4.2.2 The Analogy of the Dry Tree
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
Incarnate Son, then 'can we many be made one in Christ Jesus,' as the analogy of dry wheat affirms. The Spirit unites the bodies and souls of the individual with the incorruptible and immortal One, and in the process unites each of those individuals into the one body of Christ. It is for this purpose of making a myriad into one that Jesus gave the Spirit to his followers. As Irenaeus writes at the end of AH 3.17.2, 'Which (the living water/Spirit) the Lord, receiving as a gift from the Father, likewise himself bestowed on those who are partakers of himself, sending the Holy Spirit on all the earth.'
4.2.2 The Analogy of the Dry Tree AH 3.17.3 develops the second analogy we found in AH 3.17.2: '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.' Irenaeus expands upon the water metaphor in this analogy in order to discuss the Spirit. Both the lack of dew on Gideon's fleece and Isaiah's prophecy that no rain will fall on Judah indicate that the people of Israel 'should no longer have the Holy Spirit from God.'88 He turns to Isa. 11:2 to state that God has conferred upon the Church the 'Spirit of God, who descended upon the Lord,' the 'dew [that] comes on the whole earth,' the 'Paraclete from heaven.'89 He then makes a simple declaration illustrated by several allusions to Scripture:
This is why the dew of God is necessary for us, so that we may not be consumed with fire, nor be rendered unfruitful, and so that [where] we have an accuser there we also may have the Paraclete [1 John 2:1], the Lord commending to the Holy
Spirit his own human being90 who had fallen among bandits [Luke 10:35], to whom he himself showed mercy and bound his wounds, giving two royal denaria; so that, receiving by the Spirit the image and inscription [Matt. 22:20, etc.] of the Father and the Son, we may bear fruit, the denarius which was entrusted to us having been multiplied and remitting it to the Lord [Matt. 25, Luke 19].91
88 AH 3.17.3. The reader will recall that Justin made a similar statement in Dial 87. After quoting Isa. 11:1–3 Justin argues that the Spirit has ceased to work among the Israelites and now as Christ works among his followers. Irenaeus' discussion, though, does not incorporate SpiritChristology.
89 Cf. Ode 36.6–7 where the Spirit anoints Christ, who then emits a cloud of dew from his mouth. With regard to Irenaeus' use of the name 'dew' for the Spirit, Orbe notes Prov. 3:20: 'and the clouds drop down the dew' Orbe, Greg 76 (1995: 678 n. 34). Irenaeus understands Prov. 3:
19–20 to refer to the Spirit in AH 4.20.3.
90 Suum hominem, a singular form which I take as a collective reference to human beings as the creation of the Word; see also AH 3.24.1: hominem suum.
91 AH 3.17.3.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit The Spirit does three things as the dew of God.92 First, he keeps the believer from judgment ('not be consumed by fire'), which could well refer to the unification of humanity to incorruptibility that the Spirit works through baptism in AH 3.17.2. Second, he keeps the believer from unfruitfulness, which refers to the second analogy and is the ultimate point of this selection.
Third, he functions as an advocate for the believer, which builds upon Irenaeus' references in AH 3.17.2–3 to the Spirit of Christ as the Paraclete.93
Having here summarized his teaching on the activity of the Spirit in AH 3.17.1–3, Irenaeus then proceeds to make the same points in the familiar language of Scripture:
. . . the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit his own human being94 who had fallen among bandits, to whom he himself showed mercy and bound his wounds, giving two royal denaria [Luke 10]; so that, receiving by the Spirit the image and inscription of the Father and the Son [Matt. 22:20, etc.], we may bear fruit, the denarius which was entrusted to us having been multiplied and remitting it to the Lord [Matt. 25, Luke 19].95
His decision to cast his teaching in scriptural allusions must emanate from the idea that the words of Scripture grant validity and support to his reasoning— regardless of whether those words are used in a manner that agrees with their original contextual meaning. Readers who attempt to understand Irenaeus' combination of these scriptural allusions by means of the original meaning of the allusions will find themselves in utter confusion. The statements are only intelligible as words of Scripture used with a new meaning for a new purpose.
At first blush, such a blatant disregard for the original contextual meaning of Scripture does not seem to agree with a thinker who has already affirmed the interpretive principle: 'parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions.'96 But when we combine this interpretive principle with his declaration that 'parables are able to receive many interpretations,'97 we come to an understanding that makes sense of his approach in AH 3.17.3.
Irenaeus believes that the three points he has taught with regard to the Spirit are themselves unambiguous; after all he has supported them with references
92 The connection between the Spirit and dew extends beyond Irenaeus. In Clement of Alexandria's Quis Dives Salvetur 34.1 dew belongs to the Spirit just as power to the Father and blood to the Son: 'knowing not what a "treasure in an earthen vessel" we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew (æfiø) of the Holy
Spirit' (ANF 2 1897).
93 Jesus is the paraclete for the believer in 1 John 2:1, but since Irenaeus states that the Spirit is the Paraclete and since 1 John does not mention an accuser as does Irenaeus, it seems that Irenaeus is just expounding upon the meaning of 'paraclete.'
94 Suum hominem, a singular form which I take as a collective reference to human beings as the creation of the Word, see also AH 3.24.1: hominem suum.
95 AH 3.17.3.
96 AH 2.27.1; ANF translation.
97 AH 2.27.3.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
to Scripture. Therefore, he can appropriate parables to express these truths, even if they did not express those truths in their scriptural context.
Irenaeus, then, divorces three parables from their original contexts to create the following narrative. By using the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10
('the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit his own human being who had fallen among bandits, to whom he himself showed mercy and bound his wounds, giving two royal denaria'), Irenaeus is saying Jesus sent the Spirit to fallen humanity, the Incarnate Son's own creation whom he has healed, and for whom he has provided. By using the parable about paying taxes to Caesar in Matt. 22:20, Luke 20:24 and Mark 12:16 ('So that, receiving by the Spirit the image and inscription of the Father and the Son'), Irenaeus is saying Jesus provides for those he has healed by sending the Spirit as his Unction to bring to believers the riches of salvation belonging to the Father and Son.98 And by using the parable of the Talents/Ten Minas in Matt. 25 and Luke 19 ('[so that] we may bear fruit, the denarius which was entrusted to us having been multiplied and remitting it to the Lord'), Irenaeus is saying the salvation brought to believers by the Spirit ought to result in the production of good works for the Lord.99
Section Conclusion Thus, Irenaeus utilizes two analogies in AH 3.17.2–3 to explain two effects of the anointing of the Church by the Spirit, the Unction of Christ. According to the analogy of the dry wheat, the Spirit unites human beings to incorruptibility through the two rites of baptism, and in the process unites individual believers into the one body of Christ. According to the second analogy, the Spirit renders
Christians productive, as dry trees that receive water are able to bring forth fruit. In both of these ideas, Irenaeus thinks of the Spirit as the one who brings the Incarnate Word and his saving work to fallen humanity.100 The Spirit, as the Unction of Christ, is the mediator without whom the redemptive work of the Incarnation remains unrealized for the rest of the human race.
98 Cf. Fantino, who reads the reference to the 'image and inscription' in AH 3.17.3 together with AH 4.36.7 and Prf 7 to determine, 'Baptism provides for us the denarius which bears the image and inscription of the Father, that is to say, the knowledge of the Son . . . Salvation is then in this denarius mentioned by our text, a denarius which corresponds to the gift of the Holy
Spirit' (Fantino 1986: 101).
99 The thieves represent the devil and the innkeeper the Spirit according to Orbe, Greg 76
(1995: 680).
Irenaeus' use of parables having to do with currency may have had a particular relevance for readers in Lyons. M.S. Enslin has pointed out that Augustus had established at Lyons the imperial mint, which remained the sole source of silver and gold coinage during his reign.
