Theophilus of Antioch

by COGwriter

Theophilus was a Greek leader for most of those who professed Christ in the Syrian city of Antioch in the latter part of the second century (that city is currently in southern Tukrey).

Although he apparently wrote a lot, only three of his writings have been clearly found (one or two others were debated, but not considered to be authentic). Of course, they are not scripture (and do have some errors). But they give an idea of many things he stood for, like the Creation by God, deification, and the Ten Commandments.

Here is a link to a related sermon: Theophilus: Trinitarian or Binitarian?

The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church both claim Theophilus as one in its bishops in its apostolic succession list (and sometimes refer to him as Saint Theophilus of Antioch):

Source: Syriac Orthodox Resources. Chronological List of the Patriarchs of Antioch. http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html 01/14/06.

(Some believe he probably died later, with dates proposed betweenl 183 and 190.)

The Roman Catholics also consider him to have been a bishop in the succession of those in Antioch.

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Theophilus ... Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius in his "Chronicle" places the name of Theophilus against that of Pope Soter (169-77), and that of Maximinus, Theophilus's successor, against the name of Eleutherus (177-93). This does not mean that Maximinus succeeded Theophilus in 177, but only that Theophilus and Maximinus flourished respectively in the times of Soter and Eleutherus. Lightfoot and Hort showed that Eusebius, having no such precise chronological data for the bishops of Antioch as he had for those of Rome and Alexandria, placed the names of the Antiochene bishops against those of contemporary Roman bishops (Lightfoot, "St. Ignatius", etc., II, 468 sq., and St. Clement", etc., I, 224 sqq.). ... The "Ad Autolychum", the only extant writing of Theophilus, is an apology for Christianity. It consists of three books, really separate works written at different times ... The author speaks of himself as a convert from heathenism. He treats of such subjects as the Christian idea of God, the Scripture accounts of the origin of man and the world as compared with pagan myths. On several occasions he refers (in connection with the early chapters of Genesis) to an historical work composed by himself ... Theophilus commented upon a Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony composed by himself ("Theophilus . . . quattuor Evangelistarum in unum opus compingens") (Bacchus F.J. Transcribed by Herman F. Holbrook. Theophilus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Protestant scholars Roberts and Donaldson note:

Theophilus occupies an interesting position, after Ignatius, in the succession of faithful men who represented Barnabas and other prophets and teachers of Antioch, in that ancient seat, from which comes our name as Christians (Roberts A., Donaldson J. Translated by Marcus Dods. Introductory Note to Theophilus of Antioch. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. American Edition, 1885).

Thus scholars from the major groups endorsing Christianity considered Theophilus to be a leader in the early church.

The "Christian" statement that Roberts and Donaldson referred to is from the Book of Acts:

25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:25-26)

In his first Letter to Autolycus, he starts with:

A fluent tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is. Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men's hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning {or better condemning} name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him. (Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 1. Translated by Marcus Dods. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885)

So, we see that Theophilus considered Jesus God when he also concurred to being called a Christian.

And about your laughing at me and calling me “Christian,” you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed 541 is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. Forwhat ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castleor house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he entersinto this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornamentor beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.542

541 “The argumentation of this chapter depends on the literal meaning which Theophilus attaches to Christos, the Anointed One; and he plays on this meaning, and also on the similarity of pronunciation between χρηστός, ‘useful,’ and χριστός , ‘anointed.’”—Donaldson.

542 [Not material oil probably, for it is not mentioned in such Scriptures as Acts viii. 17, xix. 6, Heb. vi. 2; but the anointing(1 John ii. 20) of the Holy Ghost.]

(Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 12. Translated by Marcus Dods.)

As far as Theophilus' writings go, what we have is of a poetic sytle, and it is possible that some Greco-Romans made edits to the materials after Theophilus initially wrote what he did.

Theophilus Wrote Against Idols

Autolycus, the one to whom three letters were addressed, apparently was into idols. Theophilus' letters to him point put various truths about God and how the pagans did not understand him.

Here is some of what Theophilus wrote about idols:

Why should I further recount the multitude of animals worshipped by the Egyptians, both reptiles, and cattle, and wild beasts, and birds, and river-fishes; and even wash-pots and disgraceful noises? But if you cite the Greeks and the other nations, they worship stones and wood, and other kinds of material substances,— the images, as we have just been saying, of dead men. For Phidias is found in Pisa making for the Eleians the Olympian Jupiter, and at Athens the Minerva of the Acropolis. And I will inquire of you, my friend, how many Jupiters exist. For there is, firstly, Jupiter surnamed Olympian, then Jupiter Latiaris, and Jupiter Cassius, and Jupiter Tonans, and Jupiter Propator, and Jupiter Pannychius, and Jupiter Poliuchus, and Jupiter Capitolinus; and that Jupiter, the son of Saturn, who is king of the Cretans, has a tomb in Crete, but the rest, possibly, were not thought worthy of tombs. And if you speak of the mother of those who are called gods, far be it from me to utter with my lips her deeds, or the deeds of those by whom she is worshipped (for it is unlawful for us so much as to name such things), and what vast taxes and revenues she and her sons furnish to the king. For these are not gods, but idols, as we have already said, the works of men's hands and unclean demons. And such may all those become who make them and put their trust in them! (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter 10. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885)

We have shown from their own histories, which they have compiled, that the names of those who are called gods, are found to be the names of men who lived among them, as we have shown above. And to this day their images are daily fashioned, idols, "the works of men's hands." And these the mass of foolish men serve, whilst they reject the maker and fashioner of all things and the nourisher of all breath of life, giving credit to vain doctrines through the deceitfulness of the senseless tradition received from their fathers...

