Unctus est a Patre Spiritu:

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

by

Marcos Antonio Ramos

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology of St. Michaels 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 Michaels College.

Copyright by Marcos Antonio Ramos 2017

ii

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. Michaels College

2017

Abstract

This thesis analyzes and contextualizes the bishop of Lyons 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.

iii

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

iv

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

1

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. Steenbergs Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius (T&T Clark, 2009), pp. 9-10.

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, Introduccin a la teologa 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 Anda, 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 (Anda [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.

5

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 Christs two natures: of Christs personhood,

of soteriology and of how Christ could be Saviour. These issues have been discussed in a

diverse manner, with authors such as Orbe, Anda, 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 Briggmans 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.

6

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 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. 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 Irenaeuss 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.

7

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

8

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.

Justins 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, Justins 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.

9

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 Jesuss 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 uncin del Verbo, vol.3 of Estudios Valentinianos, Analecta Gregoriana 113 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1961), 510.

10

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 Adams 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 Justins 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, Anda,

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 Anda 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 uncin del Verbo, 632-633. 8 Ysabel de Anda, Homo vivens: incorruptibilit et divinization de lhomme selon Irne de Lyon (Paris: tudes 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.

13

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.

14

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 Bezaes

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 editors 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

Feuardents 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 fashionespecially 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 countryindustriously corrupted many passages from this writer, which it was worthwhile and fitting to restore and vindicate from their false interpretation.12

The analysis of Feuardents 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 Feuardents 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 Feuardents edition

complements the text of other chapters. Feuardents 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.

18

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 Grabes 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

Ren Massuet was a French Benedictine who published his edition in 1710. He wrote

because he felt that Grabes work was plagued with a false interpretation based on a desire

to make Irenaeus a proto-Anglican. Massuets preface is clear in declaring that his edition

was produced as a reaction to Grabes 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.

19

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.

Massuets 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 Harveys 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. Harveys 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.

20

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. Rousseaus notes are erudite and

informative, and they are disengaged from the Catholic-Protestant diatribes of the previous

editions. Rousseaus 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

22

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, Anda, 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.

24

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.

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

Danilou, suggested that this emphasis was caused by the influence of the Essene

movement and its relationship with John the Baptist.19 Johns 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. Danilou establishes

the resemblance between the outpouring of the Spirit in Christian baptism with the

eschatological effusion that was prominent in the Qumrn 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 () la terre, lui-mme tant venu comme un home parmi les hommes, mangeant et buvant et dans la tranquillit () crasant la tte du dragon par leau ( ), il sauvera Isral et toutes les nations, Dieu portant une figure () dhomme.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 Danilou, Thologie du Judo-Christianisme : Histoire des doctrines chrtiennes avant Nice vol. I (Tournai :Descle, 1958) : 247-248. 20 Testament de XII Patriarches, VII.3, Texte grec, par R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1908) as cited in Danilou, 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 Baptists 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.

Marks 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 [] the Jordan River. The Greek preposition 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 Johns 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 Johns baptism and its validity. Jesus is presented in the Synoptic

Gospels as a defender of the validity of Johns baptism. 22 Marks 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. Lukes 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 Lukes 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.

Matthews 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. Matthews 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 () 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.

32

Son who was revealed, and a Spirit who descended.26 In Matthews 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. Johns 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 Baptists 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 Johns

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 Lgasse, on the other hand, goes even further:

Lexamen prcdent des pricopes synoptiques aboutit une constatation ngative que corrobore lensemble du Nouveau Testament: il nest aucun indice qui permettait dadmettre quau 1er sicle les chrtiens ont tabli un rapport quelconque entre le baptme de Jsus par Jean et le rite de linitiation pratiqu dans lglise.28

Lgasse 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 Lgasse, Naissance du baptme (Paris : Les ditions du Cerf, 1993), 68.

34

opinion of Lgasse, 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 mme, quen rapportant les paroles de Jean-Baptiste les crivains vangliques aient eu une vise oblique ladresse des candidates au baptme, auxquels, par le truchement du Prcurseur, pouvait sadresser un message tel que celui-ci: Si Jean-Baptiste a exig la conversion lors du seul baptme deau, combien plus forte raison devez-vous oprer cette mme conversion, vous qui allez recevoir un baptme dans lEsprit Saint! Mais justement ce message ne cadre pas avec la thorie qui considre le baptme deau reu par Jsus comme le prototype du baptme chrtien. A telle thorie le Nouveau Testament noffre pas le moindre support. Pour la formuler les Pres de lglise ont t amens faire un curieux dtour, en recourant lide de la sanctification des eaux. Ide nouvelle et sans fondement dans les textes canoniques, puisque au lieu dtre, comme dans ces derniers, lobjet de laction, le Christ devient dsormais loprateur, grce au contact mystrieux de sa chair avec leau du Jourdain.29

Other scholars value some of Lgasses 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 Christs humanity. Here Jesuss 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 JesusThe 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.

35

Etienne Nodet also objects to the position of Lgasse, and in an extensive analysis he

objects to Legassess refusal of acknowledging the baptism of Jesus as a model of Christian

baptism. Nodet contends with Lgassess 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 Lgasses Naissance du Baptme, 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.

36

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.

38

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 Christs 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.

39

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 Christs

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 Gods 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