7.1.1 Non-Spirit-Christological Passages
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
enough to show that Irenaeus describes the Word as Spirit or identifies the divinity of Jesus as Spirit, because the ambiguity of the term 'Spirit' means it is theologically accurate, though perhaps problematic in this particular context, to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Spirit. According to this usage, 'Spirit' refers to what God is, the immaterial divine 'stuff' that is common to the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. 'God is Spirit' according to John 4:24. A statement that refers to Jesus as composed of flesh and Spirit, using this idea of Spirit, is orthodox and poses no hindrance to Trinitarian logic.
In the past, though, some have decided that in a few passages Irenaeus does identify the Holy Spirit with the Word as the pre-existent Christ. This determination accords with their classification of his thought as binitarian, or at least as possessing a tension between binitarianism and Trinitarianism.2 Such readings of Irenaeus are incorrect. In this section, I will show that the type of SpiritChristology present in Irenaeus' work cannot be used to ascribe a binitarian orientation to Irenaeus' theological account. While Irenaeus refers to the divine component of Jesus Christ as Spirit, he does so in order to identify the common divine 'stuff' shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is to say, by labeling the divine component of Jesus as Spirit, he is simply stating that Jesus is divine. At no time does he identify the Holy Spirit as the pre-existent Christ, that which is incarnated, or as the Word/Son without reference to the Incarnation.3
I will divide my discussion of Irenaeus' Spirit-Christology into two parts.
The first will treat passages that have been erroneously labeled as SpiritChristological.4 The second will consider passages that utilize Spirit language to refer to the divine element of Jesus.
7.1.1 Non-Spirit-Christological Passages Two passages require our attention in this section: AH 4.31.2 and Prf 97.5 Both make nearly identical statements about the reception of the Holy Spirit by 2 Loofs, (1930: 346); Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 231).
3 In this determination Hans-Jochen Jaschke, who argues against Loofs' Spirit-Christological reading, has preceded me (Der Heilige Geist, 1976: 226–30). Yet, Jaschke addresses only a few of the germane texts, and does not provide a detailed analysis of those he does address.
Long ago, Hitchcock did provide a brief examination of many of the texts to which Loofs appeals (Hitchcock ZNW 36 1937: 35–60, here 35–8), but he does not refer to some of the texts which received more recent attention by Simonetti (Aug 12 1972: 214, 220–1).
Simonetti, in fact, either overlooks or ignores Hitchcock and is himself overlooked or ignored by Jaschke.
4 I will not take the time to address the passages that Loofs' alters, by subtraction or addition, in order to render them Spirit-Christological. For these passages, see Hitchcock, ZNW 36 (1937: 35–8).
5 In addition to these passages, there has been a persistent tendency to view AH 5.1.3 as SpiritChristological. Both Loofs (1930: 240 n. 1) and Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 214, 220–1) base their convictions on the sentence, 'the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having been united with the ancient substance of the formation of Adam rendered man living and perfect.' Loofs
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit believers in Christ, and both have been misunderstood to refer to the incarnation of the Spirit.6 AH 4.31.2 reads:
Moreover, by their (Lot's daughters') words it is signified that there is no other person who is able to confer the begetting of children on the older and younger synagogues than our father. Now the father of the human race is the Word of God, as Moses made clear by saying, 'Is not this one your father who has acquired you, and made you, and created you?' [Deut. 32:6 LXX]. At what time, then, did he pour out upon the human race the life-giving seed, that is, the Spirit of the remission of sins, by whom we are vivified? Was it not at that time when he was eating with human beings, and drinking wine upon the earth? For it is said, 'The Son of man came eating and drinking' [Matt. 11:19]; and when having laid down, he fell asleep, and took repose. As he says himself in David, 'I slept and took repose' [Ps. 3:6]. And because He used thus to act while He dwelt and lived among us, he said again, 'And my sleep became sweet to me' [Jer. 31:26]. Now, all
[this] was signified by Lot, because the seed of the father of all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made, was commingled and united with flesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their father living sons for the living God.7
With these words, Irenaeus provides an allegorical interpretation of the story in Genesis 19 of the impregnation of Lot's daughters. The phrase of particular interest is 'the Spirit of God . . . was commingled and united with flesh,' which, as we will see, both Loofs and Simonetti understand to be Spirit-Christological.
