The Baptism of Jesus, Irenaeus of Lyons, and His Interpreters

Home , Credentes, Marcosians, Physiologus

Unctus est a Patre Spiritu: The Baptism of Jesus, Irenaeus of Lyons, and his Interpreters

Marcos Antonio Ramos

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of St. Michael’s College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St Michael’s College.

Unctus est a Patre Spiritu: The Baptism of Jesus, Irenaeus of Lyons and his Interpreters

Marcos Antonio Ramos

Doctor of Philosophy in Theology

University of St. Michael’s College

2017

Abstract

This thesis analyzes and contextualizes the bishop of Lyon’s understanding of the role of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan in order to critique different scholarly interpretations of the roles of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the baptism. The detailed study of both the insights of Irenaeus regarding the baptism of Jesus Christ and the interpretation of diverse scholars will demonstrate that there are still important and challenging questions unanswered due to conflicting interpretations of passages from the Irenean corpus. I present on this thesis that there is a need for an analysis of the linguistic and terminological uncertainty in the context of the main theological ideas present in the work of Irenaeus of

Lyons. Irenaeus’ emphasis on unity, progress, and the salvation of the flesh present the reader with a specific framework. This framework situates the flesh of Jesus Christ and his humanity participating in an eminent way in his salvific mission as well as identifying with the progressive plan of God for humanity. A closer look at the theology of Irenaeus could give us a deeper understanding of his notions of the identity of Jesus Christ, including the relationship between his divine and human natures, his development as a human being, and how Irenaeus’ concept of the salus carnis flows from his understanding of the baptism in the Jordan and its process of accustoming the flesh to the Spirit.

Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter I. Historical Context ...... 24

A. Theological Understanding of the Baptism at the Jordan in the second century ..... 24

1. The Role of the Baptism at the Jordan in the Development of a Christian Theology of Baptism ...... 24

2. The Baptism of Jesus in the Gospels: A Source of Reflection and Controversy .... 27

3. The Apostolic Fathers ...... 38

4. Christian Pseudoepigrapha and Apocrypha ...... 57

5. Apologists ...... 63

6. Pseudo-Clementines ...... 68

7. Clement of Alexandria ...... 71

8. Fire and Light ...... 76

9. Positions of Some of the Gnostic and Sectarian Groups ...... 78

B. Noticeable Ideas in the Early Canonical and Non-Canonical Interpretations of the Baptism of Christ ...... 91

Conclusion ...... 98

Chapter II. Examination of the Ideas of Justin Martyr on the Baptism of Christ ...... 100

A. Ideas of Justin Martyr Regarding Christian Baptism ...... 102

1. Fire-Light Motif in the Baptismal Theology of Justin Martyr ...... 106

2. The Holy Spirit in the Baptismal Theology of Justin Martyr ...... 109

iii

3. Contrast Between the Jewish Washings and Christian Baptism ...... 114

4. John the Baptist and His Baptismal Ministry in the Theology of Justin Martyr ... 118

B. Ideas of Justin Martyr Regarding the Baptism of Christ ...... 121

C. Influence of Justin Martyr on Irenaeus of Lyons ...... 144

Conclusion ...... 146

Chapter III. The Theology of Irenaeus on the Baptism of Jesus Christ ...... 149

A. Views of Irenaeus Regarding Christian Baptism ...... 165

B. Theological Positions of Irenaeus of Lyons Regarding Jesus’ Baptism ...... 177

C. Irenaeus and Creation ...... 202

Conclusion ...... 204

Chapter IV. The Effects of the Baptism and the Holy Spirit in the Deification of the Humanity of Christ, According to Irenaeus of Lyons ...... 213

A. The Salvation of the Flesh as an Essential Concept of the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons ...... 246

B. Progress as an Essential Element in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons ...... 259

Conclusion ...... 274

General Conclusion ...... 279

Bibliography ...... 309

Introduction

Theologians of the second century of Christianity were increasingly interested in the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River as described in the Gospels in Matthew 3: 13-17; Mark

1: 4-11; Luke 3: 21-22; and John 1: 29-34. These passages from Scripture were the source of reflections on the nature of Christ, the role of the Spirit in the baptism of Christ, and on the importance of baptism both to Christ personally and to all humanity.

The Church Fathers, in response to the theological challenges presented by dissenting groups, began elaborating on the effect of baptism in the redemption of humanity. The baptism of Jesus was also important for heterodox groups such as the Ebionites and the gnostics. However, the interpretation of these and other dissenting groups was based on many non-Scriptural sources. The Ebionites, influenced by rabbinic tradition, believed in the unity of the nature of the person of God and therefore were not believers in the Trinity.1

For the Ebionites, Jesus was not the Son of God; Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary and thus solely human. Various gnostic systems with their innumerable concerns regarded the baptism of Jesus as an important event. Even though the baptism of Jesus was a soteriological event of decisive importance for such gnostic systems, it was not connected to the Paschal mystery for them. The gnostics regarded baptism symbolically showing the

1 The use of the term “Trinity” is used with the knowledge that the theology of the Trinity was not fully developed during the period studied in this work. The word “Trinity’ was not used before Tertullian created it in the third century. However, there is a general agreement that before the third century established Christian communities practiced baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that a belief in the Father. Son and Spirit was part of the rule of faith of the established Christian communities. For more explanation on this subject, refer to M.C. Steenberg’s Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius (T&T Clark, 2009), pp. 9-10.

1 2 events at the Jordan as the transcendental anointing of a celestial being which happened beyond historical boundaries.

Church theologians of the second century were challenged by groups like the

Ebionites and different branches of Gnosticism (with groups as diverse as the Valentinians,

Marcosians, Ophites and others). The Christian tradition gave importance to the baptism of

Jesus in response to legitimate questions regarding the identity of Jesus Christ and how the baptism in the Jordan influenced Jesus’ life and mission. One of these questions was related to the Gospel passages concerning the baptism of Jesus. Judaic and gnostic groups saw the descent of the Spirit of God in the form of a dove as an indication that Jesus did not receive the Spirit until the baptism. This perception encouraged the Church theologians to ask themselves how one could reconcile the accounts of the baptism of Jesus with the infancy accounts that speak of the action of the Holy Spirit from the conception of Jesus.

There was also the question about the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. The

Synoptic Gospels mention as part of the baptism episode a voice from heaven that said:

“This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17); “You are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11); “You are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). The use of this filial phrasing became the source of a controversy that had at its heart the issue of the identity of Jesus Christ as Son of God. Was the emphasis of the Synoptic Gospels on his “voice from heaven” and its proclamation evidence that Jesus was only human until the moment of his baptism? Was the baptism in the Jordan the real moment of the Incarnation of Christ? Were the events at the Jordan

3 depicted in the Gospels an indication of Adoptionism, another theological controversy of the early centuries?

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Baptism of Jesus

The Fathers commonly believed that Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God and born of the

Virgin Mary, was baptized in the Spirit, at the Jordan, in order to inaugurate his public ministry. There are, however, some differences in the theological anthropologies of the

Fathers. On the one hand, the Alexandrian school saw the soul of Jesus as the principal protagonist of the baptism, while the Spirit anointed the soul of Jesus in order for it to be open to divine acts. The Antiochene school, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of the body of Jesus in the baptism where the Spirit empowered the flesh of Jesus, thus enabling him to realize corporeal works of salvation for all humanity.2

Irenaeus of Lyons (130-c. 202 CE) was a representative of the Antiochene school and his theological reflections on the baptism of Jesus were influential in later theological developments regarding Christ and his mission. The Bishop of Lyons was in continuity with some of the reflections about the baptism of Jesus that were so important for the theology of the second century. At the same time, Irenaeus enriched the theological reflection with some important insights of his own. The baptism of Jesus was defined by Irenaeus as a very important event in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ where his human nature was transformed for the sake of his salvific mission. The Bishop of Lyons also emphasized the prominent and autonomous role of the Spirit in this process at the Jordan which did not

2 Antonio Orbe, Introducción a la teología de los siglos II y III, vol. I, Analecta Gregoriana 248 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1986), 661-663.

4 diminish the divinity of Christ. Rather, the anointing of the Spirit empowered the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ to make the divine gifts available to all humanity and to the Church.

Scholars like Antonio Orbe, Ysabel de Andía, and others had presented their ideas on how the baptism transformed Jesus Christ and enabled him to continue his salvific mission.

These and other authors of the second half of the twentieth century have dedicated a great deal of study to the issues of Irenaeus of Lyons’ interpretations of the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan and his anointing there by the Spirit. Among the specific topics of study for these scholars have been the particular role of the Spirit in relation to the soteriological necessity of the baptism of Jesus, the Trinitarian aspect of the anointing, and the anointing of the

Spirit for the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry. Some of their concerns relate to the identity of the Spirit and the anointing of Jesus as described in the works of Irenaeus.

Passages in Irenaeus that present the Spirit as specific agent in the anointing have motivated scholars to examine if these passages are presenting the Spirit in a Trinitarian context: some in favor (Andía [1986], Briggman [2012]) some against a Trinitarian interpretation (Orbe [1969-1995], Fantino [1995], Smith [1997]). Another aspect studied is the anointing of the Spirit at the Jordan and how this anointing enabled the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ. Albert Houisseau (1955) emphasized an interpretation that became highly influential for future scholars, presenting the Irenean concept of the salvation of humanity as effected through the humanity of Jesus Christ. These scholars also investigated how the anointing of the Spirit might have effected Christ himself. There are arguments for and against the baptism and anointing in the Jordan as a moment of qualitative change in the life of the Incarnate Word.

For these recent interpreters of Irenaeus, what was at stake were issues that defined what they believed to be orthodoxy and a correct interpretation of Irenaeus’ theology.

These issues revolved around Christology and Christ’s two natures: of Christ’s personhood, of soteriology and of how Christ could be Saviour. These issues have been discussed in a diverse manner, with authors such as Orbe, Andía, Smith, Houssiau, and many others presenting different scenarios according to their interpretations of the theology and anthropology of Irenaeus. During the past decade, Anthony Briggman has challenged the position of some of the most renowned scholars3. Briggman posits that the abundant study on Irenaeus’ description of the baptism of Jesus has mostly ignored the statement by the bishop of Lyons that the Spirit has become accustomed to all humanity by means of the humanity of Jesus Christ. Briggman also thinks that no scholar has explained the anointing of the humanity of Jesus by the Spirit in relationship with the succeeding glorification of the humanity of the Word of God by the Spirit. According to Briggman’s position these ignored aspects could be beneficial for a better acknowledgement that the Spirit only anointed the humanity of Jesus. This anointing is perceived by Briggman as a non-qualitative empowerment of the humanity of Jesus Christ that enabled him to fulfill the Christological mission:

According to Irenaeus, then Jesus experienced one anointing by the Spirit, an anointing of his humanity that occurred at his baptism in the Jordan. Moreover, the Spirit who descended upon Jesus was the Holy Spirit, not an impersonal Spirit or power of the Spirit of God. This anointing with the Holy Spirit resulted in a non-qualitative empowerment of Jesus’ humanity so that he could fulfill the messianic mission.4

3 Anthony Briggman, “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” in Journal of Theological Studies 61, 1 (2010): 171-193. 4 Ibid, 193.

Briggman differs with many authors in discarding the notion of the baptism and anointing at the Jordan as a moment of qualitative change in the life of the Incarnate Word. Instead,

Briggman presents the Incarnation and glorification of Jesus Christ as the main and only instances of qualitative change.

Thesis Statement

The influence of Irenaeus on other writers of the early Church was followed by a period of relative obscurity during the medieval era. The Renaissance brought new recognition of Irenaeus’ work. This recognition produced some negative assessments by both Catholic and Protestant scholar’s due to the significantly different views of Irenaeus regarding original sin and the economy of salvation in comparison to the Augustinian tradition prevalent in Western theology. This theological divergence could have hindered theologians and believers from perceiving the views of Irenaeus regarding the baptism of

Christ in the Jordan as an important contribution both to Christology and to baptismal theology.

A closer look at the theology of Irenaeus could give us a deeper understanding of his notions of the identity of Jesus Christ, including the relationship between his divine and human natures and his development as a human being, as well as Irenaeus’s concept of how salus carnis flows from his understanding of the baptism in the Jordan and its process of accustoming the flesh to the Spirit. Irenaeus also brought important insights to the role of the Spirit in relation to Christ and humanity.

This thesis contextualizes and analyzes Irenaeus’ understanding of the event of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan in order to critique different scholarly interpretations of the roles of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the baptism. This analysis discusses the virtues and faults of past and contemporary interpretations and offers, where appropriate, an alternative or corrective interpretation. The detailed study of both the insights of Irenaeus regarding the baptism of Jesus Christ and the interpretation of diverse scholars demonstrates that there are still important and challenging unanswered questions due to conflicting interpretations of passages from the Irenean corpus.

Procedure and Methodology

The thesis is divided in four parts with an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter is a preliminary presentation on how the second century viewed the baptism at the

Jordan in order to understand the context in which Irenaeus worked and the theological positions he debated. The chapter will discuss the practice of baptism in the second century, the role of baptism in the Jordan in the development of a Christian theology of baptism, and the positions of some of the heterodox groups that were present at the time. There are references to the works of scholars like Antonio Orbe, Eric Osborn, Daniel Vigne, Everett

Ferguson and others. There are four noticeable concepts of early interpretations of the baptism of Jesus that will be analyzed. One of these conspicuous ideas (present in canonical and non-canonical writings) is that the descent of the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus is an event sometimes interpreted as the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:2. Another recurring idea in early interpretations is the event at the Jordan as the initiation of the messianic ministry of

Jesus Christ. A third concept is the identification and revelation of Jesus during the baptism, with diverse interpretations regarding the identity of Jesus. A fourth persistent element is related to the purification either of the water or of Jesus (depending on the source) and the relation of this purification with the purification of humanity.

The second chapter examines the baptism of Christ with the ideas of Justin Martyr, an important influence on Irenaeus and other authors. The study of Justin will serve as an example of how earlier theologians were at pains to reflect and explain the baptism of

Christ as something not in opposition to the Christian faith. In his Dialogue with Trypho,

Justin presented the events at the Jordan as necessary only for the sake of humanity; Jesus was not personally in need of the descent of the Spirit. For Justin, the Gospel narratives show evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in Christ, gifts that were later passed on to humanity in virtue of the baptism of Christ. Likewise, the baptism in the Jordan was and is a manifestation for the Christian community of the graces of the Spirit that are bestowed on

Christians through baptism.

Justin’s interpretation is not without difficulties. His concern about discarding any notion of adoptionism regarding the baptism of Christ, as well as his emphasis on humanity as the only recipient of the events at the Jordan, does not dispel nor explain the interpretations presented by the Gospel writers on baptism as a time of the initiation of

Jesus into his ministry as Son of God. Also, Justin’s emphasis on the baptism as a manifestation of the true nature of Jesus to the whole world is not without some problems, as Justin used non-authoritative references also used by the Ebionites.

The third chapter is a presentation of the theological positions of Irenaeus of Lyons regarding the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan and its relevance for soteriology and christology. Here the particular role of the Spirit will be discussed in relation to the soteriological necessity of the baptism of Jesus, the Trinitarian aspect of the anointing, and the anointing of the Spirit for the inauguration of his public ministry.

A later portion of the third chapter discusses the relationship between the Trinitarian notions of Irenaeus and his interpretation of Jesus’s baptism at the Jordan. Among other passages, there is analysis of Adversus haereses III.18.3, a passage that has generated diverse interpretations from scholars, some advocating for a Trinitarian interpretation of it

(Andia, McDonnell, Briggman, among them) and others against it (Smith, Fantino, Orbe, among others). The anointing of the Spirit in the Jordan and how this anointing inaugurated the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ (chapter 9, Adversus haereses) is examined. The interpretation of Antonio Orbe, influential for future discussions, was that the anointing of the Spirit affected Jesus in his humanity, though the Word, in his divine nature, did not need the anointing. 5 Other authors, like Richard Norris, believed passages in Irenaeus concerning the anointing of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism being proper to humanity established a connection between Jesus Christ and all created persons:

One must conclude, therefore, that Irenaeus’ Christology does indeed involve or entail an anthropological vision, but also that it speaks with a somewhat uncertain voice. For him it is unquestionably the Incarnate Word who is the proper model of humanity; and this assertion accords both with his sense that humankind has a transcendent destiny and with his conviction that the destiny in question belongs to fleshly, historical persons. The force of this

5 Antonio Orbe, La unción del Verbo, vol.3 of Estudios Valentinianos, Analecta Gregoriana 113 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1961), 510.

position, however, depends at once on belief that the true original of humanity is the divine Logos, and on a conviction that Jesus considered simply as a human being ‘sums up’ the nature and destiny of Adam’s race. 6

Norris’ analysis of the theology of Irenaeus shows how his exegesis presented a different understanding of the baptism at the Jordan from previous writers, like Justin Martyr. While

Justin saw the baptism merely as a sign of the power of Christ, Irenaeus went further and proclaimed the divinity of Jesus Christ without diminishing the reality of the descent of the

Spirit. In the exegesis of Irenaeus there was no confusion between the Word and the Spirit, to which Justin’s reflections were susceptible. Irenaeus also posited the idea that the salvation of humanity is effected through the humanity of Jesus Christ. The significance of

Jesus’ humanity is in itself important for future christological developments, as Irenaeus declared that the reality of all the mysteries of the human life of Christ is maintained without a diminishment of his divinity.

The fourth chapter investigates whether there were any effects of the anointing of the

Spirit on Christ. A closer look at the writings of Irenaeus suggests an affirmative answer.

Nonetheless, there are a variety of interpretations regarding this issue. I present in this section the main arguments for and against the baptism and anointing in the Jordan as a moment of qualitative change in the life of the Incarnate Word and my own critique of these arguments. I think that the analyses of scholars as Fantino, Orbe, Houssiau, Andía,

Smith, Vigne, Briggman and others are important in order to be aware that the idea of a qualitative change in Jesus Christ is still as controversial and challenging as it was in the times when Irenaeus created his theological corpus. One of the issues discussed is the way

6 Richard Norris, “The Problems of Human Identity in Patristic Christological Speculation,” in Studia Patristica 17, vol. 1 (Oxford: Pergamon, 1982), 152.

11 that Irenaeus used the term “Christ.” This usage has been the source of divergence between different scholars and their interpretations concerning the significance of the baptism of

Jesus in his development as a human being. Passages from Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (like

AH III.9.3, and III.12.7) have provoked these disagreements in interpretation.

According to some scholars there is also the notion that the anointing of the Spirit did not produce any substantial change in the Incarnate Word. Other scholars regard the baptism as having a more significant effect on Jesus Christ. Antonio Orbe believed there were two elements in the life of Jesus: the Incarnation, when the Word assumed human flesh and the anointing or baptism of the Spirit in the Jordan, where Jesus was anointed in his flesh by the Spirit and made Jesus Christ. 7 The position of Orbe has been challenged by other scholars, in particular Ysabel de Andía who believes that there is in Jesus a unique mystery, the mystery of the Word made flesh, a person both human and divine. There are also the mysteries of the life of Jesus, where the humanity of Jesus is acquainted with the

Spirit in a progressive way and becomes the source of the gift of the Spirit to humanity.8

It is my opinion that the apparent tension that some scholars ascribe to any designation of a qualitative change in the humanity of Jesus Christ during the events at the

Jordan denotes a fear that the qualitative change implies that Jesus Christ was not “all there” from the beginning of his existence. There is also unease when writers imply that Irenaeus used concepts from the groups he was attacking to elaborate his christological arguments.

The pneumatology of Irenaeus is also a contentious factor that polarizes scholars. The

7 Orbe, La unción del Verbo, 632-633. 8 Ysabel de Andía, Homo vivens: incorruptibilité et divinization de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyon (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986), 201.

12 ambiguous way that Irenaeus presents the Spirit in this work could be a cause for concern as scholars deal with the issue of a qualitative change in the humanity of Jesus at the moment of the baptism. I suggest that an analysis of the different postures contributes to a finer understanding of Irenaeus’ view of baptism as an event that is revelatory of both our understanding of Jesus Christ and our understanding of Christian baptism. The apparent ambiguities of the Bishop of Lyons are the product of his own historical context and his own situation. A more detailed analysis of Irenaeus’ position shows his rigorous use of Scripture as well as his awareness of the theological language of his era. A general conclusion summarizes my main findings.

This close study of the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons regarding the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan gleans us some important contributions from this second century author. My study of the work of Irenaeus makes me conclude that the author presented the baptism in the Jordan as an event of transformation for Jesus, a significant stage in his development as a human being, as well as an event of transformation of the human nature of Jesus Christ for the sake of his salvific mission. Irenaeus proclaims the redemption of humanity through the sanctified flesh of Jesus Christ, subsequently declaring the holiness of the flesh of humanity. The ideas of Irenaeus will presage subsequent reflections about the person and natures of Christ, concerns that are still relevant to our day. Essential in this process is the

Spirit, who acquires a prominent and autonomous role in the life of Jesus as a turning point in the history of salvation. Irenaeus went beyond the theologians of his time in presenting the Spirit in a less subordinated manner in relationship with the Father and, at the same time, not confusing the Spirit with the divinity of Christ.

Implications

The study of the different interpretations of the theology of baptism by Irenaeus of

Lyons show a process of interpretation that does not differ much from the issues and concerns of theologians of the first centuries of the Christian tradition. A pioneer theologian like Irenaeus remains a challenge to contemporary theologians, as we try to be objective in analyzing his theological ideas while holding our own theological, liturgical, and ideological background in the process. A critical analysis of these contemporary interpretations of

Irenaeus is in itself an analysis of the theological background of the interpreters and how the apparent conflict in their interpretations comes sometimes from a use of terminology that is not always consistent either with the work of Irenaeus or with his th eological and liturgical tradition.

This particularity of the process of interpretation of the work of Irenaeus has been very much an issue since the first edition of Adversus haereses was created in 1526 by

Erasmus of Rotterdam. Paul Parvis presents an analysis of the process of editorial development of Adversus haereses and how each editor through the centuries has made the work of the Bishop of Lyons his own and a response to his own theological and ecclesiological conundrums.9 Parvis’ analysis reminds us of the reality that no interpretation of an author is totally objective, as it is in itself a reflection of the values and prejudices of the interpreter.

9 Paul Parvis, “Packaging Irenaeus: Adversus haereses and Its Editors”, in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011): 183-198.

This overview by Paul Parvis is highly informative as it shows the desire of the editors of Irenaeus to adapt his words to the ecclesial and theological background of the times they lived. For nearly three hundred years the editions were created in reaction and dialogue with each other. Each of these editions was constructed from a specific viewpoint with the purpose of looking for specific aspects of the text that appeal to the specific concerns of the editor. Therefore, any text exists in a context, and every context is not similar to the one of past generations. This reality extends to any scholar who has studied the work of Irenaeus of Lyons, as he or she will interpret Irenaeus according to his or her own doctrinal, cultural, and historical background.

Parvis presents a chronological account of the edtions of Adversus haereses and the particularities of the different editors. The very first edition prepared by Erasmus of

Rotterdam was based on a manuscript by Johannes Fabri copied in Rome. The dedicatory epistle by Erasmus to Bernard von Cles, Bishop of Trent, presents Irenaeus using expressions used by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. Irenaeus is described as a man of peace who defended the peace in the church. Erasmus compares the troubles that Irenaeus faced with the situation of those in the time of Erasmus who troubled the world with their quarrels, writing books that promoted division. In his description of Irenaeus’ work,

Erasmus is not certain if Adversus haereses was originally written in Latin or Greek. However,

Erasmus tended to think that the original was Latin. Irenaeus is described by Erasmus as logical, organized, knowledgeable of the liberal arts, and someone who preached against heresy relying mostly on Scripture. This description is very much in consonance with the values that Erasmus wanted to portray in his work. Erasmus dedicates space in his edition to

15 study the apologetic crusade that Irenaeus had against heresy and division. In 1526 Erasmus was himself struggling with the historical and religious situation in Europe and his own conflicted position between his agreement with the principles of the Reformers and their challenge to the Roman church and his own support of the Catholic faith and loyalty to the institution. At the time, Catholic theologians attacked Erasmus and saw his work as unorthodox. Attacks also came from Luther, who considered Erasmus an atheist. The edition of Adversus haereses presents the text only in its Latin version without much help regarding annotations by Erasmus. The few notes include some Greek phrases and some suggestions about how these phrases could have been used by Irenaeus. The work was produced in haste and there are a significant number of errors, but it is nonetheless the first edition of Adversus haereses and it has its indisputable value. It is also an edition where

Erasmus described Ireneaus as Irenaerum meum and associated the struggles of second century Gaul with his own historical struggles.10 In his edition Erasmus presents Irenaeus as a man of peace who could be an example of unity amid the profound division of Christianity during the sixteenth century.

The next edition of Adversus haereses was published in 1570 by Nicolas de Gallars

(Gallasius). Gallasius was a reformed pastor from Geneva and a close collaborator of Calvin who later served for a while as pastor of a French Protestant Church in London. After suffering some persecution, Gallasius was encouraged by the reformer Theodore Bezae (of

Codex Bezae fame) to study the writers of early Christianity. Gallasius decided to study

Irenaeus of Lyons. In his editorial work Gallatius was firm in presenting a close similarity

10 Ibid., 184-185.

16 between the refutation of heresies in early Christianity and the religious warfare in sixteenth century Europe. Among the contemporary groups that are compared to the groups that Irenaeus debated are some Protestant groups like the Anabaptists and

Antinomians, as well as the Papists. Gallasius presents Irenaeus as an example of how contemporary reformers needed to deal with dissenting groups by using the teachings of

Christ and the Apostles to scrutinize every religious doctrine and practice. The edition is significant in its acceptance that Irenaeus wrote Adversus haereses in Greek, with an addition of the Greek text for Book I quoted by Epiphanius. Gallasius followed Bezae’s indication regarding chapters and summaries and provided his own summaries at the start of each chapter. Gallatius added extensive notes to the text in a strong effort to reconcile

Irenaeus with the tenets of the editor’s Calvinistic beliefs, comparing some of the gnostic groups challenged by Irenaeus with doctrinal positions of both Catholicism and other branches of Protestantism. Gallasius’ edition accomplished more accessibility to the reader and initiated a series of editions of Adversus haereses that engaged in conversations and reactions with older texts and editions. 11

Gallasius’ editorial style certainly elicited reactions. The Franciscan Friar Francis

Feuardent, Doctor and professor of Theology in Paris, produced two editions of Adversus haereses, one in Paris in 1575 and a much revised one for Cologne in 1596. The preface of

Feuardent was done with a direct criticism of Gallasius’ edition, and an assurance that

Feuardent’s notes included quotes from other Fathers of the Church with the intent of

11 Ibid., 188.

17 guiding the reader to a correct interpretation according to the doctrinal and liturgical norms of the Roman Catholic Church, as a response to the previous edition:

In addition to this, the heretics after their own fashion—especially the men of Magdeburg [that is, the Centuriators] and a certain Nicolaus Gallasius, a preacher of the Calvinistic pestilence at one time in Geneva, then in Orleans, afterward as they say in Basque country—industriously corrupted many passages from this writer, which it was worthwhile and fitting to restore and vindicate from their false interpretation.12

The analysis of Feuardent’s edition brings insights into the interpretation that scholars have given to Irenaeus’ work, an analysis that is in connection with the implications of this thesis.

The edition is indicative of the need to study Irenaeus not only by his texts but by a comparative evaluation of the ideas of his most important interpreters. Among the accomplishments of Feuardent’s edition is a greater construction of the Latin text with the help of additional manuscripts, besides those used in previous editions, as well as the incorporation of the last chapter of Book V of Adversus haereses. And Feuardent’s edition complements the text of other chapters. Feuardent’s annotations to each chapter are quite extensive making direct connections between the heresies of the Valentinians and

Marcionites, as referred to by Irenaeus, with the ideas of Luther and Calvin, and all in a virulent style. The 1596 edition is fuller and complemented with Greek fragments from

Eusebius, Theodoret, and Epiphanius. There are also more pugnacious annotations using concepts of Irenaeus in order to attack the doctrines of the Reformers.

It would take two more centuries to experience new editions of Adversus haereses.

There were two eighteenth century editions also created to react to previous editions. John

12 Ibid., 189.

Ernst Grabe published an edition of Adversus haereses in 1702, dedicated to King Frederick

III of Prussia. Grabe used again the idea of Irenaeus as a man of peace, but in this case using the Bishop of Lyons’ name to establish a connection with the monarch to whom the edition was dedicated. Grabe established that the name Irenaeus is the same as Frederick, Irenaeus in Greek and Frederick in German, and that the king was also related to Irenaeus in his effort to establish religious harmony in his kingdom. This edition by Grabe is a vast improvement on its predecessors, with insights of concepts from Adversus haereses that predate later studies inspired by the discovery of the Armenian version of the text

(published in the early twentieth century). An important insight from Grabe’s edition that will be influential for future interpretations is that the editor departs from the interpretation of Erasmus and Feuardent regarding Irenaeus’ approach to the apostolic tradition and the Roman church. Grabe posited that the idea that Irenaeus created the arguments against dissenting groups using only Scripture is erroneous: “…it is plain and evident to all that Irenaeus overcame the Gnostics, not merely with the help of the

Scriptures, but also by the tradition and by the words and writings of the Fathers.”13

René Massuet was a French Benedictine who published his edition in 1710. He wrote because he felt that Grabe’s work was plagued with a false interpretation based on a desire to make Irenaeus a proto-Anglican. Massuet’s preface is clear in declaring that his edition was produced as a reaction to Grabe’s edition, in order to have an accurate and Catholic version that could guide the faithful. This version, perhaps the most lavish of all, has a preface and three lengthy dissertations on the gnostics, the life and works of Irenaeus of

13 Ibid., 192.

Lyons, and his doctrine. Among the contributions of this edition is a different set of chapter divisions and subdivisions, with footnotes. Needless to say, an edition that was provoked by another edition may still suffer from a polemical angle. Massuet presented Irenaeus as an author whose work confirmed and clarified several fundamental dogmas of the Catholic faith that were professed in the ecclesial practice of the eighteenth century. For that reason,

Massuet believed his edition of Adversus haereses established the work of Irenaeus as an apologetic instrument capable of refuting the positions of authors from the Reformation.

Massuet’s accomplished edition was to remain highly respected and uncontested for the next hundred and fifty years.

In 1857 W. Wigan Harvey contributed to the scholarship on Irenaeus of Lyons with his

Cambridge edition. Harvey, an established vicar and scholar of the Anglican communion, dedicated his work to reconcile the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England with the teachings of the Early Church writers. His edition of Adversus haereses is very abundant in patristic references. The preface to Harvey’s edition has a brief overview of previous texts and editions, followed by a “Preliminary Matter” of 151 pages. After the body of the text there is an essay on the life and writings of Irenaeus of Lyons with an explanation on the characteristics of the Latin version as well as the similarities of Irenaeus’ thought with concepts expressed on the Thirty-Nine Articles. Harvey’s notes to the text are learned, brief, and for the first time in any edition in a language other than Latin. Even with the obvious anti-tractarian interpretation of the text, Harvey contributes in a significant manner to the understanding of the text by making it more accessible, and he brought new fragments from the Syriac and Armenian versions of Adversus haereses.

The latest edition (1965-1982) of Adversus haereses is the work of Dom Adelin

Rousseau who brought an even more extensive study than in previous editions, with ten thick volumes. Rousseau had benefitted from, for the first time in the history of editions of the work, a systematic use of the Armenian text. Rousseau’s notes are erudite and informative, and they are disengaged from the Catholic-Protestant diatribes of the previous editions. Rousseau’s work is considered the first truly critical edition of Adversus haereses.

Rousseau analyzed Irenaeus’ work (and its translations) with much engagement using modern secondary works. Also, he did not base his work on previous editions but sought to clarify only to ascertain their manuscript base. 14

Parvis’ overview on the history of the editions of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses is highly informative and related to the purpose of my research. There has been little work done regarding the analysis of the editors and interpreters of the work of Irenaeus of Lyons and how these scholars were influenced by their own historical and religious background. A history of the diverse interpretations that scholars have given to the baptismal theology of

Irenaeus is important in order to compare these interpretations with a historical-critical analysis of the historical and ecclesial context of Irenaeus.

The study of the theological ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons on the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan brings implications of liturgical and theological concerns that are still relevant for our time. Irenaeus presents in his work reflections about Jesus Christ and Christian baptism that are not only his own, but also influenced by the liturgical and spiritual heritage of his time and context. Many studies about Irenaeus of Lyons have emphasized so much on

14 Ibid., 196-197.

21 his original contributions that there is a tendency to place him in a seemingly isolated status.

This isolation could be explained in part as the result of his status as pioneer systematic theologian, with insights that sound so related to contemporary Christian theology. A comparative analysis of the interpretations of his theological ideas and a comparison with the liturgical and ecclesial tradition of the second century could however place his innovative insights in dialogue with his historical context and show how his theology was not the fruit of an isolated intellectual effort. Consequently, the corpus of Irenaeus of Lyons was created in a liturgical and ecclesiological context that used the baptism and anointing of

Jesus in the Jordan as an important paradigm for baptismal rituals.

The baptismal theology of Irenaeus of Lyons presented Christ as an exemplar to emulate, the anointed one who showed humanity the way to encounter the grace of God in both our body and soul. Jesus Christ was seen as the advocate between God and humanity, permitting men and women to become again acquainted with the divine life in a process of progressive glorification given by God to all those willing to accept the divine grace. This emphasis was maintained during the first centuries of Christianity even during the difficulties in interpretation that occurred regarding the New Testament depictions of the baptism of Jesus and its meaning for Christology.

As a result, there is a prominence given in the baptismal theology of Irenaeus to a direct identification between Christians and the Spirit given at baptism. The theological closeness between the baptized and the Holy Spirit evident in the theology of the first centuries of the Christian era defines the sacrament of baptism as the moment where the

Spirit is given to humanity. The gift of the Spirit is presented as a sanctifying effect of baptism, the moment when men and women are incorporated into Jesus Christ and anointed for mission and discipleship, a turning point in the life of any Christian follower.

This baptismal understanding could be highly beneficial for the faithful today. The theological developments of the Middle Ages with its gradual emphasis on the Pauline view of baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ has obscured the relationship of the faithful with the Holy Spirit in baptism.15 This medieval development has been accompanied by a liturgical practice that has separated the sacraments of initiation and consequently the imagery of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan has been discarded from the liturgy and preaching of the baptismal liturgy. This phenomenon, particularly evident in the Western tradition, has placed Christ at the very center of the sacrament, with a very ancillary role for the Spirit. This dissertation is an invitation to examine how we are referring today to the Holy Spirit in the baptismal liturgy and how Christians could regard the baptism of Christ as a valuable event for both the understanding of the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ and an invitation for the faithful to be inspired and transformed by this event.

Methodology

This thesis studies in detail the insights of Irenaeus regarding the baptism of Jesus

Christ in the Jordan and how diverse scholars have interpreted the roles of Christ and the

Spirit in the baptismal event. There is a description on the historical and ecclesiological background that was part of the development of Irenaeus’ theology, as well as a historical-

15Kilian McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 236-247.

23 critical analysis that examines the texts, context and theological interpretation of Irenaeus in comparison with his contemporaries. This work is particularly intended to present a history of the different interpretations that scholars have given to the baptismal theology of

Irenaeus and its relation to pneumatology and soteriology. This dissertation compares and contrasts various interpreters of Irenaeus’ baptismal theology (Orbe, Andía, Houssiau,

Fantino and others) and presents how there are important and challenging questions still unanswered due to the divergences regarding the interpretation of passages and the concepts used by Irenaeus. An author like Irenaeus needs to be analyzed not only by reading his texts but also by a comparative and critical evaluation of the ideas of his most prominent interpreters and how they have influenced our own interpretation of the

Irenaean corpus, in some cases obscuring the original texts in order to give interpretations that are more in conformity with contemporary theological positions. This effort could bring a greater insight into the theology of Irenaeus according to context and recognize the influence of the bishop of Lyons in his time and in subsequent centuries of the Christian era, as well as the implications of a “retrieved” Irenaean baptismal theology for contemporary theology and ecclesial practice.

Chapter I-Historical Context

A. Theological understanding of the baptism at the Jordan in the second century

In order to understand the context in which Irenaeus worked and the theological positions he debated this chapter is a broad presentation on how second century theologians viewed the baptism at the Jordan. The chapter will discuss the practice of baptism in the second century, the role of the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan in the development of a Christian theology of baptism, and the positions of some of the diverse gnostic groups that were present at the time. The last part of the chapter will analyze four noticeable concepts of early interpretations of the baptism of Jesus: the descent of the

Spirit, the beginning of the messianic ministry of Jesus, the identification and revelation of

Jesus, and the purification of water or of Jesus (in his identification with humanity).16

1. The Role of the Baptism at the Jordan in the Development of a Christian Theology of Baptism

This section deals with the influence of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and an elaboration of an understanding of Christian baptism in the second century. The study of the insights of diverse authors is helpful in order to bring to the fore the historical, ecclesiological, and theological background that was part of the theology of Irenaeus of

Lyons. The awareness of the theological development of second century authors regarding

16 It is important to note that when this chapter refers to the development of a Christian theology of baptism the chapter is not referring to dogmatic statements. “Dogma” as defined as the formal definition and communication of core beliefs of the Christian faith is a concept that has historical power in the wake of the ecumenical councils that started in the fourth century. During the second century there were solid convictions of specifics of the Christian doctrine. However, the concept of “dogma” refers to definitions which were declared much later than the time of Irenaeus of Lyons and his contemporaries.

24 25

Jesus and his baptism will provide a better understanding of the context and theological interpretation of Irenaeus in comparison with his contemporaries.

An analysis of the earliest data, from the New Testament to the first non- canonical writings in the Christian tradition, presents baptism as a rite of initiation into the Christian community. The New Testament writings confirm this in an indirect manner, from the

Pauline letters, and their insistence on baptismal imagery through the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, with their depictions of baptismal practices and the proclamation of the

Risen Christ to his disciples as part of the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the

Holy Spirit….” (Matthew 28:19-20). Baptism is depicted in these New Testament books as a necessary condition for salvation, and a reflection of the beliefs of the first Christian communities in Palestine.17

It seems that from the establishment of the Christian tradition the baptism with water was done with a Trinitarian formula and accompanied by the laying on of hands, representing the gift of the Spirit on the recipient. The second century also brought some additions to the baptismal rite, like anointing.

There is evidence of a reference to a prebaptismal anointing in the attributed writings of Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 CE). He wrote that a catechumen, after renouncing Satan, received a first anointing with the oil of exorcism. There was a second anointing after triple immersion and the confession of faith. This anointing with the oil of thanksgiving had two parts. There was one anointing by the priest in the baptistery where the priest would say to

17 Frederic C. Grant, “Early Christian Baptism,” Anglican Theological Review 27 no.4 (1945): 253-263.

26 the catechumen: “I anoint you with sacred oil in the name of Jesus Christ.” A second anointing on the head was given by the bishop in the church after the laying on of hands, with the formula: “I anoint you with holy oil in the almighty Father, in Christ Jesus and in the

Holy Spirit.” 18

Jewish Christian theology placed a pronounced importance on the baptism of Christ, regarding it as even more important than the Nativity. Several authors, among them Jean

Daniélou, suggested that this emphasis was caused by the influence of the Essene movement and its relationship with John the Baptist.19 John’s practice of baptism by immersion was in concordance with the characteristics of the Essene Baptist movement, as well as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as an eschatological symbol. Daniélou establishes the resemblance between the outpouring of the Spirit in Christian baptism with the eschatological effusion that was prominent in the Qumrân texts.

An important element discussed by Judeo-Christian theology is the descent of Jesus into the Jordan. The Testament of Asher (from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, written circa the end of the second century), presents the descent of Jesus in this way:

Quand le Seigneur visitera (ἐπισχέψψηται) la terre, lui-même étant venu comme un home parmi les hommes, mangeant et buvant et dans la tranquillité (ήσυχία) écrasant la tête du dragon par l’eau (δι ᾽ ὕδατοϛ), il sauvera Israël et toutes les nations, Dieu portant une figure (ὑποκρινόμενοϛ) d’homme.20

The passage has evident Christian influence and presents a connection between the baptism in the Jordan and the Passion of Christ. There is also in the passage a presentation

18 Ysabel de Andia, “Anointing,” Communio 25 (Summer 1998): 214-292. 19 Jean Daniélou, Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme : Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée vol. I (Tournai :Desclèe, 1958) : 247-248. 20 Testament de XII Patriarches, VII.3, Texte grec, par R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1908) as cited in Daniélou, 248.

27 of the baptism of Christ as a prefiguration of Christian baptism, both in the consecration of the waters and the connection of the descent into the waters with the Paschal Mystery.

2. The Baptism of Jesus in the Gospels: A Source of Reflection and Controversy

The baptismal significance in the Christian tradition was also based on the Gospel passages depicting the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan River. However, it is important to remember that the passages from the Gospels describing the baptism of Jesus Christ were in themselves a source for controversy and divergent opinions about the interpretation of the event at the Jordan. To begin with, John the Baptist was part of a baptismal movement in Palestine and Syria that was very influential for early Christianity.

There is a large consensus on the belief that John baptized his disciples in the Jordan River and that some of the followers of John became disciples of Jesus, as can be seen in John

1:35-42.

At the same time the four Gospels are insistent in the presentation of John the Baptist as an announcer of a greater successor. The Gospels also presented the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus, with an emphasis that Jesus is the one announced by the Baptist

(Mark 1:8). The Four Gospels agree in three elements in their depictions of the baptism in the Jordan: the splitting of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, and the emergence of the voice from heaven declaring Jesus the Son, the Beloved. There is also unanimity in the Gospel accounts on depicting the ministerial, public life of Jesus after the anointing by the Spirit. The Synoptics will add further importance to the baptismal event, with an emphasis on the Spirit guiding Jesus into the desert to be tempted. The accounts

28 could also imply Jesus’ awareness of his baptism in the Jordan as a way of fulfilling the will of God and an acknowledgment of the validity of John the Baptist’s prophetic role.

a. The Gospel of Mark

The account in Mark 1:4-11 has been described by tradition as the first witness to the baptism, with the other two Synoptic Gospels using elements of Mark for their accounts.

Mark’s account of the baptism of Jesus emphasizes the superiority of Jesus over John. In contrast with the other people who came for baptism, Jesus does not confess sins. Jesus was baptized by John “in [είϛ] the Jordan River.” The Greek preposition είϛ literally means

“into,” but the expression was also used to designate the preposition “in,” and could be interpreted as a confirmation that Jesus was baptized by immersion in concordance with studies indicating that John’s baptism was of immersion like other Jewish washings of the time.21 There are references to passages from different segments from the Hebrew

Scriptures presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies with the voice from heaven proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God (“You are my Son, the Beloved”) and expanding the content of Psalm 2: 7. These words are spoken only to Jesus, not to John nor the spectators.

The account in Mark presents Jesus as the sole subject of the event in the Jordan: the opening of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit, and the proclamation of the heavenly voice. The words from heaven as well as the anointing with the Spirit also imply that Jesus is the Messiah. The other part of the proclamation “with you I am well pleased” refers to

Isaiah 42:1 and suggests the relationship with the Servant of Yahweh, the figure in the book

21 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 101-102.

29 of Isaiah destined to establish a covenant between God and humanity by virtue of his suffering and death. These allusions can be also found in other chapters of the Gospel of

Mark. In Mark 11:27-33, Jesus is asked about the basis of his authority and Jesus’ counter argument is based on John’s baptism and its validity. Jesus is presented in the Synoptic

Gospels as a defender of the validity of John’s baptism. 22 Mark’s account also made clear that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan, as opposed to some early Christian art depicting

John the Baptist pouring water from his hand or from a shell above a standing Jesus. Mark makes clear to the reader that Jesus was already the Son of God at the baptism. However, this is the same Gospel where Jesus never directly reveals his divine identity to his disciples.

b. The Gospel of Luke

The account of the Gospel of Luke (3:21-22) is the most brief on the baptism of Jesus in the New Testament, even when the Lukan narrative has the most detailed presentation on the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke’s account presents the description of the event in a more passive and detached manner: “heaven opened and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove; and there came a voice from heaven….” The passage still presents the experience as something pertaining only to Jesus, with no indication of other participants. Luke has already recognized Jesus as Savior, Lord, Messiah, and Son in previous chapters. The account of the baptism in the Jordan adds two other elements from the account by Mark: Jesus appears praying when the heavens opened after the baptism, and the Spirit is described as descending in the form of a dove. The description of Jesus as

“my beloved Son” is in concordance with previous references in the Gospel to Jesus as “Son

22 Kilian McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 1-3.

30 of God” (1:35). Various Latin transcriptions of the Gospel as well as the Codex Bezae elaborate on this declaration with the next words of Psalm 27: “Today I have begotten you.”

This evidence is in agreement with other early Christian texts that present the heavenly voice using the full phrase from Psalm 27, interpreting the psalm in a messianic context.23

There is no reference to John the Baptist in the passage nor to his reaction to the event, thus making a more emphatic stance on Jesus’ presence and reducing the dangers of a subordination of Jesus to John. There is also an emphasis on the baptism, anointing, and declaration of the sonship of Jesus taking place during (and perhaps because of) his prayer, similar to the transfiguration description found in Luke’s ninth chapter.24

c. The Gospel of Matthew

The baptismal account of the Gospel of Matthew (3:13-17) also adds to the diversity of interpretations, with a description more detailed than in the other Gospel accounts.

Matthew’s narrative comprises the main elements found in Mark and in Luke while adding some particular points. Jesus is identified as Messiah from the first verse of the Gospel in the introduction to the genealogy (1:1). The description of John the Baptist as a forerunner to the Messiah appears before the baptismal narrative. Through the genealogy and the baptismal account Matthew presents a Jesus perceived as a prophetic Messiah, empowered by the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit is both a sign of the eschatological era brought by

Jesus and the sign of his power as Messiah. Matthew presents a Baptist who objects to baptizing Jesus, an addition probably reflecting the embarrassment of earlier Christian communities to the situation of having the sinless Jesus seeking a baptism of repentance for

23 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 102-103. 24 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 7.

31 the forgiveness of sins. Matthew’s narrative is firm in presenting the intention of Jesus to be baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (3:15). The expression for righteousness or justice in Matthew (δικαιοσύνην) is very much present throughout the gospel, and it has the meaning or context of obedience to the will of God and doing what is right. Along with other scholars, Kilian McDonnell posits that in this context the fulfillment of all righteousness could mean that the baptism of Jesus by John is a sign of the design of God to show the solidarity of Jesus with humanity.25 Matthew also adds a dialogue between John the Baptist and Jesus, where the Baptist says: “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” and Jesus answers: “Let it be so now.” This dialogue could be seen as a way for early Christians to respond to the objections of pagans regarding Jesus being subordinate to John or needing to be baptized because of personal sin. The expression “to fulfill all righteousness” could be interpreted as a sign of Jesus as the Servant of God, carrying the sufferings of humanity.

The Gospel of Matthew is the only account where the voice of heaven is presented using the third person, i.e., “This is my Son, the Beloved….” instead of the second person used in the other Synoptic Gospels, i.e., “You are….” Nonetheless, there is in this account a similarity with Mark and Luke in its implication that only Jesus heard the voice from heaven and saw the descent of the Spirit. At the same time Matthew is the only writer who uses the full phrase “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased,” the same phrase used later in the Transfiguration account (17:5). This phrase could also be related to the

Trinitarian formula used at the end of the Gospel, with a Father who spoke from heaven, a

25 Ibid., 17-18.

Son who was revealed, and a Spirit who descended.26 In Matthew’s narrative there is a vision of Jesus as both Messiah and Suffering Servant, a connection that will continue until the death of Jesus on the cross, the fulfillment of the baptism.

d. The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John does not deal with controversies regarding the sinlessness of Jesus in the baptismal narrative. The Johannine Gospel presents an indirect account of the Gospel narrative depicting John the Baptist as a witness of the event: “I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove and resting upon him.”(John 1:32) This passage is certainly a modification of the Synoptic account, where there is no contradiction in the way the Baptist is related to Jesus. John’s baptism is presented in this Gospel as a moment of revelation of

Jesus. This coming of the Spirit as a dove is a common feature in all the Gospel accounts, an event indicative of the importance of the anointing of Jesus for the initiation of his ministry and for his self-consciousness.

The Fourth Gospel presents the coming of the Spirit also as a moment of revelation for

John the Baptist (1:31, 33, 34), with a confession of Jesus as the Son of God coming from

John in 1:34. The Gospel of John also presents another element existing in all Gospels: John the Baptist’s testimony about an upcoming baptism in the Holy Spirit that will be administered by Jesus (1:33). However, John also proclaims Jesus as the one who takes way the sin of the world (1:29). Unique to the Gospel of John is the allusion that Jesus was involved in a baptismal ministry that was occurring either in combination with John’s ministry or in a parallel existence (Jn. 3:23, 26; 10: 41-42.) It seems that these references

26 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 102-103.

33 reflect an historical awareness by the early Christian communities of the baptism of Jesus and his own practice of baptism. 27

e. Conflicts in interpretation of Gospel Passages

Nonetheless, even the Synoptic Gospels present contradictions about the knowledge of John regarding Jesus. The Lucan account presents John asking from prison if Jesus is the

Coming One, something that is not in the account by Mark. This addition from Luke stands in contradiction with the previously cited passage from the Fourth Gospel and its depiction of John the Baptist as aware of the events at the Jordan and of the identity of Jesus. The earlier accounts, however, present the Baptist as never proclaiming Jesus in any messianic terms.

These conflicts in interpretation also add to confusion regarding what exactly inspired the institution of Christian baptism. Some scholars (like John P. Meier) believe that there is no explicit relation between the New Testament passages about the baptism of Jesus and the practice of Christian baptism. Simon Légasse, on the other hand, goes even further:

L’examen précèdent des péricopes synoptiques aboutit à une constatation négative que corrobore l’ensemble du Nouveau Testament: il n’est aucun indice qui permettait d’admettre qu’au 1er siècle les chrétiens ont établi un rapport quelconque entre le baptême de Jésus par Jean et le rite de l’initiation pratiqué dans l’Église.28

Légasse has presented his idea that the connection between Christian baptism and the imparting of the Spirit present in the scriptural depictions of the baptism in the Jordan is not very clear and that the baptism of Jesus was a baptism in water, not in the Spirit. In the

27 G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 68-69. 28 Simon Légasse, Naissance du baptême (Paris : Les Éditions du Cerf, 1993), 68.

34 opinion of Légasse, there was another way in which the early Church made the link between

Jesus’ baptism and the baptism of Christian believers:

Il est possible, vraisemblable même, qu’en rapportant les paroles de Jean- Baptiste les écrivains évangéliques aient eu une vise oblique à l’adresse des candidates au baptême, auxquels, par le truchement du Précurseur, pouvait s’adresser un message tel que celui-ci: «Si Jean-Baptiste a exigé la conversion lors du seul baptême d’eau, à combien plus forte raison devez-vous opérer cette même conversion, vous qui allez recevoir un baptême dans l’Esprit Saint!» Mais justement ce message ne cadre pas avec la théorie qui considère le baptême d’eau reçu par Jésus comme le prototype du baptême chrétien. A telle théorie le Nouveau Testament n’offre pas le moindre support. Pour la formuler les Pères de l’Église ont été amenés à faire un curieux détour, en recourant à l’idée de la sanctification des eaux. Idée nouvelle et sans fondement dans les textes canoniques, puisque au lieu d’être, comme dans ces derniers, l’objet de l’action, le Christ devient désormais l’opérateur, grâce au contact mystérieux de sa chair avec l’eau du Jourdain.29

Other scholars value some of Légasse’s points while at the same time opposing some of his conclusions in light of the historical and literary evidence. Kilian McDonnell accepts the idea that there is no specific connection in the New Testament between the baptism of Jesus and Christian baptism. However, McDonnell posits that it is improbable to just dismiss the historical evidence of the postbiblical sources, starting with Ignatius of Antioch:

The larger context is Ignatius against those who deny the reality of Jesus Christ’s humanity. Here Jesus’s baptism in the Jordan is a symbol anticipating the redeeming death of Jesus, which is real because his humanity is not a phantom but is full and complete. In some way the water is penetrated with the efficacy of that death, an efficacy touching the future candidates of baptism. Already at this early date there is evidence of the institution of Christian baptism by the efficacy of Jesus’ death anticipated in the baptism of Jesus…The baptism of Jesus is the institution of Christian baptism because therein is found the effective content of the sacrament. 30

29 Ibid., 69. 30 McDonnell, 186.

Etienne Nodet also objects to the position of Légasse, and in an extensive analysis he objects to Legasses’s refusal of acknowledging the baptism of Jesus as a model of Christian baptism. Nodet contends with Légasses’s view that the biblical texts denote a lack of connection between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of Christians. The analysis of passages like Acts 19 and its depiction of the community at Ephesus attest to a connection between the baptism in the Jordan and the baptism of believers in the name of the risen

Christ. Nodet also notes that the writers of the New Testament were not concerned with the issue of institution. Rather the writers saw Jesus as participating in and thus significantly transforming the baptism of John in a fluid continuity to his own resurrection.31

Extra canonical accounts presented this conflict in a more detailed way, showing evidence of early interpretation of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, even when they do not enhance in a substantial way the historical evidence of the event. The analysis of the exegetical works of the first two centuries shows in some texts a sense of embarrassment regarding the baptism of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch mentions the baptism of Jesus twice in his work in an obvious effort to defend it, saying that Jesus was baptized in order to purify the waters and to fulfill all justification. Justin Martyr also presents a defense of the baptism in the Jordan, and a text attributed to Melito of Sardis is defensive about the event, justifying it with a cosmic explanation: if the sun, moon and stars seem baptized by the sea when you stand at the end of the ocean, why not also the Christ, the “Sun out of the

Heaven”?32

31 Etienne Nodet, review of Légasse’s Naissance du Baptême, in Revue Biblique 102 (1995) 600-611. 32 Fragment 8b, Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, S.G. Hall, ed. (Oxford, Clarendon, 1979), 73.

The evidence of the canonical and non-canonical texts presenting the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan clearly present significant conflicts in the theological interpretation of the event. To justify the baptism of Jesus diverse interpretations arose during the first centuries.

Among these interpretations is the idea that Jesus was baptized in order to consecrate baptism and provide an example to be emulated for Christians. There is also the interpretation that Jesus’ repentance was not done for his own sins but for the sins of the rest of the human race. Related to the previous concept is the idea that the baptism in the

Jordan was a sign of his total identification with sinners. 33

The Gospel of the Nazarenes (a text from approximately the first half of the second century and sometimes confused with the Gospel of the Hebrews for their similarities in date and structure) presented this passage:

Behold the mother of the Lord, and his brethren said unto him, John the Baptist baptizeth unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him. But he said unto them: Wherein have I sinned that I should be baptized of him, unless peradventure this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance?34

This passage is unique in the literature of Early Christianity. The Gospel of the Nazarenes is highly dependent on the Gospel of Matthew, and its previously quoted baptismal account could illustrate the unease created over the submission of Jesus to be baptized by John. The

Gospel of Matthew answers these concerns in a more uncomplicated manner.

Interpretations for this passage of the Gospel of the Nazarenes argue that the “sin of ignorance” spoken by Jesus could refer to his ignorance of another use for baptism apart from forgiveness of sins, yet another interpretation presents the possibility of the passage

33 Charles H. Scobie, John the Baptist (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964), 148. 34 Scobie, 148.

37 referring to Jesus’ own ignorance of his lack of sin. Another explanation for the passage could refer to the expression of Jesus as a double question, the second question being an affirmation of the first one, a statement that Jesus had no sin.

The Gospel of the Ebionites (also from the first half of the second century) presents

John the Baptist seeing “a great light” after baptizing Jesus and then falling down and begging Jesus to baptize him. This passage (an elaboration of the dialogue between the

Baptist and Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew) could witness to the uneasiness that the baptism of Jesus presented in the early Christian tradition. The Gospel of the Ebionites is mainly concerned with the ministry of John the Baptist and with the baptism of Jesus, and it strongly depends on the Synoptic Gospels. The original insights of the baptismal narrative are the expansion of the words by the heavenly voice with the additional words of Psalm

2:7 and also the appearance of a great light around the place.

The Gospel of the Hebrews, probably of Egyptian origin, presents Semitic features like the referral to the Holy Spirit as female and a style reminiscent of Wisdom literature:

And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him (Isa. 11.2; 61:1) and said to him: “My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for you [Wis. 7:27] that you should come and I might rest in you [Sir.24:7]. For you are my rest [Ps.132:14]; you are my first-begotten Son [Ps. 2:7] that reigns for ever [Ps. 89:29; Luke 1:33].35

This passage, quoted by Jerome on his In Isaiah, distinguishes Jesus from the prophets by presenting the Holy Spirit fully resting on him. The Spirit speaks directly to Jesus, calling him

“My Son” and using references to Psalm 2:7. These diverse scriptural references are intended to establish orthodoxy, to present Jesus as not being begotten at the baptism.

35 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 105-106.

The Gospel of Nicodemus was an apocryphal work that claimed to be written as a derivation from a Hebrew work written by Nicodemus, an acquaintance of Jesus mentioned in the Gospel of John. The dates of the composition of The Gospel of Nicodemus are pretty uncertain, with different scholars giving diverse dates. This work used Jewish references and includes what is called the Acts of Pilate and another section that describes Christ’s descent to Hades. Some of these passages are perhaps from the fifth or sixth century. However, the baptismal account in this book seems influenced by earlier sources. John the Baptist describes his ministry in this way:

[I] preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins. And the Son of God came to me, and when I saw him afar off, I said to the people: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” [John1:29]. And with my hand I baptized him in the river Jordan, and I saw the Holy Spirit like a dove coming upon him, and heard also the voice of God the Father speaking thus: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” [Matt.3:16-17]. And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved, and whoever does not believe in him should be condemned.36

Other texts of the time were more influenced by Jewish and gnostic elements and began to present the baptism in the Jordan as a moment of metaphysical change in Jesus, or at least an important consideration according to the testimony of Christian exegetes.

3. The Apostolic Fathers

Epistle of Barnabas

The second century writers speak about baptism as an immersion in water by a penitent for the remission of sins. The Epistle of Barnabas, from approximately 130 CE, describes the process in its eleventh chapter in this way:

36 Gospel of Nicodemus 18.2, in Wihelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1, 522.

On the one hand, it is written about the water that Israel will not at all accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but will create something in its place for themselves….This means that we descend into the water full of sins and filth, but come up out of it bearing the fruit of reverential fear in our heart and having the hope in Jesus in our spirits.37

The author of the Epistle of Barnabas identified chapters eleven and twelve as “concerning the water and the cross,” dedicating chapter eleven to the water and chapter twelve to the cross. The water and the cross are therefore interconnected, declaring Christian baptism as capable of bringing forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness of sins effects a new birth where the baptized person becomes a new creation, enters the Promised Land, becomes a temple of

God and will live forever. The Epistle of Barnabas discusses Jewish religious practices and presents them as not having the same value as Christian baptism. Chapter nine discusses circumcision in a spiritual sense and presents Jewish circumcision as a seal but not as similar to Christian baptism. Instead, the Epistle of Barnabas presents Jewish ritual washings as a counterpoint or counterpart of baptism. The Epistle of Barnabas associated Christian baptism with a seal of the Spirit on the heart of the believer.

The Epistle of Barnabas speaks about baptism with more concern for the significance of baptism than for a concrete description of the baptismal ceremony. However, the text refers to baptism as an act of immersion, even establishing parallels in chapter eleven with the descent of Jesus into hell after his death. There is also a parallel between Jesus Christ’s descent into hell and “come up out of it” and receive the hope of Jesus in their spirits. Also the reference in chapter sixteen of the “name of the Lord” in connection with the forgiveness of sins and becoming a temple of God could imply the dispensation of baptism

37 Bart D. Erhman, editor and translator, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005): 53-55.

40 in God’s name.38 There is also a reference in the text about the promised land abounding with milk and honey, an image that could be interpreted as a symbol of newly born people entering into a covenantal relationship with God:

What does the other prophet, Moses, say to them? “See, this is what the Lord God says, ‘Enter into the good land, which the Lord swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and receive it as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.’” …Why then does he speak of milk and honey? Because the child is first nourished by honey and then milk. So, also, when we are nourished by faith in the promise and then by the word, we will live as masters over the earth.39

The Epistle of Barnabas was probably the first text that mentioned the idea of the ogdoad, the mystical connotation of the number eight as a symbol of fulfillment and its connection with the theology and practice of baptism. Chapter fifteen presented God as saying “It is not the Sabbaths of the present time that are acceptable to me, but the one I have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make a beginning of an eighth day with gladness, for on it Jesus arose from the dead, and appeared, and ascended into heaven.”40 Chapter eighteen also mentions an important image for baptismal practice and instruction. Those believers who received baptism were seen as “children of light” and opposed to the children of darkness and ignorance. This concept of Christians as `children of light`` had its origins in scriptural passages where Jesus is described as the giver of light (John 1:4-9; 12:36,

46) as well as other passages describing the disciples of Christ as receivers and dispensers of the light of Christ (Matthew 5:14-16). This contrast between two groups in opposing paths of teaching and authority, one of light and one of darkness, was a reflection of anti-Jewish

38 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 213-214. 39 Epistle of Barnabas 6.8,17, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II, 33-35. 40 Epistle of Barnabas 15.8-9, Ibid., 69-71.

