By: Dwayne Spearman
Introduction
Ignatius’ life began in AD 50. [1] An early ecclesiastical
writer suggests that he was one of several children who were held in the arms
of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark when he said to the apostles, “If any man
desires to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he
took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in
his arms, he said unto them, whosoever shall receive one of such children in my
name, receiveth me.” [2] Of course, this is just
legend and cannot be proven.
On the other hand, it is very
probable that Ignatius was a very dear friend of the much loved Bishop of
Smyrna, Polycarp. [3] Most will agree that
both he and Polycarp were discipled at the feet of the Apostle John. [4] Yet, he was also
considered to be a devoted disciple of the apostle Paul as well. [5] This can be seen in his
use of the Pauline writings in his struggle against heresies and the formation
of other doctrines.
However, his associations didn’t stop with Polycarp,
John and Paul; according to Eusebius, he was appointed as the third Bishop of
Antioch by none other than Peter himself. [6] John Chrysostom confirms
this when he said that Ignatius had received “his episcopal consecration at the
hands of the Apostles themselves.” [7]
There are actually fifteen epistles
that are attributed to Ignatius. [8] However, eight of them “bear
in themselves indubitable proof” that they were written long after Ignatius had
already died. [9] That leaves seven of
which the evidence points to his own pen. These he wrote while on his way in
chains to face martyrdom in Rome around AD 115. [10] He wrote four of the
letters from Smyrna to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles in Asia
and to the church at Rome. He also wrote three more from Troas to the churches
of Philadelphia, Smyrna, and to the Bishop of Smyrna: Polycarp.
The
thesis of this paper will be to examine the life, work and contribution of
Ignatius of Antioch to the early church in his response to the infiltration of
heresy, the formation of doctrine, and the role of the church.
The Bishop of Antioch
In order to know Ignatius, it is important to know
the background of the church which he served as bishop. It was said by Josephus
that after Rome and Alexandria, Antioch deserved the “place of the third city
in the habitable earth under the Roman Empire in magnitude and prosperity. [11] It was founded in BC 300
as the capital of Syria with over a half million residents and was considered
to be a very affluent and cosmopolitan city. [12]
There are several things that we can learn from the
Scriptures about the importance of Antioch in the early church. First, it was
at Antioch that the followers of Christ were first called Christians (Acts
11:26). Second, it was also from Antioch that the first missionaries were sent
out in Paul and Barnabas when it says that there was a gathering and “as they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas
and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted
and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” [13] Third, it was the
occasion for the calling of the first council in Jerusalem shortly after Paul
and Barnabas had preached at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 15). Fourth, it was also
the place in which Paul withstood Peter for his hypocrisy (Acts 2:11) and was
the most likely place from which Matthew wrote his Gospel. It was to this
church that Ignatius came to serve some sixty years later. [14]
Infiltration of Legalism
In the seven letters that we know to be original to
his pen, Ignatius addressed what he saw as threats to the church of his day and
specifically to his church in Antioch. These threats came from two fronts:
legalism and Gnosticism. The first to be discussed is that of legalism.
The legalism that he faced in Antioch was a Jewish
expression of the faith in that its roots went all the way back to the very
beginnings of Christianity. [15] Historically, Antioch
had a very large Jewish population that had existed long before Christianity
made its way there. However, with the rise of Christianity, they had learned to
co-exist and many of them had converted over to Christianity and were a part of
the church of Antioch.
Unfortunately, these Jews felt very strongly that
certain requirements of the law were to be adhered to even in the Christian
church. Ignatius referred to this as Judaizing. [16] His warning was that it
was absurd to profess Christ and to insist upon any requirements of the law to
be kept. He reminded his flock that Christianity was not the one that had
embraced Judaism, but it was Judaism that had embraced Christianity. [17]
Of course, the seeds of legalism where planted many
years earlier when Paul addressed it in his epistles. To the Galatians he had
sent a similar warning when he told them that he marveled that they had so soon
turned from the grace that had come through Jesus Christ to another gospel that
really wasn’t another gospel at all, but a perversion of the true gospel that
they had received. [18] He even went on to say
that if anyone, even an angel from heaven were to come and tell them anything
different, that he was to be accursed. [19] Needless to say, it’s
obvious that Paul took legalism head-on.
