5.2.1 The Identification of the Spirit as Wisdom
His Hand and Wisdom
an easyway to convey information. I beg the reader's indulgence for the occasional repetition of information that overlaps my partition.
5.2.1 The Identification of the Spirit as Wisdom The Wisdom pneumatology of Irenaeus reaches its apogee in AH 4, where five of his nine references to the Spirit as Wisdom occur (two references occur before this Book and two after). Of the passages containing wisdom pneumatology in this Book, AH 4.20.1–4 stands above the rest. Here, Irenaeus identifies the Spirit as Wisdom to establish that creative activity belongs to one God alone. In the course of this argument he also establishes the eternality of the Spirit as one of the members of the Creator God.
As we saw in our discussion of the Hands of God, Irenaeus restricts creative activity to God alone by contending that God does not need 'outside' assistance. He writes in AH 4.20.1, 'For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness" [Gen. 1.26].'86 The self-sufficiency that Irenaeus ascribes to God in this statement depends on two separate, but related points. First, God did not need assistance to create because his Word and Wisdom, Son and Spirit, were always with him. Second, God did not need assistance to create because he made all things by his Word and Wisdom, Son and Spirit. The next two sections, AH 4.20.2–3, contain Irenaeus' argument in support of these two points.
In the first half of AH 4.20.2, he details verses that support the creative activity of the Father.87 In the second half of this section, Irenaeus moves to the involvement of the Son and Spirit: 'God who made (fecit) all things by [his]
Word and adorned (adornavit) them by [his] Wisdom.' He supports the creative activity of the Son by affirming his sovereignty over the heavens and the earth, for sovereignty belongs to the Creator.88 He then quickly supports the eternality of the Son by saying he has already demonstrated
'the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father.'
Though his logic has required a similar understanding of the Spirit up to this point in his work,89 he has not yet offered explicit comments on the eternality of the Spirit. That being the case, he devotes AH 4.20.3 to showing
'that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all 86 ANF translation.
87 He quotes Mandate 1.1 from the Shepherd of Hermas (which he considers to be Scripture),
Mal. 2:10, Eph. 4:6, and Matt. 11:27.
88 Cf. his ascription of providence to the Creator in AH 3.24.2–3.25.1; see chapter 4, pp. 91–3.
89 See, for example, the perfection of the Spirit that I discuss in chapter 2, pp. 38–40.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit creation.'90 Irenaeus then famously establishes the eternality and creativity of the Spirit by appropriating three Wisdom passages from Proverbs: 3:19–20,
8:22–25, and 8:27–31.
Irenaeus explicitly states that the verses from Proverbs serve to substantiate the eternality of the Spirit/Wisdom: 'Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with [the Father], anterior to all creation, He declares by Solomon.'91
Despite the simplicity of his purpose and the clarity with which he states it, some commentators attempt to impute additional significance he never intends.92 In particular, the quotation of Prov. 8:22 ('the Lord created me
[Dominus creavit me]') should not be taken as revealing Irenaeus' understanding of, or even interest in, the generation of the Spirit.93 In contrast to his comments on the generation of the Logos in AH 2, at no time does Irenaeus explain his conception of the production of the Spirit. In fact, he gives no indication that he considers it important to verbalize an account of the Spirit's production or that he even has an account that he could verbalize.94
The grammatical structure of AH 4.20.3 confirms the role the verses from Proverbs play in Irenaeus' argument. Between the quotations of the first and second groups of verses (Prov. 3:19–20 and Prov. 8:22–25) occur the words
90 ANF translation.
91 ANF translation.
92 For instance, Orbe (1966: 697–8).
93 As, for example, Orbe, when he saysthat these texts are sufficient to legitimate the Holy Spirit's personality, as they would serve others (e.g. Tertullian in adv. Hermog. and adv. Prax.) to demonstrate the procession of the Word from his personal immanence in God to his full personal subsistence. So, in this sense the true exegetical difficulty of the personality of the Spirit that exists for others, disappears for Theophilus and Irenaeus (Orbe 1961: 538–9). In addition, by comparing
Irenaeus to Theophilus, Lebreton's comments are potentially misleading: 'the Spirit also derives its origin from the Father, but nowhere does he say it is generated by the Father; this reserve, certainly intentional, is all the more notable as this generation could seem suggested by certain passages of the sapiential books (he notes Prov. 8:25 in AH 4.20.3) that Irenaeus interprets of the Holy Spirit.' And then from the note to that statement, 'Saint Theophilus who, around the same date, also identifies
Wisdom with the Spirit, is less reserved than Irenaeus and represents sometimes this Wisdom as generated by God' (Lebreton 1928, vol. 2: 562, 562 n. 3). Lebreton's statement that Irenaeus' approach to the generation of the Spirit is intentionally reserved in comparison to Theophilus' suggests that Irenaeus is unwilling or unable to give an account of the production of the Spirit. It is better to say that he is not at all interested in providing such an account.
94 This should not be explained by suggesting that Irenaeus conceives of the Spirit as being in some way reducible (he intends for his comments in AH 4.20.3 to stand against this very possibility—the Spirit is as eternal as the Word). A curious passage in Theophilus may shed some light on Irenaeus' thinking. In Autol 2.10, we find, 'For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the Wisdom of God which was in him (K ÆPfiH), and his holy
Word which was always present with him (ıÆæg ÆPfiH)' (ANF tr. M. Dods). It is true, as Lebreton points out (1928, vol. 2: 562–3 n. 3), that earlier in this passage Theophilus refers to the emission (Kæı ) of Wisdom, but here the different terms seem to suggest that while his
Wisdom and Word existed prior to creation, their status ('in' versus 'with') was different. Such an understanding could explain Irenaeus' lack of interest in the production of the Spirit, and contribute to the generation of the Spirit still being an open question in Origen's time (PA 1. pref.4). Along the same line, Barnes suggests that Irenaeus' failure to provide an aetiological model for the Holy Spirit weakens later pneumatology (NV 7, 2009: 105–6).
His Hand and Wisdom
et rursus ('and again'), and between the quotations of the second and third groups (Prov. 8:22–5 and Prov. 8:27–31) we find et iterum ('and again'). These conjunctions create a series of quotations in which each individual quotation refers back to the purpose stated at the beginning of the passage, thereby limiting their signifance to the sole intent of the passage.95 Therefore, Prov.
8:22–5 finds a place in this series because, as with the others, it confirms the eternality of the Spirit by establishing its existence as Wisdom prior to creation.96
Irenaeus does not take the time to argue for the creative activity of the Spirit as Wisdom. He presumes that the verses from Proverbs will speak to this point for themselves. The one theme that is common to the three selections from Proverbs is the existence of Wisdom prior to creation, which makes sense given Irenaeus' reason for appropriating these texts. A certain variation exists, however, in how the selections support this theme. In this variation lies the support for the creative activity of the Spirit as Wisdom. Proverbs 3:19–20 supports the eternality of the Spirit by establishing the role of Wisdom in creation. In order for Wisdom to have been involved in creation, so the logic goes, Wisdom would have had to exist prior to creation. Proverbs 8:22–5 and 8:27–31 support the eternality of the Spirit by establishing the presence of Wisdom with God prior to, and then at the time of, creation. The first selection speaks less directly to the Spirit's eternality but more directly to its creative activity; the reverse goes for the second and third selections. In the end, their combination permits Irenaeus to state at the beginning of AH 4.20.4,
'Therefore, [there is] one God, who by the Word and Wisdom made and adapted all things.'
If the pinnacle of Irenaeus' Wisdom pneumatology occurs in AH 4, the roots of his identification of the Spirit with Wisdom lie in AH 2. The polemic with Gnosticism is the initial setting for his development of wisdom language and for its first connection with his concept of creation. The first important moment in the formation of his idea of wisdom occurs in AH 2.17.7–8 where he reclaims the terminology from Gnostic usage.
Irenaeus demonstrates in AH 2.17 that the Valentinian theory of the production of aeons is faulty because spiritual production entails continuity in substance or nature.97 As a result of this continuity, 'if it is impious to ascribe ignorance and passion to the Father of all,'98 then 'those productions
95 Therefore, Orbe's approach to AH 4.20.3, which garners different points from the different verses (1966: 697–8), is incorrect. Bacq is on the right track when he states, 'By this expression
(ª ÅÆ), he intends only to emphasize the absolute transcendence of the Son and the Spirit in relation to all the other beings which are the "work" ( ÅÆ) of God' (Bacq 1978: 168 n. 2).
96 Fantino (1994: 350–2) is correct to say that by basing the eternality of the Spirit on its preexistence to creation, Irenaeus does not mean that the eternality of the Spirit, or the Son for that matter, is just relative to creation.
97 AH 2.17.6: eiusdem enim substantiae omnes inveniuntur cum Patre, tantum secundum magnitudinem, sed non secundum naturam differentes ab invicem.
98 AH 2.17.6, ANF translation.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit which proceed from [the Logos] (which in turn proceeded from the Father), since they are of the same substance with himself, remain perfect, and impassible, and always similar to him who produced them.'99 Of particular concern to Irenaeus in this discussion is to establish that 'it is not possible . . . that the Sophia of God, she who is within the Pleroma, coming from a production of this kind, should have fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived such ignorance.'100 His primary interest in arriving at this conclusion is to undermine the Gnostic theory of creation, which views the ignorance of Wisdom as the key moment in the creation of matter. His secondary interest, however, is much more important for the construction of his own theological account—he is creating semantic space for the proper understanding of the figure of Wisdom.
This secondary interest is not explicit, but is evident from three statements he makes in the course of his argument and from the change in his usage of terminology that occurs at this point in his work. The first statement comes right before the height of his argument, at the end of AH 2.17.6: 'and while they ascribe the same impiety (ignorance and passion) to the very Sophia of God, how can they still call themselves religious men?'101 This is effective polemic because characterizing the Wisdom of God as ignorant is not only impious, but also nonsensical. Beyond this polemical point, the question suggests that religious people should think pious thoughts with regard to the Wisdom of God.
This latter point indicates that Irenaeus desires to free the figure of Wisdom, in and of itself, from the errors of the Gnostic system. Such a desire only makes sense if he intends to reclaim Wisdom for his own theological system. The next two statements support this conclusion. In AH 2.17.8 Irenaeus compares the 'Sophia of God' to the 'Sapientia of Valentinus,'102 thus differentiating the two rather than just showing the illogical nature of the concept of Sophia in the Gnostic system, which is all his argument requires. And in AH 2.18.1, he considers his reclamation project complete when he issues the ultimatum: 'Let them therefore no longer call this suffering aeon, Sophia, but let them make no mention of either her name or her sufferings.'
Irenaeus abides by his own dictate. Throughout the rest of his work he refers by name to the aeon, Sophia, just two times.103 In addition, after AH
2.17.8 he never again uses the term sapientia to refer to the Valentinian
99 AH 2.17.7.
100 AH 2.17.8.
101 ANF translation.
102 By Valentino Sapientia, Irenaeus intends a double entendre: he is challenging both the figure of Wisdom in the Valentinian system, and the wisdom of the Valentinian system.
103 In AH 4.33.3 and AH 4.35.4, in contrast to the 45 times the term appears from the beginning of AH through AH 2.18.1. The Latin translator retained and reserved Sophia to speak of the aeon.
His Hand and Wisdom
Wisdom; he restricts its reference to wisdom as an attribute of God and to Wisdom as a name for the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that the argument found from AH 2.17.2 through AH 2.18.1 both undermines the Gnostic conception of Sophia, the pivotal figure in the Valentinian theory of creation, and creates a semantic space that he can fill with his concept of the figure of Wisdom, whom he identifies as the Holy Spirit.
It is important for me to be clear about my understanding of the relationship between the Gnostic figure of Wisdom and the figure of Wisdom in Irenaeus' thought. Two main similarities exist between the two conceptions of Wisdom. First, both associate Wisdom with the Holy Spirit (though what is meant by 'Holy Spirit' differs). Second, both assign a role to Wisdom in creation. Despite the similarities between the two systems, we should not say that Irenaeus has incorporated or modified the Gnostic concept of Sophia in order to produce his own idea of Wisdom. I believe two observations will suffice to substantiate my position. First, the 'cleansing' of the title Wisdom that occurs between AH 2.17.2 and AH 2.18.1 shows the disregard of Irenaeus for the Gnostic figure of Wisdom. He is only interested in the title, to which he will attach his own conception.104 And second, in order to assert the dependence of Irenaeus on the Gnostic concept of Wisdom, one would have to demonstrate distinct parallels between the two systems that cannot be explained by parallels to any other system. This has not been done. In fact, the figure of Wisdom in sapiential literature and the figure of Wisdom in Theophilus bear many similarities, including the two mentioned earlier in this paragraph, to the figure of Wisdom in Irenaeus.105
The reclamation of Wisdom language from Gnostic usage, then, will enable Irenaeus to identify the Holy Spirit as Wisdom in AH 2.30.9. Before he does that, though, further interaction with his Gnostic opponents serves as the occasion for him to associate the attribute of God's wisdom with the harmony found in creation. In AH 2.25.1 we find him confronting the Gnostic proclivity for arithmology, but in so doing, he does not want to suggest that either the details of Scripture orthe overall structure of the world are 'a meaningless and accidental thing.'106 Against this notion, he responds, 'with great wisdom and diligence, all things have clearly been made by God, fitted and prepared (apta et ornata).'107
104 In so saying I do not intend to discount the polemical advantage of taking over the terminology of one's opponents, but this polemical move does not necessarily involve the incorporation of the ideas of one's opponents.
105 Robinson wrote long ago, 'The identification of the Spirit with Wisdom was made after a fashion by some of the "Gnostics," but not in a way that is likely to have influenced Irenaeus'
Robinson (1920: 53).
106 AH 2.25.1; the passage reads, 'Is it a meaningless and accidental thing, that the positions of names, and the election of apostles, and the working of the Lord, and the arrangement of created things, are what they are?—we answer them: Certainly not' (ANF translation).
107 AH 2.25.1
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit In AH 2.25.2 he then borrows the illustration of the harmony of the lyre from Greco-Roman philosophy and culture to show that while 'various and numerous (varia et multa) are those things that have been made, they are indeed well fitted and adapted (bene aptata et bene consonantia) to the whole creation.' We can see that this is true because 'the sound of the lyre, by means of the interval that separates each one from the others, produces one harmonious melody, [but] consists of many and opposite (multis et contrariis) sounds.'108 Moreover, just as the creation of the lyre by a single artist demonstrates 'the justice, goodness, and munificence belonging to the whole work and [thing of] wisdom,'109 so too can we believe that the various parts of creation and the harmonic whole that they form are due to the work of one Creator. Thus, the wise work of God is that which joins together the 'various and numerous' aspects of creation into a meaningful whole.110
The next reference to the wisdom of God in creation occurs in chapter thirty of AH 2, which is also where we see Irenaeus expand his wisdom language to include the idea of Wisdom as the Holy Spirit. In AH 2.30.3, he challenges
Gnostic superiority by means of a series of questions concerning the creation of the world, two of which read:
And who can enumerate one by one all the remaining things constituted by the power of God and governed by his wisdom? Or, [who can] search out the greatness of his wisdom by which God created?111
I will take into consideration Irenaeus' use of gubernare in the next section; what interests me at the present time is the analysis of Hans-Jochen Jaschke.
Jaschke stated that the language of this passage suits Irenaeus' understanding of the Spirit as Wisdom, whose 'ordering rule' receives an 'impressive illustration' in creation, but here sapientia refers to a quality of God.112
Jaschke's observation is more pertinent to this moment in Irenaeus' development of his wisdom language than he himself seems to realize. As we will see in the next section, Irenaeus ascribes to the wisdom of God in creation the same effect that he ascribes to the activity of the Spirit as Wisdom. This correspondence enables his deft appropriation of the language he developed
108 AH 2.25.2.
109 AH 2.25.2.
110 A more detailed discussion of Irenaeus' illustration of the lyre takes place in the next subsection.
111 AH 2.30.3: Et reliqua omnia quae per virtutem Dei sunt constituta et per sapientiam eius gubernantur quis poterit per singula enumerare, vel investigare magnitudinem sapientiae eius qui fecit Dei? cf. Athenagoras, The Resurrection of the Dead 5.1, 'Such seem to me, first of all, not to perceive the power and wisdom of the one who made and governs ( F
ÅØ ıæªÆ ŒÆd Ø ØŒ F ) this universe.' Text from Athénagore, SC 379 (1992); my translation.
112 Jaschke (Der Heilige Geist, 1976: 262, 263 n. 55).
His Hand and Wisdom
with reference to the activity of the wisdom of God to the activity of the figure of Wisdom. Irenaeus' ascription of an 'ordering rule' to the wisdom of God in AH 2.30.3 agrees with and leads to the activity he attributes to Wisdom in AH
2.30.9. There, he writes: he (the Creator) himself, by himself, made freely and by his own power, and arranged and finished all things . . . This one alone is discovered to be God, who made all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who alone is Father. Founding and making all things, visible and invisible, those detected by senses and those not, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power, and he has fitted and arranged all things by his Wisdom; and he contains all things, but can be contained by no one.113
And then:
He is Father, he is God, he is the Founder, he is the Maker, he is the Artificer, who made them by himself, that is, by his Word and Wisdom—heaven and earth, and the seas, and all that are in them.114
Both of these passages continue the theme first pointed out in our discussion of AH 1.22.1 where Irenaeus mentions the Spirit's involvement in creation: creative activity is the exclusive domain of the One God and is effected by his agents, Word and Wisdom.115 In the first passage, however, Irenaeus is far more descriptive of the specific activities of the Word and Wisdom.
Though we cannot be certain, the first sentence of the first selection ('he himself, by himself, made freely and by his own power, and arranges, and finishes all things') may introduce and summarize the thoughts contained in the following sentences of that passage. This possibility rests on the similarity of language and structure that exists between this sentence and what follows:
'arranged and finished' (disposuit et perfecit) would approximate 'fitted and arranged' (aptavit et disposuit), while 'made all things . . . by his own
113 AH 2.30.9: ipse a semetipso fecit libere et ex sua potestate et disposuit et perfecit omnia . . . solus hic Deus invenitur, qui omnia fecit, solus Omnipotens et solus Pater, condens et faciens omnia, et visibilia et invisibilia et sensibilia et insensate et caelestia et terrena, Verbo virtutis suae, et omnia aptavit et disposuit Sapientia sua, et omnia capiens, solus autem a nemine capi potest.
114 AH 2.30.9: hic Pater, hic Deus, hic Conditor, hic Factor, hic Fabricator, qui fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est per Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, caelum et terram et maria et omnia quae in eis sunt.
115 Readers unfamiliar with second century theology might expect an affirmation of the creative agency of the Word and Wisdom to lead to a discussion on the unity of activity in the Godhead: it does not. Irenaeus simply insists that creative activity belongs to the one God, the Father, who works by means of his Word and Wisdom. Such an approach entails an elevated role of the Father with respect to the Word and Wisdom, a point I have already made in my comments on AH 1.22.1.