5.1.2 The Theological and Polemical Utility of the Hands Motif
His Hand and Wisdom
Word—a reference to the creative activity of the Spirit would have been superfluous and would have weakened the connection. We may then conclude that Theophilus is Irenaeus' source for Hands imagery and for his particular use of plasma language after AH 3.21.10, including its support by the abovementioned passages of Scripture. Moreover, it is possible that reliance on Justin accounts for his use of plasma language prior to AH 3.21.10.
Up to this point, I have considered Irenaeus' use of the Hands of God motif in an effort to recognize the source from which he worked. In the second half of this analysis, I will show how Irenaeus utilized the Hands tradition to support his theological and polemical goals. To do so, I will break from my habit of dividing my discussion of Irenaeus' theology by Book, which has enabled me to convey to the reader the development of his pneumatology over the course of his writing. That being said, Hands imagery plays slightly different roles in Books 4 and 5, so I have structured the second half of this examination to bring out these differing purposes for which Irenaeus appropriates the tradition. I will begin by further addressing an issue that to this point I have just mentioned in passing.
5.1.2 The Theological and Polemical Utility of the Hands Motif I stated earlier that recognizing Irenaeus' dependence upon Theophilus for Hands imagery explains why he does not refer to the two Hands of God until
AH 4. If we understand Irenaeus' identification of the Word as the Hand of God in AH 3.21.10 as the result of his contact with Autol, where both the Word and Wisdom are identified as the Hands of God, then it is proper to say that this reference in AH 3.21.10 is the first appearance of the Hands tradition, despite the fact that the Word alone is characterized as a Hand of God. As previously discussed, the identification of the Spirit as a Hand of God would have been superfluous, and perhaps even detrimental, to the argument in AH
3.21.10. His characterization of both the Son and Holy Spirit as the Hands of God in AH 4.pref.4 should not, then, be considered the first moment at which Irenaeus utilizes the tradition. Rather, it should be regarded as the first moment after his contact with Autol at which he makes use of the traditional identification of both the Son and Spirit as the Hands of God.
In AH 4.pref.4 Irenaeus combats the Gnostic denigration of the salvation of flesh by contending that flesh, a part of the human being, was not made by a deficient Demiurge, but by the one Creator God who formed flesh by means of his Hands:
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit In fact man is a mixture of soul and flesh,53 who was formed (formatus est) according to the likeness of God and was molded (plasmatus est) by his Hands, that is by the Son and the Spirit, to whom he also said, 'Let us make man' [Gen. 1:26].
Human flesh can be saved because its initial creation, as a constituent part of the human being, was by the one Creator God. Its original formation, then, was not itself deficient. Indeed, Adam was made after the likeness of God. In a manner similar to Theophilus in Autol 2.18, Irenaeus secures this contention by appropriating the Hands tradition to interpret the 'Let us make' of Gen.
1:26 in a way that attributes creative activity to the one God. The 'let us' refers to God's own Hands, the Son and Spirit.54 Once he has established that God alone creates, nothing inhibits him from ascribing to humanity the likeness of that one Creator God.
Prior to interpreting the communication in Gen. 1:26 as occurring between God and his Hands, that is between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the one
Creator God—the statement in the verse could have been explained as communication between the highest God and a lower creative Demiurge. This explanation would generate the possibility of ascribing to humanity the likeness of the creative Demiurge and not the highest God. Once the original
'likeness' of creation to the highest God is in jeopardy, so is the 'likeness' achieved by means of salvation.
The salvation of the flesh, which Irenaeus considers to be humanity's defining characteristic because of the Gnostic polemic, is guaranteed by the 'likeness' of the original formation to its Creator God—a 'likeness' that Irenaeus secures by using the Hands tradition to interpret Gen. 1:26 as referring to the creative
53 There is a question as to whether the original text included the reference to 'flesh,' which occurs in the Latin but not the Armenian. Fantino has pointed out (1986: 118–21) that in either case (1) the emphasis of the passage is on the formation of the flesh, and (2) › øØ is the Greek original for 'likeness'. Thus, the presence or absence of carnis does not change our reading of the passage. NB: I do not agree with Fantino's identification of › øØ with the Spirit itself: for my interpretation of the 'likeness' of God see pp. 173–81 in chapter 6.