41 and anti-pagan polemics of former times. Among other works that used this opposition of light and darkness were the Gospel of John, Qumran`s War Scroll, the Didachē, and the

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy by Pseudo-Dionysius.41

The Epistle of Barnabas has a baptismal theology that is closely related to ideas of the

New Testament narratives. The remission of sins for the baptized is very much part of the message of the Pauline letters as well as other New Testament writings (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph.

5:26), including the baptismal exorcism (1 Cor. 6:11; Acts 19:13-17; Luke 10: 17; Matthew

7:22). There are several other concepts presented in Barnabas with clear influence from the authors of the New Testament, like the idea of baptism giving eternal life (11:10-11) as well as the concept of baptism as a new creation (6:14; 16:8-9). Other concepts influenced by the New Testament are the image of the baptized becoming the temple of God (6:15; 16:7-

10), and the connection between the water and the cross (11:1b; 12:1). These ideas show that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas used ideas that ran parallel to Pauline developments on baptism and other writings of the New Testament. However, there are two Pauline concepts that are absent in the baptismal theology of Barnabas: the mystical connection between baptism and the death and resurrection of Christ and the passage through the Red Sea as a prefiguration of baptism. Benoit comments:

En ce qui concerne la conception baptismale de Barnabé, il nous semble avoir montré qu’elle était le reflet d’une conception remontant à ce qu’on pourrait appeler le christianisme hellénistique. Elle s’est développée parallèlement au paulinisme, et si elle en a subi l’influence, ce n’est qu’indirectement, et par suite de phénomènes d’osmose entre les divers milieux chrétiens. Cette

41 Robin M. Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 115.

influence paulinienne apparait comme en surimpression sur la pensée originale de Barnabé, qu’elle n’affecte pas dans sa structure fondamentale. 42

The opposition presented in this letter to an association between baptism and circumcision also shows an opposition of the author to concepts present in Pauline theology. André

Benoit posited that the Epistle of Barnabas, even with its influences from New Testament concepts, was created with its own theological baptismal mindset.43

The Shepherd of Hermas

The Shepherd of Hermas (circa 110 CE) presented the remission of sins in baptism in this way:

The tower, which you see being built is I, the Church…. As to why the tower is built upon water, listen: it is because your life was saved and will be saved through water. But the tower is founded on the word of the almighty and glorious name, and it is strengthened by the invisible power of the Master.44

This book, the longest text of the Apostolic Fathers, has a mostly uniform view of baptism, in contrast with the generally inconsistent style of the text as a whole that has generated assumptions by scholars that Hermas is really a composite of different sources. The book was intended to address pastoral problems in the Church of Rome regarding the practice of the Christian faith. For this reason, a central theme of the text is related to the possibilities of metanoia for believers who have failed in their commitment to faith. There was the situation of catechumens who did not follow their intent of entering the Christian community. The church is being compared to a tower constructed on saving water and the diverse stones that are the foundation of the tower are those of the faithful who have been

42 André Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle: La théologie des Pères (Boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1953), 57. 43 Ibid., 52-56. 44 The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 12.III.3 in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II: 202-203.

43 observant of the purity and grace given to them by their baptism. In a later passage there is also a representation of the catechumens who start their path of conversion and later do not pursue its completion:

“But who are the other ones, which fall near the water but cannot be rolled into it?” “These are the ones who have heard the word and wanted to be baptized in the name of the Lord. But then when they recall what the life of true purity involves, they change their minds and return to pursue their evil desires.” 45

Baptism is presented in Hermas as the culmination of a process of entering the Christian community, a process that started with the hearing of the “word.” Baptism was established in the mission of the Church and is a proclamation of the Christian message. For membership in the Church there was the need for an acceptance of the Christian message and baptism. This process was facilitated by instruction in the moral requirements of the faith. This moral standard for the faith can be interpreted as a reflection on the emphasis on moral living that was customary for Christian communities of the second century. These communities were derided by other groups for their acceptance of all kinds of people, including people who were not considered respectable by the social conventions of the time. The Shepherd of Hermas can be seen as a reflection of the struggles of the Church of

Rome to make clear to converts how moral behavior is the truest expression of faith.46

Hermas made strong statements about salvation occurring by or through water, with the Lord as the foundation of baptism. Christ is referred to in Hermas as the Son of God, and baptism in his name is essential for salvation. It was mandatory for the believer to know the

45Visions 15 3.3 in Ibid., 211. 46 Kirsopp Lake, “The Shepherd of Hermas and the Christian life in Rome in the Second Century,” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 4, issue 1 (Jan 1911): 25-46.

Lord’s name and to live according to his name in order to attain membership in the kingdom of God. Baptism was possible through the hearing of the Word of God and the administration of baptism “into the name of the Lord.” This salvation by baptism is experienced by membership in a community of believers. Baptism for Hermas was a descent into the water that brought both forgiveness of sins and a new life without sin. This baptism was motivated and preceded by repentance and conversion and also implied faith:

“They had to rise up from the water,” he said, “in order to be made alive. For they could enter the kingdom of God in no other way, except by laying aside the death of their former life. And so these who had died received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a person bears the name of God,” he said, “he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside death and takes up life. And so the seal is the water. They go down into the water dead, therefore, and rise up living. Thus this seal was proclaimed also to those people, and they made use of it, that they might enter the kingdom of God.”47

This new life was expressed in a dedicated adherence to Christian virtues. In one of his parables, the Christian virtues are presented as virgins and as the powers of the Son of God.

Without these virtues there is no possibility for true metanoia:

“Show me Lord,” I said, “the names of the virgins and of these women wearing black garments.” “Listen,” he said. “These are the names of the strongest virgins, the ones who stood at the corners. The first is Faith, the second Self-Restraint, the third Power, and the fourth Patience. And the others who stood between them are named Simplicity, Innocence, Holiness, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Harmony, and Love. The one who bears these names and the name of the Son of God will be able to enter the kingdom of God….”48

Another important notion present in The Shepherd of Hermas is the seal. There is a connection of the seal with baptism in a variety of ways. The seal represents in Hermas,

47 Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 93.IX.16, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 431. 48 Parables 92 (IX. 15) in Ibid., 427.

45 among other things, a sign of the Son of God and associated with his name. This seal was also preached and called “seal of the preaching”. Baptism is, according to the Shepherd of

Hermas, linked to hearing the Word of God, believing in it, and repenting from sinful behavior. The baptism is portrayed as an immersion in the name of the Son of God and a seal of his protection, a dispenser of absolution of sins, a necessity for both eternal life and admittance to the kingdom of God.49

The Didachē

The earliest evidence of guidelines on the manner of the administration of baptism can be found in the Didachē, a document probably influenced by the Jewish Christian tradition. A particularly noteworthy passage is the instruction in chapter 7 on baptism:

But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all these things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can. But command the one being baptized to fast one or two days in advance.50

The expression “pour out” comes from the word ekcheon (ἕκχεον), denoting the pouring of a large amount of water, an expression also used in the second chapter of the Acts of the

Apostles to describe the outpouring of the Spirit. The baptismal formula of Matthew 28.19 and the triple pouring are of pure Christian influence, while the practice of baptism by immersion is also common to Jewish baptismal movements.

49 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 214-220. 50 Bart D. Ehrman, editor and translator, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005), 429.

The baptismal reference in the Didachē does not describe with great detail the significance of the baptism and concentrates mostly on the form. The baptism was the culmination of a time of instruction in the “Two Ways,” the ways of life and death. These ways are described in chapters one through six. Baptism entailed a new and specific way of life. The act of baptism was preceded by a period of fasting as an expression of penance.

There is an implication in the text that baptism is an act done with witnesses to the event; however there is no reference to who administered baptism. Leadership in the Didachē is described as including apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons; but again, there is no indication in the text identifying any of these leaders as the administrator of baptism.51

There is no mention in the Didachē about an imposition of hands or any other action related to the gift of the Holy Spirit. The threefold name proclaimed in the formula could imply a triple immersion. There is no mention in the text of sprinkling as part of the act of baptism.

The mention of others in the act assumes a communitarian aspect where the one baptized was not only establishing a personal relationship to God but also becoming a member of a larger community.52

There is no reference to infant baptism in the Didachē, as the indications of baptism presented a process where the baptized were expected to be formed in the moral life as a member of the community and to fast before the baptismal ceremony. A noteworthy element in chapter 7 is the specification that baptism should be done in “running water.”

This expression reflects the Jewish milieu of the Didachē and its assessment on the value of water. “Living water” implied motion, a vivid image of an act that was designed to give life,

51 Benoit, 7-11. 52 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 202-203.

47 a life that implied movement in the way of life of a living God. However, the instruction also admitted the possibility of baptizing in other water if running water was not available. Some scholars have affirmed that baptism was performed by pouring as provided by chapter 7’s instruction for pouring water on the head three times if there was no available water.

Ferguson argues that the expressions used for baptizing and pouring water are different, and he also analyzes the passage in chapter 7 as one where immersion is presented as the preferred and desirable option. Ferguson also admits that the provision of pouring water looks like an anomaly to the tenor of the Didachē with a possible explanation of the phrase being an interpolation that could be an adaptation to a Gentile audience. However, the concerns about the different values of water illustrate a marked Jewish influence that denotes a redaction of the text from the second century at its latest.53

The Didachē presents baptism as the boundary where people would leave a way of death to enter a way of life. This way of life, revealed by Jesus Christ, entails conversion followed by the pursuit of an exemplary life. So essential was baptism for eternal life that there were provisions made for alternative ways to perform the act of baptism apart from the standard way. Baptism was an indispensable condition for participation in other aspects of the Christian liturgy: “But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said about this, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs.’”54

This new life was not only considered a lifestyle of moral behavior according to the standards of a specific Christian community but also an instrument for surpassing the

53 Ibid., 205-206. 54 Didachē 9.5, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, 431.

48 constraints of this world into a full life in Jesus Christ. Even when there is no specific connection made between baptism and the remission of sins, there are several passages in the text that emphasize baptism as a path to holiness where earlier sins are left behind.

Chapter 14 presents the practice of a confession of sins before the Sunday Eucharist in order to make the offering of the believer pure. This exhortation as well as the fasting mentioned in chapter 7 can be seen as allusions to the remission of sins produced by baptism. Baptism has a strong ecclesial aspect in the Didachē, presented as a rite that also introduces the baptized into the community of the “way of life,” a living community that helped the baptized persevere in their baptismal commitment. 55

Willy Rordorf analyzed the baptismal elements that are not present in the text, like the short exhortation in chapter 7 that leaves out some other aspects from a classical baptismal formula present in other texts and traditions. There is no explicit renunciation of

Satan as part of the baptismal process. Rordorf suggests that the reason for this omission is due to the existence of a pre-baptismal instruction on the “two ways” presented in previous chapters of the text, where a renunciation of the devil could fit the process of entering the way of life. In the Didachē there is also no consecration of the water, and there is an absence of a Pauline theology of baptism. Also particularly striking is the lack of an imposition of hands or any mention of the gifts of the Spirit at the moment of baptism.

55 Lars Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh, Scotland: T and T Clark Ltd, 1997), 172-177.

These omissions could indicate the antiquity of the text as well as the theology and liturgical diversity of the Christian communities of the second century.56

In summary, baptism as presented in the Didachē is the act by which a person becomes a member of the Church in its local community, and allowing one to participate in the Eucharist. Baptism has a purifying aspect, even though the Didachē does not mention the remission of sins. The baptized were called to a commitment to a way of life, with an emphasis on living a moral life according to the baptismal promises. Baptism was administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without much explanation of the theological significance of the formula. Christ was not explicitly connected with the rite of baptism besides the baptismal formula mentioned beforehand.

There is not much in the Didachē of the Pauline connection of baptism as a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ or to the Synoptic connection between Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan with his death on the cross. Neither was the Holy Spirit connected with the baptism apart from a formulaic manner. There is no direct evidence in the Didache supporting the idea of infant baptism in early Jewish Christianity. However, there is reference to the baptism of proselytes, which may suggest that baptism could extend to members of every age, even children.57

1 Clement

There is no baptismal commentary in the Greek text nor in the Coptic and the Syrian translations of 1 Clement. Nonetheless, there is in the Latin version of the text an

56 Willy Rordorf, “Le baptême selon la Didaché.˝, in Liturgie foi et vie des premiers chrétiens (Paris: Beauchesne, 1986), 175-185. 57 Benoit, 30-33.

50 interpolation in 42:4. In this passage there is a clause that begins: “And as they preached throughout the countryside and in the cities….” The Latin version of 1 Clement adds this phrase: eos qui obaudiebant voluntati dei baptizantes [baptizing those who were obedient to the will of God]. The reasons for this addition are not clear. Perhaps an accidental omission happened in the other versions, or perhaps the Latin copyist understood the logical relation of preaching and baptizing as part of the apostles’ mission, linking it with the rest of the content of 42:4: “…. they appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops and deacons of those who were about to believe, testing them by the Spirit.”58 There are some other expressions in 1 Clement that could also have some baptismal allusions, like the references to Noah as a preacher of repentance and regeneration (παλιγγενεσία), or to

Moses and the divine gifts related to the light of knowledge in Christ.59 Nevertheless, there are no explicit references that could link the whole text with Christian baptism. There is no trace in 1 Clement of the Pauline theology of baptism as an incorporation into the death and resurrection of Christ. On the other hand, this work exhibits great influence from Hellenistic

Christianity and its emphasis on illumination and gnosis.60

2 Clement

Baptism with its general emphasis on repentance and a moral life is related in 2

Clement, composed around 94-150 CE:

But if even such upright men as these cannot deliver their children through acts of righteousness, with what confidence can we enter into the kingdom of God if we do not keep our baptism (βάπτισμα) pure and undefiled? Or

58 Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, 111. 59 Benoit, 83-94. 60 Ibid., 90-91.

who will serve as our advocate, if we are not found doing what is holy and upright?61

2 Clement contains a synonymous application between the terms seal (σϕραγίς) and baptism. This use of “seal” is also in accord with the idea in 2 Clement of exhorting the believer to keep the flesh as a vessel of the Holy Spirit. There is an identification made by the author of 2 Clement between the flesh and the church and the Spirit with Christ. The seal was related to the Holy Spirit, who was given in the act of baptism; therefore, the seal was applied to baptism. Emphasizing the moral responsibility of the believer as a result of the baptismal commitment, 2 Clement also relates baptism with a cleansing from sin, a life conversion, a commitment to a holy behavior, in addition to the reception of the Holy Spirit.

In 2 Clement there is a development of the baptismal theology from what we have seen in earlier texts. Baptism was considered in this epistle as an illumination where the baptized participate in the life and truth revealed by Jesus Christ. Baptism brings a remission of sins and communicates the gifts of the Holy Spirit, even though the text does not abound in details about the particulars of these concepts. This epistle seems more interested in describing the responsibilities that baptism entailed for Christians; in other words, what was necessary for the baptized to keep the baptismal seal pure. This purity did not imply a life without sin but a lifestyle of prayer, penance and repentance in order to live the baptismal commitment in the best way possible. André Benoit analyzed this baptismal commitment in this way:

61 2 Clement 7.9, in Ehrman, 175. 62 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 208-209.

Des lors, le baptême n’est plus essentiellement une grâce, mais il devient un devoir. Le pardon des péchés qu’il procure, le don de l’Esprit qu’il communique, les révélations qu’il apporte sont ressenties comme des charges, plus que comme une libération. On comprend qu’à partir d’une telle conception, on ait en parfois tendance à reculer le plus possible le baptême. Au fond l’auteur considère surtout ce que Tertullien appellera le pondus baptismi.63

At this point it is important to consider the meaning of the term “seal” or sphragis and its relationship to Christian baptism. It seems that in the earlier Jewish-Christian communities the term seal was not seen as a different act from baptism and the conferring of the Spirit.

This similarity can be confirmed by a reading of ancient texts as 2 Clement, the Shepherd of

Hermas and the Odes of Solomon, where sphragis appears as a term synonymous with baptism. The origin of the concept of a seal in a liturgical context could be found in the

Jewish tradition.64 Romans 4:11, as well as Barnabas 9:6-8 use the word seal in connection with circumcision and its character as a sign of incorporation of a person into the kingdom of God. This equation of baptism and circumcision in Jewish-Christian communities has prompted scholars to establish Jewish Christianity as an originator of infant baptism as a rite similar in immediacy to the circumcision of the Jewish boy on the eighth day.

Nonetheless, there is no absolute evidence indicating that the term seal implied a specific rite or action in the baptismal liturgy, as present in later Christian communities.

There are some texts of the Jewish-Christian tradition that connect sphragis with a sign imprinted on the forehead (Odes of Solomon VIII. 16, for example). Daniélou posits that it is possible that Jewish- Christian communities connected the seal to a signing of the cross on the forehead as part of the baptismal ritual. This seal could also be connected with what the

63 Benoit, 113. 64 Jean Danièlou, Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme. (Paris, 1958: Desclée & Cie), 384.

Shepherd of Hermas meant by the expression “bear the name,” in other words, to carry the sign of Christ. Therefore, to mark the baptized with the sign of the cross made them members of the Messianic community. 65 The practice of anointing as part of baptism was probably part of both orthodox and heterodox groups during the second half of the second century. This development in liturgical actions came as a result of a connection between literal actions and theological concepts, like the association of Christians with Jesus Christ the Anointed or the anointing of believers with the Holy Spirit as Jesus was anointed. 66

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch presented in his letters a concern for who administered baptism:

“Let the congregation be wherever the bishop is, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there also is the universal church. It is not permitted either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is acceptable to God, so that everything you do should be secure and valid.”67 Ignatius’ concern for the authority of the bishop presiding over the act of baptism is in consonance with his general concern for unity in the Christian community. Ignatius also regards baptism as armour for Christians to remain committed to the faith:

Be pleasing to the one in whose army you serve, from whom also you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism remain as your weaponry, your faith as a helmet, your love as a spear, your endurance as a full set of armor. Let your works be a down payment on your wages, that you may receive the back pay you deserve. Be patient therefore with one

65 Ibid., 384-386. 66 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 247. 67 Smyrneans 8.2, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, 305.

another in gentleness, as God is with you. May I enjoy you at all times. (Polycarp 6.2)68

This and other passages from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch present the fruits of baptism as related to the virtues of patience, gentleness, and faith. The theology of baptism of

Ignatius stresses the effect of baptism as a purification process originated from Jesus

Christ’s obedience and passion. This purification is linked with the church and its unity, as well as to the observance of a committed Christian lifestyle.

Inspired by Matthew 3:15 Ignatius of Antioch mentioned the baptism in the Jordan twice in his letters:

I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has made you so wise. For I know that you have been made complete in a faith, that cannot be moved—as if you were nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both flesh and spirit— and that you have been established in love by the blood of Christ. For you are fully convinced about our Lord, that he was truly from the family of David, according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born from a virgin, and baptized [βεβαπτισμένον] by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled in him.69

Ignatius was also the first writer to refer to the idea of Jesus’ purifying the water by his baptism: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to the plan of God, he was from the seed of David, but also from the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized

[έβαπτίσθη], that he might cleanse the water by his suffering.”70

These passages show the importance given to the baptism of Jesus by the Christian communities in the post-biblical period. Ignatius mentions baptism four times in his corpus, two of these times in reference to Jesus’ baptism. The settings of these passages have the

68 Ibid, 317. 69 Smyrneans 1.1, in Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I: 207. 70 Ephesians 18.2, in Ibid., 237.

55 style of an established faith formula or creed. The passage from Smyrneans is characterized by a repetition of the word “truly,” perhaps due as a response to Docetism’s denial of the historicity of these events. In the passage Ignatius presents the main events of the life of

Jesus Christ, from his background and identity through his birth, baptism, death, and resurrection. The passage from Ephesians also presents some specific mysteries of the life of Christ, like his conception and development in Mary’s womb, his baptism, and his death.

Ignatius saw the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan as an instrument for the purification of the water and a preparation of the water for the future baptism of believers, a subject that will be part of later Christian tradition. Further evaluation of both passages shows that the reason for the baptism of Jesus in Smyrneans is very much influenced by Matthew 3:15:

“…that all righteousness might be fulfilled in him. “ Both passages can be interpreted as efforts by Ignatius to answer enquiries about the reasons for the baptism of Jesus. Jesus had important reasons for being baptized, as he was called to sanctify the water and fulfill all righteousness. Jesus descended to the waters in order to destroy the impure or demonic spirits residing there and to purify the waters by his Passion and death and descent into

Sheol.

The influence of the Gospel of Matthew in the letters of Ignatius has been connected with the distinct association of Antioch with this Gospel, probably written there between the years 80 and 90 CE.71 Antioch, a very influential city in antiquity, had a Christian community that was probably established by Jewish Christians of Hellenisitic background around the third decade of the Christian era. The Church of Antioch was therefore one of

71 G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucius to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy, 1961), 282-283.

56 the most ancient communities of the Christian tradition with more importance than

Jerusalem. Ignatius, a Greek bishop with a Syrian mentality, represented the dual linguistic environment present in Antioch and its environs and presented the baptism of Jesus in the

Jordan in two passages with traces of a regula fidei. His writings are the earliest evidence of a post-biblical theological belief in the importance of the baptism in the Jordan in the second century of the Christian era.72

These passages from Ignatius of Antioch are indicative of a theology that is based on imitatio Christi, in particular an imitation of Christ’s sufferings. Therefore, martyrdom was for Ignatius the source of unity with God. Contrary to Paul (who saw baptism as a way to die and resurrect with Christ), Ignatius regarded martyrdom as the most effective instrument for participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As a result of this belief,

Ignatius refers to his own impending martyrdom as an act of baptism, the moment of new birth for Christians. There was also in the theology of Ignatius of Antioch an emphasis on the Eucharist as another source of union with God for those not destined to be martyrs.

Ignatius placed baptism as the foundation of a process of mystical union with Christ, the first phase toward the path to complete unity with the Son of God. However, there was no place in the Ignatian theology for the Pauline vision of seeing baptism as the incorporation of the believer with the death and resurrection of Christ. Ignatius saw this incorporation into Christ accomplished through martyrdom and through the Eucharist, with a baptismal theology that was not personal, and an indication of the Hellenistic tradition of his own

72 McConnell, 33-35.

Christian community in Antioch.73 The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan was presented by the bishop of Antioch as an act intimately united to the mission of Jesus to fulfill all righteousness in a process that would be totally accomplished by his death and resurrection.

4. Christian Pseudoepigrapha and Apocrypha

A number of texts from the Christian pseudoepigrapha and apocrypha present uncommon concepts to describe the importance of baptism for the Christian life.

Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Peter, a text of probable Egyptian origin from the mid-second century, presents the idea (similar to the Shepherd of Hermas) that the just who died before

Christ must receive the grace of baptism before entering heaven. The Epistle of the Apostles, another mid-second century work, presents a revelation of Christ to his disciples after the resurrection, with instructions to baptize. There is frequent use of the terms light and seal in relation to baptism, and there is an allusion to the hand of the baptizer resting on the head of the baptized person, in representation of the hand of Christ. There is also a reference to the idea presented in other texts of the era of Jesus administering baptism to the just of the Old Testament and permitting them to enter heaven.74

Acts of Paul

The Acts of Paul was probably written in Asia Minor in the late second century. This work, composed of different parts, only some of which survive, was inspired from earlier traditions. One of the parts of the Acts of Paul is the Acts of Paul and Thecla. In this work, there is a sermon by Paul that contains the following expression: “Blessed are they who

73 Benoit, 80-82. 74 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 225-228.

58 have kept their baptism (βάπτισμα) secure, for they shall rest with the Father and the

Son.”75 This passage is consistent with the second century emphasis on the moral responsibility entailed in being baptized.

In the Acts of Paul there is also the connection of baptism with a seal. Thecla asks Paul to give her the seal (σϕραγῖδα) in Christ in order not to be touched by temptation. The association of water and fire is also present in different baptismal contexts in the Acts of

Paul. There is the strange depiction of the auto-baptism of Thecla. As she was condemned to the flames, Thecla proclaimed: “I baptize myself in the name of Jesus Christ on this last day!” and threw herself to the sea full of seals, thinking that she was going to be killed. At that moment a miracle happened and the seals were killed by fire before they could kill

Thecla, who was protected by a cloud of fire. Afterwards Thecla told Paul about the event in these terms: “I have taken the bath (λοντρόν), Paul; for he who worked with you on the gospel has also worked with me for my baptism.” This strange incident of Thecla’s self- baptism is otherwise consistent with the baptismal theology of the second century, with a baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” and with terms such as wash and bath as homologous with baptism, though a Trinitarian formula is omitted. The references to light and fire in this passage could suggest the idea of baptism as illumination.76

The Acts of Paul present another well-known though peculiar episode. The story of the lion moved by the prayer of Paul and baptized by him probably presented the earliest account of a triple immersion as part of Christian baptism. According to the passage, Paul

75 Acts of Paul and Tecla 6, in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963-65), 258. 76 Ibid., 258.

59 took the lion by the mane and immersed the lion three times and baptized it in the name of

Jesus. This story, inspired by the pagan story of Androcles and the lion, presents animals as also aware and responding to the grace of God, as well as presenting baptism as the only way to obtain everlasting life.77

Acts of John

The Acts of John, a collection of narratives of probable Ephesian origin from approximately the second half of the second century, presents a fragment where John censured Fortunatus and declared him as not being part of the disciples nor a participant in their activities, among these activities was “their holy bath (λουροῠ ἁγίου)”. This phrase is part of a description of different activities of the Christian community and may reflect a certain sequence where the holy bath was preceded by fasting and prayers then followed by eucharist and the nourishment of the body, then other works of mercy. This book uses the term “bath” as a synonym for baptism.

Acts of Andrew and the Physiologus

The Acts of Andrew, from the last part of the second century, presents similar ideas to the Acts of John. In the fragments of the Acts of Andrew there survives today a presentation of baptism where disciples are baptized and then given the commandments, and demons became afraid of Andrew due to the seal (σϕραγῐδα) on his forehead (crucem in the Latin translation). The use of the term “seal” as equivalent to baptism is frequently used in this text as well and in its later adaptations; for example, in the epitome made by Gregory of

77 Tomas Adamik, “The Baptized Lion in the Acts of Paul,” in Jan D. Bremmer, ed.., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Kamper: Kok Pharos, 1996), 60-74.

Tours (sixth century) as well as in the Passion of Andrew.78 The Physiologus, an unconventional moral work from between the second and the fourth century, uses images of nature to illustrate baptismal concepts. There is a reference in chapter 6 (on the eagle) to triune immersion, as well as a connection in chapter 11 (on the snake) regarding a moral life as a requirement of baptism.79

Testament of Levi

The rite of immersion seems to have been complemented by other ceremonies, like a pre-baptismal anointing with oil. In its description of the baptismal ceremony the Testament of Levi (probably written around 180 CE) depicts a pre-baptismal anointing. This anointing with holy oil before baptism was a practice that became customary in the Syriac liturgy.

Other texts that referred to a prayer of consecration of oil were the Coptic text of the

Didache as well as several gnostic texts. There has also been the suggestion that these anointing references mentioned in texts of the Jewish Christian tradition referred to the anointing as related to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, baptism was depicted mainly as related to the remission of sins. Nevertheless, this idea is not so typical of Jewish

Christianity where baptism is the action that gives the Spirit to the baptized. The gnostic rites had a kind of rite of passage emphasis for the perfect, while baptism was perceived as a somewhat inferior rite.

The Testament of Levi also spoke of baptism as putting on a garment. This text as well as others may indicate a liturgical interest for investing with ritual meaning the dressing of

78 Dennis McDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 55-59. 79 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 236.

61 the baptized after the immersion. The text seems to associate the action with the symbolism of the cleansing of the soul after baptism. The Odes of Solomon alluded several times to the act of God’s covering with light and giving incorruption to the believer. Is the meaning of these expressions symbolical? There is no definitive answer to this question.

However, there are references on works from the Pseudo Clementines as well as the

Apostolic Constitutions of the use of the term garment (ἔνδυμα) as a synonym for baptism.

These references as well as the one already mentioned from the Testament of Levi could be an indication of a growing connection of a white garment with baptism. The custom of the white garment in the rite of baptism had an undoubtedly Jewish Christian origin and was adopted by other Christian communities.80

Odes of Solomon

Present in Ode 24 of the Odes of Salomon, probably written in Syria in the mid-second century, there is a passage that alludes to the baptism of Jesus: “The dove fluttered over the head of our Lord Messiah/Because He was her head.”81 As a result of this designation of

Jesus as Messiah by the fluttering dove, there was cosmic turmoil. Ode 24 also presents chasms in Sheol as the result of Jesus’ baptism, with all creation in labor pains, with the inhabitants of Sheol “seeking the Lord as those who are about to give birth.” Sheol is mentioned about five times in the Odes of Solomon. Ode 24 presents the inhabitants of

Sheol afraid at the moment of the baptism of Jesus with the chasms of Sheol opening and closing, submerged in the same submersion of Jesus Christ. The passage seems to combine elements both of the baptism of Jesus and his descent into Sheol after his Passion,

80 Daniélou, Théologie du Judéo Christianisme, 380-382. 81 J.H. Charlesworth, ed. The Odes of Solomon: The Syriac Texts (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 98.

62 presenting these events as part of the same plan of salvation. 82 The baptism of Jesus is presented in the Odes of Solomon as a cosmic event where the waters and the residents of

Sheol recoil in terror, and Jesus Christ goes to the underworld to destroy death and guarantee life to all in a salvation that works for people both of the past and the future.

The connection of the descent of Jesus into Sheol and the extension of Christ’s redemption to the inhabitants of that place is also evident in the last part of the Odes of

Solomon. Ode 24 presents the Paschal mystery as a bridal feast where Sheol is crushed and people are redeemed. Then these lines are presented as coming from Jesus Christ: “… Then

I heard their voice, and placed their faith in my heart. And I placed my name upon their head, because they are free and they are mine.” This passage presents baptismal undertones that could be connected to the identification of baptism with a seal or sphragis.

Ode 39 presents a comparison between the people of Israel crossing the Red Sea with the crossing of the waters of death in imitation of Jesus Christ: “And you shall cross without danger; because rivers shall be obedient to you. The Lord has bridged them by his Word, and he walked and crossed them on foot. And his footsteps stand firm upon the waters, and were not destroyed.” The passage presents an exhortation for the believer to cross the waters of death and imitate the Son of God who passes through those waters. The language of baptism was used in the Odes of Solomon to encourage the believer to live a Christian life in imitation of the life of the Saviour.83

82 Kilian McDonnell, “The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the Descent into Hell,” Worship, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (1995): 105. 83 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 222-224.

The Odes of Solomon also use images to designate the place of the Spirit at the baptism in the Jordan. The Spirit is presented in Ode 28 as a dove and a mother. In this passage her wings and breast protect someone who speaks in the first person and could be

Christ during the baptism. Ode 36 presents the Spirit with more motherly attributes: “Elle

(l’Esprit) m’a engendré devant la face du Seigneur. Moi qui étais le Fils de l’homme, J’ai été appelé lumière et Fils de Dieu.”’84 This passage is highly evocative both of the baptism of

Jesus and Christian baptism, with the image of the spirit begetting and anointing the humanity of Jesus, without diminishing his divinity and divine sonship.

5. Apologists

This section will describe the perspectives of the Greek apologists of the second century regarding Christian baptism, excepting Justin Martyr, who will receive a special analysis in the next chapter.

Melito of Sardis

Melito of Sardis is the attributed author of the treatise called On Baptism (circa 170-

180 CE). In the only surviving fragment of that work, the author presents a passage full of baptismal imagery:

If you wish to observe the heavenly bodies being baptized (βαπτιζόμενα), hurry now to the ocean, and there I will show you a novel sight: the open sea spread out, the sea without limit, the depth unexplored, the ocean unmeasured, the water pure, the swimming pool (βαπτιστήριον) of the sun, the place for the brightening of the stars, the bath (λοντρόν) of the moon…. Although one and the same, the sun rises as new to human beings, strengthened from the deep, purified from the bath…. The stars and the moon are washed (λούονται) in the sun’s swimming pool (βαπτιστήριον) like good disciples.85

84 Odes of Solomon 36.3, A. Hamman, traductor (Paris : 1981), as cited in Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 219. 85 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 245.

The author of this passage presents in the sun imagery parallels with Christian baptism.

There is a consistent use of images that are analogous to the practice of baptism prevalent at the author’s time: the submersion of the sun into the sea and ascending afterwards; the cleansing waters that purify the sun; the rising of the sun as new; and the washing of the stars and moon like good disciples.

Daniel Vigne was of the opinion that the passage from On Baptism attributed to

Melito de Sardis and discussed previously in this chapter used its metaphorical images to present a parable of the baptism of the sun as an image of the baptism of Christ.86 The sun’s descent on the ocean is presented like a mystical baptism and a Christological parable of baptism. The perennial burning of the sun with fire unsleeping may be seen as a metaphor of the divinity and humanity of Christ, with the descent into the ocean an allegory of the descent of Jesus into the Jordan river and his descent to Sheol. The passage describing the sun rising “as new to human beings, strengthened from the deep, purified from the bath” suggests also the Ascension. This image of the undying sun is also indicative of Christ’s unchanging nature after baptism. Christ experienced purification only for the sake of humanity and his baptism is connected to the baptism of all others. Regarding the image of the stars and the moon being washed in the sun’s swimming pool like good disciples, the author makes a distinction between the baptism of Christ and the baptism of all believers.

The text continues with an apology for the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, probably responding to the ones embarrassed by or opposed to the reality of that event: “Et si le soleil, avec les étoiles et la lune, se baigne dans l’océan, pourquoi le Christ aussi ne se

86 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 82-85.

65 baignerait-il pas dans le Jourdain? Roi des cieux, chef de la création, soleil du levant, lui qui s’est manifesté, et aux morts dans l’Hadès, et aux mortels dans le monde, lui le seul soleil à s’être levé d’en haut.” 87

This passage reflects a Christology that has a connection with Judeo-Christian theology with its incorporation of images of fire and light. Melito of Sardis defended the validity and reason of the baptism of Jesus in an effective way, placing Jesus’ baptism on the level of the

Paschal mystery in a way that was rare for the authors before the Council of Nicaea. Melito was probably responding to Marcion and his omission in his gospel of any description of the baptism of Jesus. The author of On Baptism was able to achieve this theological reflection with the use of rhetoric as well as philosophical and astronomical concepts, using themes already present in Stoic philosophy. This last point is noteworthy, as the passage from On

Baptism already presents how as early as the second century there were efforts by Christian apologists to use other disciplines in order to demonstrate Christian doctrine.

The fragment from On Baptism presents analogies of water used in producing gold, silver, copper, and iron; the earth, Egypt and the air are washed by rain and rivers. The use of these analogies was similar to the ones used by Stoic philosophy in defense of providence.

The use of elements of nature like the sun, moon, and stars is linked to Stoic exegesis of the

Iliad by Homer. This is not privative of Melito of Sardis, as there are similar examples of

Homeric exegesis by Tatian, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria.

However, Melito was probably the first Christian writer who used Stoic exegesis for

87 Sur le baptême, J.P. Pitra, Analecta Sacra t.2 (1887) p.4, réédition par O. Perler (Sources Chrétiens 123), 230- 232.

Christian theology.88 As a result, the baptism of Christ in the Jordan also acquires cosmic dimensions in this text, as the apologetic discourse involves also the purification and regeneration of elements like the sun, moon, and stars.

Another work attributed to Melito of Sardis, On Pascha, provides an insight about the baptism in the Jordan as a moment of physical maturity for Christ. This text declares Jesus

Christ as both perfect God and human. At the same time, the author posits that the humanity of Jesus is proved by the thirty years before his baptism, where he hid the signs of his divinity due to the immaturity of his flesh. When his maturity is reached, Jesus is baptized and reveals his perfect divinity. 89

Tatian

Of Syrian origin, Tatian presents in his Diatessaron (circa 172 CE) the Gospel accounts of the baptism of Christ adding the element of a manifestation of light as part of the event.

In this account, at the moment of the baptism, the devil appears to watch to see whether everything would happen according to the usual manner. However, a sign alerts the devil to the importance of this baptism: “Mais quand la splendeur de la lumière apparue sur l’eau et la voix venue du ciel lui montrèrent que le Christ était descend dans l’eau, non comme quelqu’un qui a besoin de pardon, mais comme celui qui comble tout besoin, il réfléchit et se dit…“ 90

These elements of light appearing as part of the event of the Jordan as well as the presence of the devil make the work of Tatian correspond both with Justin Martyr and to

88 Robert M. Grant, “Melito of Sardis on Baptism,” Vigiliae Christianae 1 no.4 (1950): 33-36. 89 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 244-245. 90 Commentarie de l’Evangile concordant ou Diatessaron 5.1, introduction, traduction et notes par Louis Leloir (Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 1966), as quoted in Vigne, 75-76.

67 the Judeo-Christian tradition exemplified by texts like the Gospel of the Ebionites. Tatian introduces his own insights by using the four Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus and reveals obvious knowledge of the apocryphal tradition. In another of his works, the Oration,

Tatian compares the begetting of the Logos at the start of the cosmos along with the creation of the universe to baptism and its effects of rebirth and understanding the truth.

Theophilus of Antioch

During the last part of the second century, Theophilus of Antioch (from approximately

120-190 CE) wrote the apology To Autolycus (circa 180 CE). In this work there is a spiritual interpretation of the creation story of Genesis 1 and an explanation of why animals were created on the fifth day from the waters: “Les êtres nés des eaux furent bénis de Dieu, pour indiquer qu’un jour les hommes recevraient le repentir et le pardon de leurs fautes par l’eau et le bain de régénération.”91

Theophilus uses the terms for regeneration (παλιγγενεσίας) and being born again

(ἀναγεννωμένους) without any apparent difference in meaning. In this text there are connections to baptism, repentance, and forgiveness of sins. Regeneration and new birth are available for those who come to the truth. In another passage of To Autolycus, there is an explanation of the importance and utility of the name “Christian.” Theophilus presents the position that the name Christian derives from being anointed with the oil of God, making what is anointed sweet and useful. Theophilus presents this position using examples like the anointing of a newborn and of an athlete. The description of anointing as both sweet and useful is a play on the words anointed (χριστός) and useful (χρηστός).

91 A Autolycis II.6, as cited in Daniel Vigne, Christ au Jourdain: Le Baptême de Jésus dans la tradition judéo- chrétienne (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1992), 261.

The description of oil is particularly important because if the word is used in a literal way, this could be the first time that a Church writer refers to anointing as part of the initiation of a Christian. The images of the anointing of a newborn babe and also of an athlete could be interpreted as references to the anointing of the ones who obtained new birth in baptism as well as being anointed for the life of an athlete of God. 92 Theophilus compares the anointing of a newly born infant after its first bath with the anointing of newly born Christians after baptism. A similar comparison is made by Theophilus as he describes the anointing of an athlete before a tournament. An athlete of God is made strong in order to face a new life.

It is noteworthy that there is no reference in Theophilus’ apologetics to Christ or to his baptism. Kilian McDonnell is of the opinion that the lack of reference to the mysteries of the life of Jesus Christ in Theophilus’ work was caused by his reluctance to speak openly of Jesus

Christ and give the reader false information that the Christian faith was not monotheistic.

Therefore, Jesus Christ was only alluded to and referred to as the Logos or the Son of God, but with no reference to Christ as the Word made flesh.93

6. Pseudo-Clementines

All the Clementine literature, also called Pseudo-Clementines, are attributed to

Clement of Rome and depict his association with the apostle Peter. Scholars hold that several parts of these stories were written as late as the fourth century, even though there are Jewish Christian ideas in the manuscripts that could predate to the second century.

Likely written by a Jewish Christian who probably did not want to be identified as a Jew,

92 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 246-247. 93 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 113-114.

Clementine literature emphasizes a distinctive Christian faith with a strong belief in Jesus

Christ and descriptions of baptism using a triple invocation. Clementine literature presents

Jewish Christians as people who were observant of menstrual separation, abstaining from impure food, non-sharing of meals with the unbaptized, circumcision as purification, ritual bathing, incipient forms of vegetarianism, and who had an anti-Pauline stance.94 From the

Clementine texts are valuable insights about the baptismal theology and practice of Jewish

Christianity in the second century. One important element of Jewish Christianity present in the Pseudo-Clementines is the importance of water as a source of purification. The frequent reference to daily baths denotes a practice influenced by the Essenes and other Jewish groups. These baths clearly relate either to purity (λούω) or to Christian baptism or initiation (βαπτίζω). The existence of daily baths as well as a one-time baptism of conversion in the Pseudo-Clementines indicate that they were seen as different rites that were not in contradiction with each other.95

Regarding baptism, there are references in the Clementine literature about Peter’s baptizing people after days of teaching and healing. A general initiatory experience is recorded in a sequence (instruction, fasting, baptism in living water with an invocation in the name of the Trinity, and Eucharist) that is very much in consonance with the Christian tradition of the second century. Ferguson describes the meaning of baptism in the Pseudo-

Clementines as an initiation rite and rebirth, an instrument of remission of sins and temptations, a replacement for the sacrificial fire of the Jewish tradition, or a commitment

94 F. Stanley Jones, “Jewish Christianity of the Pseudo-Clementines,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’ (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2005), 315-334. 95 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 248-251.

70 to faith and to a life of virtue and righteousness. The Pseudo-Clementines present baptismal doctrine and practice that goes back to elements of Jewish Christianity in concordance with baptismal practices in the Gentile world of the second century. This concordance could witness a common Christian understanding of baptism that could have its origins in the first

Christian communities of the first century.96

Vigne presents the kerygma of the Pseudo-Clementines as that of an essentially baptismal nature where water, not blood, was the main instrument of salvation.97 Christ was perceived more as a prophet, anointer, and illuminator than a redeemer. This non- paschal aspect of the Clementine literature was evident in particular in its opposition to sacrifices. The Christology of these texts is one of a prophetic type and was based on the idea of the Messianic unction of the New Testament:

Nunc autem unguento composito perunctus pontifex vel propheta Dei altare succedens in omni mundo clarus habebatur, sed post Aaron qui pontifex fuit, alias ex aquis adsumitur, non Moysen dico, sed iliud qui in aquis baptismi filius a Deo appelatus est. Jesus nanque est, qui ignem ilium quem accendebat pontifex pro peccatis, restinxit per baptismi gratiam; ex quo enim hic apparuit, cessavit chrisma, per quod pontificatus praebebatur vel prophetia vel regnum.98

Even when the reference to the baptism of the Jordan is discrete, it is by no means unimportant. As a matter of fact the baptism of Christ is presented as an important and concrete event in the history of humanity. This event is presented as the event that explained and justified practices like ablutions, baths, preaching, the opposition to sacrifices, and the concept of the unction of Christ. The Clementine literature is therefore an

96 Ibid., 261-265. 97 Vgine, Christ au Jourdain, 60-65. 98 Pseudo-Clementines, Recognitio I.8., in Die Pseudoklmentinen, vol.2 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953), 36.

71 important reminder of how the baptism of Christ was an essential event of the ancient

Jewish Christian tradition.

However, this does not mean that there were no differences in the baptismal practices between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians performed the Jewish purification baths and a one-time baptism of conversion. Gentile Christians did not observe the purification baths and established a marked difference between ritual baths and baptism.

This process of distinction contributed to a progressive differentiation of the liturgical practices of Jewish and Gentile Christians accompanied by works of Christian authors questioning the validity of maintaining Jewish rituals in the Christian Church.99

7. Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria, a theologian from the second half of the second century (circa

150 CE) who was highly educated and a convert, uses the term βαπτίζω mostly in a secular meaning (as an image for drunkenness) and at other times as an image for washing (and consequently for water baptism). Nonetheless, the favorite word that Clement uses to describe baptism is regeneration (ảναγέννησις). Clement proposed that God made people out of the earth and regenerated them through water. Clement also linked the Spirit with the water, presenting baptism as the regeneration of soul and body. The spirit that is depicted over the waters in the creation story of Genesis 17 was identified by Clement as the Holy Spirit. In baptism the created water washes the body but the celestial water (the

Spirit) washes the spirit of the baptized. This concept of baptism as a sign of regeneration is

99 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, chapter 16.

72 depicted by Clement in a realistic sense. The fruits of this regeneration are divine life and immortality, a munificent gift from God.100

Another important idea in the theology of Clement of Alexandria is illumination, defined by him as knowledge of God. As a result of baptism, the believer is illuminated

(ϕωτιζόμεθα), adopted, and perfected, and as a consequence of this process, is made immortal. The illumination of baptism gives an unblemished vision of God and a deliverance from darkness. The process of regeneration is also a process of perfection: “We say that what is in need of nothing is perfect. And what is yet lacking to the person who knows God?

To be regenerated (άναγεννηθῆναι) is perfection.”101

Other important baptismal concepts used by Clement are the bath (λοντρόν) and the seal

(σϕραγίϛ). Baptism is a bath that washes away sin and brings forgiveness. The seal image implies possession and protection by God and is an image alluding to the action of the Holy

Spirit in baptism. There is no overt description of the baptismal rite in Clement of

Alexandria’s work. However, there are hints from his baptismal theology providing some insights regarding baptismal practice. Clement makes reference in his works to catechesis leading to faith, as there is no possibility for belief without instruction. There is a reference in an exegesis of Ephesians 6:14-17 about baptismal immersion and its power to quench the arrows of the devil. There are also exhortations to use of the names of the Trinity for baptism as well as the use of the term seal as a title for baptism. In his imagery of baptism

100 Ibid., 311-313. 101Instructor 1.6.27.2, in Ibid., 312.

Clement also presents a description of Christians as infants fed on milk, a possible connection with baptismal liturgies followed by eucharist that used milk (and probably honey). Clement also believed in the idea found in Hermas and in other authors about the need for virtuous Jews and Gentiles who died before Christ to be baptized after death.

Clement, in his work Excerpts from Theodotus, describes gnostic baptism in a sequence that presents similarities with Clement’s own ideas. From Clement’s sources, the rite of baptism included fasting, prayer, exorcism, catechetical instruction, and the use of water while mentioning the Trinity, the use of bread and oil, the laying on of hands, and the understanding of baptism as a seal. The differences between Clement and Theodotus are mostly about the interpretation of baptism, but it is worthy to note that even in their interpretation of baptism there were common concepts. This community reflects the interconnection of the theological and liturgical concepts during the second century.

However, it is dangerous to perceive these diverse early communities as totally separated without considering their points of convergence and their influence upon each other.

Another of Clement’s texts presents the Alexandrian author challenging the gnostic idea that the baptism performed by the Catholic community was imperfect, and only capable of the remission of sins. Clement was answering the claims from dissenting groups that only the gnosis or spiritual baptism could bring perfection to the believer. Clement attempted to prove that baptism is perfect because in itself it confers remission of sins, the true illumination or gnosis, and the perfect gift (τò τέλειον) of the Spirit. In Clements’s theology the perfection of baptism does not reside in an immediate knowledge of God but in a gradual process that will be revealed completely in the final resurrection. Clement gave

74 baptism a vital importance in the life of a Christian, with a sequence that entailed remission of sins, illumination, adoption, sanctification, perfection, and deification or immortality. The belief and practice of baptism is in no way inferior to the gnostic quest for knowledge. To the contrary, there is no difference between pistis and gnosis, as they are both elements of salvation (σωτηρία). As a result, there is only one Spirit who communicates knowledge, and one salvation as an instrument for the intuitive vision of the true God.102

Clement of Alexandria presents in his Eclogae Propheticae the reason for the baptism of Jesus Christ:

Le Saveur se fit baptizer, sans en avoir besoin lui-même, afin de sanctifier toute l’eau, pour ceux qui y sont régénérés. De cette manière nous ne sommes pas seulement purifiés quant au corps, mais aussi quant à l’âme. Et ce qui signifie que les parties invisibles de notre être sont sanctifies, c’est que même les esprits impurs qui sont attachés à notre âme, sont éliminés à partir de la nouvelle naissance spirituelle.103

Clement discusses Jesus’ baptism citing Matthew 3:17 and adding the phrase “Today I have begotten you.” This addition is consistent with the regeneration imagery frequently used by

Clement in his works.104 Clement uses the baptism of Christ as a tool to understand the foundations of Christian baptism. The baptism in the Jordan perfected Jesus in his humanity in order that this perfection would sanctify human beings who are baptized. Events in the life of Christ depicted in the Gospel like the temptations endured in the desert are a type of temptation experienced by humankind. The Son of God was baptized in order to sanctify all

102 Orbe, “Teología bautismal de Clemente Alejandrino,” Gregorianum no.3 (1955), 446. 103 Eclogae propheticae 7, texte grec, par O. Stählin, (Leipzig: Grietische christiche Schrifteller, 1909), as cited in Daniélou, 250. 104 Antonio Orbe, “Teología bautismal de Clemente Alejandrino,” 434-441.

75 water of those regenerated by baptism. This baptism account delivers humanity from fire and is the foundation for the commandment to the disciples to go and baptize.105

In an exegesis of John 1.3-4: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and life was the light of all humankind,”

Clement defines τέλειον as something that only the ones who had been initiated in the way of Life could attain:

Además de que aun la liberación de los males es principio de salud. Pero ciertamente tan solo quienes hayamos sido iniciados en los umbrales de la Vida, somos perfectos (τέλειοϛ). Empero vivimos ya los que estamos apartados de la muerte. Es pues salvación el seguir a Cristo.106

Salvation is to follow Christ. Antonio Orbe analyzes this passage from Clement’s

Paedagogus in the baptismal context presented in the work. Orbe observes that if salvation consists of following and imitating Christ, then it is possible to affirm that Clement was deducing that as a consequence the gift of perfect salvation, given to all the faithful in baptism, resides in the concrete imitation of Christ in his baptism.107 Orbe makes this assertion by comparing the previous reflection with other passages in the same work, where Clement posits that to follow Christ is salvation. Or in other words, imitating Christ in his baptism, the faithful will achieve the same perfect life that was made in Jesus with the descent of the Holy Spirit on him. This strong baptismal theology responded very much to the baptismal language and understanding that was part of the context of the Christian tradition of the second century. Clement presents the efficacy and relevance of Christian

105 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 313-314. 106 Instructor I. 26. 36-37, as cited in Orbe, “Teología bautismal,”441. 107 Ibid., 440-448.

76 baptism as an instrument to attain eternal life through Christ, and by following Christ, achieving the vision of God.108

8. Fire and Light

An important element in the interpretations of the Jewish Christian writers is the imagery connecting the baptism in the Jordan with a baptism of fire. This connection goes back to Matthew 3.11 with allusions to John the Baptist about a future baptism, a baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. This image of fire continues in the Judeo-Christian tradition, with references to the appearance of fire over or in the waters of the Jordan at the baptism of Jesus, an image that could be interpreted as a fulfillment of the prophecy of John the

Baptist. Among the texts where this image is presented include the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Diatessaron, certain Latin translations of the New Testament, and Justin Martyrs’

Dialogue with Trypho. There is also a connection in other texts regarding the fire in the

Jordan and the fire of the Final Judgment. The Sybilline Oracles present a passage that suggested that Christ was delivered from the fire by his baptism: “Après que (le Fils de Dieu) eut reçu une seconde naissance selon la chair, s’étant lavé dans le courant du Jourdain, qui s’avance de son pas bleu, entraînant ses flots, ayant échappé au feu, il verra le premier un

Dieu favorable venir par l’Esprit, sur les ailes d’une blanche colombe. “109 Daniélou posits that this connection between the fire in the baptism of Christ and the fire of the Final judgment was not the most typical one in Jewish Christianity. Early testimony connected the fire with baptism in general and not to the descent of Jesus into the Jordan.

The Gospel of the Ebionites does not present the fire until after the baptism:

108 Ibid., 447-448. 109 Sybilline Oracles VI. 3-7, as cited in Daniélou, 251.

Quand Jésus sortit de l’eau, les cieux s’ouvrirent et il vit l’Esprit Saint descendre sur lui et entrer en lui. Une voix vint du ciel, disant: Tu es mon fils bien-aimé en qui je me suis complu. Et à nouveau: Je t’ai engendré aujourd’hui. Et alors une grande lumière illumine (περιέλαμψε) le lieu.110

This quote is also an indication of the tendency of the majority of texts not so much to refer to fire in the baptism of Jesus as to present the baptismal event as surrounded by light. The baptism of Jesus and its aftermath was represented with a light of glory complementing

Jesus’ divine epiphany and associating it with the voice from heaven and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This image could be associated with passages in the New Testament regarding Jesus. For example, the Transfiguration narrative presents a voice from heaven proclaiming the status of Jesus as Son, and a flash of light emanating from the transfigured

Jesus. This depiction of a flash of light at the Transfiguration can be related to the light imagery represented in some baptismal accounts. Earlier, Luke 2:9 also presents the shepherds’ experiencing the glory of the Lord shining (περιέλαμψε) around them and producing great fear in them. The emphasis on the light of glory as part of the manifestation of the Son of God in the Jordan prompted the Ebionites and the gnostic communities to proclaim the baptism in the Jordan as the moment of the descent of the Spirit into Jesus.

Daniélou was of the opinion that this uncertainty of the significance of the baptism of Jesus motivated the established Christian tradition to downplay the baptism of Jesus in order to emphasize more the infancy narratives and the idea of the Spirit already present in Jesus before his baptism. 111

110 Ibid., 253. 111 Ibid., 254.

Nonetheless, the tradition of depicting light imagery as an element of narratives regarding the baptism of Jesus is an ancient one. This tradition was prevalent in some second century authors, like Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr (discussed in the next chapter), who both described baptism as an illumination. There was an effort on the part of diverse authors from the Jewish Christian tradition to give a cosmic dimension to the main events of the life of Jesus Christ and show these events as divine mysteries where God’s glory is manifested.

9. Positions of Some of the Gnostic and Sectarian Groups

Marcionites

The Marcionites, established after the ideas of Marcion of Sinope, were considered by some Christian communities as holding many heretical viewpoints regarding God, Scripture, and tradition. Marcion arrived in Rome about 140 CE after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Marcion’s teachings provoked his excommunication from the mainstream church about the year 144.

Marcion was offended by many passages of the Old Testament and determined that the church needed to dispense with Hebrew Scripture. As a result of his clashes with others in the Christian communities in Rome, Marcion founded a community that thrived in the second half of the second century and was a great challenge to the church. The evidence about Marcionites is mostly provided by writers opposed to their beliefs. The summary of these testimonies give some information regarding the teachings of Marcion, with some limited allusions to Marcionite teaching about baptismal doctrines and practices. A consensus of the evidence indicates that the Marcionite view of baptism was not that distant from what became normative practices in the Roman community.

According to Tertullian, the main source on Marcion, the creation of the world was produced by the inferior God of the Old Testament, while the superior God was the Father of Jesus Christ. Marcion’s viewpoint was mostly based on a literal interpretation of the Bible combined with some ideas of his own. According to Marcion, the Old Testament presents a

God whose primary qualities are righteousness and retaliation, a sovereign with thirst for blood and war. The imperfection of creation was the result of the imperfection of the creator. Jesus, the Son of this imperfect God, appeared in the world and was pure goodness, had the appearance of a human being, taught love and mercy, proclaimed the gospel. The creator did not recognize this new God, crucified him and sent him to Hades, where Jesus continued his work of redemption, justifying the groups that were considered ungodly in the Old Testament. As a result of Marcion’s critical view of creation, there was great emphasis in his teaching for ascetic practices, in particular celibacy and fasting. Certainly

Marcion was influenced by the letters of Paul and the contrast between the old and new order, in particular from Galatians. 112

Even with Marcion’s differences with early Roman hierarchy regarding doctrinal issues, there were in the organization and liturgy of the Marcionite movement great similarities with the Christian communities. Tertullian comments about the apparent contradiction between the dislike of creation and the flesh by Marcion and the baptismal liturgy of his followers. The Marcionite rite of baptism did not differ much from that of the other

Christian communities, as it used elements of creation like water, oil, honey, and milk.

However, baptism was administered in the Marcionite tradition only to celibates. In both

112 Heikki Räisänen, “Marcion,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Loumanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005): 100-122.

80 traditions baptism was administered by immersion. Tertullian also reports that Marcionites also administered baptism for the dead and permitted women to be administrators of baptism. Other writers, like Cyprian or Epiphanius mention that baptism was performed in the name of Jesus Christ and that there was the opportunity of getting baptized three times in order to have sins removed after the initial baptism. 113

Gnostics Groups

A study of the dissenting groups from early Christianity shows the great complexity of beliefs and practices in the second century. Another important movement was composed of diverse groups that were collectively labelled as gnostics, but further scholarship has determined the gnostic categorization narrow and misleading. Therefore, the Gnostic movement can be seen more as a Christianized syncretism that used Christian elements as a catalyst for their religious systems. Certainly one Christian element was the baptism of

Christ, an event that occupied a central place in gnostic doctrine and the only event from the Gospels that was kept and transformed by them. The baptism was the salvific moment in gnostic doctrine.

A summary of the gnostic position (in its many texts and variations) of the baptism of

Jesus presents a radical dualism between the baptism of the celestial aeon and the earthly man, of the Christ from on high and the Jesus from below. The baptism in the Jordan was the moment when these two realities collided, a union that was not going to be permanent, as the celestial Christ abandoned Jesus at his Crucifixion. Gnosticism viewed a universe distant from the created world. The baptism in the Jordan per se is not important for the

113 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 276-278.

81 gnostic systems, as they saw it not as an historical event, but as a myth of a process that symbolized the transcendental unction of a supra celestial being. Where did gnostic groups get their inspiration regarding all this emphasis on the baptism of Jesus? Without a doubt, from the great importance that Jewish Christianity gave to the events at the Jordan. Texts from early Christianity attest to a liturgical celebration of the baptism of Christ (or the

Epiphany) that could have started as far back as the first decade of the second century.114

It seems that gnostic movements in Christianity were born out of Jewish groups.

Daniélou posits that the Jewish pre-Christian gnosis had two characteristics. The first one is a theological and cosmological speculation based on an arcane exegesis of Genesis. The other characteristic is the development of a dualism that was considered heretical even in

Jewish circles. As a general conclusion it can be said that gnosticism was a structure alien to both Judaism and Christianity that became a dissident Christian group because of its association with dissident Jewish groups.115 Ysabel de Andia defined gnosticism as a movement characterized by a loss of unity: the unity of Christ, true God and true human being; the unity of the Spirit, proceeding from the Father and resting upon Jesus Christ at his baptism in the Jordan; the unity of the two testaments as a single economy of salvation; the unity of humanity composed of body and soul and united by the Spirit; and the unity of the Church.116

114 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 87-91. 115 Daniélou, 82-83. 116 Ysabel de Andia, “The ‘Science So Falsely Called’: Seduction and Separation,” Communio 24 (Winter 1997): 645-670.

Valentinians

The Valentinians could be considered the closest gnostic group to what came to be seen as the mainstream of Christianity. Information about them could be obtained from

Christian writers as well as from the tracts of the Nag Hammadi. However, to make a synthesis of the baptismal doctrine and liturgy of the Valentinians is a difficult task, as there were different divisions of Valentinian followers and they had different views about doctrine and practice. A good example of this diversity can be found in the way Valentinian groups depicted the baptism of Jesus. Ferguson presents a synthesis of the Valentinian practice of baptism in the following order: fasting, prayer, and confession; undressing, renunciation of evil spirits; (triple) immersion with the invocation of the Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit; profession of faith; anointment with oil; imposition of hands; a peace greeting and kiss; and a procession with lamps.117 However, Valentinian texts were more concerned with the spiritual aspect of baptism. Valentinian spirituality was similar to other Christian groups; the difference between the two traditions was provoked by varying perspectives regarding salvation and perception of the world. The Valentinians did not see themselves as part of a dissenting group but as part of the Christian community.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his Adversus haereses in order to refute Valentinian thought.

Irenaeus saw Valentinians as highly dangerous due to their misuse of Scripture and Christian practice as a proof for their views. As a result, Irenaeus is the main source of information for other anti-Valentinian critics like Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, and Epiphanius. Irenaeus is also the first creator of a systematic presentation of the rule of faith. Irenaeus starts

117 Ibid., 289.

Adversus haereses with a prolonged description of Valentinian doctrine. This description is his own summary of different writings of Valentinians done with his own subjective interest in order to present the difference between the school of Valentinus and Christian orthodoxy.

