In one of the symbolic ‘letters,’ in his classic collection of essays The Pillar and Ground of Truth, Russian theologian  Pavel Florensky has reflected that the reason there was (and still is) a lack of development in the area of pneumatology is  because there is a “certain lack of differentiation between the idea of the Holy Spirit and the idea of Sophia or Wisdom, as well as between both of these and the Logos.” [1]

The Sophia or Wisdom of God has become a popular topic among many theologians and biblical scholars today. In particular, many modern women find in Sophia a valuable metaphor for a reconstruction of the language we use to talk about God, and one current book title even addresses Sophia as the “Future of Feminist Spirituality.” [2] In both Jewish and Christian biblical exegesis, the bulk of interpretation of the Wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs and the Wisdom ‘of Solomon’ passages which seem to anthropomorphize the figure of Sophia, have been read by scholars as poetic metaphors for how God works in the world, rather than a personification of the Deity. However, the appropriation of the Wisdom-figure to Christ is well attested in many of the patristic fathers. The work advanced in the late 20^th century by the Russian sophiologists again demonstrates that the hypostatization of an attribute of God is not simply a poetic metaphor.

An examination of some of the apologetic fathers also uncovers language that treats Sophia as an agent of God with her own independent existence, similar to the Logos in Christology. The identification is still open to interpretation, because, as we will see, sometimes the Sophia figure is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. It appears that the cosmic pre-eminence of the mysterious figure in the Wisdom tradition has been a source of deep reflection for many generations of Christians because there is something within the tradition itself which seems to point to an ontological reality for Sophia, rather than a form of mythological  projection, as in gnosticism.  Whether in the Orthodox tradition or in the recovery of the Sophia tradition in the West, it is clear that such theologians perceive their quest to be as justifiable as Paul, Irenaeus or the sage who sang of Sophia: “I chose to have her rather than light, because her radiance never ceases.” (Wisdom of Solomon 7:10)  This paper attempts to explore the background of the apologetic fathers and the divergence of the Sophia tradition from the Logos tradition as it evolved prior to the patristic era, with a particular focus on the image of Sophia in Theophilus of Antioch.

In the opinion of some theologians, many of the early fathers “failed to advance Christian pneumatology” [3] because all of the attributes of the Holy Spirit, especially those associated with Divine Wisdom were appropriated to Christ. Sergei Bulgakov has said that, “The Holy Spirit was life itself for the primitive church...although the early Christians had yet to work out ‘who He is’; [they only knew] how He appears and what gifts he dispenses” [4] . In other words, the theology of the Holy Spirit had not yet been fully developed; that would come with the convening of the second ecumenical Council in 381.

For Justin Martyr (c 100-165) the Logos was the reasoning power begotten by the Father and the transcendent  foundation of all rational behavior.  However, for Justin, the Logos (that is, Christ) was not the only source of enlightenment.  The Divine Pneuma, who inspired all prophetic illumination became, for Justin, the “third place” within the Godhead. But whereas Justin had spoken of two principles of enlightenment, the Logos and the Pneuma (Word and Spirit), Clement of Alexandria (c159-215)—who drew much from Justin’s theology—only spoke of one. (4) Donald Gelpi, who refers to the Holy Spirit as the feminine “Breath” of God interprets this as an undeveloped pneumatology in Clement, which then continued to become more obscured in Clement’s principle student, Origen (c 185-254).  In fact, Paval Florensky has noted that “Origen sometimes simply evades an answer and sometimes obviously forgets altogether about the idea of the Holy Spirit.” [5]

For Irenaeus (c 130-200) and Theophilus (d 181 ?) however, the economy of salvation depended on the Son and the Spirit, which functioned as the “two hands of God.” [6]   For Irenaeus, soteriology was an important link to pneumatology.  The transcendent Father is revealed through the Logos who saves us. However, as Gelpi explains: “the Son can be recognized in faith as the revelation of the Father only through the illumination of the divine Pneuma.  For She is transcendent divine Wisdom.” [7]

It is the Breath of God which nourishes and illuminates and therefore increases the life of the Church. [8]    The concern of Irenaeus to integrate the activity of the Holy Spirit into the economy of the salvific intention of God is the key to his pneumatology.  This key was lost to some of the early fathers, a “direct consequence of their artificial Platonism.” [9]   It is generally understood that, in the early centuries, the doctrinal formulations of Christology owed much to the dialogue with the popular philosophies of the time, especially Stoicism, Platonism, and even the various gnostic systems.  Although Tertullian (c150-230) rejected the Platonic idea of the tripartite soul, he was guilty of a “Stoic philosophy with it monistic impersonalism” [10] in his interpretation of the Trinitarian relations. Indeed, Tertullian could really only talk of the Father and the Son:

[In the beginning] God was alone, but even then he was not properly alone, for he had with himself his Reason, which he had in himself…This Reason is his consciousness of himself; the Greeks call it Logos.  Adversus Praxean [11]

