7.1.2 Spirit-Christological Passages
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit mixing and blending (խառնեալ եւ զանգեալ) the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God.
(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.27
Each of these passages discusses the giving of the Spirit to human beings, the reception of which Irenaeus understands to involve a blending and union of the Holy Spirit with the soul and flesh of the believer. The similarity of Prf 97 to Irenaeus' full discussion in AH 4.31.2 extends even further. Both refer to the common human activities of Jesus on earth to establish the time at which he gave the Spirit: eating, drinking, and 'sleeping' in AH 4.31.2, and holding conversations in Prf 97. Therefore, neither Prf 97 nor AH 4.31.2 should be considered to be a statement of Spirit-Christology. These passages can be well understood as references to the reception by the believer of the Holy Spirit sent by Christ for his or her redemption.
7.1.2 Spirit-Christological Passages The second part of this discussion considers Irenaeus' utilization of Spirit language to refer to the divine component of Jesus Christ, in other words, to say that Jesus is divine. This type of Spirit-Christology occurs in two places, AH 5.1.2 and Prf 71. In the past, however, some have identified the references to the Spirit in these texts with the pre-existent Christ. So, for instance, Simonetti states these passages do 'not indicate the divine nature of Christ, but specifically his person.'28
In AH 5.1.2 Irenaeus is writing against the 'disciples of Valentinus' who maintained Jesus only appeared to be a man so that they could disparage the salvation of the flesh.29 Against this docetic notion of the advent of the Word, he contends:
27 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.'
28 Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 214). See also, Robinson (1920: 63–5); Loofs (1930: 240–1).
29 AH 5.1.2: 'For [Jesus] would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by which he redeemed us, unless he had summed up in himself the ancient formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth this opinion, in order that they may exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned' (ANF translation).
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
But vain are those who say he [just] seemed to appear. For these things did not appear, but happened in reality ( Ø) and truth. Indeed, if he who was not a man appeared to be a man, then neither did he remain what he was in truth,
[that is,] Spirit of God, since the Spirit is invisible, nor was any truth in him, for he was not what he appeared to be.30
Prior to this selection, Irenaeus begins the chapter in AH 5.1.1 with a strong affirmation of the Incarnation of the Word of God: 'For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, became human . . . Again, we could not have learned in any other way except by seeing our teacher, and by perceiving his voice with our ears.' A few sentences later he refers to the 'Word, who is perfect in all things, since [he is] the mighty
Word and true man, redeeming us by his blood in accordance with reason, he gave himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity.' The Word's advent, then, resulted in his being able to be seen, to be heard, and to shed blood. That is to say, he was truly human, he did not just appear to be so.
Since the above debated words follow in this train of thought, there can be no doubt that Irenaeus here considers Jesus to be the Incarnation of the Word, not the incarnation of the Spirit. Thus, having established the true Incarnation of the Word in AH 5.1.1, he begins AH 5.1.2 by arguing that the claims of his opponents are self-contradictory. If the Word only appeared to be a man, then what was seen must be Spirit, for the Word, as God, is Spirit: —FÆ ¨ F.
Such a statement rests upon an understanding of the Spirit as that which was divine in Jesus: the Incarnation of the Word was the union of Spirit and humanity.31 Yet, his opponents claim the Word was seen despite not being truly human, which is a problem since 'the Spirit is invisible.'32 If Jesus as Spirit alone can be seen, then Jesus was neither truly human, nor was the Word truly Spirit of God—if they say he was not human, then they are also saying he was not divine.33
30 Readers should beware of the discordant ANF translation of this passage.
31 Cf. Orbe's similar reading (Orbe 1985–8, vol. 1: 83–4).
32 The reader should not construe the presence of the article in Kd IæÆ e —FÆ to denote the person of the Holy Spirit, for two reasons. First, —FÆ ¨ F is inarticulate, and e
—FÆ refers to it. And second, Irenaeus has just distinguished the Holy Spirit from the Incarnate Word in the final sentences of AH 5.1.1, 'the Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, giving his soul for our souls, and his flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand attaching man to God by his incarnation'
(ANF translation). It seems most likely that Irenaeus intends for the article to identify this Spirit with the previous Spirit: the invisible Spirit is the Spirit of God he has just mentioned.
