CHAPTER THREE

THEOPHANY INTERPRETATION AND PRO-NICENE THEOLOGY

Among early Christian exegesis of the theophany narratives prior to the year 400, the literal christological reading consistently appeared as the key to understanding the Son’s relation to the Father and his works in creation. While the polemical-doctrinal strand and the spiri- tual strand focused on different questions, they were rooted in shared theological assumptions: the Son descends into the world, while the Father is not located in any particular place; the Son is capable of becoming visible and interacting with human beings, while the Father is impassible; the Son shares in the Father’s divinity but is subordinate to him, acting as a mediator and obeying the Father’s will. Within the framework of these shared assumptions, the two exegetical strands developed very different applications, one defining orthodoxy via defi- nitions of Christ’s identity and the other teaching of the need for spiri- tual growth and transformation. These two strands further developed in the fourth-century christo- logical and trinitarian controversies, even as the theological assump- tions involved in theophany interpretation began to shift. In the decades after the 325 Council of Nicea, both defenders and opponents of the term homoousios (“same substance,” used in the Nicene Creed) turned to the theophanies to understand the Son’s identity and rela- tion to the Father. The literal christological interpretation of the theo- phanies provided a strong argument against modalism, showing the Son’s distinct identity and activity in the world, thereby safeguarding the Father’s impassibility. However, as different christologies devel- oped in the mid- to late fourth-century, the subordination of the Son to the Father became a flashpoint, and theologians defending the 325 Council of Nicea began to challenge subordinationist theology, long part of early Christian theophany interpretation.1

1 Michel René Barnes, “The Visible Christ and the Invisible Trinity: Mt. 5:8 in Augustine’s Trinitarian Theology of 400,” Modern Theology 19:3 (2003): 341. 74 chapter three

In particular, in the 360s to 380s pro-Nicene authors Hilary and Ambrose maintained the traditional christological interpretation of the theophanies, even as they articulated beliefs about the equality and inseparability of the Trinity, ideas that were critical to Augustine’s own trinitarian theology. Thus in the mid-to-late fourth century we glimpse a critical moment in which all major parties embraced the lit- eral christological reading, even as pro-Nicene authors developed their trinitarian theology against the suborinationism inherent in traditional theophany exegesis. As a result, the developing pro-Nicene theology of Hilary and Ambrose provided the underpinnings for Augustine’s exe- getical shift away from reading the theophanies christologically, even as they maintained the christological reading in their own doctrinal and exegetical writings. Hilary and Ambrose both influenced Augustine’s theology and theophany interpretation, but in different ways. Hilary developed the polemical-doctrinal strand of interpretation, at points echoing the interpretations of Justin and Novatian, but with a more precise theol- ogy of how the Trinity, especially the Father and the Son, act together in the world. Ambrose developed the spiritual strand of theophany interpretation, taking up more precisely the question of what the eyes actually see and how the invisible God can be mediated visibly in the world. He provided Augustine with a more refined theory of visible encounter with the divine (“seeing God”) connected to grace, free will, and spiritual growth. Thus Hilary and Ambrose, as the two interpreters in this study who influenced Augustine most directly, bring the two different strands of theophany interpretation to a more nuanced point, even as their trinitarian theologies provide Augustine with a theologi- cal framework for breaking from the literal christological reading. Three key sources provide a glimpse of how theophany interpreta- tion developed alongside trinitarian theology in the mid- to late fourth century: The 351 Council of Sirmium, Hilary of Poitier’sDe Trinitate (ca. 356–359), and Ambrose of Milan’s writings of the late 370s and 380s. Together, they demonstrate the pervasiveness of the literal chris- tological reading in the fourth century, even as Hilary and Ambrose develop the theological underpinnings for change.

Council of Sirmium (351): Theophanies and anti-modalism post-Nicea

One of the most notable conciliar uses of theophany interpretation occurred at the Council of Sirmium in 351, which was convened by