25
him (2.10.3; 2.13.8; 2.22.2) or by him (2.10.8; 2.18.1). In this role the Son is Lord of all things (2.10.4).
After creation, the Son continues in this relationship of mediator. he is sent wherever the Father wills
(2.22.6), as demonstrated by the Son's personal representation of the Father in conversing with Adam
(2.22.2). Through the Son and Spirit (=sofiva and lovgo")
175
God "heals and makes alive" (1.7.3).
It is through this same pair of mediators--Word and Wisdom--that God the Father performs all his
actions in the economy of creation. These two are so closely related in function that at times the
terminology used to describe them is blurred. In Autolycus 2.10.5, Theophilus wrote, "He, then, being
Spirit of God (
Pneu'ma qeou'
), and governing principle (
ajrchV
), and wisdom (
Sofiva
), and power of the
highest (
duvnami" uJyivstou
), came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of
the world and of all other things."
176
Yet the persons of the Son (Word) and Spirit (Wisdom) are clearly
distinguished in other passages of Theophilus. In Autolycus 2.10.6, he wrote of "the wisdom of God
which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him."
177
The Spirit of God himself
178
is seen in a role superior to creation, but in submission to the will of the
Father. Thus, the creation is said to be contained (perievcetai) by the Spirit while at the same time both
the creation and the Spirit are contained (perievcon) by the hand of God (Autolycus 1.5.4). Similarly, it
is God who gives his breath (pneu'ma) to the whole world to animate creation (1.7.1; 2.13.3).
179
The
prophets are inspired and made wise by the Spirit who is from God (2.9.1). In all cases the Spirit
(Wisdom) is portrayed in a role as mediator of God the Father.
Theophilus referred to the three persons of the Trinity in several instances. In fact, in Autolycus
2.15.4 he wrote, "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the
Trinity (triavdo") of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."
180
According to Theophilus God's Word
and Wisdom were "emitted" from within himself before creation (2.10.2), and all three were active in
the formation of the universe. It is with this Trinitarian model that he explained Genesis 1:26:
"Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, `Let Us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness.' But to no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did He say, `Let Us make'" (2.18.2).
181
Also, we have seen this same ordering of function present in the activities of God subsequent to creation
in the economy of salvation, as God heals and makes alive through his Word and Wisdom (1.7.3).
Although Theophilus has been regarded as sub-orthodox--even as denying the incarnation and being
influenced by Ebionite teachings--I find it difficult to agree with Grant who points to Theophilus as an
example of "the startling diversity in Christological doctrines even toward the end of the second
century."
182
Theophilus did mostly neglect the incarnation of Jesus. It is also true that his descriptions of
Christian doctrine are embellished with both philosophical and Jewish terms and concepts. However, an
analysis of his presentation of intratrinitarian relationships between God, Word, and Wisdom are not so
startling when set in the context of developing Trinitarian thought in the second century. Regardless of
whether or not Theophilus would have been comfortable with the later expressions of Nicaea, his
presentation of the headship of the Father and the functional subordination of the Son and Spirit in the
175
The Spirit is identified with sofiva in Autolycus 2.9.1.
176
Although the context suggests the Word is still being discussed, Theophilus described actions here that are normally
attributed to the Spirit. Like others in the second century, he was not careful to distinguish the persons of Son and Spirit from their
works, and this passage only muddles things, now distinguishing, now confusing the two both in name and function. On the surface
this same nominal blurring is seen in Autolycus 2.22.2, when he said the Word is God's "power and wisdom," terms usually
ascribed to the Spirit in the fathers but explicitly applied to Christ in 1 Cor 1:24. On the confusion of these terms and concepts, and
on possible Jewish backgrounds, see Grant, Jesus after the Gospels, 71-72.
177
= hJ Sofiva hJ tou' qeou', hJ ejn aujtw'/ ou\sa kaiV oJ Lovgo" oJ a{gio" aujtou', oJ ajeiV
sumparwVn aujtw'
178
The term "Spirit of God" is used by Theophilus in Autolycus 1.5.4; 1.14.1; 3.12.1 and 3.17.4.
179
This assumes pneu'ma is intended by Theophilus to refer to the Holy Spirit and not to some impersonal, energizing force.
180
= tou' qeou', kaiV tou' Lovgou aujtou' kaiV th'" Sofiva" aujtou'.
181
= oujk a[llw/ dhv tini . . . ajll* h] tw'/ eJautou' Lovgw/ kaiV th'/ eJautou' Sofiva/.
182
Grant, Jesus after the Gospels, 82. I believe Grant transgresses the bounds of evidence from Theophilus's writings, which
simply do not provide the data required for his assertion that "Theophilus seems to believe in the virginal conception but not the
incarnation" (ibid., 77). We simply have no indication about what Theophilus believed about the incarnation, as it seems not to have
been his purpose in writing to Autolycus. Personally, I believe we owe Theophilus either grace or silence.