33 Or, as Rousseau determines by grammatical analysis: 'the expression —FÆ ¨ ı has nothing to do with the third divine person: it is not a question of the Spirit who is a member of God (genitive possessive), but of the spiritual Reality that is God (genitive explicative)', SC 152
(1969: 202; author's emphasis).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit It is difficult to understand how one can determine, as does Simonetti, that Irenaeus' reference to the Spirit of God in this text refers not to the 'divine nature of Christ, but specifically his person.'34 That is, unless the context of the statement has received no attention, as is the case with Simonetti, or if the surrounding discussion is both disregarded and altered, as in Loofs' study.35
The Spirit language contained in Prf 71 has been a focal point of the SpiritChristology discussion for over a century. At debate, is whether Irenaeus' use of Lam. 4:2036 entails the identification of the 'Spirit of God' with the person of the Word Incarnate or with his divinity.37 He writes:
The Scripture (Lam. 4:20) announces that, being Spirit of God, Christ was going to become a passible man, and also, as if astonished and amazed at his passion, that he was going to endure the passion in this way, under whose shadow [it was said] we would live. And it calls his body a 'shadow,' for just as a shadow derives from a body, so the body of Christ derives from his Spirit. . . . Perhaps he also
34 Simonetti, Aug 12 (1972: 214).
35 Loofs (1930: 241). Hitchcock has already taken Loofs to task for his poor methodology,
ZNW 36 (1937: 36).
36 Lam. 4:20 in Prf 71: 'The Spirit of our face is [Christ the Lord]; and how was he taken into their nets, of whom we said, under His shadow we shall live among the nations.'
37 The interpretation of 'Spirit of God' in this passage as referring to the Word dates back to Hitchcock's statement that this passage contains an 'apparent identification of the Word and Spirit', Hermathena 14 (1907: 318–20). The very next year, he said when Irenaeus wrote, 'being
Spirit of God, Christ was going to become a passible man,' he identifies the Spirit with the Word, just as Justin did in 1 Apol 33.6 (Hitchcock, JTS 9 1908: 287).
Robinson based his argument for the personal identification of Christ as Spirit in Prf 71 on his determination that Irenaeus uses Lam. 4:20 to identify Christ as Spirit in AH 3.10.3. With the identification of Christ as Spirit in place from AH 3.10.3, he translates Քանզի որպէս հոկանի ի մարմնոյ լինի, այսպէս եւ Քրիստոսի մարմինն ի հոգւոյն նորա եղեւ as, 'For just as a shadow is made by a body, so also Christ's body was made by his Spirit.' He then reasons, 'This is as much to say that the Word of God was the agent of his own Incarnation' (1920: 63), thereby arriving at the personal identification of the Word of God as the Spirit of God. (In chapter 4 of this study I have already shown that Irenaeus does not use Lam. 4:20 to identify the Word as the Spirit in AH 3.10.3, but rather to affirm the role of the Spirit, as the Unction of Christ, in making known the Incarnate Word, Salvation, to believers.)
A few years prior to Robinson, J. Barthoulot offered the first French translation of this passage,
'Car, comme l'ombre vient du corps, ainsi le corps est venu de son Esprit.' He then suggested that 'sans doute' Irenaeus had in mind the agency of the Holy Spirit in the impregnation of Mary as conveyed in Matt. 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35 (Saint Irénée, Démonstration de la Prédication
Apostolique [PO 12.5; tr. and ann. J. Barthoulot; ed. J. Tixeront; 1917, repr. Turnhout: Brepols,
1989], 790 n. 4). Because of the logic of Prf 71 the identification of the Word and Holy Spirit follows from Barthoulot's suggestion, though he himself does not go so far as to advance that opinion.
In contrast to earlier identifications of the Spirit of God with the person of the pre-existent
Christ, Rousseau supports his interpretation of Irenaeus' use of Spirit language in that passage by comparing it to Prf 71. Both, then, refer to the 'spiritual Reality that is God,' rather than the 'Spirit who is a member of God', SC 152, (1969: 202). In the same way that he betrays no awareness of Hitchcock's work on AH 5.1.3, Simonetti seems unaware of these comments by Rousseau, when he identifies the Spirit of God in Prf 71 with the person of the pre-existent Christ
(Aug 12 1972: 214)—a curious state of affairs.
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
named the body of Christ a 'shadow' as having become a shade for the glory of the Spirit and covering it.
