenaeus' different approach to the body and soul. In her own study of baptism, de Andia cites
Prf 3 and 57 in addition to AH 3.17.2. She argues that the first part of Prf 57 refers to baptism (pp.
215–21). However, it is also the case that the second half of Prf 57 says the Spirit is received by drinking. As a result, this text can be seen to agree with a two-rite baptismal ceremony. Irenaeus refers to baptism twice in Prf 3. He first writes 'we have received baptism for the remission of sins,' and then, 'this baptism is the seal of eternal life and rebirth unto God.' Since the first reference was likely to be a part of the baptismal liturgy that Irenaeus knew (Kelly 1960: 77): it confirms that he understood baptism to entail the forgiveness of sins alone, which agrees with the two-rite baptismal ceremony. The description of 'baptism for the remission of sins' in the second reference as the 'seal of eternal life and rebirth' would then point to baptism as the earnest or promise of future eternal life and rebirth. Such a meaning occurs in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement 7.6 and 8.6, where the seal must be kept preserved or undefiled to receive incorruptibility. In AH 5.8.1 Irenaeus quotes Eph. 1:13 to say the Spirit is the seal or earnest of our future inheritance. Therefore, the incorruptibility that de Andia sees as occurring as a result of baptism alone is the effect of both rites of baptism.
81 Since the context of Irenaeus' one reference to the imposition of hands in AH 4.38.3 has nothing to do with baptism, it should not influence our understanding of the baptismal practices of the day. Moreover, because the concept of anointing plays a central role in AH 3, I suspect that anointing is the post-baptismal rite Irenaeus has in mind.
82 Origen: e.g. PA 1.3.2, 7; Comm. Rom. 5.8.3; Hom. Ezek. 7.4. Hippolytus and Tertullian are discussed in my argument above.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit filled with the Holy Spirit" . . . after this, pouring the sanctified oil from his hand and putting it on his head he shall say: "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit".'83 Tertullian records a liturgy that involved both baptism and a post-baptismal imposition of hands:
'Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit;' and 'In the next place the hand is laid on us, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit through benediction. . . Then, over our cleansed and blessed bodies willingly descends from the Father that Holiest Spirit.'84 In the two-rite baptismal liturgy, the Spirit cleanses the catechumen of sin through the washing of baptism, which prepares the neophyte for the reception of the Spirit by means of the postbaptismal rite. Incorruptibility then follows from the reception of the Holy Spirit who unites the believer to Christ. Therefore, the two-rite liturgy explains Irenaeus' careful statement that the laver of baptism 'leads to' incorruptibility; it does not itself render the catechumen incorruptible.
As for the third question, the Spirit's identity as the Unction of Christ explains how individual believers are united into the one body of Christ. As we discussed in the last section, as the Unction that overflows to human beings, the Spirit brings Salvation, Jesus Christ, to those who believe. The story of the Samaritan woman (John 4) may seem a little out of place in AH 3.17.2, since it has nothing to do with baptism. Until, that is, one recognizes that Irenaeus highlights her reception of the living water, which John 8:39 declares to be the Spirit.
The placement of the story of the Samaritan woman after his allusion to the baptismal rites drives home the point that it is the Spirit who unifies. Without the activity and presence of the Spirit in the two rites of the baptismal liturgy, no believer could become united to Christ and become incorruptible.85 The Spirit uses the two rites of the baptismal liturgy to join the flesh and soul of an individual to incorruptibility, to 'the Son of God who was made the Son of Man,' as he says in AH 3.19.1.86 When individuals are 'united to incorruptibility and immortality,'87 united by the Spirit through baptism to the 83 Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21.20–2 (2001).
84 Tertullian, On Baptism 6.1 and 8.1 (1999). Tertullian's liturgy also includes an anointing after baptism and before the imposition of hands (Bapt. 7). The purpose of baptism is not to give the Spirit, because that occurs at the imposition of hands. It rather seems to be to free the recipient from the bondage of sinfulness (baptism cleansed the catechumen from sin). Tertullian also offers an etymological explanation for the anointing, which is similar to that offered by Theophilus, Autol 1.12.
85 Cf. de Andia (1986: 223).
86 Irenaeus' use of a text from John in his argument that the Spirit unites the believer to Christ may indicate that he is in tune with John's pneumatology. McPolin observes that in John the Spirit is 'the personal link for the believer with the Incarnate and glorifed Jesus. He renders effective the presence of the glorified Lord for the believer and leads him into communion with Jesus' (McPolin, ITQ 45 1978: 126).
87 AH 3.19.1.