Intimacy and Immediacy in the Odes of Solomon

chapter 6 Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology: Intimacy and Immediacy in the Odes of Solomon

Henk A. Bakker

1 Introduction

Ever since the commencement of the new quest for the historical Jesus (1953) the phenomenon of pneuma-Christology or Spirit-Christology has been persis- tently debated.1 The wording may be different, but the idea of Jesus incarnated or generated or even adopted by (or as) the Spirit has extensively been explored throughout the last decades by a variety of scholars, such as Myk Habets, David Coffey, Ralph Del Colle, Clark Pinnock, Michael Welker, and Roger Haight. As for the Netherlands, in particular the names of Hendrikus Berkhof, Edward Schillebeeckx, Harry Kuitert, Gerrit van de Kamp, Piet Schoonenberg, Cees den Heijer, Gijs Dingemans, and Kees van der Kooi deservedly receive attention.2 This article contributes to the discussion on pneuma-Christology, especially concerning its early Judeo-Christian identity, by focusing on the Odes of Solomon. More than in other Judeo-Christian sources, in these Odes the Spirit serves the cause of the proximity of God to human beings as exempli- fied in God’s proximity to the logos incarnate. In this way, pneuma-Christology, as a Christological domain of its own, evolves into ‘applied Christology,’ re- enacting the life of Christ in the church. So far, pneuma-Christology and applied Christology have not yet been explored as a bipolar engagement. As to pneuma-Christology, the consensus at this moment—if we may speak of a consensus—is that in the New Testament as well as in other early Christian sources the coming of the Word (logos) and the coming of the Spirit (pneuma) serve complementary interests. They not only cooperate intensively in

1 Cf. Mohan Doss, Christ in the Spirit: Contemporary Spirit Christologies (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2005); Steven Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology: A Trinitarian Modification of Clark H. Pinnock’s Spirit Christology,” Pneuma 28/1 (2006), 5–20; Gerrit C. van de Kamp, Pneuma-Christologie: een oud antwoord op een actuele vraag? (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983); Harold Hunter, “Spirit Christology: Dilemma or Promise?” Heythrop Journal 24/2 (1983), 127–140. 2 See esp. Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_008 94 Bakker salvation history, but even seem to permeate one another. Furthermore, it is not easy to discern who is actually in control, the Word or the Spirit. As it was in the beginning, so it is now: the Spirit (ruach) and the Word (dabar) may be discerned, but cannot be separated.3 Hence, we observe a double, yet complementary, divine action between Jesus and the Spirit.4 On the one hand the Spirit of God brings forth, and carries, the man Jesus, on the other hand the incarnate Word of God brings forth, and carries, the Spirit.5 The Spirit is the Christ-bearer, whereas concurrently the Christ is the Spirit-bearer. We deem this a form of reciprocal enhypostasy.6 In other words: there is no personhood of Jesus besides the Spirit bestowing him and sustaining him, and vice versa: there is no divine Spirit without the Word, the Son of God, breathing him. Neither one destroys the faculty of the other or operates at the expense of the other.7 Looking at textual proof for both perspectives in early sources, pneuma-Christology and logos-Christology (Word- Christology) were certainly not in competition. Between the concepts of logos and pneuma the boundaries ran quite fluently.8 For example, in the Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 150 ce) the pre-existent Holy Spirit was “made to dwell in the chosen flesh,” and the assertion is made that the “spirit is the Son of God.”9 The Son and the Spirit are so close that Jesus is considered not only the Word incarnate, but also the Spirit incarnate. Both proceed from the Father and enter the world in human flesh. This is to say, and to guarantee, that Jesus’ origin lies in eternity and not in time. He is definitely more than a deified prophet.10 Thus, the Spirit plays a central role in the story of God and the Messiah. First the Spirit hovers and breeds over the face of the earth until creation come into being; then the Spirit moulds and folds creation until Israel is called into

3 Gen. 1:2–3. 4 Jan Veenhof, De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt. De identiteit van de Geest van God als relatiestichter (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016), 25–29, 59–65. 5 Cf. Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 410–411. 6 See Piet Schoonenberg, De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon. Theologische overdenkingen over Geest-christologie, Logos-christologie en drieëenheidsleer (Aberbode: Altiora; Kampen: Kok, 1991), 158. 7 See Veenhof, De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt, 61. 8 Cf. Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, 22–44. 9 Hermas 59,5–6; 78.1; translation by Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 176, 211. Cf. 60,2–4; 89,2. Vgl. 2 Clemens 9,5; 14,1–4; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, 2.10; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 3.6. 10 See about Hermas and the Spirit especially C. Haas, De Geest bewaren. Achtergrond en functie van de pneumatologie in de paraenese van de Pastor Hermas (Den Haag: Boekencentrum, 1985), 38–131, and J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 27–170.