Though it has not been commented upon in the past, the analogy that Irenaeus deploys to explain Lam. 4:20 governs our interpretation of the relationship of the Spirit of God to Christ.38 Irenaeus says the Spirit is the source of the body of Christ in the same way that a body is the source of its shadow. Now, a body is the basis for the existence of its shadow because it is the object that is acted upon when light shines on it, not because it is the subject of the action that produces the shadow. According to this logic, a body is the basis for the existence of its shadow simply because of its prior existence to the shadow. In the same way, the existence of the body of Christ is contingent upon the prior existence of Christ as the Spirit of God. That is to say, the Incarnation of the Word, the production of his human body, is contingent on the pre-existence of the Word as divine
Spirit, just as the Father and Holy Spirit exist as Spirit.
Thus, this passage does not result in the personal identification of the Word and Spirit of God, nor does it result in the identification of the Word as the agent of his own Incarnation, because Irenaeus is not at all speaking of the agency behind the Incarnation. Rather, Irenaeus' identification of Christ as the Spirit of God refers to the divine pre-existence of Christ that is necessary for his Incarnation. Behr's translation agrees with the logic of the analogy much better than Robinson's: 'And it calls his body a "shadow," for just as a shadow derives from a body, so the body of Christ derives from his Spirit.'39
Therefore, in Prf 71 Irenaeus is also speaking of the two components of Jesus, his divinity and humanity.40
Section Conclusion We have found Spirit-Christology to exist in two passages, AH 5.1.2 and Prf
71. Irenaeus' Spirit-Christology, however, never identifies the Holy Spirit with the Word/Son, or substitutes the Holy Spirit for the Word/Son as that which was Incarnated. In both of these passages, he uses 'Spirit of God' to refer to the divine component of Jesus. The Word, as God, is Spirit. Therefore, Jesus, as the Incarnate Word, was the union of Spirit and humanity, was divine and human. This, and this alone, is the purport of his Spirit-Christology.
38 Robinson (1920: 63) deliberately disregards the context of the passage. He writes: 'Here again we are not concerned with the general argument [of Prf 71], but only with these two statements: Christ was Spirit of God, and Christ's body was made by his Spirit'. Conclusions based upon such an ill-conceived method stand little chance of being correct.
39 For Robinson's translation, see note 36.
40 This reading gains substantial support from the fact that both Joseph Smith (St Irenaeus,
ACW 16 1952: 202 n. 303: 'Identifications of Christ with the Holy Spirit are found in early writers . . . but they are eschewed by Irenaeus.') and John Behr (St Irenaeus of Lyons 1997: 115 n.
188) join Rousseau in this interpretation.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit
7.2 ANGELOMORPHIC PNEUMATOLOGY
In our study of Justin's pneumatology we saw that angelomorphism contributed toward his failure to adequately distinguish between the activity and identities of the Son and Holy Spirit.41In fact, angelomorphism commonly features in second-century theological accounts containing binitarian logic.42
As a result, the existence of an angelomorphic pneumatology or christology in the thought of a second-century theologian suggests the presence of, or at least a susceptibility to, a binitarian orientation.
It is with renewed interest, then, that we consider the commonly accepted notion that Irenaeus of Lyons makes use of an angelomorphic Christology and pneumatology. If angelomorphism is in fact a part of Irenaeus' account, then it could provide the logical basis for the identification of the Holy Spirit with the pre-existent Christ, as it does for Justin. If angelomorphism is not a part of Irenaeus' account, then suggestions of a binitarian tension in his thought become that much more tenuous.
Only one passage in all of Irenaeus' work has met with the suggestion of angelomorphic pneumatology or Christology.43 That passage, the length of two sentences, occurs in Prf 10:
This God, then, is glorified by his Word, who is His Son, continually,44 and by the Holy Spirit, who is the Wisdom of the Father of all. And their Power[s], of this
Word and of Wisdom,45 who are called Cherubim and Seraphim, glorify God 41 For the meaning of 'angelomorphic,' Gieschen provides a convenient definition: '"Angelomorphic" is an inclusive term which means having some of the various forms and functions of an angel, even though the figure may not be explicitly called an "angel" or considered to have the created nature of an angel' (Gieschen 1998: 1 n.2).