Enslin, HTR 40 (1947: 137–65, here 156).
100 In a similar way, Ignatius pictures the Holy Spirit as the cable linking Christ's redemptive work to human beings in his striking illustration in Ep. Eph. 9.1, 'You consider yourselves stones of the Father's temple, prepared for the edifice of God the Father, to be taken aloft by the hoisting engine of Jesus Christ, that is, the Cross, while the Holy Spirit serves you as a rope; your faith is your spiritual windlass and your love the road which leads up to God.' (ACW1 1946).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit
4.3 THE LIFE-GIVING GIFT
The last section of this chapter showed that the Spirit, as the Unction of Christ given to the Church, works to establish unity and productivity among believers. In AH 3.24.1 Irenaeus revisits the idea that the Spirit was presented to the Church now, however, as the gift that brings to life those who receive it.
For it is to the church that this gift of God101 has been entrusted (creditum est), just as breath [was entrusted] to the one who was molded (aspiratio plasmationi), so that all the participating (percipientia) members may be made alive (vivificentur); and by it communion with Christ has been deposited, this is the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption and the confirmation of our faith and the ladder of ascent to God.102
As in AH 3.17.2, where the Spirit unites the believer to Christ through the baptismal rites, in AH 3.24.1 the reception of the gift of the Spirit deposits within the believer communion with Christ.103 After affirming this role of the Spirit in uniting an individual to Christ, Irenaeus then speaks to the activity of the Spirit beyond the initial deposit. The Spirit is the earnest of incorruption, the confirmation of our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. Each step of the Christian life involves the presence and activity of the Spirit in the believer.
From the first to the last, one's salvation depends upon the reception of the Spirit sent by Christ. AH 3.24.1, however, offers even more details about the reception of the Spirit.
Irenaeus' affirmation early in AH 3.24.1 that 'the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples'104 recalls his earlier remarks attributing the preservation and unity of the gospel message to the work of the Spirit.105 This preaching of the Church leads to faith, which has an effect by means of the agency of the Spirit: 'and which (one's faith) always, by means of the Spirit of God, as if in an excellent vase there is a precious deposit, is rejuvenating, and causes to rejuvenate the vase that contains it.'106 While the role of faith in the rejuvenation of the believer may rouse the curiosity of the reader, Irenaeus focuses upon the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit who 101 I follow Rousseau (SC 210 1974: 390–3) in understanding the 'gift of God' as the Spirit and not 'faith'. Acts 2:38 or the variant form of Acts 2.33 found in AH 3.12.2 could be the text he has in mind for the identification of the Spirit as the gift given to the Church. Irenaeus' reference to the Spirit as the 'gift of God' points to the Spirit's identity as the Unction of Christ—the one whom Jesus received from his Father at his baptism and has sent to the Church after his ascension (AH 3.17.2).
102 AH 3.24.1.
103 Cf. 3.10.3 where the Spirit brings Salvation, the Incarnate Word, to humanity.
104 ANF translation.
105 See chapter 3, pp. 46–53.
106 AH 3.24.1.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
maintains the preaching of the Church and renders one's faith effective is the gift of God who makes alive those who receive it. Faith 'is rejuvenating' and is that 'which causes to rejuvenate,' but only as a result of the agency of the Spirit
(semper a Spiritu Dei).
The Spirit restricts its work to the Church: to those to whom the 'gift of God has been entrusted,' that is, to 'all the participating members.' Omnia membra percipientia, 'all the participating members,' is an intriguing turn of phrase.
The basic idea Irenaeus intends to convey is straightforward: all those who receive the gift of the Spirit are made alive. The language found later in AH
3.24.1, however, suggests we should regard 'all the participating members' as sacramental. Note his use of participant and its cognate participes in the following selections:107
For, 'in the church,' it is said, 'God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the rest of the Spirit's works; those are not partakers (non sunt participes), who do not agree (non concurrunt) with the church, but cheat themselves of life by their evil opinions and most wicked activity.108 For where the church is, there is the Spirit of God;109 and where the Spirit of God is, there is the church and every grace: indeed, the Spirit is truth.110
Therefore, those who do not partake of him (qui non participant eum) are neither nourished into life from the breasts of the mother, nor do they receive the clearest fountain proceeding from the body of Christ111 . . . (these people are)
107 The second selection follows right after the first in AH 3.24.1. I have separated them for ease of reference.
108 AH 3.24.1: operationem Spiritus, cuius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad
Ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita.
109 De Andia sees here a connection between Irenaeus' ecclesiology and Christology: the Church is the place of the Spirit, insofar as it is the Body of Christ, the source of the Spirit for the Church (1986: 232).
110 'Spirit is truth' probably comes from the Gospel of John's references to the 'Spirit of truth.'
De Andia (1986: 232–3) does not doubt Irenaeus' dependence on John, and also notes the role this affirmation plays in Irenaeus' own theology. For relevant references in John, see McPolin,
ITQ 45 (1978: 118–19, 127).
111 De Andia asserts that the 'clearest fountain' flowing out of Christ is the Spirit, the living water (1986: 197, 234–5). She misses, though, the general sacramental character of AH 3.24.1
(she does mention the connection with regard to 'clearest fountain' in particular). I am unable to say with certainty what Irenaeus meant by 'nourished into life from the breasts of the mother, nor do they receive the clearest fountain proceeding from the body of Christ.' I think a better suggestion, however, is that Irenaeus has in mind two of the cups served to neophytes in the Eucharistic meal of the baptismal service. Both Justin (1 Apol 65) and Hippolytus (Apostolic
Tradition 21.27, Dix 1992: 23) refer to the liturgy of this rite. Though it is difficult to see how
Justin's account would accord with Irenaeus' statements, the account of Hippolytus is similar.
Hippolytus states that the neophyte drinks from three cups: (1) a mixture of wine and water; (2) a mixture of milk and honey; (3) water. According to Hippolytus, the cup of milk and honey corresponds to Christ's flesh 'through which those who believe are nourished just like little children,' an idea that accords well with Irenaeus' 'nourished into life' (on the use of milk and honey in the post-baptismal rite, see McGowan (1999: 107–15)). The mixture of wine and water, which Hippolytus says is 'on account of the likeness of the blood which was shed for all who have put their faith in him,' agrees with Irenaeus if we understand 'clearest fountain proceeding from
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit fleeing the faith of the church lest they be converted, rejecting, in truth, the Spirit so that they may not be instructed.
The reader may recall from the last section of this chapter an important precedent for the use of participes and participant. In AH 3.17.2 we find the same terminology when Irenaeus states that the individuals whom the Spirit unites to Christ and to the Church through the baptismal rites are those 'who are partakers of [Christ]' (qui ex ipso participantur). The presence of the same language here suggests that he is again thinking of the role of the sacraments in the life of the Church. Moreover, the use of concurrunt in the first selection above encourages this idea: 'those are not partakers (non sunt participes), who do not agree (non concurrunt) with the church, but cheat themselves of life by their evil opinions and most wicked activity.'
My translation of concurro as 'agree' reflects the content of the following clause. Those who possess 'evil opinions' and engage in 'most wicked activity' do not 'agree' with the Church—especially when the identifying mark of that Church is the Spirit who is truth. Nevertheless, translating concurro as 'agree' fails to provide a sufficient explanation for the first clause which precedes it
('those are not partakers').
The solution to this apparent dilemma comes by recognizing the careful selection of the term concurro, a word which bears both the meanings 'to agree' and 'to join together.'112 When reading concurro in light of the preceding clause, the latter meaning makes the most sense. Those who 'are not partakers' do not 'join together' with the Church—the same idea that we found in AH 3.17.2. Therefore, concurro communicates that those who are not partakers are not joined to the Church because their opinions and actions do not agree with the Spirit who characterizes the Church—one of the fundamental ideas of AH 3.24.1.
