2.1.1 The Spirit as Creator
The Beginning of a Pneumatology The previous consideration of Justin Martyr's understanding of the Spirit introduced the reader to the pneumatological arena in which Irenaeus began to write. The primitive state of pneumatology prior to Irenaeus required him to develop his own theology to convey the distinct activity and identity of the Spirit. He accomplishes little of this construction though in the first Book of Against Heresies.1 Against Heresies 1 finds its way into this study more by way of what it does not contain than by what it does.
2.1 AGAINST HERESIES 1
2.1.1 The Spirit as Creator2 The Spirit as Creator theme will play a significant role later in Irenaeus' thought but it finds only the briefest of mentions in AH 1.22.1. Irenaeus begins his statement of the Rule of Truth found in that section with a discussion of the creative activity of God and his Word. He offers two supporting texts that will reappear in his accounts of God's creativity: Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) and John
1:3. Soon after he quotes these two verses, Irenaeus makes his first reference to the creative activity of the Spirit:
1 Greek and Latin quotations of Against Heresies are taken from Irénée de Lyon, Contre les
Hérésies in 10 volumes (Sources Chrétiennes; eds A Rousseau et al.; Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1965–82). Armenian quotations of AH 4 and 5 are taken from Irenäus, Gegen die Häretiker
(1910). Translations of AH are mine, unless otherwise noted. Armenian quotations of Proof of the Apostolic Preaching are taken from Irenaeus, ¯N K ØØ F I ºØŒ F ŒÅæªÆ ; The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, with Seven Fragments (tr. 1917, repr. 1989). Unless otherwise noted, translations of Prf are from St Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching (1997).
2 I am indebted to Michel Barnes for directing my attention to the Spirit as Creator motif and its general significance in early pneumatologies. For a brief discussion of this tradition, see
Barnes, AugStud 39 (2008: 171–4).
The Beginning of a Pneumatology
Not by angels, nor by any powers which were separated from his thought (did he make); for the God of all things needs nothing. But in fact by his Word and Spirit he makes all things, disposing and governing and giving all of them existence.3
J. Armitage Robinson has suggested that Irenaeus' ascription of creative agency in 1.22.1 to both the Word and Spirit follows from Ps. 33:6: 'Here the Word and the Spirit seem to be brought together merely because they have occurred in the quotation, and there is no further reference to the Holy Spirit in the context.'4 Robinson's reading, however, does not agree with Irenaeus' own comments before and after the verses. These comments make it clear that he means for Ps. 33:6 and John 1:3 to substantiate only the creative activity of the Word: 'There is one God almighty, who created all things by his
Word . . . (and then) Now, the Father made all things by him.' It may be that Robinson overlooks Irenaeus' explicit use of these passages as proof-texts for the activity of the Word alone because he fails to recognize that Irenaeus' understanding of the creative activity of the Spirit develops over the course of his writing. Such a misconception would encourage him to interpret this passage in AH 1.22.1 in light of the later, more mature interpretation of Ps. 33:6 that occurs in Prf 5.5
In fact, however, Irenaeus' use of Ps. 33:6 does develop over the course of his writing. He quotes Ps. 33:6 three times. As we have just seen, the verse is used to substantiate the creative activity of the Word in AH 1.22.1. In 3.8.3, the second passage in which we find Ps. 33:6, the verse again supports the creative agency of the Word alone. There Ps. 33:6 follows quotations of John 1:3 and Ps. 33:9 (32:9 LXX). Irenaeus uses Ps. 33:6 to interpret Ps. 33:9: 'Whom, therefore, did [God] command (in Ps. 33:9)? The Word, of course, "by whom," he says, "the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the breath of his mouth" [Ps. 33:6].' Only in Prf 5, his most detailed and mature statement of the Spirit as Creator doctrine, does he use Ps. 33:6 to substantiate the activity of the Spirit. This change in Irenaeus' utilization of Ps. 33:6 reveals and reflects the development of his understanding of the Spirit's role in creation.6
3 AH 1.22.1: non per Angelos neque per Virtutes aliquas abscissas ab eius sententia, nihil enim indiget omnium Deus, sed et per Verbum et Spiritum suum omnia faciens et disponens et gubernans et omnibus esse praestans.