The divine law, then, not only forbids the worshipping of idols, but also of the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, or the other stars; yea, not heaven, nor earth, nor the sea, nor fountains, nor rivers, must be worshipped (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapters XXXIV,XXXV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

And concerning piety He says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I am the LORD thy God" ... Of this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter IX. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

Since his position so greatly differs from that now held by the Orthodox Church, it is clear that the Orthodox Church itself has not been faithful to the original teachings of some of its early claimed leaders.

Even The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Long before the outbreak in the eighth century there were isolated cases of persons who feared the ever-growing cult of images and saw in it danger of a return to the old idolatry. We need hardly quote in this connection the invectives of the Apostolic Fathers against idols (Athenagoras "Legatio Pro Christ.", xv-xvii; Theophilus, "Ad Autolycum" II; Minucius Felix, "Octavius", xxvii; Arnobius, "Disp. adv. Gentes"; Tertullian, "De Idololatria", I; Cyprian, "De idolorum vanitate"), in which they denounce not only the worship but even the manufacture and possession of such images. These texts all regard idols, that is, images made to be adored (Fortescue A. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Veneration of Images. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Hence, Theophilus held a position that DIFFERS GREATLY from that now held by the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Do Humans Possess Immortality?

Do humans now possess immortality?

No, according to Theophilus.

Here is some of what he wrote about immortality:

When you shall have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall you see God worthily. For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him. (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter 7. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight)

For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God...so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God ... For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885, p. 105).

But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXXIV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Theophilus basically argues that humans are not immortal, but become God when they are immortal. While that is the Church of God (COG) teaching, this is not a position held that way by the Roman Catholic Church, even though it considers Theophilus to have been a bishop. Although the Orthodox Church does teach that Christians are to be God, they seem to teach that humans are currently immortal, hence they are differing from one of their early saints and patriarchs (an article of possible interest may be Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Genuine Church of God; other related articles could include Did Early Christians Believe that Humans Possessed Immortality? and Deification: Did the Early Church Teach That Christians Would Become God?).

Did Theophilus Teach The Resurrection?

Theophilus taught the resurrection:

But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now. ... Moreover, you believe that the images made by men are gods, and do great things; and can you not believe that the God who made you is able also to make you afterwards? (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter 8. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Most groups that profess Christianity will concur that the Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection. An article of related interest may include What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection?

However, Theophilus taught that one would be "born again" at the resurrection:

But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

An article of related interest may include Born Again: A Question of Semantics?

Other Aspects of God's Plan

In addition to deification, being born again at the resurrection, etc. Theophilus wrote about other aspects of God's plan such as when he wrote:

To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither has eye seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to conceive. (Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 14)

And on the sixth day, God having made the quadrupeds, and wild beasts, and the land reptiles, pronounced no blessing upon them, reserving His blessing for man, whom He was about to create on the sixth day. The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not. For those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God. But those who do not know nor worship God, are like birds which have wings, but cannot fly nor soar to the high things of God. Thus, too, though such persons are called men, yet being pressed down with sins, they mind grovelling and earthly things. And the animals are named wild beasts [θηρία], from their being hunted [θηρεύεσθαι], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first — for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good — but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him. For as, if the master of the house himself acts rightly, the domestics also of necessity conduct themselves well; but if the master sins, the servants also sin with him; so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. (Book 2, Chapter 17)

Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 26. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885, p. 105).

he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God. (Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 34)

The part in Chapter 17 of Book 2 is related to the idea of apocatastasis.

Theophilus seemed to understand that it God created so so that eternity would be better (see also Why Did God Make People? Why Did God Make Anything?).

Theophilus on Weather

Theophilus wrote that God controlled the weather:

Consider, O man, His works—the timely rotation of the seasons, and the changes of temperature; the regular march of the stars; the well-ordered course of days and nights, and months, and years; the various beauty of seeds, and plants, and fruits; and the various species of quadrupeds, and birds, and reptiles, and fishes, both of the rivers and of the sea; or consider the instinct implanted in these animals to beget and rear offspring, not for their own profit, but for the use of man; and the providence with which God provides nourishment for all flesh, or the subjection in which He has ordained that all things subserve mankind. Consider, too, the flowing of sweet fountains and never-failing rivers, and the seasonable supply of dews, and showers, and rains; the manifold movement of the heavenly bodies, the morning star rising and heralding the approach of the perfect luminary; and the constellation of Pleiades, and Orion, and Arcturus, and the orbit of the other stars that circle through the heavens, all of which the manifold wisdom of God has called by names of their own. He is God alone who made light out of darkness, and brought forth light from His treasures, and formed the chambers of the south wind, {Job 9:9} and the treasure-houses of the deep, and the bounds of the seas, and the treasuries of snows and hail-storms, collecting the waters in the storehouses of the deep, and the darkness in His treasures, and bringing forth the sweet, and desirable, and pleasant light out of His treasures; "who causes the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: He makes lightnings for the rain;" who sends forth His thunder to terrify, and foretells by the lightning the peal of the thunder, that no soul may faint with the sudden shock; and who so moderates the violence of the lightning as it flashes out of heaven, that it does not consume the earth; for, if the lightning were allowed all its power, it would burn up the earth; and were the thunder allowed all its power, it would overthrow all the works that are therein. (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 6)

Thus, Theophilus understood that God uses weather (see also Weather Blessings and Sorrows).