We have seen that Irenaeus links the concept of 'partaking' to the concept of being united to, or joined with, the Church. However, what exactly a person does, or does not, partake of is not specified in the first selection. Such is not the case in the second selection where there is no question that the word
'him' (eum) in the phrase 'who do not partake of him' (qui non participant eum) refers to the Spirit.113 Irenaeus' use of participes and participant is similar, then, to his use of participantur in AH 3.17.2. Yet, a notable difference the body of Christ' as referring to the wound incurred by the soldier's spear which caused the release of both blood and water [John 19:34] (the mixed cup is the blood of Christ in AH 4.33.2).
The referent for 'mother' must also remain unclear, though de Andia's suggestion that the referent is Christ agrees with the sacramental context wherein the cup of milk and honey represents the flesh of Christ (1986: 234).
112 The differing translations of the ANF and SC bear out this fact. Rousseau's suggested retroversion, ıæ åø, also bears both of these meanings, SC 211, (1974).
113 It does not matter whether it is the 'Spirit of God' or the 'Spirit [who] is truth.'
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
exists: in AH 3.17.2 believers partake in Christ, while in AH 3.24.1 believers partake in the Spirit. It would be rash to say that this change indicates that the discussions in AH 3.17.2 and AH 3.24.1 do not agree with each other. Irenaeus is saying that while the Spirit unites believers to Christ through the rites of baptism (AH 3.17.1), the Spirit also unites believers to himself in the rites of baptism (AH 3.24.1).114 The Spirit does not just unite people to Christ, the Spirit unites people to himself as he unites them to Christ.115
We may now return to the phrase omnia membra percipientia, 'all the participating members,' with which we began this discussion. Irenaeus wrote,
'For it is to the church that this gift of God has been entrusted . . . so that all the participating (percipientia) members may be made alive (vivificentur); and by it communion with Christ has been deposited, this is the Holy Spirit.' The Spirit is the gift of God entrusted to the Church, so that each person who participates in, or receives, the Spirit may be brought to life. The percipientia membra live because the Spirit they receive in the sacraments is the Spirit as the Unction of Christ, the Spirit who communicates the incorruptibility belonging to the humanity of Christ, the Salvation of the human race.116
4.4 THE CREATIVE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT
The philosophical acumen of Irenaeus has been the subject of discussion at least since Hermann Diels stated that the references to philosophers in AH
2.14.2–6 came from the doxographical handbook of Pseudo-Plutarch.117 Regard for Irenaeus' philosophical ability reached its nadir when Gustave Bardy declared that Irenaeus is not a philosopher. According to Bardy, '[Irenaeus] does not combat profane wisdom; he is content to disdain it.'118 Both Robert
M. Grant and André Benoît followed Diels in affirming Irenaeus' use of Aetius 114 I specify baptism here since Irenaeus has not yet discussed the role of the Spirit with regard to the Eucharist; for that see AH 4.18.5.
115 Benoît (1953: 201–3) finds in AH 3.17.2 an implicit discussion of the reception of the Spirit in baptism and states that baptism has the same result as the gift of the Spirit. This last point is apropos to AH 3.24.1 where Irenaeus first refers to the gift of the Spirit and then utilizes sacramental language to further discuss the reception of the Spirit. I agree with Benoît's conclusions, but would alter his statements to reflect a two-rite baptismal liturgy that reflects my argument with regard to AH 3.17.2.
116 It is important to remember throughout the course of this discussion that the Spirit sent by Christ is the Spirit with whom Jesus was anointed. So when the anointing of Christ overflows to his followers, those human beings experience a union with the Spirit similar to the union Jesus' humanity first experienced with the Spirit. As Houssiau (1955: 175–7, 179) has argued, the descent of the Spirit on Jesus' humanity is the first realization of the charismatic effusion in the human race.
117 Diels (1879: 171–2).
118 Bardy (1928: 36).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit as edited by Ps-Plutarch, but while Benoît's ultimate judgment agreed with Bardy's opinion, Grant was more positive.119
In direct opposition to Bardy, Grant demonstrated Irenaeus' rhetorical orientation, concluding: 'in rhetoric as in Christianity he was an apt and intelligent pupil.'120 According to Grant, Irenaeus' interest was more rhetorical than philosophical. Nevertheless, he still wondered at the ease with which Irenaeus dismissed 'insoluble difficulties in science,' ultimately determining that though this approach was much like the Stoics, Irenaeus tended toward skepticism. William
R. Schoedel picked up on this attitude as well and proceeded to show Irenaeus' ability and willingness to adopt Empiric method in his argumentation.121
If we combine Grant's conclusions with Schoedel's determination that Irenaeus' indebtedness to Empiricism extends beyond doxographical knowledge,122 we arrive at a picture of Irenaeus as aware of general philosophical positions, as trained in rhetorical arts, and able to utilize well certain philosophical methods in his argumentation.123 Christopher Stead's summary is well balanced, '[Irenaeus] has, I suspect, more philosophical talent than is easy to detect in his surviving work . . . But when philosophical methods are used, they are ably handled, and one regrets the disappearance of other works known to Eusebius, especially the treatise arguing that God is not the author of evil.'124
It should come as no surprise, then, to find Irenaeus appropriating philosophical polemic to his advantage in AH 3.24.2 to 3.25.5.125 In AH 3.24.2 he
119 Grant, HTR 42 (1949, 41–51, here 43); Benoît (1960: 65–7). In fact Grant and Benoît are arguing over the validity of Bardy's judgment: Grant quotes it in opposition on p. 51; Benoît quotes it in support on p. 73.
120 Grant, HTR 42 (1949: 51).
121 Schoedel, JTS 35 (1984, 31–49). Galen's On Medical Experience is Schoedel's primary source of comparison for Empiricism. In an earlier study Schoedel concluded, 'Irenaeus had some acquaintance with rhetoric and less with the higher discipline of philosophy' (Schoedel, VC
13 1959: 22–32, here 32).
122 Schoedel, JTS 35 (1984: 49). See also, Jacobsen, SP 36 (2001: 256–61).
123 This goes against Benoît's assertion (1960: 67) that Irenaeus has a 'singulièrement négative' opinion of philosophy and philosophers—especially since Schoedel works from AH
2, which is the basis for Benoît's conclusion.
124 Stead (1994: 90). Despite the progress of scholarship on this issue, there is a persistent tendency to disparage Irenaeus' philosophical ability. For example, according to E. Pagels, 'we need to remember that Irenaeus was not a philosophically inclined theoretician debating theology with academic and ecclesiastical colleagues so much as a young man thrust into leadership' (Pagels, VC 56 2002: 339–71, here 348).
125 When confronted with Irenaeus' constructive use of philosophy in this passage, Benoît's negative evaluation of Irenaeus' approach to philosophy in AH 2 leads him to the absurd suggestion that due to a delay in writing AH 3, Irenaeus forgot he had condemned 'en bloc' all the philosophers in AH 2.14 (Benoît 1960: 71). His argument that Irenaeus' opinion of philosophy changed between AH 2 and 3 because he read different doxographical sections, on the origins of the world when he wrote Book 2, and then on providence when he wrote Book 3, overlooks the dependence of philosophical argumentation for providence on a particular understanding of the origin of the world. It is far better to understand Irenaeus' approach in AH
2.14.2–6 as an ad hominem argument. D.B. Reynders, RTAM 7 (1935: 9) has shown he is comfortable using versions of this rhetorical device.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
first utilizes philosophical polemic when he derides the Gnostic position that the immanence inherent in creative activity excludes the Creator from being the highest God. Irenaeus labels this stance as the Epicurean conception of a God who exercises no providence: 'they have discovered namely the God of Epicurus, who furnishes nothing either for himself or others; that is, one who exercises no providence at all.'126
Attacking the Epicureans for their non-teleological conception of cosmology was a standard tactic in the philosophical battles of the day. The arguments of both Stoic and Middle Platonic protagonists featured this approach.127 It is a question then of whether Irenaeus is appropriating either Stoic or Middle
Platonic reasoning. The answer comes by means of his quotations of Plato's Laws 4.715E and Timaeus 29E in AH 3.25.5, which indicate he has turned to Middle Platonism rather than Stoicism as an aid to his present purposes.128
This reliance on Middle Platonic thought might provide the logical basis for an aspect of his argument in AH 3.24.2 that he leaves unexplained.