54 In Dial 62.1–4, Justin supports the distinction of the Word from the Father by means of the 'us' in Gen. 1:26: 'God spoke with one endowed with reason and numerically different from himself' (Dial 62.2; Falls' tr.). He then denounces the idea that 'us' is explained by God speaking to angels (62.3) and goes on to identify the Word as Wisdom (62.4). Irenaeus does not use Gen.
1:26 to affirm the creative activity of the Word or Spirit prior to AH 4.pref.4, despite the fact that their agency in creation is central to his argument that the one God alone creates (which includes arguments against angelic involvement in creation: AH 1.22.1, AH 2.2.1–5, etc.). Since we have established that Irenaeus was working from Justin's Dial while writing AH 3, we can presume that he was familiar with his predecessor's use of Gen. 1:26 but chose not to use the text himself.
We can make sense of this by surmising that Irenaeus does not appropriate Gen. 1:26 earlier in his work because he disagrees with Justin's identification of the Word to whom God spoke as Wisdom. On the other hand, the text appears in AH 4.pref.4, soon after he receives Autol, because Theophilus provides an explanation of the 'us' that suits Irenaeus' identification of the Spirit as Wisdom.
His Hand and Wisdom
activity of the One God. Moreover, using the Hands motif to support his argument for the One Creator God locates the creative activity attributed to the Spirit as a Hand of God within the broader Spirit as Creator tradition that Irenaeus has already used in AH 1.22.1, 2.30.9, and 3.24.2 to support his argument for creation by the One God alone.
This use of Hands imagery to support his argument for the One Creator God distinguishes its use in AH 4 from its use in AH 5. As in AH 4.pref.4, Irenaeus uses the Hands motif in AH 4.20.1 to affirm the One God who creates, this time in explicit opposition to several different heresies that ascribe complete transcendence to the Father and reserve creative activity for a lower being or beings.55
And it is this one of whom Scripture said, 'And God formed (plasmavit) man, taking dust of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life' [Gen. 2:7].
Therefore, angels did not make (facerunt) us, nor did they form (plasmaverunt) us, nor, indeed, were angels able to make an image of God, nor anyone else besides the true God, nor a Power far removed from the Father of all things. For God did not need these [beings] to do (ad faciendum) what he had himself beforehand determined to do (fieri), as if he himself did not have his Hands. For always present with him were the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom, he made all things freely and of his own will, to whom he also speaks, when he says,
'Let us make man after our image and likeness' [Gen. 1:26].
Two points draw our immediate attention. First, Gen. 2:7 is now added to the argument in order to affirm the formation of human beings by the One
Creator God, who continues to be defined as the Father and his Hands by means of Gen. 1:26. Second, having discredited the possibility of the Gnostic concept of creation by a god, the Demiurge, lower than the Pleroma (AH
4.19.3), Irenaeus broadens his argument in AH 4.20.1 to oppose three other heresies distinguished by their doctrines of creation. It is not permissible to attribute creative activity to the 'angels . . . , nor anyone else besides the true
God, nor a Power far removed from the Father of all things.'56
Against these systems, Irenaeus asserts that there is One God who creates: the Father by means of his Hands. In contrast to the angels, another God, or a 55 Scholars often highlight that Irenaeus uses the Hands motif to establish the immediacy or direct action of God in creation, that is to say, that God himself creates human beings without utilizing a lower demiurge, angels, aeons or any other lessor non-divine intermediary. For instance, Lawson (1948: 124–5, 127, 131); Lebreton, (1928 vol. 2: 576–82, esp. 579); Mambrino,
NRT 79 (1957: 360, 369).
56 C.E. Hill (2006: 25) has pointed out that Irenaeus argues against 'heresies of three distinct types, defined by their doctrines of creation'. We can recognize those heresies here, though they occur in a different order than the standard arrangement highlighted by Hill. Irenaeus attributes a doctrine of creation by angels to Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates (AH
1.23.2, 5; 1.24.1, 4; 1.25.1); he attributes a doctrine of creation by 'some other God' (here: 'anyone else besides the true God') to Cerdo and Marcion (AH 1.27.1, 2); and he attributes a doctrine of creation by a Power far removed from and ignorant of God to Cerinthus (AH 1.26.1).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit certain Power, as God's Hands, the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, were always present with God. This is the case, not because they existed alongside the Father as opposing deities (as in a dualist system), nor because they are connected to the highest God by a chain of being,57 but because, as the Hands of God, they themselves are members of the One Creator God.58
As a Hand of God, the Spirit participated in the creation of human beings.