A proper understanding of this passage, however, depends upon recognizing that the meaning of the final sentence of AH 4.31.2 is determined by its holds that 'the Word of the Father' is an interpolation, while Simonetti argues that 'the Word of Father' and 'the Spirit of God' stand in parallel. Both opinions have the effect of identifying the Holy Spirit with the pre-existent Christ. Hitchcock has already shown Loofs' reading to be inaccurate (ZNW 36 (1938: 36–7)), and his comments also apply to Simonetti's interpretation, though Simonetti appears unaware of them. I will add one observation to Hitchcock's wellreasoned analysis. Hitchcock points out that the context of this statement is Irenaeus' identification of the Word and Spirit as the Hands of God to whom the Father is speaking in Gen. 1:26.
I would like to mention that Irenaeus had already interpreted Gen. 1:26 as containing the Father's discourse with his Hands, both the Word and the Spirit, in AH 4.pref.4 and AH
4.20.1—it is a well-established interpretation by AH 5.1.3. Cf. Orbe, who says AH 5.1.3 has two possible interpretations: (1) Verbum Patris refers to the person, Spiritus Dei to the divine nature; (2) Verbum Patris refers to the second person, Spiritus Dei to the third (Orbe 1985–88 vol. 1: 107). Orbe recommends the second reading.
6 With regard to AH 4.31.2, see Loofs (1930: 101–13); and Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 213–14).
With regard to Prf 97, see Robinson (1920: 64–5, 67); Carpenter, JTS 40 (1939: 31–6, here 33 n.
3); and Kelly (1960: 148), who refers to Robinson.
7 The last sentence reads: Totum autem significabatur per Lot, quoniam semen Patris omnium, hoc est Spiritus Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, commixtus et unitus est carni, hoc est plasmati suo, per quam commixtionem et unitatem duae synagogae, id est duae congregationes, fructificant ex patre suo filios vivos vivo Deo.
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
context—an approach neither Loofs nor Simonetti takes. In order to understand the selection above, then, we must begin in AH 4.31.1, where Irenaeus first discusses the typological significance of the figures in the story of Gen. 19.
So then, since this man (Lot) did not know [what he did], and was not a slave to pleasure, the economy [of God] was brought about, by which the two daughters, that is, the two synagogues, from one and the same father gave birth to children, it was revealed, without the pleasure of the flesh. For there was no other person able to give to them a seed of life and [a means] for the bearing of children.8
It is necessary to pay strict regard to the typological referent of each figure in the story in order to understand Irenaeus' allegory. Of utmost importance is the recognition that all of AH 4.31.2 expands upon the allegorical reading of Gen. 19 that Irenaeus begins in AH 4.31.1. This means that the typological referents he establishes in AH 4.31.1–2 never change during the course of this discussion.9 In AH 4.31.1, then, Irenaeus begins his interpretation of the story of Lot and his daughters. He writes that only Lot could impart to his two daughters the 'seed of life' by which they could give birth to children. In so saying, he establishes the paradigm for the production of children that will govern his interpretation in AH 4.31.2: the father imparted a 'life-giving seed' to his daughters that enabled them to produce children.
In this process, the father, the seed, the daughters, and the children are distinct from each other.10 Moreover, Irenaeus provides the first typological referent for some of the figures in the story: the daughters are the two synagogues.11
Having in place the paradigm for the production of children and the identification of the two daughters as the two synagogues, Irenaeus unfolds the rest of the text's meaning in AH 4.31.2. The 'father of the human race' who gave the 'life-giving seed' to the 'older and younger synagogues' is the Word of God. The 'life-giving seed' that the Word, as the father of the human race,
'[poured] out upon the human race' is the 'Spirit of the remission of sins.' The Spirit of the remission of sins was poured out on the human race at the time of the Incarnation of the Word: when he ate, drank, and slept.12
8 æÆ ÇøØŒe ŒÆd Œø KØŒÆæ Æ ı FÆØ ÆPÆE; semen vitale et filiorum fructum posset dare eis; the Armenian has պտղաւորութիւն (fructificationem) for fructum.