The Gnostic doctrine that the Creator cannot be the highest God—since human beings know of the Demiurge—presupposes the complete transcendence and the attendant inaccessibility to human knowledge of the highest
God. Against this logic, Irenaeus argues in AH 3.24.2 that though the greatness (magnitudo) or substance (substantia) of God cannot be known, God can be known 'by means of his love and infinite kindness.' This 'love and infinite kindness,' his providence, is evident in his creative activity:
Wherefore also the light which is from God does not illumine them (Irenaeus' opponents), because they have dishonored and despised God, holding him of small
126 AH 3.24.2. For examples of Epicurean cosmology without teleology, see Lucretius, On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura) 4.823–57, 5.156–234; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods (De natura deorum) 1.18–23, 1.52–3. All of these are conveniently listed in Long and Sedley vol. 1
(1987: 58–61).
127 While commenting on Philo, J. Dillon notes, 'every Platonist wished to maintain the doctrine of God's Providence. Without that, one would fall into Epicurean atheism . . . ' (Dillon
1977, 1996: 168). For an example from Stoicism, see Plutarch, On Common Conceptions (De communibus notitiis contra Stoicos) 1075E, where he quotes the Stoic, Balbus.
128 While Irenaeus seems to approach AH 3.24.2 through AH 3.25.5 from a Middle Platonic perspective, he does not provide enough detail for us to settle on a particular source. The character of his references in AH 3.24.2–25.1 may be explained by reliance upon a doxography since they could come from a general awareness of philosophical polemic. The quotations of Plato in AH 3.25.5, though, could suggest more extensive access to certain texts. Moreover, given
Schoedel's demonstration that Irenaeus had more than a general acquaintance with Empiricism, one cannot rule out, despite Benoît's insistence otherwise (1960: 70), that he had access to copies of Timaeus and Laws at some point in time. Then again, such a conclusion has no scholarly support and is not necessary, as he could also have obtained these quotations from a text collection used during his rhetorical training. In fact, the possibility that he used a testimonium gains considerable support from the use of slightly different versions of both passages in a similar context by Atticus (Frag. 3, 798D; Atticus, (1977: 46–7). This is also the opinion of van Unnik,
VC 30 (1976: 201–13, here 208). In any case, we are left to explain his argument without the aid of knowing the particular text from which he works.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit account, because, by means of his love and infinite kindness, he has come within reach of human knowledge. Knowledge, however, not with regard to his greatness, or with regard to his substance129—for no one has measured or handled it—but after this sort: that we may know that he who made, and formed, and breathed in them the breath of life, and nourishes us by creation, establishing by his Word andbinding together [by his] Wisdom all things, this is [he] who is the only true God.130
Irenaeus is arguing that it is possible to know God in truth if not in fullness.
God expressed certain aspects of his character when he 'made, and formed, and breathed in them (Irenaeus' opponents) the breath of life, and nourishes us by creation.' In other words, those human beings who consider the creative activity of God will 'have perceived the providence of God'131 and therefore will have grasped a certain understanding of God himself. At the same time, human knowledge of God is restricted to the perception of his providence garnered through his creation. Created beings cannot know God with regard to his greatness or his substance.132
Elsewhere, Irenaeus attributes the limitation of human knowledge of divine things to the created status of a human being.133 The epistemological limitation inherent to a created being lies in the background of this discussion as well, but that idea is not the basis for his reasoning here and he makes no explicit reference to it. Instead, his argument rests on the accessibility of God to human beings: 'by means of his love and infinite kindness he has come within reach of human knowledge.'134 Yet in this discussion, Irenaeus is careful to keep 'God,' that is the Father,135 at a remove from creation. When
Irenaeus writes, 'establishing by his Word and binding together [by his] Wisdom all things' he is summarizing the preceding examples of creative
129 AH 3.24.2: agnitionem autem non secundum magnitudinem nec secundum substantiam.
130 AH 3.24.2: sciremus quoniam qui fecit et plasmavit et insufflationem vitae insufflavit in eis et per conditionem nutrit nos, Verbo suo confirmans et Sapientia compingens omnia, hic est qui est solus verus Deus. G.L. Prestige has remarked that Wisdom in Verbo suo confirmans et Sapientia compingens omnia occupies the same position as Spirit in Athenagoras, Emb. 6.2, ç' y ºªfiø
ÅØ æªÅÆØ ŒÆd H Ææ' ÆP F ÆØ ı åÆØ a Æ (Prestige 1969: 91). Dependence, however, remains unclear since the passage in Irenaeus does not bear other marks of Athenagoras' influence.
131 AH 3.25.1: sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia Dei. See SC 210 (1974: 393–4) for Rousseau's suggestion for the original and translation.
132 AH 3.24.2.
133 See for instance, AH 2.28.1–3, 6; I discuss these passages in chapter 2, pp. 38–41.
134 AH 3.24.2: in agnitionem venit hominibus.
135 The references to 'God' in AH 3.24.2 and AH 3.25.1 refer to the Father. Irenaeus identifies
'God' as the 'Father' in AH 3.25.7 at the end of this discussion: 'I may succeed in persuading them to abandon such error, and to cease from blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (ANF translation). It is not unusual for Irenaeus to identify the members of the godhead as God, Word, and Wisdom.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
activity by which he says we may know the 'love and infinite kindness' of the Father: 'he who made, and formed, and breathed in them the breath of life, and nourishes us by creation.' It is the same as saying that the 'love and infinite kindness,' the providence, of the Father may be seen in the establishment of creation by his Word and in its binding together by his Wisdom. The 'love and infinite kindness' of the Father comes 'within reach of human knowledge' by means of the creative agency of his Word and Wisdom. Human beings, then, may know the 'love and infinite kindness' of God because they are the basis for the creative activity accomplished by his agents, the Word and Wisdom.
From the opposite perspective, the creative agency of the Word and Wisdom also accounts for the restriction of human knowledge, so that creatures can know God neither 'according to his greatness nor according to his substance.' Because the Father creates by means of the Word and Wisdom, they serve as intermediary agents between the Father and creation. In this capacity, the Word and Wisdom function as filters which permit and restrict the knowledge of certain aspects of God, the Father.136
Therefore, according to Irenaeus the ability to know is proportional to the degree to which the object of knowledge is transcendent or immanent to creation. Since the Father creates through the agency of the Word and Wisdom, he is not entirely immanent but neither is he wholly transcendent as the Gnostics contend. Thus, God cannot be known in fullness but he can be known insofar as his 'love and infinite kindness' are evident in creation.
In this passage, the intermediary agency of the Word and Wisdom in creation is the logical basis for the epistemological limitation of human beings.137 Insofar as Irenaeus can affirm that as the agents of creation the Word and Wisdom are present to creatures and that, as the agents of creation, they mark the limit to which the knowledge of the transcendent God is available to creatures, then his conception of their identity and agency is similar to certain Middle Platonic accounts of the Logos.138
Irenaeus' thought in this passage bears certain affinities to strains of logic found in Philo. Dillon has observed that Philo's monotheism leads him to substitute a distinction between God and his Logos for the contrast between a first and second God.139 And Stead has observed that in Philo, 'The Logos acts as the mediator, undertaking tasks for which the Almighty is ultimately
136 De Andia (1986: 166) makes a similar statement, though built upon AH 4.4.2 and 4.38.2.
137 Perhaps this idea explains Irenaeus' intriguing comment in AH 4.4.2, 'Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since he also comprehends him' (ANF translation).