This affirmation reveals the theological importance of the Spirit as Creator tradition since Irenaeus restricts creative activity to God alone: as one who creates, the Spirit is God.59 Moreover, as one of the two Hands of God, the Spirit is distinct from and equal to the Son, both of whom must be equal to the Father with regard to their divinity, or else a gradation of divine being would exist within the Godhead. Irenaeus' conception of divinity has no room for such a subordinationist understanding of the Godhead, for it would bring his position uncomfortably close to the celestial chain of being advocated by some of his opponents.60
The presence of Hands language in the original text of AH 4.7.4 is disputed— it is not present in the Latin, but is present in the Armenian.61 It is impossible to arrive at a definitive answer to this dispute without recovering the original
57 Barnes (NV 7 2009: 76–8) provides an excellent discussion of Irenaeus' argument against a 'spatial' understanding of the Godhead in which the interval between beings is the ontological basis for the inferiority of each descending order in the celestial hierarchy. For more on 'topological' theology in Gnosticism and early Jewish and Christian theologies, see Schoedel
(1972: 88–108, esp. 99–103, which focus on Irenaeus).
58 According to Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 579), Irenaeus likes to call the Word and Spirit the Hands of God 'without doubt to better mark the unity of the creator God'.
59 Irenaeus' simple declaration in AH 5.15.2 drives home this point, 'Now the work (opera) of God is the forming (plasmatio) of man.' Cf. Barnes, who argues against inaccurate interpretations of the Hands expressions that ascribe sanctifying rather than creative activity to the Spirit
(Barnes, NV 7 2009: 104).
60 This is not to say that there is no room in Irenaeus' thought for a hierarchy within the Godhead that serves to differentiate the Three, as I mentioned in chapter 2. Indeed, it seems to me that the terminology Irenaeus uses lends itself to such an approach. His most frequent title for the Father is 'God,' while the Son and Spirit are 'his Hands.' In this I agree with Stead's judgment: 'Irenaeus apparently wished to associate the Son and Spirit more closely with the Father, picturesquely describing them as "the two hands of God" (AH 5.6.1, etc.). Are these
"hands" supposed to be coequal? Possibly; this idea would come more easily to Irenaeus, in that he identified the Spirit, not the Logos, with Wisdom; and he does not allude to the conventional view that the right hand must be superior. But his image hardly suggests the later view that all three Persons are coequal' (1994: 157; author's emphasis). NB: the second century usage of hierarchical language to differentiate the Three (e.g. Athenagoras, Emb 10.5, where rank (Ø) distinguishes the Three) differs from the later theological logic that ascribes differing degrees of divinity to the Father, Son, and Spirit—subordinationist accounts.
61 The Armenian has 'his Hands' (իւր ձեոքն) instead of 'his likeness' (figuratio sua). Several scholars have argued for the accuracy of the Latin over against the Armenian, for instance:
Robinson, JTS 32 (1931: 153–66, 370–93, here 156–7); Froidevaux, ROC 3rd series, vol 8 (1931–2:
441–3). To the contrary, Rousseau has argued for the accuracy of the Armenian text, SC 100.1,
(1965: 212–19). As stated above, in my opinion a conclusive argument has not yet been made.
See the following note for an additional possibility.
His Hand and Wisdom
Greek. That being said, the agreement of the argument in this passage with those of AH 4.pref.4 and AH 4.20.1, which contain the other references to the Hands tradition in Book 4, makes the original presence of that language here possible, though by no means certain or even probable.
Once again, Irenaeus is arguing for creation by the One God to the exclusion of angelic instrumentality. God has no need for angelic participation because his Offspring and his Similitude, the Son and Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, 'minister to him in all respects.' To suggest that God needs angelic aid while ministered to by the Son and Spirit, 'whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject,' makes little sense. Though not stated outright, the similar arguments elsewhere in AH 4 suggest that the creative activity of the Son and Spirit should be read into his comments in AH 4.7.4.
