The following is an overview of a dispute about the “image of God” between Apo Aphou (bishop of Oxyrhynchus during the second half of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth) and Theophilus (Pope of Alexandria from 384 to 412) on the “image of God.” As I have written a lot in defence of the Latter-day Saint interpretation of Gen 1:26-27 (cf. Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment), it is always important to know what other theologians from different perspectives understand this to mean:
appendix iv
Apa Aphou and Archbishop Theophilus Debate the Image
of God
Aphou was bishop of Pemje (Oxyrhynchus), a city situated on the west
bank of the Nile halfway between Heracleopolis and Antinoë; according to the
author of the Historia Monachorum,
the majority of its inhabitants were monks. One saying is attributed to Aphou
in the Alphabetical Apophthegmata Patrum;
it confirms that he was bishop of Oxyrhynchus and reports that when he was a
monk he led a very severe way of life. The fragment translated below begins
somewhere in the middle of what appears to be a Life of Aphou with the statement that while Aphou “was still living
with the wild beasts [as an anchorite], he left for the proclamation of holy
Easter,” that is, for the reading of the annual festal letter of the archbishop
of Alexandria in which the archbishop announced the date of Easter and the
beginning of Lent and took the opportunity to instruct his flock on theological
matters. This opening sentence both says that Aphou had been a monk and sets
the stage for his meeting with Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria. The
context soon makes it clear that the event that precipitated the meeting
between monk and bishop was the reading of Theophilus’ festal letter of 399
condemning Anthropomorphism (see the General Introduction to this volume).
Aphou hears a statement in the letter that “did not accord with his
understanding of the Holy Spirit” and, prompted by an angel of the Lord,
journeys to Alexandria to confront and correct Theophilus.
Georges Florovsky has summarized the theological issue at stake:
Aphou took exception to one particular expression … in the epistle of
Theophilus. In his conversation with the Archbishop he was concerned solely
with the concept of God’s image in man. He did not develop or defend any
“Anthropomorphite” thesis. The sting of his argument was directed against the
denial of God’s image in man, and
there was no word whatever about any “human form” in God. Aphou only contended that man, even in his present
condition and in spite of all his misery and destitution, had to be regarded
still as being created in the image of God, and must be, for that reason,
respected. Aphou was primarily concerned with man’s dignity and honor.
Theophilus, on the other hand, was embarrassed by man’s misery and depravity.
The fragment published below is apparently part of a hagiographical Life of Aphou; it was preserved in
Sahidic Coptic undoubtedly because of its opposition to Theophilus’
condemnation of Anthropomorphism.
Apa Aphou and Archbishop
Theophilus Debate the Image of God
[5] While he was still living with the wild beasts he left for the
proclamation of holy Easter. He heard a statement that did not accord with his
understanding of the Holy Spirit. As a result, he was very upset at what he
heard. Indeed, everyone who heard it was saddened and upset over it. But the
angel of the Lord commanded [6] blessed Aphou not to be indifferent to what was
read, saying to him, “You have been appointed by the Lord to go to Alexandria
to take issue with what was said.” The wording of that proclamation went like
this: in exalting the glory of God in the proclamation, it emphasized human
weakness, and the person who had dictated it said that “this weakness is not
the image of God,” understanding “this weakness” to be we who bear the image,
that is, we human beings.
When blessed Aphou heard these things, he was filled [7] with the Holy
Spirit and departed for the city of Alexandria, wearing an old tunic. Blessed
Apa Aphou stood at the bishop’s door for three days and no one let him in,
looking on him as though he were a bumpkin. After a while, one of the clergy
took notice of him; he saw his patience and perceived that he was a man of God,
so he went inside and informed the archbishop: “Sir, there is a poor man
outside the door who is saying ‘I wish to meet with you,’ but we have not dared
bring him to you since he is not wearing suitable clothing.” All of a sudden,
as though he had been [8] prompted by God, the archbishop ordered Aphou to be
brought in to him. When Aphou stood before him, the archbishop asked him the
reason for his visit. Aphou responded: “May my Lord Bishop hear the word of his
servant with charity and forbearance.”
The archbishop said to him, “Speak.”
Blessed Apa Aphou responded, “I know the Christian nature of your soul,
for you are a person who accepts counsel. Therefore, I have approached Your
Greatness, confident that you will not look down on what is said out of
godliness, even if it comes from a poor person such as myself.”
Archbishop Theophilus said to him, “What godless person would be foolish
enough [9] to reject under any circumstances a word from God!”
Aphou replied, “May my Lord Bishop order the proclamation read to me
here at once. I heard a statement in it that is not in accord with the
scriptures of the Breath of God. I do not believe that it came from you. No, I
said, no doubt the scribes erred while writing it. Many devout people were
scandalized on account of this statement and as a result were greatly grieved
over it.”
Immediately Apa Theophilus the Archbishop ordered the proclamation to be
brought in at once. When the person began to read the proclamation [10], he
soon came to the statement in question. Immediately Apa Aphou prostrated
himself and said, “Such a statement is not right. No, I will confess that all
people have been created in the image of God.”
The archbishop replied, “Why is it that only you have spoken against
this statement and no one else has spoken in agreement with you?”
Apa Aphou said, “I am confident that you will agree with me and will no
longer oppose me.”