Theophilus on Spontaneous Generation

While evolutionists like to act like spontaneous generation, etc. is a relatively new scientific position, actually it is an old pagan idea that was denounced by Theophilus:

For either they made assertions concerning the gods, and afterwards taught that there was no god; or if they spoke even of the creation of the world, they finally said that all things were produced spontaneously. Yea, and even speaking of providence, they taught again that the world was not ruled by providence. But what? Did they not, when they essayed to write even of honourable conduct, teach the perpetration of lasciviousness, and fornication, and adultery; and did they not introduce hateful and unutterable wickedness? (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter 3)

And the atheists do both today.

The immorality part was warned about by the Apostle Paul:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32)

As far as spontaneous generation goes, Nobel Prize winner Dr. George Wald, from Harvard University, stated the following:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation (life from nothing); the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position . . . One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation. (Scott I. The God Solution: Are You Ready? Xlibris Corporation, 2013, p. 41)

This is an astounding admission. Dr. Wald is saying that he chose to believe the impossible. And “scientists” claim that those who believe in a Creator have blind faith with no proof, but instead believe the impossible!

Paul also wrote about such 'science':

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)

So, this was a problem in Paul's day (first century), Theophilus's day (second century), and now (21st century).

For more information on evolution, etc. check out the following:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Is it really logical to believe in God? Yes! Would you like Christian answers to give atheists? This is a free online booklet that deal with improper theories and musings called science related to the origin of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution.

Two animated videos of related interest are also available: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

Theophilus and The Ten Commandments

Theophilus taught about the ten commandments:

And on the sixth day God finished His works which He made, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it He rested from all His works which God began to create...Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the "Sabbath," is translated into Greek the "Seventh" (έβδομάς), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation...God having thus completed the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that are in them, on the sixth day, rested on the seventh day from all His works which He made (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapters XI, XII, XIX. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885, pp. 99,102).

Now we also confess that God exists, but that He is one, the creator, and maker, and fashioner of this universe; and we know that all things are arranged by His providence, but by Him alone. And we have learned a holy law; but we have as lawgiver Him who is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be pious, and to do good. And concerning piety He says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I am the LORD thy God." And of doing good He said: "Honour thy father and thy mother; that it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be long in the land which I the LORD God give thee." Again, concerning righteousness: "Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his land, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his beast of burden, nor any of his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbour's ... Of this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant, was made the minister both to all the world, and chiefly to the Hebrews .. .Of this great and wonderful law, which tends to all righteousness, the ten heads are such as we have already rehearsed (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter IX. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption. (Book 2, Chapter 27)

We have shown from their own histories, which they have compiled, that the names of those who are called gods, are found to be the names of men who lived among them, as we have shown above. And to this day their images are daily fashioned, idols, "the works of men's hands." And these the mass of foolish men serve, while they reject the maker and fashioner of all things and the nourisher of all breath of life, giving credit to vain doctrines through the deceitfulness of the senseless tradition received from their fathers. But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe, did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God. (Book 2, Chapter 34)

In respect to the Ten Commandments, he greatly differed from Justin Martyr who essentially taught that they were for the Jews and not Christians. Theophilus' position on the ten commandment is much more in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, John, and New Testament writers (please see the articles What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments?, Were the Ten Commandments Nailed to the Cross? What Did Paul Actually Teach About the Ten Commandments? Are the Ten Commandment Still in Effect? Were the Pharisees Condemned for Keeping the Law? The Ten Commandments Reflect Love, Breaking them is Evil Was the Commandment to Love the Only Command? and The Ten Commandments and the Early Church).

I should add here that I believe that some of this particular ten heads text on the commandments has been corrupted since Theophilus specifically mentions that he rehearsed ten, yet only nine were in this passage. Textual corruption could have been accidentally or the result of deliberate editing.

While Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do teach that some version of the ten commandments need to be kept by Christians, many Protestant groups teach that they were nailed to the cross or somehow done away with.

What Did Theophilus Teach About The Sabbath?

Theophilus taught the following about the Sabbath:

And on the sixth day God finished His works which He made, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it He rested from all His works which God began to create...Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the "Sabbath," is translated into Greek the "Seventh" (ebdomas), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation. (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapters XI, XII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Hence, this is consistent with the view that Theophilus observed the seventh day Sabbath.

The Syriatic version of Eusebius' Church History notes:

BUT as to Theophilus, concerning whom we have said that he was Bishop of Antioch, there are three treatises by him against Antolycus, and another which is inscribed "Against the heresy of Hermogenes," in which he uses testimonies from the Revelation of John; and there are other books by him which are suitable for teaching. But those, who pertained to heretical doctrine, even at that time like tares were corrupting the pure seed of the doctrine of the Apostles; but the Pastors which were in the churches in every country, were driving them like beasts of the wilderness away from the flock of Christ; at one time by teaching and exhortation to the Brethren, but at another time openly before their faces they contended with them in discussion, and put them to shame; and again, also, by writing treatises they diligently refuted and exposed their opinions. But Theophilus, together with others, contended against them; and he is celebrated for one treatise, which was ably composed by him against Marcion, which, together with the others that I have already mentioned, is still preserved. And after him Maximinus received the Bishoprick of the Church of Antioch, who was the seventh after the Apostles.

But Philip, respecting whom we have learned from the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,2 that he was Bishop of the church of the city of Gortyna, he also composed with accuracy a treatise against Marcion (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Syriac version, Book 4 (Extract), Chapter 24. Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font/Polytonic Greek. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/spicilegium_7_eusebius4.htm#2 last viewed 05/30/08).

This is of interest because it shows that both Philip and Theophilus wrote against the heretic Marcion (though the document, while apparently available to Eusebius, is currently unavailable)--this would seem to be while the Church of Rome was accepting him. Marcion was the perhaps the first who professed Christ who taught against the observance of the seventh day Sabbath.

Serapion, like Theophilus and Polycarp, denounced Marcion:

Moreover, brethren, we, having discovered to what kind of heresy Marcion adhered, and seen how he contradicted himself, not understanding of what he was speaking, as you will gather from what has been written to you -for, having borrowed this said Gospel from those who were familiar with it from constant perusal, namely from the successors of those who were his leaders in the heresy, whom we call Docetae (for most of the opinions held by him are derived from their teaching), we were able to read it through; and while we found most of its contents to agree with the orthodox account of the Saviour, we found some things inconsistent with that, and these we have set down below for your inspection (Serapion of Antioch. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From the book concerning the Gospel of Peter--Eusebius Church History VI,12. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Alexander Roberts and James)

More on Serapion later.

Anyway, the seventh day sabbath was actually observed throughout most of the professing world into the fifth century, in most areas except Rome and Alexander as the historian Sozomen reported in the mid-5th Century:

The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria (Sozomen. THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOZOMEN. Comprising a History of the Church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425. Book VII, Chapter XIX. Translated from the Greek. Revised by Chester D. Hartranft, Hartford Theological Seminary UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., AND HENRY WACE, D.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Principal of King's College, London. T&T CLARK, EDINBURGH, circa 1846).

An article of related interest may include The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad.

What Did Theophilus Teach About The Godhead?

Theophilus' writings on the Godhead are perhaps the biggest concern that those in the real Church of God (COG) would have about his doctrines, especially the part about the Son.

Theophilus taught the following about God the Father:

You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, "Is God angry?" Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious. And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [Qeos] on account of His having placed [teqeikenai] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of [qeein], for qeein means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood. For as the soul in man is not seen, being invisible to men, but is perceived through the motion of the body, so God cannot indeed be seen by human eyes, but is beheld and perceived through His providence and works (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapters III-V. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Theophilus uses so many descriptive terms in a poetic form, that it takes some time to grasp his points. But I believe he is basically saying that no one has seen the Father, the Father is God, the Father is unbegotten, the Father is immortal, and that God is real.

And while Theophilus taught that the Father was unbegotten, he taught apparently the following about the Son:

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

It is part of this particular teaching about the Son that seems to have an inappropriate translation. Theophilus' writings, at least the translated portions that seem to be available, are probably not written in the manner that most who are unitarian would do would do. It cannot be a true unitarian view, for it admits that the Word is also God.

It seems to be a different way to explain a normal binitarian view--for the binitarian view also presumes the Word was also God from the beginning. My research indicates that the statement being naturally produced from God is a mistranslation. After looking at the original Greek of Theophilus and consulting with the Liddell Scott Greek-English Lexicon with the 1996 supplement (p. 325 and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=bou%2Flhtai&la=greek&prior=te accessed 07/03/15), that statement seems to be better translated as naturally counseled/willed by God.

Since it is likely that some of Theophilus texts were corrupted (or at least edited), this may be an area that this occurred in or that we simply do not understand a possible idiom. Another possibility is that Theophilus only had limited understanding, and perhaps partial misunderstanding, related to this area. The Bible shows that it is possible that public church teachers (like originally Apollos, see Acts 18:24-26) may not have had proper understanding of certain matters related to the Son.

Theophilus taught the following about the Spirit of God:

... if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath ... For as the pomegranate, with the rind containing it, has within it many cells and compartments which are separated by tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation is contained by the spirit of God, and the containing spirit is along with the creation contained by the hand of God (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapters III,V. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

This is my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched out the heaven, and established the breadth of the earth under it; who stirs the deep recesses of the sea, and makes its waves roar; who rules its power, and stills the tumult of its waves; who founded the earth upon the waters, and gave a spirit to nourish it; whose breath giveth light to the whole, who, if He withdraw His breath, the whole will utterly fail (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapters VII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapters XIV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

It is not totally clear how Theophilus views the Holy Spirit, though life-giving breath may be close. The above writings suggest that it is the power of God, as opposed to a specific person--in no place does Theophilus suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.

However, it is possible that Theophilus' imperfect understandings of the Son somewhat set the stage for Arianism. And while Alexandria is commonly considered to be the birthplace of Arianism, the Catholic Church seems to believe that it began in Antioch:

Arianism had its original root not in Alexandria but in the great Syrian city, Antioch (Schaeffer F. Transcribed by WG Kofron. The Church of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Regarding Arius, here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia records:

He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be (Barry W. Transcribed by Anthony A. Killeen. Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

And while true Christians will understand that Christ is God and accepts the Son being under the authority of God the Father, we do not accept that He had a beginning (see Hebrews 7:3).

Perhaps, I should add what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about Arius:

... another controversy was raging, between a Dr. Arius, of Alexandria, a Christian leader who died A.D. 336, and other bishops, over calling God a Trinity. Dr. Arius stoutly opposed the Trinity doctrine, but introduced errors of his own (Armstrong HW. Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1985, p. 54).

Herbert Armstrong is essentially stating that Dr. Arius' understanding was imperfect--and that would be at least on the point of Jesus at one time not existing.

Overall, though imperfect, it appears that Theophilus probably held a binitarian view of the Godhead. Binitarians historically have held what is referred to as a semi-Arian view.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

Semiarians and Semiarianism A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century...showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance...rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost...

One Catholic historian, Epiphanius in the mid-4th Century, described the some semi-arians this way:

Semi-Arians ... hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father...but has been begotten without beginning and not in time ... But all of these blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp.471-472).

The above description is somewhat consistent with those held by the COGs. We believe Jesus was always God and forever with the Father, but once begotten, became the Son.

What About the Trinity?

At risk of repeating some previous quotes, the doctrine of the trinity and Theophilus really needs to be addressed.

Notice the following from the late WCG evangelist Leory Neff:

The central doctrine of most Protestant and Catholic churches for many centuries has been that of the trinity. This doctrine is so important that the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "This (the Trinity), the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she (the Catholic Church) proposes to man as the foundation of the whole dogmatic system."

Both Catholic and Protestant theologians quote Theophilus of Antioch (circs 180 A.D.) as the first person to write about this most important doctrine. But isn't it strange that such a major doctrine was avoided in religious writings for nearly 200 years? That is almost as long as the United States has been a nation!

Furthermore, Theophilus' allusion to the traditional trinity — "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is quite nebulous at best. Notice what Theophilus wrote in commenting about the 4th day of creation in the first chapter of Genesis: "And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the trinity, of God and His Word, and His Wisdom" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, "Theophilus to Autolycus").

Here is the first statement by a theologian that is supposed to teach the doctrine of the trinity. But does his statement really teach this?

Read it — simply. He does not say that God is a trinity of persons, or that the Holy Spirit is a part of that trinity. He just refers to God, His Word and His Wisdom.

Theologians have tried to imagine into this unusual statement "their trinity" and yet even the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers state in a footnote that the word translated "wisdom" in English is the Greek word Sophia which Theophilus elsewhere used in reference to the Son, not the Holy Spirit. (Neff L. The First "Christian Trinitarian." Tomorrow's World, September-October 1970)

Theophilus did not teach the trinity.

The trinity is a doctrine that was not originally taught by the Christian Church, though most seem to think that Theophilus did teach it. However, according to other Roman Catholic sources, it was originally developed by early Gnostic heretics such as Montanus and Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century.

One of the so-called Montanist Oracles was:

"I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete." (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosophy%20and%20Religion/rel_241/texts/montanism.html 01/31/06).

This is one of the first, if not THE FIRST, references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos). It should be noted that one of Theophilus' successors, Serapion of Antioch was an anti-Montanist, hence it is likely that Theophilus was as well.

Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote on the nature of God around the middle of the fourth century,

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'.  For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9.  Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus also wrote this in the heretical Gospel of Truth,

The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son! (Valentinus.  Gospel of Truth.  Verse 17.  English translation by Patterson Brown).

Hence Valentinus is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian hypostasis claims though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity--Tertullian did. It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome as a heretic (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the Continuing Church of God.

The position of many religious scholars is that the term 'trinity' (from the Latin trinitas) was first developed by Theophilus and that was 85 years after the last book of the Bible was written. The Catholic Encyclopedia another Catholic source have taught:

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together...The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180...Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi) (Joyce GH. The Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company).

Bishop of Antioch (in modern Turkey), and an early Christian apologist. Originally a philosopher in the eastern Roman Empire, he began to study the Scriptures with the intention of attacking the Christian faith but was soon converted. A gifted apologist, he was the author of an Apology in three books and addressed to Autolycus (the only work of his writings to survive). It seeks to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over the immoral myths of pagan religion. It is also noted for its development of the doctrine of the Logos (Word) as first enunciated in the Gospel of John and to express the word Triad when describing the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (St. Theophilus of Antioch Catholic Online Saints & Angels. accessed 02/12/19 https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2263)

First of all, it should be understood, that claims of Catholic supporting scholars to the contrary, that Theophilus of Antioch did not teach the trinity or that the Holy Spirit was a person (though Tertullian, who became a Montanist did--the leaders of the churches in Asia Minor and Antioch opposed the Montanists--who taught a type of trinity--before the Romans ever did--see Eusebius Book V, Chapters 18-19). It was not until Tertullian (over 100 years since the Book of Revelation was written) that professing Christian writers suggested the concept of the trinity as now understood.

Notice the following:

The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus, the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), is his Apology to Autolycus (Apologia ad Autolycum), a series of books defending Christianity written to a pagan friend. ...

It is most notable for being the earliest extant Christian work to use the word "Trinity" (Greek: τριάς trias), although it does not use the words "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" to describe the Trinity. Rather, Theophilus himself puts it as "God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)." ... The context for his use of the word Trinity is commentary on the successive work of the creation weeks (Genesis chapters 1-3). According to Theophilus, the sun is the image of God; the moon of man, whose death and resurrection are prefigured by the monthly changes of that luminary. (Theophilus of Antioch. Wikipedia, accessed 11/16/17)

Here is a mistranslated version of what Theophilus wrote:

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

It is mistranslated because trinity is NOT a Greek word. Thus, the proper translation would be:

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the threes of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

Now the trinitarian may argue that this is just a semantics issue and that Theophilus is actually still talking about the trinity. Well, he is not as the third part is what Theophilus is teaching that man becomes. And that is what Theophilus is teaching--that now man is a fourth, but will become part of God, a third part, when humans become God's offspring! And that he seems to see this as the wisdom of God's plan. This seems to support a binitarian view.

Furthermore, I suspect that what Theophilus is actually doing is providing insight to what trinitarians refer to as the "trinitarian formula" for baptism:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

I believe that Theophilus is explaining that Christians becoming God (a concept that he clearly held; see also Deification: Did the Early Church Teach That Christians Would Become God?). And we in the Continuing Church of God believe that we are begotten by the Holy Spirit at baptism to become part of the family of God. And that in a sense, we, true Christians, are those that ultimately will fill this "third part" of the God family.

Notice that Jesus Himself prayed that His followers would be in the same oneness with Him and the Father and He had with the Father:

20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: (John 17:20-22)

Christians are to one with the Father and Son as they are one!

We Christians, after we are resurrected and deified, are the 'third' part of the Godhead that Theophilus was referring to.

Lest anyone suggest that I am reading something into Theophilus that he does not mean (and since he often writes poetically, he is a bit hard to follow), he verifies what I concluded when he wrote:

if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter III. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that Theophilus refers to the Spirit as God's breath and that he does not refer to it here as "wisdom." Theophilus teaches that we are to be God's offspring! We are to be God in the family of God.

Paul verified that concept when he wrote:

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29).

Lest anyone suggest that I am reading something further into Theophilus of Antioch's writings that he does not mean, he verifies what I concluded when he wrote:

... so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Theophilus did not teach that the Holy Spirit was, or somehow was, one of three persons in any trinity. He simply did not teach the often accepted idea of the trinity.

Furthermore, even trinitarian scholars who believe that Theophilus's writings do support the trinity will admit that the Greek expression used should not be used about the Holy Spirit, though they seem to wish to overlook that.

Note the following false claim and then admission about Theophilus's threeness statement:

An eminent authority says, “It is certain, that, according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of persons.” He notes that the title σοφια, is here assigned to the Holy Spirit, although he himself elsewhere gives this title to the Son (book ii. cap. x., supra), as is more usual with the Fathers.” Consult Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 157. Ed. 1853. (Footnote 3 from Ante-Nicene Fathers, on To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XV).

That admission is also outrageous. The term "spirit" or "Holy Spirit" is not even in the improperly translated versions of Theophilus' To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XV.

So basically an honest reading of Theophilus' writings are that he NEVER wrote that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the three persons of the trinity. He wrote that there is a threeness associated with God that includes the Son and the Wisdom of God's offspring.

Was Theophilus was a Quartodeciman?

Yee, it is fairly certain that Theophilus was a Quartodeciman. Quartodecimans held to the original date of Passover coming on the 14th of Nisan.

I came to that conclusion based upon three pieces of information.

The first is that the account of those who kept a Sunday Passover and were opposed to a Passover on the 14th that Eusebius records, simply does not include Antioch amongst the Sunday supporters (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 23).

The second is that others, like R.M. Grant, have concluded that Theophilus "was following a Jewish or Jewish Christian source" and that "in spirit and in content he is very close to Judaism" (as quoted in Pritz R. Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1988, p. 75).

The third and strongest evidence is that the following sent by Serapion, the second listed successor to Theophilus of Antioch:

"I have sent you letters of the most blessed Claudius Apollinarius, who was made bishop of Hierapolis in Asia" (Serapion of Antioch. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From the epistle to Caricus and Ponticus. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors; American Edition copyright © 1885. Copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby).

Claudius Apollinaris was a well known Quartodeciman and led the church at the time in Hierapolis, a city in Asia Minor. It is likely that this suggests that up until the time of Serapion, that those in Antioch were also Quartodecimans. And this also seems to have been suggested by Polycrates of Ephesus (and the 4th century historian Eusebius), who wrote about the time of Serapion that the Churches in Asia kept the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, like the Jews (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapters 23,25). Thus, it is likely that Theophilus of Antioch would have been a Quartodeciman.

After time (and the Council of Nicea), the Roman change to an Easter Sunday observance was agreed to by those who are now part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, but not by the COGs.

Theophilus, Scripture, and Serapion

As mentioned earlier, Theophilus wrote:

At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapters XIV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

Serapion also wrote:

3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.

4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.

5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.

6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ; (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on. So much in regard to Serapion. (Serapion of Antioch. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890).

