St Theophilus of Antioch
In Antioch, Bishop Heron succeeded Ignatius, probably in 116, and he was followed, possibly in 128, by Cornelius, and then by Bishop Eros in 142. Downey suspects that, during the time of Cornelius, when the Jewish rebellion of Bar Cochba was crushed in Palestine, a significant number of Jews became Christians, presumably to avoid recriminations. Downey thinks that this led to a strengthening of the Judaizing trend in Christianity which Ignatius had opposed. This raises the conjecture that some of the “conversions” to Christianity were insincere, and that this was the root of future problems.
After Eros, Theophilus of Antioch was probably the next bishop of Antioch from about 169 to after 180. He was writing, therefore, within 80 years of Ignatius’s death. From his sole surviving work, To Autolycus (Ad Autolycum), we learn that he was engaged in completing the third book of that work on 17 March 180, soon after the death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He must have died by 188, when it is known that Maximinus was bishop of Antioch. Theophilus was praised by both Eusebius and Jerome, who considered him to have been capable and orthodox. A chance comment he makes about his location shows that he was certainly living in Syria, and was probably a Syrian. Little can be said with certainty about the persecution or tolerance of Christians during Theophilus’ life, but he records that Christians had a “bad name” (To Autolycus 1.1).
That little of his work has survived does not mean that he was not an important figure: it means only that our sources are meagre. Downey, again, aptly summarizes his importance: “He represents an early attempt to formulate a learned theology – he is the first of the apologists to use the term “trinity” in speaking of the Godhead – and his work in this respect is of special significance, since his doctrine reappears three generations later in the work of one of his successors at the head of the church in Antioch, Paul of Samosata, who endeavoured to reconcile Jewish and pagan teaching with the Christian doctrine; and Theophilus’ literal interpretation of scripture, relying on Jewish exegesis, marks him as a forerunner of the methods that later characterized the theological school of Antioch.”
Downey claims that Theophilus contributed the idea that the Evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the New Testament, or at least the Gospels and the letters of Paul, were divine works of the same standing as the Old Testament prophets, and possess the power to touch souls. But while Theophilus was clear about this, Downey misses both the reference in the New Testament to the letters of Paul being scripture: 2 Peter 3:16, and Ignatius’ depreciation of the Jewish scriptures as compared to the Christian dispensation (Magnesians 8.2-10). Further, when Theophilus says that God sent holy prophets to teach us to recognise the oneness of God, he cites the First Epistle of St Peter, and the Acts of the Apostles (2.34). He refers, in one place, to “the holy scriptures and all those inspired by the Spirit, literally, “spirit bearers,” and then refers to St John by name, and cites: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” (2.22)
It is also known that he opposed the thesis of Hermogenes, a painter who lived at Antioch but later relocated to Carthage, that matter was uncreated. Gerhard May (The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine …) says that Hermogenes was a Christian Platonist who explained evil by reference to matter, and said that Genesis 1:1-2 supported his thesis, for the earth which was without form was itself matter. Unfortunately, Theophilus’ writing on this, as with his reply to Marcion, have been lost. May in fact considers that Theophilus, together with Irenaeus of Lyons, were the two most important theologians of “the time before and around 200.” I would like to be able to accept this without qualification, but it must be noted that there may have been others of whom we have no trace.
What does survive is his address to a man named Autolycus, a pagan who had abused Theophilus as a Christian, to whom he replies, in the first paragraph: “I acknowledge that I am a Christian. I bear this name beloved of God in the hope of being useful to him.” As Robert M. Grant, the editor points out, the word “useful” is eukhrēstos, a pun on the word Christ, and of course eu means good; so we have here an allusion to the imitation of Christ, being good like Christ.
The next thought is quite significant: people ask us to show them our God, but I reply “show me your man and I will show you my God,” meaning that not every man can see and hear with the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart. As Theophilus says: “God is seen by those who are capable of seeing him, once they have the eyes of the soul opened.” Just as some people cannot see the sun because their eyes are blind, so too the blind of soul cannot see God. This is a fundamental truth, and is part of the reason that philosophical arguments about the existence of God do not get anywhere unless the other person already has an open disposition. And to open the eyes of the soul we must keep ourselves pure from sin. You cannot see in a rusty mirror, says Theophilus, and so too you can see in a sinful soul.
Then, in a very important passage, Theophilus basically sets out what came to be known as the negative theology: “… if I call Him Light, I speak of his creature; … if I call Him Mind, I speak of His intelligence; if I call him Spirit, I speak of his breath … if I call Him Father, I speak of Him as all things …” (3) Later on in the Eastern tradition, especially as exemplified by Dionysius the Areopagite, this will be a major feature. But this does not mean that we can say nothing at all of God, for Theophilus writes: “Just as the soul of man is not seen, since it is invisible to men, but is apprehended through the movement of the body, so it may be that God cannot be seen by human eyes but is seen and apprehended through his providence and his works.” (5)
Not everyone sees the king, but they know his “laws, commands, authorities, powers, and images.” Also, Theophilus says, we are so surrounded by the spirit of God, that we can no more see it than a pomegranate seed can see the pomegranate. While developing these thoughts, he makes a very intriguing point in response to Autolycus: “You speak of him, man, you breathe his breath, (but) you do not know him.” That is, we breathe with His spirit; for the word translated as “breath” also means “spirit.”
Of some importance is Book 2, chapter 15 of this work. Although we shall come in the next section to what Theophilus says about types, here he uses that concept to introduce his teaching on the Trinity, which was, we must note, the first attested teaching and use of the word trias, or in the genitive, triados, meaning a trio or trinity to refer to the godhead. He writes there: “Similarly the three days prior to the luminaries are types of the triad of God and His Word and His Wisdom. In the fourth place is man, who is in need of light, so that there might be God, Word, Wisdom, and Man. For this reason the luminaries came into existence on the fourth day.”
In book 2, chapter 10, Theophilus says that God engendered the Word and with the Word, His Wisdom, which he identifies with the Spirit of God. He seems to distinguish the Word and Spirit of God by saying that the Spirit is within God, while the Word is always present with Him. But although some of what he says about the Trinity is ambivalent, this is a feature of any writing about the Trinity. It does not detract from the achievement which we see on display here: a Trinitarian theosophy.
Ss Ignatius and Theophilus of Antioch on Typology
St Ignatius’ use of typology is quite suggestive of the typology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Like Hebrews, Ignatius applies this typology to Christ as related to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In Trallians 3.1, Ignatius exhorts the people to respect the deacons like Jesus Christ, the bishop as a type (tupos) of the Father, and the priests like the council of God and the band of the apostles.
The same thought seems to be operative in Magnesians 6.2, where Ignatius exhorts his audience to: “be unified with the bishop and with those who preside according to the model (tupon) and teachings (didakhēn) of incorruptibility.” This is almost certainly an allusion to Romans 6:17: “… you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching (tupon didakhēs) to which you were entrusted” (NAB). But it is an allusion which only uses the text as a point of departure. In Romans 6, Paul is not speaking typologically. In Magnesians, Ignatius is. To say that the bishop is an antetype of the Father, as St Ignatius does, is to see a typological correspondence between God and the individuals who comprise a contemporary rank in the hierarchy.
It is in the nature of typology that no identification is either exhaustive or exclusive. Hence, in typological thought every child being baptised is the Infant Jesus and the baptised Jesus. As we shall glimpse when we come to Ephrem, it is true to typology to see a network of types ever unfolding, ever enrichening our insight. Most notably in the Eucharist, every celebrant, whether priest or bishop, is at various times within the one liturgy a type of the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit, or all three at once. This seems to me true to the principles, and if necessary, can be suggested as a contemporary development of Syrian Christian thought.
An expansion of typological thought is found in Theophilus of Antioch. In Ad Autolycum 2.15, he says that: “the sun exists as a type (en tupōi) of God, and the moon “as a type of man.” A little later, in 2.16, he writes of the fifth day of creation that: “those (fish) created from the waters were blessed by God so that this might serve as a pattern (eis deigma) of men’s future reception of repentance and remission of sins through water and a bath of regeneration.” Grant notes that this last clause is taken from Titus 3:5 (dia loutrou paliggenesias). Theophilus adds that: “the great fish and the carnivorous birds are in the likeness (en homoiōmati) of greedy men and transgressors.” This could be simple moralising from nature, but Grant points out that Theophilus goes on to say that these animals have fallen because man, their steward, has likewise fallen, and when men return to virtue, so will they. This is more than moralising, it is drawing a causal connection between the orders of creation.
Theophilus expands the use of typology: the two major heavenly bodies are related to God and humanity respectively. The second example uses the typological logic that all things are inter-connected, to say that what is higher (man), influences the lower (animals). In comparing the moon to humanity he is making humanity an antetype of one of the most glorious works of God. This is typology of exactly the same style which Syrian Christians later employ, and yet there is no overt relation between OT and NT at all. Clearly typology was not just a method of interpreting scripture, it was an entire philosophy of existence and a theosophy.