The archbishop said, “How can you say that an Ethiopian is the image of
God, or a leper, or someone who is lame or blind?”
Blessed Apa Aphou replied, “If you proclaim things of this sort you will
[11] oppose him who said, ‘Let us create humankind according to our likeness and
image’ ” [Gen 1:26].
The archbishop responded, “Heaven forbid! I think that only Adam was
created according to God’s likeness and image. The children that Adam
engendered after himself do not have the likeness of God.”
Apa Aphou replied, “After God fulfilled his covenant with Noah after the
deluge, he said to him, ‘Whoever sheds human blood will have his own blood shed
in return, for human beings have been created in the image of God’ ” [Gen
9:6].
The archbishop said, “I am afraid to say that a human being, subject to
illness [12] and suffering, bears the image of God, who is passionless and
simple. Since human beings live in society and produce things, how will you
conceive of the true Light that no one can approach?”
Aphou said to him, “But if you say this, then it will be said that the
body of Christ that we receive is not really the body of Christ, for the Jews
will say, ‘How is it that you take bread that the earth has produced and has
been cultivated with hard work, and afterwards you believe that what you
receive is the body of the Lord?’ ”
The archbishop said to him, “It is not like this. It is truly bread that
we offer on the altar: when we offer it on the altar [13] and call God down
upon them, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine in the chalice
becomes blood, just as he said to his disciples, ‘Take and eat. This is my body
and blood’ [Mt 26:26–28], and we believe this to be true.”
Apa Aphou said to him, “Just as it is necessary to believe this, it is
also necessary to believe his authority: ‘humankind has been created [according
to] the likeness and image of God,’ for he who said, ‘I am the bread that has
come down from heaven’ [Jn 6:21] is also the one who said, ‘Whoever sheds human
blood will have his blood shed in return, for human beings have been created in
the image of God.’ With regard to the glory and majesty of God, [14] which it
is impossible for anyone to see on account of his [incomprehensible light] and
on account of human weakness and failing brought about by our natural
inferiority, which we know so well, we believe this: just as a king orders his
image to be painted and everyone acknowledges that it is the image of the king,
at the same time everyone knows that it is wood and painted colors, for the
nose on the king’s painted image does not stand out in relief like a human
nose, nor are the ears like those on the king’s face, nor does it speak like he
does. But even with all the faults that the image possesses, let no one say
such things out loud, fearful of the king’s opinion, for he has said, ‘This is
my [15] image.’ What is more, if someone dares to deny that this is the image
of the king, he is put to death because he has blasphemed the king. Even more,
those in authority gather around the painting, praising pieces of wood and
paint out of fear of the king.
“If, therefore, such things are true of an image that has no spirit and
no movement, because it is antithetical to movement, how much truer is it for a
human being, who possesses the spirit of God, who is capable of action, and who
is more glorious than all living creatures upon the earth? With regard to the
different maladies and appearances15 and weaknesses inherent in us,
they are imposed on us for our salvation, for it is impossible for any of these
to denigrate the glory that God has given us, as [16] Paul says, ‘For the
husband must not cover his head’ ” [1 Cor 11:4].
When the blessed archbishop heard these words, he arose and prostrated
himself and bowed his neck and said, “Truly it is fitting for teaching to come
solely from those who live in solitude; as for us, the thoughts of our hearts
disturb us and as a result out of ignorance cause us to err so completely like
this.” And immediately he wrote to the whole country, repudiating that
statement: “It errs and we believed it without thinking.”
Afterwards, the archbishop adjured blessed Aphou, saying, “Tell me, what
is your way of life? [17] Where are you from and who are your family? I see
that your appearance is that of a peasant, but on the other hand I can hear
that your words are more elevated than the words of those who are wise.”
Aphou responded, “I have wished to live as a monk, but I am far from
that honor. I am from Pemje. Since your wisdom is our foundation, the Enemy has
attempted to work through you, knowing that a multitude will be stumble because
of you. Therefore, they will be hurt and will not obey the word of holy
instruction that comes from your mouth. But because of the love that you have
for God, you defeated every kind [18] of trick played by the Devil when you
listened to the words of your most unworthy servant. For even the majesty that
you possess is unable to raise you up over arrogant presumptuousness so that
you have control over your own will, but you have demonstrated the childlike humility
that Christ possessed and the great Moses, too, when he obeyed Jethro, the
priest of Midian [Ex 4:18]. Truly it was the Savior who said to our fathers the
apostles, ‘If you change and become like children’ [Mt 18:3]. You have truly
demonstrated that you have turned yourself completely away from arrogance
towards the purity and simplicity of being like a child.”
Afterwards, the archbishop asked Aphou to remain with him a few days,
but he [19] excused himself, saying, “It is not possible for me to stay,” and
so he departed from the archbishop with peace and honor. But the archbishop’s
heart was saddened when Aphou left him, like a child when his father leaves
him. (“Appendix IV: Apa Aphou and
Archbishop Theophilus Debate the Image of God,” in Four Desert
Fathers—Pambo, Evagrius, Macarius of Egypt, and Macarius of Alexandria: Coptic
Texts Relating to the Lausiac History of Palladius [trans. Tim Vivian;
Popular Patristics Series; Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,
2004], 181-88; numbers in square brackets correspond to pages in the original
manuscript)
