The Beginning, the Word, and Theophilus of Antioch

The Beginning, the Word, and Theophilus of Antioch

One church father’s very Jewish commentary on Genesis 1:1 and the Logos

BY: Jordan Upton

Of this six-days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths. (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2:12)

The earliest chapters of Genesis explode with a creation narrative begging for unending study. In Judaism, even the first verses, words, and letters of Genesis receive serious scrutiny.

As disciples of Yeshua, the apostles left us an additional angle to study: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). Why does John couch it in the language of Genesis 1:1, and what is the Word (Greek: Logos)? Of course, verses here and there in the New Testament touch on the beginning of all things, but in a vacuum, these are cryptic at best.

Perhaps the closest we can get to apostolic theology on Genesis 1:1 is from Theophilus of Antioch. As explored elsewhere, Theophilus was a second-century bishop whose defence of Christianity reflects heavy influence from rabbinic thought. He finished his only extant work, To Autolycus, around 180 CE. While he was writing long after the apostles, there are several points in favour of his interpretations coming from Judaism, if not the apostles themselves. Unlike later church fathers, he was suspicious of Greek philosophy and spiritualizing the meaning of biblical texts. His ideas also often have direct parallels in the Judaism of his day.¹

Of course, all church fathers inherited the Jewish thought baked into apostolic theology, but Theophilus’ warmth toward Jewish thought seems to go beyond that.

For one, the way he cited pagan sources as opposed to Jewish ones is telling. When he utilized Greek philosophical or historical works, he often framed them with a sharp comment or correction. However, he mentioned Josephus’ Jewish War without critique of the author or work,² and he leaned on the author’s Jewish apologetic Against Apion throughout the third section of To Autolycus.³

Better yet, Theophilus’ arguments and proof texts mirrored those of rabbis from just before or during his lifetime. This suggests he had some form of connection with the world of Jewish thought.⁴ Rather than distinguishing Christianity from Judaism, Theophilus used the Jewish apologetics particular to his time in his defence of the gospel message.

In any case, these are beautiful teachings from an early disciple exploring Genesis 1:1 in Jewish terms.

A Post-Supersessionist Church Father?

Theophilus based his arguments for Christianity on the antiquity and uprightness of the Jewish people.

A Word of Caution

The creation narrative is incredible and beautiful, but also mysterious and perhaps even dangerous. The Mishnah warns Jewish scholars not to “expound the act of Creation and the secrets of the beginning of the world before two or more individuals” (m.Chagigah 2:1). Pondering how God made the world is best left to the experts because it could drive most people to heresy or insanity:

Whoever looks at four matters, it would have been better for him had he never entered the world: Anyone who reflects upon what is above the firmament and what is below the earth, what was before Creation, and what will be after the end of the world. (m.Chagigah 2:1)

Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish teacher contemporary with the apostles, prefaced an esoteric teaching by saying, “Let the superstitious either stop their ears, or else let them depart; for we are about to teach those initiated persons who are worthy of the knowledge of the most sacred mysteries” (On the Cherubim I 42). However, he believed that “it is from inquiries into these things [creation] that philosophy has arisen, than which no more perfect good has entered into human life” (On the Creation 54).

Theophilus, a former pagan, was much more critical of Greek philosophy. He steered his pagan friend Autolycus away from philosophers pondering cosmology:

The utterances of the philosophers, and writers, and poets have an appearance of trustworthiness, on account of the beauty of their diction; but their discourse is proved to be foolish and idle, because the multitude of their nonsensical frivolities is very great; and not a stray morsel of truth is found in them. For even if any truth seems to have been uttered by them, it has a mixture of error. And as a deleterious drug, when mixed with honey or wine, or some other thing, makes the whole [mixture] hurtful and profitless. (To Autolycus 2:12)

Of course, the rabbis, Philo, and Theophilus all went on to discuss creation, but disciples of Yeshua should heed their concerns. 

If the topic is opaque for rabbis inundated in Torah, how much more so for the rest of us. While we can comb the Scriptures for answers to the mysteries of the beginning (or the end), we should not become overconfident or dogmatic in our understandings. In Philo’s words, may we never become “afflicted with the incurable disease of pride of language and quibbling expressions, and … measure sanctity and holiness by no other standard” (On the Cherubim I 42).

Since Theophilus went on to share the teachings below with a pagan, we should be safe to continue with his commentary on Genesis 1:1.