Furthermore, just as the comparison of the angels and other Powers to the Son and Spirit revealed the divine status of the Son and Spirit in AH 4.20.1, the elevation of the Son and Spirit above the angels in this passage points toward the same understanding. Irenaeus does not class the Son and Spirit among the angels or Powers. In AH 4.7.4 they are at least superior beings, and when combined with AH 4.20.1 we see they are superior beings because they are divine, members of the One God who creates.62
In AH 4 Irenaeus uses the Hands motif primarily to support the creative activity of the One God which ensures the salvation of the flesh; in AH 5 he uses the Hands motif primarily to support the salvation of the flesh which is guaranteed by the creative activity of the One God.63 The somewhat different emphases of the two Books lead to the somewhat different appropriations of the Hands tradition. They are very much, though, two sides of the same coin.
62 The titles 'Offspring' and 'Similitude' that the Latin text gives to the Son and Spirit are interesting. Barnes (NV 7 2009: 93–6) has observed that Irenaeus lacks a way to speak of the 'generation' of the Spirit, a point I made in chapter 2. If the title 'Similitude' is original (see the previous note), one cannot help wondering if Irenaeus was trying to develop something in this line by means of this title. If he was, it does not seem to go any farther than this statement.
Irenaeus never explains how the title 'Similitude' defines the relationship of the Spirit to the Father or Son (the Spirit does bring the similitude [similitudinem] of God to human beings in AH 5.6.1, for instance), as he will later use the idea of generation ('offspring') to define the relationship of the Son to the Father in Prf 47 (on this see Barnes (NV 7 2009: 8), who discusses the generation of the Son in Prf 47 and points out the heightened importance of this concept and title for the Son in Prf as compared to AH). Given the later debates with the Homoians, it is likely that such a theology for the Spirit would have proven controversial. In fact, such a controversy could have prompted the Armenian translator to replace 'his Similitude' (figuratio sua) with 'his
63 Irenaeus' use of the Hands motif in his Proof comes closest to its use in AH 4. In Prf 11, he uses Hands imagery to affirm the creative activity of the one Creator God. The purpose of the discussion in Prf 11 is found in Prf 8: God is the 'Lord of all by whom all things exist and from whom all things are nourished.'
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit His approach to Hands imagery in AH 5 is clear from its first use in AH
5.1.3, where he writes: the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having been united with the ancient substance of the formation (plasmationis) of Adam rendered (effecit) man living
(viventem) and perfect (perfectum) . . . so that in the spiritual we may all be made alive (vivicemur). For at no time did Adam escape the Hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' [Gen. 1:26].
And on account of this, in the last times, not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man [John 1:13], but by the good pleasure of the Father, his Hands have rendered man living (vivum perfecerunt hominem), in order that Adam might be made (fiat) after the image and likeness of God.
According to Irenaeus' reasoning, the person who is animated by the breath of life participates in natural life, but spiritual vivification follows the reception of the Spirit.64 The vivification of the whole person, in particular the salvation of the flesh, is at the heart of his debate with the Gnostics, who deprecate the material nature of man and deny the possibility of its salvation. His argument in AH 5.1.3 is presaged by the concluding statement in AH 5.1.2: 'vain is the argument of the Valentinians who argue against Jesus' 'truly possessing flesh and blood . . . in order that they may exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned.'65 Here he connects the salvation of the flesh with the creative activity by which it was formed.
Irenaeus moves in AH 5.1.3 from this initial connection of salvation of the flesh with its original creation to substantiate the very possibility of the flesh's salvation by the fact of its creation. To be specific: because the Word and the Spirit, as the Hands of God, made the first person in the image and likeness of God,66 so are they able to form a living person in the last times after the image and likeness of God by being united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation.67 Moreover, the phrase 'for at no time did Adam (meaning: the human race) escape the Hands of God' hints at the providential authority of the creative Hands over the salvation of their creation that he elaborates upon in AH 5.5.1:
For by means of those Hands by which they (Elijah and Enoch) were formed (plasmati sunt) in the beginning, they received assumption and translation. For in 64 The Spirit's role in Irenaeus' anthropology and soteriology will be discussed in detail in the next chapter of this study.