From the scattered references found in different texts, Valentinus probably came from Egypt and arrived in Rome about the middle of the second century. Valentinus was never expelled from the Christian community of Rome; however, there was speculation that he returned to Egypt later in his life. There are about a dozen passages from Valentinus’ writings in works of Christian authors. Regarding the divine essence of Jesus, Valentinus wrote that Jesus Christ had an unusual body, eating and drinking in a special way without defecating. This position can be grasped on a fragment from the Stromata by Clement of

Alexandria:

Valentín en la carta a Agatópodo dice: “Sujeto a todas las pasiones (πάντα ὑπομείνας) (el Salvador) era continente. Jesús trabajaba (εἰργάζετο) la divinidad. Comía y bebía en modo particular (ἰδίως) sin devolver los manjares (οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα). Era tan grande su continencia, que el propio alimento no se corrompía en su interior (ὥστε καὶ μὴ ϕϑαρῆναι τὴν τροϕὴν ἐν αὐτῷ), por no consentir El (en su persona) la corrupción (ἐπεὶ τὸ ϕϑείρεσϑαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν).”118

On this topic, Valentinus was reflecting on the difficulty that theologians had with the reality of the Incarnation and the difficulty in reconciling it with the divinity of Jesus. For

Valentinus, Jesus had such a capability for continence that food and drink in him was not corrupted, as Jesus never experienced corruption. Other fragments reflect an influence of

118 Stromata III.7.59.3, as found in Antonio Orbe, “El Hijo del hombre come y bebe (Mt 11,19; Lc 7, 34),” Gregorianum 58 no.3 (1977): 527. Valentinus in the letter to Agatopodus says: "(The Saviour) was continent, subject to all passions (πάντα ὑπομείνας). Jesus worked (εἰργάζετο) the divinity. He ate and drank in a particular way (ἰδίως) without throwing up the delicacies (οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα). So great was his continence, that food was not corrupted (ὥστε καὶ ϕϑαρῆναι τὴν τροϕὴν ἐν αὐτῷ μὴ) inside, in order for Him not to consent to corruption (in his person) (ἐπεὶ τὸ ϕϑείρεσϑαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν)." (My translation)

Greek philosophy. However, the fragments by Valentinus do not exactly reflect the same rejection of the world and other images of the Valentinian thought expressed by Irenaeus’ description in Adversus haereses.

Irenaeus presents in the first book of Adversus haereses that the tradition of the

Valentinians (as well as other gnostic groups) regarding baptism and redemption has been an encouragement by the devil to deny the baptism of regeneration, and to put knowledge or gnosis as the way of regeneration and entrance into fullness or Pleroma. It seems that the groups that Irenaeus described had the custom of a water baptism followed by an anointing, all in similarity with the practices of the Christian community of Irenaeus, but with a different baptismal formula and in some cases a greater emphasis on anointing:

Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance if these words, “Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe—into truth, the mother of all things—into Him who descended on Jesus—into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers.” 119

The passage is noteworthy as it alludes to the baptism of Jesus. The liturgical practices and terms of the Valentinians had their origin in different traditions, like the use of Hebraic formulas at the moment of the immersion. However, it seems that the greater difference was regarding the emphasis on the spiritual initiation and its importance for salvation:

But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption…Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures…The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature, for they affirm that the inner and spiritual

119 Adv, haer. I. 21I.3, in Saint Ireneaus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors (USA: Ex Fontibus Company, 2010): 106.

man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then is the true redemption.120

The most complete report about Valentinian sacramental practice is found in the Gospel of

Phillip, a text probably written during the third century but reflective of earlier concepts and practices. The Gospel of Phillip presents the Valentinian division between the inferior and superior Wisdom, and also the creation of the world by an inferior creator who made it in error. This text presents a sequence for God’s mystery manifested in humanity by means of baptism, chrism, eucharist, redemption, and the bridal chamber. Scholars have interpreted this sequence as one where the first three items could refer to stages in the conversion and initiation process, while the last two items may be clarifications of the meaning of baptism, chrism and eucharist. On this interpretation, baptism and chrism could be depicted as redemption and eucharist described as the bridal chamber.121

There is the association in the Gospel of Phillip between fire and water as elements of sanctification, water being for external elements and fire for internal or hidden elements.

Emphasis on the functions of water and fire tended to stress chrism as having more importance than baptism, because Christians received their name due to chrism. A passage elaborates on this thought by adding that Christ was named for chrism and the anointing of the father; as a result of this, the son anoints the apostles, and the apostles anoint other believers. There is a declaration in the Gospel of Phillip that presents the importance of chrism for the believer: “Whoever has been anointed has everything: resurrection, light,

120Adv.haer. I. 22.4, in Ibid., 107. 121 April D. DeConick, “The True Mysteries: Sacramantalism in the Gospel of Phillip,” Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001): 225-261; D.H. Tripp, “The ‘Sacramental System in the Gospel of Philipp,” in Studia Patristica 5 (1962): 251-260.

86 cross, holy spirit.”122 The experience of Jesus in the Jordan constituted the model for believers, as Jesus is begotten and anointed again at his baptism in the Jordan and ransomed others as a result.123

Sethians

The Sethians were a dissenting group during the Roman era and active during the second and third centuries. Their doctrine had strong Judaic roots, with a high influence from Platonism. The Sethians attributed their gnosis to Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as well as Noreah, the wife of Noah. The main source for information regarding a Sethian baptismal rite can be found on the Gospel of the Egyptians (work from the second or third century). The existing documents from the religious group called the Sethians assume that a saviour figure (either Seth or Christ) descended into the world in a way similar to the descent of believers into the water. According to the Sethians, as a result of spiritual enlightenment the initiate received a static vision that would produce the ascension from the water into a land of light. This concept explains the frequent mention of baptism in

Sethian writings, in references that are both metaphorical and allusive to external rites. In some writings, like in the Paraphrase of Shem, there is an attack both on Jesus’s baptism as well as Christian baptism, presenting Christian baptism as an imperfect baptism provided by demons where water becomes a source of oppression. Water was linked in Sethian writings as pertaining to the created order and incapable of remitting sins. However, it seems that the Sethians had their own rites, with the inclusion of rites involving water.124 Water was

122 Gospel of Phillip, 83, II 74, 12-15, in The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 341. 123 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 284-286. 124 Ibid., 290.

87 seen in some of these rites as part of the process of descent of the divine Christ, who descended for the sake of the higher spirit and came out of the “water of life” and the baptism [or bath] of the mysteries.

The evidence suggests that the rite included these constituents: recitation of a profession of gnosis, an invocation, a renunciation of the world, baptism, and joining hands in a circle. Regarding the spiritual significance of baptism, the evidence shows an emphasis on: gnosis or salvation, separation from the created world, liberation from the powers of the world, illumination, and union. Baptism is portrayed as something spiritual and closely related to the fullness or Pleroma. The spiritual and physical aspects of baptism were interconnected in Sethian baptism, but the spiritual side was presented as more essential.

The evidence from Sethian texts presents their baptism as distant from the main concepts of Christian baptism, a situation perhaps caused by the non-Christian origin of the group, since they were most probably a Jewish baptismal sect with gnostic influence.125

Ebionites

The Ebionites, whose name originated from the Hebrew word ebyon or poor, were mentioned both by Irenaeus of Lyons and Origen in their writings. The Ebionites can be defined as Jews who were followers of Christ but saw him as the greatest prophet, not as the Son of God. This group was clearly distinct in early Christianity. Their belief in Jesus separated the Ebionites from other Jews, but their denial of Jesus’ divinity and their belief in the power of God’s descending on Jesus at his baptism confirms the group as being strongly against any Trinitarian belief. The Ebionites also saw Christ’s mission as mainly concerned

125 Ibid., 298-299.

88 with teaching and with the reformation of Judaism. There was also a solid observance of the

Law in the Ebionite group, as they thought that Jesus did not wish to abolish the Law but reform it in order to reflect the true ideas of Moses and to eliminate diabolic additions like

Temple worship and sacrifices of blood. The Ebionites saw Paul as the real enemy and corruptor of the message of Jesus.126

For the Ebionites, the main event of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan was the begetting of Jesus by God, presented in the expression of Luke 3.22: “You are my Son, today

I have begotten you.” The one that existed before the baptism existed in the shadow of the baptismal event; Jesus was only a human being, born from human beings, not the Son of

God. This interpretation was certainly against the Christian tradition regarding the

Incarnation, where Luke 3.22 was not interpreted in a literal and absolute manner. For the

Ebionites, however, the baptismal birth of Jesus is to be understood in a literal sense. The

Ebionites saw the events at the Jordan as the moment when Jesus was born of God. This concept of Jesus being born at his baptism is not totally heterodox, as it reveals some of the problems of interpretation of the Gospels and their diverse emphasis on the beginnings of the life of Jesus and the start of his public ministry. Therefore, any description of the preexistence of the Word of God was ignored in Ebionite Christology. The Gospel of the

Ebionites presented the baptism in the Jordan as a divine favour due to the exemplary life of Jesus, who was born of God by election. At the baptism, the Spirit came down in the form of a dove and entered into Jesus. This concept indicates influence from adoptionist theology

126 Daniélou, 68-76.

89 as well as Essene thought about the action of the Spirit on prophets. Also noteworthy is the mention of a great light shining around the Jordan during the baptism of Jesus.

According to Daniel Vigne, the Ebionite doctrine could be summarized by a phrase attributed to Jesus that can be found in several Pre-Clementine works: Amen, dico vobis nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit ex aqua viva non introibit in regna coelorum. This expression probably originated in the Gospel of the Ebionites and has some resemblance to the language of the Fourth Gospel. The emphasis on a rebirth from living water made baptism a practice done in rivers and seas and was a very important part of Ebionite doctrine. Water was considered the first of all creatures and the source of the universe, an instrument of the

Spirit of God, and the instrument of life for humankind.127

Regarding the conception of Jesus, the Ebionite consensus was that he was just a human being born from humans, and a prophet. Daniel Vigne makes the distinction between this initial notion of the Ebionites and the later claims of Christian authors that the

Ebionites were against established Christian concepts like the virgin birth and the divinity of

Christ. Vigne posits that the centrality of the baptism of Jesus in Ebionite theology did not attack the tradition of the birth and nature of Jesus. Instead, their focus on Jesus’ baptism made the Ebionites ignore the tradition, and their literal interpretation of Luke 3:22 was defended without any precise elaboration of the implications of their position, producing instead a negation of the Incarnation. 128

It is also important to remember that the Ebionites were also a particular group in

Jewish Christianity. There were other groups similar to the Ebionites, like the Nazareans,

127 Vigne, 245-246. 128 Ibid., 113-114.

90 who firmly believed in the virgin birth, a belief that is documented in different works of canonical and non-canonical tradition about the infancy of Jesus. It seems that the Ebionites were reacting to a tradition already established in orthodox Christianity by the middle of the second century. The Gospel of the Hebrews, used by the Nazareans, is a text that does not depart drastically from the canonical Gospels and presents the baptism of Jesus as an event in connection with the infancy narratives. In the case of the Ebionites, Vigne was of the opinion that the emphasis on the baptismal declaration in the Gospel of Luke made any other declarations of the divinity of Jesus Christ secondary, resulting in a progressive separation from mainstream Christianity.129

Cerinthus

Irenaeus also mentions the ideas of other dissenting groups that would form the diverse gnostic structures of the second century. Cerinthus, an author described as sharing both chiliastic and gnostic ideas, interpreted the baptism of Jesus as a change in his metaphysical condition and not as a revelation of his real nature. According to Cerinthus, at the moment of Jesus’ baptism the Christ from above descended on him as a dove, and from that moment Christ preached and performed miracles. Cerinthus was a precursor of later gnostic interpretations on the baptism of Jesus. In an analysis of Cerinthus, Charles Hill posits that the study of Cerinthus could bring a better understanding regarding the debate of the role of Judaism and Christianity in the development of the gnostic systems.130

Cerinthus came from a tradition with a strong Jewish presence that was actively preaching

129 Ibid., 114-115. 130 Charles E. Hill, “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast?: A New Solution to an Old Problem,” Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 8, Number 2 (Summer 2000): 135-172.

91 against Christianity. Cerinthus agreed in his works with the Jewish interpretation of the prophets and believed in a conjunction of the solely human Jesus with the celestial or divine

Christ. The creation stories from Hebrew scripture were used by Cerinthus as an indication of an imperfect world. As part of this view, Cerinthus held the belief in a higher and a lower

God. The just Jesus was born of the union of Mary and Joseph and was adopted by the heavenly Christ who abandoned Jesus later on the cross. Cerinthus presented a system that intended to surpass the religious beliefs of his time:

In Cerinthus we are presented with an outlook which sought to supersede at once both the Judaism and the (Johannine) Christianity it knew. Ironically, what later heresiologists understood as a Judaistic feature, chiliasm, was no part of a Judaizing system at all but on a system which abhorred every trace of “Judaizing” in the Church. It was the product of a system which sought to relegate the Messiah’s earthly kingdom to the people of an inferior God.131

B. Noticeable Ideas in the Early Canonical and Non-Canonical Interpretations of the

Baptism of Christ132

With the help of the work of Daniel Alain Bertrand, Everett Ferguson identifies four noticeable motifs in canonical and non-canonical interpretations of the baptism of Jesus in early Christianity: the descent of the Spirit (interpreted on certain occasions as a fulfillment of Isaiah 11:2), the beginning of the messianic ministry of Jesus, the identification and revelation of Jesus (with numerous differences about Jesus’s identity), and the purification of water or of Jesus (in his identification with humanity).133 In my opinion, these four motifs are extremely accurate in portraying the main tendencies of the second century regarding

131 Ibid., 271. 132 It is important to remark that the concepts of “canonical” or “non-canonical “are used following Ferguson’s classification. These concepts in themselves could be detected as an anachronism, as the concept of the New Testament “canon” was not yet decided during the second century. 133 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 112.

92 the event of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and its impact and influence on the theology and practice of Christian baptism. All of the authors and schools presented in this chapter dealt with these four issues, creating and reporting doctrinal and liturgical positions that were indicative of the christological and soteriological issues that were relevant during the second century.

1. The Descent of the Spirit

Regarding the descent of the Spirit during the baptism of Jesus, there are many significant texts expressing different views regarding the role of the Spirit. The emphasis on the Spirit at the baptism in the Jordan by different sources was an important point of convergence of traditions and opinions in a period that had still not developed many advances in pneumatology. Pervasive images of the Spirit related to the baptism of Jesus

Christ are numerous, but there are three that could be considered very important for the second century: the Spirit as source or stream, and the Spirit as unction. Regarding the image of the Spirit as a stream, there is in Scripture a connection of the Spirit with the water.

This connection was also found in the non-canonical writers of different traditions of Jewish

Christianity. The Spirit was presented as the loving pervasion of the divine reality and the streaming of salvific grace for all humanity. The Spirit-stream is the divine presence that is scattered over all to wash and purify. Vigne posits that the expression “baptized by the

Spirit” finds its best context at the baptism in the Jordan. Jesus emerged from the waters of the Jordan and was immersed in the divine stream of the Spirit.134

134 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 313.

The baptism in the Jordan could be called a new genesis, where the descent of the

Spirit over Jesus had a cosmic and soteriological outcome and where this Spirit of the

Jordan is the same Spirit of God that appeared over the water on Genesis 1:2. This aspect of the baptism of Jesus as an image of a new creation provoked heated discussions in the

Christian tradition when some groups emphasized this creational aspect at the expense of denying the divinity of Christ. This baptism in the Spirit was expressed in the New

Testament and in subsequent authors with images of the Spirit related to immersion and bath. This imagery connecting the water and the spirit will spark a baptismal theology (in works like the Gospel of the Hebrews, fragments of the Commentary on Isaiah by Jerome, the Homily on the Theophany by Pseudo Hyppolitus, the Odes of Solomon, and others), and inspire tangible signs that will evolve into spiritual and sacramental insights about the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers.

Regarding the Spirit as unction, from the sources studied in this chapter, there is a sense of the Spirit as someone who is able to reconcile humanity with the divine. In the depictions of Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit establishes contact with the flesh of Jesus that permits reconciliation and healing for the human flesh (at least in the texts of the mainline communities). This Spirit as unction connects Christian baptism with the baptism of Christ and inspires the growing practice of anointing in the diverse communities of the second century. With a strong influence from Jewish Christianity, the anointing rite in the first

Christian communities designated the baptized Jesus as the anointed Messiah, in a gesture in concordance with Biblical and Jewish tradition. This anointing as symbol of the Holy Spirit was the gesture of identification of the Christian with the Messianic anointing that Jesus

Christ received at the Jordan. However, it is interesting to notice that the development of this anointing rite had no direct precedent in the Gospels and was based on the apocryphal literature, and the reflections were based on concepts from Hebrew Scripture and tradition.135

Nevertheless, the images depicting the Holy Spirit in the second century were vivid, tangible, and conducive to a better grasp of the mystery of the actions of the Spirit in the Jordan and on Christian believers.

2. The Beginning of the Messianic Ministry of Jesus and the Identification and Revelation

of Jesus

These two motifs will be discussed together due to their points of convergence. In this chapter the evidence shows that almost none of the traditions of the second century sustained the view that Jesus was baptized in order to have sins pardoned. All the texts presented are unanimous in declaring Jesus as being without sin. There was diversity of opinions on the ontological level between the different communities regarding the function of the baptism in the life of Jesus Christ. On one side, the dissenting side of the Ebionites believed that the Gospel expression of “I have begotten you” was to be understood in a literal manner, reducing by association the identity of Jesus to that of a prophet. Conversely, the Nazareans, members of a small Jewish group that shared origins and ideas with the

Ebionites, regarded the same Gospel passage in a relative manner. They considered that

Jesus was Son of God, from his conception, and that during his baptism he received a new birth in his humanity. This experience of baptism gave Jesus a new and public life, a new

135 Ibid., 202-204.

95 chapter in his journey. The events at the Jordan were not to be considered in a radical manner, but in a larger context, in connection with the tradition of the Gospels.

There is also a Messianic context to the understanding of the baptism connected with prophecies of Hebrew Scripture related to King David. By baptism, Jesus became a new

David, the Son of God, the revelation of the Father. However, several of the works cited in this chapter deal with the question of the identity of Jesus before the baptism. The

Ebionites, and other dissenting groups, were firm in declaring that Jesus, Son of God, had a new birth at his baptism. This position is indicative of the transcendent nature of the events at the Jordan, events that occurred on more than an external or inferior level. In the case of the Ebionites this baptismal prominence was translated in a segregation of the baptism of

Jesus to the exclusion of any other scriptural tradition regarding Jesus Christ. The reaction of the Church Fathers was to condemn any part of the dissenting group’s doctrine that denied the divinity of Jesus since his conception, and to continue to reflect on explaining

Gospel concepts that described the baptism of Jesus in terms of “a new birth.”

It is interesting to note that during the second century the main Christological insights were motivated by the baptism in the Jordan, using both Scripture and tradition through popular religiosity and legend. This exploration encouraged original insights regarding the life and mission of Christ using cultural and religious perceptions from different sources, including Judaism. At the same time this innovative approach provoked a diversity of opinions that were the source of dissent. The established Christian community was both inspired and challenged by all these divergent currents of thought, creating liturgies and theological works that influenced the baptismal theology of later generations.

3. The Purification of the Water and the Purification of Jesus, in His Identification with

Humanity

The authors presented in this chapter were very influential in the Christian tradition with their descriptions of baptismal liturgy and spirituality. An important symbol present in the literature of the second century is the living water, a symbol that was linked to the ritual practices involving water that became so fundamental to Christianity. This image of the living or running water was also used in reference to Christ and his baptism, as well as to soteriology. Jesus was baptized in living water. This was an expression that had its origins in

Scripture and certain Jewish texts but became very relevant for the Jewish and Christian baptismal movements.

The writers from the established Christian communities used the image with more discretion than in other contexts, as several dissenting groups gave living water a value analogous to the prominence given to the Eucharist in the Christian communities. To some baptismal movements, living water had central cultic place as a source of sacramental interaction. In orthodox writings, as in the Didachē, and in authors such as Justin Martyr, the symbol was either diminished or discarded, probably as a reaction to the enthusiasm registered in the other seemingly sectarian communities, who regarded water as something that had power in itself to erase sin. This idea again refers to the centrality of the events at the Jordan and the sacramental function of water in representation of Christ and his baptism. Water had from the very beginning a close association to baptism and this association made the image of cleansing and bath a recurring one for the understanding of

97 salvation given by baptism. The prominence given from Scripture and tradition to baptism as a necessity for salvation inspired the Christian tradition to further reflect on the use of water for administering baptism, both in the customary practice of immersion as well as other measures in cases of emergency or lack of availability of running water.

The centrality of living water for baptismal movements was highly influenced by

Scripture, in particular by the book of Genesis. However, the great emphasis on water by some sects motivated the Fathers of the Church to be more sober regarding their use of water in their exegesis, relegating any depiction to living water to a sacramental and poetic sense. An important connection discussed in this chapter is the one between living water and fire. This connection was developed in two different forms. In one form the two elements are opposed, in the other there is a correlation. The antagonistic form was developed in some communities who rejected the notion of sacrifice as part of their worship. On the other side, the association of fire and water in the baptism of Jesus can be found in several texts of authors presented in this chapter. The image of fire will be overtaken by the image of a manifestation of light as part of the events at the Jordan. This light imagery will be highly popular in liturgy and popular devotion and may be the originator of depicting baptism as illumination or Фωτισμός. Many early Christian communities adopted or revised the symbol of the living water in order to establish the relation of the water with the Jordan River where Christ was baptized.136

The symbolism of the Jordan was used by the early Christian tradition in many ways, mostly as a link between the baptism of Jesus Christ and Christian baptism. This connection

136 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 272-274.

98 was conducive to a growing enthusiasm in ancient Christianity for pilgrimages to the Holy

Land and baptismal rituals performed in the Jordan River itself, thus providing a more tangible connection with the baptism of Jesus. This Jordan connection was accompanied by the development of a rite of baptismal promises that was influenced by Jewish Christian rituals, such as the ones found in the Pseudo-Clementines and in Ebionite sources. The connection with the Jordan also inspired legends connecting the baptism of Jesus to episodes from his infancy. All this is another indication of the centrality of the baptism of

Christ in the Jewish Christian tradition as a model for the baptism of Christians who were baptized in water symbolizing the water of the Jordan.

Conclusion

There are several significant conclusions obtained from the research in this chapter on the second century. All the groups presented (as well as several others not mentioned) gave the baptism of Jesus a special prominence in their theology and liturgical practices. The event in the Jordan was presented as a boundary or frontier event, an opportunity to reflect on the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship with the Christian faithful. This process of reflecting and accepting an event, that was seen even then as controversial in these early

Christian communities, gave way to diverse modes of interpretation that would influence the development of theological systems as well as baptismal rites indicative of the cultural and religious divergences of the Christian communities during the second century. Jewish

Christianity brought an emphasis on the baptism of Christ as an important contribution to christology and soteriology. The baptism of Jesus was recognized by these early communities as a first step in his redemptive mission, a significant event where Christ

99 plunged into the Jordan and took on his flesh the sins of all humanity. Jesus Christ was glorified by the Father and the Spirit in his baptism and was manifested in features that already had paschal undertones as he arose from the waters in anticipation of the Paschal mystery.

In the next chapter I will concentrate my reflection on the baptismal theology of Justin

Martyr. This important figure of early Christianity presented ideas about the baptism of

Jesus in the Jordan that were highly influential for the development of the baptismal theology of Irenaeus of Lyons.

Chapter II. Examination of the Ideas of Justin Martyr on the Baptism of Christ

The early theologians were at pains to reflect and explain the baptism of Jesus in the

Jordan as something that was not in opposition with the tenets of the Christian faith. An influential theologian who merits attention is Justin Martyr, whose insight on these issues is significant in any understanding of Irenaeus of Lyons and his thought. Justin reflected on the baptism of Jesus in order to defend the Church’s position against both Jews and dissenting groups. In this chapter I will show how Justin perceived the events of the Jordan as necessary only for the sake of humanity, with Jesus not in any personal need of the descent of the Spirit at the baptism. There will also be references to how Justin used passages from

Scripture in order to substantiate his position on the Jordan event as a manifestation for the

Christian community of the graces of the Spirit bestowed on Christians through baptism.

Justin Martyr was originally a Gentile from Samaria who converted to the Christian faith in Asia and spent his final years in Rome. He was martyred about 165 CE. Justin was one of the first eminent apologists of the Christian faith, writing for both pagan and Jewish circles. There is little known about the life of Justin, except from what is accessible though his writings. According to Justin’s I Apology, he was born in the city of Flavia Neapolis in

Samaria circa 100 CE, and was the son of Priscus, the son of Baccheius. Justin presented in

Dialogue with Trypho 29.1-3 that he was raised a non-Christian, and searched for truth with the Stoics, Peripatetics, Pythagorians and Platonists. Later he met a man who showed him the pointlessness of philosophy, and invited him to study scripture instead. Justin became a

Christian as a result of this search. He used his philosopher’s cloak only after his conversion

100 101 in order to show that he had found the true philosophy and was willing to defend the

Christian truth by using arguments:

“Thus it is that I am now a philosopher. Furthermore, it is my wish that everyone would be of the same sentiments as I, and never fall away from the Savior’s words, for they have in themselves such tremendous majesty that they can instill fear into those who have wandered from the path of righteousness, whereas they ever remain a great solace to those who heed them. Thus, if you have any regard for your own welfare and for the salvation of your soul, and if you believe in God, you may have a chance, since I know you are no stranger to this matter, of attaining a knowledge of the Christ of God, and, after becoming a Christian, of enjoying a happy life.” (I Dial. 8.2)137

Justin’s work as an apologist is directed toward four forces: the intellectuals and their ridicule of the Christian faith; the power of the State; the opposition of the Jews; and the conflict with dissenting groups in Christianity. In order to defend Christianity Justin used arguments for his apologetic work which were innovative because of his use of elements common to dissenting groups. Justin did not present anything that was new in his arguments. Indeed, when Justin initiated dialogues with Romans and Jews he looked precisely for the common ground of Christianity in order to show the truth of the Christian faith implicit in those shared ideas. Eric Osborn explains how, for example, Justin presented

God as one without beginning, end, shape, or name, as having much in common with the

Platonism of the second century. In this and other statements made in his arguments, Justin used terms and concepts familiar to a second century audience. With these common ground concepts, Justin established meticulous and lengthy arguments and presented the gospel as the culmination and final answer to the ideas shared with other traditions. 138

137 St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Thomas B. Falls, translator (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 15. 138.Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 13-16.

102

There are many writings attributed to Justin, but only three of them have been accepted as authentic: the First Apology, the Second Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho.

The Apologies were probably written around 150 and 155 CE, and the Dialogue was most likely written at a later date.

A. Ideas of Justin Martyr Regarding Christian Baptism

Justin Martyr is probably the first chronicler of Christian baptism in the West, as he lived his final years in Rome and wrote his works there. There is an account of baptism in

Justin’s First Apology. The passage presents Christian baptism in detail and can be perceived as an important testimony of the practice of baptism in the second century in Rome, with similarities in its presentation with the baptismal description on the sixth chapter of the

Didachē. In particular 1 Apology 61.1- 13 and 65.1 present the most complete accounts of the practice of baptism in the second century, even though Justin never uses the term baptism in this text. Instead he uses the terms bath and wash. Baptism is presented as a rite for people who are convinced of the Christian faith and make a promise to live according to the Christian message and repent from their sins.

There is a strong emphasis on I Apology regarding free will as an essential requisite for baptism. This concept of free will is a crucial element of Justin’s theological thought. Eric

Osborn describes the importance of the concept of free will or αὐτϵξούσιοϛ in Justin as well as other writers after him, like Irenaeus of Lyons. Justin emphasized humanity’s free will in contrast to the gnostic and Stoic doctrines that emphasized the inexorability of fate for all situations of life. Osborn summarizes Justin’s argument in five aspects:

1. God’s nature and existence imply a final judgment, which implies human responsibility which implies free will. (Fate implies there is no God).

103

2. The ability of man to switch from one course of action to the opposite course implies free will. 3. That men and angels are different from other things implies free will. 4. Fate implies that people should be all good or all bad. 5. Fate implies that there is no real difference between good and bad. 139

In this context, the process of initiation in the theology of Justin is one of “one who chooses to be regenerated and who repents of his sins” (I Apol. 61.2). This free will is also present when Justin refers to the baptized as “one who chooses to be regenerated and agreed entirely with our teachings” (I Apol. 65.1). There is an equal importance for faith, baptism, and behaviour in Justin’s thought. In this synthesis there is a bridge between the maxims in the

New Testament demanding faith and penance as a requirement for baptism and the later emphasis on catechetical teaching and moral behavior in communities of the second century. During its opening chapters, there’s an emphasis on rules of Christian moral conduct in I Apology. Justin expresses his desire to be clear about the moral imperative for a

Christian life in order to refute any accusations from other groups regarding immorality of

Christians. This moral teaching as part of the education of new believers has similarities with the teachings of the Didachē, a work that Justin probably knew. 140

Baptism was administered with a Trinitarian formula in Justin. In I Apology the explanation about this triune administration presents elements of earlier creedal formulas:

Ensuite, nous les conduisons en un endroit où il y a de l’eau et là, de la même manière que nous avons été régénérés nous-mêmes, ils sont régénérés à leur tour. Au nom de Dieu le père et le maître de toutes choses, et de Jésus-Christ, notre Sauveur, et du Saint-Esprit, ils sont alors lavés dans l’eau. Car le Christ a

139 Osborn, Justin Martyr, 149. 140 Everett Ferguson, “Catechesis and initiation,” in Alan Kreider, ed., The Origins of Christendom in the West (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 233-236.

104

dit: “Si vous ne renaissez, vous n’entrerez pas dans le royaume des cieux”…. 141

The passage is an indication on the increased use of Trinitarian formulas in the baptismal liturgies of the second century. Such formulae were definitely influenced by Matthew 28:19 and its direct allusion to baptism. As time passed this Trinitarian formula became ingrained in the liturgical life and organization of the Christian communities. 142 Justin also uses language related to exorcism in the baptismal context.143 There was the belief in the first centuries of Christianity (as has been documented in the previous chapter of this work) that the waters were the symbolic abode of Satan. For Justin the consecration during baptism was accompanied by an immersion and subsequent ascension from the waters where the baptized were seized away from the power of Satan and given the powers to overcome temptation. This is also illustrated in the life of Jesus:

It is narrated in the Memoirs of the apostles that as soon as Jesus came up out of the River Jordan and a voice said to him, You are my Son, this day I have begotten you, this devil came and tempted him, even so far as to explain, Worship me; but Christ replied Get behind me Satan; the Lord your God shall you worship, and him only shall you serve. For, since the devil has deceived Adam, he fancied that he could in some way harm him also.144

However, there is no clear mention of an exorcism as part of the baptismal ceremony in the accounts of Justin Martyr, and even with the strong demonology in his works, there is no specific mention of baptism in itself as having the power of exorcizing demons. Nonetheless, there is in Justin the prevalent ideas of Christ’s taking away the diabolic powers and of

141I Apol. 13, Justin Martyr, Œuvres complètes, (Paris: Migne, 1994), 81-82. 142 Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Abilene: ACU Press, 1999), 26-27. 143 George H. Williams, “Baptismal Theology and Practice as Reflected in Justin Martyr,” In Andrew Blane, ed., The Ecumenical Word of Orthodox Civilization, Russia and Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of George Florovsky, Vol. 3 (Hague: Mouton, 1973), 26-27. 144Dial. 103.6, in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 156-157.

105

Christians no longer being under the power of demons. By deduction, this power given by

God to believers is given at baptism, the rite of passage from the reign of Satan to the reign of Christ. André Benoit analyzes the work of Justin and finds that this liberation by baptism makes the baptismal formula in itself have the effects of an exorcism, even though Justin does not express it in this specific way.145

In Justin’s baptismal account, there is also an association with the forgiveness of sins.

Craig D. Allert is of the opinion that Justin’s vision of repentance in different passages from his

I Apology is also alluding to an additional washing called illumination (ϕωτισμός) during the baptismal celebration. Allert suggests that salvation occurs before baptism and is expressed by Justin in five ways. The first two ways are related to repentance and the acceptance of

Christian doctrine as a prerequisite for baptism. The third way has to do with a volitional repentance before baptism and implied in passages from I Apology 61.2. The fourth way refers to a passage of Isaiah used by Justin and the implication of an internal washing as a requisite for salvation. The fifth and final way refers to an indication in I Apology 61.3 expressing that candidates for baptism wash themselves (λουτρὸν ποιοῡνται). Allert thinks that the use of the middle voice in this phrase has two meanings, either that the candidate goes through the water while the triune formula is said, or that the volition of the baptized is necessary for the effectiveness of the rite. Allert is partial to the second interpretation and connects it with the relation between illumination and baptism in I Apol. 61.12-13.146

145 Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, 182-183. 146 Craig D. Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Leident: Brill, 2002), 243-245.

106

Everett Ferguson differs with Allert’s interpretation, stating that it is in contradiction with Justin’s use of the terms “water” and “wash” in relation to baptism and to the baptismal connection with the Trinitarian formula, as well as the passages where Justin alludes to forgiveness and salvation after baptism. Ferguson also notes that Allert’s interpretation of λουτρὸν ποιοῡνται as “wash themselves” is incorrect because it needs to be interpreted in the active voice as “we wash them.” According to Ferguson, there is no indication in Justin about repentance as the moment of salvation; rather he thinks that

Justin is clear in presenting repentance and salvation as separate. 147

Justin described baptism as a time of renewal, using mostly expressions like

“regeneration” and “be generated” as ways to express this baptismal renewal. Baptism as a new birth or regeneration is the result of choice and learning associated with forgiveness of sins and conversion.

1. Fire-Light Motif in the Baptismal Theology of Justin Martyr

Justin is also the first writer to use the term “illumination” as a term for baptism, even though studies indicate that the term was already used in the Christian tradition. This

Christian use of the term can also be associated with Jewish texts written in Greek before or after 1 CE. These texts describe the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism with profuse use of metaphors of light and illumination. For example, a life in the Torah is a life of great light, as opposed to the great darkness of paganism. 148

147 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 240. 148 Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 358.

107

The term φωτίζϵιν and its derivatives are used by Christian authors of the second and third centuries as related to baptism or as a technical term for it. For example, Ignatius of

Antioch addresses the community of Rome as the beloved and enlightened community

(ἐκκλησίᾳ ᾐγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ) with an implication that enlightenment is a condition for true knowledge. In the works of Justin, there is a direct connection between illumination and baptism. This direct connection is found in passages from both the I

Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho where the author refers to the candidates for baptism as ὁ φωτιζόμενοϛ λούεται or those who have been enlightened. In other passages of Justin’s corpus, illumination is referred to as a condition that starts at baptism.149

This illumination was achieved by instruction and consent on the part of the baptized, a process where the light of Christ illuminates the faith of the believer. A passage from

Chapter 88 of the Dialogue of Trypho uses similar wording in its description of the fire that appeared at the Jordan at the moment of the baptism of Jesus. This image of the kindled fire was used by Justin during his account of the baptism of Jesus and describes the process of his experience of receiving the Christian message as presented in the Dialogue with

Trypho. Justin uses the expression of illumination in different variants across his work

(φωτιζόμενοι; ἐφώτισεν) in a manner that reflects a familiar usage of the term as an expression for baptism during the second century.150

149 J. Ysabert, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt: 1962), 173-178. 150 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 241-242.

108

In his analysis, George H. Williams finds great emphasis on the fire-light motif in the baptismal theology of Justin.151 This fire-light motif is noticeable in the description of baptism as φωτισμόϛ by Justin. This motif’s dual meaning can be an illumination as given by the Spirit or Logos as well as the experience of a salvific fire that would protect the believer against the punishing fire of the Last Days. There is no definitive answer regarding Justin’s dependence on mystery religions for this elaboration on the fire-light motif.

There is also a passage from the Dialogue with Trypho where Justin speaks of the effects of his conversion after his dialogue with a Syrian man in this way:

When he had said these and many other things, which it is not convenient to recount right now, he went his way, after admonishing me on what he told me, and I never saw him again. But my spirit was immediately set on fire (πῦρ ανήφθη), and an affection for the prophets, and for those who are friends of Christ, took hold of me, while pondering on his words, I discovered that his was the only sure and useful philosophy. (Dial. 8.1)152

In other passages of the Dialogue there are more direct references to the fire-light motif when the neophytes are described in 39. 2 as people who are enlightened in the name of

Christ to receive all kinds of gifts. There is also another reference in Dialogue 122.1.4.5 where Justin refers to the prophecy of the Light to the Gentiles by Isaiah and interprets this prophecy as something directed against the Jews: “In your view the passage just quoted refers to the stranger and the proselyte, but in reality it refers to us Christians who have been enlightened by Jesus.”153 Chapter 61 of I Apology presents the baptized as regenerated and becoming children of God. In this chapter, Justin describes the initiation process from catechetical instruction to Eucharist and presents baptism as illumination:

151 Williams, 21-27. 152 St. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 14-15. 153 Ibid., 183.

109

Pour que nous ne restions pas ainsi les enfants de la nécessité et de l’ignorance, mais de l’élection et de la science, pour que nous obtenions la rémission de nos fautes passes, on invoque dans l’eau sur celui qui veut être régénéré et qui se repent de ses péchés le nom de Dieu le père et le maître de l’univers…. Cette ablution s’appelle illumination, parce que ceux qui reçoivent cette doctrine ont l’esprit rempli de lumière. 154

André Benoit believes that the study of the term photismos is important in order to analyze the relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal theology of Justin

Martyr. The use of photismos by Justin is open to diverse interpretations and one of them could relate this baptismal illumination as produced or producing the gift of the Spirit.

However, there is no direct mention in Justin’s work of a connection between baptism and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Is this lack of elaboration an indication that Justin did not see a direct connection between baptism and the Spirit, or is his silence on the subject the result of an understanding by the author that this connection is a natural development that did not need any further explanation?155

2. The Holy Spirit in the Baptismal Theology of Justin Martyr

Benoit’s question cannot be easily answered because there is very little elaboration on the part of Justin about the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit is mentioned in Justin’s work, it is the result of some creedal formula without further expansion, like in this example from the

I Apology:

…nous croyons au Dieu très vrai, père de la justice, de la sagesse et des autres vertus, en qui ne se mélange rien de mal. Avec lui nous vénérons, nous adorons, nous honorons en esprit et vérité le Fils venu d’auprès de lui, qui nous a donné ces enseignements, et l’armée des autres bons anges qui l’escortent et lui ressemblent, et l’Esprit prophétique. 156

154 I Apol. 61, in Justin Martyr, Œuvres complètes, 82-83. 155 Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, 170-178. 156 I Apol.6, in Justin Martyr, Œuvres complètes, 25.

110

This quote presents some problems of interpretation because there is a lack of development in Justin’s theology regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Trinity.

This quote puts the Spirit in a rank inferior even to that of the angels. This and other references to the Spirit in Justin’s corpus present the Spirit in compliance with the traditions of his time without a personal reflection about the Spirit’s place and importance in the salvific plan. However, even with this secondary importance given by Justin, there are some valuable ideas in his work that can be interpreted as establishing a relation between baptism and the gift of the Spirit.

Benoit analyzes the references to the Spirit in Justin’s oeuvre in order to establish this relationship. The allusions to the Spirit serve different interpretations. Sometimes the gifts of the Spirit are presented as diverse charisms given according to each individual, without being given equally to everyone (Dial.82.1; 88.1). In other passages, there is a sense that all

Christians partake of the gifts of the Spirit. In these passages, the term used to define gifts is

δόμα

(Dial. 87.5). It is important to analyze these passages in relation to Justin’s idea of the habitation of the Logos in each believer:

And those prophetical words of Jacob, as recorded by Moses, namely, He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garments in the blood of the grape, signified that he would wash in his own blood those who believed in him. For the Holy Spirit called those whose sins were remitted by Christ, his robe, among whom he is always present in power, but will be manifestly in person at his second coming.157

157. Dial. 54.1, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 81.

111

These and other texts in the Dialogue with Trypho depict Christ present in the believer through the Holy Spirit, a presence that is possible through faith and conversion. Benoit suggests that there are two different concepts of the gift of the Spirit in the work of Justin that are juxtaposed to each other. On one side, there is a charismatic conception, where the

Spirit is given over to certain members of the Christian community who are able to exercise extraordinary deeds. On the other side, there is a universal concept where the Spirit is given to everyone who believes and they receive the remission of sins.158 Benoit is of the belief that this presence of the Spirit in all believers can be connected to baptism according to

Justin, as there is no other way that Justin presents the Spirit to be manifested to humanity.

The texts that speak about the Spirit and the believer have a baptismal character.

J. E. Morgan-Wynne examines the relationship of the Spirit with the Christian experience according to Justin Martyr. The goal of Morgan-Wynne’s article is to analyze

Justin’s position regarding how Christians of the second century saw their relationship with the Holy

Spirit.159 Justin asserts that all the Christian faithful through their faith and baptism have been set apart from the Jews of the old covenant and their circumcision; Christian followers have received instead a spiritual circumcision. There are some believers who have received special gifts of the Spirit. These gifts are in fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 68 (“He ascended on high; he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men”) and they entail prophecy, spiritual wisdom and the authority to perform healings, expel demons and do miracles.

158. Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, 170-173. 159. J.E. Morgan-Wynne, “The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience in Justin Martyr,” Vigiliae Christianae (1984) 172-177

112

Morgan-Wynne thinks the way that Justin describes the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the

Dialogue with Trypho does indicate that he is describing faith elements that were tangible in his faith environment. Therefore Justin could be considered an important witness of the important role of the Spirit for the life of Christian communities of the second century.160

In Justin’s I Apology, there is some reflection about the relation of the Son and the

Spirit to God. Justin is probably the first theologian in the Christian tradition to tackle this topic and his reflection is based on a philosophical discourse directed to philosophers. Justin answers the claim of pagan groups that perceive Christians as atheists because they did not worship the pagan gods. It is on this answer that Justin speaks about the Son and the Spirit:

On nous appelle athées. Oui certes, nous l’avouons, nous sommes les athées de ces prétendus dieux, mais nous croyons au Dieu très vrai, père de la justice, de la sagesse et des autres vertus, en qui ne se mélange rien du mal. Avec lui nous vénérons, nous adorons, nous honorons en esprit et vérité le Fils venu d’auprès de lui, qui nous a donné ces enseignements, et la armée des autres bons anges qui l’escortent et lui ressemblent, et l’Esprit prophétique. Voilà la doctrine que nous avons apprise et que nous transmettrons libéralement à quiconque veut s’instruire.161

Later in the chapter Justin elaborates even further on his Trinitarian understanding:

Quel homme sensé ne conviendrait que nous ne sommes pas athées ? Nous adorons le créateur de cet univers…. Nous vous montrerons aussi que nous adorons justement celui qui nous a enseigné ces choses, et qui a été engendré pour cela, Jésus-Christ qui fut crucifié sous Ponce Pilate, gouverneur de Judée, au temps de Tibère César, en qui nous voyons le fils du vrai Dieu et que nous mettons au second rang et, en troisième lieu, l’Esprit prophétique.162

This gradation concept in relation to the Divine persons is based on a quote from Plato’s

Timaeus, and later quoted in I Apology 1.60, where Justin uses Plato’s concept in order to

160. Ibid., 174-176. 161 . I Apology 6, Justin Martyr, Oeuvres complétes, 25. 162 . I Apology 13, in Ibid., 31-32.

113 connect it to his Christian beliefs. The result of this is a Trinitarian perception where the Son seems subordinated to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. Henry Barclay Sweete explains that this apparent subordination is one of place and rank (χώρα, τάξις) but not of essence or nature (οὐσία, φὐσις). The apparent placing of the angelic hosts over the Holy Spirit in I

Apology 6 is more related to the angels as messengers of the message of the Son than to place them in a higher category than the Spirit. However, Justin’s zeal to demonstrate that

Christians were not atheists creates other problems. Justin, as other Christian writers of his time, was struggling to define tenets of the Christian faith in language that could be articulate and expressive without being heretical.163

Justin refers in chapters 62 through 64 of the I Apology to diabolic imitations of

Christian baptism, inspired by the prophetic writings predicting baptism:

Les démons connaissaient les prophéties qui annonçaient cette ablution. Aussi voulurent-ils qu’on entrât dans leurs temples, et qu’on ne se présentât devant eux, pour leur offrir des libations et des sacrifices, qu’après s’être purifié; bien plus, ils ordonnent qu’on prenne un bain pour aborder les sanctuaires où ils résident.164

The elaborations of Justin in these chapters are seen by Cullen K. Story as an important element in order to understand Justin’s theology of Christian baptism.165 The references to demonic imitation are not digressions from what was established in chapter 61 of the

Apology but a confirmation that true baptism is based on the authority of the triune God and the true source of illumination. Story’s interpretation presents that the exegesis done in chapter 61 is done in order to highlight the authority of the Trinity in calling believers to

163 . Henry, Barclay Sweete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study of Christian Teaching in the Age of the Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 32-38. 164. I Apology 62, in Ibid., 85. 165. Culleen I.K. Story, “Justin’s Apology I. 62-64: Its Importance for the Author’s Treatment of Christian’s Baptism,” Vigiliae Chiristianae 16 (1962): 172-178.

114 participate in the divine life though baptism. As a result of this, the baptized are initiated into a process of illumination and knowledge of God by means of the tradition of the apostles. Chapters 62-64 support those two emphases of the authority of the triune God and the true source of illumination. These chapters uphold that the triune God was present and active from the beginning of time and the Jews refused the divine authority, while the pagans distorted it. Regarding illumination, Justin counterpoises the process of knowledge involved in Christian baptism with the rejection of knowledge by the Jews (including their rejection of Jesus) and the perversion of the Word of God by the pagans. 166

3. Contrast Between Jewish Washings and Christian Baptism

There is a recurrent use in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho of the different modalities of the word βάπτισμα to present the contrast between Jewish washings and Christian baptism as referred in a passage by Justin about the Jewish purification baths. During his work,

Justin used spiritual exegesis to describe the differences between Jewish and Christian liturgical practices, like circumcision, sacrifice, keeping the Sabbath, and baptism. He used the Christian term baptisma to refer to Jewish baptism as a way to express that the difference between the two liturgical rites was not determined by the act but by their significance. There is in Dialogue 12 a distinction between Jewish baths and Christian baptism developed from an allusion to Isaiah 1:15-16. This passage refers to a bath that washes sins. Justin uses the text with little emphasis on its prophetic context and more on its aspect of a bath of repentance and knowledge of God. On Dialogue 13, the allusion to

Isaiah is presented as referring to a bath of salvation for all who repent and have faith,

166. Ibid., 176-178.

115 through the death and blood of Jesus Christ. This idea is also present in Hebrews 9: 12-14 and its description of Christ as the High Priest.167 In Dialogue 12-14 there is an interpretation of Isaiah 52:10-54:6 with a baptismal and Christological reading:

Indeed, Isaiah did not send you to the bath [βαλανεĩον] to wash away murder and other sins, which all the water of the ocean could not cleanse, but, as expected, it was of old, that bath [λουτρòν] of salvation which he mentioned and which was for the repentant, who are no longer made pure by the blood of goats and sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood and the death of Christ, who suffered death for this precise purpose. 168

Justin then uses quotations from Isaiah 53, 52:10, and 54:6 as tools to present the death of

Christ with his blood as a source of purification obtained through penance, faith, and baptism:

This it is that we have believed through the baptism [λουτροṽ] of repentance and knowledge of God, which was instituted for the sins of the people of God, as Isaiah testifies, and we recognize that that same baptism [βάπτισμα] which he announced, and which alone can purify penitents, is the water of life. The wells which you alone have dug for yourselves are broken and useless. For, of what value is the baptism [βαπτίσματοϛ] which cleanses only the flesh and body? Wash [βαπτῑσθητε] your souls free of anger, of avarice, of jealousy, and of hatred; then the whole body will be pure. 169

The use of quotations from Isaiah 53 seems to function on three different levels, according to D. Jeffery Bingham.170 On the first level, Isaiah 53 depicts the blood of Christ as the authentic source of purification from sins, the true Paschal lamb. The second level has to do with the separation language in the passage and its relation to Christian purification. The separation language originated a departure from Jewish baptismal ritual into a baptism in

167. Pierre Prigent, Justin et l’Ancien Testament, Études Bibliques, (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964), 247-248. 168. Dial. 13.1, in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 22. 169Dial. 14.1-2, in Ibid., 24. 170 D. Jeffery Bingham, “Justin and Isaiah 53,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (Koninklikje Brill NV: Leiden, 2000): 248- 251.

116 the blood of Christ. The third level has to do with the idea of the bath and how is it filled not with water or the sacrifice of animals but with the blood of Christ. The baptized is washed in the “water of life”, the blood of Christ, the innocent Paschal lamb. Justin’s interpretation of

Isaiah 53 in the Dialogue with Trypho brought an important contribution to the theological understanding of the baptismal practices of the Christian community of the second century.

The baptized as well as the candidates were called to a pattern of entrance into the

Christian community. This pattern entails contrition followed by baptism in the blood of

Christ through faith. The community of believers is then fortified by a remembrance of the essential elements of Christ (incarnation, divine origin, death on the cross, resurrection from the dead).171

Justin also interprets Isaiah 53 in his I Apology, in particular in chapter 50. Bingham presents two important Christological elements: the incarnational and expiatory suffering of

Christ and his second coming. This is in concordance with the ideas on Isaiah 53 presented in the Dialogue with Trypho. This reading of Isaiah 53 was made by Justin and his community in the context of Isaiah 52:10-15 and 54:1-6 and is related to the interpretation of Isaiah presented in Acts 8:26-40. The interpretation of the New Testament regarding

Isaiah and his role in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch will be followed by Justin.

Isaiah was reinterpreted by Justin as an apologist and catechist of the Christian faith.172

Justin expresses the contrast between the Jewish and Christian baptisms in later chapters of the Dialogue with Trypho. There is a frequent use of the metaphor of circumcision to refer to Christian baptism as a true spiritual circumcision, in contrast to the

171. Ibid., 250-259. 172. Ibid., 259-261.

117

Jewish practice of baptism and circumcision. The association in the Christian tradition of baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit makes this image of circumcision relevant, as the anointing of the Holy Spirit is perceived by Justin as a true sign of membership into the

Christian community. This relation of the baptized with the Spirit is very important to Justin.

He does not speak about a baptism with the Spirit, as is expressed in New Testament accounts. Instead, Justin sees water baptism as a rite where the Holy Spirit is active. Justin’s point of view is in concordance with other authors of early Christianity who saw the anointing of the Spirit as a Christian equivalent in Christianity to the circumcision of the flesh in the Jewish tradition:

We, indeed, who have come to God through Jesus Christ, have received, not a physical, but a spiritual circumcision, as did Enoch and those like him. Through God’s mercy we received this by means of baptism [βαπτίσματοϛ], since we had become sinners, and all men should likewise receive it. (Dial. 43.2)173

It is important to clarify that Justin is not defining baptism and spiritual circumcision as the same thing. Baptism is the instrument which the mercy of God uses in order to give spiritual circumcision to the faithful. This process is accomplished through the intervention of the

Holy Spirit.

The presentation of Justin regarding the baptismal ceremony is more elaborate than in the accounts of the New Testament, with close similarities to the statements found in the

Didachē. Justin presents the rite of baptism as preceded by a period of instruction, fasting, and prayer where the candidate makes a commitment to live according to the teaching of

Jesus. After this initial process, the baptism was administered using the triune formula. This

173 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 65.

118 baptism was understood as a sign of membership in the Christian community and in its

Eucharistic celebrations. Justin referred to baptism in terms such as regeneration, illumination, forgiveness of sins, including a liberation from evil forces and a partaking of the gifts of the Spirit.

André Benoit found that Justin was not very much interested in baptism in his apologetic works. Justin’s reflections about baptism used terminology and ideas that were current in his own ecclesial community. Therefore, Justin is a useful tool to study the baptismal theology and practice of second century Christians. Benoit also does not find as part of his analysis much Pauline influence on Justin’s baptismal theology, even when his works show acquaintance with the letters of Paul. There is in the theology of Justin a similarity with that of the Shepherd of Hermas, especially in its connection regarding the baptismal remission of sins and the concept of metanoia. There is also similarity between

Justin and Hermas regarding the gift of the Spirit during baptism. However, Justin differs from Hermas in the absence in his work of the sphragis or seal concept. At the same time,

Justin uses the concept of photismos in his works and refers to the effects of baptism as new birth and new creation, concepts absent in Hermas. Benoit presented this as a result of the influence of non-Roman communities in the life and theology of Justin.174

4. John the Baptist and His Baptismal Ministry in the Theology of Justin Martyr

Regarding John the Baptist and his message, Justin quotes almost verbatim from the

Gospel of Matthew as well as from Isaiah. In particular, there is a close association with

Matthew 3:11-12:

174. Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, 183-185.

119

I baptize you with water of repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.175

Justin also follows the identification made by Jesus of John the Baptist to Elijah as presented in Matthew 17:11-13, when Jesus instructs Peter, John, and James after experiencing the

Transfiguration:

He replied, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things, but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist. 176

Justin describes the ministry of John the Baptist as βαπτιστήϛ and foretold by Isaiah, with an affirmation that after John there would be no more prophets in Israel. Justin also elaborates on the response of the Baptist to the claims that he was the Christ. As John preached a baptism of repentance (βάπτισμα μετανοίαϛ) he denied that he was the Christ but that one stronger would be coming (Dial. 88.7). Justin also establishes that the prophetic function of John the Baptist is revealed by his vestments and dietary habits. These exterior signs do not establish the function of John, but rather his qualities. By emphasizing the exterior qualities of John, Justin firmly demonstrates that John is nothing else than a prophet who announces the advent of someone more significant. For this reason, it is impossible for John the Baptist to bestow the gifts of the Spirit to Jesus at his baptism.177

175. B. Metzger and R. Murphy, eds, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 4. 176 . Ibid., 26. 177 . Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé?” La réponse de Justin,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 77 (1993): 577-578.

120

John the Baptist was then both a prophet in the line of the prophetic tradition and the culmination of the tradition, the last of the prophets. By receiving the baptism from John,

Christ put an end to John’s prophetic and baptismal function, and at the same time Christ confirmed the mission accomplished by John. Justin emphasizes the role of the Baptist in connection with the messianic tradition that associated the advent of the Messiah with the anointing of Elijah. To proclaim the reality of the baptism of the Jordan implies also the accomplishment of the messianic expectation. This connection between Elijah and John the

Baptist is possible through the prophetic Spirit present and passing in a prophetic line to both characters and culminating in the Christ the Messiah.178

Oskar Skarsaune analyzes the role of John the Baptism in the Dialogue.179 Regarding the mention of the Baptist on Chapter 52 Skarsaune is of the opinion that Justin’s idea on how the offices of High Priest and prophets continued, until Jesus, was related to an effort to see the anointing of Jesus at the Jordan as a messianic anointing. It is in particular Dial.

52. 3 where Justin is more clear on this connection: “…. There never ceased to be a prophet in your midst who was lord (κύριος) and leader (ήγούμενος) and ruler (ἅρχων) of your people. Indeed, even your kings were appointed and anointed by the spirit in these prophets.”180 Skarsaune believes that Justin bases his response mostly on the last sentence of Chapter 52, because it permits him to continue connecting John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah using scriptural passages, like Genesis 49: 10. As Jewish kings received their anointing from the prophets who had the Spirit, John was also part of that prophetic lineage.

178 Daniel Vigne, “Pneuma prophetikon: Justin et le prophétisme,” Anthropos Laïkos, eds. M-A Vannier, O. Wermelinger, G.Wurst (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 2000), 340. 179 Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leidem: E.J. Brill, 1987), 194-199. 180 Dial.52.3, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 79.

121

However, Justin’s conclusion does not establish that Jesus received his messianic anointing from John the Baptist. Instead, it is Jesus who works on John by stopping his status as prophet and baptizer.181

B. Ideas of Justin Martyr Regarding the Baptism of Christ

There is a special interest in defending the role of the Spirit in the baptism of Christ in

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Justin was familiar with the objections made by different groups regarding the apparent contradiction between the reception of the Spirit during the baptism and the insistence in the Gospel accounts of the pre-existence of Christ and his conception by the Spirit. Therefore, the baptism was necessary only for the sake of humanity. Justin refers also to Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son, the beloved, today I have begotten you”) as an indication also of the baptism as a birth event. The baptism becomes the revelatory moment when Christ, in his humanity, is manifested in his real nature to all humanity. In addition, the baptism was necessary for Jesus to receive the gifts of the Spirit in his humanity in order to prepare the rest of the human race to also receive the gifts of the Spirit. Commenting on this Antonio Orbe says:

Hay aquí varios aspectos. En primer lugar, el nuevo nacimiento de Jesús: la infusión del Espíritu Santo (del Padre) en la humanidad de Jesús, como en primicias de los hombres llamados a tal nacimiento. Dios Padre engendra a Jesús, en cuanto hombre, con Su propio Espíritu Santo, a fin de engendrar por medio de Jesús a sus hermanos con el Espíritu Santo destinado a ellos. En segundo lugar, el nuevo nacimiento de los hombres, a que se ordena el (bautismal) de Jesús: cuando la humanidad de Jesús comunica el Espíritu Santo a la de sus hermanos.182

181 . Skarsuane, The Proof from Prophecy, 196. 182 . Antonio Orbe, “¿San Ireneo adopcionista? En torno a adv. Haer. III. 19.1,” Gregorianum 65 (1984): 25. There are several aspects. Frist, the new birth of Jesus: the infusión of the Holy Spirit (of the Father) in the humanity of Jesus, as first fruits of all humanity called to such birth. God the Father begets Jesus, as human, with the Father’s own Holy Spirit, in order to generate humanity through Jesus with the Holy Spirit destined for

122

Orbe presents that Jesus after his baptism in the Jordan becomes in his humanity Son of

God, with a filiation that is communicable to humanity through the action of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is begotten at the Jordan by the Father in his humanity through the Holy Spirit for the benefit of humanity. The expressions in Dialogue 87.1-6 and 88.1-8 are indicative of Justin’s idea of a new genesis of Jesus at his baptism. Jesus in his humanity is born to a new life, anointed by the Spirit in order to engage in physical actions that are full expressions of his divinity.183

Daniel Vigne also affirms the integration of the baptism of Jesus in the history of salvation through the work of the Holy Spirit.184 The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is the incident that unmistakably signals the dynamic of continuity and rupture between the action of the Spirit in the prophetic era and the Spirit’s subsequent action on Christians.

Justin refers to the baptism of Jesus several times during the Dialogue with Trypho in concordance with interest in this New Testament event for Christian communities of the second century. Justin continues this emphasis by asserting that at the Jordan all the gifts of the Spirit rested on Christ in a way more complete than with any of the prophets. This resting of the Spirit happened in order that Christ could transfer the gifts of the Spirit to all believers. 185

There is a specific intent on the part of Justin to emphasize the events of the baptism as something necessary only for humanity; Jesus Christ was not personally in need of the

them. Secondly, there is the new birth of humanity, connected to the (baptismal) birth of Jesus: the moment when the humanity of Jesus communicates the Holy Spirit to the humanity of his brothers and sisters. (My translation) 183 Ibid., 25-26. 184 Vigne, Pneuma prophetikon, 339-341. 185 Ibid., 340-341.

123 descent of the Spirit. Justin clearly reacts to the gnostics, especially Ebionites, and their ideas of the baptism as a moment of adoptionism. Thence Justin presents the veneration of the Magi found in the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew as a sign that Christ already possessed the graces of the Spirit. The Gospel narratives relate instances during the life of

Jesus (e.g., his birth, baptism, or crucifixion) where Jesus reveals that he is the Son of God.

These accounts show evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in Christ, gifts that are later passed on to humanity in virtue of the baptism of Christ. Likewise, the baptism in the Jordan is a manifestation for the Christian community of the graces of the Spirit that are bestowed on

Christians through baptism.

Philippe Henne asserts that the baptism of Jesus presented a difficult challenge for

Justin, even when the baptism is not a central theme of Justin’s theology.186 According to

Henne, Justin’s greatest innovation is the intent to structure the theological discourse in a philosophical framework. Justin establishes a connection between Scripture themes with

Platonic and Stoic philosophy in order to make the Christian faith more accessible to the people of his time. One of Justin’s innovations is his development of the concept of the

Logos as the center of his Christology. The use of the Logos concept permits Justin to confirm the preexistence of Christ as well as to emphasize Christ’s human and divine natures. This central aspect of the Logos in the Christology of Justin Martyr is one of the most original features in his Apologies.

However, in the Dialogue with Trypho there is no Logos concept and Justin uses an expression for Jesus Christ that might look controversial at first glance: the idea of Jesus as

186 Philippe Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé ?” 567-583.

124 another (ἕτερος) God. Henne dedicates another article to the analysis of this expression and how it can be reconciled with the orthodoxy of Justin’s Christology.187 A close study of the

Dialogue with Trypho establishes that Justin uses this terminology to express the transcendence of God as well as the distinction of the divine persons. One distinctive and original feature of the theology of Justin Martyr is the systematic attribution of the theophanies of the Old Testament to the person of the Son of God. This exegesis is based on the expression of the absolute transcendence of God, who is far from the world and cannot be in contact with matter. This idea was current in the Platonic philosophical schools and was also present in the Jewish circles during Justin’s time.

In chapters 56-60 of the Dialogue with Trypho there is a description of the apparition of the three angels to Abraham in Genesis 18:18. Justin believes that one of the three angels is God, but not the transcendent God: “Do you not now see, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to him who is in heaven, is Lord of the two angels?”188 This is the first time in the Christian tradition where Christ has been called servant and associated with the work of creation:

But this offspring, who was really begotten of the Father, was with the Father and the Father talked with him before all creation as the Word through Solomon showed us, saying that this Son, who is called Wisdom by Solomon. Was begotten both as a beginning before all his works, and as his offspring. God has testified to this same truth in the revelation to Joshua, son of Nun.189

Justin uses only biblical texts in order to defend his point in chapters 55-62 of the Dialogue with Trypho. These chapters are dedicated to defending the preexistence of the Son of God.

