2.2.1 The Divinity of the Holy Spirit
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit term 'Spirit' (spiritus or FÆ) to refer to that which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (in line with the statement of John 4:24, 'God is
Spirit'). It is this identification of God's being as Spirit that enables Irenaeus to declare that one God created all things. Both of these points are fundamental to Irenaeus' thought. Their recognition is necessary to a proper interpretation of his theology of the Holy Spirit.
2.2.1 The Divinity of the Holy Spirit Irenaeus differentiates the human from the divine in chapter 28 of AH 2. In so doing, he distinguishes the perfect Word and Spirit from human beings, who experience perpetual growth and increase.19 While this reasoning sets the Word and Spirit on the divine side of the Creator-creature divide, it does not offer a logical basis to distinguish the Word and Spirit from each other.
Nevertheless, a comparison of what Irenaeus says about the production of the Word and does not say about the production of the Spirit suggests a basis for their distinction.
2.2.1.1 The Distinction of the Word and Spirit from Humanity In AH 2.28.1 Irenaeus contends that in the fashioning of humanity the Creator has given increase to the creature. The Father calls human beings to move from inferior, lesser things toward the greater, which are in the presence of God. In AH
2.28.3 he establishes increase to be characteristic of creatures when he explains that certain aspects of knowledge, in this and the future age, must always be left to God, so that God should always teach and human beings should always learn.
Between these two sections resides AH 2.28.2, in which Irenaeus contrasts that which is created with the one who creates, thus defining both.
Moreover, we ought to leave [questions] such as this20 to God who made us, knowing well that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, because, of course, they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit; we on the other hand, to the degree that we are inferior to and more recent than the Word of God and his Spirit, to this degree also we lack the knowledge of his mysteries.21
19 In Irenaeus' thought, the concept of growth and increase is characteristic of the creature, distinguishing the creature from the Creator. See: Wingren (1959: 32–3, 204, 210); see also the comments on AH 4.11.1–2 by Bacq (1978: 94–97, esp. the long n. 2 on 96–7), and Behr (2000: 37,
116–27).
20 Referring to unexplainable issues in Scripture.
21 AH 2.28.2. The last portion of the quotation reads: nos autem, secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a Verbo Dei et Spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.
The Beginning of a Pneumatology
Irenaeus opens with a reference to God as Creator but then shifts to his immediate argument with regard to the human ability to understand Scripture. He establishes by implication that both the Word of God and the Spirit should be understood to be perfect (perfectae), otherwise his ascription of perfection to the Scriptures would not naturally follow from the fact that they were spoken by the Word and Spirit. No Greek fragments of this passage remain, though in this context perfectae would have been the natural translation for ºØÆØ.
While easily translated 'perfect,' ºØ also includes the idea of 'complete' or 'fulfilled.'22 The use of ºØ would then link this discussion to the surrounding statements in AH 2.28.1 and AH 2.28.3, where he declares the concept of increase to be characteristic to the creature in contrast to the one who creates.23 So, human beings are 'inferior to and more recent than the Word of God and his Spirit' because they are incomplete, imperfect, or perpetually increasing, whereas the Word of God and his Spirit are complete, or perfect. Therefore, for Irenaeus one of the keys to distinguishing the divine and human, the Creator from the creature, lies in whether that nature is complete, perfect, or incomplete and perpetually increasing.
We may gain still further insight into the difference between the perfect Word and Spirit and the 'inferior' and 'more recent' human beings. Irenaeus only speaks of two categories of being: that which is perfect and that which is perpetually increasing. The Creator, God the Father, is perfect; the created— human beings—are perpetually increasing. As we just saw, for the contrast between both the Word and Spirit and human beings to hold, the Word and Spirit must also be perfect. Therefore, the Word and Spirit must not be classed among the created but rather with the Creator to whom Irenaeus refers at the beginning of the above selection. In comparison to the perfection of the Word
22 A search conducted in the Library of Latin Texts for all the forms of perfect* in AH produced 164 results. Of those hits, 111 uses of a form of perfect* have no extant Greek fragment of AH for us to compare; ten uses have no extant Greek fragment of AH, but they do occur in quotations of the NT or LXX. Of these, nine translate a form of º* and one translates a different word. Of the 43 occurences for which we have a Greek fragment for comparison, 39 translate a form of º*, leaving a form of perfect* to translate a different word four times.