In the contemporary discussion of angelomorphic pneumatology in early Christian thought,
Levison's work is foundational (among others, see: 'The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism', SBLSP 34
(1995)). The most importantrecentwork onangelomorphicChristology inearly Christian thought is
Gieschen's Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (1998). A convenient summary of the history of scholarship in this field can be found in Gieschen's first chapter. He also presents a brief discussion of angelomorphic pneumatology (1998: 114–19, 217–20).
42 A connection between angelomorphism and binitarianism has also been identified in the Shepherd of Hermas and Clement of Alexandria. See: Bucur, ZNW 98 (2007) and VC 61
(2007).
43 My present concern is, of course, with Irenaeus' pneumatology. But in this particular case, the arguments for and against angelomorphism apply to both Irenaeus' pneumatology and christology.
44 The position of հանապազորդ in the sentence makes it difficult to determine to what
'continually' refers; Behr's punctuation upholds this ambiguity. That being said, I believe
Rousseau is correct to connect it with the glorification being offered: 'Ce Dieu est donc glorifié continuellement.' SC 406 (1995: 247).
45 A more literal translation of the first half of this sentence is: 'And [the] Power[s] of these, of the Word and of Wisdom.'
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
with unceasing voices, and everything, whatsoever that is in the heavenly realm, gives glory to God the Father of all.46
Emmanuel Lanne was the first to find angelomorphism in this passage.47 His evaluation merits quotation since it is the basis for those who continue to find this motif here:
The term, power, employed by the bishop of Lyon is certainly related in a direct way to the Word and Wisdom. It cannot be a question, as the French version48 understood it, of diverse angelic powers which would be dependents of the Word and of the Spirit and would be called Cherubim and Seraphim. It must be necessarily understood that the Word and Wisdom who are the powers of the Father, also called Cherubim and Seraphim, render glory to God with their incessant voices.49
Lanne's determination that 'powers' (զաւրութիւնք) must refer to the Word and Spirit, thereby identifying them with the Cherubim and Seraphim, has gained a noteworthy following and has gone unchallenged.50 This, despite the fact that his reading emerges not from an analysis of this particular text nor even of its context, but rather from the simple observation that Irenaeus never refers to the Cherubim and Seraphim when he speaks of the angelic classes
46 Արդ` Աստուածս այս փառաւորի ի Բանէն իւրմէ, որ է Որդին նորա հանապազորդ, եւ ի Հոգւոյն սրբոյ, որ է իմաստութիւն Հաւրն բոլորեցուն. Եւ սոցա զաւրութիւն` բանիս եւ իմաստութեան, որ կոչին Քերովբի ն եւ Աերովբին, անդադար ձայնիւք փառաւորեն զԱստուած, եւ ամենայն, որ ինչ միանգամ է յերկինս բաղկացութիւն` փառս մատուցանել Աստուծոյ, Հաւրն բոլորեցուն։ 47 Lanne, RSR 43 (1955: 524–35).
48 The occasion for Lanne's article is the publication of Smith's English translation of Proof for ACW in 1952 (though Lanne's reading is at odds with Smith's own comments on the matter, p. 148 n. 62). Lanne describes the first French translation of Proof made for Patrologia Orientalis
12.5 (1919) by Barthoulot as 'more an interpretation than a translation' (p. 524). Barthoulot's translation reads, 'Et ces deux (personnes divines), le Verbe et la Sagesse, ont à leur service une armèe (d'esprits angéliques) appelée les Chérubins et les Séraphins, qui glorifient Dieu par leur chant perpetuel.' Barthoulot, himself, notes that this translation interprets the meaning of the Armenian sentence, for which he provides the literal translation in 762 n. 1, 'La force de ceux-ci, du Verbe et de la Sagesse, s'appelle les Chérubins et les Séraphins.' It seems to me that Barthoulot's interpretive-translation is conditioned by the presence of the singular զաւրութիւն (Fr. 'force;' Eng. 'power'): it is the singular form of this term that leads him to refer to 'an army of angelic spirits.' More recent translations, including that of Smith, follow
Weber's (1912) suggestion that the singular զաւրութիւն should be emended to the plural զաւրութիւնք for it to agree with the following verbs. This modification allows for a more straightforward meaning of the text, and thus eliminates the need for the circuitous translation offered by Barthoulot.
49 Lanne, RSR 43 (1955: 530).
50 Lanne's reading is followed by Daniélou (1964: 138–40); Stroumsa, RevBib 88 (1981: 42–61, here 47); and Mackenzie (2002: 98–9).