187 Philippe Henne, “Pour Justin, Jésus est-il un autre Dieu ? ″ Revue des sciences philosophies et théologiques 81 (1997) : 57-68. 188 Dial. 56.2, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 88 189 Dial. 62.4, in Ibid., 96.

125

The scriptural references serve Justin to establish the conclusion that Scripture testifies of the existence of another God, inferior to the creator and his servant. Justin continues developing this theme in chapters 126-129 of the Dialogue in order to defend his positions from attacks of modalism, especially from the Jewish understanding of the theophanies of the Old Testament as expressions of the power of God that are inseparable from the creator

God. Justin uses again the expression of the “other God” to describe the Son as a power that is distinctive from the Father in both a nominal and numeric manner:

It has also been shown at length that this power which the prophetic Word also calls God and Angel not only is numbered as different by its name (as in the light of the sun), but is something distinct in real number. I have already briefly discussed, when I stated that this power was generated from the Father, by his power and will, but not by abscission, as if the substance of the Father were divided; as all other things, once they are divided and severed, are not the same as they were before the division. To illustrate the point, I cited the example of fires kindled from a fire, the enkindled fires are indeed distinct from the original fire which, though it ignites other fires, still remains the same undiminished fire.190

Henne is of the opinion that in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin neglects the philosophical theme of the Logos in order to defend the divinity of Christ. The expression of Christ as the other God (expressed using terms like ἕτερος, ἄλλος, ποιήματα, and γέννημα) in chapters

55-62 and 126-129 of the Dialogue is used with many other images and themes. This elaboration is innovative in the application of the theophanies of the Old Testament to the

Son of God. At the same time, Justin is firm in defending the identity and nature of Christ by using images like the one of a fire that ignites another fire. Justin’s exegesis reveals an original Scriptural reading where there are two divine persons, one that is substantially

190 Dial. 128.4, in Ibid., 194.

126 transcendent and another that is manifested. This interpretation is successful in not arriving at heresy while failing in articulating the doctrine in a more precise manner.191

The preexistence of the Word is a central notion in the Christology of Justin and one of the principal theses of his Dialogue with Trypho. One of the objectives of Justin’s debate with the rabbi Trypho is to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Chapters 40-108 are especially concentrated in demonstrating the preexistence of the Logos. In the midst of

Justin’s section concerned with preexistence, there is a relevant place dedicated to the baptismal account. Chapter 86 is dedicated to an enumeration of different prophecies related to the wood of the cross. In Chapters 89-105 there is a more elaborate account on the typology of the passion and the cross. It is in Chapter 87.2 where the baptism is discussed in response to the question by Trypho: “How can you prove that Christ already existed, since he is endowed with those gifts of the Holy Spirit which the above–quoted passages of Isaiah attribute to him as though he had lacked them?”192 Trypho is reacting to the quote from Isaiah 11:1-3 that says, among other things, that the Spirit will rest over the one elected by God:

A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear….193

Justin finds the preexistence issues by Trypho worthy of consideration and accepts that there was real difficulty with this issue. Justin’s first argument is that the Spirit rested on

191 Henne, “Pour Justin, Jésus est-il un autre Dieu ? ″ 67-68. 192 Dial. 87.2, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 135-136. 193 The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 881.

127

Christ. The Messiah is the last recipient of the divine Spirit acting in the Old Testament. This idea is also present in Matthew 11:13-14; with the redemption of the Christ, the prophets no longer received the graces of the Spirit; Christ gives all the graces to all believers. This transfer of the Spirit happened after the Ascension, when the graces of the Spirit were transferred to Christ. Justin bases his idea on two Scripture passages: Psalm 68:19 (“Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears us up; God is our salvation”) and Joel 2:28-29 (“Then afterward

I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit.”) Justin uses these passages in order to assert that after Christ there are no more prophets in Israel. This assertion is in accordance with the doctrine of Judaism regarding the advent of the Messiah in whom the

Spirit will dwell completely. Justin established the time after the Ascension of Christ as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, clearly showing a separation between Judaism and

Christianity. 194

Another objection to Christ’s divinity revolved around the Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus with a voice from heaven proclaiming the begetting of the Son of God at the moment of his baptism (“Today I have begotten you”). Trypho posited that since Christ received the Spirit at baptism he could not have preexisted. In order to answer Trypho’s objection, Justin stated that the prophecies of the Jewish people ended with the advent of the Messiah. Justin responded to Trypho’s objection by stating that if Jesus had received the graces of the Spirit in baptism, this was not because he had any need of them. Jesus was full

194 Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé ?”, 570-572.

128 of the Spirit since his birth. However, the Spirit appeared at the baptism of Jesus to manifest the true nature of Jesus to the world.

It seems that Justin Martyr was the first writer in the Christian tradition to make a reference to fire as part of the events of the baptism of Jesus:

…John went on before him as the herald of his arrival and precursor of his baptism [βαπτίσματος] ….And when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing [ἐβάπτιϚε], he stepped down into the water, and a fire ignited the waters of the Jordan, and when he emerged out of the water, the Holy Spirit alighted upon him in the form of a dove, as the apostles of this our Christ himself testify. We indeed know that he did not approach the river because he needed either the baptism [βσπτισθῆναι] or the Spirit who came upon him in the shape of a dove. So, too, he did not condescend to be born and to be crucified because he was in need of birth and crucifixion; he did it solely for the sake of man, who from the time of Adam had become subject to death and the deceit of the serpent, each man having sinned by his own fault.195

According to Ferguson, Justin was concerned with emphasizing that after the baptism in the

Jordan the gifts of the Spirit rested on Jesus and his disciples. Jesus always possessed the

Spirit, but the anointing at the Jordan happened for the transferal of the gifts of the Spirit to humanity. In a similar manner, Jesus accepted baptism not for his own sake but for the welfare of human beings. In the passage previously cited, Jesus went down to the water, and a fire was kindled on the water. After that there is a reference to Jesus coming up from the water that could signify either rising from being immersed in the Jordan or the emerging from the river at the moment of the descent of the Spirit.

Skarsaune acknowledges both a harmonization with the synoptic gospels as well as the presence of non-synoptic elements in Dial.88. 3 and compares it with the other passage

195. Dial.88.2-4, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 137.

129 in the chapter where the Jordan event is described.196 This passage, 88.8, serves as second part of the narrative of Jesus’ baptism and its details are in accordance with the accounts of the synoptic gospels:

When Jesus came to the Jordan, therefore, being considered the son of Joseph the carpenter,….the Holy Spirit for the sake of mankind descended upon him in the form of a dove, and at the same instant a voice out of the heavens spoke the words which had also been uttered by David, when he, in the person of Christ, spoke what was later to be said to Christ by the Father, You are my Son; this day have I begotten you, meaning that his birth really began for men when they first realized who he was.197

Skarsaune considers the Son of God concept as the interpretation of the baptism of Jesus that is essential to Justin’s account in 1 Dial. The voice from heaven proclaimed and clarified that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is also described by Justin as a second Adam who was born, baptized, and crucified for the sake of humanity. There is no reference on Chapter 88 on an active participation by John the Baptist and consequently on an anointing made by

John. This seems at odds with the narrative of Chapter 87 that supports the idea of the baptism of Jesus as a messianic anointing. Skarsaune concludes that Justin is dealing in

Chapters 87-88 with two sources: one that considered the baptism of Jesus as a messianic anointing, and another that regarded the baptismal event with an emphasis on Jesus Christ as the second Adam who was already full of the power of the Spirit before his baptism.198

In a later work, Skarsaune analyzes Justin’s interpretation of the baptism of Jesus in a chapter discussing how and why the confession of Jesus as Messiah was formulated in early

196 . Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, 198-199. 197 Dial. 88.8, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 138. 198 Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, 199.

130

Christian communities.199 The analysis of the accounts of the baptism of Jesus in the

Dialogue with Trypho shows again the restraint of Justin in developing the idea of the messianic anointing of Jesus at the moment of his baptism with John the Baptist acting in the role of Elijah. This restraint is in accordance with the Gospel narratives:

In his Dialogue, Justin attributes to Trypho the conviction—already shared by all Jews—that the Messiah is to be anointed by David (Dialogue with Trypho 49.1). Justin himself held the opinion that this actually happened at the baptism of Jesus by John: John acted in the role of Elijah, endowed with the spirit of Elijah; Jesus was anointed by the Spirit (Dialogue with Trypho 87-88). But Justin is more than a little reticent in developing this idea, because he fears a possible implication: that Jesus was made Son of God by the proclamation of the heavenly voice and the anointing descent of the Spirit….If you understand “Son of God” more in an ontological sense (as Justin does, for example), Jesus cannot be made or appointed something he is already, and indeed has been from eternity.200

Justin’s ontological interpretation was somewhat different from other versions, including the Gospel narratives, who give the term “Son of God” a more functional sense where the anointing of Jesus at his baptism is seen as an inauguration of his messianic ministry.201

There is an explanation by Justin in Dial. 88.3.8 about how Jesus was considered as just a carpenter before his experience at the Jordan. The words of the voice from heaven in the baptismal accounts are presented by Justin as an instance where this voice is in accordance with what is said in Psalm 2:7. Justin explained this textual agreement by stating that King David had been instructed by Christ about what was going to be said at Jesus’ baptism. It is important to note that the fire image used by Justin is the first written reference to this tradition, as well as its differentiation from the light imagery used in other

199 Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 301-317. 200 . Ibid., 309-310. 201 . Ibid., 310-311.

131 early works. In the Dialogue with Trypho, the fire image appears at the time of the entrance of Jesus into the water, in contrast with the light references in other accounts where the light occurs during the baptism or after it. The reason for Justin’s preference for the inclusion of fire in the baptismal account instead of the more prevalent image of light is uncertain. Ferguson argues that this may be due to Justin’s intent in explaining the idea of the appearance of light, or perhaps it was an allusion to John’s announcement of someone who would come after him and who would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire.”202

Daniel Vigne finds the reference to fire in Dialogue 88. 2-4 as totally related to Justin’s perception of the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ and believers. The fire element should not be taken as surprising or odd; it is a visual metaphor of the work of the prophetic

Spirit. Jesus is baptized by a prophet, given the plenitude of the Spirit according to the messianic prophecies, and from his baptism dispenses this prophetic Spirit to all believers.

This fire that ignites the waters of the Jordan as Jesus emerges from the waters is regarded by Vigne as a device from Justin to stress the importance of the moment when the Spirit became accessible to all humanity. The use of the fire image is also important for Vigne as a way to dispel the confusing hypothesis of the role of the Spirit and the Logos in Justin’s corpus. For Vigne, this lack of distinction is minimal, and the fire image illustrates precisely that the experience of being habituated to the presence of the Spirit is for Justin to live in and according to the Logos.203 In the final paragraph of his article, Vigne concludes:

A toutes les étapes de cette enquête, le Pneuma prophetikon nous est apparu comme le souffle surnaturel, la force performative qui actualise en l’homme le dessein de Dieu. Le “divin Esprit saint et prophétique”, fil conducteur de

202 . Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 110-111. 203. Vigne, Pneuma prophetikon, 341.

132

cette étude, ne serait-il pas aussi celui de la pensée et de la vie de Justin?.... la pneumatologie de Justin martyr, dans son lieu étroit avec le prophétisme, n’est rien moins que central et puissamment articulée.204

The Spirit is seen as the presence of Christ in all believers, not because of confusion of identities but rather as a result of the role of Spirit as a facilitator and dispenser of communion with Christ.

Erwin Goodenough determines that it is very difficult to ascertain Justin’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit.205 Different studies have ascribed the doctrine of the Trinity in the work of

Justin. Other studies have denied a personal reality to the Holy Spirit, with an insistence on identifying both the Logos and the Spirit as two terms that Justin used to refer to the same concept. There are other scholars who present a distinctive personality of the Spirit in the works of Justin combined with a denial of the divinity of both the Logos and the Spirit.

Goodenough believes that Justin had no theology of the Trinity. For Goodenough Justin believed in God the Father, with the Logos and the Spirit in a subordinated place to the

Father, even though conceding their divine status.206

Regarding the Spirit, Goodenough is of the opinion that Justin saw the Spirit as the inspiration for prophesy. Before the Incarnation, the Spirit functioned upon the prophets directly from God. However, the functions of the Spirit had a transformation at the moment of the baptism of Christ. The Spirit became then the spirit of Christ, and given only by Christ to men and women. Nonetheless, there is a need to be careful about the interpretation of Justin regarding the descent of the Spirit during the baptism of Jesus. He

204. Ibid., 347. 205 Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena: Frommann, 1923), 176-188. 206 Ibid., 186.

133 used it as an intellectual device in order to answer the concern of Trypho (and others) regarding the baptism of Jesus as an indication of Jesus not being divine at the moment of his baptism. Justin in his explanation was in consonance with the view of the Spirit of his own time as being manifested to Christians through baptism. All the gifts of the Spirit that were previously given to the prophets are now bestowed by Christ to all his believers:

The Holy Spirit became Christian when the gifts of the Spirit became also the gifts of Christ, when the indwelling Spirit was in a sense the indwelling Christ also. But not the doctrine of the Spirit but the doctrine of Christ was the novelty which was at once attacked from without and studied within Christianity. Little explanation is made of the Spirit during the first two Centuries (sic) of Christian writing because the Spirit of whom Christians spoke, except that He came from and through Christ, was too well known both in Hellenism and Judaism to need an introduction, was too traditional to need defense.207

Goodenough establishes that Justin’s doctrine of the relationship of the Word with the

Spirit presents both in a distinctive manner, even when there is confusion regarding their function: “We have seen no grounds for concluding that Justin identified the Holy Spirit and the Logos personally, but that it is very possible that he had no clear notion of either their metaphysical or functional distinction.”208 This confusion regarding the function of the

Word and Spirit was caused by Justin’s inclination to classify the Holy Spirit as an aspect of the Word. Justin’s assertion was deeply influenced by the prevalence of the concept of the

Spirit in Hellenism and Judaism, a concept that was not in need of explanation or defense during his time.

Anthony Briggman analyzes the conclusions of Goodenough and establishes an analysis of passages from Justin’s oeuvre, presenting that Justin, in some passages of the 1

207. Ibid., 188. 208 . Ibid., 235-236.

134

Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho, subordinated his Trinitarian beliefs to a binitarian logic.209 Briggman agrees with Goodenough in that the confusion of function between the

Word and the Spirit in Justin does not prevent him in distinguishing their identity. However, according to Briggman there are specific instances in Justin’s work where he fails to distinguish the functions of the Word and the Spirit, like 1 Apology 33 and Dialogue 87-88.

These passages present a Spirit-Christology, a binitarian logic that is in conflict with Justin’s clear assertions about his belief in the Trinity. This is caused by his perception of the Word and Spirit as powers, and not explicitly as distinct persons, a point of view also shared by

Christian writers of his time:

It is appropriate to classify Justin’s understanding of the Spirit as confused given his inability to construct a distinct theology of the Spirit, necessary to which are distinct conceptions of activity and identity: his theological account does not support the Trinitarian convictions his formulaic confessional statements confirm. In so finding, we cannot lose perspective and condemn a theologian of the second century for failing to meet the standard of the fourth century, a long- standing habit often found in earlier works. Neither, however, ought we to attribute to Justin a more developed approach to the Spirit than he in fact evinces. Binitarianism and Trinitarianism exist in tension in Justin to the detriment of the Holy Spirit who remains partially eclipsed by the Word.210

Briggman in a more recent publication on the pneumatology of Irenaeus of Lyons dedicates his first chapter to an analysis on Justin Martyr and the pneumatology of the second century.211 On this chapter there is more consideration on how the Spirit-Christology logic in

Justin’s works explains the insistence in presenting the accounts of the baptism of Jesus as having a symbolic nature. In Dial. 88 Justin avoids any suggestion of the resting of the Spirit

209 . Anthony Briggman, “Measuring Justin’s Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and Binitarian Orientation,” Vigiiae Christianae 63 (2009): 107-137. 210 . Ibid., 136. 211 . Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 9-29.

135 in Christ having more than a symbolic validation of the identity of Jesus Christ to other human beings. This symbolic interpretation is in consonance to the ideas developed on chapter 87: “The Scriptures state that these gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed upon him, not as though he were in need of them, but as though they were about to rest on him, that is, to come to an end with him….”212 Justin’s perception, with its strong emphasis on the presence of the Spirit on Christ before his baptism, is a logical consequence of the position that the resting of the Spirit has no effect on Christ. In other words, if there was no effect of the Spirit on Christ during the baptism in the Jordan, there was no reason either for ascertaining any concrete change in the baptismal accounts. As a result of this, Briggman suggests that “the symbolic interpretation of the baptismal narrative in Dial. 88 coordinates the Trinitarian theophany of the baptismal story, as presented in the New Testament writings, with the binitarian logic of Spirit-Christology underlying Justin’s thought in Dial.87 and 88.”213

Philippe Henne also analyzes the fire image in Chapter 88.3 and explains that this first analysis of the baptism of Jesus has at its center a desire to ascertain that from the beginning, before his baptism, Jesus was already the Messiah. The fire image that appears before the descent of Jesus into the Jordan is a graphic illustration of this reality, a manifestation of the true nature of Christ hidden under his human appearance. For Henne, this fire image is not related to purification nor to a baptismal motif but to a theophany or manifestation of Christ’s divinity and a proof of his pre-existence.214

212 Dial. 87.3, in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 136. 213 Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, 27. .214 Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut- il baptisé ?” 574-576.

136

When Daniel Vigne analyzes Chapter 88 of the Dialogue with Trypho, he notes in the commentary the abundant presence of the Jewish Christian tradition regarding the baptism of Jesus. Vigne detects a double position in Justin. On the one hand, Justin was influenced by the baptismal exegesis of the Jewish Christian tradition and had cited multiple narrative elements, like the ignited fire in the Jordan, the flying dove, and the distinct manner of the celestial statement (“You are my Son; this day have I begotten you”). On the other hand,

Justin objects to the flawed interpretations of some groups regarding the accounts of the baptism of Jesus with distorted views of the identity of Jesus before his baptism. The response of Justin is mainly a soteriological one, where the baptism event happens to Jesus, not for Jesus but for humanity. This emphasis on the need of baptism for the sake of humanity and not for Christ is repeated four times in Chapter 88.215

There were some believers who supported a different interpretation from Justin. In

Chapter 49, Trypho expresses his agreement with the opinion of dissenting groups as being more in consonance with the Jewish faith:

Il me semble, reprit-il, que ceux qui dissent qu’il fut homme, qu’il a été choisi pour être oint, qu’il a été Christ-Oint affirment une chose plus croyable que ceux d’entre vous qui sont de ton avis. Nous tous nous attendons un Christ qui sera un homme d’entre les hommes, et Elie qui doit l’oindre quand il viendra.216

The statements of Justin in Chapter 88 are a response to Trypho’s link of the Jewish position with the position of some Jewish Christian groups. Justin emphasizes in Dial. 88.8 that the baptism of Jesus gave humanity a sign of recognition of the Messiah and did not imply any

215 Daniel Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 73. 216 Dial. 49.1, in Justin Martyr, Œuvres complètes, 172.

137 allowance for Jesus to become the Son of God. Before his baptism, the general understanding of Jesus by his contemporaries was of Jesus as son of Joseph the carpenter:

Quand Jésus vint au Jourdain, on le croyait alors fils de Joseph le charpentier; il était “sans beauté” (Is 53, 2) comme les Ecritures le proclamaient; il passait pour un charpentier car tandis qu’il était parmi les hommes, il fabriquait ces ouvrages de charpentiers: des charrues et des jougs, s’en servant pour enseigner les symboles de la justice et la vie active.217

Justin makes a distinction between the modest exterior appearance of Jesus and the revelation of his true nature by using the image of the dove as well as the celestial voice.

Justin outlines the humanity of Jesus based on three insightful characteristics: what is said of him, what can be judged from his aspect, and what is known about his work. The judgments about his exterior aspect are based on the fourth servant canticle found in Isaiah

52:13-53 and the association that the Christian tradition made between this Old Testament canticle and the humiliation of Jesus at his passion and death. Regarding Jesus’ occupation, the details presented by Justin are in obvious accord with works of the time like the Gospel of Thomas. There are further symbolic interpretations by Justin where the ploughs and yokes made by Jesus are images of justice and active life.218 There was nothing in the exterior aspect of Jesus or in what was known of him to reveal his true quality. Rather the events at the Jordan revealed the true identity of Jesus:

A ce moment donc, l’Esprit Saint, et cela à cause des hommes, comme j’ai déjà dit, voltigea au-dessus de lui sous la forme d’une colombe, et en même temps vint des cieux une voix, cette voix avait déjà parlé par David qui, comme au nom du Christ, avait révélé ce qui devait lui être dit de la part de son Père : « Tu es mon fils, je t’ai engendré aujourd’hui » (Lc. 3, 21-22). Le

217 Ibid., 242. 218 Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé ?” 578-579.

138

Père déclarait qu’il était engendré pour les hommes au moment où on devait commencer à le connaitre.219

Later in the Dialogue with Trypho the use of the messianic declaration in relation with its original provenance in Psalm 2 is used by Justin in his exegesis of the temptation in the desert. This messianic declaration inspired by Psalm 2 was frequently used in different texts of the Jewish Christian tradition, like the Gospel of the Ebionites. There are notable Jewish

Christian influences in Chapter 88 of Trypho, like the idea of a Messiah hidden and revealed, the devil in fear of the heavenly statement, the flight of the dove, and the fire at the Jordan

River. These images are indications of the strong influence of Justin’s theological background. He does not use anything new but rather enriches his apologist effort with what he already understood about the objectionable positions of dissenting groups.

Vigne presents Justin both as nourishing and concerned with the ideas of the different

Jewish Christian groups. Justin accepts his cultural and religious background at the same time that he corrects what he feels is dogmatically incorrect. With his work, Justin announces the main elements of the Christian tradition regarding the baptism of Jesus.

Justin’s contribution would be received and incorporated into liturgy, art, and literature. At the same time, Justin’s work is indicative of the effort of other Christian communities to correct the erroneous ideas that could move the baptism of Jesus away from its true meaning. It is with Justin that the Christian tradition encounters for the first time this tension between assimilation of the current religious culture and questioning of its divergences with orthodoxy.220

219 Dial. 88.8, in Justin Martyr, Œuvres complètes, 242. 220 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 74-75.

139

In the Dialogue with Trypho, André Benoit finds a particular insight about Justin’s emphasis on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism.221 Justin is conflicted with the problem of explaining how it is possible for Jesus to receive the Spirit at his baptism if the presence of the Spirit was already in evidence in the pre-existence of the Son of God at his virginal conception and birth. Justin’s first explanation of this problem is that

Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit at his baptism because he already had the Spirit from birth. However, the Spirit came upon him during his baptism in order to establish that after that moment the Spirit would be concentrated on Jesus and his disciples, in the new dispensation, of the new Israel (Dial.52.4; 88.1-3). Then in Dial. 88.8, Justin presents the baptism as a manifestation of the Messianic nature of Jesus, a sign of recognition given by

God to humanity. Benoit finds those two explanations not very convincing and indicative of

Justin’s unease regarding the baptism of Jesus. Because the baptism of Jesus is mentioned in all four Gospels, Justin had to make some significant commentary. However, there is in

Justin a total reluctance to link the baptism in the Jordan with any possibility of an adoptionist interpretation. 222

For Benoit it was important to analyze the way Justin deals with the problem of the baptism of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. This association is already established in the

Gospel passages where Jesus’ baptism by water connects with the anointing of Jesus in the

Spirit at the moment when he came out of the baptismal waters. The passages in the New

Testament present Christ’s receiving the Spirit at the moment of his baptism. It is very possible (as presented in the previous chapter) that the Christian tradition established the

221 Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, 138-185. 222 Ibíd., 178-179.

140 accounts of the baptism of Jesus in order to present his baptism as the model for Christian baptism.

Benoit clearly was surprised to encounter scholars who found in the work of Justin a diverse interpretation of the gift of the Spirit in the baptism of Christ and of Christians.

Benoit believes that the baptismal theology of Justin was in agreement with the beliefs of his Christian community, where Christian baptism was inspired by the baptism of Christ, and the baptismal bath procured for the believer the forgiveness of sins, regeneration, spiritual circumcision, and the gift of the Spirit. Therefore, Benoit disagrees with some scholars (like

G. Dix) who read into Justin’s theology an indication of a distinct ceremony for the receipt of the Spirit, prefiguring further developments in Christian initiation.223

The interpretation of the baptism of Jesus Christ in connection with Christian baptism is very important in the thought of Justin Martyr. Passages from the Dialogue of Trypho establish the link between the Spirit and the new birth of Christians. Dialogue 88.4-5 presents an elaboration on Justin`s idea that Jesus was baptized not for his own benefit, but in order to facilitate a change in dispensation from the old alliance to the new one. Only after the ascension of Christ is the Sprit enabled to be present in all flesh. From this general idea, Justin elaborates other aspects in order to give a more precise idea of the effects of the baptism in the Jordan. Jesus’s baptism is related to the liberation of humanity, the knowledge of Christ, and the divine filiation.224 In Chapter 88 Justin presents Jesus going to the Jordan out of love for humanity, a love that was already manifested in his birth and

223 Ibíd., 180. 224 José Granados, Los misterios de la vida de Cristo en Justino Mártir (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005), 257-266.

141 would later be manifested in his death on a cross. Justin places the baptism not merely as an epiphany or manifestation of Jesus to humanity. The baptism is an event of the same salvific level as Jesus`s birth, and his death on the cross.

Chapter 88 also reveals another argument from Justin in his efforts to present the baptism of Jesus as a manifestation or a sign for humanity. This is certainly not a contradiction with the previously mentioned aspect. José Granados establishes that this manifestation aspect is only one of Justin`s arguments, not the only one or the most important.225 Justin`s comparison of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan with his entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey establishes Jesus’ baptism as a clear manifestation of the regal condition of Jesus.

Justin is probably the first theologian during the second century who develops ideas that will be important for later theological developments regarding the baptism of Christ.

However, the concern of Justin regarding adoptionism in the baptism of Christ, and his emphasis on humanity as the only recipient of the events at the Jordan, does not address the intent by the Gospel writers in describing the baptism as a time of initiation of Jesus into his ministry as Son of God. Also, the emphasis on the baptism as a manifestation of the true nature of Jesus to the whole world is not without some contradiction. Again, Justin also uses as part of his apologetic discourse in the Dialogue with Trypho a reference to Psalm 2:7; however, he also used non-authoritative references that are also used by the Ebionites. As

Philippe Henne writes in the last pages of his article “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé? La réponse de Justin”:

225 Ibid., 259-260.

142

Dans sa réponse à l’objection soulevée par Tryphon, Justin laisse paraitre toute la peine dans son effort. A force de vouloir tout expliquer, la démonstration perd de sa cohérence….Ce que Justin affirme d’un côté dans son argumentation principale, est en partie contredit par une explication secondaire. Le plus curieux reste que le Dialogue semble se référer à une tradition extra-canonique du récit du baptême. Justin parle d’un feu brûlant sur le Jourdain et doit citer le Psaume 2, verset 7 bien que ce passage l’embarrasse et l’indispose. Le baptême de Jésus reste un point difficile et seule une finesse, plus habile que convaincante, permet à l’apologète d’écarter cette objection embarrassante.226

José Granados disagrees with this view by Henne and other scholars (Orbe, Benoit,

Houissau, Skarsaune, Vigne, and others) who do not see that Justin was totally successful in presenting the baptism of Jesus as a relevant moment in his life and ministry.227 Granados is of the opinion that many scholars believe that Justin`s approach to the baptism of Jesus diminishes it to a manifestation where the descent of the Spirit has little or no effect on

Jesus. The baptism is then reduced to a sign indicating that Jesus had possessed the Spirit since his conception. Granados observes that most scholars have concentrated their efforts on the difficulty that Justin had regarding Jesus’ baptism and the issue of pre-existence.

Justin appears concerned with defending the pre-existence of Christ against adoptionist postures. The result of the scholars’ perceptions asserts that Justin used the baptism of

Jesus as an ancillary tool in order to present the event mainly as a manifestation intended only for the edification of humanity.

Granados places the passages about the baptism of Jesus into the context of the whole Dialogue with Trypho and determines that the references to the baptism in the

Jordan are not mere digressions. As a result of his study, Granados establishes that the

226 Henne, “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé ?", 582-583. 227 Granados, 231-270.

143 baptism in the Jordan and the reception of the Spirit constitute a real change in the life of

Jesus. This event is then related to the history of salvation in general and of Christian baptism in particular. Granados follows this analysis by an explanation of the significance of the baptism of Jesus using a synthetic vision.228 Granados posits that Justin did not analyze the importance of the baptism as an issue only pertaining to the pre-existence of Christ but also as an opportunity for a more ample reflection on the mystery of Christ. The baptism in the Jordan was studied by Justin in order to explain the communion and presence of God with creation.

Granados establishes two theological perspectives present in the theology of Justin

Martyr that are instrumental in Justin`s interpretation of the baptism of Jesus. The first perspective is related to the idea of the Spirit as a dynamic presence of God in the world.

The Spirit leads humanity through history in order to establish a communion with God while at the same time respecting the particular characteristics of the human condition.

Consequently, the history of salvation is a history of the progressive donation of the Holy

Spirit to humanity. The second perspective is related to the concept of recapitulation. Jesus

Christ gave humanity divine affiliation by sharing humanity`s condition. Christ lived in his flesh the path that was later going to be available for the salvation of all humanity. These two perspectives complement each other and are helpful to understand the baptism of

Jesus in the Jordan as an important event in the life both of Jesus and of humanity. Jesus in his baptism is named Son of God as a result of the important action of the prophetic Spirit in his flesh. From this moment, Jesus began his preaching and ministry, sent on his mission by

228 Ibid., 231-235.

144 the dynamic action of the Spirit. In addition, the Spirit gave the flesh of Jesus Christ the faculty to communicate to humanity the plenitude that he already possessed. Granados sees these dynamic and participatory aspects in relation with the action of the Holy Spirit in the flesh of Jesus in preparation to the redemption of humanity.229

C. Influence of Justin Martyr on Irenaeus of Lyons

It is important at this moment to reflect on the influences of Justin Martyr on Irenaeus of Lyons. Michael Slusser wrote an article on this issue where he elaborated the assumption that Irenaeus was at some moment in his life a student of Justin, either in Asia or in

Rome.230 This is a view that is shared by a majority of scholars, such as Osborn, Fantino,

Donovan, Minns, and others. However, Slusser is of the opinion that the majority of scholars recognize the influence of Justin on Irenaeus, but conclusions by scholars tend to be vague regarding how much Irenaeus knew about the works of Justin. Most scholars also analyze this connection primarily through an analysis of Adversus haereses. Slusser, on the other hand, believes that an analysis of Irenaeus’ Epideixis or Demonstration of the Apostolic

Preaching clearly indicates more significant connections between Justin and Irenaeus.

Different scholars have found Irenaeus’ arguments from prophecy in the Epideixis similar both generally and specifically to ideas present in Justin’s 1 Apology and in the Dialogue with Trypho.231 One important issue that is still discussed is related to the quote that

Irenaeus made from Justin’s treatise against Marcion in Adversus haereses 4.6.2:

229 Ibid., 267-270. 230 Michael Slusser, “How Much Did Irenaeus Learn from Justin?” Studia Patristica Vol. 40 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 515-520. 231 Ibid., 516.

145

….For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: “I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher (sic). But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who made the world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is stedfast (sic), and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.”232

There is no unanimity about the length of the quote, something that will be important in determining if Irenaeus adapted his prominent doctrine of recapitulation from Justin.

Robert Grant translates and delimits Justin’s quote in this way:

Justin well said in his book Against Marcion, “I should not have believed the Lord himself had he proclaimed a God other than the Creator.” But since from the one God, who made this world and formed us and contains and administers everything, the only Son came to us, recapitulating in himself what he had formed, my faith is firm in him and my love unshakable toward the Father, since the Lord provides us with both faith and love. 233

In his footnote to this passage, Grant explains: “The rest of the text is sometimes ascribed to Justin, but he does not use the word anakephalaiôsis.”234

Slusser thinks that Adv. Haer. 4.6.2 could be analyzed in the whole framework of 4.6.

In this passage, there is an argument where Irenaeus is reacting to the claim that Matthew

11:27 “No one knows (or knew?) the Son except the Father” is an indication that neither

Christ nor his Father were known before the arrival of Christ Jesus. Some gnostic groups used this interpretation based on their understanding of the verb in the past tense while

Irenaeus suggests that the correct reading of this text requires the use of the present tense.

In 4.6.2, Irenaeus presents the quote from Justin and uses Matthew 11:27. Slusser sees the

232 Adv.haer. IV. 6.2, in Against Heresies, 407-408. 233 Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 2005), 145. 234 Ibid., 197.

146 use of Justin’s quotation by Irenaeus as an inclusion to support Irenaeus’ argument. Justin used Matthew 11:27 in his works. However, in the Matthean passage in I Apology, an earlier work, Justin presents the passage in the aorist form of the verb. In the Dialogue with Trypho, a later work, Justin uses the passage with the verb in the present tense. Slusser sees this change in a later work by Justin as a probable result of further theological reflection, perhaps because of a debate during Justin’s classes in Rome and in other parts. Slusser also speculates that it is possible that Justin and Irenaeus met during the years 130-140, as during these years Justin was at the summit of his activity, while Irenaeus was starting his theological journey.235

Conclusion

Justin described baptism as a time of renewal, using expressions like “regeneration” and “be regenerated” to express this baptismal renewal. Justin’s description of the baptismal liturgy was somewhat more developed than what can be ascertained from the

New Testament accounts but was still simple and similar to the baptismal ceremony described in the Didachē, without the latter’s allowance for an alternative to immersion.

Baptism meant for Justin especially a forgiveness of sins, and an enlightenment. Other themes used by Justin were deliverance from a former manner of life dominated by the influence of evil, as well as the sharing in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Justin is a useful person to study the baptismal theology of second century Christians.

Regarding the theology of the Holy Spirit in Justin Martyr, there seems to be ground for diverse interpretations. Sometimes the gifts of the Spirit are portrayed as diverse

235 Slusser, 518-520.

147 charisms given according to each individual. In other passages of the Dialogue with Trypho there is a sense that all Christians are participants of the gifts of the Spirit. Justin is probably the first writer of the Christian tradition to undertake discussion of the relation of the Son and the Spirit of God. In his philosophical discourse, Justin introduces a gradation concept in the relation with the Divine persons where the Son seems subordinated to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. Justin’s zeal to demonstrate that Christians were not atheists creates some problems as a result of his efforts to clarify Christian beliefs.

The baptism of Jesus presented a difficult challenge for Justin, even when the baptism was not a central theme of Justin’s theology. There was a special interest in defending the role of the Spirit in the baptism of Christ in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. The baptism was necessary only for the sake of humanity, the revelatory moment when Christ, in his humanity, was manifested in his real nature to all humanity. In addition, the baptism was necessary for Jesus to receive the gifts of the Spirit in his humanity in order to prepare the rest of the human race to also receive the gifts of the Spirit. Jesus in his humanity is borne to a new life, anointed by the Spirit in order to engage in physical actions that are full expressions of his divinity. The baptism in the Jordan is the incident that distinctly indicates the dynamic of continuity and rupture between the action of the Spirit in the prophetic era and the Spirit’s subsequent action on Christians. The resting of the Spirit happened in order that Christ could transfer the gifts of the Spirit of all believers.

The fire image appears for the first time in Justin regarding Jesus’ baptism, as well as the differentiation from the light imagery used in other early works. In the Dialogue with

Trypho, the fire image appears at the time of the entrance of Jesus into the water, in

148 contrast with the light reference on other accounts where the light appears during the baptism or after it. Justin’s use of the fire image could be interpreted as a visual metaphor of the work of the Spirit. Jesus is baptized by a prophet, given the fullness of the Spirit according to the messianic prophecies. As a result of this, the prophetic Spirit is conferred to all the faithful. This fire image has received other interpretations, diverse but not exclusive of each other. Henne has interpreted the fire image in Chapter 88.3 of Trypho as a desire by Justin to establish a graphic illustration of the true nature of Christ hidden under his human appearance, a manifestation of the divinity and pre-existence of Jesus Christ.

Justin accepted his cultural and religious background at the same time that he corrects what was doctrinally incorrect. With his work Justin announced the main elements of the

Christian tradition regarding the baptism of Jesus. It is with Justin where the Christian tradition encounters for the first time the tension between assimilation of the current religious culture and questioning of its divergences with orthodoxy. This process of formative theology will prepare and influence the theological positions of Irenaeus of Lyons.

Chapter III. The Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons on the baptism of Jesus Christ

Irenaeus of Lyons elaborates on Justin Martyr’s theology of the baptism of Christ and then introduces some important insights of his own. The work of the bishop of Lyons is in an apologetic style and is directed to some gnostic groups, in particular the Offites and the

Valentinians. In his works Adversus haereses and the Epideixis, Irenaeus presents ideas about Christian baptism that reflect the baptismal practices and perceptions that were customary to the Christian tradition in the second century. The Christian community of

Lyons, where Irenaeus served, was one situated on the frontiers between the Latin and

Celtic cultures, and with connections to Asia Minor. In fact, some of the members of the church of Lyons, like Irenaeus, were from Asia Minor. Therefore the church of Lyons was informed by liturgical and doctrinal concepts from different sectors of the Christian tradition of that time.

Regarding Irenaeus himself and his life, the information is not abundant. The earliest source mentioning Irenaeus is the Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius of Caesarea, a book probably written sometime before 400 CE. In this work, the author presents Irenaeus as someone who was a “hearer” or disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna:

For I saw thee when I was yet a boy in the lower Asia with Polycarp, moving with great splendor at court, and endeavouring by all means to get his esteem. I remember the events of those times more than those of more recent occurrence. As the studies of our youth growing with our minds, unite with it so firmly that I can tell also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse; and also his entrances, his walks, the complexion of his life and the form of his body, and his conversations with the people, and his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the Lord. 236

236 Historia Ecclesiastica V.20.5-6, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 204.

149 150

Irenaeus saw Polycarp as his connection with the apostolic age. Paul Parvis is of the opinion that this connection between Polycarp and Irenaeus is influential on Irenaeus’ view of the role of the bishop, one of the principal aspects of the theology of the bishop of Lyons. 237

Other writers, like Charles Hill, has also studied the influence of Polycarp on Irenaeus, in particular in several passages from Adversus haereses. 238 Hill establishes a detailed study of Adv. haer. IV.27-32 and of Irenaeus’ description of the oral teaching of a presbyter who publicly taught against Marcionite concepts. The text, surviving only in its Latin version, describes this ancient presbyter as one who has received the tradition ab his qui Apostolos viderant (Adv. haer.IV.27.1) and senior Apostolorum discipulos (Adver. haer. IV.32.1). Hill establishes that this elder, hearer and disciple of the apostles, was probably Polycarp of

Smyrna. Different passages from Adversus haereses as well as the fragment already quoted from the Historia Ecclesiastica are used by Hill to ascertain his theory. This connection is particularly related to the heresy catalogue that Irenaeus presented in Adv. haer. I.23-27 and its analysis of the doctrines of Marcion and Cerinthus. Hill believes that Polycarp was a main source for Irenaeus’ knowledge of heresies in different Christian communities:

The attribution of this material to Polycarp establishes a more substantial personal link between Irenaeus and his teacher. Some scholars have assumed that Irenaeus was so young when he had contact with Polycarp that any memories he retained in later life would necessarily have been vague, and quite prone to distortion. But the fragments in AH 4 show that the contact between the two men was neither fleeting nor did it end when Irenaeus was too young to preserve vibrant memories. Instead, they give content to Irenaeus’ testimony in his letter to Florinus, that he was old enough and

237 Paul Parvis, “Who Was Irenaeus? An Introduction to the Man and His Work,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds., Paul and Sara Parvis (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 13-24. 238 Charles E. Hill, “Polycarp Contra Marcion: Irenaeus’ Presbyteral Source in AH 4.27-32,” Studia Patristica vol.40 (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2008): 399-412.

151

attentive enough to havelearned by heart significant portions of the bishop’s teaching, and that as an older man (probably in his late fifties) he could still recall his master’s techniques on Marcionism, having ruminated on them for many years. 239

The connection made by writers between Polycarp and Irenaeus has also been important in determining the probability that Irenaeus was also from Smyrna, even when neither he nor

Eusebius mention the place of his birth.

What is important is to recognize that Irenaeus came from the East and his work was influenced by the historical and theological realities of Asia Minor. At some moment

Irenaeus moved from the East to the province of Lugdunensis, specifically to its capital

Lugdunun, modern day Lyons. Irenaeus does not mention Lyons in his works. There is only an indirect reference in the preface to Adversus haereses to his place of residence:

Non autem exquires a nobis, qui apud Celtas commoramur, et in barbarum sermonem plerumque vacamus, orationis artem, quam non didicimus, neque vim conscriptoris, quam non affectavimus, neque ornamentum verborum, neque suadelam, quam nescimus. 240

Is this reference a reflection of Irenaeus’ view of the people of Lyons or a rhetorical device showing modesty for his own writing? According to the historical sources, Lugdunum was a

Roman territory, the largest city of the area, and a cultured and refined city that was the financial and religious centre of Gaul. The city was also populated by members of different regions, with many people from the East. Irenaeus’ flock most likely was formed by many

Greek speaking migrants in a mostly Latin speaking city that was surrounded by rural

239 Ibid., 411. 240 Adv. haer. Prefatio.3, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons’ Five Books Against Heresies Vol. II, ed. W. Harvey (Rochester, NY: St. Irenaeus Press, 2003), 6.

152 populations that spoke mostly Celtic. The Christian population of Lyons was formed by individuals who were estranged from the society at large due to their cultural and religious beliefs. 241

Jared Secord investigates the silence of Irenaeus regarding Lyons, even though it is generally understood that he was a long-time resident of the city.242 Secord concludes that

Irenaeus’ view of Lyons is determined by his perspective as a Greek who was raised in Asia

Minor. As a result of his origins, Irenaeus was uncertain of the geography and particularities of the West and of Gaul in particular. This was the context of Irenaeus’ comment about being someone who “lives with the Celts and most of the times uses the language of barbarians.” Secord compares this seemingly dismissive comment about the place of the ministry of Irenaeus as bishop of Lyons with stress on the unity of the church among all peoples and Irenaeus’ own commitment to the spreading of the Christian faith.

It is interesting to contrast the situation of Lyons in comparison to other Christian communities in the second century. At the time Greek was a highly respected language spoken by the majority of educated Romans. In Rome Greek was the language most spoken by Christians. Lyons, on the other hand, was a mostly Latin city. Secord suggests that

Irenaeus’ mission in Gaul was in consonance with the need for missionaries from outside of

Gaul who were Greek speakers, as Greek Christians were a majority in the Roman Empire.

Irenaeus had probably been invited to Lyons due to his credentials as a disciple of martyrs like Polycarp and Justin. Probably Irenaeus spoke and preached mostly in Latin in this city. It

241 Paul Parvis, “Who Was Irenaeus? An Introduction to the Man and His Work,” 14-15. 242 Jared Secord, “The Cultural Geography of a Greek Christian: Irenaeus from Smyrna to Lyons,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds., Paul and Sara Parvis (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 25-33.

153 is of particular importance that even though Irenaeus’ works were originally written in

Greek, the earliest copy available of Adversus haereses is in a Latin translation. Therefore, even with the apparent dislike of the Latin language reflected in the preface to Adversus haereses, there is a strong possibility that Irenaeus was a contributor the progressive

“Latinization” of the Christian communities in the West. 243

Sometime during the last half of the second century (circa 180), a violent crowd disturbance provoked a brutal persecution against the Christian community of Lyons. As a result a number of Christians were executed in the local amphitheatre by orders of the

Roman governor. The Historia Ecclesiastica has a generous account of the persecution of

Christians in Gaul. As part of the extensive account, there is mention of the bishop Pothinos, of advanced age who suffered torture and abuse in prison, causing his death. It is not well known how Irenaeus escaped prison and persecution, but the Historia Ecclesiastica has in its fifth book a letter written by the confessors of Lyons and Vienne. This letter, from prison, mentions Irenaeus as the one in charge of giving the letter to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome:

But these same martyrs recommending also Irenaeus, who was then a presbyter of the church at Lyons, to the bishop of Rome beforementioned, bear abundant testimony in his favour, as the following extracts show: “We pray and desire, father Eleutherius, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and companion Irenaeus to carry this epistle to you, and we exhort you to consider him as commended to you as a zealous follower of the testament (covenant) of Christ. For if we knew that any place could confer righteousness upon any one, we could certainly commend him among the first as a presbyter of the church, the station that he holds.”244

243 Jared Secord., “The Cultural Geography of a Greek Christian: Irenaeus from Smyrna to Lyons,” 30-32. 244 HE IV, in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 183.

154

Irenaeus succeeded Pothinos as bishop of Lyons and inherited a diocese that was affected not only by the religious persecution and martyrdom of its faithful but also by internal division provoked by groups with ideas that were in conflict with the tenets of the established Christian community. It is particularly unusual that Irenaeus in his known written works never mentioned anything about the Christian persecution in Lyons, even though there is reference to martyrdom on several occasions. However, there is much in the corpus of Irenaeus about the ideas of the dissenting groups and how they threatened the true Christian faith. In particular, in the work called Adversus haereses or Refutation and

Overthrow of Falsely-Named Knowledge there is an intent on the part of Irenaeus to address the ideas of the dissenting groups of his time and refute them with scriptural and theological arguments. This work survives as a whole in a Latin version, with Greek and

Armenian versions also existing of some fragments. Eusebius of Caesarea quotes from

Adversus haereses in several chapters of Book V of Historia Ecclesiastica. Eusebius also referred to other works of Irenaeus in chapter XXVI:

Besides the works and epistles of Irenaeus abovementioned, there is a certain very brief and most important discourse by him On Knowledge, against the Greeks; another also, which he dedicated to his brother named Marcion, as a proof of the apostolic preaching; a book of various disputes, in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting certain passages from them. These are the works of Irenaeus that have come down to us. 245

Of the works quoted by Eusebius, the “proof of apostolic preaching” or Epideixis has barely been rediscovered as recently as the first decade of the twentieth century. In December of

1904 a manuscript was discovered in the library of the Mother of God Church in Erevan

245 HE V.XXVI, in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 212.

155 which contained an Armenian translation of the last two books of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses as well as his Epideixis.246 Both known works by Irenaeus are pastoral and theological in nature, dealing with a diversity of theological and doctrinal issues using a great quantity of scriptural exegesis. Eusebius uses Irenaeus’ authority regarding the books of Scripture that were part of the Christian tradition (HE V. VIII).

In his works Irenaeus mentioned the four Gospels, I John and I Peter, the Book of

Revelation, and the other books that were part of the Septuagint. For Irenaeus Scripture is an essential part of the Christian faith, with the Old Testament announcing Jesus Christ and the New Testament containing the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Irenaeus is the earliest testimony of the fourfold canon of the Gospels of the New Testament and is so stated in the third book of Adversus haereses. The bishop of Lyons is clear that there could not be more than four gospels, censuring those who would add or subtract gospels or other parts of Scripture (like Marcion, the Montanists, and the disciples of Valentinus).

As part of the apology of Irenaeus, there is mention in Book III of a Gospel of Truth promoted by the Valentinians, with allusion to some other gospels. Paul Foster studies these allusions by Irenaeus in order to determine which noncanonical gospels were known by Irenaeus and the extent of his knowledge of these writings.247 Foster concludes that

Irenaeus was very knowledgeable about the traditions of the alternative gospels supported by the gnostic groups. However, the lack of specific quoting of these sources makes it difficult to ascertain the exact level of dependence of Irenaeus on these noncanonical accounts. Scholars have found indirect passages from Irenaeus refer to works like the

246 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, 27. 247 Paul Foster, “Irenaeus and the Noncanonical Gospels,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 105-117.

156

Gospel of Judas and the Apocryphon of John. However, there is no certainty that he knew these works by direct reading or by reputation.248

Irenaeus believed that Scripture should be interpreted in companionship with the Rule of Truth or Rule of Faith, a sort of creedal summary of the faith, as “following the Lord as the one and only true teacher and taking his words as the rule of truth” (Adv. haer. IV.35.4).

In addition to Scripture and the Rule of Truth Irenaeus adds another element, the testimony of the apostles and their successors:

If some question of minor importance should arise, would it not be best to turn to the most ancient churches, those in which the apostles lived, to receive from them the exact teaching on the question involved? And then, if the apostles had not left us the scriptures, would it not be best to follow the sequence of the tradition which they transmitted to those in whom they entrusted the churches?249

For Irenaeus Scripture is of the utmost importance. He understood Scripture as a group of inspiring and complex writings that require assiduous study in order to comprehend its meaning. The message of the Word was also found in the statements of faith and in the testimony of apostles and leaders who were witnesses of the Christian faith.250

The scriptural and ecclesiological positions defended by Irenaeus of Lyons were very influential for further development of the role of the ecclesiastical institution in the regulation of doctrinal teaching. Jacques Fantino studies the theological construct of

Irenaeus for combatting heresy in Adversus haereses.251 Nonetheless, for Irenaeus doctrinal truth is not simply linked to an episcopal ministry. The tradition of faith is possessed by

248 Ibid., 117. 249 Av.haer. III.4.1, Robert M. Grant, ed. and trans., Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 1997), 127. 250 Parvis, “Who Was Irenaeus: An Introduction to the Man and His Work,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 19-21. 251 Jacques Fantino, “Vérité de la foi et vie des communautés selon Irénée de Lyon”, Revue des sciences religieuses 70 n 2 (1996): 240-253.

157 believers because they have received the Spirit. Regulation of doctrinal teaching is for

Irenaeus deposit of all of God and is guided by presbyters “who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech” (AH

IV.26.5) He further wrote:

C’est pourquoi les croyants ont en dépôt non seulement la doctrine, mais aussi les Ecritures et l’organisation de l’Eglise, à savoir la succession épiscopale. Ils sont habilités à juger de la conservation de ce dépôt. L’Eglise constitue un corps et tout croyant par le don de l’Esprit fait à l’Eglise contribue à la santé et à la protection de ce corps. Voilà pourquoi les croyants ont une responsabilité dans la conservation de la foi. Il ne s’agit pas pour les croyants d’un charisme particulier, à la différence de l’évêque, mais ils sont à même, si cela s’avère nécessaire, de vérifier après d’autres Eglises l’enseignement transmis dans la leur. La vérité de la prédication de l’Eglise est garantie par l’Esprit répandu sur tous ses membres.252

For Irenaeus the regulation of the faith was made in the Christian tradition mostly by the ecclesial authorities but also with the rest of the believers having an important role, as there was a connection between ecclesiastical regulation and doctrinal teaching. This connection was effected by the grace of the charism given to the bishops and presbyters and the gift of the Spirit given to all the Church.

Eusebius also mentioned Irenaeus’ efforts as a peacemaker, in particular regarding the conflicts between the bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia Minor regarding the celebration of Easter:

Upon this, Victor, the bishop of the church of Rome, forthwith endeavoured to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with all the neighbouring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity….But this was not the opinion of all the bishops. They immediately exhorted him, on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and

252 « Vérité de la foi et de vie des communautés selon Irénée de Lyons », 253.

158

love to one another. There are also extant, the expression they used, who pressed upon Victor with much severity. Among these also was Irenaeus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, wrote an epistle, in which he maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord, only on the day of the Lord. He becomingly also admonishes Victor, not to cut off whole churches of God, who observed the tradition of the ancient custom….And this same Irenaeus, as one whose character answered well to his name, being in this a way a peacemaker, exhorted and negotiated such matters as these for the peace of the churches. And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question. 253

Parvis analyzes the passage as a reflection not only of Irenaeus’ character and position as bishop in Lyons, but also of his connection with the Christians of Asia Minor and their beliefs.

The picture that Eusebius gives is of an Irenaeus who is involved in the pastoral and doctrinal issues that were relevant in his time and who was considered by his own community of Lyons as a respected and trusted witness of the Christian faith. 254

Regarding the theology of Irenaeus, he wrote about a diversity of topics and aspects of the Christian life. Michael Slusser considers that at the heart of the theology of Irenaeus of

Lyons there are the concepts of magnitudo and dilectio.255 Slusser thinks that these concepts are even more central to Irenaeus’ theology than even recapitulation, probably the most commonly ascribed theological concept related to the bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus developed these concepts in response to the accusation from dissenting groups that ecclesiastical Christians were not spiritual people but only psychic people who worship a

Creator Demiurge who was not as great as the eternal God that they followed. In order to respond to the attacks of these gnostic groups, Irenaeus developed a system in which

253 HE V. XXIV, in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 209-211. 254 Parvis, “Who Was Irenaeus,” 22-23. 255 Michael Slusser, “The Heart of Irenaeus’ Theology,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 133-139.

159 humanity is able to know God, even with the reality of the divine infinity and greatness

(magnitudo). This knowledge is achieved by the recourse of love (dilectio). Among the passages discussed by Slusser is this one from Adversus haereses:

Est autem et super haec, et propter haec inenarrabilis. Sensus enim capax omnium bene et recte dicetur, sed non similis, hominum sensui : et lumen rectissime dicetur, sed nihil simile ei, quod est secundum nos lumini. Sic autem et in reliquia omnibus nulli similis erit omnium Pater hominum pusillitati : et dicitur quidem secundum haec propter dilectionem, sentitur autem super haec secundum magnitudinem.256

Slusser analyzes this passage and other passages where the concepts of magnitudo and dilectio are presented. Irenaeus does not disagree with the gnostic groups regarding their language referring to the transcendence of God, and he accordingly uses similar terms to describe the greatness of God. For example, In Adv. haer. II.13.4 Irenaeus speaks about God as one who “is above all properties, and therefore indescribable. For he who comprehends all things (Sensus enim capax omnium) may well and properly be called understanding, but he is not therefore like human understanding….”However, Irenaeus directs this transcendent language in order to demonstrate that the Demiurge that dissenting groups accuse ecclesiastical Christians of following is in fact the great and true God: “And so, in every other way, the Father of all is not at all like us in our human weakness. We speak of him in these ways because of our love for him (et dicitur quidem secundum haec propter dilectionem), but his greatness far surpasses our thoughts and words about him (sentitur autem super haec secundum magnitudinem).” The Christian communities are able to know

256 Adv. haer. II.13.4, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon’s Five Books Against Heresies, Vol. I (Rochester, NY: St. Irenaeus Press, 2013), 282-283.

160 the transcendent God due to their knowledge of the loving God active in the economy of salvation:

Knowledge of the creator God is possible to ordinary creatures, not because the creator is a puny, less than spiritual being, but because the immeasurably great creator loves everything in creation and therefore gives that knowledge even to us human beings through the Word made flesh and the Spirit of wisdom, according to the measure of the divine love. 257

Certainly Slusser presents an idea that is highly evident in the baptismal theology of

Irenaeus. The idea that believers can know God through the knowledge of the love of God present in the history of salvation is intimately related to Irenaeus’ understanding of the role of the baptism of Jesus as an essential component of the history of salvation for humanity.

There are other writers that have expressed similar opinions about the primacy of the concept of dilectio in the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. Eric Osborn, in an article about the commandment of love (Matthew 22-36-39 and parallels) in writers of the second century, presents the concept of the love command in Irenaeus as one universal law that demonstrates the existence of one God. 258 Jesus Christ did not undermine the original law given by God of the love of God and neighbor; instead, Jesus renewed it and demonstrated a continuation that proves the unity of God (Adv. haer. IV.12.2-5). This primacy of love is extended to love of neighbor, including enemies, an attitude that enables humanity to participate in the life of God by “showing thyself in all things kindly disposed and useful to thy neighbor, not regarding their evil intentions, but performing thy kind offices,

257 Slusser, “The Heart of Irenaeus’ Theology,” 139. 258 Eric Osborn, “The Love Command in Second Century Christian Writing,” Second Century 1 no. 4 (Winter 1981): 223-243.

161 assimilating thyself to the Father, who maketh His Sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust” (Adv. haer. IV.13.3). As a result of this, the love command is perfected and fulfilled in Christ, with the recapitulation of love of God and neighbor reflecting the recapitulation of all things in Christ. 259

How is this love command related then to Irenaeus’ famous concept of recapitulation?

Osborn in a more recent article presents that the infinite love of God is the keystone of recapitulation.260 This is indicated, among other places, in Book V of Adversus haereses which describes the Christ as “the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, who because of his immeasurable love became what we are in order to make us what he is.” In other passages of Book V there are comments about this process of redemption and perfection in Christ forming a new humanity, where the redemption of Christ brings about the union and communion of God and human beings. Irenaeus used a logic of recapitulation that moves from redemption and perfection to inauguration and consummation, a process all grounded by redemptive love. This love of God is the source of deliverance from sin and death for women and men. This process creates a relationship between humanity and God where human beings could grow in the divine likeness as they remain loving and thanking God:

God far exceeds human knowledge but because of his love he has become known by his creative word. The same word in the last days became man, so that he might join the end to the beginning, man to God. Within this relation man receives the spirit of God and passes into the glory of the Father (hae.4.20.4). Because of the love and kindness and the infinite power of the unknowable God, he grants the impossible gift: that men should see him (hae.4.20.5). This is the end of a long line of dispensation where God was revealed to men and was presented to God, in such a gradual manner that there was always something more of God for men to gain. Yet God was

259 Ibid., 239. 260 Eric Osborn, “Love of Enemies and Recapitulation”, Vigiliae Christianae 34 (2000): 12-31.

162

indeed revealed, for without God man would cease to exist…. The life which comes from God in creation is surpassed by the life which comes from the revelation of the Father through the word (hae. 4.20.7).261

Osborn presents in his article the idea that Irenaeus sees the love of enemies as the distinct thread that permeates the concept of recapitulation. The love command is also the foundation of many images in Irenaeus’ corpus. This prominence can also be seen on

Epideixis 87 where “according to the brevity of faith and love, men were going to be saved….And therefore He made a concise word in the world.” These and other passages of the Irenaean corpus reveal the influence of Paul and John on the theological development of the bishop of Lyons.262

This love command is not in opposition to knowledge; rather, knowledge depends on love in order for humanity to love God. 263 The epistemology of Irenaeus stresses the primacy of love as something both preceding and indispensable to knowledge. This love is seen by Irenaeus as defined and known in the context of the Rule of Faith. This love, source of unity and reflection of the reality of one God, is also the parameter of a proper understanding of Jesus Christ, who in love conquers and unites humanity to himself. This love given by God to humanity also enables men and women to love all other creatures.

God´s characteristic love, immanence, and providence emerges from God’s transcendence.

The one and true God has always been lovingly present in all creation from the beginning of time. 264

261 “Love of Enemies and Recapitulation¨, 30-31. 262 Ibid., 31. 263 D. Jeffery Bingham, “Knowledge and Love in Irenaeus of Lyons,” Studia Patristica Vol. 36 (Louvain, Belgium: Peters, 2001): 184-199. 264 “Knowledge and Love in Irenaeus of Lyons,”198-199.

163

The arguments presented by Slusser and Osborn regarding the primacy of dilectio in the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons are convincing, as they direct the famous concept of recapitulation as being originated and strengthened by the love command. Other authors have stated that this primacy of love could well fit with the recapitulation approach, like

John Behr and M.C. Steenberg. These two authors relate the baptism of Jesus to the concept of recapitulation as well as its relationship with the baptized.265 However, I find that the primacy of dilectio in relationship with the concept of magnitudo is more indicative of the original language used by Ireneaus and how he used it to create a theology where he is influenced by Pauline concepts but not overwhelmed by them. This emphasis on dilectio will also be the source of Irenaeus’ view of the salvation process as progressive and transformative, a loving participation of God into the well being of all creation.

Scripture occupies a central place in the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. However, it is unfair to adjudicate in Irenaeus a limited knowledge of the philosophical and rhetorical concepts existing during his time. Little reference to specific philosophies and philosophers does not minimize the importance of the passages in Irenaeus’ corpus that indirectly demonstrate acquaintance with philosophical concepts. Anthony Briggman analyzes

Adversus haereses III.24.2-III.25.5 and shows how Irenaeus used Middle Platonic thought in order to support his theological principles.266 In Adv. haer. III.24.2 Irenaeus is against the gnostic position that the Creator is not the highest God because humans have knowledge of this Demiurge or Creator. This human knowledge of the Creator is in contradiction with the

265 John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford, Oxford Press, 2000), 67-70; and Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2013), 175-179; M.C. Steenberg, Of God and Man: Theology and Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius (London: T & T Clark, 2009), 37-43. 266 Anthony Briggman, “Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 115-124.

164 transcendence and inaccessibility that are proper of the highest God. Irenaeus responds to this gnostic position by saying that God can be known “through His love and infinite benignity”, even when God’s greatness or substance cannot be known. Adv. haer. III.25.1 speaks about the providence of God being exercised over all things “and therefore He also gives counsel; and when giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline.” Therefore, for Irenaeus God is neither entirely immanent nor completely transcendent. Briggman sees in these concepts of Irenaeus, as well as his position on the

Word and Wisdom as intermediaries between the Father and humanity, a resemblance with

Middle Platonists, and Philo’s logic in particular:

It seems reasonable, then, to suggest that the logical basis for the limitation of human knowledge that we find in this passage is due to a Middle Platonic influence on Irenaeus’ thought. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the logic we find in this passage reveals a certain appropriation of Middle Platonic reasoning by Irenaeus to bolster his polemic against the Gnostics. Though he is not dependent upon the Middle Platonic notion of the Logos, his understanding of the manner in which the Word and Wisdom interact with the world as the creative agents of the Father agrees with the Middle Platonic notion of the Logos, his understanding of the manner in which the Word and Wisdom interact with the world as the creative agents of the Father agrees with the Middle Platonic notion of the instrumentality of the Logos well enough for him to be comfortable utilizing the philosophical polemic to his advantage. 267

Briggman is of the opinion that the analysis of this passage shows Irenaeus’ ability to use philosophical concepts in order to support his theological positions. Therefore, he agrees with a growing number of scholars (Grant, Schoedel, Stead) who identify in the works of the bishop of Lyons a philosophical and rhetorical skill that was instrumental to his accomplishment as a theologian.