9 Bacq (1978: 214–15) takes this approach.
10 The paradigm is a straightforward reference to the physical insemination of a woman by a man in order to produce a child.
11 The two synagogues refer to the Jewish and Gentile people-groups. Cf. Loofs (1930: 105);
Bacq (1978: 214–15).
12 By saying, 'when having laid down, he fell asleep, and took repose,' Ireneaus probably means the Spirit was given by the Incarnate Word after his death, as he speaks of the sending of the Spirit elsewhere (e.g. AH 3.17.1–2). Both Loofs (1930: 107) and Bacq (1978: 214–15) interpret these words as referring to Jesus' death.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit We have now all the typological referents for the figures in the story of Gen.
19 which, when placed into the paradigm for the production of children that Irenaeus established in AH 4.31.1, produce his complete allegorical reading. At the time of his incarnation, the Word, as the father of the human race, poured out the Spirit of the remission of sins, the life-giving seed, upon the two synagogues, which enabled them to produce children. By the production of children he is referring to the adoption as sons of God, as is indicated by his qualification of the Spirit as the 'Spirit of the remission of sin.' The reception of the Spirit produced a 'spiritual' birth, the modulation of temporal life to eternal life that we discussed in the last chapter. Such is Irenaeus' allegorical interpretation of the story of Lot and his daughters in Gen. 19.
Spirit-Christological readings of this passage depend upon interpretations of the last sentence of AH 4.31.2 that do not accord with the allegorical interpretation which precedes it, in effect separating it from its context.13
Loofs contends the 'Spirit of the remission of sins' cannot be the same as the 'Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made.'14 This determination permits him to say the Spirit of God is that which was 'commingled and united to flesh' in the Incarnation. Loofs supports his reading with two arguments that must be discarded because of their methodological errors. First, he appeals to a Spirit-Christological reading in Tertullian, de carne Christi 18, a text that is immaterial because of its later date. Second, he contends that this interpretation is self-evident if the sentence is allowed to stand on its own—that is, if we do not take into consideration what Irenaeus said earlier in AH 4.31.1–2.15 This approach does not demonstrate his reading so much as it permits any reading of the text. Simonetti, on the other hand, claims that the term 'Spirit of God,' in and of itself, has a personal and specific sense, and is here identical to the Word.16 His assertion that the meaning of 'Spirit of God' is inherently personal and specific is, however, baseless. Irenaeus uses 'Spirit of God' to refer to both the divine nature and the Holy Spirit.17 As such, context
13 Loofs believes that the last sentence in AH 4.31.2 reflects the Spirit-Christological theology of the presbyter from whom Irenaeus is borrowing, while the earlier discussion of AH 4.31.1–2 reflects the Logos-Christology of Irenaeus himself (Loofs 1930: 103–13, esp. 109–10). Jaschke has argued against the logic that undergirds this move by Loofs (Der Heilige Geist, 1976: 227–8).
Simonetti does not base his argument on such discord.
14 I have already shown during the course of this study that Irenaeus does, in fact, ascribe to the Holy Spirit both a role in redemption and a role in creation.
15 Loofs (1930: 109–10).
16 Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 213–14). Simonetti does not argue this point from Irenaeus, but rather asserts it.