Here is the Greek and another translation about Serapion's position on the false Gospel of Peter:

Ημεις γαρ, αδελφοι, και Πετρον και τους αλλους αποστολους αποδεχομεθα ως Χριστον, τα δε ονοματι αυτων ψευδεπιγραφα ως εμπειροι παραιτουμεθα, γινωσκοντες οτι τα τοιαυτα ου παρελαβομεν. εγω γαρ γενομενος παρ υμιν, υπενοουν τους παντας ορθη πιστει προσφερεσθαι, και μη διελθων το υπ αυτων προφερομενον ονοματι Πετρου ευαγγελιον, ειπον οτι ει τουτο εστιν μονον το δοκουν υμιν παρεχειν μικροψυχιαν, αναγινωσκεσθω· νυν δε μαθων οτι αιρεσει τινι ο νους αυτων εφωλευεν, εκ των λεχθεντων μοι, σπουδασω παλιν γενεσθαι προς υμας, ωστε, αδελφοι, προσδοκατε με εν ταχει. ημεις δε, αδελφοι, καταλαβομενοι οποιας ην αιρεσεως ο Μαρκιανος, {ος} και εαυτω εναντιουτο, μη νοων α ελαλει, α μαθησεσθε εξ ων υμιν εγραφη, εδυνηθημεν {γαρ} παρ αλλων των ασκησαντων αυτο τουτο το ευαγγελιον, τουτ εστιν, παρα των διαδοχων των καταρξαμενων αυτου, ους Δοκητας καλουμεν, τα γαρ πλειονα φρονηματα εκεινων εστι της διδασκαλιας, χρησαμενοι παρ αυτων διελθειν και ευρειν τα μεν πλειονα του ορθου λογου του σωτηρος, τινα δε προσδιεσταλμενα, α και υπεταξαμεν υμιν.

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the pseudepigrapha that go by their name we reject, as experienced men, knowing that we did not recieve such things. For I myself, when I was with you, had in mind that you all were bearing into the right faith, and, without going through the gospel borne forth by them in the name of Peter, I said that, if this was all that seems to bring about pettiness for you, let it be read. But having now learned from what was said to me that their mind was holing up in some heresy, I shall hasten to be with you again; wherefore, brethren, expect me in quickness. But we, brethren, taking in of what kind of heresy Marcianus was, who also contradicted himself, not thinking about what he was saying, which things you will learn from the things that I have written to you, were enabled by others who studied this same gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we called docetics, for most of the thoughts are of their teaching, using [material] from them to go through and find that most things are of the right word of the savior, but some things are spurious, which things we order out for you. (http://www.textexcavation.com/gospelpeter.html viewed 04/18/12)

The above is very important, because it shows that the original books of the New Testament were "received" or "handed down to us," and thus were known before any later Greco-Roman councils on canonization (see also The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History). Notice that Serapion did not consider that the Alexandrians (and by extension, Romans and others) who accepted the so-called Gospel of Peter to be part of the true faith nor those who accepted Marcion (whom Rome tolerated for some time).

Since the proper books were "handed down" and Serapion came after Theophilus, Theophilus would know the books of the New Testament.

Theophilus seems to have been a COG Christian, despite some misunderstandings he had.

Theophilus and Origen

But when we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of (Origen. De Principiis, Book II, Chapter IV, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

And while there may be a spiritual meaning, there clearly is a literal meaning.

Interestingly about the point about God being angry, Theophilus clearly disagrees with Origen (a later Roman Catholic writer) who denies that fact. Theophilus seems to accept the literal biblical interpretation of biblical verses such as Deuteronomy 1:37;3:26;4:21;9:8;9:19;9:20 which state that God is angry.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote c. 180 A.D.:

if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, “Is God angry?” Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter III. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885, p. 90).

These quotes make it clear that there were major differences in scriptural interpretation between Antioch and Alexandria (which were similar to the differences between Asia Minor and Rome)

Since both Origen and Theophilus disagree, who is right?

Origen who is considered to be an important teacher according to Pope Benedict and the Orthodox Church or Theophilus of Antioch who is considered to be a saint by the Catholics and a successor of the apostles in Antioch?

If we are to rely on the Bible for doctrine, we should be able to see that Theophilus is the one who is clearly correct here. Therefore, those who praise or follow Origen would clearly be of the camp that deviated from proper principles of biblical interpretation at an early date.

Even today there are major differences in scriptural interpretation between the Continuing Church of God and the Greco-Roman Catholics. Theophilus was not of the Greco-Roman faith, even though they call him one of their saints.

Cited Pagans, But Also Wrote They Did Not Understand Human Origins

Like the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 17:23-28), Theophilus would cite pagan sources if they agreed with the Bible on matters:

The Sibyl, then, and the other prophets, yea, and the poets and philosophers, have clearly taught both concerning righteousness, and judgment, and punishment; and also concerning providence, that God cares for us, not only for the living among us, but also for those that are dead: though, indeed, they said this unwillingly, for they were convinced by the truth. And among the prophets indeed, Solomon said of the dead, "There shall be healing to your flesh, and care taken of your bones." Proverbs 3:8 And the same says David, "The bones which You have broken shall rejoice." And in agreement with these sayings was that of Timocles:— "The dead are pitied by the loving God." (Book II, Chapter 38)

He tried to reach people in ways he hoped they would understand (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).