267 “Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen,” 122.

165

A. Views of Irenaeus of Lyons Regarding Christian Baptism

There are few references to the rite of baptism in the work of Irenaeus of Lyons, probably due to the apologetic nature of his works and their emphasis on doctrinal issues.

Irenaeus gave prominence in his works on the need for candidates to receive some preparation before baptism. The third and fourth books of Adversus haereses present exegetical interpretations on passages from the Acts of the Apostles as well as from the apostle Paul. Irenaeus interpreted that the baptisms of the Gentiles by Paul in Acts 10 and of the eunuch by Philip on Acts 8 were performed promptly since they already knew the

Christian faith. In Book V there is a more direct reference to Irenaeus’ views on baptism:

Quando igitur portavimus imaginem ejus qui est de limo? Scilicet quando hae quae praedictae sunt carnis operationes, perficiebantur in nobis. Quando autem iterum imaginem coelestis? Scilicet quando ait, Abluti estis credentes in nomine Domini, et accipientes ejus Spiritum. Abluti autem sumus non substantiam corporis, neque imaginem plasmatis, sed pristinam vanitatis conversationem. 268

For Irenaeus, faith is an essential component of baptism. This faith has been nurtured in the believer as a result of previous catechetical process:

So, faith procures this for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us: firstly, it exhorts us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, [who was] incarnate, and died, and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and rebirth unto God, that we may no longer be sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God….269

Another passage of the Epideixis connects the Trinity with baptism in a way that could suggest a triple immersion: “For this reason the baptism of our regeneration (παλιγγϵνϵσία)

268 Adv.haer. V. 11.2, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon’s Five Books Against Heresies, Vol. II, 349. 269 Epideixis 3, in St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 42.

166 takes place through these three articles, granting us regeneration through His Son by the

Holy Spirit….”270 Another passage from the Epideixis presents the Trinity as “the three heads of our seal” (100)271, an expression that could refer to triple immersion during baptism. The reference to seal on this passage is seen by Albert Houssiau as the three capital points of the faith given during baptism:

“Sceau” désigne probablement le baptême-lui même, au cours duquel sont professes les trois chapitres. Si le sceau était ainsi un nom technique, il ne serait pas nécessaire de rechercher quel aspect du baptême est visé ici par ce terme. Comme un titre devenu nom propre, le nom technique devient une désignation pure, et on l’emploie sans faire attention au sens premier ou original du mot. S’il fallait tenir compte du sens premier du mot, notamment « assurance ou confirmation d’un témoignage », on pourrait comprendre que le sceau est la profession de foi baptismale, acte solennel par lequel le croyant scelle ou confirme son témoignage ou sa foi. 272

Also corroborating Irenaeus’ idea of baptism as immersion is a fragment from a lost writing of Irenaeus of probable authenticity:

“And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by mean of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”273

Ferguson observes that the use of the word baptizō in the Greek version of this fragment is an indication of the already existing perception of the story of Naaman prefiguring Christian baptism. In Christian baptism, however, cleansing is achieved both through sacred water

270 Epideixis 7, in Ibid., 44. 271 St, Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, 101. 272 Albert Houssiau, “ Le baptême selon Irénée de Lyon, “ Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 60 (1984): 58- 59. 273 Fragment 34, in Against Heresies, eds Roberts and Donaldson, (Ex Fontibus, CO: 2010), 672-673.

167 and the invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Lord. This invocation is not associated in Irenaeus’ work with an invocation of the Holy Spirit to come upon the waters, as in the work of later authors.274

The writings of Irenaeus of Lyons lack any direct reference to anointing in direct connection with baptism. Houssiau explains that this could be caused by the close association made by Irenaeus between the water and the Spirit as the earthly and heavenly elements of baptism: “ Par ailleurs, lorsqu’il parle du don de l’Esprit fait au Christ lors de son baptême et partagé par les croyants, rien ne permet de sous-entendre sous l’onction

(chrisma) un rite d’onction : l’onction ne désigne pour les fidèles, comme pour le Christ, que le don de l’Esprit et non par une onction d’huile. “ 275

Alistair Stewart investigates in an article the relationship surrounding catechesis, baptismal ritual and exegesis in the context of Irenaeus’ statement that the rule of faith is received in baptism.276 This statement appears in the first book of Adversus haereses in the context of a discussion about the Valentinian interpretation of scripture that believed that baptism in itself will give the believer the ability to interpret Scripture:

Ecclesia enim [et quidem] per universum orbem usque ad fines terrae [dis]seminata, et ab Apostolis, et discipulis eorum accepit eam fidem, quae est in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, qui fecit coelum et terram, et mare, et omnia quae in eis sunt: et in unum Christum Jesum filium Dei, incarnatum pro nostra salute: et in Spiritum Sanctum, qui per Prophetas praedicavit dispositiones Dei, et adventum, et eam, quae est ex Virgine generationem, et passionem, et resurrectionem a mortuis, et in carne in coelis ascensionem dilecti Jesu Christi Domini nostri, et de coelis in gloria

274 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eeermans Publishing Company, 2009), 303-305. 275 Houssiau, « Le baptême selon Irénée de Lyon, “ 48-49. 276 Alistair Stewart, “’The Rule of Truth…which He Received Through Baptism’ (Haer.I.9.4): Catechesis, Ritual, and Exegesis in Irenaeus’ Gaul,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 151-158.

168

Patris adventum ejus, ad recapitulanda universa, et resuscitandam omnem carnem humani generis…277

Stewart examines this passage and makes several interpretations. The first one is that

Irenaeus knew a form of catechetical process that included some sort of creedal formula given to the candidate reflecting the tradition of the Christian community. The second suggestion is that this tradition was directed to a christological confession instead of a mere

Trinitarian creedal statement during baptism. The third suggestion is that this christological confession took place during the pre-baptismal confession of faith and was the creedal part of the baptismal liturgy known by Irenaeus.278 The pre-baptismal confession of faith does not automatically mean a specific creed statement set in words. However, this confession of faith is perceived by Stewart as a procedure reflecting the instruction in the faith received before baptism: “The Church, dispersed throughout the world to the ends of the earth has received from the apostles and disciples this faith….”

According to Stewart’s analysis, Irenaeus, influenced by the baptismal ritual he knew, formulated a response to the Valentinian interpretation of Scripture. For Irenaeus the regula fidei is the hermeneutical tool that allows scriptural understanding. This response, found both in Adversus haereses and in Epideixis 7 (previously quoted), refers to the rule of faith as being given in baptism. Stewart’s understanding shows that Irenaeus gradually concentrated on the role of Jesus Christ in salvation history, and the regula fidei is supplemented with a christological confession that is derived, according to Stewart, from

277 Adv. haer. I.10.1, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon’s Five Books Against Heresies, 90-91. 278 Stewart, “The Rule of Truth…”, 151-152.

169 the baptismal rite. This christological confession of Adv.haer I.10.1 presents Christ as the center and true meaning of Scripture, given and confessed during baptism:

This is the same statement that is made more fully and explicitly in Demonstration 7, again a statement relating directly to a repetition of the regula fidei: it is through the baptismal water that we receive the Spirit, and the Spirit leads us to understanding of the Word, Jesus Christ, enfleshed and spoken in the scriptures. 279

Stewart certainly presents some relevant points about how the theology of Irenaeus of

Lyons was influenced by the liturgical practices of his time. However, Stewart himself acknowledges that we are dealing here with some uncertainty regarding any specific documentation testifying to the use of a profession of faith during the ceremonies of

Christian baptism of the second century CE. Notwithstanding this factual uncertainty, there is in the examples of Irenaeus’s work presented in Stewart’s article an obvious progression of the thought of the bishop of Lyons that emphasizes the role of baptism as allowing the believer to receive the graces of the Spirit and move to a gradual understanding of the presence of Jesus Christ in Scripture.

Mary Ann Donovan examines the work of Irenaeus in order to ascertain his insights on

Christian ministry. 280 Donovan presents that in order to understand Irenaeus’ view of ministry it is necessary to study what he said about the locus of salvation, the source of life and fullness where the Spirit dwells. This place is identified by the bishop of Lyons as the church. The Spirit who anointed Jesus at his baptism is the one given to Christians in baptism and resides in the Christian community, accustoming its members to the experience of God. As a result of this, the Spirit provides the members of the community

279 Stewart, 158. 280 Mary Ann Donovan, “Insights on Ministry: Irenaeus,” Toronto Journal of Theology 2 no. 1 (Spr. 1998): 79-93.

170 with the gifts of service. These gifts enable the faithful to engage in a variety of ministries related to baptism, the proclamation of the Word, the Eucharist, exorcism, and healing.

What makes Irenaeus’ insights on ministry unique is the way he relates ministry with salvation, the human person and the church community. The Spirit dwells in the Church in order to bring unity with Christ and among believers. Baptism restores the communion of humanity with the Spirit and diverse ministries nurture that life in the Spirit. All these ministries are freely given to men and women who are prompted by the presence of the

Spirit in themselves. Therefore for Irenaeus his view of ministry is consonant with his views on salvation, humanity and the Christian community. The Spirit is the life giving source from which originate all ministry.281

Irenaeus is much more explicit in describing the doctrinal aspect of Christian baptism in his works. Fragment 34 presents the concept of baptism as a cleansing or remission of sins. This concept is present in the works of Irenaeus, where remission of sins is presented as something received by the believers of Christ (Adv. haer. IV.27.2). The Holy Spirit is given in baptism, washing away the former life in order to do the work of the Spirit:

For thus do the faithful keep, having the Holy Spirit constantly dwelling (παραμένω) in them, who was given from Him [God] at baptism and kept by the recipient living in truth and holiness and righteousness and patience; for it is by this Spirit that the resurrection comes to believers, the body receiving back again the soul and, together with it, is raised by the power of the Holy Spirit and is lead into the Kingdom of God. 282

Other passages that deal with the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism are Adversus haereses

V.27.2 and Epideixis 3 and 7:

281 Ibid., 86-90. 282 Epideixis 42, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 67.

171

Le baptême donne l’Esprit saint. Il donne un Esprit permanent qui reste en nous et nous donne la vie jaillissante, fait l’unité entre chrétiens, et nous assure enfin l’incorruption de l’âme et la résurrection du corps…rien ne permet de supposer qu’Irénée attribuait le don de l’Esprit à un autre rite que le baptême, et même a un autre rite que l’ablution d’eau. 283

Baptism was seen by Irenaeus as a practice where the water and the Spirit cleanse and purify both the body and the soul of the baptized. There is also in the work of Irenaeus the establishment of a parallelism between the Jewish circumcision of the flesh and the

Christian circumcision by the Spirit. The Jewish circumcision of the flesh served Irenaeus as a type for the spiritual circumcision referred to in Scripture passages like Deuteronomy

10:16 and Colossians 2:11.

André Benoit analyzes Irenaeus’ concept of the gift of the Spirit in baptism and how humanity receives the graces of the Spirit.284 Benoit believes that it is necessary to study the pneumatology in Irenaeus’ corpus and determine the specific actions of the Spirit on humanity in general and their influences on the baptismal doctrine of the bishop of Lyons.

As a result of this study Benoit finds five relevant issues regarding the baptismal effects of the Spirit. Firstly, the person who receives the Holy Spirit receives the likeness with God

(Adv. haer. V.6.1; III.18.2; III. 23.1-2-5). In this manner the Spirit restores to humanity the image and likeness that were the privilege that was proper to the first humans at the time of their creation. Therefore the Spirit restores humanity to the likeness and original integrity lost as a result of the Fall. This restoration also implies a previous coexistence of the Spirit with humanity that was lost by original sin. However, the baptismal restoration of the Spirit to humanity is more than an original restoration, as Adam and Eve were in a state of infancy

283 Houissau, “ Le baptême selon Irénée de Lyon “, 55. 284 Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle, (Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1953), 208-211.

172 or development at the moment of the Fall. Therefore the baptismal gift of the Spirit is also an opportunity for believers to enter a new stage in a progression into the divine mystery.

In other words, the gifts of the Spirit in baptism not only restores humanity to their first stage of innocence but also prepares them to advance to a deeper spiritual stage of participation in the realities of God.285

Secondly, the gifts of the Spirit are seen by Irenaeus as the beginning of the process where the Spirit will participate fully in the life of humanity (Adv.haer.V.8.1-2). The gifts of the Spirit are the promise of a future participation in the life of God so that baptism has an eschatological dimension. Thirdly, for Irenaeus the gift of the Spirit is also a guarantee of incorruptibility, the source of communion with Christ and the point of departure for humanity’s process of divinization. As the result of this, baptism becomes the fundamental instrument for the communication of salvation to humanity. The fourth relevant issue presented by Benoit is that through the Spirit the vision of God and its effects are possible.

This concept of the baptismal illumination or photismos is both influenced by the Christian tradition of the second century and the further elaboration by Irenaeus, as he particularly emphasized the idea of salvation as the vision of God. This last issue has to do with Irenaeus’ use of the image of the temple as an illustration of the habitation of the Holy Spirit in humanity.286

Another important concept for Irenaeus was his view of baptism as a regeneration, and a rebirth in God (Epideixis 3 and 7). In fact, regeneration (ἀναγεννήσεως, regeneratio) is

Irenaeus’ most used idea concerning baptism. However, for Irenaeus regeneration is a

285 Benoit, 209-210. 286 Benoit, 210-211.

173 concept that transcends baptism. Regeneratio is also related to the whole life and ministry of Jesus Christ, from the virgin birth through his resurrection and beyond, when the final resurrection of the just will be a regeneration in the flesh (Adv.haer. IV.33.4; III.22.4; V.2.2).

The passages in the work of Irenaeus that connect regeneration with baptism have given rise to conjectures regarding Irenaeus’ position regarding infant baptism. The following passage has been particularly alluded to as possibly the earliest reference to infant baptism:

Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes : in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatem effectus, et justitiae, et subjectionis : in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus….287

Ferguson believes that an association of this passage from Adversus haereses with infant baptism should be analyzed cautiously, as there are linguistic and conceptual considerations that need to be studied in detail. The first one is the term renascuntur as used on this passage. The verb renascor (to be born) is not the usual verb used by Irenaeus on passages on baptism. Instead Irenaeus used the verb regenero (to regenerate). Irenaeus also used regeneration in his works to refer to the renewal of humanity made by the birth and resurrection, without any reference to baptism. Ferguson also opines that the passage is much more in consonance with Irenaeus’ idea of recapitulation, where the coming of Christ generated a new life for humanity and a sanctification of all ages of human life: “For He came to save all through means of himself, all I say, who through Him are born again to God,

287 Adv. haer. II.22.4, in Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons’ Five Books Against Heresies, Vol. I, ed. W. Harvey (Rochester, NY: St. Irenaeus Press, 2013), 330.

174 infants, and children and boys, and youths, and old men.” 288 This coherence between

Irenaeus’ baptismal understanding and the main ideas of his theology is described by Albert

Houssiau in this way:

«Notre pensée est en harmonie avec le baptême et le baptême confirme notre pensée ». Telle pourrait être la conclusion qu’Irénée tirerait lui-même. Le baptême d’eau manifeste l’unité de Dieu, le Père, le Verbe et l’Esprit, créateur et rénovateur de l’homme en son intégralité ; la communion de la chair, de l’âme et de l’Esprit ; l’économie entière du Père, du Fils de Dieu fait ils de l’homme et de l’Esprit donné à tous les croyants. Cette unité est particulièrement manifeste dans le rite unique d’eau et dans la profession de foi qui constitue la formule baptismale. Par ailleurs, les grands thèmes de l’œuvre d’Irénée sont en parfaite consonance avec le baptême, de sorte que sa doctrine baptismale est en quelque sorte un lieu de convergence de toute sa pensée. 289

Benoit also believes that the baptismal doctrine of Irenaeus is an essential aspect of his thought, as baptism was seen by Irenaeus as a sacrament of humanity’s recapitulation in

Christ. Baptism makes humanity a partaker of the salvific gifts given by Christ to humanity. A significant aspect of Irenaeus’ baptismal theology is related to the place of the Spirit as dispenser of the remission of sins and instrument of regeneration for humanity. The Holy

Spirit is the instrument for the new birth of humankind, through which women and men are re-established to their original condition before the Fall. The Spirit also provides the means for believers to participate in the benefits of salvation and the progressive union with God.

This baptismal doctrine of Irenaeus finds little direct influence from the Pauline doctrine of baptism, even with the frequent references to the Pauline letters in Ireneaus’ corpus. On the other hand, there is a notable influence from Spirit, regeneration, sphragis, photismos) that were important elements of the Christian tradition of the second century. Benoit also

288 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 308. 289 Houssiau, Le baptême selon Irénée de Lyon, 59.

175 suggests a Johannine influence as the result of Irenaeus’ emphasis on regeneration and the gift of the Spirit. 290

For Irenaeus of Lyons the path of salvation starts with baptism, the immersion into the life in God. This renewal of baptism is not automatic; there is the need for the individual to be washed from sin, to believe in the message of Christ, and to be renewed by the actions of the Spirit:

Abluti autem sumus non substantiam corporis, neque imaginem plasmatis, sed pristinam vanitatis conversationem. In quibus igitur periebamus membris, operantes ea quae sunt corruptelae, in iisdem ipsis vivificamur, operantes ea quae sunt Spiritus. 291

It is through the Holy Spirit that human beings share in the divine life. As a result, there is a process of salvation and perfection that is connected to faith and a new way of life “for the glory of God is a living human being, and the life of the human being consists in beholding

God” (Adv. haer. IV.20.7). The salvation of humanity is determined by a specific way of living that is based on a loving relationship with God. Baptism is an event that allows for people to become more deified or Godlike without taking away their humanity. Salvation comes as a result of a process of assimilation in the life of God brought about by the subsequent change of the being and actions of the believer. 292

Jeremy Driscoll looks at the close association between liturgy and theology during the patristic period in order to determine the position of Irenaeus regarding the relation between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the liturgical practice of baptism and

290 Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au seconde siècle, 218-221. 291 Adv. haer.V.11.2, in St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons’ Five Books Against Heresies, Vol. II, 349. 292 Anne Marie Aagard, “My Eyes Have Seen Your Salvation: On Likeness to God and Deification in Patristic Theology,” Religion and Theology 17 (2010): 302-328.

176 eucharist.293 Irenaeus’ reflections were not as focused on liturgical rites but on the liturgical experience or the manifestation of God though the sacramental events. For Irenaeus, baptism represents the act where the Trinity accomplishes salvation for believers. The commission to baptize expressed in Matthew 26:19, “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” gave a very strong Trinitarian model for the baptismal liturgy of Irenaeus’ time. Epideixis 3 is clear in its description of Trinitarian terms originated from baptism. This passage presents baptism as accomplishing remission of sins as a “seal of eternal life and rebirth unto God.” Through the concrete practice of baptism, Irenaeus was able to reflect on the roles of the members of the Trinity who give rebirth to the baptized unto God the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit.

Irenaeus presented in his theology that the baptismal experience has both a material and spiritual dimension. This baptismal experience is anchored in a strong ecclesial dimension. The proper understanding of baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the

Holy Spirit is essential for Irenaeus, as it is an important element of a true Christian faith.

Irenaeus reached his conclusion through what he had received from his Christian community who proclaimed a faith received from the apostles:

Irenaeus is taking intellectual responsibility for the faith, seeking to think it, explain it, protect it from aberrations. His theological effort means to establish a clear articulation, at least in a broad sense, of a lex credendi, i.e., what should be believed and what is believed in the whole church, and this is in contrast to gnostic positions. In the context of this whole theological effort, it is striking then to see how strongly Irenaeus relied on the church’s and the individual’s experience of baptism when it came time to take intellectual responsibility for the faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That he did not build his arguments by detailed reference to texts from the liturgy or

293 Jeremy Driscoll, “Uncovering the Dynamic Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi in the Baptismal Theology of Irenaeus,” Pro Ecclesia Vol. XII, No.2 (2003): 213-225.

177

to its rites—as will be the case, for example, in the mystagogical catechesis of later centuries—indicates that he was concerned with a deeper dimension of what was taking place, that to which the sacramental signs pointed: nothing less than the very saving action of God. What drove his entire reflection and gave it order was the baptismal formula with the divine names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their order.294

Driscoll believes that Trinitarian theology needs to be founded in something beyond a mere intellectual dimension. Irenaeus’ understanding of the Trinity’s saving activity in baptism serves as the necessary foundation that connects the saving activity of the Trinity with all the ecclesial communities that baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit and descend from the apostles. 295

B. Theological Positions of Irenaeus Regarding Jesus’ Baptism

In the third book of Adversus haereses, Irenaeus, like Justin, is firm in declaring, against the gnostics, that the baptism of Jesus is a baptism in the Spirit, not in Christ. A close look at the Gospel accounts shows that there is no evidence of the gnostic belief in the events of the Jordan as the moment when a “divine Christ” descended upon the “human

Jesus.” The Spirit of God is mentioned only in the gospel accounts:

Adhuc ait in baptismate Matthaeus: Aperti sunt [ei] coeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei quasi columbam venientem super eum. Et ecce vox de coelo, dicens : Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui. Non enim Christus tunc descendit in Jesum ; neque alius quidem Christus, alius vero Jesus : sed Verbum Dei, qui est Salvator omnium, et dominator coeli et terrae, qui est Jesus, quemadmodum ante ostendimus, qui et assumsit carnem, et unctus est a Patre Spiritu, Jesus Christus factus est….296

Irenaeus uses Isaiah 11:1-4 and 61: 1-2 to confirm the events of the Jordan. The Spirit of

God came to rest in the flesh of the Word of God in order to be anointed with the gifts of

294 Driscoll, “Uncovering the Dynamic Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi in the Baptismal Theology of Irenaeus”, 224-225. 295 Ibid., 225. 296 Adv. haer. III. 9.3, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons’s Against Heresies, Vol. II, 32.

178 the Spirit so as “to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release the prisoners.” (Isaiah 61-1) Irenaeus firmly asserted that the Word was anointed by the Spirit to bring good tidings to all and to bring just judgment to all. The Word is both God and human whose coming was intended for all members of humanity. The anointing of the Spirit of God on Jesus at his baptism made possible the salvation of the human race as the fullness of the Spirit in the flesh of Jesus

Christ also made possible for humanity to participate in the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

The bishop of Lyons used Scripture profusely in order to show the consistency of the ecclesiastical tradition of believing in the action of the Spirit in the Jordan and in the anointing of Jesus as a turning point in the history of salvation. Irenaeus goes on to say:

Iste Spiritus, de quo ait Dominus: Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patri vestri qui loquitur in vobis. Et iterum potestates regenerationis in Deum, dans discipulis, dicebat eis : Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptisantes in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu sancti. Hunc enim promisit per prophetas effundere in novissimis temporibus super servos et ancillas, ut prophetent ; unde et in Filium Dei, Filium Hominis factum, descendit, cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano, et requiescere in hominibus, et habitare in plasmate Dei, voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis, et renovans eos a vetustate in novitatem Christi. 297

According to Irenaeus, it is important to present the Spirit of God as the same Spirit mentioned in both Old and New Testaments. All mention of the Spirit in Scripture corresponds to the same Spirit. There is no difference between the Spirit guiding the prophets in the Old Testament and the Paraclete acting with the apostles in the New

Testament. Irenaeus developed his thought in order to defend the Church’s position against

297 Adv. haer. III. 17. 1, in Against Heresies, 92.

179 that of the gnostics and their belief in two different Spirits of God in both the Old and New

Testaments.

The bishop of Lyons was very clear at Adv. haer. III. 17.1 in identifying the Spirit of God as the one who descends on Jesus. Using the same texts that dissenting groups employed in order to distinguish between Jesus and the Christ at the baptism, Irenaeus establishes the identity and relationship between the Son and the Spirit. The baptism in the Jordan was regarded by Irenaeus as the regeneration accomplished by God where the Spirit

“descended upon the Son of God, made the Son of Man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ.” (Adv. haer. III.17.1) The descent of the Spirit on

Jesus Christ during his baptism is the model of the coming of the Spirit on believers. As a result of this, the Spirit is able to dwell with humanity in a distinct complementarity with the

Son of God. 298

Irenaeus presents beautiful images to illustrate the importance of the Spirit in the life of the believer, using the image of the rain from heaven and its effects on the earth:

Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non potest sine humore, neque unus panis: ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Jesu poteramus, sine aqua quae de coelo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos, lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora enim nostra per lavacrum illam, quae est ad incorruptionem, unitatem acceperunt, animae autem per Spiritum. 299

298 Driscoll, “Uncovering the Dynamic Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi in the Baptismal Theology of Irenaeus,” 221- 222. 299 Adv. haer. III.17.2.32ss, in Against Heresies, 92-93.

180

The Holy Spirit achieved in Jesus Christ what will be achieved later in the human race. The

Spirit is the moisture from heaven that enables humanity to experience the divine life: “As dry earth does not produce unless it receives moisture, so we, like dry trees, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the rain he freely poured out from above.”

Therefore, the Spirit is equally involved in the oikonomia of both the Incarnation and the destiny of humanity.

The references to the Holy Spirit in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons originated a variety of interpretations on the role of the Spirit and the Spirit’s relationship with the other persons of the Trinity. Regarding the relationship between the Spirit and Christ, there have been several studies that analyzed this Spirit-Christology of Irenaeus. According to Anthony

Briggman, the different studies have not reached agreement regarding whether this Spirit-

Christology has endangered Irenaeus’ Trinitarian logic. 300 Briggman believes that Spirit-

Christology has a place in Irenaeus’ theology without being a menace to his Trinitarian logic.

Irenaeus might have jeopardized his Trinitarian logic if he had related the Spirit with the pre-existent Christ as either identifying the Spirit with the Word or replacing the Holy Spirit in his works for the Incarnate Word. Nonetheless, Irenaeus refers to the divine aspect of

Jesus Christ as Spirit, as a way to designate the shared divine essence of the three divine persons.301 Passages from the works of Irenaeus identified as presenting Spirit-Christology are either incorrectly interpreted or present a Spirit language that refers only to the divinity of Jesus Christ. For Briggman the key objective of the Spirit-Christology of Irenaeus is to

300 Anthony Briggman, “Spirit-Christology in Irenaeus: A Closer Look,” Vigiliae Christianae 66 (2019): 1-19. 301 Ibid., 3-4.

181 show in the Incarnate Word the Spirit (the Word as God) was united to humanity; therefore

Jesus Christ is both human and divine. 302

The emphasis by the bishop of Lyons on the role of the Spirit in the baptism of Jesus has raised questions among scholars regarding the pneumatology of Adversus haereses.

Passages such as the following suggest an idea of the Spirit as specific agent in the anointing process:

In Christi enim nomine subauditur qui unxit, et ipse qui unctus est, et ipsa unctio in qua unctus est. Et unxit quidem Pater, unctus est vero Filius, in Spiritu, qui est unctio ; quemadmodum per Esaiam ait sermo : Spiritus Dei super me, propter quod unxit me; significans et unguentum Patrem, et unctum Filium, et unctionem, qui est Spiritus. 303

An important question raised in this passage regards an intended allusion to the Trinity

(“The title “Christ” implies the one who anoints, the who one who is anointed, and the anointing itself with which he is anointed…. this points out the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the anointing which is the Spirit”), but there is no unanimity on this issue.

Daniel A. Smith, in his article “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus,” exposes the different responses on the subject. The idea of having God the Father as the main source of the anointing will challenge gnostic understanding in presenting the Father as directly involved in the salvation of all human beings. Smith believes that a Trinitarian interpretation is not possible in this case because Irenaeus viewed the Spirit as the Spirit of the Father or of the divinity of the Son.304 Smith uses as an example confirming his analysis another passage from the fifth book of Adversus haereses. Irenaeus defends in the first chapter that only

302 Ibid., 18-19. 303 Adv. haer. III.18.3, in Against Heresies., 446. 304 Daniel A. Smith, “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus,” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 624-625.

182

Christ is capable of teaching divine things and redeems humanity because he truly took flesh of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. This analysis of Luke 1:35 by

Irenaeus also presented that “what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most

High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new generation.”305

Among the scholars who are not inclined to view a Trinitarian aspect to the passage are Antonio Orbe and Jacques Fantino. Orbe is of the opinion that the reference to Father,

Son, and Spirit in the passage is not really a direct mention of the three divine persons.

Instead, when Irenaeus refers to the Spirit, it is as a dynamic pneuma that is coming from the Father and it is given to the Son:

La alusión a las tres personas divinas es solo aparente. El Espíritu, tercera persona, sería el crisma. Falta saber si, como el Logos es ungido en Su carne, asi también el Espíritu Le unge, como persona, o más bien como Dynamis divina (común al Padre y al Hijo). La doctrina ireneana se orienta sobre esto último. El crisma seria el Pneuma (resp, su Dynamis) dinámico venido de la substancia del Padre, y otorgado al Hijo. Ireneo se mantendrá coherente. El Espíritu de Dios con que el Padre bautizó a su Hijo en cuanto hombre, sería lo saludable, en lo que tiene de principio de operaciones divinas, común a las personas, no en lo derechamente personal.306

Fantino is also of the opinion that Irenaeus regarded the Holy Spirit as divine and has in the economy of salvation a place as important as that of the Son. However, regarding Adv. haer.

III. 18.3 and other passages by Irenaeus, the anointing of the Spirit is mainly related to the

305 Adv. haer. V.1.3, in Against Heresies, 556. 306 Antonio Orbe, Introducción, 677. “The allusion to the three divine persons is only apparent. The Spirit, third person, would be the chrism. It would be necessary to know, though, if the Spirit anoints the Logos in his flesh as a person, or rather as divine Dynamis (common to the Father and the Son). The Irenean doctrine focuses on this last aspect. The chrism would be the dynamic (Dynamis) Pneuma coming from the substance of the Father, and granted to the Son. Irenaeus will remain consistent. The spirit of God with which the Father baptized his son as a man, would be sanctifying, not in an outright personal manner, but as part of the divine operational principle common to the other persons.” (my translation)

183 divine nature of the Son.307 Fantino presents the evidence of texts like III.18.3 and III.9.3 from Adversus haereses as passages from the Epideixis like this one:

Therefore, the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since He who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being (ὑπóστασιϛ) and power essence (οὑσία), one God is demonstrated but according to the (οἰκνομία) of our salvation, there is both Father and Son; since the Father of all is invisible and inaccessible to creatures, it is necessary for those who are going to approach God to have access (προσαγωγή) to the Father through the Son…for the Son, as He is God, receives from the Father, that , from God, the throne of the everlasting kingdom, and the oil of anointing above His fellows; and the ‘oil of anointing’ is the Spirit by whom He is the Anointed, and His ‘fellows’ are the prophets and righteous and apostles and all who receive participation in His Kingdom, that is, His disciples.308

Jesus Christ receives the effects of the anointing because of his divine nature and because of the need of humanity to receive the gifts of the Spirit. According to Fantino, this text from Epideixis is not Trinitarian because the anointing of the Son of God is not related to the eternal anointing of the Spirit and there is not a direct mention of the Spirit itself:

Ce texte parle du salut des hommes en tant qu’ils participent à la royauté du Fils, c’est-à-dire à sa condition divine. Il faut donc lire le passage sur l’onction d’abord en ce sens. Toutefois, la mention du Fils en tant que Dieu invite à y voir aussi peut-être un texte trinitaire. On ne voit pas bien pourtant ce que l’Esprit apporte au Fils en tant qu’il est Dieu, ici encore l’onction ne concerne que l’économie. L’onction de Fils incarné, en tant que Dieu, signifie en effet qu’il reçoit la royauté parce qu’il est Dieu. Il n’y a pas d’onction éternelle du Fils par l’Esprit et le terme ne peut donc être une désignation de l’Esprit en tant que tel. 309

307 Jacques Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée: Lecture des Écritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 378-381. 308 Epideixis 47, On the Apostolic Preaching, 71. 309 Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée, 381.

184

Interestingly Fantino refers to Ysabel de Andia in order to support his interpretation. Smith, on the other hand, presents Andia as supporting the Trinitarian interpretation of Adv. haer.

III.18.3:

Le caractère trinitaire de l’onction est indiqué par le nom même de “Christ”…. Les gnostiques distinguent le Christ, Éon du Plérôme, du Jésus de l’économie qui a un corps, précisément parce qu’ils ne peuvent penser une onction de la chair ou de l’humanité du Christ qui demeure de nature radicalement différente. Or le mystère du baptême du Jésus est le mystère d’une révélation trinitaire dans l’onction du Verbe de Dieu dans son humanité…. L’onction est trinitaire: ungens, unctus, unctio se rapportent aux trois personnes de la Trinité: Pater, Filius, Spiritus. L’action de l’onction est celle du Père qui constitue le Fils Christ, c’est-á-dire Roi, l’onction est l’Esprit, et celui qui est oint, le Fils, Jésus, qui devient Christ.310

Andia also express her point of view in other publications, firmly believing in the Trinitarian dimension that Irenaeus found in the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. This Trinitarian dimension is imprinted in the very name of Christ. Jesus became Christ as a result of being anointed by the Spirit (Adv. haer. III.12.7; III.9.3). The Trinitarian anointing of Christ at his baptism is the fulfillment of the messianic anointment of the Old Testament. The incarnation and anointing of the Word are referred to the Father who anoints and takes place through the Spirit who is the ointment, as is expressed in AH III.18.3. The baptism of

Jesus reveals the mystery of the Trinitarian revelation in the anointing of the humanity of the Word of God. 311

Killian McDonell also supports the Trinitarian interpretation of the passage.312

McDonnell believes that the baptism of Jesus and the anointing of the Spirit reveal the identity of Jesus as the Christ. The baptism is then seen as an event intimately related to the

310 Ysabel de Andia, Homo vivens: Incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyon (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986), 190. 311 Ysabel de Andia, “Anointing”, Communio 25 (Summer 1998): 214-232. 312 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 118-119.

185 paschal mysteries. However, Irenaeus also uses the term “Christ” as an understanding of the triune God. From the very beginning of the public life of Jesus, there is a manifestation of the unity of God and the unity of Jesus Christ.

A claim against the Trinitarian interpretation of Adv. haer. III.18.3 might be due to the lack of discussion on the part of Irenaeus regarding a methodological approach to the interpretation of Scripture used in other writers in the early Church. This approach was called prosopological exegesis and had at its center the discernment of the speaker or person in a particular passage from Scripture. This method was highly influential in later discussions of the nature of the Trinity and the concept of prosōpon. Stephen O. Presley questions that if this prosopological method was so common in the Fathers (including Justin

Martyr) why there is so little of it in the work of Irenaeus. 313 Presley defends the position that the reason for the little use of the prosopological method by Irenaeus is due to the argumentative and apologetic nature of the corpus of the bishop of Lyons.

Presley believes that the reason for the apparent disregard of Irenaeus of a method so much favored in early Christianity is not for lack of knowledge of the prosopological method or a lack of appreciation for it. There are, however, a few passages of both Adversus haereses and the Epideixis that clearly show a use of the prosopological exegesis. A good example is Epideixis 49:

And again, the prophet Isaias says, “Thus says the Lord God to my Anointed Lord, whose right hand I have grasped, [that] the nations are obedient before Him”; and as for how the Christ is called the Son of God and the King of the nations, which is, of all men, and that He both is called and indeed is the Son of God and King of the nations, David says thus, “The Lord said to me, ‘You

313 Stephen O. Presley, “Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 165-171.

186

are my Son, have I begotten you; ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance and the ends of the earth as a possession.”….it is necessary to affirm that it is not David nor any other one of the prophets, who speaks from himself—for it is not man who utters prophecies—but [that] the Spirit of God, conforming Himself to the person concerned, spoke in the prophets, producing words sometimes from Christ and at other times from the Father.314

This prosopological method was not only a tool used by the ecclesiastical writers. It was also the exegetical method used by dissenting groups to support their own positions. Presley asserts that for this reason Irenaeus did not utilize the same exegetical method in order not to give gnostics and other dissenting groups validation for their ideas and methods.

Irenaeus noticed that for the prosopological method to be valid there was a need for a proper theological framework and decided to establish his defense of the faith on the apostolic rule of faith. The bishop of Lyons was consistent with his statement that asserted the necessity “to affirm that it is not David nor any other one of the prophets, who speaks from himself” but is God instead the only referent of Scripture. This position, where “the

Spirit of God, conforming Himself to the person concerned, spoke in the prophets, producing words sometimes from Christ and at other times from the Father”, requires a rule of faith or theological framework for a proper scriptural exegesis:

Thus, Irenaeus revealed that the interpretation of divine titles and discourse in scripture largely depends upon, to borrow Irenaeus’ question: “Who is meant by God?” It is to Irenaeus’s credit that he recognizes that this issue calls for a framework or regula fidei that grounds the kind of prosopological exegesis carried out by Justin, Tertullian and others. This analysis affords Irenaeus a key role in the early development of Trinitarian theology and the understanding of the trinitarian concept of person. 315

314 Epideixis 49, On the Apostolic Preaching, 72-73. 315 Presley, 171.

187

Within his essay, Presley gives some significant insights into the exegetical method of

Irenaeus of Lyons and the reasons why his treatment of the Trinity does not coincide with other writers of the first centuries of Christianity. Clearly, a Trinitarian interpretation of Adv. haer. III.18.3 is compatible with the ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons. It is true that the pneumatology of Irenaeus can be consistently lacking in development, especially when we read about his use of passages from both the Old and New Testaments to refer to the Spirit.

At times it can be difficult to follow Irenaeus’ line of thought. Is the Spirit alluded to in the third book of Adversus haereses the Spirit of God coming from the Father? This is not clear, even after an examination of the biblical sources that he uses to support his position.

Nevertheless, the method of biblical interpretation used by the bishop of Lyons did not differ from some of the methods used by his contemporaries.

In the third book of Adversus haereses another issue presented is the anointing by the

Spirit in the Jordan and how this anointing enabled the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ.

Certainly the use of Isaiah 11: 1-4 and 61:1-2 seems to confirm the events of the Jordan. A closer look at chapter nine of Adversus haereses provides more details about the gifts bestowed by the Spirit:

Sicut et Esaias ait: Exiet virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ejus ascendet, et requiescet super eum Spiritus Dei, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et implebit eum spiritus timoris Dei. Non secundum gloriam judicabit, neque secundum loquelam arguet, sed judicabit humili judicium, et arguet gloriosos terrae.316

The bishop of Lyons then makes a striking interpretation of Isaiah 61: 1-2:

Et iterum ipse Esaias unctionem ejus, et propter quid unctus est, praesignificans ait: Spiritus Dei super me, quapropter unxit me, evangelisare

316 Adv. haer. III.9. 3, in Against Heresies, 32.

188

humilibus misit me, curare comminutos corde, praeconare captivis remissionem, et caesis visionem, vocare annum Domini acceptabilem, et diem retributionis, consolarem omnis plangentes. Nam secundum id quod Verbum Dei homo erat ex radice Jesse, et filius Abrahae, secundum hoc requiescebat Spiritus Dei super eum, et ungebator ad evangelisandum humilibus. Secundum autem quod Deus erat, non secundum gloriam judicabat, neque secundum loquelam arguebat…. Advocabat autem omnes homines plangentes, et remissionem his qui a peccatis in captivitatem deducti erant donas…. Spiritus ergo Dei descendit in eum, ejus qui per prophetas promiserat uncturum se eum, ut de abundantia unctionis ejus nos percipientes salvaremur. 317

There are several ideas that can interpreted from these passages. Orbe posits that the anointing in the Spirit affected the Word in his humanity, though the Word, in his divine nature, did not need this anointing: “For inasmuch as the Word was man from the root of

Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon him.” The Son of

God, then, is anointed by the Spirit in his humanity in order to save humanity.318 If the Word wanted to save humanity, then the Word needed to be anointed as a human being:

El Hijo de Dios, en cuanto tal, lejos de necesitar unción en Espíritu, ni siquiera podría recibirla. Así discurren los críticos, interpretando a Ireneo. Y sin embargo, la única conclusión lógica, autorizada por los elementos y premisas del Santo seria la siguiente: el Hijo de Dios requiere ser ungido del Espíritu en cuanto hombre, en la hipótesis de salvar a los hombres. La unción del Verbo, en cuanto hombre, estaría condicionada por la economía de la humana salud. Si quiere el Verbo salvar a los hombres, ha de ser ungido en cuanto hombre. 319

317 Ibid., 33. 318 Antonio Orbe, La unción del Verbo, vol. 3 of Estudios Valentinianos, Analecta Gregoriana 113 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1961), 501-511. 319 Ibid., 510.” The Son of God, as such, far from needing anointing in the Spirit, could not even receive it. So the critics say, as they interpret Irenaeus. And yet, the only logical conclusion, authorized by the elements and premises of the Saint would be as follows: the Son of God required to be anointed by the Spirit in his humanity, as a proposition to save humanity. The anointing of the Word, in his humanity, would be conditioned by the economy of human salvation. If the Word wanted to save humanity, then the Word needed to be anointed in his humanity.”(my translation)

189

Irenaeus’ position regarding the purpose of the anointing of Jesus can be confirmed by the way he interprets Isaiah 61: “And again Esaias, pointing out beforehand His unction, and the reason why he was anointed.” 320

Orbe elaborates on this topic in a more recent article, “El Espíritu en el bautismo de

Jesús.” Orbe provides details of how Irenaeus attributes the gifts of the Spirit according to the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. 321 As the Incarnate Word, the Spirit of God dwells in Jesus in order to evangelize the humble; however, as God, Jesus shall not judge secundum gloriam nec secundum loquellam arguet. Jesus is anointed by the Spirit according to the flesh, thus enabling his messianic mission both as God and human:

Unción septiforme sobre la humanidad del Verbo, la habilita de lleno con los siete dones, en orden a su misión salvífica, en cuanto hombre y en cuanto Dios. Le unge como hombre, hijo de Jesé y de Abrahán para evangelizar a los humildes, sanar a los contritos de corazón, pregonar remisión a los cautivos de pecado, dar vista a los ciegos, etc.; y como Verbo Hijo de Dios juzgará según verdad y condenará por ciencia propia. En resumen, el Espíritu de Dios descansará en Jesús y le ungirá---según promesa de los profetas--- para salvar a los hombres con la efusión de Sí, haciéndoles partícipes de su abundancia.322

Orbe’s interpretation may sound complicated at first glance. However, Orbe is following closely what Irenaeus is expressing in Adversus haereses. The emphasis of the bishop of

Lyons on determining that some activities of Jesus Christ are more proper to his humanity and others to his divinity can be at odds with the general interest of Irenaeus in defending

320 Ibíd., 510. 321 Antonio Orbe, “El Espíritu en el bautismo de Jesús (en torno a san Ireneo),” Gregorianum 76, 4 (1995): 663- 699. 322 Orbe, “El Espíritu…” 671. “The Spirit fully anointed the humanity of the Word with the seven gifts, in order to habilitate his salvific mission as man and God. The Spirit anointed him as man, son of Jesse and Abraham, in order to evangelize the humble, heal the contrite of heart, proclaim remission to the captives of sin, give sight to the blind, etc.; and as the Word, the Son of God will judge according to truth and condemn by science itself. In short, the Spirit of God shall rest in Jesus and anoint Him, according to the promise of the prophets, to save humanity with the outpouring of Himself, making them participants of his gifts.” (my translation)

190 the unity of Christ. Nevertheless, one must be mindful that Irenaeus of Lyons is writing before the further theological developments in the Christian tradition regarding the unity of the person of Jesus Christ and the reality of the two natures.

Ysabel de Andia is among several scholars who have been influenced by Orbe’s interpretation. Andia suggests that the anointing at the baptism in the Jordan affected the

Word in his humanity and for his humanity. There is in Irenaeus a distinction between a cosmic anointing of the Word related to the cosmos, and an anointing of Christ related to the Church. In the case of the anointing of the Word as a human being there remains the soteriological necessity for the Word to be anointed as a human being in order to be able to save other human beings. 323

Anthony Briggman does not agree with the position of Antonio Orbe and other authors regarding this issue. Briggman finds that none of the studies made about Irenaeus’ account of the baptism of Jesus has paid enough consideration to Irenaeus’s insight of the

Spirit becoming accustomed to the humanity through the humanity of the Word.324

Briggman also thinks that writers have not related Irenaeus’ position of the anointing of the humanity of Jesus with the subsequent glorification of the Spirit for the rest of humanity. In his article Briggman argues that a proper recognition of these neglected aspects will make clear that Irenaeus intended to assert that only the humanity of Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit. In Adversus haereses III.9.3, Irenaeus, after quoting two passages from Isaiah, delivers an interpretation of these passages. Regarding Isaiah 11:1-3a, Irenaeus gives the

323 Andia, “Anointing,” 219. 324 Anthony Briggman, “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” Journal of Theological Studies Vol.61 (April 2010): 171-193.

191 following interpretation: “For as inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of

Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint

Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly.” Irenaeus’ reference regarding the Spirit resting on the Word of God, inasmuch as the Word was God, makes Briggman assert that according to

Irenaeus, the Spirit rested on Jesus only in his humanity. The divinity of the Word did not need to be anointed by the Spirit because “inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove in the manner of speech.” The Word in his divinity was able to know the heart of human beings. Therefore, Briggman deduces from Adv. haer. III.9.3 that Jesus needed to be anointed by the Spirit in his humanity in order to have his humanity empowered to accomplish his messianic mission, without any need to have his divinity empowered.325

Briggman then analyzes Orbe’s argument for an additional, transcendent anointing of the Word, a very influential concept for different authors, like Vigne and Andia. Orbe bases his argument on diverse passages from Irenaeus, in particular this one:

More clearly still, David speaks about the Father and Son in this way, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever. You have loved righteousness hated iniquity; therefore God [has] anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows,” for the Son, as He is God, receives from the Father, that , from God, the throne of the everlasting kingdom, and the oil of anointing above His fellows; and ‘the oil of anointing’ is the Spirit by whom He is the Anointed, and His ‘fellows’ are the prophets and righteous and apostles and all who receive participation in His Kingdom, that is, His disciples. 326

Orbe uses this passage as his main evidence for a transcendental anointing of the Word.

Consequently, Orbe compares Epideixis 47 and Adversus haereses III.9.3 and finds that the

325 “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” 174-175. 326 Epideixis 47, On the Apostolic Preaching, 71.

192 reference to Psalm 48:8 on the Epideixis passage is not referring to the same type of anointing described in Adv. haer. III.9.3, where there is an allusion to Isaiah 6:11. As a result of this analysis, Orbe determines that Psalm 48:8 and Isaiah 6:11 refer to two different types of anointing for the Son of God, one transcendent and one historical. In other words,

Orbe concludes that Psalm 48:8 and Isaiah 6:11 proof his theory that there was first an anointing of the Word as God followed by an anointing of Jesus in his humanity, in this case a qualitative anointing enabling the humanity of Jesus to be accustomed to the Spirit. Orbe finds evidence of his two anointing theory on a passage in Epideixis 53:

And His name is twofold: in the Hebrew language ‘Messiah’ [means] ‘Christ’, and <…> ‘Jesus’, ‘Saviour’; and both of these names are the names of deeds accomplished. For He is named 'Christ’, since through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things, and [because], His advent (παρουσία) as man, He was anointed by the Spirit of God His Father, as He Himself says of Himself, by Isaias, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me, to bring good tidings to the poor.”327

According to Orbe, this passage is an explicit demonstration of how Irenaeus distinguishes two anointings of the Word: one active, insofar as the Word is God (“since through Him the

Father anointed and adorned all things”) and another passive, insofar as the Word was human (“He was anointed by the Spirit of God His Father’). For Orbe these two anointings imply that Irenaeus is also speaking of two other implicit anointings:

Implícitamente supone otras dos unciones: una pasiva, del Verbo en cuanto Dios, al ser ungido por el Padre previamente mediante el Espíritu, para luego ungir y disponerlo todo como instrumento del Padre en la “unción” del mundo; otra activa, del Verbo en cuanto Hombre, al ungir mediante el Espíritu recibido por El en el Jordán, a todos los que creyeron y creerán en El. 328

327 Epideixis 53, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 75. 328 Orbe, La unción del Verbo, 516. “(Irenaeus) implicitly assumes two other anointings: one passive, of the Word as God, being previously anointed by the Father through the Spirit, to later anoint and arrange

193

Briggman believes that this interpretation of Orbe of a fourfold anointing of the Spirit, including the anointing of the preincarnate and incarnate Word is incorrect. For Briggman the use of Epideixis 53 by Orbe is a guideline to determine that Irenaeus believed in two anointings of the Spirit and that the intention of an unction defines its nature. Consequently

Orbe thinks that the active anointing of all things cannot emerge from the passive anointing of the Word as a human being. Briggman contrasts Orbe’s position with the work of Albert

Houssiau on the same subject. Houssiau analyzes Adv. haer. III.9.3 and III.17.1-4 and determines that the Spirit descended on Jesus because of the Incarnation, and the descent of the Spirit was the first case of the charismatic outpouring of Jesus’ humanity:

Irénée propose une doctrine identique dans les deux textes examinés jusqu’à présent. Selon III, 9, 3 et III, 17, 1-4, le baptême du Christ est marqué par la descente de l’Esprit Saint sur le Verbe incarné ; c’est au sein de l’humanité concrète du Verbe que commence l’œuvre de l’Esprit dans le genre humain. Cette solution distingue nettement l’Esprit et le Verbe ; on peut affirmer la divinité de Jésus, né de Marie, et pourtant ne pas réduire l’épisode baptismal a un simple signe de la divinité du Christ. On surmonte ainsi une difficulté cruciale qui s’imposait à la réflexion des anciens théologiens. 329

Briggman interprets Houssiau’s assertions as the result of a dissimilar conclusion from Orbe:

Irenaeus presented one anointing in the Spirit on the humanity of the Word. The anointing process has only to do with the humanity of Jesus Christ. Briggman supports Houssiau’s position and observes that the goal of Irenaeus in Adv. haer. III.9.3 is to defend the unity of

Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh who became the Christ at his baptism. Orbe’s position seems to mislead in regard to how Irenaeus differentiates between the human and divine everything as an instrument of the Father in the "anointing" of the world; another active, of the Word as man, anointing by the Spirit received in the Jordan to all those who believed and will believe in Him.” (my translation) 329 Albert Houssiau, La Christologie de Saint Irénée, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis Dissertationes 3.1 (Louvain, Belgaum : Publications Universitaires; Gembloux: J.Duculot, 1955), 179.

194 natures of Jesus Christ as well as how Irenaeus presents acts as befitting Jesus Christ either as God or as a human being. Irenaeus’ intention is to show dissenting groups the unity of the Incarnate Word. When Irenaeus speaks about two natures, it is in order to explain the reason for the Spirit to come upon the Incarnate Word. 330 For Briggman the logic of Orbe used for his interpretation, is inconsistent in its assumption that Irenaeus differentiated between the created status of human beings and the created status of all other creation:

Yet in this regard the main point in Irenaeus’ theology is to differentiate between that which is created versus the Uncreated who creates, and not to differentiate between different orders of creation. In this respect, the universe is just as created as humanity, which leaves no room to distinguish between the two. Therefore, Orbe’s interpretative principle is in fact self- defeating. To apply his logic to Irenaeus’ theology of creation would result in the incarnate Word experiencing one anointing, of his created humanity, by means of which the rest of humanity and the whole created order is anointed. We only have grounds, then, to speak of an anointing of Jesus’ humanity.331

Briggman’s analysis of Irenaeus’ views about the Holy Spirit becoming accustomed to the human race by means of the humanity of Christ as well as his critique of Orbe’s position provide, in my opinion, some interesting analysis. However, Briggman’s conclusions are very much at odds with other scholars who agree with many elements from Orbe’s.

Daniel Vigne agrees with Orbe that Irenaeus gives the unction of the Spirit a cosmic and pre-existential character in certain passages, e.g., like Epideixis 47. There are also two commentaries of Psalm 45 done by Irenaeus relating the concept of the unction both to the creation of the world and to the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. One is from Adv. haer. III.6.1; the other from Epideixis 47. The first text, “….therefore God, thy

God hath anointed Thee. For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God--

330 Briggman, “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” 177-179. 331 “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” 179-180.

195 both Him who is anointed a Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father,” as well as the text of Epideixis 47 which emphasizes the idea that the Son in his divinity has eternally received from the Father the unction of the Spirit. For Vigne this emphasis is in no way in contradiction with other passages in Irenaeus which emphasize the anointing of the humanity of Jesus. After an analysis of several of these passages, Vigne arrives at this conclusion:

Les premiers textes insistaient sur le fait que Jésus en tant qu’homme avait été oint de l’Esprit Saint au Baptême. Les derniers laissent entendre que le Fils en tant qu’il est Dieu reçoit éternellement du Père l’Onction de l’Esprit. Il n’y a pas contradiction entre ces deux perspectives : le Baptême révèle dans le temps et communique aux hommes l’Onction éternelle que le Fils reçoit du Père. 332

In an article entitled “The Problem of Human Identity in Patristic Christological

Speculation,” Richard Norris notes that there are passages from Irenaeus’s work that appear to describe the Logos and humanity of Christ as if they are distinguishable. Norris interprets Irenaeus’ christological formula as one that depends on two identifications of humanity that differ with each other and create a concealed structural ambivalence. On one side, there is in Irenaeus’ theology the idea that the Logos is the true image of God reflected in humanity. The Logos in himself is the effective mediator between God and humanity.

Irenaeus expanded this idea in a distinctive manner when he insisted on the Incarnation as the necessary event where the Logos had to assume human flesh in order to actually become the model for humanity.333

332 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 81. 333 Norris, “The Problems of Human Identity in Patristic Christological Speculation”, Studia Patristica 17 (Oxford, Pergamon, 1982) 151-152.

196

However, Norris identifies another idea in Irenaeus’ thought that seems at odds with the idea of the Logos as the original of the human race. There seems to be areas in the theological discourse of Irenaeus where there is an emphasis on the humanity of Christ as distinct from the Logos. Therefore, the statement by Irenaeus about the anointing of the

Spirit at the baptism being proper to the humanity of Jesus establishes a connection between Jesus Christ and all members of the human race:

Hence it becomes possible for Jesus’ humanity as such, that which constitutes him as Second Adam, to function as a model for the life and destiny of believers. Nor does this function consist merely in the provision of the norm of moral excellence. Irenaeus points out, for example, that the anointing of Jesus with the Spirit at his Baptism is something proper to him not as Logos but as human being. In taking this stand, however, he intimates a close parallel between the humanity of Jesus and that of his fellows. For does he not insist, as we have seen, that the complete human being is body and soul ‘receiving Spirit from the Father’? It seems, then, that the Christ models the very structure of human nature. Now, however, it is not in this capacity as divine Logos, but in his role as a human person. His is the humanity in which the promise implicit in Adam’s creation is kept. 334

Norris concludes that there is an anthropological vision in the christology of Irenaeus, but it is presented in an ambiguous way. For Irenaeus, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the model for humanity; at the same time, this assertion is closely related to the conviction that this model for humanity is based both on the divine Logos and the human Jesus recapitulating the human race.

Jesus makes the gifts of the Spirit available for all members of the human race. On this topic Ysabel de Andia remarks that the anointing also has a cosmic dimension where the messianic anointing is extended to all the disciples of Christ by means of the baptismal anointing. There is a superiority of Jesus over his disciples by virtue of his divinity.

334 Ibid., 152.

197

“L’affirmation de Irénée est ici très claire : l’onction est une onction du Verbe en tant que

Dieu parce que la royauté qu’il reçoit est une royauté éternelle et l’huile de joie dont il est oint, l’Esprit-Saint lui-même.” 335 Andia sees the passages where Irenaeus presents the anointing of Jesus Christ as both God and human as key reflections on the mystery of the

Word made flesh. The flesh and the Spirit have a very close relationship to the Word made flesh because the flesh in question is the flesh of the Word. Jesus Christ has been anointed in the flesh by the Spirit because of his unique status as God. Only the Incarnate Word was conceived by the Spirit and only Christ was anointed by the Spirit. Epideixis 41 strongly asserts that Jesus “…is the Christ, upon whom the Spirit of God rested, blending with His flesh.” This union is the source of incorruptibility that could only take place in the flesh of the Incarnate Word. The flesh of the Son of God makes the relationship of the Spirit with humanity and the subsequent Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit over the Church possible.

These gifts are manifested in Adversus haereses III.17.1, where the bishop of Lyons presents the Spirit as “as descending upon the Son of God, made the

Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race… working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ.” 336

Orbe interpreted this same passage as an explanation of the infusion of the Holy Spirit over humanity, where men and women are participants in the same Holy Spirit that baptized the Word made flesh. Orbe also explains this as the efficacy of the divine pneuma over the human sarx. The union Logos-sarx is incommunicable because of its personal

335 Andia, Homo vivens, 192. 336 Ibid., 192.

198 nature; the union pneuma-sarx is by nature dynamic and therefore communicable. Christian baptism is then a participation in the salvific efficacy of the baptism of Christ, where Jesus

Christ in his own anointing anticipated what will happen with the Christian disciples:

Jesús se adelanta, hombre ungido en el Espíritu del Padre, a lo que experimentarán luego sus hermanos, ungidos en el mismo por participación en el Espíritu del Hijo…. El Hijo de Dios se hace Hijo de hombre para que el hombre se acostumbre a captar a Dios; y Dios a habitar en el hombre. Así desde la Encarnación: el hombre, personalmente unido a Dios, se dispone a penetrar—como plasma—en el dinamismo del pneuma, hasta aprehenderlo y habituarse—en natura—a lo divino.337

However, Smith opposes Orbe’s interpretation on the grounds that it is not consistent with what Irenaeus is presenting. According to Smith, the double framework Logos/sarx- pneuma/sarx is not part of Irenaeus’ theology because the bishop of Lyons does not describe the baptism as the first instance of relationship between the Spirit and the Word.

For example, Irenaeus is not consistent on the role of the Spirit in the conception of Jesus.

Sometimes the role of the Spirit will be seen as the “power of the Most High (Adv. haer. V.

1.3).” In other instances, when the Spirit is related to the Incarnation, it seems that Irenaeus is referring to the Spirit as the divinity of Christ:

In another place Jeremias says, “The Spirit of our face is ; and how was He taken into their nets, of whom we said, under His shadow we shall live among the nations.” The Scripture announces that, being Spirit of God, Christ was going to become a passible man, and also, as if astonished and amazed at his Passion, that He was going to endure the Passion in this way, under whose shadow we would live.338

337 Orbe, Introducción, 670. “Jesus advances himself, anointed in the Spirit of the Father, into what humanity will experience, anointed therein by participation in the Spirit of the Son....The Son of God becomes the Son of Man in order that humanity becomes accustomed to experiencing God; and God accustomed to dwelling in humanity. Thus, from the Incarnation, humanity, personally attached to God, was able to penetrate as plasma in the dynamism of the pneuma in order to apprehend the Spirit and become accustomed in nature to the divine.” (my translation) 338 Epideixis. 71, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 85-86.

199

Because of this ambiguity, Smith notes that there is a difficulty in determining how Irenaeus of Lyons makes a connection between the Incarnation and the baptism as events related to the Spirit. As a result, scholars have also shown ambiguity in their use of the Spirit language.

Some interpreters have concluded that the Spirit language used by Irenaeus is evidence of his belief that Christ possessed the fullness of the Spirit since conception. Smith considers that this emphasis on the role of the Spirit in the Incarnation comes at the expense of minimizing what Irenaeus said about the baptism of Jesus and the gifts of the Spirit. As a consequence of this, the baptism in the Jordan becomes for these interpreters an event chiefly concerned with the moment when men and women were allowed to participate in the divine life.339

Irenaeus also associates the anointing at the Jordan with the Church. Kilian McDonnell explains that Irenaeus is firm in establishing the identity of the Spirit at the anointing of

Jesus as the same Spirit present in the Church, the same Paraclete that has been sent to the whole world:

The Spirit coming down on Jesus is the same Spirit coming down on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, opening the Church to universal vistas in the multiplicity of nations speaking one language of praise. To this end the Father sends “Water from Heaven,” or “Rain from Above,” that is, the Spirit. Without this divine moisture, Irenaeus continues, the dry flour cannot become bread; without moisture dry wood will not bring forth fruit. Further, Christian baptism inherits the gifts from Jesus’ baptism. As at the Jordan, the Spirit is united to the body of Christ. Thus our bodies, through the bath of baptism, have been joined to the Incorruptible One (Christ), while our souls have received the Spirit. 340

339 Smith, “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus,” 630. 340 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 121.