17 For the Spirit of God as the divine nature, see my discussion in chapter 2 of AH 2.30 and esp. 2.30.8: 'And truly he is the Spirit of God, not in fact an animal Demiurge, otherwise he never would have brought about the spiritual (pl.). If, on the other hand, he is animal, let them tell us by whom the spiritual (pl.) are made.' For the Spirit of God as the Holy Spirit, see (1) the discussions of AH 3.9.3 and AH 3.17.1 in chapter 4 on the anointing of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and his subsequent sending; (2) the discussions in chapters 5 and 6 of the Spirit of God as one of the
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
must always be the factor that determines what he means by 'Spirit of God.'
A contextual reading of this passage directs the reader to identify the 'Spirit of God, by whom all things are made' with the 'Spirit of the remission of sins' sent by the Incarnate Word.
In fact, the concluding words of AH 4.31.2, the portion of this passage that is said to be Spirit-Christological, summarize the interpretation of Gen. 19 that Irenaeus just provided. So much is clear from the opening phrase of that lengthy sentence: 'Now, all (this) was signified by Lot.' Since they reiterate what has come before, any interpretation of these final words that does not conform to the foregoing discussion must be excluded from consideration.
From the start, then, we cannot read this passage as Spirit-Christological since the preceding allegory in AH 4.31.1–2 militates against this reading. Rather than identifying the Word and the Spirit, it differentiates the two: the father of the human race gave the seed that causes impregnation—the Word poured out the Spirit that produces life.
This a priori determination of the meaning of the last sentence is supported by an examination of the words themselves. The 'seed of the father of all' refers to the Spirit of the remission of sins sent by the Word, the father of the whole human race. He inserts the interjection, 'that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made' in order to make sure his readers continue to identify the seed as the Spirit. As earlier in AH 4.31.1–2, here at the end of AH 4.31.2 the Spirit is that which was given by the Word to enable the production of children.
The seed, the Spirit of God, 'was commingled and united with flesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their father living sons for the living God.'
It is not necessary to advance a Spirit-Christological interpretation in order to understand what Irenaeus means by the Spirit being 'commingled and united with flesh.' As we saw in the last chapter, he uses this language to refer to the reception of the Spirit sent by Christ to those who believe in him.
So, for example, he writes in AH 5.6.1, 'when this Spirit commingled (commixtus) with the soul is united (unitur) to the formation, because of the outpouring of the Spirit the human being is rendered spiritual and perfect, and this is he who was made after the image and likeness of God.'18 Therefore, we can say these words do not refer to the incarnation of the Spirit of God, but rather to the reception of the Spirit by both Jews and Gentiles, a reception which results in their adoption as 'living sons for the living God.' As such,
Hands of God in AH 5.1.3; and (3) numerous references to the Spirit of God in the passages discussed in chapter 6 with regard to the role of the Holy Spirit in redemption.
18 Also in AH 5.6.1: 'the perfect human being is the commingling and union (commixtio et adunitio est) of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father, and the admixture (admixtae) of that flesh which was formed after the image of God;' and again in AH 5.6.1, 'But the commingling
(commixtio) and union (unitio) of all of these (Spirit, soul, and flesh) constitutes the perfect human being.'
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Irenaeus' thought remains consistent throughout AH 4.31.1–2: the Word, as the father of the human race, poured out the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the remission of sins, so that both Jews and gentiles may be rendered living sons for the living God.
A striking similarity exists between this passage in AH 4.31.2 and the selection from Prf 97 that some regard as Spirit-Christological. Irenaeus begins Prf 97 with an affirmation of thanksgiving to 'God who, through his abundant, inscrutable and unfathomable wisdom, saved us and preached the salvation from heaven, which is the visible advent of our Lord, that is, His human existence.' This introduction, which eulogizes the wisdom of God, leads to an extended quotation of Baruch 3:29–4:1. In this passage, God gives the figure of Wisdom to 'Jacob, his servant, and to Israel, his beloved.' We pick up Prf 97 from this point, from the giving of Wisdom to Jacob and Israel. The selection begins with Baruch 3:37 and includes Irenaeus' interpretation of the passage.