65 ANF translation.
66 His most detailed discussion of the original creative activity of the Hands occurs in Prf 11.
67 An almost identical statement occurs in AH 5.28.4: 'And because of this in every time, man, having been formed (plasmatus) in the beginning by the Hands of God, that is by the Son and by the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God.' This statement, however, does not highlight the role of the Incarnation as does the one in AH 5.1.3.
His Hand and Wisdom
Adam the Hands of God were accustomed to set in order, to rule, and to sustain68 his own formation (plasma), and to bring it and place it where they wish.
The vivification of human beings, which the 'assumption and translation' of a person would assume, is guaranteed by the authority of the Hands over their creation. That Irenaeus conceives of this authority as extending throughout every moment of the creature's existence is seen in AH
5.15.1–4, where the Incarnate Word restored sight to the blind man 'in order to make clear the Hand of God, that which in the beginning had formed (plasmavit) man.'69 Therefore, in the fifth Book of Against Heresies, the authority over their creation that follows from the creative activity of the Hands guarantees the salvation of the flesh, and thus of the whole human person.
Section Conclusion Several important points flow out of this section. First, while a source in Asia
Minor may account for the presence of the Hands motif in Theophilus, Autol itself seems to be the source for the appearance of the Hands tradition in Irenaeus. Second, Irenaeus' utilization of works by Justin can account for his use of plasma language prior to AH 3.21.10. Third, the timing of Irenaeus' reception of Theophilus' correspondence Autol explains why Irenaeus unites plasma language with Hands imagery in AH 3.21.10. Fourth, as with Theophilus, in Irenaeus plasma language entails an emphasis on the physical manipulation of the substance of the earth in order to form Adam. Fifth,
Irenaeus uses the Hands motif in AH 4 primarily to support the creative activity of the One God which ensures the salvation of the flesh; whereas
(sixth) in AH 5 he uses the Hands motif primarily to support the salvation of the flesh which is guaranteed by the creative activity of the One God. The somewhat different emphases of the two books lead to the somewhat different appropriations of the Hands tradition; they are very much, though, two sides of the same coin.
These last two points in particular, which demonstrate the theological and polemical appropriation of the Hands tradition, show that Irenaeus adapted the ideas he received from an earlier, less-developed tradition to fit his own
68 Coaptare et tenere et baiulare; ÞıŁ ÇØ ŒÆd ŒæÆE ŒÆd ÆÇØ.
69 AH 5.15.2. Barnes' statement, 'the language of "made by God's Two Hands" is used to describe the creation or formation of Adam and only that specific act of creation' (NV 7 2009:
102) is accurate with regard to the use of 'Hands' in the plural. I have argued above, however, that as far as Irenaeus is concerned, we should include the references to the Word as the Hand (sg.) of God within the Hands tradition. This being the case, we can say that Irenaeus connects the in utero creation of each individual person to the Hands tradition as well, for that creative activity is attributed to the Word as the Hand of God in AH 5.15.3 on the basis of Jer. 1:5 (cf. 4 Ezra 8.7–8).
Irenaeus also connects instances of miraculous preservation of the flesh (e.g. Elijah; Ananias,
Azarias, and Misaël) to the work of the Son as a Hand of God in AH 5.5.2.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit theological goals. He did not just reiterate what came before him. Rather, he approached Theophilus' work as a sourcebook that he adopted and adapted to his own ends.
5.2 THE SPIRIT AS WISDOM
The creative activity Irenaeus ascribes to the Spirit in AH 4 is not limited to the association of the Spirit with the Hands motif. In fact, if we desire to categorize
Irenaeus' pneumatology, the creative activity ascribed to the Spirit as one of the Hands of God would fall under the broader heading of the Spirit as Creator. Under this heading too, we would place his identification of the Spirit as Wisdom, which is most prominent in Book 4.
Irenaeus' identification of the Spirit with the figure of Wisdom in sapiential literature has perplexed scholars, especially those who consider the title 'Wisdom' to be firmly affixed to the Son by this point in time.70 The very fact that both Theophilus and Irenaeus identify the Spirit as Wisdom, however, indicates it is inaccurate to consider the title to be already so closely linked to the Son that we should expect its exclusive identification with him.71 The better question is, rather, why do Theophilus and Irenaeus make the connection they do when passages in Scripture and in Justin join the title to the Son?72 It would seem that the most likely answer lies in a traditional association of spirit and wisdom language that finds a place in both Theophilus and Irenaeus.73
The scholarly consensus has assigned to this traditional association of Spirit and Wisdom a Jewish character and an Oriental provenance, possibly Syria or Palestine.74 The strength of this determination of provenance comes largely from Kretschmar's study of wisdom language in works that precede
Irenaeus.75 He concluded that Irenaeus' immediate source for the God-WordWisdom triad is Theophilus. In his mind, Theophilus occupied the pivotal place in the application of old Israelite Wisdom traditions to the Christian
Holy Spirit and in the dissemination of this new Wisdom tradition in both the 70 The comments of Prestige (1969: 91) represent this perspective: 'The identification (by Theophilus and Irenaeus) of the Spirit and the Wisdom failed to secure acceptance; already the title of Wisdom had come to be too closely connected with the Son'.
71 Unlike Irenaeus, Theophilus is not consistent in his identification: he also identifies the Word as Wisdom, e.g. Autol 2.10.
72 As Lebreton states (1928 vol. 2: 568).
73 To my knowledge, the best study remains that of Kretschmar (1956: 36–61).
74 e.g. Lebreton (1928 vol. 2: 569–70); Kretschmar (1956: esp. 57–9); Orbe (1966: 520);
Jaschke (1976: 258). This assignment of provenance agrees with my conclusions with regard to the Hands of God tradition that Irenaeus also utilizes.
75 Kretschmar (1956: 36–61).
His Hand and Wisdom
East and West.76 On the other hand, Lebreton, Rousseau, Jaschke, and Fantino point to the Sapiential literature as Irenaeus' immediate source.77
I agree that Theophilus influenced Irenaeus' identification of Wisdom with the Spirit. Indeed, I believe his fingerprints are all over AH 4.20.3ff.78 Yet,
Irenaeus first utilized the God-Word-Wisdom triad in AH 2.30.9, well in advance of the first signs of Theophilus' influence upon his thought. I also agree that Irenaeus utilized Sapiential literature,79 again in AH 4.20.3 especially, but he never reasons from these passages of Scripture in support of the identification of the Spirit as Wisdom.80 Moreover, he quotes the passages from Proverbs in AH 4.20.3 long after he first refers to the dyad, Word and Wisdom, in AH 2.30.9 and AH 3.24.2, and after he makes the explicit identification of Wisdom and Spirit in AH 4.7.4. For these reasons, while it is difficult to believe that Irenaeus was not long aware of Sapiential passages that would support his initial identification of Wisdom and the Spirit, he gives no indication that he identifies the two because of this literature.
The fact of the matter is that Irenaeus does not give us enough information to determine what particular source may have encouraged his identification of the Holy Spirit as Wisdom. Because we are unable to draw definitive conclusions from Irenaeus himself, I will follow the conclusions Kretschmar gained from his analysis of preceding traditions, insofar as they point to an oriental
Jewish tradition that associates wisdom and spirit language. Yet, since 76 Kretschmar (1956: 58–60). Robinson illustrates Irenaeus' connection of the Spirit and Wisdom by referring to Theophilus, but refrains from labeling Theophilus as Irenaeus' source
(1920: 53–60).
77 Lebreton (1928 vol. 2: 569); Rousseau, SC 211 (1974: 393, 477 n. 2); Jaschke (Der Heilige
Geist, 1976: 264); Fantino (1994: 291); Fantino also states that the identification of spirit with wisdom comes out of Jewish speculation which passes into Jewish-Christianity—Irenaeus' identification is in line with this tradition.
78 In this opinion Robinson precedes me, 'the next sentences of Theophilus give in summary form much which is said with great fullness by Irenaeus, touching the vision of God and the resurrection of the flesh as well as of the soul' (Robinson 1920: 55; he is speaking of Theophilus' use of Ps. 33.6 and Prov. 3.19–20 in Autol 1.7 with reference to Prf 5 and AH 4.20.3–4, as his note shows). An extended analysis of AH 4.20.3ff and its relationship to Theophilus will have to await a future study.
