7.2.2 A Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and Seraphim as Created
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit This brings me to the second point. Irenaeus is here using the four faces or forms of the Cherubim as a type of the fourfold æÆªÆ Æ of the Son. The logical premise of a typological construction is that a thing, person, or idea represents some thing, person, or idea other than itself. As such, Lanne has no basis for his determination that the Cherubim are a 'manifestation of the incarnate Word himself.' For in so saying, he identifies the Cherubim with their typological referent, failing to maintain their distinction.
It is rather the opposite: the fourfold visage or form of the Cherubim figures something other than itself, the fourfold æÆªÆ Æ of the Son. As such, the Cherubim remain 'angelic powers,' though they bear a typological referent other than themselves. Therefore, the proper identification of the terms of the analogy and the logical premise of a typological construction prove that Lanne cannot rely upon this passage to support his interpretation of the Cherubim in Prf 10 as uncreated beings. Since this is the only passage Lanne offers, he then has no basis for approaching Prf 10 with this predetermination in place.
7.2.2 A Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and Seraphim as Created While Lanne has no basis for considering the Cherubim and Seraphim to be uncreated beings, it is clear that Irenaeus considers 'Powers' to be created beings that are distinct from the Son and Holy Spirit. Since everyone agrees that Irenaeus identifies the Cherubim and Seraphim in Prf 10 as Powers, and since Irenaeus gives no indication that he regards some Powers as uncreated and others as created,55 then any passage that explains to us his understanding of Powers helps us to grasp his understanding of Cherubim and Seraphim.
Three passages stand out in this regard: AH 2.30.3, AH 4.20.1, and Prf 5.
In AH 2.30.3 Irenaeus places together a series of questions to highlight the glory and wisdom of God's creation. In the middle of this section occur the following lines:
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? And what [can be said] of those [beings] which are above heaven and which do not pass away, such as,
Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, and Powers innumerable? Against which one of these works, then, do they (the Gnostics) set themselves in opposition? What have they similar to show, which has been made through themselves
55 In contrast to Justin, for instance, who holds some Powers to be irreducible and others to be reducible. See Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 148–50, 155–9), with reference to Dial 128.3 and 128.4.
Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic
or by themselves, since even they are themselves the workmanship and formation of this [Creator]?
It is clear from this passage that Irenaeus considers Powers to be created works of God, just as he regards the other classes of celestial beings mentioned here.
We turn then to a selection from AH 4.20.1, which we already considered in chapter 4 but which is worth reexamining in this context.
And it is this one (the Creator) of whom Scripture said, 'And God formed man, taking dust of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life' [Gen. 2:7].
Therefore, angels did not make us, nor did they form 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 what he had himself beforehand determined to do, 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].
According to Irenaeus, there is One God who creates: the Father by means of his Son and Spirit. These three alone participate in the creation of human beings, which in AH 5.15.2 Irenaeus declares to be the work proper to God.56
On the other hand, Irenaeus excludes from creative activity 'a Power far removed from the Father of all things.'57 The ascription of creative activity to the Son and Spirit, in contrast to the proscription of creative activity from a Power, reveals the firm divide that exists between the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are constituent members of the one Creator God, and Powers, who are not.
This division between the Word and Spirit as the divine agents of creation and Powers as created beings is reaffirmed just a few chapters prior to Prf 10, in Prf 5:
In this way, then, it is demonstrated [that there is] One God, [the] Father, uncreated, invisible, Creator of all, above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And as God is verbal, therefore He made created things by the Word; and God is Spirit, so that He adorned all things by the Spirit, as the prophet also says, 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all their power by His Spirit' [Ps. 33:6]. Thus, since the Word
'establishes,' that is, works bodily and confers existence, while the Spirit arranges
56 AH 5.15.2: 'Now the work of God is the forming of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by this kind of work: "And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed man"
[Gen. 2:7].'
57 In AH 1.26.1 Irenaeus says that the ascription of creative agency to a Power is a notion belonging to Cerinthus.