'After which she appeared on earth and conversed with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law, which is for ever. All who keep her [are] unto life; but they who forsake her, will die.' 'Jacob' and 'Israel' he calls the Son of God,who received from the Father dominion over our life, and after receiving [it], he 'brought
[her] down' to us, to those who are far from her, when 'he19 appeared on earth and conversed with men,' mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God.
The interpretation of the last lines of this selection from Prf 97 as SpiritChristological dates back to J. Armitage Robinson's comments in the introduction to his translation of the Proof. Robinson interprets 'mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God' as a reference to the Incarnation, and compares it to AH 4.20.4.20 In AH 4.20.4
Irenaeus speaks of both the Incarnation and the redemption of humanity:
Now this is his Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, . . . the prophets . . . proclaimed his advent according to the flesh, by which the commingling and communion (commixtio et communio) of God and man was brought about. . . . Causing us to serve him in holiness and righteousness all our days, in order that man, having embraced (complexus)21 the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father.
Robinson rightly observes about this passage, 'the general thought here is that the restoration of man takes place after the pattern of the Incarnation'22
19 The Armenian could also be read as 'she.'
20 Robinson (1920: 64–5).
21 Robinson (1920: 64 n. 1) suggests the original Greek was ıºŒ .
22 Ibid. 64.
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
His full comment is less astute: 'the general thought here is that the restoration of man takes place after the pattern of the Incarnation—the intermingling of human flesh with the Spirit of God. If the Spirit of God in the Incarnation is thought of primarily as Christ himself, yet there is no sharp distinction drawn between Christ as Spirit and the Spirit that works in believers.'23
This Spirit-Christological reading of AH 4.20.4 and Prf 97 rests upon assumptions, not a demonstration. Robinson presumes the 'Spirit of God' at the end of AH 4.20.4 is identical to the Word, but Irenaeus gives no indication it should be read in this way. We are left to conclude that Robinson identifies the Spirit and the Word just because Irenaeus envisions the union of God and man to occur in a similar way in both the Incarnation and the redemption of human beings. It is better, however, to conclude that Irenaeus envisions a similar process for both because both the Incarnation of the Word and the reception of the Spirit by believers involve the bringing together of the same constituent 'elements': the union of the divine with the human.
This interpretation accords with Irenaeus' clear statements, as discussed in the last chapter, that the redemption of human beings involves the commixture and union of the soul and body of the believer with the Holy Spirit.24
When Irenaeus writes, 'mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God,' he is referring to the reception by the believer of the Holy Spirit sent by Christ.25 In fact, a quick comparison of the debated portions of AH 4.31.2 and Prf 97 with AH 5.6.1, which we discussed in the last chapter, will demonstrate that they contain the exact same sentiments.26
(AH 4.31.2) . . . the seed of the Father of all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made, was commingled and united (commixtus et unitus est) with flesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity
(commixtionem et unitatem) the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their Father living sons for the living God.
(Prf 97) . . . after receiving [it], he (the Son of God) 'brought [her] down' to us, to those who are far from her, when 'he appeared on earth and conversed with men,'
23 Robinson (1920: 64–5). This reading was affirmed about a decade later by Carpenter (JTS 40
1939: 33 n. 3), and then again by Kelly (1960: 148), who follows Robinson.
24 This reading enables Irenaeus' discussion in AH 4.20.4 to agree with that of AH 4.20.3, which contains his strongest statement about the eternal distinction of the Holy Spirit, as Wisdom, from the Word, the Son. It makes little sense for Irenaeus to blur the identities of the Word and Spirit in AH 4.20.4, as Robinson's reading entails, immediately after he establishes their eternal distinction in AH 4.20.2–3.
25 Rousseau writes, 'man, considered not in an abstract fashion, but in a concrete and existential fashion, in the free opening of himself to God by which he finds his supreme completion, "is constituted" of body, of soul and of Holy Spirit' (SC 406 1995: 350).
26 Rousseau also points out that the 'theological anthropology' we find in Prf 97 is 'firmly elaborated' in AH 5, SC 406 (1995: 350).