Notice a comment about one of his writings:

That the Britons are of Asiatic origin seems to be supported by the testimony of Theophilus bishop of Antioch (A.D. 160). (Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America" Volume 1, 1910, p. 21)

Theophilus actually wrote:

For though at first there were few men in the land of Arabia and Chaldæa, yet, after their languages were divided, they gradually began to multiply and spread over all the earth; and some of them tended towards the east to dwell there, and others to the parts of the great continent, and others northwards, so as to extend as far as Britain, in the Arctic regions. ... Who, then, of those called sages, and poets, and historians, could tell us truly of these things ... ? ... And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things. (Theophilus. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapters 32, 33)

He clearly is teaching that the origins of humanity were not understood by the sages of the world, but mainly by Christians. But his statements are not clear regarding British Israelism per se, though not inconsistent with it. More on British Israelism can be found in the article: Anglo - America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Errors in Dates

One problem, that should be noted, was that Theophilus misunderstood certain information about the age of the world from scripture.

As a Greek, he seems to have not translated from the Hebrew scirptures (the Old Testament) related to the following, but seemingly got information from the Septuagint translation.

He wrote:

Adam lived till he begot a son, 230 years. And his son Seth, 205. And his son Enos, 190. And his son Cainan, 170. And his son Mahaleel, 165. And his son Jared, 162. And his son Enoch, 165. And his son Methuselah, 167. And his son Lamech, 188. And Lamech's son was Noah, of whom we have spoken above, who begot Shem when 500 years old. During Noah's life, in his 600th year, the flood came. The total number of years, therefore, till the flood, was 2242. And immediately after the flood, Shem, who was 100 years old, begot Arphaxad. And Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begot Salah. And Salah begot a son when 130. And his son Eber, when 134. And from him the Hebrews name their race. And his son Phaleg begot a son when 130. And his son Reu, when 132 And his son Serug, when 130. And his son Nahor, when 75. And his son Terah, when 70. And his son Abraham, our patriarch, begot Isaac when he was 100 years old. Until Abraham, therefore, there are 3278 years. The fore-mentioned Isaac lived until he begot a son, 60 years, and begot Jacob. Jacob, till the migration into Egypt, of which we have spoken above, lived 130 years. And the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt lasted 430 years; and after their departure from the land of Egypt they spent 40 years in the wilderness, as it is called. All these years, therefore, amount to 3,938. And at that time, Moses having died, Jesus the sun of Nun succeeded to his rule, and governed them 27 years. And after Jesus, when the people had transgressed the commandments of God, they served the king of Mesopotamia, by name Chusarathon, 8 years. Then, on the repentance of the people, they had judges: Gothonoel, 40 years; Eglon, 18 years; Aoth, 8 years. Then having sinned, they were subdued by strangers for 20 years. Then Deborah judged them 40 years. Then they served the Midianites 7 years. Then Gideon judged them 40 years; Abimelech, 3 years; Thola, 22 years; Jair, 22 years. Then the Philistines and Ammonites ruled them 18 years. After that Jephthah judged them 6 years; Esbon, 7 years; Ailon, 10 years; Abdon, 8 years. Then strangers ruled them 40 years. Then Samson judged them 20 years. Then there was peace among them for 40 years. Then Samera judged them one year; Eli, 20 years; Samuel, 12 years. (Book III, Chapter )

But that was inaccurate. He apparently relied on the Septuagint translation for Genesis 5, which was not correct. This error was not brought forth in the NKJV nor the DRB (Protestant and Catholic translations respectively). More on dates can be found in the article Does God Have a 6,000 Year Plan? What Year Does the 6,000 Years End?

Books were very expensive back then and since the Septuagint has much translated correctly, he apparently thought it all was--our at least that part--but that is an error.

Imagine you live in a remote portion of the world without the internet and with only a flawed translation of the Old Testament into English. Presuming you believed the Bible, you would be believing doctrine as the flawed translation shows. Presuming you did not have the original Hebrew (or could not read it if you did), you could have made the same type of error that Theophilus did. One can make mistakes and still be a Christian.

Perhaps it should be added that Theophilus' poetic style also conveyed some inaccurate views of the Godhead--though he was NOT trinitarian as some have asserted.

Conclusion on Theophilus

Contrary to the position of some scholars, he did not write in support of the current concept of the trinity. Other than the nature of the Son and use of trias issues, which seems unusual (and may possibly be a corrupted/mistranslated text or simply a misunderstanding), most of the other positions from Theophilus suggest that he supported the doctrines of the true and original church.

That being said, Theophilus understood aout the Ten Commandments (see also the free online book The Ten Commandments: The Decalogue, Christianity, and the Beast).

Theophilus promoted the seventh-day Sabbath.

He looks to have denounced the apostate Marcion when Rome was accepting him.

He opposed idolatry that the Greco-Roman churches ended up adopting (see What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons?).

He taught about the resurrections (see What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrections?).

He taught about the proper timing of being born again (see Born Again: A Question of Semantics?).

Because of his region and timing, it is fairly certain that he kept Passover on the 14th and had not switched to Sunday like Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had by that time (see also Passover and the Early Church).

Of course, in retrospect, we humans cannot be certain who were or were not true Christians at that time. But it appears that Theophilus may have been one. But even if he was not, the bulk of his writings demonstrate a theology closer to that held by the Continuing Church of God, than the Orthodox or Catholic faiths. And that helps demonstrate that it is the COGs who hold positions most consistent with truly orthodox Christianity, than the majority who now profess Christianity do.

Here is a link to a related sermon: Theophilus: Trinitarian or Binitarian?

Back to Early Christianity page

Back to COGwriter home page

Thiel B. Theophilus of Antioch. www.cogwriter.com/theophilus.htm 2006/2007/2008/2012/2015/2017/2019 /2021 1018