79 Rousseau suggests that Prov. 8:30 accounts for Irenaeus' description in AH 3.24.2 of Wisdom as 'binding together (compingens) all things', (SC 211 1974: 393), and according to Jaschke (Der Heilige Geist, 1976: 264), Irenaeus draws from Wisd. 1:7 when he says in AH 5.2.3 that the Spirit of God 'contains (continet) all things'. In fact, however, the most that can be said about these passages is that they utilize the same language that occurs in Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon. Insufficient parallels make suggestions of dependence tenuous.
80 Only once does Irenaeus reason from a passage of Scripture to the identification of the Spirit as Wisdom: from Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) in Prf 5. This fact is less significant to this present discussion than it may seem, for three reasons: (1) the Proof (as I argued in the Introduction) was written after Irenaeus' initial identification of the Spirit as Wisdom in AH 2.30.9; (2) Ps. 33:6 refers to the Spirit not to Wisdom, so the identification had to be already in place in Irenaeus' mind for him to make use of the passage; and (3) Irenaeus relies upon his later reception of Theophilus for his application of Ps. 33:6 to the Spirit as Wisdom, as I argued in the Excursus following chapter 4.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Irenaeus identifies Wisdom and the Holy Spirit prior to his encounter with Theophilus' letters To Autolycus, Theophilus cannot be Irenaeus' initial source of the tradition.81 It is better to say that Irenaeus' identification of the two comes from an oriental Jewish Tradition of which he was aware, a tradition that Theophilus probably used as well. His later contact with Theophilus, then, provided the hitherto-lacking textual basis and intellectual categories to further develop the Spirit-Wisdom identification that Irenaeus already held.82
A careful accounting of Irenaeus' wisdom language, in particular his association of wisdom language with the Spirit, is then needed. The remainder of this section will supply the reader with an account which takes into consideration the initial setting of the development of his wisdom language, the transition of wisdom from an attribute of God to its identification with the Holy Spirit, the context in which Irenaeus refers to the Spirit as Wisdom, and the activities— and especially the effect of those activities—that he ascribes to Wisdom. I will treat these points within two sub-sections: first, the identification of the Spirit as Wisdom; and second, the activity and the effect of Wisdom.
The division of this examination into two parts treating (1) the identification, and (2) the activity and the effect of Wisdom, while convenient, is to a certain degree false. Irenaeus identifies the Spirit as Wisdom seven times in Against Heresies, to which we can add two additional occasions in his Proof.83 In every instance, with the possible exception of Prf 10,84 the ascription of the title occurs when he is affirming the creative activity of the Spirit. A quotation from Prf 5 explains this pattern: '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.'85 Here, it is clear that the Spirit is called 'the Wisdom of God' because of its role in creation: the arranging and forming of the powers, in this case. The particular connection of the title, Wisdom, with creative activity renders my division between identity, and activity and effect, somewhat false. The separation of these ideas is, nevertheless,
81 Irenaeus' reference to the dyad, Word and Wisdom, in AH 2.30.9 bears no other similarity to the work of Theophilus than the reference itself.
82 Chief among these examples would be Irenaeus' incorporation of the Hands of God, which Theophilus identifies as the Word and Wisdom, Prov. 3:19–20 in AH 4.20.3, and Ps. 33:6 which is the one passage from Scripture that Irenaeus uses to justify his identification of the Spirit as Wisdom (Prf 5). I have shown in the Excursus and earlier in this chapter that Irenaeus takes both the Hands motif and his use of Ps. 33:6 from Theophilus.
83 AH 2.30.9, 3.24.2, 4.7.4, 4.20.1, 4.20.2, 4.20.3, 4.20.4; Prf 5, 10. I do not consider the quotations of Isa. 11:1–3 in AH 3.9.3, 3.17.1, or Prf 9 as instances when the Spirit is identified as Wisdom. In each of those passages Irenaeus deploys the verse to discuss the activity of the 'Spirit' and not the activity of the Spirit as 'Wisdom.'
84 Where the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Holy Spirit, glorify God at the beginning of a section that then transitions to a discussion of creation.
85 Behr's translation.