If Tertullian thought of the Holy Spirit, it was in the capacity of the third hypostasis originating after the Son, and therefore less than the Son (having originated from the Son). [12]   This error, a common one in the early church, is called subordinationism.  In Bulgakov’s study of the Holy Spirit, the confusion of Logos and Sophia in Athanasius (“which is typical for patristic cosmology as a whole”) is also subject to subordinationism: “Logos is fused with the world to such an extent, that in this sense, he is ontologically distinct from the Father.” [13]

 For the neo-Platonic Augustine (c 340-397), who popularized the Logos Christology of Justin, the Holy Spirit is no longer a source of wisdom/enlightenment. [14]   The Holy Spirit does have a function in the economy of salvation. However for Augustine, the Holy Spirit was Love.  Wisdom and Reason are both associated with the Son: “…the Son, rather than the Breath, has become the source of gracious enlightenment; the Son, rather than the Breath, is the mind of God.” [15]

The Platonic tradition and pneumatology continue to diverge and remain separated in the ongoing evolution of Trinitarian thinking, in both the Greek Fathers and in the Augustinian West.  “Once theologians began to attribute to the Son divine functions which the Bible attributes to the Holy Breath, they found themselves hard pushed to explain how the latter functions within the economy of salvation.” [16] Florensky ruminates on the result of this confusion:

How solidly does the doctrine of the Father and the Son appear here [e.g., in the early church] before everyone, and in comparison how little developed is the doctrine of the Spirit.  The idea of the Spirit is…almost dissolved into the idea of spiritual gifts…The powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which dwell within people…obscure the Spirit himself as a hypostasis. [17]

 It is a question that seems to have plagued the Trinitarian thinking for centuries.

One of the early Fathers (and perhaps many others who have slipped into obscurity) besides Irenaeus and Justin remain deeply influenced by a biblical pneumatology, however: Theophilus of Antioch.

Theophilus

Theophilus was the 6^th bishop of Antioch who lived during the last half of the second century.  Eusebius, the first major Church historian, tells us he was a bishop “from the Apostles”, referring to Peter and Paul, whose oversight role in Antioch is documented in Gal. 2 and Acts 11-15.  He was preceded by a list of Antiochene bishops whose names include Ignatius.  Eusebius calls Theophilus a ‘shepherd’ of the primitive church who campaigns against gnostics and other heretics. [18]   He is the first Christian writer who produced a commentary on the book of Genesis, arguing, against the gnostics, that God created the universe out of nothing (i.e, creation emerged from absolute non-being.) This doctrine is sometimes known as ‘creatio ex nihilo.’ [19]

Besides being an apologist, teacher and biblical exegete, Theophilus developed an elegant theology and is the first of the early Fathers to use the word “trinity” in describing the unity of the three Persons in God. [20]   Jerome wrote that Theophilus lived in the reign of the emperor Marcius Aurelius and that his treatises (only one of which survives) were well fitted for the edification of the church. [21]   Theophilus may have known Paul but was primarily influenced by the tradition of James. He knew all four gospels and is credited with producing a book in which he combined the works of the four evangelists into one corpus, leaving, according to Jerome, a monument of his genius.

His particular interest was Matthew and the Old Testament. He was not a Christian by birth but, like Justin Martyr, had been converted to Christianity by the study of the Hebrew scriptures. He maintained a sympathy for Judaism and refers to the synagogue as the place of the church’s development.  His theology is definitely Jewish and biblical and his writings attempt to wean his readers from an infatuation with Greek culture, which he deplored.  He presents Christianity as the oldest and truest religion, with the Hebrew prophets as its ancestor.  He attempted to design a theology which would recruit converts to a moral life consistent with the law of the Torah, with Moses as ‘our legislator.’ [22]

Theophilus addresses the issue of how God, who is wholly transcendent, creates and governs the world, by using the metaphor of the “two hands,” a brilliant synthesis in which he combines two important Jewish traditions: the Word tradition and the Wisdom tradition. He wrote a commentary on Proverbs and his testimony to the Old Testament in general is copious.  His only surviving work is called “To Autolycus”, which may be a fictitious character with whom Theophilus dialogues in all three parts of his book.  Autolycus is portrayed as a historian, like Theophilus himself, who has spent long hours in the study of literature of the ancient world.  Autolycus is fascinated by Greek art and philosophy and he taunts Theophilus for being a Christian.  Since the work is an apologetic, Theophilus attempts to convince Autolycus why the Christian God is superior to any philosophy of the Greeks. Theophilus explains that God is the creator of the universe, and can be discerned through its order and beauty.  Like Clement of Rome, Theophilus believes that the God whose spirit nourishes the creation will someday be able to raise our flesh, immortal, with the soul.  In his detailed commentary on Genesis, Theophilus explains that it was through God’s Word and Wisdom that all things were made. On numerous occasions in the three books To Autolycus, Theophilus calls the Logos and Sophia the “two hands of God.” (2.5-6; 9, 18, 28,35) [23]

Theophilus explains the creation story, based on this theology of God’s “two hands” in the following way:

When God said, ‘Let us make [man] after our image and likeness’…he regarded the making of [man] as the only work worthy of his own hands…[and] he said, ‘Let us make’ to none other than his own Logos and his own Sophia. (2.18) [24]

Although Rick Rogers believes that the Trinitarian language used by Theophilus reflects a later theological development and is therefore anachronistic when applied to him, he notes that Sophia is a favorite theme of Theophilus: he uses the term 27 times in the Autolycus text.  Robert Grant has interpreted the word “Sophia” to mean “agent” of God at least 15 times out of the 27. [25]

Theophilus evokes the anthropomorphic imagery of Sophia in numerous passages in his treatise; he quotes Prov. 8: 22-27 five times. [26]   He expands the mission of Sophia from her initial involvement at the dawn of creation to the presider and namer of the heavenly bodies:

Consider…the orderly course of the stars…the conjunction of the Pleiades and Orion…the chorus of the other stars in the orbit of heaven, to all of which the manifold Sophia of God gave individual names. (1.6) [27]

Robert Grant believes that the apologist whom Irenaeus knew best was Theophilus, although he never mentioned Theophilus by name. [28]   Both Theophilus and Irenaeus speak of Adam as an infant, emphasizing his free will and his deification; i.e., his image being made in the likeness of God.  For Theophilus, Adam was neither mortal nor immortal but capable of becoming either one through his attitude toward God.  When Irenaeus says that God contains everything, it echoes To Autolycus. [29]   Theophilus says that God has no beginning because he did not come into existence; however, contained in God are his two powers: Logos and Sophia.  Irenaeus restates the basic ideas of Theophilus in his Heresies where he identifies Logos as the Son and Sophia as the Holy Spirit. [30]   Irenaeus agrees with Theophilus that the evangelist John meant that the Logos was in God in the beginning.  In fact, Irenaeus believed that it was the Logos who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, and whom the Old Testament prophets spoke with in their visions. [31]

Grant explains that, for Theophilus, however, “God [also] created the universe through his Sophia. [32]   She named the stars, inspired the prophets, and created fish and birds.” [33]   Theophilus also refers to her as God’s offspring (gennema) and quotes Prov. 8:25 to support this. [34]

 Irenaeus follows Theophilus in quoting biblical evidence from Prov. 8: “The Lord begot me, the firstborn of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies long ago…when he established the heavens I was there, when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep….” : as well as Prov. 3:19: “The Lord by Sophia founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens.” [35] They both quote Psalm 33: 6: [36]

By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made;
by the Breath of his mouth all their host.  Ps. 33:6 [37]

Although Theophilus does not make the specific connection between Sophia and Pneuma (Holy Breath) that Irenaeus does, he does indicate that one of the principle missions of Sophia is to speak through the prophets. [38]   In particular, he uses the texts in Wisdom 10:16 to substantiate the notion that it is Sophia who spoke through the ‘minister of God’, Moses:

[Sophia] entered the soul of the Lord’s servant and withstood fearsome kings with signs and portents; she gave the holy ones the recompense of their labors…(Wisdom 10:16) [39]

It appears that, in places, Theophilus uses the two terms (Sophia and Pneuma) interchangeably, building on Isa. 11:2 “the spirit of the Lord shall rest on him; the spirit of wisdom and understanding.”  However where Theophilus calls God’s two hands Logos and Sophia, Irenaeus clearly calls the two hands of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit.:

…the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom, whom all the angels serve… (4.7.4) [40]

The basic Trinitarian formula of God’s two hands which emerges in Theophilus and Irenaeus is echoed centuries later in the metaphor of Patriarch Photius, who compares the Trinity to a pair of scales in which the needle represents the Father, and the two platforms represents the Son and the Holy Spirit. [41]   In this simplified analogy, the Father is the cause of the other two hypostases, one is begotten, the other proceeds.  St. Gregory Nazianzus said:

To be unbegotten, to be begotten, to proceed—these are the features which characterize the Father, the Son and …the Spirit, in such a way as to safeguard the distinction of the three hypostases in the one nature and majesty of the Divinity [42]  

In the simplicity of this pre-Filioque formula, the  unity of the Trinity is kept safely intact, i.e., from a ‘double procession.’ [43]

To summarize:  For Theophilus and for Irenaeus who followed him, the Word and the Spirit of Wisdom form the exposition of the Trinitarian mystery, which is rooted in the conception of the dual economy of the Son and the Spirit.  This notion of the dyad of the Son and the Holy Spirit will be a characteristic feature of the Trinitarian thinking of later theologians in the East as well in the West. [44]   Theophilus approaches his Trinitarian theology from the perspective of the Hebrew synagogue tradition. His understanding of God springs from his reflections on Scripture and his contemplation of God’s activity in nature and in history.  When he quotes from the prophets, the wisdom literature or the gospels, he reads Scripture as an unbroken piece of fabric: it is a solid unity for him.  During his lifetime, the church of Antioch was still at home in the Judeo-Christian tradition and his understanding of the role of Sophia in the Trinity and in creation reflected his synthesis of a balanced tradition, rich with metaphor and meaning. 

Notes: