2.2.2 The Creator God as Spirit

The Beginning of a Pneumatology

This statement builds upon AH 2.13.8, where he contends that the analogy of human speech fails to describe the production of the divine Word because there is no 'beginning and principle of production'29 in the generation of the eternal Word of God. In fact, God 'has in himself nothing more ancient than another, nor later or earlier than another, but persists as wholly equal and similar and one, one can no longer conceive of such an emission of this

[kind] of order.'30 There is no room for any notion of temporality, or sequencing made possible by temporality, in our conception of the production of the Word. Therefore, any analogy involving the production of human speech fails to describe the production of the Word of God. Humanity cannot conceive of timeless production, negating all human analogy.31 This does not deny the production of the Word, just our ability to conceptualize it and speak of it.

On the other hand, Irenaeus never posits an explanation in AH 2 for the manner in which the Spirit coexists with God. In fact, no explicit statement may be found in any of his extant writings. The very absence of an account for the production of the Spirit indicates that Irenaeus does not conceive of the Spirit's coexistence in the same fashion as the Word's; otherwise it would have been simple for him to provide a similar statement. That he does not do so— that he does not even appear to recognize the beneﬁt of or need for such an account—indicates a different understanding, an understanding that differentiates the Word from the Spirit, though one we cannot identify.32

2.2.2 The Creator God as Spirit This study of Irenaeus' theology of the Holy Spirit focuses, of course, on his conception of the identity and activity of the Spirit as the third member of the Godhead. Yet, the peculiar ambiguity of the terms spiritus and FÆ is that they can refer to either who God is (the Holy Spirit, distinct from the Father and the Son) or what God is (Spirit, that—the immaterial divine stuff—which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Since Irenaeus recognizes and appropriates the two different referents of this terminology at different points in his work, we must evaluate each use of the terms spiritus or FÆ to determine their referent.

Such a determination can be rather easy, as for instance when the term occurs in a dyad with the Son, but it can also be rather difﬁcult when a 29 prolationis initium . . . et genesim.

30 AH 2.13.8.

31 In addition to the passages mentioned, AH 2.25.3 discusses the human limits with respect to knowledge as well.

32 For more on this topic and a possible explanation for Irenaeus' approach, see p. 130 n. 94.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit particular context or strain of reasoning provides no certain direction. These latter situations are complicated by the fact that Irenaeus uses no particular grammatical or terminological construction to differentiate the two possible referents. The immediate context of the term and the placement of the discussion into his larger theological account, then, become central to recognizing his meaning.

This section exists within this study not just to draw attention to both meanings of 'spirit' in Irenaeus' thought, though it functions to do so.

Nor does this section exist just to warn the reader to be cautious when determining the meaning of any given passage, though I hope it functions to do that as well. No; the main purpose of this section is to show that the identiﬁcation of what God is, that God is Spirit, is fundamental to Irenaeus' theological construct.

His most elaborate defense of God being Spirit occurs in AH 2.30. Here, the afﬁrmation is essential to his argument that one God created and rules over all things, material and spiritual. Irenaeus desires to counter the Gnostic doctrine that attributes material creation to an animal Demiurge, while tracing the production of spiritual substance back to a spiritual source (see, for example:

AH 2.17.3–8, 2.29.3, 2.30.6). Chapter 30 ends (in AH 2.30.9) with repeated afﬁrmations that creative activity belongs to only one God, which in the context of his argument means that one Creator God is responsible for the production of spiritual (spiritale), animal (animale), and material (materiale) substances (as detailed in AH 2.29.3).33 The ﬁrst step in his argument toward this end is to counter the Gnostic idea that assigns the creation of different substances to different beings. To accomplish this task, Irenaeus challenges the Gnostic characterization of the Demiurge as animal in nature by declaring that those who 'declare to be animal' the one who has made his angels spirits, and is clothed with light as with a cloak, and holds the circle of the earth as if in his hand, by whom its inhabitants have been regarded as if they are grasshoppers, and [who is] the Creator and God of all spiritual substance, . . . [those who say this] reveal indisputably and truly their own insanity.34

Irenaeus does not here construct an argument, the outcome of which permits him to characterize the Demiurge ('that God who made and adorned the heavens, and the earth, and the seas, and all that are in them')35 as spiritual.

Rather, he approaches these descriptions as beyond question, and as such they 33 This does not exclude the agency of God's Word and Wisdom in creation, to which Irenaeus twice refers in AH 2.30.9. For more on Irenaeus' Wisdom language in AH 2.30.9 and elsewhere, see the 'Spirit as Wisdom' section in chapter 5.

34 AH 2.30.1.

35 Ibid.

The Beginning of a Pneumatology

demonstrate that the Creator is not animal.36 An argument, however, is not long in coming. In the remaining sections of this chapter, AH 2.30.2–9,

Irenaeus sets out to support his contention that the Creator is spiritual. Of these sections, the last four, in which he proves from the Scriptures 'that all things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God,'37 contain the heart of his argument.

At the end of AH 2.30.6, Irenaeus prepares the way for his argument from Scripture by stating, 'if these (invisible beings, namely, Angels, Archangels,

Thrones, Powers, etc.) were made by the Creator—as they certainly were made [by him]—and [if] they are spiritual (spiritalia) and holy: then he is not animal

(animalis), that one who created the spiritual (spiritalia).' Since the one who creates spiritual things must be spiritual, then it follows that the one who creates both material and spiritual things must be spiritual also. His task, then, is to offer Scriptural evidence that the Creator who is responsible for the production of material things also created spiritual things. For he would thus counter the Gnostic claim that different beings created the different substances.

In AH 2.30.6 Irenaeus classiﬁes 'the heaven and the whole world that is situated below it' as material things (materialia). In AH 2.30.7–8, he uses

Paul's account of his ascent to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12) to afﬁrm 'that there are spiritual creatures in the (material) heavens.'38 The last few sentences of AH 2.30.7 contain Irenaeus' account of what Paul witnessed in his ascent:39 but, therefore, up to that point it is permitted even without the body to observe spiritual mysteries, which are the works of God who made the heavens and the earth, and formed man and placed him in paradise . . . 40

Here he provides otherwise unspeciﬁed content for Paul's experience: Paul witnessed the works of God, which Irenaeus describes as 'spiritual mysteries'

(sacramenta spiritalia). By stating that Paul witnessed 'spiritual mysteries', Irenaeus can assert that the same God who produced these sacramenta spiritalia or operationes also produced 'the heavens and the earth, and formed man and placed him in paradise'—the material works which served as the 36 Irenaeus counters the Gnostic understanding of creation by arguing against the idea that any transcendent beings exist beyond the Creator of the world (the Demiurge), and then by correcting the Gnostic concept of the Demiurge, so that it accords with the traditional catholic understanding of the Creator God.

37 AH 2.30.6, ANF translation.

38 AH 2.30.7, ANF translation.

39 2 Cor. 12:4 refers to hearing alone, not sight; Irenaeus, however, describes the ascent as involving both senses.

40 AH 2.30.7: sed ideo usque illuc permittatur etiam sine corpore sacramenta perspicere spiritalia, quae sunt Dei operationes qui fecit caelos et terram et plasmavit hominem et posuit in paradiso, | speculatores ﬁeri eos qui similiter ut Apostolus valde sint perfecti in dilectione Dei.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit setting for the observation of the spiritual works. He expands upon these thoughts in the next section:

And so this one (God) also made the spiritual (pl.) of which, as far as the third heaven, the Apostle was made a spectator, and [heard] indescribable words which it is not permitted for a human being to speak, since they are spiritual; and this he himself exhibits to the worthy just as he wills:41 for paradise is his. And truly he is the Spirit of God, not in fact an animal Demiurge, otherwise he never would have brought about the spiritual (pl.). If, on the other hand, he is animal, let them tell us by whom the spiritual (pl.) are made.42

Irenaeus interprets Paul's testimony as evidence that the God who produced material things also produces spiritual things. The apostle saw spiritual mysteries or operations and heard spiritual words which Paul could not have witnessed had the Creator been animal, for an animal being could not have produced spiritual mysteries or spiritual words.43 In this passage, Spiritus Dei

('Spirit of God') should not be understood to refer to the Holy Spirit, but rather to mean 'the Spirit who is God' along the lines of John 4:24.44 This is the only interpretation of Spiritus Dei that ﬁts Irenaeus' argument. The Creator who produces spiritual works and spiritual words must be a spiritual being himself; he cannot possess an animal nature and produce spiritual things.

Therefore, Paul's testimony of his experience of spiritual things in the third heaven supports Irenaeus' contention that the God who created 'the heavens and the earth, and formed man and placed him in paradise' is a spiritual being, is the Spirit of God, the divine Spirit. The identiﬁcation of God's being as Spirit, then, enables Irenaeus to afﬁrm that one God created all things, both spiritual and material.

41 The translator of the ANF ﬁnds this phrase 'a very ambiguous expression,' but it can be understood as a simple reference back to AH 2.30.7 where Irenaeus declares, 'they are made spectators who, similar to the Apostle, are intensely perfect in the love of God.' Those who are

'worthy' in AH 2.30.8 must be those who are 'intensely perfect in the love of God' in AH 2.30.7.

To these people, God exhibits the spiritual mysteries and they are made spectators.

42 AH 2.30.8: Et spiritalia itaque hic fecit quorum usque ad tertium caelum speculator factus est

Apostolus, et inenarrabiles sermones quos non licet homini loqui, quoniam sint spiritales, et ipse hic praestat dignis, quemadmodum vult: huius enim est paradisus. Et vere est Spiritus Dei, sed non animalis Demiurgus, alioquin numquam spiritalia perfecisset. Si autem animalis hic, per quem facta sunt spiritalia referant nobis.

43 Irenaeus twice states (once each in AH 2.30.7 and AH 2.30.8) that human beings are not permitted (licet) to speak spiritual words. The stricture on the speaking of spiritual words probably derives from the fact that human speech involves a material mechanism, but the material cannot produce the spiritual—so by deﬁnition, a human being cannot utter spiritual words.

44 Rousseau, SC 152 (1969: 332, 317 n. 2).

The Beginning of a Pneumatology

Chapter Conclusion Justin Martyr's approach to the Spirit serves as an example of the rudimentary understanding of the Spirit in the middle of the second century. Lacking a ﬁrm understanding of the distinct activity and identity of the Spirit, Christianity possessed a theology of the Spirit in only the most elementary respect. The ﬁrst detailed theology of the Holy Spirit, however, began to take form as Irenaeus sketched out his thoughts on the Spirit in the ﬁrst two Books of AH.

Even in his earliest thought on the Spirit, Irenaeus deﬁnes the Spirit as possessing the perfect nature of the Creator and as having a role in creation.

Nevertheless, we will see in the next two chapters that the difference between the pneumatology in AH 1 and 2 and in AH 3 is dramatic and startling. In the third Book of Against Heresies Irenaeus exhibits a multi-faceted and insightful conception of the identity and activity of the Holy Spirit that progresses far beyond his predecessors and contemporaries alike, and even his own thought in AH 1 and 2. Indeed, the pneumatological account in AH 3 supersedes that of AH 1 and 2 by so large a degree that it may be best to regard his reasoning in the ﬁrst two Books as the most advanced theology of the Spirit of the previous generation, and to regard the reasoning we ﬁnd in AH 3 as the beginning of the most complex expression of Jewish-Christian pneumatology to be constructed.

Pneumatological Expansion The limited references to the Spirit found in the ﬁrst two Books of Against Heresies give way to the argument of AH 3 in which the theology of the Spirit plays an integral role. In addition to being integral to his argument, Irenaeus' account of the Spirit in Book 3 is multifaceted. Some aspects of the pneumatology we ﬁnd here will play a considerable role in the pneumatological themes addressed later in this study. Some are important, even foundational to Irenaeus' broader theology and polemic, but are relatively less important to his pneumatology itself.

These latter, less-important features of his theology of the Spirit in AH 3 still warrant our brief consideration since they are evidence of the dramatic pneumatological expansion that occurs in this Book. This expansion ought to be highlighted inasmuch as one purpose of this study is to elucidate the manner in which Irenaeus' thought on the Spirit develops throughout his writing. That being said, the fact that some aspects of this ampliﬁcation in his thought will continue to play a central role throughout the course of his pneumatology, while some do not, has led me to divide my analysis of his theology in AH 3 in order to provide an easy way for the reader to differentiate between the two categories.

This present chapter will examine those features of his theology of the Spirit in AH 3 that are less relevant to his later pneumatological development and our particular examination of it. The next chapter will then focus on those features of his account that will continue to appear in one form or another over the course of his pneumatological development and throughout this study.

3.1 PENTECOST

AH 3.6.4 contains a prayer whose opening address to the one Creator God is composed in terms designed to oppose Gnosticism and Marcionism. The second half of the prayer declares the means by which human beings may know the Creator: 'grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the

Pneumatological Expansion

Holy Spirit; give to every one who reads this writing to know you, that you are God alone, to be strengthened in you, and to depart from every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.' A question exists as to whether the original text read dominationem ('governing power') or donationem ('gift') of the Holy

Spirit.1 While Irenaeus never again uses the expression 'governing power of the Holy Spirit,' the phrase 'gift of the Holy Spirit' occurs in the New

Testament, other writers of the time, and elsewhere in Irenaeus himself. The suggestion then follows that donationem is original to this passage.2

Strictly speaking, it is true that Irenaeus never uses dominationem Spiritus sancti elsewhere.3 Yet in the early chapters of AH 3, Irenaeus establishes that the starting point for his argument in this Book is the role of the Spirit in the dissemination and preservation of the gospel message in the apostolic church. In this way, we can understand him to say that the Spirit possesses

'governing power' over the dissemination and preservation of the gospel message. Indeed, we could even summarize the work of the Spirit in this regard as securing the gospel message from 'every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.'

I would like to suggest, then, that dominationem is correct and should be preserved, for while Irenaeus does not ascribe the term to the Spirit elsewhere, the term depicts the role Irenaeus ascribes to the Spirit in the chapters preceding AH 3.6. We turn to this discussion of the Spirit in the early chapters of Book 3, where the story of Pentecost is the occasion for Irenaeus' attribution of this particular role to the Spirit in relation to the gospel message.

Among the defenders of the church catholic in the second century, Irenaeus alone incorporated Pentecost in a signiﬁcant manner.4 It is a distinguishing feature of his thought. Moreover, its presence in AH 3.1.1 suggests the Lucan writings had an inﬂuence upon the ﬁrst chapters of Book 3 that has gone unnoticed. Three additional factors support this recognition of Lucan inﬂuence; their identiﬁcation gives us insight into the picture of the church and the Spirit that Irenaeus adopts. First, in AH 3.pref, Irenaeus quotes Luke 10:16,

'He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me, and him that sent me.' With this quotation, Irenaeus introduces his argument that the message of the apostles, the apostolic tradition, is the true tradition, the message of Christ.

1 Grabe changed dominationem to donationem, and the editors of the SC have followed suit.

2 So argues Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 257).

3 See, however, Irenaeus' reference to Spiritu principali ('the governing Spirit') of Ps. 51.12 in

AH 3.17.2.

4 Pentecost does not make an appearance in the works treated by Gregory (2003). Soon after Irenaeus, Tertullian (On Baptism, 1999: 19) considers Pentecost to be among the particularly appropriate times for baptism because of its association with Christ's resurrection appearances.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Second, the words Dominus omnium dedit apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii

('the Lord of all gave to his apostles the power of the Gospel') precede the quotation of Luke 10:16. It seems best to understand potestatem Evangelii as referring to the power given by Jesus to his Apostles in order for them to spread the message of the Gospel. Irenaeus' reference in the next section to the bestowal of power on the apostles at Pentecost suggests that 'the power of the Gospel' here may also be linked to the reception of the Spirit. If such is the case, then Irenaeus could be alluding to Acts 1:8, 'you will receive power (ÆØ) when the Holy

Spirit comes upon you,5 and you will be my witnesses . . . '6

The fact that Irenaeus says the power is given by Jesus while Acts connects the power with the reception of the Spirit can be explained by noting that Luke proclaims the Spirit to be given by the gloriﬁed Christ. In this way the power received by the apostles would originate with Jesus as well. The possibility that Irenaeus is working from Acts 1:8 is made even more likely by the fact that both Irenaeus and Acts associate the reception of the power with the apostolic proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God.7 Thus, the power received upon the reception of the Holy Spirit is the 'power of the gospel' because it enables the witness of the Apostles.

The third factor that shows Lucan inﬂuence upon Irenaeus in the early chapters of AH 3 is the theological signiﬁcance that Irenaeus attaches to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. In the following paragraphs we will see that Irenaeus views the Spirit as the source of the oral and written message of the Apostles. Moreover, he maintains that the mission of the Church is guided, directed, and empowered by the now-present Spirit. Both of these positions correspond to the theological signiﬁcance that Luke attaches to the work of the Spirit among the apostles in the ﬁrst days of the Church.8 Irenaeus will begin with the work of the Spirit in the story of Acts, and just as Marsh can say the story of Acts 'is the story of the Gospel all over again,'9 so we can say that for Irenaeus, the story of the early Church (post-Acts) is the story of Acts all over again.

5 For the close link that Luke establishes between the Spirit and the concept of power, see:

Lampe (1957: here 171, 193); Marsh, ITQ 45 (1978: 101–16, here 104–6); McPolin, ITQ 45 (1978:

117–31, here 117, 120–3).

6 Potestatem Evangelii could be an allusion to Rom. 1:16, 'I am not ashamed of the gospel, it is the power (ÆØ) of God for salvation.' I do not think this is the case for several reasons: (1) in AH 3, the power is the 'power of the Gospel,' whereas in Rom. 1 the power is the 'power of God;'

(2) the power in AH 3 is given by Jesus to his apostles, but in Rom. 1 the power is not given and the apostles do not appear; and (3) in AH 3, the power involves the proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God, but in Rom. 1 the power reveals that righteousness comes from faith.

7 AH 3.pref: 'the Lord of all gave to his apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God'; Acts 2:22–36.

8 For Luke's conception of the activity of the Spirit in the early church, see Lampe (1957: 196);

Marsh, ITQ 45 (1978: 104–5); McPolin, ITQ 45 (1978: 121, 127–8); and Lake (1979: 108).

9 Marsh, ITQ 45 (1978: 104).

Pneumatological Expansion

Irenaeus considers Pentecost to be the foundational moment in the possession and transmission of doctrinal truth for the Church. It is the moment in which the original purveyors of the tradition were invested with the power and gifts of the Spirit.10 As such, it is the basis for the apostolic mission and kerygma. Since the truth for which Irenaeus argues rests on the veracity of the apostolic kerygma, the need to establish the reliability of the doctrines proclaimed by the apostles assumes ﬁrst place on his agenda.11 His solution is to base the authenticity—and therefore, the trustworthiness and efﬁcacy of the apostolic kerygma—on the Spirit's activity at Pentecost:12

For after our Lord rose from the dead, and [the apostles] were clothed with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, were ﬁlled from all [his power], and had perfect knowledge;13 they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things which were [sent] from God to us, and announcing the peace of heaven for human beings—who indeed all possess, equally and individually, the Gospel of God.14

As soon as he establishes that the oral communication of the gospel message by the apostles occurred after and as a result of the activity of the Spirit,

Irenaeus moves to link the production of the written gospel accounts with Pentecost as well. He refers to gospels communicated by Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John—emphasizing the written nature of transmission each time.15

Each of these Gospel accounts emanates from apostles who received the power and gifts of the Spirit at Pentecost: this is the reason why he identiﬁes the accounts of Mark and Luke as containing the gospels preached by Peter and Paul, respectively.16 Irenaeus does not, in this regard, distinguish between the oral proclamation and the written testimony—both have as their origin apostles

10 Cf. de Andia (1986: 230).

11 AH 3.1.1 reveals why it is so important for Irenaeus to establish the accuracy of the apostolic message: 'we know by no others the plan of our salvation, than by those through whom the Gospel has come to us . . . handed down to us in the scriptures, to be the support and pillar of our faith.'

12 Grant (1993: 12) suggests that the underlying motivation for Justin's insistence on 'the one prophetic Spirit' was to counter 'the Gnostic notion that various planetary deities had inspired various Old Testament prophets . . . that the Old Testament was interpolated'. Irenaeus is taking a similar approach by using the activity of the Spirit at Pentecost as the basis for the message of the Church.

13 Cf. AH 4.33.7–8 where the Spirit is the source of our 'knowledge of truth' in 4.33.7 and 'true knowledge' is the doctrine of the apostles in 4.33.8.

14 AH 3.1.1; 3.12.1 also refers to Pentecost and its fulﬁllment of Joel 2:28; in 3.12.5 the disciples were perfected by the Spirit after the assumption of the Lord.

15 Matthew scripturam edidit Euangelii; Mark per scripta nobis tradidit; Luke in libro condidit;

John edidit Euangelium.

16 Paul's inclusion in this category would seem to be based on the account of Acts 9:1–18, which concludes with his ﬁlling with the Holy Spirit (v. 17).

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit who received the power and gifts of the Spirit at Pentecost.17 All the apostles communicated one message containing 'perfect knowledge' by both word of mouth and hand, a message guaranteed by the descent and empowerment of the Spirit at Pentecost.

The importance of founding the unity and authority of the oral and written traditions on the work of the Spirit crystallizes in AH 3.2.1.18 Here Irenaeus reveals that his opponents, working from 1 Cor. 2:6, posit the superiority of the oral tradition over the written. The truth of the tradition was not related by written word, but viva voce. Having already undercut this heretical enterprise by basing the transmission of every message of the gospel on the work of the same

Spirit, Irenaeus proceeds to further erode any basis for an alternative tradition by means of the notion of apostolic succession. At the end of AH 3.1.2 he summarizes the essential truths communicated in the oral and written gospel by the apostles: 'there is one God, Maker of heaven and earth, who has been announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of God.'19 Those who oppose these truths do so at the risk of their own peril: despising Christ and the Father, a person stands condemned, 'resisting and opposing one's own salvation, as all heretics do.'20 Nevertheless, adversaries to the tradition existed. And their tendency to deny the authority and accuracy of Scripture lead him to afﬁrm that the truths originating with the apostles were preserved among the presbyters, to whom the apostles committed the care of the churches.21

Since the apostles, just as the rich in a bank, abundantly bestowed in [the church] all things that have to do with the truth, so that every person who is willing may take from her the drink of life. For [the church] is the entrance to life; but all the rest are thieves and robbers.22

The apostolic tradition, the common interpretation of Scripture by churches possessing an apostolic foundation, rests secure in the Church. It does so 17 That being said, he does offer certain particulars with regard to the work of the Spirit in the process of writing the gospel accounts. For instance, the Spirit's foreknowledge permitted the guidance of the composition of Scripture in order to forestall heretical interpretations (AH 3.16.2 and 3.21.9); and the impetus of the Spirit lies partially behind Paul's transposition of word order

(AH 3.7.2).

18 Irenaeus has already stated in AH 3.1.1 that his opponents contended that the apostles preached prior to their possession of 'perfect knowledge.' Such a stance rendered acceptable their modiﬁcation, or 'correction,' of the apostolic writings and the gospel accounts in particular.

Irenaeus' reference to the reception of 'perfect knowledge' by the apostles at Pentecost (the only gift he chooses to identify) is a direct response to these opponents.

19 AH 3.1.2; Irenaeus repeats these ﬁrst principles of the gospel in AH 3.11.7.

20 AH 3.1.2.

21 AH 3.2.2; see also AH 3.3.1, where any hidden mysteries would have been delivered by the apostles to their successors; and AH 3.4.1, where doctrinal disputes should be settled by the most ancient churches with whom the apostles conversed.

22 AH 3.4.1; cf. AH 3.5.1.

Pneumatological Expansion

because of the continuity of tradition preserved by the chain of leadership existing in these apostolic churches, but continuity of tradition is worthless if the tradition preserved is not authoritative. Thus, the notion of apostolic succession depends upon the reception and empowerment of the Spirit at Pentecost: the moment at which both the content of the tradition and the impetus to share that tradition originated. Therefore, the Church possesses the truth of the gospel message because of the work of the Spirit, and the work of the Spirit alone guarantees the truth of the gospel.23

As mentioned earlier in this section, Irenaeus' thought on this matter corresponds to that of Luke, especially that of the book of Acts. According to F.F. Bruce, the book of Acts 'describes the gospel as making its way through the world under the constant direction of the Holy Spirit.'24 Or perhaps we should say, under the 'governing power' of the Holy Spirit.

3.2 THE 'PILLAR AND SUPPORT' OF THE CHURCH

In AH 3.1.1 Irenaeus refers to the Scriptures as the 'support and pillar of our faith.' By AH 3.11.8, the metaphor has expanded to include the Spirit: the 'pillar and support'25 of the church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is ﬁtting that she would have four pillars, which from every side are breathing out incorruptibility and are vivifying human beings.26 According to which it is evident that the Word . . . has given to us a quadriform Gospel which is held together27 by one Spirit.28

The addition reﬂects Irenaeus' appreciation of the intrinsic role of the Spirit in establishing and transmitting the gospel tradition, as we have discussed. Yet, this passage does not just rely upon the role of the Spirit as discussed earlier in AH 3, but rather leads to further insight into his thought on the matter. As when he turned to pneumatology to refute the abuse of Scripture earlier in this Book,

23 Cf. Clement of Rome's declaration that divisions and schisms should not exist for 'do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace, a Spirit that was poured out upon us?'

Epistle to the Corinthians 46.6 (1946).

24 Bruce, Interpretation 27 (1973: 166–83, here 183).

25 Fº b ŒÆd æØªÆ; columna autem et ﬁrmamentum.

26 — Æ c IçŁÆæ Æ ŒÆd IÆÇøıæ FÆ f IŁæ ı; ﬂantes incorruptibilitatem et viviﬁcantes homines.

27 '¯d b —ÆØ ıå ; uno Spiritu continetur.

28 Both passages use ﬁrmamentum and columna. The metaphor 'pillar and ground' comes from 1 Tim. 3:15 which describes the Church as the 'pillar and foundation of the truth'. De Andia

(1986: 210) says that in AH 3.11.8 'pillar and support' refer to the Gospels and the Spirit, respectively. Fabbri, CyF 12/45 (1956: 7–42, here 27–8) attempts to connect 'pillar and support' with the Spirit's identiﬁcation as the Unction of Christ.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit in AH 3.11.8 Irenaeus is combating those who deviate from right doctrine by altering or ignoring portions of the Gospels.29 This acknowledgement of doctrinal errors comes right after an elucidation of the apostolic tradition taken mainly from the Gospels. The acknowledgement and his pneumatological response reﬂect his understanding that a counter-explanation from the Gospels is not enough to prevent errant readings. Rather an external logic is necessary to control the interpretation of Scripture. For Irenaeus, that logic always rests on the theology of the Spirit. In the beginning of AH 3, both the notion of apostolic succession and the afﬁrmation of 'perfect knowledge' to the authors of Scripture depend on the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. We will see here that the four Gospels, and their respective messages, enjoy a harmonious relationship with each other because of the work of the Spirit.

Two statements in the passage quoted above draw our attention. First, the pillars breathe out incorruptibility and vivify human beings. Second, the pillars are 'held together by one Spirit.' This selection and its surrounding context offer little insight into the ﬁrst statement. What is clear is that the pillars, the Gospels, are 'from every side . . . breathing out incorruptibility' and 'vivifying human beings' because of their connection with the Spirit.

Two observations substantiate this connection. The ﬁrst is that the Spirit is identiﬁed as 'the Spirit of life,' a title that corresponds to the ideas of incorruptibility and viviﬁcation. The second is that Irenaeus' afﬁrmation that the pillars are 'breathing out incorruptibility' and 'vivifying human beings' is the basis for the conclusion ('it is evident') that the Church has received a 'quadriform Gospel . . . held together by one Spirit.' Such a conclusion is only 'evident' if the breathing out of incorruptibility and the viviﬁcation of human beings are due to the Spirit. Beyond this minimal understanding, Irenaeus is here silent.30

On the other hand, Irenaeus does provide insight at this time into his statement that the pillars are 'held together by one Spirit' (uno Spiritu continentur). In AH 3.11.9 he offers one last comment with regard to the quadriform nature of the Gospels:

But that these alone are true and sure, and that beyond what was said beforehand, neither more nor fewer Gospels can be conceived, we have made clear by so many and so great [arguments]. And since God made all things ordered (composita) and suited (apta) (to each other), it was also necessary for the outward form

(speciem) of the Gospel to be well ordered and well joined together (bene compositam et bene compaginatam esse).

29 As he explains with reference to particular controversies in AH 3.11.7.

30 Irenaeus resumes the theme of the life-giving activity of the Spirit in AH 3.24.1, a passage

I will discuss in the next chapter. He reserves his main treatment of the life-giving work of the Spirit for Book 5: I too will reserve my main discussion of this aspect of his pneumatology for my comments on that Book in the sixth chapter of this study.

Pneumatological Expansion

In this last comment he provides the most insight into what he means by uno Spiritu continentur. We have seen that according to Irenaeus the veracity, reliability, and numerical perfection of the Gospel accounts depend upon the activity of the Spirit. It makes sense then to see the agency of the Spirit in his present statement, despite the absence of an explicit reference.

Additional support for this determination comes from the particular aspect of creative activity that Irenaeus uses to support the fourfold aspect of the Gospel. While it will be discussed in detail in chapter 5, when we consider

Irenaeus' identiﬁcation of the Spirit as Wisdom,31 I will mention the conclusion of that examination now since it bears on our current question. Irenaeus' goal in referring to the wisdom of God in creation and in identifying the Spirit as Wisdom is to afﬁrm the harmony of creation and, thereby, to conﬁrm that creation is a meaningful whole. This determination comes primarily from a detailed analysis of AH 2, and especially AH 2.25.1–2, which means that Irenaeus had arrived at this understanding by the time he wrote AH 3.11.8–9.

An example of the type of language he uses to express the agency of the Spirit as Wisdom in rendering creation harmonious occurs in AH 2.30.9, 'This one alone is discovered to be God . . . [who] has ﬁtted and arranged (aptavit et disposuit) all things by his Wisdom.' The presence of the verb aptare stands out, for it also occurs in the above selection from AH 3.11.9.

In AH 3.11.8–9 Irenaeus intends to convey, with regard to the Spirit's agency in producing a quadriform Gospel, the same idea that he intends to convey with regard to the Spirit's agency in creation. Just as a diverse creation is made into one harmonious and meaningful whole by the activity of the Spirit, so are the multiple and diverse aspects of the Gospel 'held together by one Spirit.'

According to Irenaeus, the Spirit effects the harmony of the Gospels and their very harmony renders them meaningful. If his opponents fail to preserve the harmony of the Gospels, they will fail to grasp their meaning.

3.3 THE WINGED SPIRIT

Three times in the course of AH 3.11.8 Irenaeus associates the Spirit with wings:

'the fourth (living creature) was like a ﬂying eagle,' indicating the gift32 of the Spirit ﬂying over the Church.

Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetic Spirit coming from on high to human beings, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel as it is written in 31 See pp. 126–46.

32 Greek c Ø, Latin gratia: gratia is best understood as translating Ø along the lines of 'the free gift' of the Spirit to the Church, rather than 'the grace' of the Spirit.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Isaiah the prophet,' showing the winged 33 image of the Gospel; and because of this he made a compendious and hurried announcement, for such is the prophetic character.

And also the Word of God himself, indeed that one who was before Moses, used to speak with the patriarchs according to [his] divinity and glory; to those, however, under the law, he used to provide a sacerdotal and ministerial function.34 Since then he was made a human being for us, [and] he sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with his wings.35

The association of the Spirit with a bird is not unusual. The most prominent associations occur in the creation account of Gen. 1 and the Gospel accounts of Jesus' baptism.36 Less common are references to the Spirit as an eagle (as opposed to a dove), as well as references to the wings of the Spirit.37 Nevertheless, a signiﬁcant antecedent exists that associates the Spirit and wings,

Odes of Solomon 28.1–8:38

(1) As the wings of doves over their nestlings, and the mouths of their nestlings toward their mouths, so also are the wings of the Spirit over my heart.

(2) My heart continually refreshes itself and leaps for joy, like the babe who leaps for joy in his mother's womb.

(3) I trusted, consequently I was at rest; because trustful is he in whom I trusted.

(4) He has greatly blessed me, and my head is with him.

(5) And the dagger shall not divide me from him, nor the sword.

(6) Because I am ready before destruction comes, and have been placed in his incorruptible arms (or, wing).

33 Following SC 210 (1974: 285).

34 Following SC 210 (1974: 285).

35 This third selection follows immediately after the second; I have separated them for convenience of reference.

36 Gen. 1:2; Matt. 3:16, Mark 3:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32. The Talmud (b. Hag 15a) likens the brooding of the Spirit over the waters at creation to the ﬂuttering of a dove. The Dead Sea

Scrolls' 4Q521 Fr. 2, 2.5 reapplies Gen. 1:2 eschatologically—'over the poor his (the Lord's) spirit will hover and he will renew the faithful with his power' (Vermes 2004: 412).

37 In fact, I am unaware of another explicit reference to the Spirit as an eagle. That being said,

Scripture does not lack references to eagles, and while an explicit connection with the Spirit is absent, a few verses suggest similar activities as those attributed to the Spirit in AH 3.11.8. For instance, in Deut. 32:11 the Lord protects his people 'as an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions' (NRSV); cf.

Exod. 19.4. The wings of God provide divine protection in Ruth 2:12, Ps. 17:8, 36:7, 57:1, 61:4,

63:7, and 91:4.

38 I take the Odes to be dated in the second century; for a list of literature on dating the Odes, see Harvey, SVTQ 37 (1993: 111–39, here 122 n. 49).

Pneumatological Expansion

(7) And immortal life embraced me, and kissed me.

(8) And from that (life) is the Spirit which is within me.

And it cannot die because it is life.39

Verses 2 through 8 ﬂow out of the similes in verse 1 which compare the 'wings of the Spirit' over the heart of the Odist to the 'wings of doves over their nestlings' and the mouths of doves feeding their nestlings. Our attention focuses on verses 2, 3, and 6 which list effects of the wings of the Spirit that develop out of the similes offered in the ﬁrst verse. The continually refreshing heart in verse 2 stems from the nourishing aspect of the wings of the Spirit described by 'the mouths of their nestlings toward their mouths.' The trust that leads to rest in verse 3 and the preparedness for destruction in verse 6 reﬂect the protective aspect of the wings illustrated by 'the wings of doves over their nestlings.' Thus, in these verses the Odist associates two main concepts with the wings of the Spirit: nourishment and protection. Of these two, the idea of protection also belongs to Irenaeus' association of the Spirit and wings imagery.

Two features of the ﬁrst reference in AH 3.11.8, 'the gift of the Spirit ﬂying over the Church,' capture our attention: the idea of the Spirit as a gift and the notion of the Spirit as ﬂying. The description of the Spirit as ﬂying reminds us of Gen. 1:2 where the Spirit hovered over the waters in the creation account, suggesting perhaps that Irenaeus intends to speak of the creative activity of the Spirit within the Church. Such activity could correspond to the Spirit's title of 'Spirit of life' and his work of 'breathing out incorruptibility' and 'vivifying human beings' mentioned earlier in AH 3.11.8, indicating the creation of new life, eternal life, within believers.40 Yet, the phrase 'the gift of the Spirit' moves us away from interpreting the 'Spirit ﬂying' as a reference to the Spirit's creative agency, since it reﬂects a different Scriptural theme: the giving of the Spirit by Christ, for instance in John 14:16 or Acts 1:4–5, 2:33.41

The reference to the wings of the Spirit in the third selection from AH 3.11.8 serves as a guide through this interpretive maze. Irenaeus writes, 'Since then,

39 'Odes of Solomon,' in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 2 (1985). All quotations of the Odes are Charlesworth's translation.