Therefore, of the 53 occurences of a form of perfect* in AH that we can compare to a text, 49 translate a form of º*, and only five translate a different word. Moreover, º ı is the basis for perfecto in AH 4.38.1 which parallels the present discussion: 'those which were created by him, insofar as they have a beginning they would be necessarily inferior to that one who created them. Indeed, it is impossible for uncreated things to be those which are recently created.
Moreover, because they are not uncreated, for this reason they fall short of the perfect (perfecto
/ º ı).' This data reveals that a form of perfect* translates a form of º* the vast majority of times, supporting my contention with regard to perfectae in 2.28.2.
23 Behr (2000: 40) argues that only that which is created visible, sensible, and temporal is subject to change, while that which is 'created invisible and intelligible, the spiritual beings who are eternal and thereby neither subject nor able to change, at least within the course of human temporality'.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit and Spirit, then, human beings are 'inferior', since a creature experiences perpetual increase, and 'more recent,' since they are in fact created.24 Therefore, the contrast between beings characterized by perfection and beings characterized by increase involves the concept of creativity. Perfect beings create; increasing beings are created. Creative activity distinguishes the perfect from the increasing, God from humanity.25
2.2.1.2 The Distinction of the Word and Spirit The logic that distinguishes the Word and Spirit from humanity does not permit distinction between the Word and Spirit themselves. Still, Irenaeus' statements throughout AH 2 indicate that he may have a distinction in mind.
Here and elsewhere in Against Heresies, he affirms the generation of the Word,26 though he also declares that the limited nature of human language and experience prevent human beings from describing this production.27 The most succinct expression of these points occurs in AH 2.28.6:
If anyone, therefore, says to us, 'How then has the Son been produced by the Father?' we reply to that person that this production, or generation, or declaration, or revelation, or whatever name by which one may call his indescribable emergence, no one knows . . . except only the Father who begets and the Son who was begotten.28
24 Cf. AH 2.25.3.
25 Behr does not take this passage into consideration, which results in this inaccurate determination: 'For Irenaeus the distinction between God and created reality is not to be conceptualized in terms of an opposition between two distinct substances, existing in parallel and therefore commensurate with each other. Rather, for Irenaeus the distinction is primarily thought of in terms of their relationship to each other: "In this God differs from man, that God creates and man is made" (AH 4.11.2)' (Behr, Way to Nicaea, 2001: 125). Behr is correct to state that Irenaeus distinguishes between God and humanity by means of their relationship to creative activity. However, as we have seen in AH 2.28.1–3 the distinction is indeed 'conceptualized in terms of an opposition between two distinct substances' (to use Behr's language). That which is perfect is the Creator; that which is perpetually increasing is created. Though the Creatorcreature relationship is at the forefront of Irenaeus' thought, the Creator and creature are not defined by that relationship alone, for certain qualities of 'being' follow from one's identity as the Creator or creature. According to Irenaeus, therefore, we may also say that by definition a creature is that which increases, and the Creator is that which is perfect.
26 See, for example, AH 3.11.8, 3.19.2. Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 285) and Fantino (1994: 375–6) have pointed out that Irenaeus' terminological usage is consistent with the Scriptures. When he speaks of the divine generation of the Word, he uses ª (Isa. 53:8), and when he speaks of the human generation of the Word he uses ª ÅØ (Matt. 1:18). AH 3.11.8 is an excellent example of this consistency.
27 AH 2.13.8 and 2.25.3 contain emanation or emission language; for the limitation of human experience see AH 2.13.8 and AH 2.28.4.
28 AH 2.28.6: Si quis itaque nobis dixerit: Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus a Patre est? dicimus ei quia prolationem istam, siue generationem, siue nuncupationem, siue adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem eius inenarrabilem exsistentem, nemo nouit . . . nisi solus qui generavit Pater et qui natus est Filius.