How to Name God

Like the rabbis, Theophilus saw many ideas packed within even the first few words of Genesis 1:1. As a Greek speaker, he drew from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The first words of Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint are “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός” (“En archē epoiēsen ho theos”). In English, this is generally translated as “In the beginning, God created.” However, in Greek and Hebrew grammar, the verb often comes before the subject. God is the one creating, but an English word-for-word translation of this passage in the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible is something like “In the beginning created God.”

Greek	Greek Transliteration	Hebrew	Hebrew Transliteration	English
ἐν ἀρχῇ	En archē	בְּרֵאשִׁית	B’reisheet	In the beginning
ἐποίησεν	epoiēsen	בָּרָא	barah	created
ὁ θεός	ho theos	אלוקים	Elohim	God

Theophilus saw wisdom in this grammatical construction, commenting:

Moses … or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, “In the beginning [created God] the heaven and the earth.” First, he named the “beginning,” and “creation,” then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. (To Autolycus 2:10)

To Theophilus, even mentioning God should be done with respect. No king is without a procession, and HaShem is the King of kings of kings. In today’s terms, God is the headliner at the concert, not the opener. He should be exalted in every context, even in sentence structure.

As it turns out, the Hebrew word order of this phrase is identical to the Greek. In fact, it is the basis for a parallel teaching attributed to Theophilus’ contemporary Rabbi Eleazar ben Shimon:

One should not utter the Holy Name by itself, but only after a preceding word, as in the Torah it only occurs for the first time after two words: B’reisheet barah Elohim [“In the beginning created God”]. (Zohar, Yitro 26:441)

The Word in the Beginning

For Theophilus, “in the beginning” is not a filler phrase to get to “God.” After discussing the word order above, he explained the passage’s significance this way:

The divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, “In the beginning [created God] the heavens and the earth.” (To Autolycus 2:10)

Theophilus said Genesis 1:1 teaches that

1.) God is recognizable by his works, and

2.) he made creation by his Word

The first idea, that creation proves the existence of a Creator, makes sense on its own. However, how does “In the beginning created God” prove that God made the world by his Word? The word ‘Word’ isn’t even in Genesis 1:1. Of course, John 1:1 places the Word in the beginning in a clear parallel to Genesis: “In the beginning was the Word.” But this does not define what the Word is or explain why it’s in the beginning.

Theophilus did define the Word, but he went far beyond saying it was in the beginning. The Greek word archē means “beginning” as in John 1:1, but it can also mean “governing principle” or “authority.” Theophilus played on the semantic range, saying the Word is archē (among other things):

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called “governing principle” [archē], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle [archē], and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. (To Autolycus 2:10)

Not only did Theophilus say the Word was at the beginning and the beginning itself, but he also said it was the Spirit, Wisdom, and power of God! This might sound like sloppy theology, particularly if forced into later church theology, but Theophilus’ understanding of the Logos fits hand in glove within the Jewish thought of his time.

God’s Agents

Theophilus reflected the rabbinic understanding that God uses agents within creation. In Jewish thought, God is the creator and thus outside creation. As such, he uses agents like angels to accomplish his will in the world. Particular agents like the angel of the LORD might even speak for him. For example, Exodus 3:2 says “the angel of the LORD” was in the burning bush, then the passage swaps to God being the speaker.

Since the angel of the LORD speaks for God, it’s shorter to say Moses spoke with God. The same theology is in the New Testament: The author of Hebrews called the Torah “the message declared by angels” (2:2).

Jewish literature imagines God using greater agents than angels, particularly in the creation of the world. Like John, some sources spoke of the Word of God as the agent through whom all came into being:

This same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race … saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you”; neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you. (Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 205–206)

A noteworthy midrash connects the Spirit of God hovering over the waters with the Spirit of Messiah:

“The spirit of God was hovering” (Genesis 1:2) – this is the spirit of the messianic king, as it says: “The spirit of the Lord will rest upon him” (Isaiah 11:2). (Genesis Rabbah 2:4)

Other sources read Proverbs 8 as saying God made the world through Wisdom. Sometimes, the rabbis even saw the word “beginning” (archē in Greek, reshit in Hebrew) as the agent by which God created creation. Because of shared themes and terminology, the rabbis connected Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8, suggesting God created the world via the beginning. Thus, “the beginning” becomes shorthand for the Torah and wisdom of God:

The Torah is saying: “I was the tool of craft of the Holy One blessed be He” … “B’reisheet God created” (Genesis 1:1), and reshit is nothing other than the Torah, as it says: “The LORD made me at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). (Genesis Rabbah 1:1)

Unlike pagan mythology, the texts above do not present a pantheon of demigods. The Word, the Beginning, and the Wisdom are overlapping expressions of the one God’s activity within his creation. As with these Jewish sources, Theophilus believed God gave the world revelation “that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God” (To Autolycus 2:34). The question driving each of these authors was how the Creator could be within creation.