138 For a concise statement of the Middle Platonic conception of the Logos, see Dillon, (1996:
45–6); he later contrasts Stoic and Middle Platonic positions when he writes of Atticus, whose floruit he dates to AD 176–80 (p. 252).
139 Dillon (1996: 46).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit responsible, but which could impair his transcendent holiness.'140 We could even find a certain similarity to the later thought of Eusebius of Caesarea in Proof of the Gospel 4.6.4. Stead, again, offers an apropos comment on that passage: 'The Logos might therefore be described as the permanent agent of God's self-limitation and condescension.'141
It seems reasonable, then, to suggest that the logical basis for the limitation of human knowledge that we find in this passage is due to a Middle Platonic influence on Irenaeus' thought. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the logic we find in this passage reveals a certain appropriation of Middle
Platonic reasoning by Irenaeus to bolster his polemic against the Gnostics.
Though he is not dependent upon the Middle Platonic notion of the Logos, his understanding of the manner in which the Word and Wisdom interact with the world as the creative agents of the Father agrees with the Middle Platonic notion of the instrumentality of the Logos well enough for him to be comfortable utilizing the philosophical polemic to his advantage.142
Thus, several signs point toward a reliance on Middle Platonism by Irenaeus as he wrote AH 3.24.2 through AH 3.25.5. He does not just ridicule the Gnostics as reasoning like Epicureans, but turns to opposing philosophical positions to bolster his contention that the 'love and infinite kindness' of a providential Creator God are evident in his creation. Indeed, he points out that certain pagans 'having been moved by [God's] providence, even if only slightly, were nevertheless convinced that they should call the Maker of this universe the Father, who exercises providence over all things, and disposes the affairs of our world.'143 The Middle Platonic tenor of this passage culminates in quotations from Plato's Laws 4.715E and Timaeus 29E, as Irenaeus' decisive blow to his Epicurean-Gnostic opponents. According to Irenaeus, these two texts prove 'that the Maker and Framer of the universe is good . . . establishing the goodness of God, as the beginning and cause of the creation of the world.'144 We can see, then, that the 'love and infinite kindness' of God that Irenaeus says we can know because they are the basis for creation parallels his
140 Stead (1994: 150). Of course, there is no suggestion in this passage or anywhere else in Irenaeus that the Father employs the Word and Wisdom as his agents of creation to preserve his holiness. Irenaeus does not adopt philosophical concepts entirely but rather adapts them for the purposes of his argument.
141 Ibid. 156. According to Eusebius, the Logos has this role because it alone can endure the Father's radiance and can transmit it to human beings in a mild and beneficent form. Stead connects this idea to the Stoic idea of two kinds of fire, but it could very well be a reflection upon the brilliance of God mentioned in Ezk. 1:27.
142 Irenaeus' conception of the Word and Spirit are biblical in origin as is evident from his ubiquitous references to Scripture. Moreover, in a manner wholly different from Middle Platonic doctrine, Irenaeus' attribution of creative activity to the Word and Spirit is perhaps his strongest and clearest statement of their equal divinity with the Father. For example, see my discussion of AH 4.20.1–3 in chapter 5, pp. 121–2.
143 AH 3.25.1.
144 AH 3.25.5; ANF translation.
The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes
understanding of Tim 29E that goodness is the 'beginning and cause of the creation of the world.' An idea that Plato connected from the start with the providential desire for a good creation: 'For God desired that, so far as possible, all things should be good and nothing evil.'145
I will conclude this section by placing Irenaeus' present use of the Spirit as Creator tradition in context with his previous and future statements. First, to this point Irenaeus had used the Spirit as Creator tradition to affirm that God needs no help to create. This passage adds an additional dimension to that message. Here he uses the tradition to affirm that creation is the work of a God that is both transcendent and immanent. Both of these ideas remain attached to the tradition in AH 4 where Irenaeus makes the most references to the creative activity of the Spirit. For instance, as we will see, he uses the identification of the Son and Spirit as the Hands of God to affirm the self-sufficiency of the Creator. The very image of creation by means of one's hands, however, includes the idea of transcendence and immanence. Second, we should note that Irenaeus continues to lack scriptural support for his Spirit as Creator theology. In my comments on AH 1.22.1 I pointed out that early in his work
Irenaeus used Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) to support the creative activity of the Word alone, and that his utilization of Ps. 33:6 to support the creative activity of both the Word and the Spirit does not occur until Prf 5.146 In the next chapter, however, we will see that by the time he composes AH 4, Irenaeus has at last found a passage from Scripture that he can deploy to support the creative activity of the Spirit.
Chapter Conclusion Against Heresies 3 reveals a multi-faceted theology of the Holy Spirit that is integral to Irenaeus' broader theological argument and polemic. Some features of his account of the Spirit in Book 3 are more central to the development of his pneumatology than others. What stands out above all is the expansion of his account to include many new themes. The unity, authority, and meaning of the gospel tradition depend upon the work of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit anoints Jesus' humanity and plays an integral role in the success of the Christological mission and the bringing of redemption to human beings.
The Spirit as the Unction of Christ renders the followers of Christ united and productive; while the Spirit as the gift of God brings to life the members of the Church. The creative agency of the Spirit, as well as the Word, substantiates and delimits the human ability to know the Father—a new corollary of the Spirit as Creator tradition.
145 Tim. 30A, quoted from Plato IX (1925: repr. 1991).
146 See chapter 2, pp. 32–4, the Excursus that follows this chapter discusses his use of Ps. 33:6 in Prf 5.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit The pneumatology of AH 3 is surprising when compared to the theology of the Spirit in AH 2. It is astounding when compared to that of Justin only a generation earlier. Even at the midpoint of his work, Irenaeus' account of the Spirit has so surpassed the apologists of the second century that it belongs to a class of its own. Yet, he is far from finished. Rather than continuing to discuss each aspect of Irenaeus' pneumatological development, however, I will restrict the focus of the next chapter of this study to two ideas for which Irenaeus is well known: his identification of the Son and Spirit as the Hands of God and his identification of the Spirit as Wisdom.
Prior to that examination, though, we will discuss Irenaeus' reception of Theophilus' correspondence To Autolycus. In the following Excursus I will argue that the influence of Autol on Irenaeus' thought first appears toward the end of AH 3, which suggests that he acquired the correspondence during the course of his work on that Book. This discussion will lead into chapter 5, which focuses heavily on the influence of Theophilus on Irenaeus' pneumatology.
Excursus Irenaeus' Reception of Theophilus' To Autolycus For it is to the church that this gift of God has been entrusted (creditum est), just as breath [was entrusted] to the one who was molded (aspiratio plasmationi), so that all the participating (percipientia) members may be made alive.
AH 3.24.1
The analogy Irenaeus uses in this selection to ascribe life-giving agency to the Spirit reveals more than the additional details about his understanding of the Spirit's work discussed in chapter 4: it reflects the initial influence of Theophilus of Antioch's correspondence To Autolycus on Irenaeus' pneumatology.