In like manner, Ignatius did the same when he said,
“let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For
whosoever is called by any other name besides this is not of God. Lay aside,
therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new
leaven, which is Jesus Christ.” [20] To Ignatius, to Judaize
meant to place oneself under the law while rejecting the fact that it “points
inevitably to Jesus Christ as the center of human history.” [21]
He went on to say that for one to
keep the law as a basis of salvation was to reject the very essence of
Christianity. [22] This was basically a
paraphrase of what Paul had said in Galatians 5:2-4 when he said, “Behold, I
Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do
the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are
justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
He goes on to say in his letter to
the Philadelphians, “but if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not
to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has
been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised.” [23] He compared those who
followed the men who brought this false doctrine into their midst as having
falling “upon the hooks of vain doctrine”, and as such, they were not able to
have the full assurance of what happened in regard to the birth, passion, and
resurrection. [24]
Infiltration of Gnosticism
The next threat that was faced by the early church
that Ignatius felt compelled to address was Gnosticism. They called themselves
the Gnostikoi or Gnostics which means “those capable of attaining knowledge” or
the “knowing ones.” However, the very term itself is a contradiction, because
in the Greek, the word speaks of an immediate experiential knowledge while they
saw knowledge as only a quasi-intuitive knowledge. [25]
The main difference was between Gnosticism and
Judaism and Christianity is that the latter holds that the soul “attains its
proper end by obedience to the mind and the will of a Supreme Power (i.e, faith
and works), while the former sees salvation of the soul to be found in knowledge.
[26] Thus, they were called the
“people who knew”. However, other than that, Gnosticism was pretty broad in
that it did not have a coherent uniform set of beliefs, but was instead more of
a series of movements. [27]
The aspect of Gnosticism that bothered Ignatius most
was its teaching on what was known as “Docetism.” [28] Unlike many things, Docetism
was one thing that virtually all Gnostics shared in common. It was the belief
that Jesus did not really come in human flesh. Instead, his body only seemed to
be physical. The flesh that was seen with the visible eye was actually an apparition.
Ignatius was confronted with Docetism at each
Eucharistic service in which its adherents refused to partake on the grounds
that it was impossible for it to actually be the flesh of Jesus since he had no
flesh. However, the issue of Docetism started long before Ignatius. As a matter
of fact, the Apostle John was dealing with the same issue when he wrote, “For
many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. [29] He also warned them in 1
John 4:2 when he said, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.”
Of the Docetai, Ignatius warned that they should “avoid
the deadly errors of the Docetae, flee, therefore, those evil offshoots of
Satan, which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he
instantly dies.” [30] He goes on to say that
the men who spread this false doctrine are not of God, for “if they were, they
would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible.”
[31]
Formation of Doctrine
In the process of fighting off the heresies of the
day such as legalism and Gnosticism, Ignatius relied upon and even solidified
some major doctrines that were in the process of being accepted or were already
accepted by the church at large. For the sake of brevity, only a few will be
dealt with in the areas of Ecclesiology, Christology, Pneumatology, Eschatology
and Soteriology.
The first doctrine that Ignatius clearly embraced
was that of the church. As already discussed, he was the first to teach the threefold-fold
ministry of leadership in the church. This meant that he believed that the
church was to be led by a bishop, working with the presbytery and the deacons.
He wrote to the Trallians that they were to “please the deacons,” “be subject
to the presbyters,” and to “do nothing without the bishop.” [32]
The second doctrine was that of the Triune Godhead,
or the Trinity. While he never did explicitly use the word, he certainly did
believe in it as is suggested by his references to the Son and the Holy Spirit.
For example, when referring to the Son when writing to the Magnesians, he said
that Jesus Christ was “with the Father before the beginning of time”; clearly
speaking of the eternality of Christ. [33] Also, in the same letter
he said of Jesus that he “came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone
to one.” [34] A modern translation
would be that Jesus came forth from the one Father and remained with the One
and returned to the One.
Also, in reference to the Holy Spirit, he placed him
in a position of equality with God the Father and the Son. [35] When writing to the
Ephesians he said that they were as “stones of the temple of the Father,
prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the
instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit
as a rope.” [36]
The third doctrine was that of the resurrection. His
confidence in a future resurrection was obvious and apparently fueled his lack
of fear in the face of most certain martyrdom. [37] This is seen in his
encouragement to the Ephesians when he said that God had deemed him “worthy to
be sent for from the east unto the west, and to become a martyr in behalf of
His own precious sufferings, so as to pass from the world to God, that I may
rise again unto Him.” [38]
The forth doctrine was that of salvation. He clearly
believed that Jesus was not only the way of salvation for the church, but also
everyone who came before. He wrote in his letter to the Philadelphians, “He is
the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and
the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church.” [39] He also wrote “the cross
of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to the
believing it is salvation and life eternal.” [40]
The Role of the Church
In regards to the role of the church, Ignatius
believed that the best church is one that is organized well. He believed that a
“well-led church” is best able to hold on to the truth. [41] He developed his view of
the monepiscopacy from the writings of Paul when he told Titus in Titus 1:9-11
to hold “fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by
sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are
many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the
circumcision: Whose mouths must be
stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for
filthy lucre's sake.” He believed, just as the Apostle Paul, that there was a
high value on order and that communities must be administered under
authoritative shepherds who could meet the challenges that were facing the
church with one voice. [42] He actually viewed the
bishop as a picture of “God’s presence within the congregation.” [43]
That was not to say that he believed
that the bishop was the only leader in the church as that he did advocate a
plurality of elders. As a matter of fact, he was the first in the early church
to advocate the three-fold ministry of leadership in the local church and
insisted that it was not even possible to have a church without these three
present. [44]
This is seen in his responses to the divisiveness
and the heresies that were plaguing the church as he continually urged the
people to obey the Christian leaders that God had placed over them. He referred
to these leaders as the bishop who presides in the place of God, the presbyters
who symbolized the assembly of the apostles, and the deacons, who represented
the servant Christ. [45] To this he added, “As
therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of
mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor
layman, do anything without the bishop. [46]
He went on to encourage the
Smyrnaeans to honor both God and the bishop because he that honors the bishop has
been honored by God himself. [47] He went so far as to
tell them that if they did anything without the bishop’s knowledge, they were
actually serving the devil and not God.
Ignatius’ Death
History tell us that Ignatius was martyred somewhere
between AD 98 and 117 after being arrested under the emperor Trajan. Some
believe that it was the resulting backlash of an earthquake in AD 115 that was
blamed on the Christians for angering the gods. [48] However, to come up with
any other reason than just the mere fact that he bore “the name” is not
necessary. That alone was enough to warrant his death.
In one of his surviving letters that he wrote on his
way to Rome, he pleaded with fellow Christians to not intervene to save him
from his fate. He said, “if ye are silent concerning me, I shall become God's;
but if you show your love to my flesh, I shall again have to run my race. Pray,
then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed
to God while the altar is still prepared.” [49] Nevertheless, that did
not stop fellows Christians from meeting him along the way and ministering him
in his journey. One such comforter was no less than Polycarp, the Bishop of
Smyrna himself.
It is obvious from his writings to
the Romans that Ignatius knew full well what most likely awaited him in Rome. Yet,
he said that he was willing “to fall a prey to the wild beasts and become food”
for them. [50] He went on to say, “I am
the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I
may be found the pure bread of Christ.” [51] His desire was to be what
he called an “imitator of the passion” of his God. [52]
Historically, Hippolytus records
that when he arrived in Rome that is exactly what happened. They immediately ushered
him to the amphitheater where he was cast to the wild beasts just as he thought
he would be. It is said that the animals consumed all of him but the “harder
portions” which were later collected and taken to his church in Antioch. [53] Alas, it is certainly
true that “a martyr ground up by the fangs of savage beasts like wheat in a
flour mill cannot be accused of failing to make truth claims; his death is the
ultimate witness to truth.” [54]
John Chrysostom later wrote of Ignatius’ death, “The
Devil did not know that Ignatius had Jesus with him, as a fellow traveller, and
fellow exile on so long a journey, [and] he [Ignatius] rather became the
stronger, and afforded more proof of the power that was with him, and to a
greater degree knit the Churches together." [55]
Conclusion
The life of Ignatius of Antioch not only had
a lasting impact on the church of his day, but also on the church down through
the centuries. He modeled what it meant to love his local church in Antioch in
the same way that Christ loved the universal church by serving faithfully as
the under-shepherd and was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for it.
With that sacrificial love, came an unflinching
determine to stand up to the heresies that had already begun to creep into the
church and were already tearing at the very fiber of its existence. To the
legalists, he charged that if they continued to try to keep the law as a means
of salvation, they were rejecting the very essence of Christianity. [56] To the Gnostics he
reminded them of the Apostle John’s words when he said, “Hereby know ye the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is of God.” [57]
As he used the Scriptures to fend off these
heresies, he also aided in the formation of accepted doctrine in the early
church. His arguments furthered the solidification of three-fold leadership in
the church, the Triune Godhead and the place of the Son and the Holy Spirit,
the resurrection of the dead and salvation that only comes through faith in
Jesus Christ.
He was also used by God to establish the
role of the church. This came mainly through his view of the monepiscopacy that
came out of his conviction that leadership comes through a well led church. He
advocated that the bishops
preside in the place of God, the presbyters symbolize the assembly of the apostles,
and the deacons represent the servant Christ. [58] This effort was to ensure
that the message of Christ as given through the church was safeguarded by
creating a unified stance against competing versions of the faith. [59]
Lastly, his death was the ultimate
witness to truth in that he was willing to give his life for what he knew to be
true. He not only had something that was worth living for, but also something
worth dying for. In reality, he did not die for an idea, or even a set of
ideas, but for his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. [60]
Some areas of further study that were
inspired during this project include how the monepiscopacy or bishop led model
of church governance served not only the early church, but also the church of
the middle ages. Obviously, there was a break down that culminated in the need
for the Reformation, but how has moving away from that model helped or hindered
the church? Has the resulting rise of literally thousands of denominations
helped or has it led down a road of self-destruction? Has the concern that Johann von Staupitz
expressed to Martin Luther about the Reformation serving only to destroy the
unity of the church come to pass?
Biblography
Boer, Paul A, Sr. Irenaeus.
Against Heresies: Excerpted from: Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1.,
Veritatis Splendor
Publications, 2012.
Eusebius: The History of the Church
Hall, Christopher A.
Learning Theology with the Church Fathers.
Downers Grove,
Il:InterVarsity
Press, 2002.
King, Robert Alan. Ignatius of Antioch: His Beliefs on the
Trinity, Salvation, Sin, Christianity,
and the Church. Casa Grande, AZ: King
& Associates, 2012.
Litfin, Bryan M. Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An
Evangelical Introduction. Grand
Rapids,
MI: Brazos Press, 2007.
O’Connor, John Bonaventure. “St. Ignatius of Antioch.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7.
New York: Robert Appleton Company,
1910. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ 07644a.html (accessed on November 26, 2012).
Roberts, Alexander
and James Donaldson, eds., Anti-Nicene
Fathers, Volume 1. Christian
Classics
Ethereal Library, Electronic Edition, 1885.
St. Ignatius of
Antioch: The Epistles
No comments:
Post a Comment