Though Theophilus saw the Word as the Beginning, the Spirit of God, and the Power of the Highest, he most often paired God’s Word and Wisdom as twin agents in creation. Calling the two God’s own hands, Theophilus wrote, “To no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did [God] say, ‘Let Us make’” (2:18). Theophilus was not rejecting or modifying John’s Logos theology. After all, Theophilus had already written that the Word was God’s Wisdom (2:10). Irenaeus, a church father contemporary with Theophilus, borrowed the imagery:

With Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” (Against Heresies 4:20:1)

There are several passages attributed to rabbis of the time that emphasize God using both hands to create man:

From where do we learn that the human being was created with God’s two hands? As it says [in Psalm 119:73], “Your hands made me and fashioned me.” (Avot DeRabbi Natan 1:8)

Jewish believers around the time of Theophilus also riffed on the connection between God’s Word and Wisdom:

The Father of knowledge is the Word of knowledge. He who created wisdom is wiser than His works. (Odes of Solomon 7:7–8)

One is He who said to His Wisdom, “Let us make man.” But His Wisdom was that with which He Himself always rejoiced as with His own spirit. It is united as soul to God, but it is extended by Him, as hand, fashioning the universe.” (Clementine Homilies 16:12)

Theophilus’ overlap with the works

of Jewish believers bears further study.⁵ It is possible he came to his understanding and appreciation of Jewish thought through Jewish disciples of Yeshua.

In the Beginning Was the Word

May this study through Theophilus’ commentary have illuminated our understanding of the Word of God. Disciples may take for granted that the Logos is the divine nature of Messiah, but the New Testament authors also used other language like many of the passages above:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)

Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)

The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

The apostles were Jews who thought within Second Temple Judaism. Their writings are far less mysterious when read within that original framework.

What about the incarnation? Other than a reference to the Word as God’s Son,⁶ the bishop was mum on the subject, at least in To Autolycus. Perhaps his silence came from his experience speaking with polytheistic pagans, who first needed to understand “the God who made the world and everything in it” (Acts 17:24).

In his words, however, we disciples see a deeper understanding of God’s Logos and why we believe it was (in) the beginning. Thanks be to God that his Word has taken on flesh and dwelt among us as our Master Yeshua, for in him “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). May he inspire our studies and provoke us to good deeds in this new year.

_________________________________________

1. Nicole Zeegers lists many such parallels (attributed to second-century rabbis in particular) in “Les trois cultures de Théophile d’Antioche.” In Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque, edited by Bernard Pouderon and Joseph Doré, 135–176. Théologie historique 105. Paris: Beauchesne, 1998.

2. To Autolycus 3:23.

3. “Theophilus often introduces the poetic sequences and long quotations with a laconic comment or a general label that overlooks their multiple senses … A notable exception concerns the historians, whose text Theophilus draws not from anthologies but from Josephus’s Against Apion, and which he inserts appropriately into his exposition. The Jewish nationality of Josephus may have played a role in the attention thus given to his testimony.” Zeegers, “Les trois cultures,” 137. Translated from French by ChatGPT.

4. “He [Theophilus] meets the conditions allowing one to affirm that he was inspired by rabbinism. One will note in particular his questions on the meaning of verses that the rabbis also considered problematic, the re-use of certain of their interpretations, and the material possibility he had of becoming acquainted with Jewish literature.” Zeegers, “Les trois cultures,” 171. Translated from French by ChatGPT.

5. The author of Clementine Recognitions 10:71 placed Peter with a Theophilus in Antioch. This is an anachronism if it is supposed to be our Theophilus, but that makes the moment no less interesting. Robert M. Grant writes that Theophilus “was not an Ebionite himself,” but “it is odd that a certain Theophilus from Antioch appears in the Jewish Christian Clementine Recognitions (10.71) … It is even more odd that many of Theophilus’ ideas recur in the Clementine Homilies.” Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990) 80–81.

6. To Autolycus 2:22. However, Philo also called the Logos God’s Son, even his firstborn (On the Confusion of Tongues 146 and elsewhere). So far as we know, he never heard of Yeshua, so his idea of sonship was based in Hellenistic philosophy. Thus, Theophilus’ reference to the Logos as the Son was probably not (explicitly) a Christological statement but reuse of a Greek concept familiar to the educated Autolycus.