200

McDonnell rightly claims that the bishop of Lyons is presenting the action of the Spirit in a universalist context. The Spirit that came upon the disciples at Pentecost made it possible for the Church to be open to all nations of the earth. There is not a narrow sense of ecclesiocentrism in Adversus haereses. The disciples who praise God “in all the tongues, all animated by the same sentiment” (Adv. haer. III. 17.2) have been enabled by the Spirit to do so. The Spirit is the unifier of humanity and subsequently the unifier of the Church.341

The anointing at the Jordan has cosmic dimensions in the theology of Irenaeus of

Lyons. This cosmic aspect can be supported by passages like this from the Epideixis:

And that this Christ, who was with the Father, being the Word of the Father, to be incarnate and be a man and undergo birth, and be born of a Virgin and walk with men, the Father of all effecting His Incarnation….And His name is twofold: in the Hebrew language ‘Messiah’ [means] ‘Christ’, since through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things, and [because], His advent (παρουσία) as man, He was anointed by the Spirit of God the Father….342

McDonnell presents the anointing of Jesus Christ in the Jordan as a reflection of the eternal anointing, where the Father anoints through Christ all parts of creation. There is no difference between the Spirit by which the Father anoints Jesus Christ and the Spirit who anoints the just and the whole universe. According to McDonnell there is also an important development in Irenaeus of Lyons regarding the identity of the Holy Spirit. The bishop of

Lyons does not see the Spirit as part of the person of the Word; there is an autonomy in the character of the Spirit in the baptism of Jesus. These insights by Irenaeus are important for further Christological and Trinitarian developments.343

341 Ibid., 120-122. 342 Epideixis 53, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 74-75. 343 The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 122-123.

201

McDonnell bases his opinions on the work of other scholars. Orbe also believes in the virtual multiplicity of the Holy Spirit:

La Unción del Universo adopta un significado soteriológico real, de tono menor, con arreglo a una filosofía de colorido estoico, bien comprobada y definida por el Santo. Mas adquiere plenitud de sentido en función de la Salud perfecta a que va destinada en el hombre. La unción…. del Kosmos, pasa a ser el principio de conservación y cohesión del Kosmos Kosmou: la Unción de la Iglesia, para salud de sus miembros…. No hay por qué distinguir entre la unción que el Verbo recibe para ungir al Universo, de la que recibo el Hijo, en cuanto Dios, para ungir a profetas y a justos. Se trata del mismo Espíritu Santo, virtualmente múltiple, conforme a la índole de la perfección (material, animal, spiritual) a que se ordena.344

Orbe uses Epideixis 47 in order to analyze how Irenaeus believed in the total anointing of the Word, mediator between God and humanity, previous to the anointing of the disciples, the Church. This relative doctrine of the χρῖσμα of the Son of God has its origins in Stoic and

Jewish concepts that place humanity as the center of the world. With this concept late

Judaism made Israel and the synagogue as the main reason for the creation of the world.

The apostolic Fathers adapted this concept to a Christian perspective, speaking of the

Church as the center of all creation, an institution where the individual as center of the world becomes the symbol of the humanity and Church that the individual represents. 345

344 Orbe, La unción del Verbo, 522. “The anointing of the universe takes on a real soteriological significance, of minor tone, according to a philosophy of stoic color, well proven and defined by the Saint. It also acquires plenitude of meaning based on perfect salvation that is aimed at humanity. The anointing of the Kosmos becomes the principle of preservation and cohesion of the Kosmos Kosmou: the anointing of the Church, for the salvation of her members.... There is no reason to distinguish between the anointing that the Word receives in order to anoint the universe, from the one received by the Son, as God, in order to anoint the prophets and the righteous. It is the same Holy Spirit, virtually multiple, in accordance with the nature of perfection (material, animal, spiritual) to which it is ordered.” (my translation) 345 La unción del Verbo, 522-523.

202

Ysabel de Andia also believes that the anointing of Jesus at the Jordan has a sense of a cosmic anointing that is attached to its soteriological and messianic meaning. Andia analyzes passages from Irenaeus like Epideixis 9 and Adv. haer. V. 20.1 to find a depiction of the Spirit of God as one present in the seven ministerial forms that rested in the Son of God

(as described by Isaiah) as well as in the seven seals of the powers in heaven. The same gift of the Spirit is present in the Church and circumscribes the whole world. Therefore “the messianic kingship of the Anointed One extends to the entire cosmos.” 346

C. Irenaeus and Creation

Irenaeus of Lyons represented in his works the struggle that the Christian tradition had with dissenting groups who denied the goodness of creation. In response to this gnostic claim the bishop of Lyons emphasized the close relation between humanity and the rest of the created world and the responsibility that men and women have toward creation.347 This responsibility of humanity to creation is presented by Irenaeus in four different ways. First,

Irenaeus analyzed the scriptural assertion of humanity being formed from the very substance of the world and established that the flesh of humanity is formed in the image of the Son of God even before his incarnation. Jesus Christ is therefore both the perfect image of the Father and the exemplar of humanity. Creation provided the very substance that became the flesh of the Incarnate Word. Second, creation is the venue where men and women progress and gain knowledge and love of God and accomplish communion with God.

Third, the events of the Fall not only damaged the situation of humanity but also of all

346 Andia, “Anointing,” 219. 347 Georgia Masters Keightley, “The Church’s Laity: Called to be Creation’s Priests,” Worship 84 no.4 (July 2010): 309-325.

203 creation, when the chaos of sin brought corruptibility and death to humankind and impaired their proper care for creation. The fourth and final way presented by Irenaeus has to do with a development in Paul’s concept of recapitulation. With the redemption of humankind in Christ the bishop of Lyons stressed that God did not forsake creation. All the baptized are called to testimony, through growth into the image of Christ, on the progressive journey that God has for all creation. Irenaeus showed that for the early

Christian tradition, the relationship between humanity and creation is intimate and without distinction. This mentality greatly influenced the understanding of the baptism of Jesus and its relationship with Christian baptism during early Christianity. 348

In a comparison between the insights of Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin Martyr on the baptism of Jesus, Albert Houssiau presents those elements that differentiate their exegesis.349 Both agree on the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus for the sake of humanity.

However, while Justin sees the baptism as merely a sign of the power of Christ, Irenaeus goes further to continue to proclaim the divinity of Jesus, without diminishing the reality of the descent of the Spirit. In the exegesis of Irenaeus there is no confusion between the

Word and the Spirit, to which Justin’s reflections are susceptible. The other important element in Irenaeus is the idea that the salvation of humanity is effected through the humanity of Jesus Christ. The reality of all the mysteries of the human life of Christ is maintained without diminishing the divinity of Christ. Irenaeus accomplished this as a result of his opposition to the gnostic interpretation of the baptism of Jesus:

348 “The Church’s Laity: Called to be Creation’s Priests,” 310-312. 349 Albert Houssiau, La Christologie de Saint Irénée, 184-185.

204

Irénée corrige cette présentation des faits: pour lui, Jésus devient Jésus-Christ par l’onction de l’Esprit. Si l’Esprit descend sur Jésus ou sur le Verbe, c’est a cause de la chair assumée. « Jésus » est le nom même du Verbe, c’est-a-dire du Sauveur…. « Christ » est le nom qui revient à Jésus en raison de son onction (κεχρισμένος) par l’Esprit, et cette onction suppose qu’il a assumé la chair. Jésus-Christ désigne donc le Verbe incarné oint par l’Esprit. Le sujet de l’onction est bien le Verbe de Dieu, mais le Verbe qui a pris chair. L’épisode du baptême ne révèle pas l’union d’un Jésus humain à un Christ divin, mais la descente de l’Esprit sur la chair assumée par le Verbe. 350

Conclusion

While in conversation with the liturgical and doctrinal context of his time and place,

Irenaeus of Lyons developed new insights on the importance of the baptism of Jesus in the

Jordan in his apologetic and doctrinal works. It is important to recognize that Irenaeus came from the East and that his work was influenced by the historical and theological realities of

Asia Minor as well as by his experiences as bishop of Lyons. This diversity of influences is important to consider because of the original aspects of the theology of Irenaeus. His mission in Gaul, probably motivated because of a need of Greek- speaking missionaries, included preaching and teaching among the Greek Christians who were the majority in the

Roman Empire. Like Polycarp and Justin, Irenaeus also probably had to speak and teach a lot in Latin, the official language of the empire. This cultural and linguistic diversity, clearly reflected in the fact that the first copies available of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses were in

Latin, could hardly be overlooked in analyzing the corpus of the bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus inherited a diocese affected both by religious persecution and martyrdom as well as by internal division triggered by groups with conflicting theological ideas. The two works from

350 La Christologie de Saint Irénée, 174-175.

205

Irenaeus known today are both pastoral and theological in nature, dealing with the theological and doctrinal issues that were relevant in his time.

Scriptural exegesis was of the utmost importance for Irenaeus and his works. Irenaeus regarded the sacred writings as inspiring and complex works that required dedicated study in order to understand their meaning. This message of Scripture was also encountered in the professions of faith and the testimony of leaders who were witnesses of the Christian faith. Irenaeus was very influential for the development of the role of the ecclesial institutions in the defense of doctrine. With Irenaeus this coordination was accompanied by a direct relationship with tradition and apostolic succession. Irenaeus did not associate doctrinal truth with episcopal ministry only. Doctrinal teaching was for Irenaeus the deposit of all believers with the guidance of ecclesial authority. The correlation between ecclesiastical supervision and doctrinal teaching was effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit given to all the Church.

When considering the different aspects of the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons, there are diverse opinions regarding which concepts are at the heart of Irenaeus’ theology. I have found that the arguments about the importance of the concepts of magnitudo and dilectio in the theology of Irenaeus are highly convincing. Irenaeus developed a theological mindset in which humanity is able to know and experience God through love. In Adv. haer. III.24.2,

Irenaeus stated that humanity cannot know the greatness (magnitudo) or substance

(substantia) of God. However, God can be known by means of his love and infinite kindness.

This aspect of the theology of the bishop of Lyons is in my opinion highly evident in his baptismal theology and in his perception on the place of the baptism of Jesus as a central

206 element of humanity’s salvation history. This centrality of love in Irenaeus serves as a validation of the unity of God, where Jesus Christ perfected and fulfilled the original love command given by God to love both God and neighbor, enemies included. Christ achieved and perfected the love command and ascertained it as a reflection of the summation of all things in God.

Irenaeus uses a logic of recapitulation grounded in the redemptive love of God, the source of salvation for humanity. This primacy of love in the theology of Irenaeus is not in opposition to knowledge. Rather, knowledge is essential to the primacy of love, a love seen by Irenaeus as defined and known in the context of the rule of faith. Love is both the parameter for a correct grasp of Jesus and the source of unity and contemplation on the reality of one God. In love, Jesus Christ joins humanity to himself and enabled women and men to love all elements of creation.

Irenaeus made few references to the rite of baptism in his works, probably because of his emphasis on doctrinal and apologetic concerns. Nonetheless, there is some evidence in

Irenaeus’ corpus about the importance of preparation for candidates before baptism. For

Irenaeus faith is a fundamental component of baptism. Remission of sins is associated with a faith nurtured by previous instruction and a Trinitarian connection. There is some indication in Irenaeus about baptism being performed by immersion and an invocation of the Lord that does not imply an invocation of the Holy Spirit to come upon the waters.

There is no direct allusion in the works of Irenaeus to anointing in direct connection to baptism.

207

However, the bishop of Lyons regarded baptism as a facilitator for the believer.

Through baptism the believer receives both the graces of the Spirit as well as a gradual understanding of the presence of Christ in scripture. Passages from both Adversus haereses and the Epideixis refer to the rule of faith as given in baptism. This regula fidei might be a concept influenced by the baptismal ritual of his time, as well as a response to Valentinian positions. In any case, in the theology of Irenaeus there is a gradual attentiveness to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation history and the way in which the rule of faith is enhanced by a Christological confession derived from the baptismal event. Regarding the effects of Christian baptism on believers, Irenaeus believed that the Spirit who anointed

Jesus is the one given to believers in baptism and dwells in the Christian community. The

Spirit accustoms the believing community to the reality of God and the gifts of service through different ministries. Irenaeus brought unique understandings of ministry by relating it to the concepts of the human person, salvation, and the church community. The Holy

Spirit is the source of life that originates ministry, establishing unity in the Church with

Christ and between Christians. This restoration of unity with the Spirit is given through baptism, and ministries nurture life in the Spirit, freely given to humanity.

There is much more explicit mention in the works of Irenaeus regarding the doctrinal aspect of Christian baptism, where water and the Spirit purify and cleanse the soul of the baptized. The Spirit restores to the human race the likeness and integrity lost as a result of the Fall. Irenaeus depicted Adam and Eve as infantile or in the state of development at the moment of the Fall. As the result of baptism, the believer receives an opportunity to enter a new stage of being with God, advancing to a deeper level of participation into communion

208 with the divine. For Irenaeus, these gifts of the Spirit are the start of a relationship of humanity with the Spirit as well as a pledge of incorruptibility. Baptism is the primary instrument for salvation for humanity as it also establishes communion with Christ and is the point of departure for the divinization process of humanity.

Baptism is for Irenaeus the threshold allowing for the possibility of the vision of God, as well as the instrument for regeneration and rebirth. The concept of regeneration

(ἀναγεννήσεως, regenerationis) is the one most used by the bishop of Lyons regarding baptism. This concept is not only related to baptism but to all the life and ministry of Jesus

Christ, from his birth through beyond his resurrection, with the regeneration of the flesh seen as the final resurrection of the just. Christ generated a new life for humanity and sanctified all the stages of life. This process is dispensed through the Holy Spirit who serves as an instrument for the new birth of humanity and provides the means for men and women to participate in the benefits of salvation and progressive union with God. It is particularly important to notice the little influence from the Pauline doctrine of baptism that is present in Irenaeus’ baptismal theology, even when the Pauline letters are repeatedly quoted in the oeuvre of the bishop of Lyons. Instead, there is a noticeable influence from concepts used by Christian writers of Irenaeus’ century and earlier: the gifts of the Spirit, regeneration and remission of sins, as well as sphragis and photismos.

Regarding the baptism of Jesus and its relevance for soteriology and Christology,

Irenaeus is firm in declaring, like Justin, that the baptism of Jesus is a baptism in the Spirit, not in Christ. The anointing of the Spirit in the flesh of the Son of God made it possible for all humanity to participate in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit accomplished in Jesus

209

Christ what will be later accomplished in humanity; the Spirit is engaged in the oikonomia of both the Incarnation and the destiny of humanity. The baptism of Jesus and the anointing of the Spirit reveal the identity of Jesus as the Christ.

The baptism in the Jordan is also intimately related to his Trinitarian theology. The baptism of Jesus manifested the unity of God and the unity of Jesus Christ. What makes

Irenaeus’s vision of the baptism different from Justin’s interpretation concerns the activity of the Holy Spirit. While Justin Martyr declared the baptism in the Jordan as just a sign of the power of Christ, Irenaeus went farther by doing an exegesis where the Word and Spirit are depicted without confusion. Irenaeus asserted the divinity of Jesus without lessening the importance of the descent of the Spirit. Another essential element in Irenaeus’ exegesis of the baptism of Jesus is the idea that the salvation of humanity is effected though the humanity of Jesus Christ, a significant aspect for future Christological developments.

The anointing of the Spirit at the Jordan as presented by Irenaeus has originated diverse interpretations regarding the nature of the anointing and its effects on Christ. The ideas expressed by Irenaeus in his works attest to an emphasis of the idea that the anointing of the Spirit affected the Son of God in his humanity, although the Word in his divine nature did not need this anointing. The Word is anointed in his humanity in order to save humanity. Passages like Adversus haereses III.9.3 also present some kind of distinction between the anointing of Jesus Christ in the flesh in order to save humanity and a cosmic anointing of the Word in his divine nature in order to redeem the cosmos. This kind of diverse anointing can also be detected in other passages of Irenaeus, e.g., Epideixis 47 and

Epideixis 53. The apparent contradiction presented on the abovementioned passages has

210 ignited debate among scholars concerning the interpretation of the theology of Irenaeus regarding the two natures of the Incarnate Word and the anointing of the Spirit at the

Jordan.

In my opinion, Briggman makes some assumptions that are not always in accord with what Irenaeus and his commentators have written. He suggests that studies about the baptism of Jesus have not dedicated enough attention to Irenaeus’ statement that the Spirit has become accustomed to humanity through the humanity of Jesus Christ. In this chapter I have presented ample evidence of authors, among them Orbe, who has extensively analyzed this issue and related it with different aspects of Irenaeus’ theology. The same can be said of Briggman’s claim that studies have not explained the anointing of Jesus’ humanity by the Spirit in relationship to the subsequent glorification of the rest of humanity, also by the Spirit. Clearly Orbe, Andia, Benoit, Fantino, and others are to be credited with reflections on the effects of Jesus’ anointing in the Jordan for both Jesus and the rest of humanity. However, the analyses of these scholars bring them to different conclusions than the conclusions of Briggman about Irenaeus’ view of the Spirit.

Nevertheless, these interpretations do not take away the reality that Irenaeus, in passages like Adversus haereses III.6.1 and Epideixis 47, presented the idea of the unction of the Spirit having a cosmic and pre-existential character. In my opinion this idea is not in contradiction with other passages that stress the anointing of the humanity of Jesus. The baptism in the Jordan is also a revelation to humanity about the eternal unction received by the Son from the Father. At the same time, the emphasis on Jesus’ receiving in his humanity the anointing at baptism establishes a relationship between Jesus Christ and all humanity.

211

Jesus Christ is the model of humanity, the Incarnate Word who recapitulates the nature and vocation of the human race both through the unity of divine Logos and the human Jesus. I concur with Ysabel de Andia that the passages where Irenaeus presents the anointing of

Jesus Christ as both God and human being are the reflections of the mystery of the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ has been anointed in the flesh because of his exceptional status as

God. The union of the flesh and the Spirit becomes a source of incorruptibility because this flesh is the one of the Son of God.

The anointing of the flesh of Jesus Christ is the catalyst that makes possible the relationship of the Spirit with humanity and the consequent outpouring of the Spirit over the Church. This anointing of Jesus Christ has also cosmic aspects in the theology of

Irenaeus, where the anointing at the baptism is also presented as a manifestation of the eternal anointing where the Father anoints all elements of creation through Christ. The

Spirit mentioned by the bishop of Lyons in his works is presented as a Spirit that has an autonomy of character as well as unity of identity: the same Spirit anoints Jesus Christ and the entire cosmos, bringing the same gift to the Church. Creation partakes in the process of redemption of humanity, and humanity is called to testify, through growth in the image of

Christ, of the progressive journey that is part of the divine plan for creation. Irenaeus presented in his theology a close relationship between humanity and creation. This relationship highly influenced his understanding of the significance of the baptism of Jesus and its relationship with the baptism of Christians.

Until now the discussion has been centered principally on the anointing of the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus and its necessity for the salvation of humanity. However, there is still a

212 very important aspect that needs to be discussed: were there any effects of the anointing of the Spirit on Christ? The next chapter will deal with this issue and will provide a closer look at contemporary interpretations of Irenaeus on this theme.

Chapter IV. The Effects of the Baptism and the Holy Spirit in the Deification of the

Humanity of Christ, According to Irenaeus of Lyons

In this chapter I will discuss the topic of whether Irenaeus believed that there were any effects of the anointing of the Spirit on Christ himself at the time of the baptism in the

Jordan. The discussion in this chapter, already announced in the last paragraph of Chapter

III, may be presented in this quote from Eric Osborn:

The baptism of Jesus was needed for the work of salvation, first, because the anointing of the spirit (3.9.3) was essential for a messiah and, second, because the descent of the spirit was necessary that the spirit might be accustomed to live in mankind, so as to work the will of the father by removing sinful habits (3.17.1). But what effect could baptism have on one who was from the moment of his spotless generation the incarnate word of God (3.19.1)? Can it be more than a sign of God’s purpose that humans could participate in the spirit manifest in Jesus? Irenaeus does indeed distinguish the incarnation, where the word is made flesh in Mary, from the anointing of the spirit at the Jordan. The baptism affected the flesh (that is the human nature) of Jesus until then he was united substantially to the Son of God, but not fisicamente – physically (that is qualitatively)—equipped for his saving mission. Can the baptism be the most important filial moment for Jesus, when it is not mentioned in the crucial text of 3.19.1?351

A close look at the work of Irenaeus suggests an affirmative answer. Nonetheless, there are a variety of interpretations regarding this issue. For example, regarding the title “Christ” and how this title is related to the baptism in the Jordan, Smith maintains that there is a connection in passages like Adv. haer. III.9.3 and III.12.7: “[The apostle Peter] witnessed that Jesus was himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ.”352 Smith disagrees with the interpretation of McDonnell and his suggestion that Irenaeus believed that Jesus is the Christ after the baptism. Smith bases his

351 Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, 133. 352 Daniel Smith, “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus,” 625.

213 214 criticism on this quote from McDonnell’s book: “From the moment the Spirit descends and anoints the Lord at the Jordan, this Jesus is called ‘the Christ’. Before the baptism Jesus is not the Christ. The baptism is a clear messianic boundary.” 353

Smith believes this assertion is incorrect because Irenaeus is very firm in his work that

Jesus did not become the Christ at the moment of the anointing; the Word was equally the

Christ from the conception. The title “Christ” can be applied to the whole life of Jesus, even though the title is derived from the anointing.354 Smith believes that Irenaeus uses the title

“Christ” as a derivation of the distinctive title for the Incarnate Word, the Anointed. The link between the baptism in the Jordan and the name “Christ” present in Adv. haer. III.9.3 is also present in other passages of the work, e.g. III.12.7, where Irenaeus depicts the testimony of the apostle Peter of Jesus’ being the Son of God who is also called Jesus Christ because of being anointed by the Spirit. Therefore, the word “Christ” is related to the whole existence of the Incarnate Word, for Christ means anointed and Jesus was so anointed at the Jordan.

There seems to be no discrepancy between what Smith is defending and McDonnell’s position. Also the quote used by Smith is simply taken out of context. In McDonnell’s The

Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan the arguments that come prior to the above earlier state the following:

The anointing at the Jordan has large messianic content related immediately to mission. The anointing comes out of the prophetic tradition which promises that the Spirit of God will descend on the Expected One…. Though conceived in the power of the Spirit from the moment of conception, only at the baptism does the Lord receive the Spirit in order to communicate it to others.355

353 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 118. 354 Smith, “Irenaeus and Baptism of Jesus,” 625. 355 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 117-118.

215

McDonnell bases this line of thought on what is expressed by Irenaeus in Adv. haer. III.17.4:

“The Spirit, therefore, descending under the predestined dispensation, and the Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is also the Word of the Father….” This descent of the Spirit at the

Jordan is seen by McDonnell as an anointing that has to do only with the humanity of the

Incarnate God, not to the divinity. This assertion is in agreement with the position of Albert

Houssiau356 and in disagreement with the position of Antonio Orbe mentioned in the previous chapter.

Houssiau (1922- ) a Belgian Catholic priest, theologian, ecclesiologist and liturgist, and bishop of Liège from 1986 until 2001, describes that Irenaeus in Adv. haer. III.9.3 and

III.17.1-4 intended to demonstrate the unity of God, where in Jesus Christ is accomplished the outpouring of the Spirit promised by the prophet Isaiah. Houssiau’s argument is also offered with further emphasis on the unity of Jesus Christ. In III. 9. 3 Irenaeus examines the account of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16 in comparison with the effusion of the

Spirit announced by the prophets. As a result of this analysis, Irenaeus asserts that Christ has received the Spirit promised by the prophets. For Irenaeus, Jesus becomes Jesus Christ by the unction of the Spirit; this was possible because the Word became flesh. The name

“Jesus” refers to the Word, Lord of all creation; the name “Christ” is given to Jesus by his anointing by the Spirit. The name “Jesus Christ” is therefore a designation of the Incarnate

Word anointed by the Spirit.357 This idea was elaborated in Adv. haer. III.17.1-4, where

Irenaeus responded to the question of how the Spirit descended on the Son of God.

356 Houssiau, La Christologie de Saint Irénée, 166-181. 357 Ibid., 174-176.

216

Irenaeus states that this was possible because of the Incarnation and in order for humanity to participate in the anointing of the Spirit:

Il ne suffit pas que le Christ soit uni à Jésus, il faut que le Christ Jésus soit une seule et même personne, passible et impassible. Celui qui est descendu en Jésus, c’est sans doute l’Esprit mais l’Esprit ne descend dans le Verbe que parce qu’il est devenu chair. Dans cette humanité concrète de Jésus-Christ s’accomplit le dessein de Dieu, prévu et annoncé par les prophètes, de répandre l’Esprit sur toute l’humanité. 358

Houssiau therefore presents that in Adversus haereses, Irenaeus is consistent in declaring that in the name Χριστός there is a designation of the Son of God becoming the Son of man, an implication of both the humanity and divinity of the Incarnate Word. Only a human being could have been anointed by the Spirit, but only a human being who is the Son of God.

Irenaeus also elaborates on the interpretation of Χριστόϛ in his Epideixis:

And His name is twofold: in the Hebrew language ‘Messiah’ [means] ‘Christ’, and <…> ‘Jesus’, Saviour’, and both of these names are the names of deeds accomplished. For He is named ‘Christ’, since through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things, and [because], His advent (παρουσία) as man, He was anointed with the Spirit of God His Father, as He Himself says of Himself, by Isaias, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me, to bring good tidings to the poor.” And [He is called] ‘Saviour’, from this, that He was the cause of salvation to those who at that time were freed by Him from all kinds of sickness and from death <…>, and to those, who, after them, believed in Him, [He is] the procurer of and eternal salvation. 359

Houssiau asserts that for Irenaeus the concept of Χριστόϛ is intimately connected with the idea of an unction, an idea that is in consonance with his predecessors, especially Justin.

However, Irenaeus applies his own interpretation to the concept:

Mais en abandonnant les vues de Justin, Irénée se rapproche de la terminologie du Livre des Actes : il admet comme Pierre (Act., II, 36) que Jésus est devenu Christ (alors que Justin niait que Jésus ait été fait « Christ » ou

358 Ibid., 178. 359 Epideixis 53, in On the Apostolic Preaching (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press), 75.

217

Messie). Cependant, la parenté des formules cache deux christologies toutes différentes. Pour le Livre des Actes, « Jésus » désigne le nom issu de Nazareth, tandis que le « Christ » signifie la puissance et la dignité divines. Pour Irénée au contraire, « Jésus » désigne la personne divine, à savoir le Verbe, tandis que le nom « Christ » est attribué à Jésus en raison de l’humanité qu’il a assumée. « Jésus devient Jésus-Christ » veut simplement dire que « le Verbe devient chair ». 360

For Houssiau this is the innovation of Irenaeus in relation with early Christology, an innovation that would be highly influential for future theologians. Daniel Vigne agrees with

Houssiau’s position:

A une vision dualiste du Baptême, Irénée oppose donc une christologie unificatrice. Le Jourdain n’est pas le lieu d’une jonction entre éléments hétérogènes, mais d’une onction dans laquelle l’Esprit s’unit intimement et définitivement a la chair. Le même Jésus qui était de toute éternité le Verbe, s’étant fait homme, est « imprégné » dans son humanité de l’Esprit divin…Historiquement, cette onction est celle que Jésus a reçue au seuil de sa vie publique, c’est-à-dire au Baptême. C’est cette onction qui l’a fait « devenir Jésus-Christ ». 361

McDonnell, in agreement with authors like Houssiau and Vigne, sees Irenaeus as presenting the baptism in the Jordan in opposition to the gnostic perception of the anointing being related to the divinity of Christ. McDonnell also presents references to Epideixis 41 where

Irenaeus depicts John the Baptist as someone who prepared the people “for the reception of the Word of Life, made it known that He is the Christ, upon whom the Spirit of God rested, blending with His flesh.”362 However, Irenaeus does not discard the divinity of Christ from this process, as he stated in Adv. haer. III.9.3, that only a human being can receive the anointing by the Spirit, and that this person is the Word of God. The baptism of Jesus is for

360 Houssiau, La Christologie d’Irénée, 185. 361 Vigne, Christ au Jourdain, 79-80. 362 Epideixis 41, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 66.

218

Irenaeus the manifestation of the Spirit descending on the incarnate flesh of the Son of God, not the manifestation of the union of the human Jesus with the divine Christ.363

This comparison is a good example of the diverse scholarly interpretations regarding the Christological aspects of the baptism. Some scholars hold the opinion that the anointing of the Spirit did not produce any substantial change to the Incarnate Word. Jacques Fantino,

O.P., is such an example of this position. Fantino, professor emeritus of the University of

Lorraine, has both a scientific and theological formation, with research interests in the relationship between science and theology, creation theology, and theological anthropology.

Fantino states that the baptism represented the start of the messianic ministry. It is in the

Incarnation, according to Fantino, that the Son of God receives the Spirit in his humanity:

L’incarnation est aussi toute l’histoire terrestre du Christ Jésus jusqu’à sa mort inclusivement. Elle comprend également sa résurrection et sa vie sans fin dans la gloire. Pour résumer, l’incarnation est un mystère qui englobe la création de l’humanité du Christ Jésus (c’est-à-dire la conception virginale), sa vie terrestre conforme à la volonté du Père, sa mort et sa résurrection. Dans l’incarnation, le Fils en tant qu’homme reçoit l’Esprit Saint en lui et sur lui, ce qui nous rappelle l’idée rencontrée précédemment de l’Esprit qui enveloppe l’homme du dedans et du dehors. A la conception virginale, en effet, le Fils incarné reçoit l’Esprit Saint. Puis, la descente de l’Esprit sur le Fils incarné, lors du baptême au Jourdain, l’établit comme Christ….364

The Incarnation becomes then for Fantino the life history of Jesus Christ until his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. At the Jordan the descent of the Spirit on Jesus established him as the Christ, but there was not a substantial change in the Son of God. This gift of the Spirit had a gradual manifestation in the events of Christ’s life and in his total obedience to the Father, reaching its climax in the Gospel episodes of the temptation in the

363 McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, 118. 364 Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée, 224.

219 desert and at the crucifixion. It is at the Resurrection when Jesus Christ manifests his possession of the Spirit in all its fullness.

Other scholars assert the Jordan baptism as having a more significant effect on Jesus

Christ. This relevant aspect of the baptism of Jesus was particularly present in Antonio Orbe,

SJ (1917-2003). Orbe was a student of Pierre Courceille and became from 1949 professor at the Gregorian University of Rome, and dedicated himself to the study of the doctrines of the Early Church, mainly from the second and third centuries. His study was mostly concentrated on Valentinian Gnosticism, the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and the theology of the schools of Asian minor and Alexandria. His work offers the innovation of formulating a pluralist Christianity as well as associating the dogmatic representation with the ancient discourses of scriptural texts.

Orbe believes that there are two elements in the life of Jesus: the Incarnation, where the Word assumes human flesh, and the anointing or baptism of the Spirit in the Jordan where Jesus is anointed in the flesh by the Spirit and made Jesus Christ. This anointing is not in conflict with the personal union that is the fruit of the Incarnation. The anointing of the

Spirit then affects the human flesh of Jesus, who was not until then physically (or qualitatively) prepared for the salvific mission.365 Irenaeus used an analysis of the prophecies of Isaiah 11 and 61 to present the nature, purpose, and efficacy of the anointing by the Spirit: the humanity of Jesus was anointed by the Father with his Spirit (unctus est a

Patre Spiritu) for the sake of the salvation of humanity (salus hominis).

365 Orbe, Introducción, 666.

220

The Word Incarnate was not anointed by the Spirit before the baptism, nor was his flesh habilitated for messianic acts. Therefore, the baptism introduces a new element in

Jesus where his flesh is anointed in his human nature on behalf of the Church:

El Pneuma de Dios que, a modo de crisma, unge la Sarx de Jesús en el Bautismo, penetra--- durante la vida del Nazareno--- a través de ella, adquiriendo el aroma filial de la Carne del Hijo de Dios, y habilitándose para, infundido en Sus hermanos, hacerlos “hijos también de la complacencia del Padre”. Jesús no podrá comunicar a Sus hermanos la propia Sarx; pero si el Espíritu, con el aroma dejado en él, por comunión con su Sarx. 366

In this process the Spirit of God is united to the human nature of Jesus to enable it to progressively perform spiritual and divine acts, making human nature totally receptive to the grace of God:

Primero viene el Bautismo del Jordán. La adaptación de la carne de Jesús al Espíritu de Dios no es repentina. Inicia en el Jordán y continúa a lo largo de la vida pública de Jesús. Se desarrolla de modo singularísimo en la Pasión y Muerte. Y se consuma en la Resurrección de Jesús, al momento en que la carne de Cristo abandona la “forma servi” o cualidades congénitas al humano plasma y reviste la “forma Dei” con las cualidades congénitas al Espíritu de Dios (resp. Del Verbo). 367

Orbe will not circumscribe this new element only for the welfare of the Church: “Ungido

Jesús con el Espíritu en el Jordán, no solo hará milagros y curaciones, o dará a conocer el evangelio del Padre. En virtud de su unción bautismal se adelantará hasta la muerte de Cruz,

366 Antonio Orbe, Espiritualidad de San Ireneo (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1989), 163. “The Pneuma of God which, by way of chrism, anoints the Sarx of Jesus in his baptism, penetrates through the Sarx during the life of the Nazarene, acquires the aroma of the flesh of the Son of God, and enables the flesh, infused in his brothers, to make them "sons of the complacency of the father". Jesus may not communicate to their brothers his own Sarx; but the Spirit can, with the aroma left in the flesh of Jesus by the communion with the Sarx.” (My translation) 367 Orbe, Introducción 171.” First comes the baptism in the Jordan. The adaptation of the flesh of Jesus to the Spirit of God is not sudden. It starts at the Jordan and continues throughout the public life of Jesus and develops in a unique way in the passion and death. And the adaptation is consummated in the resurrection of Jesus, when the flesh of Christ abandons the "forma servi" or the congenital qualities of the human plasma and is coated in the “forma Dei" with the congenital qualities of the Spirit of God (proper to the Word).” (My translation)

221 y resucitará de entre los muertos, y subirá en cuanto hombre al Padre.”368 Irenaeus presented this argument by referring to Christ’s own testimony as presented in the Gospels.

In Adv. haer. III.18.4 there is a referral to Matthew 16-13-21, where Jesus asked his disciples:

“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The question is not about the Word of God, but about the Son of Man. Jesus wanted to know the disciples’ opinion about his identity.

Peter’s response, “You are the Messiah (or Christ) the Son of the living God,” is inspired by the Father and confirms that Jesus, the Son of Man, is also Christ, the Son of God.

Irenaeus continues citing the pericope from the Gospel of Matthew in order to refute the claim by dissident groups that Jesus was not the Christ during the passion and death:

“From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Irenaeus presents that Jesus himself, both God and man, has to suffer the Passion. The antithetical idea of Christ, the Son of God crucified, taught by Jesus himself, was a scandal both to the apostle Peter and the Hebrew religious mentality. 369

The humanity of Christ is, according to Orbe, perfected in baptism. Even when Jesus himself did not need the anointing for his own human perfection, his flesh was sanctified in a final way in the baptism in order to become in actuality the Saviour of all human creatures.

This perfection of the humanity of Christ has an intimate relationship with the anointing of the Word. There is a connection between the anointing of the creator and the Incarnate

368 Orbe, El Espíritu en el bautismo de Jesús, 692. “Anointed Jesus with the Spirit in the Jordan, he will not only perform miracles and cures, or make known the Gospel of the Father. By his baptismal anointing Jesus Christ will go forward to his death of the cross, his rising from the dead, and his ascension in the flesh to the Father.” (My translation) 369Orbe, El Espíritu en el bautismo de Jesús, 692-693.

222

Word. The Word received the anointing in order to sustain the universe. In the same way, at the Jordan Jesus was anointed as the perfect human being after a process of human development. The Father anointed Jesus in his humanity, and the Spirit dwelt in the flesh of

Jesus in order to habituate it for a new mission.

El Verbo no hubiera sido hecho Hijo natural de Dios al no estar destinado para mediar personalmente entre el Padre y los hombres. Tampoco Jesús hubiera sido exaltado desde Nazaret a la filiación natural de Dios, si no hubiera de salvar a los hombres, en su misma naturaleza humana. En el Bautismo del Jordán Jesús fue actu, y no solo virtualmente, constituido salvador de los hombres. Virtualmente lo era, como Verbo Encarnado, desde su concepción. Solo en el Jordán fue como tal la naturaleza humana del Verbo santificada, con un Espíritu destinado a los hombres. Ungido el hombre podría ungir—de hombre a hombre—a los demás, salvando lo semejante por lo semejante. 370

Orbe defines this anointing as the moment where the Spirit began to be connatural with human nature. The agent of the Holy Spirit and formal source of salvation is the Incarnate

Word. However, this sanctification of the human nature of Jesus at the Jordan did not enable him full soteriological power. Jesus Christ was enabled though his baptism to perform miracles and preach the Gospel but would not infuse the Spirit on the human race until his rising from the dead. The humanity of Jesus was therefore involved in a maturation process that would reach its plenitude at the resurrection, giving the Spirit the necessary faculties in order to sanctify the Church. This position of Irenaeus of Lyons is for Orbe consonant with the theology of the second century where the anointing of the Word at his

370 . Orbe, La unción del Verbo, 632-633. “The Word would not have been made the natural son of God if he would not have been intended to be the personal mediator between the Father and humanity. Jesus would neither have been exalted from Nazareth to the natural sonship with God, if he was not intended to save humanity in their own human nature. In the baptism at the Jordan Jesus was constituted Saviour of humanity not only virtually but in actuality. As the Incarnate Word, Jesus was virtually constituted Saviour from his conception. Only in the Jordan was the human nature of the Word sanctified, with a Spirit destined for humanity. The anointing of the human nature made available the anointing of other humans (from human to human), where likeness was saved by likeness.” (My translation)

223 baptism enabled Jesus to enter into a radical change in his life and his mission as a human being. 371

Daniel Smith analyzes Orbe’s position regarding the Christological implications of Jesus’ baptism and poses two relevant questions in relation to the state of Jesus’ humanity before and after the baptism. If Orbe is correct in his interpretation, then Irenaeus agrees with the gnostics regarding the idea that Jesus did not perform miracles before the baptism because he needed the baptism in order to perform them. It would seem then that the main difference between the bishop of Lyons and the gnostics on this issue was about the identity of the one who anoints and descends at the baptism. However, there are more differences between Irenaeus and the gnostics regarding the flesh of Jesus: the Gnostic doctrine does not see the body of Jesus as material but as ensouled (psychikos), and nothing material is capable of salvation. Irenaeus, on the other hand, will differ totally with this view:

Christ’s body shares the same substance as the rest of humanity, the only difference being his sinlessness. If Jesus was anointed in the flesh by the Spirit in order to receive the divine attributes for the messianic ministry, this understanding might lead to the conclusion that

Jesus’s humanity was not united to the divine before the anointing.

Smith poses a further question: How then does Irenaeus understand the humanity of

Christ after the baptism? Orbe’s position, as was mentioned before, is that the flesh of Jesus

Christ received the full possession of the Holy Spirit and was therefore divinized. Smith sees this position as problematic, agreeing with Jacques Fantino that it is difficult to understand

371 La unción del Verbo., 633-635.

224 the real intention of Irenaeus in the texts that deal with the inhabitation of the Spirit in the humanity of Christ.372

A text from Adversus haereses that can shed some light on Irenaeus’ view of the relationship between Christ and the Spirit is the following: “For it was for this end that the

Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the Son of God.”373 This passage motivated a substantial article by Antonio Orbe 374 in which the author addresses whether Irenaeus also extended the adoption to Jesus Christ.

The meaning of this passage in Adv. haer. III. 19.1 is not clear. The Latin and Greek translations do not give conclusive sense of the expression “ut homo, commixtus Verbo Dei et adoptionem percipiens fiat filius Dei”, or “ἵνα ὁ ἅνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας, καὶ τὴν

υἱοθεσίαν λαϐὼν, υἱòς γένηται Θεού” as applicable to Christ in his humanity or to the rest of the human race. The Greek text comes from a quote from a fragment by Theodoret called Eranistes and has been accepted with reservations. Orbe is of the opinion that it was probable that Theodoret interpreted the phrase as referring to the human nature of Christ, who united with the Word, received the filial adoption and became the Son of God. Orbe’s own translation of the sentence follows his understanding of Theodoret’s interpretation:

“Con ese fin efectivamente hízose hombre el Verbo de Dios (gr. ὀ Λόγος), e hijo del hombre el Hijo de Dios: para que el hombre mezclado al Verbo de Dios (gr. χωρήσας τὸν Λὀγον) y

372 Smith, 633-634. 373 Adv. haer. III.19.1, in Rodgers and Donaldson, eds., The Apostolic Fathers, 448. 374 Antonio Orbe, “¿San Ireneo adopcionista?: En torno a Adv.hae. III.IX.I,” Gregorianum 65 (1984): 5-52.

225 percibiendo la adopción de hijos (τὴν νἱοθεσίαν λαβών) se haga hijo de Dios.” 375 Orbe also presents the Latin translation of this passage from Adversus haereses from three sources: the first Latin version, the Greek version by Theodoret, and the Armenian version, as follows:

Iren. Lat. ut homo commixtus Verbo Dei et adoptionem percipiens fiat filius Dei Teodoteto ut homo verbum capiens et adoptionem assecutos filius Dei edificatur. Galata 54 ut homo, perfectus et percipiens a Verbo adoptionem, flilus fiat Dei. 376

Orbe shows how in a translation to the same language, there are obvious indications of different nuances from its original sources, making it difficult to establish a conclusive meaning.

The editors of Adversus haereses have reached different conclusions about the meaning of the passage and its reference to the clause “that man.” Erasmus refers to it as related to the human nature of Christ (Eodem in loco s. Irenaeus dicit, Christum juxta humanam naturam adoptatum, ut fieret filius Dei). 377 Feuardent saw two possibilities of interpretation (either Christ’s human nature, or the nature of humanity, “coetus piorum hominum” However, Massuet was firm in declaring Adv. haer.III. 19. 1 as referring only to redeemed humanity. The edition of Rousseau has the Latin phrase ut homo in brackets and the French translation is more in consonance with the possible interpretation of the expression referring only to humanity: “ Car telle est la raison pour l’laquelle le Verbe s’est

375 Orbe, “¿San Ireneo Adopcionista?”36. 376 Orbe, Espiritualidad de San Ireneo, 168. 377 Ibíd., 169.

226 fait home, et le Fils de Dieu, Fils de l’homme: c’est pour que l’homme, en se mélangeant au

Verbe et en recevant ainsi l’adoption filiale, devienne fils de Dieu”. 378

Even when the passage is related mainly to the Incarnation, Orbe will analyze Adv. haer. III.19.1 regarding the baptism in the Jordan, the moment where the humanity is anointed by the Holy Spirit and the Word becomes the Son of God for the sake of all humanity. Orbe presents the different interpretations from the second century for the baptismal generation of Jesus, as well as the manner in which Irenaeus challenged the interpretations of Ebionites and Valentinians. The bishop of Lyons would center his reflection on the necessity of a natural sonship of the Word and a complementary sonship acquired during the baptism. As to other of Orbe’s writings previously discussed, there is a great emphasis on the necessity of Jesus’ acquiring the union pneuma-sarx in order to establish a physical mediation for the sake of all men and women:

Ireneo acentúa ambos elementos, personal y físico, uniéndolos con la humana substancia. La comunión Verbo/hombre, por sí sola, no es vivificante…. Es preciso que al Verbo/carne se le comunique, complemento indispensable, el Espíritu de Dios, principio de vida inmortal…. Más aún, que vaya siempre en incremento para ‘espiritualizarle’ físicamente hasta la teleiôsis, hasta hacer de él un hombre divinamente perfecto en la carne…. En virtud de la unión personal, el Salvador está aún destituido del Espíritu que salva. Solo en virtud del crisma recibido en el Jordán, pasa a ser salvífico. He ahí lo saludable, principio deífico para los hombres.379

378 Adelin Rousseau, Louis Doutreleau, ed. and trans., Irénée de Lyon : Contre les hérésies, Livre III. Edition Critique, 2 vols. SC 210-211 (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 2. 374-375. 379 Orbe, “¿San Ireneo adopcionista?”, 39-40. “Irenaeus emphasizes both personal and physical elements, linking them with the human substance. The Word/human communion, by itself, is not life-giving.... It is necessary that the Spirit of God, principle of immortal life and indispensable complement be communicated to the Word/flesh... Moreover, it is necessary that the communication always go in incremental order to 'spiritualize’ him physically up to the teleiôsis, to make him a man divinely perfect in the flesh.... By virtue of the personal union, the Saviour was still devoid of the Spirit that saves. Only by virtue of the chrism received in the Jordan, he becomes salvific. This is the salutary, deific principle for humanity.” (My translation)

227

Orbe stresses that for Irenaeus the Incarnation in itself as the radical process in which the

Word acquires human flesh and makes it compatible with divine life as well as an instrument of salvation. However, Jesus Christ is able to habilitate humanity Himself by the

Spirit that his flesh received at the Jordan. Only the flesh of Jesus Christ, united in person with the Word of God from the Incarnation, and united in nature (qualitatively) with the

Spirit of God from the Baptism, could give women and men the salvific element of the Spirit with God, making them sons and daughters of God.

According to Orbe, in Irenaeus there is no opposition to the idea of the adoption of

Christ during the baptism. The bishop of Lyons was objecting to Ebionite ideas of the baptismal adoption (when Jesus is presented as mere human person at the moment of the baptism) and the Valentinian adoption (when instead of the Spirit Christ descends on Jesus).

Irenaeus also will emphasize that in the baptism in the Jordan there is a regeneration or reconciliation of the human nature:

El Verbo conoce tres generaciones o nacimientos: eterna a Patre, según la naturaleza divina; temporal a Matre según la carne; y temporal a Patre durante el bautismo del Jordán, según también la carne. Este último nacimiento le hace a Jesús, por nuevo título, Hijo del Padre, y determina un cambio físico, cualitativo en su naturaleza humana, de índole similar a la de los demás hombres, bautizado en Espíritu. 380

The humanity of Christ is therefore the one that is reconciled with the Father for the sake of humanity. As a result of the anointing of the Spirit in the Jordan, Jesus becomes the Son of man. This transformation entails a qualitative change in the human nature of Jesus Christ,

380 Orbe, “¿San Ireneo adopcionista?” 50. “The Word has known three generations or births: eternal a Patre, according to divine nature; temporal a Matre according to the flesh; and temporary a Patre during the baptism in the Jordan, also according to the flesh. This last birth gives Jesus by a new title Son of the Father, and determines a physical, qualitative change in his human nature, similar to the one of the other men and women baptized in the spirit.” (My translation)

228 and is similar to the situation of the rest of the baptized. This change is accomplished with the participation of the qualitative dynamic principle that is called by Irenaeus “Spiritus”,

“qualitas Spiritus,” “munus adoptionis” or “filiorum adoptio.” Jesus, anointed in the Father by the Spirit

(unctus est a Patre Spiritu) in the Jordan, assimilates the Spirit in his own flesh with the intention of communicating the Spirit to humanity in due time. For Orbe, the mysteries of

Christ from the Incarnation are destined for the deification of women and men. This deification is accomplished with the infusion of the Spirit of God with human flesh.

Humanity acquires in the flesh the faculty of becoming a child of God. 381

At the same time, Orbe is aware of the apparent difficulties that could create any type of association between Christ and adoption. This unease is solved by analyzing the work of

Irenaeus and his view of the nature of the adoption. As the result of his study, Orbe determines that Irenaeus does not oppose the idea of the adoption of Christ except in the interpretation of the Ebionites. For Irenaeus, Jesus reconciled in himself the nature or substance of human beings, as the transgression had to do with the sarx or the nature and not with the person of humanity. Irenaeus presents Jesus Christ as both the firstborn of the

Father and the adoptive Son in the flesh from his baptism in the Spirit:

En la economía del Salvador se advierte un doble fenómeno antitético: uno descendiente e instantáneo, a saber la Encarnación del Hijo de Dios. El Verbo desciende y asume de golpe la humana sarx en el seno de la Virgen María. Otro ascendente y lento, a saber la Deificación, según la carne, del Hijo de Dios: la cual comienza en el Jordán, con la efusión plenaria del Espíritu de Dios sobre

381 Orbe, Espiritualidad de San Ireneo, 171-172.

229

la carne de Jesús, y termina con la Pasión, asimilada enteramente la Carne de Jesús a la Vida del Espíritu (resp. a la Forma del Espíritu, o “forma Dei”). 382

However, there is no certitude whether this process is regarded as adoption by Irenaeus.

Orbe conclusively believes that the passage in III.19.1 does not present with certitude that

Irenaeus of Lyons believed in the adoption of Jesus Christ as a human being, but at the same time there is nothing that contradicts this interpretation.383 For Orbe the Spirit has the same deifying efficacy over the flesh of Jesus that the Spirit will have over believers after

Pentecost. If the Spirit that is poured over the baptized is a Spirit of adoption, why would this not apply to Jesus Christ, whose flesh was regenerated by a new birth different and diverse from the Incarnation?

Orbe’s interpretation presents the baptism as the central event of filial adoption of the humanity of Jesus Christ. However, other writers have different perspectives on the subject of the filial adoption. Daniel Smith sees Orbe’s position as one that is problematic, its main weakness being that Adv. haer. III.19.1 is concerned with the Incarnation, not the baptism at the Jordan. 384 Smith concedes that Orbe is right in declaring the text of AH

III.19.1 to be in accordance with an orthodox reading, as the term anthropos could refer to humanity, taken into the Word and receiving the filial adoption through the Incarnation.

However, there is the possibility that the word anthropos could refer only to Jesus or to the human nature of the Word made flesh. Smith has two significant difficulties with Orbe’s

382 Ibid., 176.” There is in the economy of the Saviour a double antithetical phenomenon: one descendant and instant, namely the Incarnation of the Son of God, where the Word descends and immediately assumes the human sarx in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The other phenomenon is ascendant and gradual, namely the deification according to the flesh of the Son of God, which starts in the Jordan, with the plenary outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the flesh of Jesus, and ends with the Passion, where the flesh of Jesus is entirely integrated into the life of the Spirit (ref. to the way of the spirit, or "forma Dei").” (My translation) 383 Orbe, “¿Ireneo adopcionista?” 47-50. 384 Smith, 634-639.

230 argument. The first one has to do with the interpretation of the adoption of the human nature of Jesus Christ. The second concern is whether Irenaeus can be called an adoptionist.

Smith studies Orbe’s analysis of Adv. haer. III. 19.1 and its effort in contextualizing

Irenaeus’ perception regarding filial adoption and how it is opposed to the view of dissenting groups. Orbe finds that there is agreement between Irenaeus and groups like the

Valentinians regarding the existence of a sonship that could be based on option and merit: human beings could take the characteristics of God or the devil by their choices and actions.

Therefore this kind of sonship could be defined as an adoption that affects the nature of men and women. It is in regards to anthropology where Irenaeus and the Valentinians differ:

Irenaeus believes in the capacity of all children of God to choose to become a child of God, contrary to the Valentinian view that only certain individuals have that capacity to make that fundamental option. Smith finds this analysis of Orbe confusing. The position presented by Orbe in his analysis of Adversus haereses III.19.1 is that the adoption presented in this passage by Irenaeus is the result of the divine attributes given to the humanity of Christ during his baptism. The strong language used by Orbe and his insistence that the flesh of Christ is sanctified and adopted as the Son of God at the baptism in the

Jordan is seen by Smith as a result of a confusion in Orbe with the concept of “nature.”

Smith believes that Orbe in order to create his theory mixes the concept of nature in the sonship discussions of the second century with concepts of nature that were part of the

Christological debates of later centuries.

Smith is also concerned about how Orbe uses the term “adoptionist” in connection with Irenaeus. A second century Christological controversy that will be later articulated in

231 the Iberian Peninsula during the eight and ninth centuries, adoptionism questions whether

Jesus was an adoptive Son of God in his human nature. Smith sees Orbe’s position as anachronistic; the concept of “adoptionism” relates to a group of beliefs about the sonship of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, did not have in his discourse the concepts of hypostasis and person that were so prevalent in the development of the

Christological statements of later centuries. Smith thinks that Irenaeus was mostly concerned with defending the unity of Jesus Christ and the communication of his two natures during the second century. 385

Smith agrees with Orbe that the adoption that is described in Adv. haer. III.19.I comes as a result of the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on Jesus during the baptism. Irenaeus will then present Christ as someone who in his human nature received the divine gifts of incorruptibility and immortality and therefore was the instrument for the adoption of the faithful:

Orbe is correct in understanding the adoption referred in Adv hae. 3.19.1 as occurring on the level of attributes, because the filial adoption (or deification) of the human nature of Christ is effected through the gifts of the Spirit, which are to be understood as divine attributes….The incarnate Word is one Son from the time of conception, and the deification of the human nature does not create another Son. But the chief weakness of Orbe’s argument is that in Adv. hae. 3.19.1 Irenaeus has the Incarnation in view, not the baptism. Orbe uses the Luke 3:22 variant, which cites Psalm 2:7, to frame the discussion of Adv hae. 3.19.1, in spite of the fact that the passage does not appear in this context. The question therefore arises: If Irenaeus does not explicitly mentions Jesus’ baptism in Adv. hae. 3.19.1, is the baptism the most important filial moment for Jesus’ humanity?386

385 Smith, 635-636. 386 Ibid., 639.

232

Personally I find Smith’s presentation of Orbe’s focus on the baptism the main weakness of

Smith’s position, as he himself refers to Adv. haer. III.19.1 as a passage “relevant to our study because it can be read as referring to Jesus’s adoption (in his human nature) as the

Son of God,”387 and then Smith goes on at length to analyze Orbe’s article.

Smith favors the interpretation of Ysabel de Andia, who believes that there is in Jesus a unique mystery, the mystery of the Word made flesh, a person both human and divine. 388

Ysabel de Andia understands incorruptibility as given to humanity by their communion and union with God. At the same time it is not only through the Incarnation that humanity receives incorruptibility. Irenaeus is clear in expressing that incorruptibility is also given to men and women through the passion and resurrection of Christ. Ysabel de Andia refers to the text of Adversus haereses to confirm her point of view, especially by this passage: “But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely accidental passion; not only was

He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption.”389

Ysabel de Andia determines that Irenaeus’ work reveals that his analysis of the incarnation was centered on the blending of the divinity and humanity of Christ. However, an emphasis on other events of the life of Jesus Christ (e.g. his baptism, passion and resurrection) is centered on the study of the relationship of the flesh of the Word with the

Spirit of God. In other words, the gift of incorruptibility is given to humanity by the union and communion between God and humanity caused by the Incarnation. This incorruptibility

387 Ibid., 635. 388 Andia, Homo vivens, 185-201. 389 Adv. haer. II, 20.3, in Against Heresies (Ex Fontibus CO: 2010), 211.

233 is also manifested in the glorification of the flesh by the Spirit when the Spirit rested on the flesh of Jesus Christ at his baptism. Incorruptibility is therefore not only given by the hypostatic union but also by the mysteries of the life of Jesus that prepare his humanity for his exaltation to glory. There is the mystery of the Word made flesh and his human and divine natures. There are also the mysteries of the life of Jesus, where the humanity of Jesus is acquainted by the Spirit in a progressive way and becomes the source of the gift of the

Spirit to humanity. Ysabel de Andia then states that Irenaeus presents in his works that there is a unique mystery of the person of Jesus and mysteries of the human life of Jesus that are connected with the relation of the flesh and the Spirit. 390

For Ysabel de Andia there is in the Christology of Irenaeus a profound Johannine influence. The Word became flesh in order for the flesh to assume the Spirit and receive incorruptibility. At his baptism Jesus anticipated the Pentecostal event. Because the Spirit dwelt in the Son of God, it could also dwell in the Body of Christ, the Church. The baptism in the Jordan is also related to Christ’s Passion. In continuation with the style of the Gospels, the two events could be defined as the baptism of water and the baptism of fire. As the baptism of water is a ceremonial wash of purification, Jesus’ death is the ultimate purification, the fire promised by Jesus in Luke 12:49-50 (“I came to bring fire to the world, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!”). The passion and death of Christ is the final trial for his flesh in order to be glorified by the Spirit. There is a complementarity between the baptism in the Jordan and the passion: the baptism of water forestalled the baptism of

390 Ysabel de Andia, Homo vivens, 185-186.

234 fire of the Passion, and the fire of the passion purified the water at the Jordan. This complementarity, already observed by Ignatius of Antioch, made the baptism of Jesus both the source of purification for the waters of the Jordan and for the unction of incorruptibility for the Church. 391

With the Resurrection, the flesh of Christ is transformed to such a degree that it reveals the light of Christ and communicates incorruptibility to humanity through the gift of the Spirit. The flesh of Christ is perfected by the mysteries of his life, and this glorious flesh is the source of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the only instrument of incorruptibility for the human race. Therefore, there are three principle moments in the filial existence of

Jesus: the Incarnation, the baptism, and the resurrection. All the life of Jesus Christ is a source of reconciliation between God and humanity, where the flesh of Christ becomes for humanity the access to incorruptibility:

Entre l’incarnation et la glorification, il y a une transformation de la chair du Christ qui correspond à un envahissement de plus en plus grand de l’Esprit: l’Esprit qui était “uni et mêlé à la chair” dès la conception du Christ, a oint cette même chair au baptême et l’a ressuscité après la mort, l’élevant dans la gloire auprès du Père. Et ce n’est qu’après la glorification de sa chair que le Christ nous donne l’Esprit.392

Ysabel de Andia presents these three main principle moments in the life of Jesus Christ as events that denote a greater presence of the Spirit in connection with the filiation of Christ.

This idea can be seen in concordance with Romans 1:3-4: “…the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

391 Andia, Homo vivens, 192-193. 392 Ibid., 201.

235 our Lord…”. Irenaeus cited this passage in Adv. haer. III.16.3 and made a connection between the Resurrection and the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. This connection is the source of the filial adoption for people of faith: “….Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of

God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption, -----(sic) humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God.”393Therefore, for Ysabel de Andia, the baptism of Jesus in the

Jordan is presented by Irenaeus as an important moment in the progressive reception of the Spirit both for Christ and for humanity.

Anthony A. Briggman, assistant professor of the History of Early Christianity, Candler

School of Theology, Emory University, has concentrated his research on the Greek and Latin theologies constructed between A.D. 100 and 500. His first book established the Jewish roots of Irenaeus’ pneumatology and their significance for his Trinitarian theology.

Briggman is of the opinion that none of the studies of the second half of the twentieth century dedicated to Irenaeus´s interpretation of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan have paid enough attention to a significant issue. For Briggman, of particular importance is the assertion of Irenaeus that the Spirit became accustomed to humanity through the humanity of the Word who afterwards became glorified by the Spirit. The close study of these aspects brings Briggman to the conclusion that only the humanity of Christ was anointed by the

393 AH III.16.3, in Against Heresies, 343.

236

Holy Spirit, and the anointing produced a non-qualitative empowerment of the humanity of

Jesus Christ in order to enable his messianic mission.394

To answer the question of whether the anointing of Jesus has had any qualitative effect on his humanity and give the humanity its divine attributes, Briggman wonders if

Irenaeus considered the anointing Spirit as the Holy Spirit or an impersonal divine power.

Some of Briggman’s interpretation have been mentioned in the preceding chapter. He does not agree with Orbe’s opinion that the anointing Spirit is the dynamic quality of the Spirit of

God. The interpretations of Orbe, Fabbri, and other authors is that the Spirit of Christ descended on the humanity of Christ and sanctified it. This dynamic power caused the flesh of Jesus to become the bodily salvation principle that brought salvific power to the flesh of

Jesus and the rest of humanity. As a result of this process, the anointing of the Spirit at the

Jordan brought an innovation to Jesus that allowed him to pass to others the gift of the

Spirit at Pentecost. Consequently, Orbe’s interpretation establishes the baptism of Jesus as a significant event in the process of sanctification of the flesh of Christ.

Briggman critiques the previously mentioned interpretation by analyzing passages from Irenaeus that are instrumental in Orbe’s interpretation. In Adversus haereses III.12.7 and III.10.3, in particular, Orbe examines Irenaeus’ use of Acts 10:38: “…how God anointed

Jesus of Nazareth with Holy Spirit and with power, how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” There is an important issue related with the interpretation of this passage. Orbe, Fabbri, and others will identify the power of God expressed in III.12.7 (Jesum a Nazareth, quemadmodum unxit eum Deus

394 Anthony Briggman, “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,” Journal of Theological Studies Vol. 61 (April 2010): 171-193.

237

Spiritu sancto et virtute) with the Holy Spirit. For Briggman, this interpretation is limited by a lack of consideration to the rest of the passage. Adv. haer. III.12.7 presents further interpretation on the preaching of the apostle Peter in the Books of Acts, a preaching that proclaimed Jesus with these words:

Ex verbis autem Petri manifestum est, quoniam precognitum quidem eis Deum custodivit, Filium autem Dei Jesum Christum esse testificatus est ipais, judicem vivorum et mortuorum, in quem et baptizari eos jusait in remissionem peccatorum: et non tandum hoc, sed et Jesum ipsum esse Filium Dei testificatus est, qui est unctus Spiritus sancto, Jesus Christus dicitur. 395

Briggman does not consider that Irenaeus in this passage interprets power or virtute to modify Spiritus sancto. In fact, Irenaeus does not use the term power in this passage of Adv. haer. III.12.7 in opposition to the Holy Spirit or with the intention of showing the Holy Spirit and power as divine qualities received by Jesus during his baptism. Therefore, that Jesus is called “Christ” after being anointed at the Jordan (…but he witnessed that Jesus was himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ.”) is related to the humanity of Jesus, not to his acquirement of divine qualities. The anointing of Jesus is for Briggman a non-qualitative empowerment of his humanity in order to fulfil his messianic mission. This anointing of Jesus by the Spirit is the source for the salvation of all the rest of humanity, as the Spirit functions as the unction of Christ in order to save men and women. 396

Therefore, for Briggman, Jesus receives at his baptism a non-qualitative empowerment of his humanity by means of the anointing of the Holy Spirit. This empowerment of the humanity of Jesus is directed to the fulfilment of his messianic mission.