4 Robinson (1920: 49).
5 It is clear from Robinson's method that he does not recognize the development that occurs in Irenaeus' thought with regard to the use of Ps. 33:6. He appropriates the variant form of Ps.
33:6 (which lacks 'of his mouth') that occurs later in Prf 5 to justify his statement that Irenaeus does not identify the Word and Spirit earlier in AH 1.22.1 (Robinson 1920: 49–50).
6 For more on the change in Irenaeus' use of Ps. 33:6 and its significance see the Excursus that follows chapter 4.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit In AH 1.22.1, then, Irenaeus provides support for the creative activity of the Word in the form of Ps. 33:6 and John 1:3, but he offers no justification for his inclusion of the Spirit as an agent of creation. The contrast between his ability to give textual support for the creative activity of the Word and his inability to do the same for the Spirit suggests he is familiar with a tradition that attributes creative activity to the Spirit but for which he is unable to tender Scriptural grounds at this point in his writing. This judgment finds support in his later statements with regard to the creativity of the Spirit where he quotes either a verse to support the creative activity of the Spirit, or uses different verbs to distinguish between the roles of the Word and Spirit in creation.7 The absence of either of these elements in AH 1.22.1 is telling when compared to his later discussions.
At this point, Irenaeus was either relatively uninterested in the Spirit's creative activity or unable to express a tradition at least somewhat familiar to him. Such possibilities do not have to exclude each other. Nevertheless, we should exclude the possibility that Irenaeus would not have been interested in setting forth a proper understanding of the Spirit as Creator. So much is clear from the proximity of AH 1.22.1 to his discussion of the Barbeliote heresy.
The discussion of the Barbeliote notions of creativity that we find in AH 1.29.4 suggests that the brief reference to the Spirit's creative activity in 1.22.1 is due to his present inability to explain the Spirit's role. In AH 1.29.4,
Irenaeus recounts the Barbeliote ideas with regard to the Holy Spirit, whom they also entitle Wisdom or Prounikos.8 Here, Irenaeus says the Barbeliotes involve the Holy Spirit in creation as the one who generates a work called the 'First-Ruler, the Maker of this creation.' He then describes the activities of this
First-Ruler: he stole (a) great power from his Mother . . . and made the firmament of the heavens, in which they say he also dwells. And since he is Ignorance, he made those Powers which are below him, and the Angels, and the firmament, and all terrestrial things.
Irenaeus was aware of the Barbeliote notion that the work of the Holy Spirit resulted in the creation of the firmament and all earthly things, as well as the making of Powers inferior to First-Ruler. It is difficult to imagine, then, that he would not have elaborated upon his understanding of the Spirit's creative activity in AH 1.22.1 if he had been able to do so— the heretical Barbeliote notions involving the Spirit in creation warranted a 7 He utilizes various passages from scripture in his later writings to support the Spirit's creativity, for instance: Prov. 3 and 8 in AH 4.20.3, Ps. 33:6 in Prf 5. The nearest example of his coordination of particular verbs with the Word and Spirit occurs in AH 2.30.9. I will touch on AH 2.30.9 in chapter 3, but will examine his coordination of particular verbs with the creative agency of the Spirit as Wisdom in chapter 5.
8 For a summary of the possible derivations of 'Prounikos' (prunicum) see St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies, (1992: 260 n.11).
The Beginning of a Pneumatology
corrective.9 That Irenaeus could not provide an adequate corrective is further confirmed by recognizing that he could have challenged the Barbeliote ascription of the creation of powers to First-Ruler by utilizing Ps. 33:6 in accord with its traditional Spirit as Creator usage. In Theophilus, for instance, the Spirit creates the Power(s) of heaven.10 Irenaeus uses Ps. 33:6 in just this way in Prf 5 and I can only imagine that he would have done so here if he could have.
Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that when Irenaeus composed AH 1.22.1 he possessed some awareness of a doctrinal tradition that involved the Spirit in God's creative activity, but his inability to explain the Spirit's role in creation reveals the immature state of his thought. He did not possess the more detailed understanding of the Spirit's role in creation that we find in texts before him,11 nor the deeper understanding of the Spirit as Creator tradition evident later in his writing.12 We can surmise, then, that Irenaeus did not yet have access to a source that provided logical and Scriptural support for the tradition—a source that would have augmented his understanding, enabling him to make polemical use of the tradition in the first Book of AH.
His limited apprehension of the Spirit as Creator tradition does not mean that his reference to the tradition in AH 1.22.1 is accidental. The purpose for which he appropriates the tradition shows that its use is deliberate. As with several later references to the creative activity of the Spirit, Irenaeus employs the tradition here to affirm that the one Creator God needs no help to create, because the Word and Spirit are the divine agents of his creation. Indeed, his next use of the tradition in AH 2.30.9 includes this very point. Thus, the fact that Irenaeus mentions the Spirit's involvement in creation without providing any logical or Scriptural support reveals the primitive state of his understanding. On the other hand, his appropriation of the tradition in a way that agrees with his later usage shows that its presence in AH 1.22.1 is deliberate and purposeful. In the earliest stage of his pneumatological development, he has already associated the tradition with his argument that creative activity belongs to the Creator God alone.
Irenaeus' use of the tradition to argue that God needs no help to create is itself traditional. Passages in Justin and Theophilus show this to be the case. In Dial 62.3 Justin derides an Israelite doctrine that regards God as speaking the words of Gen. 1:26 to the angels in order to assign to them the creation of the human body. Justin responds to these theories in Dial 62.4 by declaring the Son to be the Father's dialogue partner in Gen. 1:26. This implies the Son's
9 While Irenaeus' various statements of the Rule of Truth (including that of AH 1.22.1) are more positive than polemical, they remain engaged with a polemic—in contrast, perhaps, to being governed by a polemic.
10 e.g. Theophilus, Autol 1.7.
11 e.g. Theophilus, Autol 1.7 and 2.18.
12 e.g. his use of Ps. 33:6 in Prf 5.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit involvement in creation, and, given the context, the creation of Adam in particular. In Autol 2.18 Theophilus states that the dialogue found in Gen.
1:26 makes it appear that God needs help to create. Theophilus argues that this is not the case, however, because Gen. 1:26 shows that God speaks to his Word and Wisdom.13 They alone join him in creation, no one else. Both Justin and Theophilus make the same basic argument as Irenaeus: God needs no help to create because of the agency of his Word who is Wisdom (Justin), or because of the agency of his Word and Wisdom (Theophilus).
Insofar as Justin refers to angels, it is more likely that Irenaeus depended on his discussion.14 Nevertheless, Justin fails to mention the Spirit, while even in this earliest of references, Irenaeus refers to the agency of both the Word and Spirit. The inclusion of the creative activity of the Spirit in addition to the Word returns us to Theophilus. Yet the undeveloped state of Irenaeus' thought in AH 1 and 2 with regard to the Spirit's creative activity, when compared to the more advanced state of Theophilus' reasoning, indicates
Irenaeus had not acquired Autol 1 and 2 until AH 3.15 Thus, the following conclusions emerge. First, Dial 62.4 lacks a reference to the agency of the Spirit, but is directed against the participation of angels in creation as is AH
1.22.1. Justin's comments could have served as a springboard for Irenaeus' use of the activity of both the Word and Spirit to combat the notion that God needs help in creation, but evidence for the connection is minimal. Second,
Autol 2.18 shows that Irenaeus' ascription of creative activity to the Spirit accords with pneumatological trajectories we see in other writers, but the rudimentary quality of Irenaeus' thought negates the possibility of his present dependence on Theophilus in particular. Therefore, we should regard Irenaeus' appropriation of the creative activity of the Spirit in AH 1.22.1 as traditional, insofar as it accords with texts that came before him, even though we are unable to determine dependence.