The question as to whether Irenaeus depended upon Theophilus of Antioch has claimed the attention of scholars for over a century.1 Recent comments
1 In 1894 Klebba regarded Theophilus as Irenaeus' 'Lehrmeister' (Klebba 1894: 42–3 and 66–7). Robinson found in Autol 'much that reminds us' of Irenaeus, and suggested that an even closer unity would have existed between Irenaeus' work and Theophilus' 'more distinctively
Christian teaching' (St. Irenaeus, 1920: 60). K. Müller, to the contrary, declared that Irenaeus did not know Theophilus (1924: 219); but that very year von Harnack's attention was drawn to the same passages as Klebba, and he concluded against Müller that a literary connection must exist
(von Harnack 1924; 1985: 318 n. 3). The debate began in earnest with Loofs, who argued (1930:
72) that much of Irenaeus'Against Heresies consists of quotations taken from Theophilus' lost work Against Marcion (he also finds (1930: 67–70) a number of parallels between Irenaeus and Autol). Hitchcock found Loofs' methodology lacking, and in the process followed Müller
(Hitchcock, JTS 38 1937: 130). Grant (HTR 40 1947: 227–56, here 228) contended that a comparison of the probable dates of composition indicates that Irenaeus 'may well have known the first two books Ad Autolycum'. Even so, he says, the 'striking differences' between the two authors suggest that Autol 1 and 2 'are not likely to have formed the core of [Irenaeus'] own work' (ibid. 229, 228). Kretschmar, on the other hand, saw 'very striking parallels' between Irenaeus and Autol: he concluded that Irenaeus knew more of Theophilus than these letters alone, but determined that it is unhelpful to speculate about those possible sources (Kretschmar
1956: 34–6). Lastly Wingren, who regarded Müller's and Hitchcock's dismissal of Theophilus as an 'exaggeration', nevertheless decided 'investigating Irenaeus' relationship to the earlier writers
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit illustrate a movement toward acknowledging that Irenaeus had access to the letters Autol.2 Continuing in this trend, I contend that we can, to a reasonable degree of probability, determine that Irenaeus relied upon Theophilus' correspondence Autol. This excursus will treat an aspect of Irenaeus' pneumatology that demonstrates this dependence, with the additional intention of establishing that Irenaeus acquired the first and second letters of Autol by the time he penned AH 3.22.4 through AH 3.24.13 where we find several parallels with Theophilus' correspondence. In order to establish when Irenaeus began to utilize Autol, however, we must first determine when he had not yet begun to employ ideas from the earlier work. The manner in which he handles Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) in AH 3.8.3, in comparison to the manner in which he deploys this verse later,4 will form the basis for my argument that Irenaeus was not relying upon Autol in AH 3.8.3. It is AH 3.8.3, then, that will serve as the latest point at which we can say that Irenaeus does not seem to possess a copy of Autol.5
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PS. 33:6 (32:6 LXX)
Irenaeus quotes Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) three times. In AH 1.22.1 and AH 3.8.3 the verse is essentially quoted in full.6 In Prf 5, however, he produces a variant quotation that leaves out F Æ :7
In this way, then, it is demonstrated [that there is] One God, [the] Father, uncreated, invisible, Creator of all, above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And as God is verbal, therefore He made created things by the Word; and God is Spirit, so that He adorned all things by the of the primitive church . . . is a problem of little account' (Wingren, 1959: xvii and xx; against the 'exaggeration,' he notes Klebba's argument (p. xvii n. 14).
2 Grant (1997: 1, see also, 40, 45); Behr (2000: 51, 110). Discussions of the influence of Theophilus upon Irenaeus frequent the recent work of M.C. Steenberg, who writes, 'I am convinced the question of that influence can be more strongly declared in the positive'
(Steenberg 2008: 10 n. 23).
3 In chapter 5, I will argue that we can trace Irenaeus' dependence on Theophilus to AH
3.21.10—a little earlier than the previously observed parallels that factor into this excursus.
4 Prf 5.
5 An earlier parallel exists between AH 2.10.4 and Autol 2.4, where both writers argue for the superiority of God's creative activity in comparison to that of a human artist. However, the broader conception of God's creativity exhibited by both texts differs to such an extent that Irenaeus' reliance upon Autol is highly unlikely. See Fantino, RSPhTh 76.3 (1992: 421–2, here
425); (1994: 278, see also 278 n. 36); and May (1994: esp. 169–73).
6 The verse is quoted exactly in AH 1.22.1: Verbo enim Domini caeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. In AH 3.8.3, Irenaeus interjects in the beginning of the verse: the Latin is quoted verbatim from caeli. It is interesting that manuscripts C and S omit oris in AH 3.8.3.
7 Behr's note (1997: 103 n. 19) as to the irregularity of these texts is inaccurate.
Excursus: Irenaeus' Reception of Theophilus' To Autolycus
Spirit, as the prophet also says, 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all their power by His Spirit' [Ps. 33:6]. Thus, since the Word
'establishes,' that is, works bodily and confers existence, while the Spirit arranges and forms the various 'powers,' so rightly is the Son called Word and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.
The obvious question is: why the change? Part of the answer lies in the function of the text within the arguments of each passage. In AH 1.22.1
Irenaeus cites Ps. 33:6 in order to support the creative agency of Father and Word. Only later in the passage does he note the Spirit's involvement.
In a similar fashion, in AH 3.8.3 Ps. 33:6 occurs in conjunction with John 1:3 and Ps. 33:9 (32:9 LXX) to support the creative agency of the Word. Irenaeus even says that the whole of Ps. 33:6 refers to the creative role of the Word.
The variant quotation of Ps. 33:6 in Prf 5, on the other hand, occurs in the midst of a different argument. Irenaeus advances the Spirit as Creator tradition by providing for the first time a basis for differentiating between the creative work of the Word and Spirit. They represent different aspects of God's being.8 It is now, therefore, to Irenaeus' advantage to offer a quotation of Ps.
33:6 that delineates the creative activity of both Word and Spirit. The result of eliminating F Æ is that the second half of Ps. 33:6 loses the ambiguity attached to the term FÆ. It is no longer appropriate to read the verse as 'all the power of them by the Breath of his mouth;' it is now best read as 'all the power of them by his Spirit.'
Now that we have established how the altered quotation functions in his argument, we can consider the reason for the change in his thought. In Autol
1.7, Theophilus uses the same variant quotation of Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) to the same end—the establishment of the mutual creative agency of the Word and Wisdom, who is the Spirit. He writes:
Who is the physician? God, who heals and makes alive through the Word and Wisdom. God made all things through his Word and Wisdom: for 'by his Word the heavens were made, and all their power by his Spirit'.
I suggest that, in contrast to the earlier passages in Against Heresies, by the time of the writing of Prf 5 Irenaeus had access to the correspondence Autol and follows both the argument and the variant form of Ps. 33:6 found therein. So while he first used Ps. 33:6 to support the creative activity of the Word alone, his use of the variant form in Prf 5 supports the creative activity of both the Word and Spirit. This latter usage is his most developed and mature interpretation of the verse.
8 Prf 5: 'And as God is verbal, therefore he made created things by the Word; and God is
Spirit, so that he adorned all things by the Spirit.' As I said in the Introduction to this study, such developments in Irenaeus' thought lead me to date his writing of the Proof after AH 3.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit His reference en passant to the Spirit's creative role in AH 1.22.1 now becomes relevant to this discussion. It would seem that while Irenaeus had textual support in AH 1.22.1 for the creative role of the Word, he did not possess similar support for the creative role of the Spirit in the early stages of his writing.9 Therefore, while he is aware of a traditional attribution of creative agency to the Spirit, as can be seen in AH 1.22.1 and AH 2.30.8–9, it plays no significant role in his teaching until he has the necessary textual support, which he discovers in Autol. Thus, Irenaeus' use of Ps. 33:6 in a similar fashion to Theophilus suggests that he relied upon Autol when he wrote Prf 5, while his use of Ps. 33:6 in a dissimilar fashion to Theophilus in AH 3.8.3 suggests that he did not make use of Autol when he constructed that portion of his work.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AH 3.24.1
AH 3.24.1 seems to contain the earliest pneumatological dependence of Irenaeus on Theophilus. Prior to discussing that passage, however, it is important to mention the three previously established parallels with Autol that occur in the chapters immediately preceding AH 3.24.10 In AH 3.22.4,
Irenaeus states Adam and Eve were created as children,11 and in AH 3.23.5, he indicates that disobedience caused the Fall12—both ideas found in Autol
2.25.13 Next, in AH 3.23.6 he ascribes a remedial value to death, a notion seen in Autol 2.26.14 This sudden flurry of common ideas is likely the result of Irenaeus' initial contact with the work of Theophilus. That being said, we turn once again to AH 3.24.1:
For it is to the church that this gift of God15 has been entrusted (creditum est), just as breath [was entrusted] to the one who was molded (aspiratio plasmationi), so that all the participating (percipientia) members may be made alive (vivificentur); and by it communion with Christ has been deposited, this is the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption and the confirmation of our faith and the ladder of ascent to God.
The analogy between the giving of the Spirit to the Church and the giving of the breath to Adam entails the Spirit as Creator motif, which suggests a connection
9 For this argument see chapter 2, esp. 32–5.
10 In chapter 5, I will argue that an earlier parallel occurs in AH 3.21.10.
11 Cf. AH 3.23.5, Prf 12 and 14.
12 Von Harnack (1985: 318 n. 3).
13 Klebba (1894: 42–3); Behr (1997: 104 n. 39).
14 Klebba (1894: 65–6); Behr (2000: 51).
15 As stated above, I follow Rousseau (SC 210 1974: 390–3) in holding that the 'gift of God' should be understood as the Spirit and not 'faith'.
Excursus: Irenaeus' Reception of Theophilus' To Autolycus
with Theophilus, as is evident from the earlier discussion of Ps. 33:6. The fact that this point of agreement follows on the heels of other doctrinal parallels would be enough to regard reliance here as highly probable. Yet, the contrast between the roles of the Spirit and breath in this passage and Irenaeus' later explanation of the particular roles of the Spirit and breath in AH 5, makes his reliance upon Theophilus here almost certain.
AH 5.12.2 should be considered the locus classicus for Irenaeus' differentiation between the breath of life, which he states is the soul, and the Spirit. A brief discussion of the chapters leading up to that pericope will set the stage. AH 5.1.3 first suggests the difference between animation by means of the breath of life (the soul) and vivification by means of the Spirit. The ones who remain in the animated state of being (in animali) alone are in fact dead, while those who also enter into the spiritual state (in spiritali) may be vivified (vivificemur).16 In AH 5.7.1 he explains further when he links the presence of the soul to the possession of breath and animation, while the Spirit 'is itself the life of those who receive it.'17 The repeated statements in AH 5.9.2–4 and AH 5.11.1 that life comes through the Spirit lead us to AH 5.12.2, where the first sentence encapsulates the section: 'The breath of life, which makes man animated,18 is one thing, and the vivifying Spirit, which makes him spiritual, is another.'19 By this point in Book 5 the language of animation and vivification ought to be considered technical: that which vivifies is the Spirit, and that which animates is the soul.20 Moreover, that the vivification of the Spirit involves the bestowal of eternal life, i.e. incorruptibility or immortality, is further established when Irenaeus argues from Isa. 42:5 'the breath has been given in common to each person on the earth, but the Spirit exclusively to these who trample under earthly desires.'
We now return to AH 3.24.1, which contains the one clear contradiction to the pairing of the Spirit with vivification and the breath/soul with animation that we found in Book 5.21 As we have seen, in contrast to his
16 The references to animal and spiritual states of being reflect only the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit in an individual. The presence of the Spirit does not involve the reception of a 'spiritual life' different in kind from the physical life possessed by all human beings. For a discussion of the two modalities, temporal and eternal, of the one life, see chapter 6, esp. 149, 149 n. 5, 166–73.
17 Et ipse vita est eorum qui percipiunt illum.
18 ıåØŒe IæªÆÇ Å e ¼Łæø ; animalem efficit hominem.
19 —FÆ Çø Ø F . . . ıÆØŒe ÆPe I º F; Spiritus vivificans . . . spiritalem eum efficit.
20 Cf. Behr (2000: 105–8). Note that, while we distinguish the two, we should not too rigidly separate animation from vivification, for Irenaeus holds that both ultimately come from the same source—the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.
21 Prf 11 may seem to offer a contradiction, but when seen in light of AH 2.33.3–4 and AH
2.34.4, it becomes apparent that the 'making alive' by the 'breath of life' to which Irenaeus refers
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit later articulation, in AH 3.24.1 the analogy declares that both the Breath and the Spirit vivify. An explanation for this divergence can be found in Autol 1.7 and 2.13, which reveal that Theophilus speaks of both the Breath and the Spirit as giving life to creation. In Autol 1.7 he writes:
This is my God, the Lord of all . . . who founded the earth upon the waters, and gave a Spirit (FÆ) to nourish it; whose ( y) Breath ( c) gives life (Çø ª Ø) to the whole; who, if He withdraws the Spirit (e FÆ) present to it, the whole will come to an end.
And Autol 2.13 reads:
And [by] the Spirit (FÆ) which is borne above the waters, [he means that] which God gave for vivifying (Çø ªÅØ) the creation, just as [he gave] life
(łıåÅ) to man, the fine mixing with the fine.
A comparison of these selections highlights the common use of Çø ª ø: in Autol 1.7 with regard to the Breath, and with regard to the Spirit in Autol
2.13. Yet, it is not even necessary to compare these passages; for Autol 1.7 alone reveals that he understands both the Breath and the Spirit as having the same role. When Theophilus states the Breath gives life to the whole and the withdrawal of the Spirit causes the whole to come to an end, one reality is being expressed—life comes to creation from God. Since he is speaking of one reality, it makes sense for that one reality to be caused by one agent.
Thus, not only are both the Spirit and the Breath responsible for the giving of life to creation, but, we ought to understand the Spirit and the Breath to be identical in this context. Though Irenaeus refrains from identifying the Spirit and the Breath, it remains highly probable that the analogy in AH 3.24.1, wherein the Spirit makes alive the Church just as the Breath makes alive the first man, reveals the influence of To Autolycus. Reliance on Theophilus in AH 3.24.1, then, explains the inconsistent nature of this passage when compared to the rest of Irenaeus' thought on the activity of the Breath and the Holy Spirit.
Excursus Conclusion In Theophilus, then, we have a source that uses the same variant quotation of Ps. 33:6 to the same end as Irenaeus, and a source in which both the Spirit and the Breath give life to creation. That being said, we may assert that Irenaeus' varying approach to Ps. 33:6 can be explained by the point in time at which he acquired copies of Autol, and that the sudden flurry of corresponding ideas in AH 3.22.4, 3.23.6, and 3.24.1 suggests his initial utilization of Theophilus' writings. Therefore, this excursus suggests Irenaeus acquired a copy of the in Prf 11 is not an effect of the soul itself, but rather an effect of the life which makes the soul itself alive, and which the participating soul may then share with the body.
Excursus: Irenaeus' Reception of Theophilus' To Autolycus
letters after the composition of AH 3.8.3 and prior to the composition of AH 3.22–4.22 Furthermore, the analogy contained in AH 3.24.1 bears the first marks of Theophilus' influence upon Irenaeus' pneumatology, albeit an influence on Irenaeus' thought that does not last.
22 AH 3.22–24 can be dated between AD 180 and AD 189: from the writing of Theodotian the Ephesian (AH 3.21.1) to the death of Eleutherius (AH 3.3.3).
His Hand and Wisdom The previous two chapters of this study revealed that Irenaeus' move toward a more positive theology in his third Book of Against Heresies included the development of a pneumatology containing manifold elements and themes.
The remaining chapters of this study will focus on fewer aspects of Irenaeus' theology of the Spirit, but each theme I address is distinctive and central to his thought. My intent is to provide the reader with a solid grasp of his pneumatology and its development, without discussing every feature.
This chapter contains two essays that focus on the largest identifiable influence and the single most important aspect of Irenaeus' account of the Spirit: Theophilus' To Autolycus and the Spirit as Creator tradition. Both
Theophilus' influence and Irenaeus' ascription of creative activity to the Spirit are most evident in AH 4. The Spirit as Creator tradition appears in two main ways in this Book: the identification of the Spirit as one of the Hands of God and the identification of the Spirit as Wisdom. Each identification is the topic of one of the essays in this chapter. The influence of Theophilus factors into each analysis. I will argue that we should recognize Autol as the source of the Hands imagery in Irenaeus and I will argue that Theophilus should not be regarded as the source of Irenaeus' identification of the Spirit as Wisdom.
5.1 THE HANDS OF GOD
Irenaeus' doctrine of the two Hands of God, which he identifies as the Son and Spirit or Word and Wisdom,1 has played a frequent part in studies of his theology since Friedrich Loofs suggested the motif belonged to a tradition
1 AH 4.pref.4, 4.7.4 (Arm.), 4.20.1, 5.1.3, 5.5.1, 5.6.1, 5.28.4, and Prf 11. Irenaeus also refers to the hand of God in AH 4.39.2 and 'his hands' in AH 4.39.3. AH 4.39.2–3 bears many similarities to the passages discussed in this chapter, but it seems to me that the hands language we find there is anthropomorphic and does not entail an allusion to the Son and Spirit (whom he never mentions). Therefore, that passage will not factor into this study.
His Hand and Wisdom
from Asia Minor developed by Irenaeus.2 Rather than following Loofs' theory with regard to an unknown Asiatic source, J. Armitage Robinson stressed the similarity between Irenaeus' statements and a passage in Autol 2.18 in which Theophilus declares that the making of man was alone worthy of God's
Hands, his Word and Wisdom. According to Robinson, 'we almost seem to be listening to Irenaeus' when we read this passage of Theophilus. He then suggested that Irenaeus' frequent declarations that the Word and Wisdom are the Son and Spirit, the Hands of God, might be an attempt to compensate for the occasional lack of distinction between the Word and Wisdom in Theophilus.3
Jules Lebreton offered a third hypothesis with regard to Irenaeus' source when he suggested that Irenaeus' theology of the Hands is the result of his direct development of the numerous references in the Old Testament to the hand or hands of God.4 Michel René Barnes, though, in the most recent study to discuss Irenaeus' Hands motif, points out that while Gen. 1:26 is often the occasion for Irenaeus' deployment of Hands imagery, he never uses a text from Scripture to support his use of Hands language itself.5 As a result, past arguments for Irenaeus' development of this imagery from Scripture alone become tenuous at best. We are then left with the hypotheses endorsed by Loofs and Robinson. It is not necessary to consider them mutually exclusive, however, for enough evidence exists to affirm both that Hands language belongs to a tradition from Asia Minor and that Theophilus' correspondence
Autol is the primary source of this tradition for Irenaeus.
The tradition of Hands imagery is best characterized as Jewish. The numerous passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that contain references to the hand or hands of God, which can be found in the studies on Irenaeus mentioned above, could alone serve as a sufficient basis for this assertion. Yet it is not necessary to be content with just those passages. Barnes has drawn attention to the 'strong exegetical interest in God as potter and man as taken from a lump of clay in the Jewish writings The Wisdom of Sirach and Fourth
2 Loofs (1968 [orig. 1889]: 107, 114). The later, posthumous publication of Loofs' Theophilus von Antiochien assigns the presence of the Hands tradition in Irenaeus to source 1QT (1930:
34–41), which he then identifies as Theophilus' lost work Adv. Marcionem. He makes this attribution despite the fact that he also considered several parallels to exist between Theophilus'
Autol and Irenaeus (1930: 67–70). In preparation for the following discussion, the reader should also note that Loofs assigned Irenaeus' reference to the Word alone as the Hand of God in AH
3.21.10 to a different Asiatic source, 1QA (1930: 247–8). As the following study will show, I do not believe Loofs needed to attribute the presence of the Hands tradition in Irenaeus to a source that is no longer extant, nor is it necessary to posit separate sources to explain Irenaeus' references to the Hand (sg.) of God and his references to the Hands (pl.) of God.
3 St Irenaeus, tr. J.A. Robinson (1920: 59); see p. 51–60 for his full discussion of the Hands.
4 Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 580–1). Since Lebreton, other studies have also declared the Scriptures to be Irenaeus' source: Lawson (1948: 124, 136–7) and Mambrino, NRT 79 (1957: 355–70, here 357).
5 Barnes (2009: 103).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Esdras 3:4–5, not to mention Paul, Romans 9:21ff.'6 As will be mentioned again later, 4 Ezra 8.7–8 seems to connect the hands of God with the in utero formation of each person. Hands imagery also finds a place in the thought of Philo, who says that 'divine hands' made Adam.7 In addition, Abot de-R.
Nathan, who wrote after the second century, affirmed man to be the only work of both of God's hands in a statement similar to that of Theophilus in Autol
2.18: 'How do we know that Adam was made by the two hands of God?
Because it says, "The hands have formed me" (Ps. 119:73).'8 Hands language, then, appears in a broad variety of Jewish works that were written both before and after the late second century writings of Theophilus and Irenaeus.
The identification of the Hands tradition as Jewish may well explain how it came to have a place in Theophilus' thought. For while I am unaware of a convincing argument for a specific source that accounts for Theophilus' incorporation of the Hands tradition,9 his general indebtedness to Jewish thought is clear.10 This position gains further support when one takes into consideration the heavy influence of Judaism on Christianity in Antioch itself. A predilection for Jewish traditions would not have been unusual for a Bishop of Antioch.11
Whatever particular source Theophilus depended upon, his location in Antioch also suggests one that came from Asia Minor. Additional support for a tradition from Asia Minor may be found in Robinson's observation that hands imagery is also found in the Clementine Homilies,12 whose date is unclear but whose provenance seems to be in the East, perhaps even Syria.13
Both Sirach and 4 Ezra, which contain the Hands motif or similar language, further substantiate the presence and receptivity of the tradition in the East, and their subsequent translation into Syriac shows a continuing presence in Asia Minor.14 All this being said, the presence of the Hands tradition in Asia
6 Barnes (2009: 102–3).
7 ('On the Creation of the World': 148). On Philo's use of hands language, see D.T. Runia's brief note in Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (1993: 112 n. 99).
8 Grant, HTR 40 (1947: 227–56; here p. 237).
9 Runia's criticism has placed José Pablo Martín's suggestion of the possibility of Philo on hold (1993: 112–16). Before Martín, Hitchcock argued that both Theophilus and Irenaeus depended separately upon Philo for the Hands tradition ('Loofs' Theory of Theophilus of Antioch,' ITS 38 (1937: 130–9, esp. 131–4).
10 In so saying, I do not intend to discount the possibility of an intermediate Christian source that may have already incorporated the Jewish tradition. Rather, my goal is to affirm that aspects of Theophilus' writings reveal an affinity to Jewish thought, which indicates that he is not opposed to incorporating a Jewish tradition—whether he received it directly or indirectly. For the similarities to Jewish thought in Theophilus, see among others: Kretschmar (1956: esp. 36–9,
57–9); Grant, HTR 43 (1950: 179–96) and (1988: 157–60, 165–8); and Schoedel (1993).
11 See, for example, Daniélou, (1964: 356 and passim); Grant, RSR 60 (1972: 97–108); Hartin,
Scriptura 36 (1991: 38–50). For details on the Jewish community, itself, in Antioch see Kraeling,
JBL 51 (1932: 130–60).
12 St Irenaeus, tr. J.A. Robinson, (1920: 53 n. 1).
13 See Kelley (2006: 11–15).
14 Of course, this is not to suggest that Theophilus read these works, nor read them in Syriac.