395 Adv. haer. III.12.7, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons’ Five Books Against Heresies, volume II, 61. 396 Briggman, “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,”,184-186.

238

The Holy Spirit is therefore accustomed to dwell and rest in humanity by becoming the unction of Christ:

The need for the Holy Spirit to become accustomed to “working the will of the Father” in human beings and to ‘renewing them from oldness into the newness of Christ’ entails the presupposition that the Spirit was not prepared to perform and so could not have performed such works prior to the period of accustomization. As a result, the Spirit could not have renewed Christ’s own humanity “from oldness to newness,” a qualitative change, at the time of the anointing at the Jordan. The Spirit acquired the capability to perform this work in humanity by anointing and remaining with the humanity of the incarnate word. As a result, the anointing of Jesus’ humanity by the Holy Spirit could only have involved a non-qualitative empowerment. 397

Briggman agrees with Ysabel de Andia that the passing of incorruptibility to humanity by means of the Spirit happened after the glorification of the flesh of Christ because the incorruptibility given by the Spirit is proper to Christ’s glorified flesh. Briggman is not in agreement with Ysabel de Andia regarding her view that Irenaeus presented the transformation of the flesh of Christ as a progressive movement through all Christ’s life, culminating in his glorification. For Briggman there are two moments when Irenaeus ascribed qualitative change of the humanity of Jesus Christ: the Incarnation (where the union of the Word with humanity gave the humanity of Jesus the gift of incorruptibility) and the glorification of the incorruptible flesh of Christ (where the Spirit made the glorified flesh of Christ the instrument of communication of incorruptibility to the human race):

It is not a coincidence that the moment at which Jesus’ incorruptibility became communicable, his glorification, was the moment that the Christological mission was accomplished. The Spirit’s accustomization to humanity that took place by means of the Incarnation was completed at the moment of Christ’s glorification, and it was then that Jesus sent the Spirit bearing the incorruptibility of his flesh to other human beings. The moment of which his incorruptibility was communicable was the same moment at

397 Ibid., 187-88.

239

which the Holy Spirit became able to communicate that incorruptibility, Jesus’ glorification. 398

Therefore for Briggman, Irenaeus believed that at the time of his baptism in the Jordan

River, Jesus experienced one anointing of his humanity by the Spirit.

This Spirit that descended on Jesus was the Holy Spirit and not an impersonal spirit or the power of the Spirit of God. According to Briggman this anointing is a non-qualitative one where the humanity of Jesus was empowered to fulfill his messianic mission. Irenaeus presented a theology where there is a close relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit that is manifested in a series of events. The anointing of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit enabled the fulfilment of his Messianic mission and the process of the Spirit being accustomed to humanity. The culmination of the Messianic mission was the glorification of

Christ in the Spirit, where the incorruptibility of the humanity of Christ was communicable, and the Spirit was entitled to convey that incorruptibility to believers.

Briggman establishes his position with the help of the scholarship of other writers who formed conclusions in contrast with Orbe’s view on the nature of the anointing of Jesus

Christ in Irenaeus’ writings. One of these scholars is Albert Houssiau, who analyzes passages like Adv. haer. III.9.3 and III.17.1-4. For Houssiau, as for other authors, the subject of the anointing is not only the Word of God, but the Word of God made flesh. The baptism in the

Jordan is a revelation of the descent of the Spirit on the flesh assumed by the Word. The

Word was anointed by the Spirit because the Word was a human being in a mission for humanity. Irenaeus, according to Houssiau, did not consider initially the anointing of

398 Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, 77.

240 humanity as the motivation for the anointing of Christ. However, his reflection on the passage from Isaiah 12:1-4 in Adv. haer. III.9.3 brings Irenaeus to interpret the baptism of

Christ as a moment when Christ received the Spirit for the sake of all humanity. The same conclusion is made in Adv. haer. II.17.1-4:

Irénée propose une doctrine identique dans les deux textes examinés jusqu’ à présent. Selon III, 9,3 et III, 17, 1-4, le baptême du Christ est marqué par la descente de l’Esprit-Saint sur le Verbe incarné; c’est au sein de l’humanité concrète du Verbe que commence l’œuvre de l’Esprit et le Verbe ; on peut affirmer la divinité de Jésus, né de Marie, et pourtant ne pas réduire l’épisode baptismal a un simple signe de la divinité du Christ. On surmonte ainsi une difficulté cruciale qui imposait à la réflexion des anciens théologiens. 399

Therefore for Irenaeus the anointing of the Spirit happened through and because of the

Incarnation of Christ. There is only one anointing by the Spirit on the humanity of Christ, where the divine purpose of the outpouring of the Spirit to men and women is accomplished.

Houssiau is of the opinion that the innovation of Irenaeus regarding his views on the anointing of Jesus Christ is more in accordance with the terminology used in the Acts of the

Apostles, especially the discourse of Peter in the second chapter, Peter refers to Jesus Christ in this way in Acts 2.36: “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that

God has made him both God and Messiah, this Jesus whom you have crucified.” Irenaeus presents a different interpretation regarding the name of “Jesus.” In Acts 2.36, the name is used to refer to the humanity of the Word, the man from Nazareth, while the name “Christ” is used to refer to the divine power of the Word. In the work of Irenaeus, on the other hand,

Jesus is expressed as referring as his divine person, while Christ is used to refer to the

399 Houssiau, La christologie de Saint Irénée, 179.

241 humanity that he has assumed. Therefore, when Irenaeus speaks about the anointing of the

Spirit at the Jordan as the moment when Jesus became Jesus Christ, Houssiau is of the opinion that Irenaeus is stating, as the prologue of the Gospel of John also states, that “the

Word became flesh.”400

Briggman sees Houssiau’s position as one that debunks the perception of Orbe regarding a double anointing of Jesus Christ, especially because Houssiau does not use

Psalm 44:8 to refer to a pre-Incarnate Word. However, Briggman concedes that Houssiau also is of the opinion that Irenaeus is not that clear and consistent regarding the specifics of the anointing by the Spirit, especially in comparison with other passages of his oeuvre, as in

Adv. haer. III. 3.61 and Epideixis 47.401 Briggman also uses Fantino as another confirmation of Irenaeus’ position on a single anointing of the Word:

À plusieurs reprises Irénée parle du Christ Jésus comme ayant été oint de l’Esprit Saint, en référence à Is 11, 1-4 et 61, 1-2…. Dans tous ces passages où le contexte est christologique et sotériologique, c’est le Verbe incarné qui reçoit l’Esprit du Père. Le but de cette onction est l’accomplissement du salut, c’est-à-dire le don de l’Esprit Saint aux hommes. Pour cela, il est d’abord donné au Christ Jésus, en tant qu’homme, qui le communique ensuite aux autres hommes. 402

There are other important aspects of the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons that merit discussion in order to have a deeper analysis of the effects of the anointing at the Jordan on the humanity of Jesus Christ. This is of particular importance when we are studying an author whose theology is so concerned with unity and progress. An event like the baptism

400 Ibid., 185. 401 Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, 65. 402 Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée, 379-380.

242 in the Jordan with its theological implications could not be studied only in an isolated manner from the plan of salvation as presented by Irenaeus of Lyons.

I. The Baptism of Jesus in Relation with other Theological Concepts in Irenaeus of

Lyons

One particular trait of Irenaeus’ work is his conception of salvation history and the interaction of God with creation as a result of progress. The famous concept of recapitulation which is so much associated with Irenaeus is grounded on God’s plan of salvation and how it is accomplished through history. This historical accomplishment happened not in one specific moment in time but as a result of a constant process where the divine dispositio is gradually manifested. This idea of progress is also reflected in the way that the bishop of Lyons described the human life of Christ and the accomplishment of his divine mission. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the sole subject of recapitulation:

It is only the Incarnate One, the One who has been made flesh, who recapitulates. All that Christ does from His birth at Bethlehem until the judgment of the world He does as the One who was incarnate. His humanity, His flesh, is part not only of His Passion and death, but also of His Resurrection and dominion over the world-- He never gives up the humanity which he bore during the days of His earthly life. 403

Jesus Christ is truly human and there is nothing wanting in his humanity. Even his own freedom from sin makes him more human, as sin was not part of the original plan for humanity. The Word became flesh, and made possible for the Spirit to anoint and reside in his human body. Irenaeus’s concept of recapitulation is anchored in the person of Christ

403 Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publications, 2004), 83.

243

Incarnate and his saving economy. A famous passage from Adversus haereses presents clearly the way that Irenaeus presents recapitulative soteriology:

Magister ergo exsistens magistri quoque habebat aetatem, non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis, sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam que ad ipsum erat similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes: in parvulis parvulos, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus, et justitiae, et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionis veritatis, sed et secundum aetatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens: deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, princeps vitae, prior omnium, et praecedens omnes. 404

Jesus Christ is the anointed one, the one full of the Spirit, who in accordance with Hebrew thinking, comes from the Davidic lineage and is born from a human dynasty. Christ became the model for humanity in all the aspects of his earthly life: “He did not set aside in his own case the order he had appointed for the human race; rather, he sanctified every stage of human development by participating in it himself…”

In an act of profound love, the Son of God gives himself to save humanity by becoming human and participating in the life of humanity:

Christ has undergone every period and circumstance of human life without leaving anything outside Himself, i.e. without leaving anything in the possession of Satan. The Incarnate One, it is true, is without sin, and in being sinless He lacks what is common to all men, but His lack is the lack of that which corrupts man’s humanity. If Christ too had been bound in sin He would not have been more human than He in fact now is, but less human. And moreover, if He himself had been defeated, He would not have had the power to liberate man. The humanity in which Jesus lived was the pure humanity which God had created, and over which evil had no hold. It was the humanity

404 Adv. haer. II. 22. 4, in Against Heresies, Vol. 1, 330.

244

of the Adam whom God had created, not of the Adam who was defeated. Despite His righteousness Christ shared man’s lot in the form of sinful flesh, and suffered even death, the fruit of sin, for it was through sin that death had come into the world. 405

In this process of Christ, the Holy Spirit participates in a direct manner, descending on Jesus at his baptism and guiding him in his mission, clarifying and providing the necessary knowledge to continue his mission.

M.C. Steenberg, a research fellow in theology at Leeds Trinity University College, considers that Irenaeus presented the gift of the Spirit in continuation with the process that was part of the whole salvific mission of Christ, a process where there was the mutual habitation of God with humanity and humanity with God:

Irenaeus’ point is not to claim that without the unction of the Spirit, Jesus is not Messiah; rather, that without the Spirit the incarnate Son is not fully redeemer, since he who redeems recapitulatively does so by uniting humanity to the full life of God, which is only and ever the life of ‘the Father with his two hands’. Should the incarnate Christ be only the Son in obedience to the Father’s will, and not also recipient of the Spirit’s anointing, the ‘new Adam’ would convey to human existence the likeness of only a portion of the divine life. 406

The anointing by the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus is then both related to the whole salvific plan as well as a special, transformative moment in the human existence of Jesus Christ. It is in this way that the Incarnate Word of God undertook the primacy of the created world, recapitulating all things to himself:

The eternal relationship of the Son and the Spirit, Word and Wisdom, is not brought whole to bear in a recapitulative economy that does not include the entirety of this relationship. Moreover, the Spirit as “wisdom and

405 Wingren, 102. 406 Matthew C. Steenberg, Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius (London: T and T Clark, 2009), 36-37.

245

understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and godliness” (cf. Isaias 11.1-4), the “sanctifier” who accustoms humanity to bear the fullness of divine life, would remain absent from the scene of humanity’s salvation. Thus is the incarnate Son in receipt of the Spirit’s anointing at his baptism in the Jordan, becoming completely the recapitulative saviour—Jesus Christ the Lord— manifesting the interrelated life of the Father, Son and Spirit. It is this life, then, that comes to bear on all humans joined to Christ “by receiving from the abundance of his anointing”. 407

In Adv. haer. II. 22.4, there is a direct statement of proclamation of Irenaeus on his concept of recapitulation and salvation: the main action of Christ as Saviour was to become human and to exist in a literal manner, passing through the stages of humanity in order to save.

This happens as the result of humanity’s being formed from the beginning in the image of the Word Incarnate and having Christ as humanity’s antitype.

Humanity is the image of Christ because the life of Christ is the life of humanity. This reality comes as a product of Jesus Christ’s entering into the life and experience of humankind and becoming a full member of the human race that is his antitype:

Since death reigned over the flesh, it was necessary that, abolished through flesh, it release man from its oppression. So, “the Word became flesh” that by means of the flesh which sin had mastered and seized and dominated, by this, it might be abolished and no longer be in us. And for this reason our Lord received that same embodiment (σάρκωσιϛ) as the first formed, that He might fight for the fathers and vanquish in Adam that which had struck us in Adam. 408

Irenaeus of Lyons emphasized both the humanity and divinity of Christ, as both are equally important for the redemption of humanity. This is all part of a soteriology that is based on unity: humanity is created as a unity of material nature and spiritual person as a reflection of the unity of God. This unity of humanity reflects in a particular way the unity of Jesus

407 Ibid., 37.

408 Epideixis 31, On the Apostolic Preaching, 60-61.

246

Christ, true God and true human being. As a result, a very relevant aspect of Irenaeus’ theology deals with the salvation of the flesh, or salus carnis.

A. The Salvation of the Flesh as an Essential Concept of the Theology of Irenaeus of

Lyons

The concept of salus carnis is essential and characteristic of the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and had a special contribution to the development of Christology. Among the contributions are the close relationship between the Incarnation and the concept of immortality of the whole human being as well as the strong Trinitarian dimension that is introduced by Irenaeus in his historical theology of salvation. This concept of the salvation of the flesh is also strongly connected to the baptismal theology of Irenaeus of Lyons, where baptism is a source of regeneration and rebirth received through the sanctified flesh of

Jesus Christ.

It is mostly in Book V of Adversus haereses where Irenaeus posits a more complete concept of the glorification of the flesh. Moving forward from the elaboration in Book IV about the Incarnation, Irenaeus argues that the resurrection of the flesh is the direct consequence of the Incarnation. The Word became incarnate for two reasons; only the

Word was able to reveal the Father, only humanity is able to have knowledge of God from imitating Christ and thus grow in communion and likeness with God.

For we could not learn the mysteries of God had not our teacher, the Logos, been made man, nor could anyone have revealed the secrets of the Father (John 1:18) except his own Word. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” Or what other one “has been his counselor?” (Rom. 11.54). Not again, could we have known them except by seeing our teacher and perceiving the sound of his voice with our own ears; for by imitating his works and doing his words (Matt. 7:24) we have communion with him, and thus we who are newly created receive growth from him who was perfect before the whole creation,

247

who alone is excellent and good. 409

Irenaeus explains in the opening chapter of Book V that the Incarnation was necessary in order that Christ might act as the teacher of humanity (Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus que sunt Dei, nisi magister noster, Verbum existens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis quae sunt Patris, nisi proprium ipsius Verbum.). As the

Word is the only one who knows the things that are of the Father, it was essential that the

Word become human in order to transmit that knowledge to the human race. In order for this to be possible, Irenaeus believed that on the side of humanity it was fitting that the

Word should become incarnate in order to teach humanity in a manner that would make possible for men and women to see and hear him and to allow humanity to be imitators of the words and actions of Christ. This imitation permits humanity to enter into communion with Christ and allows people to increase their knowledge of God and be transformed and receive the blessings of salvation. 410

Bernard Sesboüé regards the Incarnation as the lever of the salvation of humanity that permits the Word of God to assume complete solidarity with the human race without losing any unity with the Father.411 The salvific process is centered on the flesh of Christ, understood not only in a physical way but also related to the whole human condition. All the mediation of the flesh of Christ would be senseless without being directed to the salvation of the flesh of all women and men. The Word could not assume the flesh but for

409 Adv. haer. V, 1.1, in Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 164. 410 William P. Loewe, “Irenaeus’ Soteriology: Christus Victor Revisited,” Anglican Theological Review 67 no.1 (Jan 1985): 1-15. 411 Bernard Sesboüé, Tout Récapituler : Christologie et sotériologie d’Irénée de Lyon (Paris : Desclée, 2000), 121-123.

248 the intention of saving humankind. Irenaeus is firm in stating that the Lord has given his flesh for humanity’s flesh (AH V. 1).

Sesboüé finds another passage from Adversus haereses that is highly explicit regarding the aspects of human salvation in relation with the flesh of Christ:

What proves that it is not the substance of flesh and blood that the Apostle attacks when he says it does not possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor.15:50) is the fact that he constantly uses the terms flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, sometimes to show that he was a man (for the Lord himself called himself Son of man) and sometimes to confirm the salvation of our flesh. For if the flesh were not to be saved the Word of God would not have become flesh (John 1:14) and if the blood of the just were not to be required the Lord would not have had blood.412

The first part of the last sentence of this quote (“For if the flesh were not to be saved the

Word of God would not have become flesh”) is of particular importance for Sesboüé. The

Latin expression of this phrase, Si enim non haberet caro salvari, nequaquam Verbum Dei caro factum esset, has been translated in ways that are grammatically correct but in opposition with the point of view presented by Irenaeus in his works.

A literal interpretation of this passage could give the false impression that Irenaeus was advocating for something similar to the Thomistic idea of the Word becoming incarnate only because of the sins of humanity. Sesboüé is of the opinion that a close study of the context presented by Irenaeus on Book V of Adversus haereses brings a different perspective than the one given by diverse scholars and translators:

Fidèle à l’esprit de sa recherche, et commentant des formules pauliniennes, il essaie de montrer la cohérence entre l’incarnation et le salut de la chair. La première ne pouvait qu’être ordonnée au second. La chair est capable de salut, le dessein divin était bel et bien de la sauver. Si Dieu ne le faisait pas, il

412 Adv. haer. V.14.1, in Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 168.

249

manifesterait son impuissance. La résurrection de la chair peut se conclure a fortiori de la toute-puissance créatrice de Dieu. 413

Sesboüé establishes his position by centering on passages from Irenaeus that clearly connect the salvation of the flesh with the power of God:

Those men, therefore, set aside the power of God, and do not consider what the world declares, when they dwell upon the infirmity of the flesh, but do not take into consideration the power of Him who raises it up from the dead. For if He does not vivify what is mortal, and does not bring back the corruptible to incorruption, He is not a God of power…. For He who in the beginning caused him to have being who as yet was not, just when He pleased, shall much more reinstate again those who had a former existence, when it is His will that they should inherit the life granted by Him. 414

Irenaeus also makes the connection between the Incarnation and the Eucharist. In

Book IV of Adversus haereses he connects the Word and creation, making the Eucharist possible. In Book V, Irenaeus continues his previous argument stating that the bread and wine becoming a communion in the body and blood of Christ would not be possible without the salus carnis. Consequently, the gnostic argument about the incapacity of the flesh to receive the gift of God is unfounded (Adv. haer. V. 2 and 3). Furthermore, Irenaeus postulates that the Eucharist is possible due to the Incarnation, and that human beings, by their participation in the Eucharist, are prepared for the resurrection.415 Irenaeus is of the conviction that the Eucharist contains the flesh and blood of Jesus. The Lamb of God who was sacrificed on the cross is the same one that is given as food. The two mysteries of immolation and food become concrete in the human flesh of Jesus Christ.

413 Sesboüé, Tout Récapituler dans le Christ, 123. 414 AH V.3.2., in Against Heresies, 560-561. 415 Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 143-144.

250

Irenaeus develops a response to the gnostic notion that the expression in 1

Corinthians 15: 50 (“flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God”) is an assertion that denies the salvation of the flesh. Irenaeus responds by analyzing the other statements of the apostle Paul regarding the salvation of the flesh and posits the following argument: if

God has been so omnipotent to create everything ex nihilo, how can God not be able to re- establish everything at the end to the life in the way that it was before? (Qui enim initio eum qui non erat, fecit ut esset, quando voluit: multo magis eos, qui jam fuerunt, rursus restituet volens in eam quae ab eo datur vitam.) The argumentation of the bishop of Lyons centers on the idea of the coherence and unity of God and its effects on all aspects of creation, from the beginning to the end of time:

The flesh, therefore, is not destitute [of participation] in the constructive wisdom and power of God. But if the power of Him who is the bestower of life is made perfect in weakness—that is, in the flesh—let them inform us, when they maintain the incapacity of the flesh to receive the life granted by God, whether they do say these things as being living men at present, as partakers of life, or acknowledge that, having no part in life whatever, they are at the present moment dead men….It is just as if anybody were to take a sponge full of water, or a torch of fire, and to declare that the sponge could not possibly partake of the water, or the torch of the fire. 416

This assertion about the glorification of the flesh and the power of God to restore the weakness of human flesh (Non igitur exsors est caro sapientiae et virtutis Dei.) is intimately related to the love of God. The actions of God are not limited to those of an omnipotent

Demiurge who is not concerned about the well-being of creation. Instead, God is the one who vivifies the whole human being and promises humanity resurrection as announced by the prophets (Adv. haer. V.4.1).

416 Adv. haer. V.3.3, in Against Heresies, 561.

251

Therefore, the history of humankind is closely related to the formation of the human flesh which is the highest divine creation. According to Irenaeus, the creation of humankind is the work of God par excellence. In this context the bishop of Lyons answers the gnostic claim of 1 Corinthians 15:50 regarding the incapacity of flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom of God by arguing that in effect flesh and blood by themselves are excluded from salvation. However, flesh and blood are capable of receiving the Spirit of God and achieving incorruptibility:

Igitur caro sine Spiritu Dei mortua est non habens vitam, regnum Dei possidere non potest: sanguis irrationalis, velut aqua effusa in terram. Et propter hoc ait: Qualis terrenus, tales terreni. Ubi autem Spiritus Patris, ibi homo vivens, sanguis rationalis ad ultionem a Deo custoditus, caro a Spiritu possesa oblita quidem sui, qualitatem autem Spiritus assumens, conformis facta Verbo Dei.417

The principle of incorruptibility also applies to the flesh of Jesus Christ, which in itself is not incorruptible without the action of the Spirit of God (“The flesh, therefore, when destitute of the Spirit of God, is dead, not having life and cannot possess the kingdom of God…”). The economy of God surpasses the natural laws by giving to the flesh the qualities of the spirit and liberating the sarx or flesh from the physical constrictions in order to acquire spiritual qualities (“But where the Spirit of the Father is, there is a living man…. there is the flesh possessed by the Spirit, forgetful indeed of what belongs to it, and adopting the quality of the Spirit, being made conformable to the Word of God.”).418

Irenaeus defends his positions by using Pauline ideas found in 1 Corinthians and

Romans and uses vivid images to present his point:

417 Adv. haer. V.9.3, in Against Heresies, 343. 418 Orbe, Espiritualidad de San Ireneo, 16-21.

252

Sed quemadmodum oleaster insertus, substantiam quidem ligni non amittit, qualitatem autem fructus immutat, et aliud percipit vocabulum, jam non oleaster, sed fructifica oliva exsistens, et dicitur: sic et homo per fidem insertus, et assumens Spiritum Dei, substantiam quidem carnis non amittit, qualitatem autem fructus operum immutat, et aliud accipit vocabulum, significans illam que in melius est transmutationem, jam non caro et sanguis, sed homo spiritalis exsistens, et dicitur. 419

The economy of God is fulfilled in the flesh of Jesus. Without losing its first substance, the flesh of Jesus Christ lost the quality of the flesh during the Passion and Resurrection, absorbed the Spirit already given by the Father at the baptism in the Jordan and had acquired the quality of the Spirit, giving divine attributes to the fleshly substance. Thus, all humanity is conformed to the Word of God through the transformed flesh of Jesus in communion with the Spirit (…sic et homo per fidem insertus, et assumens Spiritum Dei, substantian quidem carnis non amittit, qualitatem autem fructus operum immutat, et aliud accipit vocabulum, significans illam quae in melius est transmutationem, jam non caro et sanguis, sed homo spiritalis exsistens, et dicitur.). It was not possible for Jesus before the

Resurrection to portray himself as the image and likeness of God, due to the non-glorified state of his body. The Paschal Mystery makes possible the conformity of the flesh of Jesus with the qualities of the Logos, making Jesus the model of the perfect human being and hope for all humanity:

Lo que no se cumplió en Adán, por escapar a las Manos de Dios, tuvo lugar de lleno en la carne de Jesús. Sin abandonar su primera substancia, perdió el Salvador con la Pasión y Resurrección la “qualitas carnis”, absorbido por el Espíritu con que lo sello el Padre en el Jordán. La “qualitas spiritus” suplanta a la psique, y como propiedad física de la substancia divina levanta al cuerpo al modo divino de ser, dotándole de propiedades divinas aun en substancia carnal. En eso consistirá también nuestra conformidad al Verbo, pronunciada

419 Adv. haer. V.10.2, in Against Heresies, 346.

253

en la formación de Adán….La sarx se conformó al Verbo, en plenitud, dentro del propio Jesús, cuando revistió la Vida connatural al Espíritu. 420

Thus, Jesus Christ becomes a model for humanity, the God and human being where the flesh, without losing its substance, acquires a way of being connatural to the glory of the

Word.

The teleology of Irenaeus explains his emphasis on the body, even to the point of not putting so much emphasis on the soul in his theology. The spirituality of Irenaeus of Lyons is also distinguished by an emphasis on the body and an orientation toward the salvation of the flesh. This process takes place in an historical context in agreement with the laws of matter, a process that goes from the earthly plasma to the plasma-pneuma. This historical process is previewed in a paradigmatic way in the glorious flesh of Jesus Christ and later accomplished for humanity with the events of the Paschal Mystery. Christ is at the center of

Irenaeus’ spirituality as the Word anointed by the Spirit in the flesh and as the source of the

Spirit for all humanity.

The glorious humanity of Jesus Christ, exemplar of humanity, was accomplished as a result of a process where the Holy Spirit started to sanctify the flesh of Jesus in his baptism.

Even with the events of the Jordan, the humanity of Jesus needed to be accustomed to the

Spirit in order for his flesh to be spirituality impeccable. However, with the events of the

420 Orbe, Espiritualidad de San Ireneo, 18.” What was not fulfilled in Adam, due to his flight from the hands of God, was fulfilled in the flesh of Jesus. Without abandoning its first substance, the Saviour lost the qualitas carnis during his passion and resurrection, absorbing the Spirit already sealed by the Father at the Jordan. The qualitas spiritus overrides the psyche, and as a physical property of the divine substance raises the body to the divine way of being, giving divine attributes even to the fleshly substance. This will also conform us to the Word, as preannounced in the formation of Adam... the sarx conformed in fullness to the Word, through Jesus himself, when his transformed flesh entered a connatural life with the Spirit.” (My translation)

254

Jordan, there is a change in the humanity of Jesus. He is guided by the Spirit and the Spirit formed and spiritualized the flesh of Christ, communicating the Spirit’s own quality:

Entre Dios y Adán, entre el fin y el principio, media a título de paradigma humano y centro de la historia salutis el Anthropos teleios, Cristo. Los elementos constitutivos e integrantes de Jesús, desde su primera concepción en forma de siervo hasta su vestición en forma de Dios, entran de lleno en el desarrollo de la humana plasis…. El propio Salvador no llega a Teleios anthropos mientras no adquiera, en carne, la forma de Dios. Solo el Cristo glorioso, físicamente deificado en su humanidad, es paradigma del primer Adán y medida suprema de la humana perfección. Colocado en el centro de la historia, luego de siglos de infancia humana, adulto en carne con la plenitud del Espíritu, el Salvador inaugura el Nuevo Testamento, la etapa de maturación para el linaje de Adán. 421

It was necessary for the body of Jesus to gradually lose its fleshly quality in order to be in total solidarity with the Holy Spirit and the divine quality or forma Dei. In this gradual process from the baptism to the resurrection, the body of Christ is clothed with the transparency of the Spirit of God and assimilated to the divine quality without losing its carnal substance. Christ, the perfect human, encompasses in his life, death, and resurrection the perfect life in the Spirit. 422

When Irenaeus refers to the Incarnation as the center of salvation history, he is not only referring to the birth of Christ but also to his passion and resurrection, and all that constitutes the reality of the Incarnate Word. The Incarnation is therefore not just a

421 Orbe, Antonio, Antropologia de San Ireneo (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1997), 521. “Between God and Adam, the end and the beginning, mediates Christ, the Anthropos teleios, as a title of the human paradigm and the center of the historia salutis,. The constitutive and integral elements of Jesus, from his first conception in the form of servant to his reception in the form of God, fall squarely in the development of the human plasis.... The Saviour himself does not become Teleios anthropos if he does not acquire the form of God in the flesh. Only the glorious Christ, physically deified in his humanity, is a paradigm of the first Adam and supreme measure of human perfection. Placed in the center of history, after centuries of human infancy, adult in the flesh with the fullness of the Spirit, the Saviour inaugurates the New Testament, the stage of maturation of the lineage of Adam.” (My translation) 422 Orbe, Antonio, “El hombre ideal en la teología de San Ireneo,” in Gregorianum XLIII (1962): 459-464.

255 metaphysical reality of a person with two natures in an historical manner, but is also the presence of God in history. To say that Jesus Christ was born, lived through different ages, and died is not adding something different to the reality of the Incarnation but refers to the events that are synonymous with it. Therefore, all the events of the life of Jesus Christ are understood by Irenaeus in their incarnational and recapitulatory aspect. The humanity of

Christ united to the Word is the ideal and authentic creature, and the other creatures are a continuation and participation of the Word Incarnate.

The argument employed by Irenaeus in order to defend the resurrection of the flesh is based on the notion that there is an unchanging basic substance that can be changed when there are qualities attributed to this basic substance. Anders-Chr. Lund Jacobsen posits that this idea, present not only in Irenaeus but in other Fathers of the Church, is a concept with roots in the Greek philosophical tradition.423 The argumentation for the resurrection of the flesh in chapters 9 through 15 of Book V of Adversus haereses presents the salvation of humanity as a result of the union of the Spirit of God with the flesh and soul of humanity.

Irenaeus explains how the Spirit transforms human beings by using the terms substance

(substantia) and quality (qualitas), explaining substance and quality as a hermeneutical device to interpret

1 Corinthians 15:50. The bishop of Lyons interprets the Pauline use of the term flesh in a qualitative sense; flesh according to Paul does not refer to the physical qualities of humanity but to humanity’s condition of life. As a result of this interpretation, Irenaeus analyzes other passages from the Pauline letters to demonstrate that Paul used the term

423 Anders-Chr. Lund Jacobsen, “The Philosophical Argument in the Teaching of Irenaeus on the Resurrection of the Flesh,” in Studia Patristica vol. XXXVI (Louvain: Peeters Publishers, 2001): 256-261.

256

“flesh” in an ethical sense (Adv. haer. V.10.2, 11). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 15:50 cannot be used in itself as an argument against the salus carnis.424

Irenaeus continues using the substance-quality notions in other chapters of Adversus haereses in order to demonstrate that the Spirit not only changes the ethical qualities of humanity, but also the physical qualities as well. It is in Chapters 12 and 13 of Book V that this argument is most evident: “This is what the Lord came to make alive so that as we all die in Adam because psychic, so we all live because spiritual, after having put off not the work shaped by God but the desires of the flesh, and put on the Holy Spirit…” (Adv. haer.

V.12.3). The facts of life and death as well as corruption and incorruption are seen by

Irenaeus as malleable qualities that are not part of the substance of the flesh:

Non enim aliud est quod moritur, et aliud quod vivificatur: quemadmodum neque aliud quod perit, et aliud quod invenitur; sed illam ipsam que perierat ovem venit Dominus exquirens. Quid ergo erat quod moriebatur? Utique carnis substantia, quae amiserat afflatum vitae, et sine spiramento et mortua facta. Hanc itaque Dominus venit vivificaturus, uti quemadmodum in Adam omnes morimur, quoniam animales, in Christo vivamus, quoniam spiritales: deponentes non plasma Dei, sed concupiscentias carnis, et assumentes Spiritum sanctum, sicut Apostolis in epistola quae est ad Colossenses ait: Mortificate itaque membra vestra quae sunt super terram. 425

In subsequent argumentation in later chapters of Book V, the bishop of Lyons argues that examples in Scripture can be used as evidence of the possibility of the flesh (as substance) attaining salvation. In particular, the healings given by Christ to different persons as depicted in the Gospels are evidence that the flesh can also be saved. Irenaeus sees these

424 Ibid., 257. 425 Adv. haer. V.12.3, in Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons ‘Against Heresies, vol.2, 351-352.

257 healings as evidence that Christ would not have healed physical bodies if they were not able to live eternally.

Denis Minns analyzes the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and finds that Irenaeus proposes a synoptic view of the work of salvation centered on the restoration of the flesh of humanity in Christ. 426 Regarding his theology of the human person this emphasis by

Irenaeus on the body could lead readers to wonder about what significance Irenaeus gave to the human soul of Christ and the moral aspect of his victory over sin and death. Minns notes that some scholars have interpreted Irenaeus’ great emphasis on the obedience of

Christ as the reversal of the disobedience of Adam as a sign that Christ’s triumph was a result of a great moral conflict of his human will. Minns in particular mentions Wingren’s position as an example:

There is something false in any interpretation of Irenaeus which by-passes the need and humility of Christ, and from the beginning simply adopts the standpoint of the victory which had been achieved, without taking into consideration the price of the conflict….We can understand those who in their interpretation of Irenaeus dismiss the lengthy struggle which Jesus had to endure, and disregard time as well, treating evil timelessly as meaningless and insignificant. But their method of reading Irenaeus, though intelligible, does not square with what he actually says. To treat the work of God in Christ timelessly is to disregard the humanity of Jesus, and hardly anything is less typical of Irenaeus than this timelessness. It is in the man Jesus that God’s victory is to be achieved, and His humanity implies a long-drawn-out, gradual conflict. 427

Minns agrees with Wingren regarding the significance of time and process in the work of

Irenaeus but disagrees with Wingren’s perception of the moral conflict in Jesus Christ.

Minns is of the opinion that while the moral aspect of Christ’s victory over sin by means of

426 Denis Minns, Irenaeus (London: T and T Clark International, 2010) ,104-106. 427 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 116.

258 his obedience is unquestionable, there is in Irenaeus no sign that his theology based this process on the will or the soul. Christ was seen by Irenaeus as a human person whose triumph was one of a perfect human with impeccable rational qualities who by his obedience was able to triumph over sin.

Christ did not share the rational and decisional immaturity of the human race.

However, Jesus shared the frail flesh of humanity, and it is in the flesh where the victory is won. In his obedience, Jesus Christ strengthened his human flesh and was able to triumph over evil in his glorified flesh. This triumph was accomplished through time and process:

It would be mistaken to suppose that this transformation of the flesh comes about in an almost mechanical way, simply because of its union with God. In his immense love, the Lord did indeed ‘become what we are so as to make us what he is’, but the consequence of this is that we should follow him as the ‘only sure and true Master’. Equally, it was not enough simply that the Word should become a human being: it was necessary that he should pass through every stage of life, from infancy to mature years, sanctifying infants, children, youths and elders and offering to each age an appropriate example of holiness, justice, obedience and authority. 428

Jesus Christ achieves communion between humankind and God not in a detached manner but by joining the experience of humanity and receiving “that same embodiment as the first-formed, that He might fight for the fathers and vanquish in Adam that which had struck us in Adam.” 429

The humanity that the Word embodied has for Irenaeus a dynamic relationship with

God. From the beginning humanity has been created for progress and improvement. As a result of the Incarnation, humanity comfortably accustomed to the life of Jesus Christ with the aid of the Holy Spirit. The anthropology of Irenaeus is always related to the knowledge

428 Minns, 107. 429 Eoideixis 31, in On the Apostolic Preaching, 61.

259 of the humanity of Christ: to know humanity, it is necessary to know Christ. It is through the humanity of Jesus Christ that the divinity of the Father and the Spirit are grasped. Every statement in the theology of Irenaeus regarding humanity is always expressed in allusion to the divine reality of the Word made flesh. 430

Irenaeus sees Jesus Christ as one reality, making no differentiation between his humanity and divinity. This total unity between humanity and divinity makes Christ’s humanity the channel of revelation of his divinity. For Irenaeus, the humanity of Jesus is the circumscription of his divinity, making the immensity of God accessible to the limited understanding of humankind. Minns clarifies that Irenaeus’ understanding does not deny the presence of a human mind and will in Christ; instead, Irenaeus presents the human consciousness of Christ as the circumscription of God for men and women. The encounter with the human being Jesus is the encounter with God. 431

B. Progress as an Essential Element of the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons

One of the main differences between the theology of Irenaeus and the gnostic positions was the unification that Irenaeus gave to the whole history of salvation. Jeff Vogel, in an insightful article, sees patience as a central trait of Irenaeus’ idea of the economy of salvation, both in the understanding of the mission of the Incarnate Word and in the life of the Church.432 Vogel regards haste as the root of sin for Irenaeus, and patient waiting as a countenance for sin. Even though Irenaeus has a deep concern for the defense of the goodness of the flesh, there is also in Adversus haereses an interest in defending the value

430 Steenberg, 53-54. 431 Ibid., 112. 432 Jeff Vogel, “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption,” in Anglican Theological Review vol. 89, no. 3 (2007): 443-459.

260 of God’s taking time in the economy, something contrary to gnostic theology. Irenaeus is firm in presenting humanity as growing over time in a process of participation of the divine life that requires patience and endurance. The gnostic position, on the other hand, stresses the idea that the true gnostic has already attained the state of perfection; salvation is then the knowledge of the perfection already achieved.433

For Irenaeus, expectation is the state intended for humanity in respect to its relationship to God; the events of the Fall were produced by the hasty behaviour of the first humans in order to deify themselves. The Fall was a contradiction to the will of God to share eternal life through a period of time that would habituate humanity to divine nature. The reality of sin is an act of restlessness on the part of humanity with their own imperfection, an effort to achieve perfection without adhering to God’s plan. As a result, human behaviour lacks the reason that is necessary to receive the divine life and becomes alienated from its real nature.

There is in God a restoration of this state of disobedience of humanity through the

Incarnation, where the loss of capacity of humanity to accept the divine is restored by a human being who could accept this gift perfectly. Consequently, for Irenaeus, Christ is not just the perfect human being but also the one who received and took from God the entire human condition and became obedient to the process of waiting that was part of the plan by God. Therefore, in the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons, Christ plays the central function of the human being who has cancelled Adam’s disobedience and reoriented humanity to the ways of God:

433 Ibid., 449.

261

And even if he was only thirty years old when he came to baptism, he had the perfect age of a master when he came to Jerusalem, so that he could rightly be called master by all. For he did not seem something other than he was, as the Docetists suppose, but what he was, he also appeared to be. As a master, he had the age of a master. He neither rejected nor went beyond the human condition and did not abolish in his person the law of human growth, but he sanctified every age by the resemblance we have with him. In fact, he came to save all men through himself: all I mean, who through him are reborn into God, infants and children and boys and young men and elders…. Finally, he came even to death, that he might be “Firstborn from the dead, holding the primacy in all things” (Col.1:18), “Prince of life” (Acts 3:15), preceding all. 434

By this act of submission Christ was able to subvert the hasty tendency of humanity that had been present since the Fall. For this reason Irenaeus emphasizes the necessity of

Christ’s having experienced all stages of the human existence and accomplishing salvation through the entirety of his life on earth. Christ had to submit to time and had to grow into perfection in order to take on the whole human condition. According to Vogel, Irenaeus perceived the salvation of Christ as something accomplished in a continuous manner during his whole life. This gradual and total receptivity made Christ’s humanity possessed entirely by the Spirit:

Irenaeus’ tireless defense of the reality of Christ’s Incarnation is of a piece with his emphasis on the temporality of deification. Through the major events of the gospel story each have a unique import, the haste of sin is not undone episodically, but in the Son’s acceptance of the burdens of time. It is in his waiting on God for increase and his openness to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that Christ has recovered for the human race the capacity to be taken up into God lost in Adam.435

The importance given by Irenaeus of Lyons to the idea of humans as creatures in need of gradual maturation to achieve perfection can have implications on our ways of seeing

Christology and anthropology today.

434 Adv. haer. II.22.4, in Irenaeus of Lyons, 114. 435 Vogel, 459.

262

Miyako Namikawa illustrates how Irenaeus’ concept of perfection is presented as something that entails a process of participation in the life of God, a process that implies that both God and humanity become accustomed to each other.436 This progression is possible by the mystery of the life of Christ. Human beings, created in the image of Christ, the image of God, also receive the likeness by the actions of the Spirit. By this process, the mystery of the life of Christ clarifies the mystery of the original vocation of humanity. Time, and all of the process of human life, are envisioned through the perspectives of growth and progress.

The creation of humanity by God established the beginning of a relationship between the uncreated God and a humanity that is neither God nor uncreated. The growth of humanity is achieved by a deeper relationship with God. This relationship achieves its climax with the advent of the Incarnate Word, the hyperbolic manifestation by God in order to have a close rapport with men and women. Jesus Christ, the new Adam, reveals humanity in all fullness, and from his person makes known to all human beings a new relationship with God:

La encarnación es, en primer lugar, una paradoja donde el Logos de Dios, que es perfección y riqueza, asume la forma de existencia de un hombre mortal y se hace “imperfecto”. El Logos de Dios, con su libertad, dispone de si y decide libremente hacerse don e irrumpir en el mundo y la historia. El Logos de Dios no renuncia a su esencia divina, sino que da a conocer la paradoja del amor que puede ser a la vez Perfección e imperfección. El crecimiento del hombre imperfecto al hombre perfecto hace su recorrido sobre el camino de Dios, el Perfecto, que se hace imperfecto. Dios ha tomado la pobre imperfección del hombre como su propia y auténtica realidad. 437

436 Miyako Namikawa, “La paciencia del crecimiento y la maduración: Del hombre recién hecho al hombre perfecto de Ireneo de Lyon”, Estudios Eclesiásticos vol. 83 (2000), 51-85. 437 Ibid., 77. “The incarnation is, in the first place, a paradox where the Logos of God, who is perfection and richness, assumes the form of existence of a mortal man and becomes "imperfect." The Logos of God, in his freedom, disposes of himself and decides freely to self-donate and break into the world and history. The Logos

263

In this process the imperfection of humanity is no longer defined solely as the opposite of the perfection of God. Imperfection can now be understood from what the perfection of

God has done for it. The perfect and infinite God has become the door for all the finite and imperfect to have access to the infinite. The advent of the Logos as human being is the key event to facilitate humanity’s being and experiencing the invisible God. In Christ God is accustomed to dwell in humanity in the most radical way, being present in all the human experience. Christ´s humanity is recipient of the divine life and manifests how to live the human life in a divine way. 438

In his work Irenaeus writes that the obedience of Christ to his salvific mission cannot be seen as something totally unrelated to human obedience. In opposition to the haste observed by humanity in their effort to attain contentment without dependence on the divine plan, Christ accepts in his flesh all the plans of God in proper time, and Christ’ humanity receives the transformation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the reception of Jesus

Christ of the way of being of humanity and his complete surrender to live as a human being allows Christ to become an example for humanity in order to attain glory. However,

Irenaeus does not view the obedience of Jesus Christ only functioning as an example: in

Christ there is a process of restoration of his human flesh, a flesh that he shares with all men and women. Dennis Minns posits that the Paschal mystery allows Christ to restore the human flesh to its former familiarity with God; in his human flesh there has been a process

of God does not renounce his divine essence, but reveals a love paradox that can be both perfection and imperfection. The growth from the imperfect to the perfect man flows through God, the Perfect who becomes imperfect. God has taken the poor imperfection of man as his own and authentic reality.” (My translation) 438 Ibíd., 83-84.

264 of liberation from the bondage of sin and death. At his second coming, Christ will reveal the love of the Father in the same body in which he lived and suffered, the same body that served as an instrument of redemption. 439

This observation by Minns has also been noted by other writers. Antonio Orbe also emphasizes that Irenaeus saw Jesus Christ as a restorer of the glory of the human flesh, including his own, as a result of a gradual process where the baptism at the Jordan plays an important process:

La dignidad personal no modificó la psicología ni el desarrollo normal de Jesús. Por sola comunión con el Verbo, su carne no era moralmente santa en si ni menos instrumento para santificar a otros. El Espíritu Santo comenzó a santificar su carne a raíz del Bautismo. Ni siquiera con el fenómeno del Jordán quedo la carne de Jesús espiritualmente perfecta. Convenía que el Espíritu Santo se habituara a la humanidad de Jesús, esto es, que entre el Jordán y la Resurrección de Jesús, fuera asimilando a su propia cualidad--a la forma Dei -- la carne del Salvador; o viceversa, que la carne fuera progresivamente perdiendo sus cualidades normales --- de carne y sangre --- hasta solidarizarse por completo con el espíritu en la propiedad divina. 440

Therefore the Incarnation of the Word is in itself a progressive reality where all the events of the life of Jesus are not fortuitous incidents but vital elements of the whole incarnational process. Orbe presents the internal process of the humanity of Jesus in various stages. The first stage is from the beginning until the Jordan, when the flesh did not possess the fullness

439 Minns, Irenaeus, 115-116. 440 Orbe, Antonio. “El hombre ideal en la teología de s. Ireneo” Gregorianum 43 (1962), 462. “The personal dignity of Jesus did not alter his psychology or his normal development. His flesh was not naturally holy in itself solely by being in communion with the Word, and even less an apt instrument to sanctify others. The Holy Spirit began to sanctify his flesh as a result of the baptism. Not even with the phenomenon of the Jordan was the flesh of Jesus spiritually perfect. It was convenient for the Holy Spirit to be acquainted with the humanity of Jesus. In other words, it was necessary for the Spirit, between the Jordan and the resurrection of Jesus, to assimilate the flesh of the Saviour to the quality of the Spirit –the forma Dei --; or vice versa, that the flesh would gradually lose its normal qualities - of flesh and blood - to sympathize completely with the Spirit in divine property. “ (My translation)

265 of the Spirit. The next stage is from the Jordan through the passion, when the flesh became a material depository of the Spirit in a gradual process. The third stage refers to the time of the passion and death of Jesus, a time when the flesh of Jesus achieved an imminent and ultimate state of perfection. The last stage begins with the resurrection when the Father sealed the risen flesh, to communicate the risen flesh with the qualities of the Holy Spirit.

This is the last and definitive stage of the humanity of Jesus, where he becomes the perfect man by the glorification of his flesh. 441 Therefore the humanity of Jesus Christ entails a process of maturation and perfection that entailed a reparation of human nature that reaches its culmination at the Resurrection.

This understanding by Irenaeus regarding progress and perfection as an essential characteristic of the salvific process is the basis for the censure of the bishop of Lyons to dissenting groups in the Christian community. These groups preached discontent with the reality of human nature. They could not accept progress and hope as a sine qua non for humanity to receive eternal life: “Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created---- men subject to passions….” 442

For Irenaeus, the life of incorruptibility has been given to humankind as a warranty by the body of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This life continues growing in humanity as a process until eschatological times. Therefore, waiting and hoping are

441 Ibid., 462-463. 442 Adv. haer. IV.38.4, in Against Heresies, 543.

266 essential qualities for Christians, in imitation of the process of patience experienced by the humanity of Christ during his time on earth:

For the bishop of Lyons, the seed has been planted in the last times and is germinating secretly. The incorruptible life has been provided in germ, as pledge, in Christ’s body and his gift of the Spirit. It now, in process, awaits and watches for the eschatological times of harvest. In one sense the incarnation is a harvest event. But in another it is a planting. Such tension is innate to Irenaeus’s view of redemptive history. And such tension identifies the waiting, watching, hopeful, human person as the godly one. But it is a slight tension because there is always continuity between the before and after. Eschatology brings no utter rupture unto history, for it is the fulfilment of a history of salvation. 443

This theology of salvation of Irenaeus has a marked Trinitarian structure that can be defined in a basic way as salvation accomplished “‘by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”

Consequently, Irenaeus’ doctrine of the salvation of the flesh in the Incarnation is grounded in the actions of the Father and the Spirit.

For Irenaeus, the ideal human being is the risen and glorious Christ, the one who has spiritual flesh. Christ in his humanity, is at the center of the economy of salvation, being physically deified both in his personal aspect (in his union with the Logos) but also in his physical aspect (by the relation of the Spirit that was present in his flesh). The salvation of humanity is in the unity of the Spirit with Jesus at the end of time. Irenaeus’ vision of the human flesh is a synthesis of some of his main theological propositions, in particular his

Trinitarian, Christological, and eschatological thought. Following a line of thinking opposed to the gnostic degradation of the flesh, Irenaeus believes that all flesh will one day be deified as the flesh of Christ was deified.

443 D. Jeffery Bingham, “Hope in Irenaeus of Lyons,” Ephemerides theologiae Lovanienses 76 no.4 (2000): 279- 280.

267

Irenaeus’ doctrine of the salus carnis and its emphasis on progress is both his own innovation and a connection to ideas present in the second-century Church tradition.

Christopher T. Bounds presents the place of the doctrine of Irenaeus on Christian perfection in the second century by relating this doctrine with two issues. 444 One issue is the centrality of Irenaeus’ doctrine of perfection in his arguments with dissenting groups. Irenaeus’s complex doctrine is used in response to an equally sophisticated doctrine defended by gnostic groups.

In all of these groups, perfection occupies a central role in the development of all their doctrinal teachings. This emphasis in perfection is common to the religious thought of the second century.

The second issue presented by Bounds is that the doctrine of Christian perfection in

Irenaeus is anchored in the theological and historical background of second-century

Christianity and is related to the sources of doctrinal transmission. For Irenaeus, the base of his theology was the apostolic testimony; he related his doctrine to the “rule of faith” of the

Christian tradition. According to this concept, the twelve disciples were given by Christ a limited but at the same time perfect knowledge of the faith that was intended to be communicated to everyone in a public manner. This “rule of faith” was given to the apostles along with Scripture in order to make them true defenders of the Christian faith. Irenaeus is very clear in expressing in his oeuvre that his doctrine is rooted in the tradition that has been transmitted from the apostles through the years up until his time.

444 Christopher T. Bounds, “Irenaeus and the Doctrine of Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45 no.2 (Fall 2010): 161-179.

268

This centrality of perfection in the Christian faith is also evident in the writings of the

Apostolic Fathers of the first and second centuries. These writers prepared the historical and doctrinal context given by Irenaeus for the importance to perfection in his own theological work:

In summary, through a careful examination of the language of perfection in his polemic against Gnosticism, Adversus haereses, we have argued that Irenaeus has a clear, comprehensive doctrine of Christian perfection. He believes that Christian perfection is the renewal of the image and likeness of God in humanity through the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. This restoration of the imago dei manifests itself supremely in the perfect love of God and neighbor, in the fruit of the Spirit, and in a life free from intentional sin. Perfection develops and matures throughout life and culminates after death when a Christian takes up incorruptibility in final resurrection and union with God. 445

Therefore, the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons regarding the process of reconciliation between God and humanity through the glorious flesh of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit is a logical development from ideas that were already circulating with the

Apostolic Fathers. The emphasis of Irenaeus on the doctrinal and apologetic concerns regarding Christian baptism is influenced by concepts used by Christian writers of Irenaeus’ time and earlier, like regeneration and remission of sins, the gifts of the Spirit, sphragis and photismos. Irenaeus inherited the ideas from the writers of the first and second centuries and introduced reflections of his own in a thorough theological system that remains in association with the foundations of the Christian faith.

It is important to notice on how significant the role of the Holy Spirit is in this process of habituation of humanity with God, in order for humanity to receive incorruptibility and eternal glory. Irenaeus is clear that there exists a communion between the Spirit and the

445 Ibid., 175-176.

269 flesh. The economy of salvation was a progressive union between the flesh and the Spirit in restoration of what was lost by the sin of the first human beings: “Now the fruit of the labor of the Spirit is the salvation of the flesh, for what could be the visible fruit of the invisible

Spirit be it not to make the flesh mature and receptive of imperishability?”446

The Holy Spirit is from beginning to end the collaborator of the Father and the Son in the work of salvation and creation. This particular collaboration relates to the work of God in humanity or plasmatio where humanity is a mixture of soul and flesh modelled in God’s image and formed by the hands of God, the Son and the Spirit. The work of the Spirit is in full agreement with the whole divine economy, serving the Son and the Father in relational harmony:

Dio, infatti, nel suo disegno dispone che gli uomini partecipino del suo Spirito. È il mandato degli apostoli e il messagio dei profeti: lo Spirito di Dio nell’uomo. È ciò che si compie nel battesimo di Gesù e che in forza di Lui si realizza per tutta l’umanità.... Gesù è il Cristo, proprio perché è i’uomo perfettamente abiato dallo Spirito e attraverso lo Spirito è partecipato a tutti. Per questo autenticamente lo Spirito di Dio è lo Spirito di Cristo.... Il battesimo di Gesù richiama l’altro evento fondamentale, la Pentecoste, nella quale lo Spirito effuso su Gesù discende sui discepoli e attraverso loro diviene dono per tutti le genti. 447

The baptism in the Jordan established Jesus as the Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Subsequently the Spirit is revealed, not only as the Spirit of Christ on the day of his baptism but also as the Spirit of the Church on the day of Pentecost. Thus, in this way the Holy Spirit,

446 Adv.haer.V.12.4, in Irenaeus of Lyons, 166. 447 Carlo Maria Bondioli, “Gloria Dei vivens homo: Teologia dello Spirito e antroplogia anagogica in Ireneo” Divus Thomas Vol. 106 no.1 (2003): 244-245. “Indeed, God in his plan provides that humanity participate in his Spirit. This participation of the Spirit of God in humanity is conveyed in the mandate to the apostles and the message of the prophets, and Is fulfilled in Jesus ' baptism and what under Him is realized for all humanity. Jesus is the Christ, precisely because he is the man perfectly inhabited by the Spirit and through which the Spirit has participated in all. For this reason, the Spirit of God is truly the Spirit of Christ. The baptism of Jesus draws to another fundamental event, Pentecost, in which the Spirit poured out on Jesus descends on his disciples and through them becomes a gift for all people.” (My translation)

270 according to the salvific economy founded in the incarnation of the Word, is the Holy Spirit of Christ and his body the Church, which flows over humanity and becomes the Spirit of humanity. The famous expression in Adv. haer. IV.20.7 “gloria Dei vivens homo” acquires a new perspective:

L’uomo vivente non è l’uomo vivo, animato dal soffio temporaneo e creato, e destinato alla corruzione, ma l’uomo spirituale e perfetto, abitato dallo Spirito increato. E che l’uomo, fragile e corruttibile, sia rivestito di potenza e incorrupttibilità, è a gloria di Dio. È nell’uomo che Dio revela la sua gloria, nella debolezza della carne la prontezza dello suo Spirito, per rendere questa plasmazione dal fango l’immagine perfettamente somigliante. 448

Therefore, the salvation of the flesh is the work of the Spirit who makes the flesh capable of incorruptibility. The Holy Spirit is entrusted with the restoration of humankind to the image of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

This work of the Spirit is a process of maturation that prepares the flesh for the vision of the incorruptible God. The love of God for humanity was revealed in two main actions or works: the fashioning of humanity (opera Dei autem plasmatio hominis, Adversus haereses

V.15.2) and the work of the Spirit, the salus carnis. As a result there are two main stages in humanity: the initial stage of the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of God as well as the final accomplishment of humanity when the process of transformation of the flesh by the Spirit will conform humanity to Christ, achieving the perfect likeness to the

Incarnate Word:

448 Ibid., 253. “The living man is not a man alive, animated by the temporal and created breath, and intended to corruption, but the spiritual and perfect man, inhabited by the uncreated Spirit. That man, fragile and corruptible, is clothed with power and incorruptibility, to the glory of God. This is the living man to whom God revealed His glory, in the weakness of the flesh and the readiness of his Spirit, in order to make this fashioning of the mud a perfectly similar image.” (My translation)

271

Le passage de l’imparfaite au parfait correspond à la rencontre du crée et de l’incréé, a la communion de l’homme avec Dieu. En effet, Dieu est parfait, car il est incréé et, corrélativement, toute créature, en tante que elle est créée, est imparfaite. C’est pourquoi l’homme ne peut être parfait dès le commencement, mais seulement au terme d’une progression et d’une transformation accomplie grâce à l’incarnation du Fils et au don de l’Esprit. 449

The work of Irenaeus stresses that salvation is progressive and transformative, the point of encounter between the creator God and the created humanity. The human race, by reason of being created, cannot attain perfection from the very beginning but from an advancement and a qualitative change that is accomplished through the incarnation of the

Word and the gifts of the Spirit. Perfection for humanity is not to be found in creation because it is not possible to find perfection in creation itself; therefore, perfection comes to humanity by a participation in the life of God. Consequently, Irenaeus stresses the notion of the image and likeness in order to delineate the link between God and humankind in precise terms.

However, the process of perfection in humanity also has to do with creation, with the economy of salvation being the result of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit, establishing communion and making humanity a participant in the Creator while remaining creatures.

Temporality is necessary for the economy of salvation, even when is not sufficient, due to the fact that salvation is not something acquired by human means alone. Therefore, the divine intervention in communion with humanity through Jesus and the Spirit is also necessary.450

449 Jacques Fantino, O.P. La théologie d’Irénée : Lecture des Écritures en réponse a l’exégèse gnostique. Une approche trinitaire (Paris : Les Éditions du Cerf, 1994), 337. 450 Ibid., 336-338.

272

The theology of Irenaeus is therefore very optimistic about the human flesh and its possibility of attaining salvation and being in communion with God with the help of divine intervention. Irenaeus sees the life of Jesus Christ and his healing of physical ailments and handicaps (like the healing of the man born blind) or raising people from the dead (such as

Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter) as manifestations of Christ’s divine power. The Incarnation would have been useless without the salus carnis. The act of the Word becoming human was totally united to becoming flesh and blood in order to save all humanity and liberate the flesh from sin’s bondage. All this is in close consonance with Irenaeus’ baptismal theology and his emphasis on baptism as a threshold to the vision of God, a source of regeneration and rebirth that is accomplished through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the dispensation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to all believers.

Irenaeus submits several reasons for the salus carnis in Adversus haereses. One reason is that salvation of the flesh reflects the omnipotent power of God who creates ex nihilo

(V.3.2). A second reason is that because the flesh is able to participate in mortal life, it can also participate in the divine eternal life (V.3.3). Another reason is that this divine gift of life for the flesh is evidence of the goodness of God (V.4.1-2). Also, Jewish Scripture presents evidence of patriarchs and prophets who lived long lives as a result of their communion with God (V.5.1-2). Lastly, the Eucharist is a sign that if flesh cannot be redeemed, humanity would not have the opportunity of receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, who shares the flesh and blood with humanity (V.2.1).451

451 Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 227-229.

273

Eric Osborn (1922-2007) was an honorary professor at the Department of History, La

Trobe University and professional fellow at the Department of Fine Arts, Classical Studies and Archeology. University of Melbourne. Of the Methodist faith, his research interests were in Church Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus), ethics, philosophy and theology. In his work on Irenaeus, Osborn showed that Irenaeus established a relationship between flesh and glory. This relationship is especially evident when Irenaeus refers to the flesh of the Incarnate Word as a reflection of God’s glory. Also, this relationship is a reflection of the accounts of the New Testament regarding the Incarnation and its multiple references to glory and characters glorifying God (Mary, Simeon and Anna, the persons to whom miracles have been done). The flesh of Jesus Christ also communicated the light of the Father:

So, also, as in heaven he had the first place as Word of God, so he held it on earth as being just man “who committed no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet.2.22). He also had the first place over those under the earth, becoming “firstborn of the dead” (Rev.1-5), so that all things saw their king, as we have said, and that the paternal light shone forth in the flesh of our Lord and then, radiant from his flesh, came among us and thus mankind reached imperishability, enveloped by the paternal light.452

Flesh is intimately connected with the glory of God as a result of the reality of Jesus Christ and his life and ministry. The glory of God is perceived in creation, the victory of God being the union of the spirit of God with the early flesh, without any separation or elevation above creation (AH IV.38.3). As a result, the flesh that was created by God will be transformed and made whole by God again by the work of the Spirit who makes the body her temple and is given to humanity by Christ. The Spirit is in relationship with the flesh in

452 Adv, haer. IV.20.2, in Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 151.

274 order to produce women and men transformed by grace into the image and likeness of the living God.453

Conclusion

The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is defined by Irenaeus as a very important moment in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, a moment where there is a transformation of the human nature of Jesus Christ for the sake of his salvific mission. Irenaeus is not afraid to present the anointing of the Spirit as an essential element for the life and ministry of Christ and not only as a sign of his glory intended for the sake of humanity.

The bishop of Lyons presented in his works the need for the anointing of the Spirit of the human nature of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God is united to the human nature of Jesus

Christ and enabled to progressively perform spiritual and divine acts, making human nature totally receptive to divine grace. The humanity of Christ is perfected in baptism. His flesh is sanctified in order to become in actuality the Saviour of all human creatures. However, the sanctification of the human nature of Jesus Christ awaits a final fulfillment. This final accomplishment is the result of a maturation process that would reach its plenitude at the resurrection. Clearly, Irenaeus´ position is consistent with the theology of the Christian tradition of the second century.

Irenaeus considered that Jesus Christ received the divine gifts of immortality and incorruptibility in his incarnate person. As Ysabel de Andia states, there is in Jesus Christ a unique mystery, the Word made flesh, a person both human and divine. The work of

Irenaeus reveals that his analysis of the Incarnation was centered on the union of the

453 Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, 229-230.

275 human and divine aspects of Jesus Christ. The gift of incorruptibility is given to humankind through the union and relationship between God and the human race fashioned by the

Incarnation. However, there are other mysteries in the life of Jesus Christ that are presented by Irenaeus as manifestations of this gift of incorruptibility, signs of the bond between the flesh of the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus in particular presents among these mysteries of incorruptibility the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, the manifestation where the Spirit glorified and remained with the flesh of Jesus Christ. Consequently the gift of incorruptibility is given not only through the hypostatic union but also by the mysteries of the life of Christ that prepare his humanity for his exaltation to glory, where the humanity of Jesus is informed by the Spirit in a gradual manner. This progressive acquaintance with the Spirit makes possible for the humanity of

Christ to become the source of the Spirit to all human beings. For this reason, the baptism of Jesus was an anticipation of other mysteries in the life of Jesus as well as the foundational experience that was the basis for the mission that he would convey and live out.

The flesh of Christ is perfected by the mysteries of his life. With the Resurrection, the flesh of Christ is changed to such a degree that it reveals the light of Christ and conveys incorruptibility to human beings via the gift of the Holy Spirit. This glorious flesh of Christ is the only channel for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon humanity and consequently the only source of incorruptibility for the human race. All of the life of Christ is a source of reconciliation between humanity and God, where the flesh of Jesus Christ becomes the gate to incorruptibility for women and men. Therefore, the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is

276 represented by Irenaeus as a crucial stage in the gradual reception of the Holy Spirit both for Jesus Christ and humankind.

Anthony Briggman believes that Irenaeus understood the baptism to be when the

Holy Spirit became habituated toward the human race by way of the humanity of the Word, a humanity that was subsequently glorified by the Spirit. This key idea has been disregarded by scholars. According to Briggman, Irenaeus expressed in his work that only the humanity of Jesus Christ was anointed by the Spirit and this anointing generated a non-qualitative empowerment of Christ’s humanity so as to facilitate his messianic mission.

Briggman concurs with Ysabel de Andia that the passing of incorruptibility to humanity by means of the Spirit occurred after the glorification of the flesh of Christ. However,

Briggman does not agree with Andia’s view when she suggests that Irenaeus presented the glorification of the flesh of Jesus Christ as progressive throughout his life, culminating in his resurrection. For Briggman, the anointing of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit allowed the fulfillment of his messianic mission and the process of the Spirit being accustomed to humanity. The culmination of the messianic mission is the glorification of Christ in the Spirit.

Albert Houssiau analyzes passages like Adv. haer. III..9.3 and III.17.1-4 and determines that the subject of the anointing of the Word is not the Word of God, but the Word of God made flesh. The baptism in the Jordan is a revelation of the descent of the Spirit on the flesh assumed by the Word. The anointing happened through and because of the Incarnation.

Nonetheless, Houssiau admits that Irenaeus is not that clear regarding the specifics of the anointing of the Spirit.

277

in my opinion it is necessary that this linguistic and terminological uncertainty be analyzed in the context of the main theological ideas present in the work of Irenaeus of

Lyons. Irenaeus’ emphasis on unity and the work of God in creation as the product of progress as well as the essential link between the Incarnation and the salus carnis present the reader with a specific framework. This framework situates the flesh of Jesus Christ and his humanity, participating in an eminent way in his salvific mission as well as identifying with the progressive plan of God for humanity. It seems the resistance of some scholars to concede any concept of qualitative change in relation to the baptism and anointing of Christ comes from the same concerns that Justin Martyr had in his own theology. However,

Irenaeus did not share the concerns of Justin and other writers of the second century. The bishop of Lyons was not concerned or embarrassed about the dangers of emphasizing too much the effects of the baptism in the Jordan on the Incarnate Word, as Irenaeus situates the passage as related to the humanity of Christ and the change from the anointing in his flesh, the same human flesh that he shares with all humanity.

The boldness of Irenaeus in relating the humanity of Jesus Christ to the salvific process reveals a theology full of confidence, unafraid to take risks in order to express that Jesus shares the same journey of humanity yet in an eminent way due to his status as Son of God.

Irenaeus is not afraid to emphasize the consequences of the Incarnation for the life of the

Word and the human race. For Irenaeus, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are not just examples of what occurs with men and women. The life, death, and resurrection of

Jesus are what makes possible the salvation of humanity. Irenaeus presents the whole life of Jesus Christ as the bridge for humanity to enter the kingdom of God.

278

Therefore, for Irenaeus this process of recapitulation is based on an activity where the life of humanity and the life of Jesus Christ are placed in complete connexion with each other. This process of recapitulation started with the Incarnation and “…this accomplishment is within history, in a time sequence, and it is not an episode at one particular point in time. It is a continuous process in which the οἰκονομία, dispositio, of God is manifested in degrees.”454

The dissident groups of Irenaeus’ time denied the salvation of the flesh and consequently refuted the idea of Christ as new Adam. They rejected Christ’s full humanity as well as his role as dispenser of life and salvation for humanity. For Irenaeus to isolate Jesus Christ from the life of humanity would be to undermine the life and mission of Jesus that was established from the very beginning for the sake of others.

454 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 81.

General Conclusion

Irenaeus presents the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan in close relation with the tradition he inherited from the Gospels and from the apostolic tradition. It is important to observe how the Gospel accounts do not present the baptism in the Jordan as a solitary incident for

Jesus but one which came as a result of Jesus’ being with other people, participating in their lives. In particular, the Gospel of Luke presents the baptism in this way: “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’” (italics mine)

(Luke 3: 21-22) Even when the event of the Jordan had an extraordinary outcome for Jesus

Christ, it happened to his human flesh and in an event amid “all people.”

The influence of Irenaeus on other writers of the Early Church was later followed by a period of relative obscurity during the medieval era. The Renaissance brought new recognition of Irenaeus’ work. This recognition produced some negative assessments by both Catholic and Protestant scholars due to the significantly different views of Irenaeus regarding original sin and the economy of salvation in comparison to the Augustinian tradition prevalent in Western theology. The theological divergence could have hindered theologians and believers from perceiving the baptism of Christ in the Jordan as an important contribution to both Christology and baptismal theology. A closer look at the theology of Irenaeus could give us a deeper understanding of his notions of the identity of

Jesus Christ, including the relationship between his divine and human natures, his development as a human being and how Irenaeus’ concept of the salus carnis flows from his

279 280 understanding of the baptism in the Jordan and its process of accustoming the flesh to the

Spirit. Irenaeus also brings important insights to the role of the Spirit in relation to Christ and humanity.

This thesis has contextualized and analyzed the bishop of Lyon’s understanding of the role of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan in order to critique different scholarly interpretations of the roles of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the baptism. My analysis has also discussed the virtues and faults of past and contemporary interpretations and offered, where appropriate, an alternative or corrective interpretation. The detailed study of both the insights of Irenaeus regarding the baptism of Jesus Christ and the interpretation of diverse scholars demonstrates that there are still important and challenging unanswered questions due to conflicting interpretations of passages from the Irenaean corpus.

In the first chapter of this dissertation, there is a preliminary presentation on how the second century viewed the baptism at the Jordan to understand the context in which

Irenaeus worked and the theological positions he debated. The chapter discussed the practice of baptism in the second century, the role of the baptism at the Jordan in the development of a Christian theology of baptism, and the positions of some of the dissenting groups that were present at the time. For this discussion I referred to the work of Orbe,

Osborn, Daniel Vigne, and others. Influenced by Everett Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early

Church, I analyzed four noticeable concepts of early interpretations of the baptism of Jesus.

One of these conspicuous ideas in canonical and non-canonical writings is the descent of the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, an event sometimes interpreted as the fulfillment of

281

Isaiah 11:2. Another recurrent idea is the interpretation of the baptism as the initiation of the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ. A third concept is the identification and revelation of

Jesus during the baptism, with diverse interpretations regarding the identity of Jesus. A fourth persistent element is related to the purification either of the water or of Jesus

(depending on the source) and the relation of this purification with the purification of humanity.

The Christian tradition that was contemporary with Irenaeus of Lyons gave the baptism of Jesus a special prominence in their theology and liturgical practices. The event in the Jordan was presented as a boundary or frontier event, an opportunity to reflect on the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship with the Christian faithful. The prominence given to the baptism of Jesus, an event as controversial both for mainstream and dissenting groups, gave way to diverse modes of interpretation that would influence the development of theological systems as well as baptismal rites indicative of the cultural and religious divergences of the Christian communities during the second century. Jewish Christianity emphasized the baptism of Christ that was an important contribution to Christology and soteriology. The baptism of Jesus was recognized by those early communities as a first step in his redemptive mission, a significant event where Christ plunged into the Jordan and took on the flesh and the sins of humanity. Jesus Christ was glorified by the Father and the Spirit in his baptism and was manifested in features that already had paschal undertones as he arose from the waters in anticipation of the Paschal mystery.

The second chapter examined the ideas of Justin Martyr on the baptism of Christ, since Justin was an important influence for Irenaeus and other authors. The study of Justin

282 served as an example of how earlier theologians were at pains to reflect and explain the baptism of Christ as something not in opposition with the Christian faith. Justin presented that the events of the Jordan were necessary only for the sake of humanity. Jesus was not personally in need of the descent of the Spirit. The Gospel narratives show evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in Christ, gifts that were later passed on to humanity in virtue of the baptism of Christ. Likewise, the baptism in the Jordan was and is a manifestation for the

Christian community of the graces of the Spirit that are bestowed on Christians through baptism.

New Testament accounts but was still simple and like the baptismal ceremony described in the Didachē, without the latter’s allowance for an alternative to immersion. Baptism meant for Justin especially a forgiveness of sins, and an enlightenment. Other themes used by

Justin were deliverance from a former manner of life dominated by the influence of evil, as well as the sharing in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Justin is a useful person to study regarding the baptismal theology of second-century Christians. Justin is probably the first writer of the

Christian tradition to undertake discussion of the relation of the Son and the Spirit of God.

In his philosophical discourse, Justin introduced a hierarchical notion of the relations between the Divine persons where the Son seems subordinated to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. Justin’s zeal to demonstrate that Christians were not atheists created some problems because of his efforts to clarify Christian beliefs.

283

The baptism of Jesus presented a difficult challenge for Justin. There was a special interest in defending the role of the Spirit in the baptism of Christ in Justin’s Dialogue with

Trypho. The baptism was necessary only for the sake of humanity, the revelatory moment when Christ, in his humanity, was manifested in his real nature to all humanity. In addition, the baptism was necessary for Jesus to receive the gifts of the Spirit in his humanity to prepare the rest of humanity to also receive the gifts of the Spirit. Jesus in his humanity is borne to a new life, anointed by the Spirit to engage in physical actions that are full expression of his divinity. The baptism in the Jordan is the incident that distinctly indicates the dynamic of continuity and rupture between the action of the Spirit in the prophetic era and the Spirit’s subsequent action on Christians. The resting of the Spirit happened in order that Christ could transfer the gifts of the Spirit to all believers.

Justin’s interpretation is not without its difficulties. Justin’s concern with discarding any notion of adoptionism regarding the baptism of Christ, as well as his emphasis on humanity as the only recipient of the events at the Jordan, does not dispel the genuine concerns presented by the Gospel writers on baptism as a time of the initiation of Jesus into his ministry as Son of God. Also, the emphasis on the baptism as a manifestation of the true nature of Jesus to the whole world is not without some problems, as Justin used non- authoritative references also used by the Ebionites.

Justin accepted his cultural and religious background while he corrected what was doctrinally incorrect. With his work, Justin announced the main elements of the Christian tradition regarding the baptism of Jesus. It is with Justin where the Christian tradition

284 encounters for the first time the tension between the assimilation of the current religious culture and the questioning of its divergences with orthodoxy. This process of formative theology will prepare and influence the theological positions of Irenaeus of Lyons.

Chapter III presented the theological positions of Irenaeus of Lyons regarding the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan and its relevance for soteriology and Christology. The role of the Holy Spirit was discussed in relation to the soteriological necessity of the baptism of

Jesus, the Trinitarian aspect of the anointing, and the anointing of the Spirit for the inauguration of his public ministry.

Irenaeus of Lyons, in his apologetic and doctrinal work, developed new insights into the importance of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan while in conversation with the liturgical and doctrinal context of Asia Minor as well as by his experiences as bishop of Lyons.

The mission of Irenaeus in Gaul, probably motivated by the need for Greek speaking missionaries, included preaching and teaching among the Greek Christians who were the majority in the Roman Empire. Irenaeus, a disciple of martyrs such as Polycarp and Justin, probably had to speak and teach in Latin, the official language of the Empire. Irenaeus inherited a diocese affected both by religious persecution and martyrdom as well as by internal division prompted by groups with conflicting theological ideas.

285 in which humanity can know and experience God through love. In Adv. haer. III.24.2,

Irenaeus stated that humanity cannot know the greatness (magnitudo) or substance

(substantia) of God. However, God can be known by means of his love and infinite kindness.

This aspect of the theology of the bishop of Lyons is, in my opinion, highly evident in his baptismal theology and in his perception of the place of the baptism of Jesus as a central element of salvation history. This centrality of love in Irenaeus serves as a validation of the unity of God, where Jesus Christ perfected and fulfilled the original love command given by

God to love both God and neighbor, enemies included. Christ achieved and perfected the love command and ascertained it as a reflection of the summation of all things in God.

Irenaeus of Lyons makes few references to the ceremony of baptism in his works, concentrating on doctrinal and apologetic concerns. For Irenaeus, baptism is the threshold to the vision of God, as well as a source of regeneration and rebirth. The concept of regeneration (ἀναγεννήσες, regenerationis) is used most often by the bishop of Lyons regarding baptism. This concept is not only related to baptism but to all the life and ministry

286 of Jesus Christ, from his birth through and beyond his resurrection. Christ generated a new life for humanity and sanctified all the stages of life. This process is dispensed through the

Holy Spirit who serves as an instrument for the new birth of humanity and provided the means for men and women to participate in the benefits of salvation and progressive union with God. It is particularly important to notice the little influence from the Pauline doctrine of baptism that is present in Irenaeus’ baptismal theology, even when the Pauline letters are repeatedly quoted in the oeuvre of the bishop of Lyons. Instead there is a noticeable influence from concepts used by Christian writers of Irenaeus’ century and earlier: the gifts of the Spirit, regeneration and remission of sins, as well as sphragis and photismos.

Regarding the baptism of Jesus and its relevance for soteriology and Christology,

Irenaeus is firm in declaring, like Justin, that the baptism of Jesus is a baptism in the Spirit.

The anointing of the Spirit on the flesh of the Son of God made it possible for all humanity to participate in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit accomplished in Jesus Christ what would later be accomplished in humanity; the Spirit is engaged in the oikonomia of both the

Incarnation and the destiny of humanity. The anointing of the Spirit reveals the identity of

Jesus as the Christ.

Chapter III also discussed the relationship between the Trinitarian notions of Irenaeus and his interpretation of Jesus’s baptism at the Jordan. There was an analysis of Adv. haer.

III.18.3, a passage that has generated diverse interpretations from scholars, some for a

Trinitarian interpretation (Andia, McDonnell, Briggman) and others against (Smith, Fantino,

Orbe). The chapter also examined the anointing of the Spirit in the Jordan and how this

287 anointing enabled the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ (Adv. haer. III.9.3). The interpretation of Antonio Orbe, influential for future discussions, was that the anointing of the Spirit affected the Word in his humanity, though the Word, in his divine nature, did not need this anointing. The Son of God, then, was anointed by the Spirit in his humanity to save humanity. Jesus was anointed by the Spirit according to the flesh, thus enabling his messianic mission both as God and as human. Other authors, like Richard Norris, believed passages in Irenaeus appear to indicate that the Logos and the humanity of Christ were distinguishable. The statement by Irenaeus concerning the anointing of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism being proper to humanity established a connection between Christ and all created persons.

The baptism in the Jordan is intimately related to the Paschal mysteries. In passages of

Irenaeus’ corpus like Adv. haer. III.18.3, this close connection with the Paschal mysteries also presents Irenaeus’ depiction of the baptism of Jesus as a manifestation of the unity of

God and the unity of Jesus Christ. What makes Irenaeus’ vision of the baptism different from Justin’s interpretation concerns the activity of the Holy Spirit. While Justin Martyr declared the baptism in the Jordan as a sign of the power of Christ, Irenaeus goes further by exegeting Scripture to where the Word and Spirit are depicted without confusion. Irenaeus asserts the divinity of Jesus without lessening the importance of the descent of the Spirit.

Another essential element in Irenaeus’ exegesis of the baptism of Jesus is the idea that the salvation of humanity is effected through the humanity of Jesus Christ. This element, brought to attention by scholars such as Albert Houssiau, was a significant aspect for future

288

Christological developments. Irenaeus proclaims the redemption through the sanctified flesh of Jesus Christ, subsequently declaring the holiness of the flesh of humanity. Men and women will also be sanctified not only in the spirit but also in the flesh.

Jesus in the flesh to save humanity and a cosmic anointing of the Word in his divine nature to redeem the cosmos. This kind of diverse anointing can also be detected in other passages of Irenaeus, e.g., Epideixis 47 and Epideixis 53. The apparent contradiction presented on the abovementioned passages has ignited debate among scholars concerning the interpretation of the theology of Irenaeus regarding the two natures of the Incarnate Word and the anointing of the Spirit at the Jordan.

289 claim that studies have not explained the anointing of Jesus’ humanity by the Spirit in relationship to the subsequent glorification of the rest of humanity, also by the Spirit.

Clearly Orbe, Andia, Benoit, Fantino, and others are to be credited with reflections on the effects of Jesus’ anointing in the Jordan for both Jesus and the rest of humanity. However, the analyses of these scholars bring them to different conclusions than the conclusions of

Briggman about Irenaeus’ view of the Spirit.

Nevertheless, these interpretations do not take away the reality that Irenaeus, in passages like Adv. haer. III.6.1 and Epideixis 47, presented the idea of the unction of the

Spirit having a cosmic and pre-existential character. In my opinion this idea is not in contradiction with other passages that stress the anointing of the humanity of Jesus. The baptism in the Jordan is also a revelation to humanity about the eternal unction received by the Son from the Father. At the same time, the emphasis on Jesus’ receiving in his humanity the anointing at baptism establishes a relationship between Jesus Christ and all humanity.

Jesus Christ is the model of humanity, the Incarnate Word who recapitulates the nature and vocation of humanity both through the unity of the divine Logos and the human Jesus. I concur with Ysabel de Andia that the passages where Irenaeus presents the anointing of

Jesus Christ as both God and human being are the reflection of the mystery of the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ has been anointed in the flesh because of his exceptional status as

God. The union of the flesh and the Spirit becomes a source of incorruptibility because this flesh is the one of the Son of God.

290

The anointing of the flesh of Jesus Christ is the catalyst that makes feasible the relationship of the Spirit with humanity and the consequent outpouring of the Spirit over the Church. This anointing of Jesus Christ also has cosmic aspects in the theology of

Irenaeus where the anointing at the baptism is also presented as a manifestation of the eternal anointing where the Father anoints through Christ all elements of creation. The

Spirit mentioned by the bishop of Lyons in his works is presented as a Spirit with an autonomy of character as well as unity of identity: the same Spirit anoints Jesus Christ and the entire cosmos, bringing the same gift to the Church. Creation partakes in the process of the redemption of humanity, and humanity is called to participate, through extension in the image of Christ, in the progress that is part of the divine plan for creation. Irenaeus presented in his theology a close relationship between humanity and creation. This relationship highly influenced his understanding of the significance of the baptism of Jesus and its relationship to the baptism of Christians.

According to Irenaeus, the Holy Spirit acts in an autonomous way, but is always intimately related to the Father and the Son. The bishop of Lyons will present the anointing at the Jordan as an event that can be interpreted as closely related to the Trinity although without the theological finesse that will be used by theologians in later centuries. Even before the Council of Nicaea, Irenaeus had the boldness and vision to reflect on concepts that later became tenets of the Christian faith. The unity of God is proclaimed in Irenaeus by showing a triune God involved in the process of the anointing, a process that happened by a diversity of participation: the anointing Father, the anointed Son, the Spirit as unction.

Irenaeus went beyond the theologians of his time in presenting the Spirit in a less

291 subordinate manner in relationship to the Father and at the same time not confusing the

Spirit with the divinity of Christ.

In the fourth and final chapter, I analyzed if Irenaeus believed in any qualitative effects that the anointing of the Spirit had on Christ himself. A closer look at the writings of

Irenaeus of Lyons suggests an affirmative answer. Nonetheless, there are a variety of interpretations regarding this issue. I presented in this section the main arguments for and against the baptism and the anointing in the Jordan as a moment of qualitative change in the life of the Incarnate Word. I think that the analysis of scholars as Fantino, Orbe,

Houssiau, Andia, Smith, Vigne, Briggman and others is important to be aware that the idea of a qualitative change in still as controversial and challenging as it was in the times when

Irenaeus created his theological corpus. One of the issues discussed in the chapter was the way that Irenaeus used the term “Christ” when he discussed the baptism in the Jordan. This issue has been the source of divergence between different scholars and their interpretations concerning the significance of the baptism of Jesus on his development as a human being. In particular, passages form Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (like Adv. haer.

III.9.3 and III.12.7) have provoked these disagreements in interpretation.

For some scholars, there is also a notion that the anointing of the Spirit did not produce any substantial change in the Incarnate Word. Fantino, for example, posited that the baptism is the start of Jesus’ ministry. It is in the Incarnation, according to Fantino, that the Son of God received the Spirit in his humanity. The descent of the Spirit established

Jesus as the Christ, but there was no substantial change in the Son of God. This position is shared by recent scholars, like Anthony Briggman.

292

Other scholars give the baptism a more significant effect on Jesus Christ. Antonio Orbe believed there are two elements in the life of Jesus: the Incarnation, when the Word assumed human flesh, and the anointing or baptism of the Spirit in the Jordan, where Jesus was anointed in his flesh by the Spirit and made the Christ. The humanity of Christ was, according to Orbe, perfected in baptism, and the flesh of Christ was sanctified in a final way in his baptism in order to become in actuality the Saviour of all human creatures.

The position of Orbe has been challenged by other scholars. Ysabel de Andia believes that there is in Jesus a unique mystery, the mystery of the Word made flesh, a person both human and divine. Irenaeus considered that Jesus Christ received the divine gifts of immortality and incorruptibility in his incarnate person. The work of Irenaeus reveals that his analysis of the Incarnation was centered on the union of the human and divine aspects of Jesus Christ. The gift of incorruptibility is given to humankind through the union and relationship between God and the human race fashioned by the Incarnation.

Andia also posits that in Irenaean theology there are also the mysteries of the life of

Jesus, where the humanity of Jesus is acquainted with the Spirit in a progressive way and becomes the source of the gift of the Spirit to humanity. These mysteries of the life of Jesus are the Incarnation, the Baptism, and the Resurrection. Irenaeus presents among these mysteries of incorruptibility the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, the manifestation where the

Spirit glorified and remained with the flesh of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the gift of incorruptibility is given not only through the hypostatic union but also by the mysteries of the life of Christ that prepare his humanity for his exaltation to glory, where the humanity

293 of Jesus is informed by the Spirit in a gradual manner. This progressive acquaintance with the Spirit makes possible for the humanity of Christ to become the source of the Spirit to all human beings. For this reason, the baptism of Jesus was an anticipation of other mysteries in the life of Jesus as well as the foundational experience that was the basis for the mission that he would convey and live out. Therefore, for Andia all the life of Jesus is a source of reconciliation between God and humanity, where the flesh of Christ becomes for humanity the access to incorruptibility.

Anthony Briggman believes that Irenaeus understood the baptism to be when the

Briggman concurs with Ysabel de Andia that the passing of incorruptibility to humanity by means of the Spirit occurred after the glorification of the flesh of Christ. However,

Briggman does not agree with Andia’s view when she suggests that Irenaeus presented the glorification of the flesh of Jesus Christ as progressive throughout his life, culminating in his resurrection. For Briggman, the anointing of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit allowed the fulfillment of the messianic mission and the process of the Spirit being accustomed to humanity. The culmination of the messianic mission is the glorification of Christ in the Spirit.

Albert Houssiau determines that in Irenaeus the subject of the anointing of the Word is not

294 the Word of God but the Word made flesh. The baptism in the Jordan is a revelation of the descent of the Spirit on the flesh assumed by the Word. The anointing happened through and because of the Incarnation. Nonetheless, Houssiau admits that Irenaeus is not clear regarding the specifics of the anointing of the Spirit.

I believe that the baptism in the Jordan is defined by Irenaeus as a very important moment in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, a moment where there is a transformation of the human nature of Jesus Christ for the sake of his salvific mission. Irenaeus is not afraid to present the anointing of the Spirit as an essential element for the life and ministry of

Christ and not only as a sign of his glory intended for the sake of humanity.

I have presented my opinion of the necessity of an analysis of the linguistic and terminological uncertainty in the context of the main theological ideas present in the work of Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus’s emphasis on unity and the work of God in creation as the product of progress as well as the essential link between the Incarnation and the salus carnis present the reader with a specific framework. This framework situates the flesh of

Jesus Christ and his humanity participating in an eminent way in his salvific mission as well as identifying with the progressive plan of God for humanity.

Irenaeus makes clear that the humanity of Christ is an essential element of redemption.

Irenaeus is insistent on presenting Jesus’ uniqueness through his commonality with the human race. In this way Irenaeus’ presentation of Jesus Christ does not depict the humanity of Jesus in a way that is essentially diverse from the rest of humankind, an interpretation that might regard Jesus Christ as not truly human. Nonetheless, Irenaeus also presents the

295 humanity of Jesus Christ as the instrument for an extraordinary mission. As part of the salvific process, the bishop of Lyons presents the baptism in the Jordan as an important milestone in the life of Jesus Christ, a moment of radical change that directed Jesus into a life of ministry.

God’s plan of salvation is achieved through history. Such is the description by Irenaeus of Lyons of the human life of Christ and the accomplishment of his divine mission. Jesus

Christ is truly human and there is nothing wanting in his humanity. In AH III.22.4 Irenaeus presents that Jesus Christ came from the Davidic lineage and was born into a human dynasty. Christ is the model for humanity in all aspects of his earthly life. The anointing of the Spirit is in continuation with the progression that was part of the entire salvific mission of Christ, the mutual habitation of God with humanity and humanity with God.

Thus, for Irenaeus the Incarnate Word received the anointing of the Holy Spirit at his baptism and became completely the recapitulative Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord, and manifested the correlated life of the Trinity. This Trinitarian life is the one that comes to dwell in the life of women and men who are united to Jesus Christ. The main action of Christ as Saviour was to become human and exist in a fleshly manner, passing through the stages of human life in order to save. This process ensues as an outcome of humanity’s being formed in the image of the Word Incarnate and having Christ as humanity’s antitype. In humankind there is the image of Christ because the life of Christ is the life of humankind.

The soteriology of Irenaeus of Lyons is based on unity: human beings are created as a unity of material nature and spiritual personhood as a reflection of the unity of Christ.

296

The notion of unity in Irenaeus is intimately connected to the concept of salus carnis.

For the bishop of Lyons, the salvation of the flesh is an essential element that is indicative of the close relationship between the Incarnation and the concept of immortality of the whole human person. All these concepts are presented by Irenaeus with a strong Trinitarian theme. The Word became flesh because only the Word was able to reveal the Father, and only humanity is able to have knowledge of God from imitating Christ and growing in communion with God. Irenaeus understood the Incarnation as the lever of the salvation of humanity that allows the Word of God to assume total solidarity with humanity without losing unity with the Father.

The flesh of Christ is understood by Irenaeus not only in a physical way but is also related to the whole human condition. In God, there are constancy and unity which affect all aspects of creation from the beginning to the end of time. God is the one who vivifies the whole human being and promises resurrection to humanity. Flesh and blood are capable of receiving the Holy Spirit and achieving incorruptibility. The salvation of the flesh reflects the power and love of God who in all omnipotence created everything out of nothing and re- established everything to the way it was before.

Irenaeus applies this principle of incorruptibility to the humanity of Christ, which in itself is not incorruptible without the action of the Spirit. The economy of God is fulfilled in the flesh of Jesus. Without losing its first substance, the humanity of Jesus Christ lost the quality of the flesh during the passion and resurrection and absorbed the Spirit previously given by the Father at the baptism in the Jordan. Consequently, the humanity of Christ obtained the quality of the Spirit who gave divine attributes to the fleshly substance.

297

Therefore, all humanity is conformed to the Word of God through the transformed flesh of

Jesus in communion with the Spirit.

According to Irenaeus, the glorious humanity of Jesus Christ, a paradigm of humanity, was achieved as the result of a progression where the Holy Spirit started to sanctify the humanity of Jesus at his baptism. Nonetheless, even with the events at the Jordan, the humanity of Jesus needed to be habituated to the Spirit in order for his flesh to be spiritually impeccable. However, with the events at the Jordan there was a change in the humanity of Jesus. Christ was guided by the Spirit, and the Spirit fashioned and spiritualized his flesh, communicating the Spirit’s own divine quality.

In his work Irenaeus demonstrated that it was essential for the body of Jesus to progressively lose its mortal quality to be in utter solidarity with the divine quality of the

Holy Spirit. In this gradual process from the baptism to the resurrection, the body of Christ is clothed with the transparency of the Spirit of God and integrated to a divine quality without losing carnal substance. Jesus Christ, the perfect human being, encompassed in his life, death, and resurrection the perfect life of the Spirit. The process of habituation of God and humanity is feasible through the mystery of the life of Christ. Irenaeus’ famous recapitulation theory is precisely based on its progressive character. This recapitulation, initiated by the Incarnation, is a constant process where the divine plan is manifested by degrees and comprises all of Christ’s salvific work. Jesus Christ does the work of restoration, summation, and iteration not in total isolation from creation but in solidarity and participation with it.

298

However, Irenaeus did not consider the obedience of Jesus Christ functioning only as an exemplar for humanity. In the human flesh of Jesus there was a process of liberation from the bondage of sin and death, a liberation that occurred in the same body in which he lived and suffered. In Christ there was a process of restoration of his own human flesh, a flesh that he shared with men and women.

The events of the life of Jesus are not accidents but crucial components of the whole incarnational process. This process has various stages, and they are described by Antonio

Orbe. The first stage was from the start of Jesus’ life until his baptism, where the flesh of

Jesus did not possess the Spirit. The second stage occurred from the time of the baptism in the Jordan until the Passion, where the flesh gradually became a material depository of the

Spirit. The third stage occurred at the passion and death of Christ, where the flesh obtained an immanent and definitive state of perfection. The final stage was accomplished at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, when the Father sealed the risen flesh communicating it with the qualities of the Holy Spirit. This final stage is the ultimate and definitive one of the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Waiting and hoping are essential to the Christian experience, and reflect the patient endurance of Jesus Christ. The ideal human being is the risen and glorious Christ, the one with spiritual flesh. The doctrine of Irenaeus on salus carnis, with its emphasis on progress, are both his innovation as well as a connection with theological ideas previously existing in the context of the second century.

Irenaeus’ ideas are connected to the centrality of perfection which was of significant consideration in the religious thought of the second century. Doctrines from that era

299 centered on perfection as a sign of development. The principle of Christian perfection in

Irenaeus is also associated with the sources of doctrinal transmission. The apostolic testimony, as expressed by the so called “rule of faith,” was the source of the theology of the bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus’ doctrine is presented as representative. This doctrine is grounded in the perfect but limited tradition transmitted by the apostles and in similarity with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

The well-known fact that Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp is also indicative of the profound connection of the bishop of Lyons with the tradition of the ancient Christian community. Irenaeus’ faith is handed over through disciples and apostles who claimed to maintain a tradition going back to Christ himself. This respect for the Christian tradition influenced Irenaeus’ apologetic work, and he was suspicious of any school of thought too reliant on creativity and deviating from the essence of the apostolic tradition.

This dependence on tradition does not make Irenaeus of Lyons just a defender of the work of other authors. The originality of the theology of Irenaeus resides in his way of articulating the faith for his second century audience, which understood the theological and conceptual language of writers and leaders from all sides of Christianity, including dissident groups. Irenaeus perceived himself as the heir of the apostolic tradition and one who summarized that tradition presenting it in a context for his own age and time.

It is of particular importance to consider the great emphasis made by Irenaeus on the role of the Holy Spirit, who in communion with the Father and the Son is involved from beginning to end in the work of God in humanity. The Spirit acquires a prominent and autonomous role in the life of Jesus as well as in all humanity. Irenaeus, in his effort to

300 challenge the views of dissenting groups, insisted on the role of the Spirit at the Jordan without diminishing the divinity of Jesus Christ. The profuse use of Scripture permits

Irenaeus to demonstrate the validity of the ecclesiastical belief of the action of the Spirit at the baptism and anointing of Jesus as a turning point in the history of salvation. The anointing of the Spirit enabled the messianic ministry of Jesus Christ. This ministry is accomplished by the donation of the divine gifts of the Word made flesh, in order to make these gifts available to all humanity and also derivatively to the Church. This anointing has an universalist context, as the Pentecostal event had the effect of opening the Church to all the world without distinction.

The baptism in the Jordan established Jesus as the Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The salvation of the flesh is the work of the Spirit who makes the flesh capable of incorruptibility. The work of Irenaeus of Lyons highlights salvation as progressive and transformative as the Spirit works in a process of maturation preparing the flesh for the vision of the incorruptible God. Humanity cannot attain perfection from the very beginning but from an advancement and a qualitative change that is accomplished through the

Incarnation of the Word and the gifts of the Spirit. The flesh is intimately connected with the glory of God as a result of Jesus Christ and his life and ministry.

Irenaeus’ view of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and its implications for his life and mission is in complete coherence with the style and themes of Irenaean theology. Jesus’ baptism should not be considered an isolated incident in the Christological thought of the bishop of Lyons without a reference to his historical and theological milieu. The

301 commitment of Irenaeus in defending the tenets of the Christian tradition against the ideas of dissenting groups makes his theology both traditional and innovative.

This seemingly contradictory statement could be the reason for the mysterious obscurity that shrouded the work and legacy of Irenaeus of Lyons for several centuries:

In all, we find Irenaeus a participant in the broad Christian milieu of his age, an inheritor of what he viewed as the authentic apostolic preaching, and a recapitulator of the theological expression of his teachers and contemporaries. His own writings, for all the ingenuity of expression and uniqueness of voice, represent the vision of the church he sought to defend, in harmony with the voices of others who aimed at the same ends. Characterizing the portrait of Irenaeus painted by Zeigler’s 1871 study, Osborn summed up the bishop thus: “What we have in Irenaeus, according to Ziegler, is not so much his own system but rather the common doctrine of the ancient church. Irenaeus the bishop wishes to set out the main points of the universal church.” 455

This fidelity to the tradition that Irenaeus wanted to defend is of utmost importance when we deal with Irenaeus’ theological vision. Irenaeus’ particular insights in his theological thought were not pursued for the sake of creating a new theology or presenting how innovative and brilliant he was. Instead, there was in Irenaeus’ work the desire to present and defend the Christian tradition that he knew in the best way possible. Therefore, the effort of Irenaeus entailed the use of concepts and traditions he understood in order to make the Christian faith palatable and clear to the groups that he was evangelizing.

The innovative aspect of Irenaeus’ theology can be found in his vision of Incarnational soteriology. Agnès Bastit, in a tribute to the scholarship of Antonio Orbe, praises the

Spanish Jesuit’s analysis of Irenaean theology in this way:

En ce sens, Antonio Orbe a cru trouver dans le thème du « salut de la chair », et en général du statut de la « chair », le point de rupture, le moteur, en un mot, de la critique de Irénée, avec pour conséquence que la ligne irenéenne ne

455 Irenaeus M.C. Steenberg, “Tracing the Irenean Legacy,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, 203.

302

s’identifie alors pas entièrement avec la sphère ecclésiastique…. A. Orbe esquisse un christianisme pluriel, pluripolaire ou au moins bipolaire, ou des questions et des réponses diverses engendrent des spéculations croisées …. A. Orbe récrit Irénée, un Irénée qui laisserait leur place aux thèses combattues, et récrit en même temps, loin des simplifications postérieures, l’histoire de la première pensée chrétienne, dans toute sa complexité. 456

This analysis by Bastit, even though it is primarily directed to praise the scholarship of Orbe, is also reflective of the theological legacy of Irenaeus of Lyons. Even when the intention of

Irenaeus was mainly to defend and explain the Christian faith to Christians of his own era, the method, language, and content of his work was not merely a repetition of the ideas of others. Irenaeus intended to translate the faith using a synthesis of religious and intellectual concepts of his own second century to create a theology that would establish the foundation for future developments in the Christian understanding of the process of growth in the flesh of Christ and the process of diffusion of the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus cannot be easily categorized by scholars. Irenaeus is certainly not an isolated phenomenon, like a supernova that erupted in the second century pointing to an understanding of the Christian faith that is so much like contemporary theology. On the contrary, the uniqueness of Irenaeus lies in his close association with the cultural, theological, and liturgical currents that were relevant in his time and place. A study of the various editions and editors of Adversus haereses reveals that editors of the 16th through the 19th centuries wanted to appropriate the bishop of Lyons as one who served their own confessional beliefs. For these scholars the study of Irenaeus was motivated not only by discovery of the value of his theological voice, but even more important for these editors

456 Agnès Bastit, “Antonio Orbe (1917-2003) ou les deux sources du christianisme ancien,“ Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 51 (2005) : 7.

303 was the connection and validation that Irenaeus gave to the tenets of their personal creeds.

While the process of appropriation of the theology of Irenaeus among scholars has not entirely disappeared among contemporary researchers, the appropriation is not so much related now to their religious affiliation. Irenean scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries study in a more ecumenically diverse world than their predecessors and have no problem learning from and citing works by scholars from all traditions.

The study of somebody like Irenaeus, a defender of the foundations of ancient

Christian orthodoxy, could create in the scholar the enticement to judge him according to the historical development of the Christian tradition in general and to what is called

“classical Christology” in particular. Certainly, the works of Irenaeus were created to present and defend the apostolic faith and tradition that was part of his life and ministry, as it was expected as his duty as bishop of a place as diverse as Lyons. However, his apologetic works were not based on the philosophical influences that were going to become normative in the theological discourse of other scholars of his era, especially when Alexandria became an important center for the development of the Christian faith. Irenaeus was not concerned with the trend toward ontologization that was to become preeminent among theologians under the influence of Greek culture and philosophy. This movement tended to give more importance to the metaphysical foundation of things. In this way of thinking, it was difficult to conceive any change in the Son of God after his Incarnation.

Therefore, for theologians influenced by this ontological aspect, there is no possibility of change occurring in Jesus Christ at the moment of his baptism. Any change might detract from the essential character of Jesus Christ as the perfect human being. Such a limited

304 approach had consequences for future considerations of the baptism of Jesus as

Christological reflections would concentrate more on the Incarnation and its foundational aspect, with the events of the life of Jesus being relegated to a secondary place. The baptism in the Jordan would be regarded as an important event, but not so much in consideration as to how the event functioned in Christ but how the baptism functions in humanity. In other words, the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is important for its effects on humanity, not on Christ. The role of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ becomes also more relegated to the Incarnation. The Spirit has an important role regarding the baptism of Jesus, but it is a role necessary to show the Messianic identity. Because of this approach, there is a diminishing role to the recognition and relevance of the activity of the Spirit in the mysteries of the life of Jesus Christ.

It seems the resistance of some scholars to concede any concept of qualitative change in relation to the baptism and anointing of Christ comes from the same concerns that Justin

Martyr had in his own theology. However, Irenaeus did not share the concerns of Justin and other writers of the second century. The bishop of Lyons was not embarrassed about the dangers of emphasizing too much the effects of the baptism in the Jordan on the Incarnate

Word, as he situates the passage as related to the humanity of Christ and the change from the anointing in his flesh, the same human flesh that he shares with all humanity.

Irenaeus of Lyons, with a theology concentrated on unity, patience, and the salvation of the flesh, presents the baptism in the Jordan as a mystery that had relevance in the life of

Jesus. This mystery of the baptism in the Jordan established his public mission and vocation as well as enabling his human flesh to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and to receive the

305 faculties that empowered his human life to be in accordance with his vocation as Saviour.

The theology of Irenaeus presents the anointing of the Spirit at the baptism as a vocational moment for Jesus who became the Christ and accepted as a full human being the divine mission that was already in place at the Incarnation. The bishop of Lyons presented the baptism and anointing of Jesus in his writing with the same importance observed in the

Gospel accounts, an importance not deterred by the controversial nature of the event for some members of the Christian communities of the second century.

The boldness of Irenaeus in relating the humanity of Jesus Christ to the salvific process reveals a theology full of confidence, unafraid to take risks to express that Jesus shares the same journey of humanity yet in an eminent way due to his status as Son of God. Therefore, for Irenaeus this process of recapitulation is based on an activity where the life of humanity and the life of Jesus Christ are placed in complete connexion with each other. For Irenaeus, to isolate Jesus Christ from the life of humanity would be to undermine the life and mission of Jesus that was established from the very beginning for the sake of others.

The theology of Irenaeus would stress the importance of the progressive manifestation of the Spirit in Jesus, the perfect human being, in order for the Spirit to become accustomed to human flesh and be part of human history:

…. Unde [Spiritum] et in Filium Dei, Filium Hominis factum, descendit, cum ipso assuescens habitare in genero humano, et requiescere in hominibus, et habitare in plasmate Dei, voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis, et renovans eos a vetustate in novitatem Christi.457

457 Adv. haer. III. 17.1, in Against Heresies, 92.

306

This process of habitation of the Holy Spirit, designed in order to purify humankind throughout the human context and experience, was fully accomplished through the humanity of Jesus Christ and his complete fulfillment of the will of his Father during Jesus’ life. This process reached its climax at the Paschal mystery and at Pentecost when Christ poured the Spirit over all humanity and gave all creation the grace of incorruptibility.

The study of the theological ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons on the baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan brings implications of liturgical and theological concerns that are still relevant for our time. In his work Irenaeus presents reflections about Jesus Christ and Christian baptism that are not only his own, but also influenced by the liturgical and spiritual heritage of his time and context. Many studies on Irenaeus of Lyons have emphasized so much his original contributions that there is a tendency to place him in a seemingly isolated status.

This tendency can be explained in part as the result of his status as a pioneer systematic theologian, with insights that sound so related to contemporary Christian theology. A comparative analysis of the interpretations of his theological ideas, along with a comparison with the liturgical and ecclesial traditions of the second century could however place his innovative insights in dialogue with his historical context and show how his theology was not the fruit of isolated intellectual effort.

Consequently, the corpus of Irenaeus of Lyons was created in a liturgical and ecclesiological context that used the baptism and anointing of Jesus in the Jordan as an important paradigm for its baptismal rituals. This baptismal theology presented Christ as an exemplar to emulate, the anointed one who showed humanity the way to encounter the grace of God in both our body and soul. Jesus Christ was perceived as the advocate

307 between God and humanity, permitting men and women to become acquainted with the divine life in a process of progressive glorification given by God to all those willing to accept divine grace. This emphasis was maintained during the first centuries of Christianity even during the difficulties in interpretation that occurred regarding the New Testament depictions of the baptism of Jesus and its meaning for Christology.

Thus, there is a prominence given in the baptismal theology of Irenaeus to a direct identification between Christians and the Spirit given at baptism. The closeness between the baptized and the Holy Spirit evident in the theology of the first centuries of the Christian era defined the sacrament of baptism as the moment where the Spirit is given to humanity.

The gift of the Spirit is presented as a sanctifying effect of baptism, the moment where women and men are incorporated into Jesus Christ and anointed for mission and discipleship, a turning point in the life of any Christian follower.

This baptismal understanding could be highly beneficial for the faithful today. The theological developments of the Middle Ages with gradual emphasis on the Pauline view of baptism as a participation of the death and resurrection of Christ has, in my opinion, obscured the relationship of the faithful with the Holy Spirit in baptism. This medieval development has been accompanied by a liturgical practice that has separated the sacraments of initiation, and where the imagery of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan has been discarded both from the liturgy and from preaching of the baptismal event. This phenomenon, particularly evident in the Western tradition, has placed Christ at the very center of the sacrament with a very ancillary role for the Spirit. I suggest that this liturgical

Christomonism has hindered the faithful from a greater identification both with the activity

308 of the Spirit bestowed during the sacrament of baptism and the relevance of the activity of the Spirit in the mysteries of the life of Jesus Christ. This dissertation is an invitation to examine in what ways Christians may regard the baptism of Christ as a valuable event for both the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ as well as an encouragement for believers to be inspired and transformed by this event.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Irenaeus of Lyons

Texts

Adversus haereses

Erasmus, D., editor. Opus eruditissimum divi Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis in quinque libros digestum. Basel, 1526.

Grant, Robert. Irenaeus of Lyons. London: Routledge, 1997.

Harvey, W.W., editor. Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus haereses. Cambridge: 1857.

______. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons’ Five Books Against Heresies Volumes I and II. Rochester, NY: St. Irenaeus’ Press, 2003.

Roberts, A. Against Heresies. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

Rousseau, A. and L. Doutreleau, editors. Contre les Hérésies 1.1&2, Sources Chrétiennes, 263 & 264. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1979.

______. Contre les Hérésies 2.1 & 2, Sources Chrétiennes, 293 & 294. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1982.

______. Contre les Hérésies 31&2. Sources Chrétiennes, 210 &211. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974.

Rousseau, A., et al. editors. Contre les Héresies 4. 1 & 2, Sources Chrétiennes, 100.1 & 100.2. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1965.

Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

Behr, J., translation and introduction. On the Apostolic Preaching. New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.

MacKenzie, I.M. Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological Commentary and Translation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002

Rousseau, A., introduction, traduction et notes. Démonstration de la prédication apostolique, Sources Chrétiennes, 100. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1995.

Smith, J.P., translation and annotation. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978.

309 310

Justin Martyr

Texts

Apologies

Barnard, L.W., editor. St. Justin Martyr, The First and Second Apologies. New York: Paulist Press, 997.

Blunt, A.W. F., editor. The Apologies of Justin Martyr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.

Markovich, M., editor. Justini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

Munier, C., editor. Justin, Apologie pour le Chrétiens, Sources Chrétiennes 507. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2006

Minns, D. and P. Parvis, editors. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dialogue with Trypho

Bobichon, P., editor. Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003.

Falls, T.B., translation. St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Markovich, M., editor. Justini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

Other Primary Sources

Charlesworth, J.H., editor. The Odes of Solomon: The Syriac Texts. Missoula: Scholars Press,1977.

Erhman, Bert D., editor and translator. The Apostolic Fathers vol.1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005.

______. The Apostolic Fathers vol. 2 Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Hall, Stuart G., editor. Melito of Sardis : On Pascha and Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.

McDonald, Dennis, editor. The Acts of Andrew and Matthew in the City of the Cannibals. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

311

Secondary Sources

Aagard, Anne Marie. “’My Eyes Have Seen Your Salvation.’ On Likeness to God and Deification In Patristic Theology.” Religion & Theology 17 (2010): 302-328.

Adamik, Thomas. “The Baptized Lion in the Acts of Paul.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul andThecla, Ed. J.D. Bremmer, 60-74. Kampen: Koch Pharos, 1996.

Alles, Craig. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr’s DialogueWith Trypho. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Andía, Ysabel de. “Anointing.” Communio 25 (Summer 1998): 214-232.

______. Homo vivens: Incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyon. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1986.

______. “Modèles de l’unité des testaments selon Irénée de Lyon.” Studia Patristica 21 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001): 49-59.

______. “The “Science So Falsely Called”: Seduction and Separation.” Communio 24 (Winter1997); 640-670.

Bastit, Agnès. « Antonio Orbe (1917-2003) ou les deux sources du christianisme ancien. » Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 51 (2005) : 3-8.

Behr, John. Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

______. Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1973.

Benoit, André. Le baptême chrétien du second siècle : La théologie des Pères. Boulevard Saint Germain, Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1953.

Bingham, D. Jeffery. “Christianizing Divine Aseity: Irenaeus reads John.” In Gospel of John and Christian Theology, edited by R. Bauckman and C. Mosser , 53-67. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

______. “Himself within Himself: The Father and His Hand in Early Christianity.” Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 47 (2005): 137-151.

______. “Hope in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 76 no. 4 D (2000): 265-282.

______. “Irenaeus of Lyons.” In The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought, ed. D.J Bingham, 137-153. London: Routledge, 2010.

312

______. ” Irenaeus on Gnostic Biblical Interpretation.” Studia Patristica 40 (Louvain: Peeters, 2006): 367-379.

______. ” Irenaeus’ reading of Romans 8.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers no. 40 (2001): 131-150.

______. Irenaeus’ Use of Matthew’s Gospel in Adversus haereses. Louvain: Peeters, 1998.

______. “Justin and Isaiah 53.” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (2000): 248-261.

______. “Knowledge and Love in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Studia Patristica 36 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001): 184-199.

Bondioli, Carlo Maria. “Gloria Dei vivens homo: Teologia dello Spirito e antropologia anagogica In Ireneo.” Divus Thomas, Vol. 106 no. 1 (2003): 241-253.

Bounds, Christopher T. “Irenaeus and the Doctrine of Christian Perfection.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45 no. 2 (2010): 161-176.

Briggman, Anthony. “Dating Irenaeus’ Acquisition of Theophilus’ Correspondence To Autolycos: A Pneumatological Perspective.” Studia Patristica 45 (Louvain: Peeters, 2010): 397-402.

______. “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus.” Journal of Theological Studies vol. 61 (2010): 171-193.

______. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2012.

______. “Measuring Justin’s Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and BinitarianOrientation.” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 107-137.

______. “Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen.” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 115- 124.

______. “Spirit- Christology in Irenaeus: A Closer Look” Vigiliae Christianae 66 (2012): 1-19.

Bushur, James G.” Patristic Exegesis: Reading Scripture in the Eucharistic Gathering.” ConcordiaTheological Quarterly 74 (2010): 195-208.

Constantelos, Demetrios. J. “Irenaeus of Lyons and His Central Views on Human Nature.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 no. 4 (1989): 351-363.

Daniélou, Jean. Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme : Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avantNicée vol. 1. Tournai : Desclèe, 1958.

______. Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux IIe et IIIe siècles : Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée vol.2. Tournai : Desclèe, 1961.

313

Deconick, April D. “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the Gospel of Philipp.” Vigiliae Christiane 55 (2001): 225-261.

Donovan, Mary Ann. “Insights on Ministry: Irenaeus.” Toronto Journal of Theology 2 no. 1 (Spring 1998): 79-93.

______. One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997.

Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucius to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University, 1964.

Driscoll, Jeremy O.S.B. “Uncovering the Dynamic Lex Orandi- Lex Credendi in the Baptismal Theology of Irenaeus.” Pro Ecclesia vol. XII, no. 2 (2003): 213-225.

Fantino, Jacques, O.P. “La création ex nihilo chez Irénée: étude historique et théologique .” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 76 no3 (1992): 421-442.

______. L’homme image de Dieu chez Saint Irénée de Lyon. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986.

______. “Le passage du premier Adam au second Adam comme expression du salut chez Irénée de Lyon.” Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998): 418-429.

______. “La théologie de la création ex nihilo chez saint Irénée.” Studia Patristica 26 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993): 126-135.

______. La théologie d’Irénée : Lecture des Ecritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique: une approche trinitaire. Paris: Cerf, 1994.

______. “Vérité de foi et vie des communautés selon Irénée de Lyon.” Revue des sciences religieuses 70 no. 2 (1996): 240-253.

Ferguson, Everett. “Baptism from the Second to the Fourth Century.” Restoration Quarterly 1 no.4 (1957): 185-197.

______. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eeerdnams Publishing Company, 2009.

______. “Catechesis and Initiation.” In The Origins of Christendom in the West, edited by Alan Kreider, 233-236. Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 2001.

______. Early Christians Speak. Abilene: ACU Press, 1999.

Foster, Paul. “Irenaeus and the Noncanonical Gospels,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy,edited by Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 105-117. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.

Granados, José. Los misterios de la vida de Cristo en Justino Mártir. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2012.

314

Grant, Frederic C. “Early Christian Baptism.” Anglican Theological Review 27 no.4 (1945): 253-263.

Grant, Robert. “Melito of Sardis on Baptism.” Vigiliae Christiane I no.4 (1950): 33-36.

Goergen, Donald J. The Jesus of Christian History. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Goodenough, Erwin B. The Theology of Justin Martyr. Jenal: Frommann, 1923.

Henne, Philippe. “Pourquoi le Christ fut-il baptisé? La réponse de Justin.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 77 (1993): 567-583.

______. “Pour Justin, Jésus est-il un autre Dieu ?” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 81 (1997): 57-58.

Hill, Charles E. “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem.” Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 6 no.2 (Summer 2000): 135-172.

______. “Justin and the New Testament Writings.” Studia Patristica 30 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1997): 42-48.

______. “’The Orthodox Gospel’ The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus.” In The Legacy of John: second- century reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. T. Rasimus, 233- 300. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

______. “Polycarp Contra Marcion: Irenaeus’ Presbyteral Source in AH 4. 27-32.” Studia Patristica 40 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2006): 399-412.

Holsinger-Friesen. Irenaeus and Genesis: A Study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Houssiau, Albert. « Le baptême selon Irénée de Lyon. » Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 60 (1989) : 45-59.

______. La Christologie de Saint Irénée. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1955.

Jensen, Robin. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: BakerAcademic, 2012.

Jones, Stanley F. “Jewish Christianity of the Pseudo-Clementines.” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’, 315-334. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Keightley, Georgia Masters. “The Church’s Laity: Called to be Creation’s Priests.” Worship 84 no 4 (2010): 309-327.

Kurz, Joel R. “The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanity: Irenaeus of Lyon’s Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist.” Worship 83 no.2 (2009): 112-132.

315

Lake, Kirsopp. “The Shepherd of Hermas and Christian Life in Rome in the Second Century.” Harvard Theological Review 4 no. 1 (Ja 1911): 25-46.

Légasse, Simon. Naissance du baptême. Paris : Les Éditions du Cerf, 1993.

Loewe, William P. “Irenaeus’s Soteriology: Christus Victor Revisited.” Anglican Theological Review 67 no.1 (Ja 1985): 1-15.

Martínez-Gayol Fernandez, Nurya. “Ireneo de Lyon; la idea de “reparación” en el contexto de la “recapitulación.”’ Estudios Eclesiásticos vol. 85 (2010): 3-42.

McDonnell, Kilian. “The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the Descent into Hell.” Worship 69 (1995): 98-109.

______. The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation.Collegeville. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996.

______. “Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan.” Theological Studies 56 no.2 (1995): 209-236.

______. “Quaesto disputata: Irenaeus on the Baptism of Jesus.” Theological Studies 59 no.2 (1998): 317-319.

Minns, Denis. “Irenaeus.” Expository Times 120 no. 4 (Ja 2009): 155-166.

______. Irenaeus: An Introduction. Great Britain: T & T Clark International, 2010.

Morgan-Wynne, J.E. “The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience in Justin Martyr.” Vigiliae Christiane (1989): 172-177.

Nimikawa, Miyako. “La paciencia del crecimiento y la moderación: Del hombre recién hechoal hombre perfecto de Ireneo de Lyon.” Estudios Eclesiásticos vol. 83 (2000): 51- 85.

Norris, Richard A. “The Problem of Human Identity in Patristic Christological Speculation.” Studia Patristica 17(Oxford: Pergamon, 1982): 147-149.

Orbe, Antonio. Antropología de San Ireneo. Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1969.

______. “Deus facit, homo fit: un axioma de San Ireneo.” Gregorianum 66 no. 2 (1988): 185- 239.

______. Espiritualidad de San Ireneo. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1989.

______. “El Espíritu en el bautismo de Jesús (en torno a San Ireneo).” Gregorianum 76 (1995): 663-699.

______. ‘‘El hombre ideal en la teología de s. Ireneo.” Gregorianum 43 no. 3 (1962): 449- 491.

316

______. Introducción a la teología de los siglos II y III, 2 vols. Analecta Gregoriana 113. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1987.

______. “¿ San Ireneo adopcionista? En torno a adv. haer. III, 19, 1.” Gregorianum 65 (1984): 5-52.

______. “Teología bautismal de Clemente Alejandrino.” Gregorianum 3 (1955): 424-411.

______. La unción del Verbo, vol. 3 of Estudios Valentinianos, Analecta Gregoriana 113. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1987.

Osborn, Eric Francis. “The Emergence of Christian Theology.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 7 no. 3 (1986): 244-255.

______. Justin Martyr. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1973.

______. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

______. “Irenaeus of Lyons.” In First Christian Theologians: an introduction to theology in the Early church, ed. G.R. Evans, 121-128. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

______. “Irenaeus: rocks in the road.” Expository Times 114 no. 8 (May 2003): 255-258.

______. “Irenaeus and Xenophanes-Argument and Parody.” Studia Patristica 36 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2001): 270-281.

______. “The Love Command in Second-Century Christian Writing.” Second Century: AJournal of Early Christian Studies 1 no. 4 (Winter 1981): 223-243.

______. “Love of Enemies and Recapitulation.” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 12-31.

______. “Reason and the Rule of Faith in the Second Century A.D.” In Making of Orthodoxy: essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, edited by R. Williams, 40-61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Parvis, Paul. “Packaging Irenaeus: Adversus haereses and its Editors,” in Irenaeus: Life Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 183-198. Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press, 2011.

______. “Who was Irenaeus? An Introduction to the Man and His Work.” In Irenaeus: Life,Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 13-24. Minneapolis, MN:Fortress Press, 2011.

Presley, Stephen. “Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 165-171. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2011.

317

Prigent, Pierre. Justin et l’Ancient Testament: Études Bibliques. Paris : Librairie Lecoffre, 1964.

Rordoff, Willy. « Le baptême selon la Didaché. » Liturgie foi et vie des premiers chrétiens : Études Patristiques. Paris : Beauchesne, 1986 : 175-185.

Secord, Jared. “The Cultural Geography of a Greek Christian: Irenaeus form Smyrna to Lyons.” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 25- 33.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011.

Sesboüé, Bernard. Tout Récapituler: Christologie et sotériologie d’ Irénée de Lyon. Paris : Desclée, 2000.

Scherrer, Thierry. La gloire de Dieu dans l’oeuvre de Saint Irenée. Roma : Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1997.

Skarsaune, Oscar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity. Downers Grave, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002.

Scobie, Charles H. John the Baptist. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964.

Slusser, Michael. “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology.” Theological Studies 49 (1988): 461-476.

______. “The Heart of Irenaeus’ Theology,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 133-139. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2011.

______. “How much did Irenaeus learn from Justin?” Studia Patristica 40 (Louvain: Peeters, 2008): 515-520.

______. “Justin scholarship: Trends and Trajectories.” In Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, 13-21. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2007.

Smith, Daniel A. “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 618- 642.

Steenberg, M.C. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2008.

______. “Irenaeus on Scripture, Graphe, and the Status of Hermas.”St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53 1 (2009): 29-66.

______. Of God and Man: Theology and Anthropology form Irenaeus to Athanasius. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

______. “Tracing the Irenaean Legacy,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 199-211. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2011.

318

Stewart, Alistair. “The Rule of Truth, which He Received Through Baptism (Haer !.9.4): Catechesis, Ritual, and Exegesis in Irenaeus’ Gaul,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, eds. Paul Foster and Sarah Parvis, 151-158. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2011.

Story, Colleen I.K. “Justin’s Apology I 62-64: Its Importance for the Author’s Treatment of Christian Baptism.” Vigiliae Christiane 16 (1962): 172-178.

Studer, Basil. Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church. Collegeville: Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1993.

Sweete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study of Christian Theology in the Age of the Fathers. London: Hamilton and Co. Limited, 1912.

Tripp, D.H. “The Sacramental System in the Gospel of Philipp.” Studia Patristica 5 (1962): 251- 260.

Vigne, Daniel. Christ au Jordain: Le baptême de Jésus dans la tradition judéo-chrétienne. Ėtudes Bibliques, 16. Paris: Gabalda, 1992.

______.“Pneuma prophetikon: Justin et le prophétisme.” Anthropoi Laikos, edited by M.A. Vannier and G.Wurst, 335-347 . Fribourg: Ėditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 2000.

Vogel, Jeff. “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption.” Anglican Theological Review 89 no.3 (Sum 2007): 443-459.

Williams, George H. “Baptismal Theology and Practice as Reflected in Justin Martyr.” In The Ecumenical World of Orthodox Civilization, Russia and Orthodoxy, ed. Andrew Blane, 26-27. Hague: Mouton, 1975.

Wingren, Gustaf. Man and the Incarnation: A Study of the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus.

(Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1959.

Ysebaert, J. Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origin and Early Development. Nijmayen: Dekker & Van de Vogt, 1962.