One final point, before we turn our attention to AH 2. The logic that enables the reference to the creative agency of the Word and Spirit to be
13 Autol 2.18: 'For when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," he first discloses the worth of man. For God having made all things by the Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of his own
Hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." But to no one else than to his own Word and to his own Wisdom did He say, "Let us make"' (my translation with reference to the ANF). Quotations from Theophilus are taken from Théophile d'Antioche, Trois livres à Autolycus, SC 20 (1948). Translations are mine, unless otherwise noted.
14 Dial 62.3.
15 The Excursus after chapter 4 details this argument. Comparing Irenaeus' understanding of the creative agency of the Spirit to the understanding of Theophilus is a good way to track the pneumatological development of Irenaeus. In AH 1 and 2, the account provided by Irenaeus is far less developed than Theophilus. By the time of AH 4, Irenaeus' reasoning is more developed than his predecessor. Interestingly, it seems that his reception of Theophilus' Autol is the primary stimulus for this development.
The Beginning of a Pneumatology
polemically effective entails the understanding that the Word and Spirit stand united with the Father—unlike the angels and powers 'which have been separated from his thought.'16 After all, Irenaeus' point is to affirm that God alone creates. Therefore, this early utilization of the Spirit as Creator tradition in AH 1.22.1 involves, and in effect produces, a fundamental statement on the divinity of the Spirit. Moreover, the Spirit's divinity is at least equal to that of the Word—the Spirit is not subordinate to the Word, as in Origen.17
As this study progresses, I will have occasion to point out that Irenaeus' conception of the Trinity can be represented as an isosceles triangle. The Father as the source of all things stands preeminent in relation to his Word and Spirit, his Hands, who minister to him and function as his agents with respect to creation. Irenaeus conceived of a hierarchical relationship within the Trinity.
Such a hierarchy, however, does not consist of gradations in divinity.
2.2 AGAINST HERESIES 2
Against Heresies 2 contains Irenaeus' first real intimations of a theology of the Spirit, and while elementary, they are a step toward the more advanced deliberations we will find later in his work. This is not to say we find a mature pneumatological statement in AH 2; indeed, Irenaeus' theology of the Spirit seldom manifests itself, and in some cases reveals itself to be rudimentary.
Nonetheless, his comments in Book 2 show his thought has already advanced beyond those of his predecessors. He conceives of the Holy Spirit as distinct from and yet categorized with the Son, and he ascribes distinct activity to the Spirit.18 The very fact that this Book contains an elemental doctrine of the Spirit suggests Irenaeus recognized the importance of inserting a theology of the Spirit into his polemic. His remarks, then, are significant not only for what he says, but also because he chooses to say anything at all.
The following investigations into AH 2 demonstrate two essential points.
First, Irenaeus classifies the Holy Spirit as the Creator rather than as a creature, thus securing the divine status of the Spirit. Second, Irenaeus also uses the 16 AH 1.22.1: abscissas ab eius sententia.
17 'Theparallelismoftheiractionshowssufficientlythatthey areequal.'(d'Alès,'LaDoctrineRSR
6 1924: 499–500). Seen in contrast to, for instance, Origen, PA 1.3.5, discussed in the conclusion.
18 I will reserve my discussion of Irenaeus' identification of the Spirit as Wisdom for the fourth chapter of this study. When discussing the development of Irenaeus' pneumatology, however, it is important to note that the identification first occurs in AH 2.30.9. As I will show later, the identification of the Spirit as Wisdom involves the attribution of a particular role in creation to the Spirit: the Spirit as Wisdom produces the harmony that exists in all of creation.
Irenaeus expounds upon this idea in 2.25.1–2, and then applies the verbs connected with this particular effect to Wisdom in AH 2.30.9. As a result, as early as AH 2 Irenaeus distinguishes the creative activity of the Spirit as Wisdom from the creative activity of the Word.