40 This would correspond to later statements by Irenaeus: e.g., AH 3.24.1, 4.21.3, 5.1.3, 5.7.2,

5.9.2–4, 5.12.2, 5.15.1.

41 McPolin points out (ITQ 45 1978: 118–19) that Luke expresses a similar idea to that of John 14:16 when he refers to the Spirit as the promise of the Father in Acts 1:4–5 and 2.33. The fulﬁllment of Joel's prophecy at Pentecost is the context for the reception of the Promise. Prior to McPolin, Bruce noted that John and Luke/Acts possess similar perspectives on the giving of the Spirit after Christ's gloriﬁcation (Bruce, Interpretation 27 1973: 166–7). As for inﬂuence, the strong connection of the Spirit with Pentecost in AH 3 combined with the use of the noun 'gift'

(øæa) for the Spirit in Acts 2:38 (in contrast with the verbal 'will give' [Ø] in John 14:16) may grant a slight edge to the passages in Acts. The fact that in AH 3.12.2 Irenaeus quotes an otherwise unknown variant of Acts 2:33 that adds a reference to the Spirit as the 'gift' (donationem) makes his reliance (in these chapters) on Luke as certain as possible.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit he was made a human being for us, [and] he sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with his wings.' Here the sending of the Spirit by the incarnate Son is the dominant theme. Moreover, this selection further clariﬁes the ﬁrst by providing content for the image of the Spirit ﬂying with its wings over the Church ('protecting us'): Irenaeus associates this imagery with the idea of protection. Reading the ﬁrst selection through the lens of the third ﬁnds support in the fact that Irenaeus intends the ﬁrst selection to interpret the phrase 'the fourth living creature like a ﬂying eagle' from Rev. 4:7.42 The very idea of an eagle evokes the notion of protection.43 The association of the Spirit with protection ﬁts easily within the ﬁrst chapters of AH 3 and AH

3.11.7–9 in particular. As we have seen, the Spirit ensures or protects the gospel tradition, and therefore the Church, from heretical interpretations. The references to the protection of the Spirit's wings in AH 3.11.8, however, do not require such speciﬁcity. So though the connection exists, we should not limit our interpretation to that particular kind of protection of the Church.

The second reference, associating the prophetic Spirit with the 'the winged image of the Gospel,' conveys a different image from the ﬁrst and the third.

The Gospel of Mark commences with quotations from Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3, which the author groups together as 'written in the prophet Isaiah.' It seems that the quotation from prophecy which introduces this Gospel combined with the association of Mark with the eagle of Rev. 4:7 (that Irenaeus interprets as pointing to 'the gift of the Spirit ﬂying over the Church') is enough to lead him to describe the prophetic activity of the Spirit as the 'winged image of the Gospel.'44 In so doing, Irenaeus drops the concept of protection from the wings imagery. This move illustrates, as did Ode 28, that the association of the Spirit and wings can bear multiple meanings.

A fourth reference to wings occurs in AH 3.11.8. I have refrained from mentioning it until the clearer statements had been considered, because it does not include an explicit reference to the Spirit. Following the reference to the wings of the Spirit that occurs in the third selection, Irenaeus refers to four principal covenants given to the human race. The ﬁrst three covenants, the Adamic, Noahic, and Mosaic, pave the way for the fourth, which renovates human beings and recapitulates in itself all things, by means of the Gospel raising and ﬂying human beings to the celestial kingdom.45

42 The order: lion, calf, human, eagle aligns with Rev. 4:6–8 (Ezek. 1:10 has the order: human, lion, ox, eagle). The governing paradigm, however, for Irenaeus' discussion of the living creatures in AH 3.11.8 comes from Ezek. 1:10. There the creatures have four faces, while Rev. 4 only speaks of four creatures.

43 See p. 54 n. 37.

44 His description of the announcement of Mark as 'hurried' probably reﬂects the idea of speed attached to the concept of wings.

45 AH 3.11.8: quartum, vero quod renovat hominem et recapitulat in se omnia, quod est per

Euangelium, elevans et pennigerans homines in caeleste regnum.

Pneumatological Expansion

Irenaeus could be saying that the fourth covenant raises and bears men into the heavenly kingdom upon its own wings; such a ﬁgure for the Gospel is understandable. Nevertheless, the fact that several aspects of this selection parallel ideas found earlier in AH 3.11.8 strongly suggests that he intends this statement to serve as a summary, itself a recapitulation.

Irenaeus' statement that 'four principal covenants' ( Ææ . . . ŒÆŁ ºØŒÆd ØÆŁBŒÆØ) were given to humanity returns the reader to the opening discussion of AH 3.11.8, where the 'four principal winds' ( ÆæÆ ŒÆŁ ºØŒa ÆÆ) substantiate the numerical perfection of the four Gospels.46 At the beginning of AH 3.11.8, Irenaeus describes the Gospels as 'breathing out incorruptibility' and 'vivifying human beings' because of their connection with the Spirit. If we understand 'raising and ﬂying' in the last selection from the end of AH 3.11.8 as an allusion to the activity of the Spirit ('raising' would approximate

'breathing out incorruptibility' and 'vivifying human beings'), then we can recognize a similar statement at the end of this section as we saw at the beginning. The fourth covenant 'renovates human beings . . . by means of the Gospel' which is able to raise and ﬂy 'human beings to the celestial kingdom' because of its connection with the Spirit.

This reading is further encouraged by similar statements elsewhere that connect the Spirit with the idea of ﬂying human beings to heaven.47

Ode 36.1–2 reads:

I rested on the Spirit of the Lord, and she raised me up to heaven; And caused me to stand on my feet in the Lord's high place, before his perfection and his glory, where I continued praising (him) by the composition of his odes.

Tatian remarks in Oration to the Greeks 13.2, 'if [the soul] lives alone it inclines down towards matter and dies with the ﬂesh, but if it gains union with the divine spirit it is not unaided, but mounts to the realms above where the spirit leads it; for the spirit's home is above, but the soul's birth is below.'48

And again in Or 20.1, 'The soul's wings are the perfect spirit, but the soul cast it away because of sin, ﬂuttered like a nestling and fell to the ground, and once removed from heavenly company yearned for association with inferiors.'

Finally, in AH 3.24.1, which will be considered later in the next chapter, 46 The translator uses principales for ŒÆŁ ºØŒa with regard to the winds. The second quotation, however, lacks a corresponding Latin adjective for ŒÆŁ ºØŒÆd. One must assume that it was mistakenly neglected in the earliest of translations since none of the Latin manuscripts testiﬁes to its presence, only the Greek fragment fortunately retained.

47 See SC 210 (1974: 286–87) where the discussion mentions the Scriptural origins of this idea, and points the reader to the Armenian version of AH 5.9.1.

48 Tatian (1982). All quotations of Tatian's Oration are Whittaker's translation.

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Irenaeus says, 'this is the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption and the conﬁrmation of our faith and the ladder of ascent to God.' It would not be untoward, therefore, to deduce that 'ﬂying' at the end of AH 3.11.8 refers to the Spirit who elevates and bears humanity to heaven. Thus, Irenaeus commences and concludes AH 3.11.8 by afﬁrming the renewal of humanity by means of the Gospel through the agency of the Spirit.

Chapter Conclusion This chapter constitutes the beginning of our consideration of Irenaeus' pneumatology in AH 3. Though brief, these pages permit the reader to begin to grasp the development in his pneumatology that occurred between AH 1 and 2 and AH 3. At least, for now, the reader should recognize a striking difference between the two accounts. As I discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the next chapter represents the second half of our examination of Irenaeus' account of the Spirit in Book 3.

The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes The growth in Irenaeus' account of the Spirit, which we began to document in the last chapter, continues to be our attention here. This chapter, however, examines aspects of his theology of the Spirit in AH 3 that will continue to appear in one form or another over the course of his pneumatological development and throughout this study. Some lines of thought will be developed themselves over the course of his writing. Some lines of thought are foundational for, or interconnected to, later features of his pneumatology.

4.1 THE UNCTION OF CHRIST

Irenaeus' understanding of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan has garnered a great deal of attention.1 At issue is the way in which the Holy Spirit, if indeed the descending Spirit should be regarded as the Holy

Spirit rather than an impersonal Spirit or power of God, relates to the humanity and divinity of Jesus. Two questions have received considerable attention in the past. First, were both Jesus' humanity and divinity anointed by the Spirit, or solely his humanity? Second, what was the effect of the anointing by the Spirit? The answer to this second question largely depends on whether

Irenaeus understood Jesus to be anointed by the Holy Spirit or by an impersonal Spirit or power of God. The number of answers offered to these questions in the last ﬁfty years almost equals the number of authors that have presented them.

1 Houssiau (1955: 173–86); Fabbri, CyF 12/14 (1956: 7–42); Aeby (1958: 58–67); Orbe (1961:

501–41); Rousseau, SC 210 (1974: 248–52); Orbe, Greg 65 (1984: 5–52); de Andia (1986:

185–223); Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 666–77); Vigne (1992: 78–81); Fantino (1994: 378–81); Orbe,

Greg 76 (1995: 663–99); McDonnell (1996: 57–60, 116–23) Smith, TS 58.4 (1997: 618–42).

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Given such an extensive history of research, it might be surprising to ﬁnd central aspects of Irenaeus' discussion of the Spirit's relationship with Jesus overlooked, yet this is the case. To my knowledge, no study has given adequate weight to Irenaeus' statement that the Spirit became accustomed to the human race by means of the humanity of the Incarnate Word (AH 3.17.1). Nor has any study explained the anointing of Jesus' humanity by the Spirit (AH 3.9.3) while taking into consideration the subsequent gloriﬁcation of that very humanity by the same Spirit. As a result, the discussions of the anointing by the Spirit, a key theme in Irenaeus' theology, have been incomplete.

My answers to the two questions central to this discussion will form the structure of this section. First, I will argue that Irenaeus considered only Jesus' humanity to be anointed by the Spirit. Second, I will contend that the effect of the anointing by the Spirit was a non-qualitative empowerment of Jesus' humanity for the fulﬁllment of the Christological mission.2 During the course of this answer to the second question, I will show that Irenaeus believed the anointing Spirit was the Holy Spirit, rather than an impersonal Spirit or power of God.

The aspects of Irenaeus' thought that have been overlooked in the past, ﬁgure for the most part into our analysis of the effect of the anointing by the Spirit and the identiﬁcation of that Spirit. The correctives they offer, however, also affect the way in which we understand what happened to Jesus' humanity at the Incarnation and his gloriﬁcation. While Jesus' humanity experienced no qualitative change at the time of his anointing in the Jordan, it did undergo one qualitative change before, and one after, that anointing. His humanity received the quality of incorruption in full at the time of, and as a result of, its union with the Word in the Incarnation. The second qualitative change occurred at his gloriﬁcation, when the Holy Spirit rendered the incorruptibility proper to his own ﬂesh communicable to the rest of the human race. It was at this moment that Jesus' humanity became the saving principle for other human beings. Thus, while this section is principally concerned with articulating Irenaeus' understanding of Jesus' anointing by the Holy Spirit, a proper understanding of that anointing both conditions, and is conditioned by, proper understandings of the Incarnation and his gloriﬁcation.

Our consideration of the Incarnation and Jesus' gloriﬁcation will take place at the end of this essay in the third and ﬁnal part of this section. We will begin by considering whether Jesus' humanity and divinity received an anointing by the Spirit, or just his humanity alone.

2 'Christological mission' refers to the sending of the Son by the Father and the attendant events of Jesus' life, as well as their salviﬁc signiﬁcance as described by Scripture and perceived by the Church. I will later use 'Messianic mission' to refer to Jesus' awareness or consciousness of himself as Messiah and of the salviﬁc signiﬁcance of his actions.

↑ Back to top