7.2.1 No Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and Seraphim as Uncreated
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit created by God.51 The implication is that Irenaeus does not understand them to be created beings, and so they should be identified with the Son and Spirit here.
Lanne supports this reading by attempting to locate Irenaeus' statement in Prf 10 on a line that connects Philo and certain angelomorphic passages in Origen. This argument has failed to win acceptance, as Daniélou, Stroumsa, and Rousseau have pointed out the dissimilarities between the logic of Philo and Irenaeus.52 Instead of Philo, Daniélou and Stroumsa propose Ascension of Isaiah as the basis for their angelomorphic readings of Prf 10. I am getting ahead of myself, however, because parallels with external sources only matter if Irenaeus does in fact identify the Word and Spirit as Powers, that is, as the Cherubim and Seraphim. It is my contention that he does not.
In the following discussion I will make three points against Lanne's argument. First, there is no textual basis for thinking that Irenaeus understood
Cherubim and Seraphim to be uncreated. Second, there is a textual basis for thinking that Irenaeus understood them to be created. Third, the grammatical construction of Prf 10 itself does not permit Lanne's reading. After these points, I will offer an alternative reading of Prf 10 that I believe explains the passage better.
7.2.1 No Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and Seraphim as Uncreated I have already mentioned that Lanne's angelomorphic reading of Prf 10 does not issue from the passage itself, as indeed it cannot, for the passage contains no explicit identification of the Word and Spirit with the Powers, the Cherubim and Seraphim. As I have said, Lanne's reading follows from his predetermination that Irenaeus does not classify the Cherubim and Seraphim among created angelic beings. Yet, an argument from silence is never self-sufficient and this one is not an exception to the rule. A text that supports his understanding of the Cherubim and Seraphim, then, is of the utmost importance to his argument.
Lanne believes that Irenaeus' earlier discussion of the four-faced Cherubim of Ezk. 1:6, 10 will suffice. In this discussion, found in AH 3.11.8, Irenaeus argues that the written Gospel accounts are properly four in number. To bolster his case he declares:
. . . it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, he who sits on the Cherubim, and holds together all things, he who was manifested to human beings, has given to us a quadriform Gospel which is held together by one Spirit. As also David,
51 Lanne, RSR 43 (1955: 526).
52 Daniélou (1964: 138–40); Stroumsa, RevBib 88 (1981: 47); Rousseau, SC 406 (1995: 248).
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
entreating his coming, says, 'He who sits on the Cherubim, shine forth' [Ps. 80:1;
79:2 LXX]. For the Cherubim also are four-faced (æÆæøÆ/quadraformia), and their faces (a æøÆ/formae) are images of the disposition (NŒ B æÆªÆ Æ/imagines . . . dispositionis) of the Son of God.
Lanne argues the Cherubim have nothing to do with 'inferior powers, a category of created angelic powers. To the contrary, the Cherubim are a manifestation of the incarnate Word himself, the image of the activity of the Son of God, in his ontological reality, in the attributes that he assumes, in the economy of the mystery of the salvation that he accomplishes.'53
I would like to make two points in response. First, Irenaeus does not say that the Cherubim themselves are 'a manifestation of the incarnate Word himself,' but rather that the faces of the Cherubim are 'images of the disposition of the Son of God.'54 That the analogy is between the faces of the Cherubim and the æÆªÆ Æ of the Son comes out again in a paragraph toward the end of AH 3.11.8:
Therefore, as such is the disposition (æÆªÆ Æ/dispositio) of the Son of God, so also is the form ( æç/forma) of the living creatures; and as such is the form ( æç/forma) of the living creatures, so also is the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform (æ æçÆ/quadraformia), and the Gospel is quadriform (æ æç /quadraforme), as is also the disposition ( æÆªÆ Æ/ dispositio) of the Lord.
Here the æÆªÆ Æ of the Son corresponds to the æç of the living creatures: both are quadriform.
Exactly what Irenaeus means by æÆªÆ Æ is difficult to determine. It seems to me, however, that the discussion of the symbolism of the four living creatures that Irenaeus provides in the middle of AH 3.11.8 suggests that æÆªÆ Æ refers to aspects of, or moments in, the economy of the Son. If such is the case, then each face or form of the living creatures represents one of four parts of the economy of the Son. In any case, the fact that it is difficult to determine exactly what Irenaeus means by æÆªÆ Æ does not change the terms of the analogy. Both toward the beginning and toward the end of AH 3.11.8, the fourfold form or visage of the Cherubim is a figure of the fourfold æÆªÆ Æ of the Son of God: the Cherubim themselves are not a type of the Incarnate Son of God himself.
53 Lanne, RSR 43 (1955: 532–3): 'des puissances inférieures, à une catégorie de puissances angéliques créées. Au contraire le Cherubim sont une manifestation du Verbe incarné lui-même, l'image de l'activité du Fils de Dieu, dans sa réalité ontologique, dans les attributs qu'il assume, dans l'économie du mystère du salut qu'il accomplit.'
54 The reference to the four living creatures of Rev. 4:7 does not change this fact: he appeals to Rev. 4 in support of Ezk. 1. The four-faced Cherubim of Ezekiel must be the dominant and governing image of this discussion, for it alone is analogous to the quadriform gospel united by one Spirit.