Shortly after the Jerusalem council of AD 49, the Apostle Peter relocated to Antioch to help lead the Church there. When Peter left for Rome, presumably at some point during the mid-50s, a man name Evodius became the new leader of the Church in Antioch. Then, in AD 70, the same year that Titus’ legions took Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and put an end to the Jewish Revolt, Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch. He remained the bishop of Antioch until some time around AD 107, when during Trajan’s reign, Ignatius was arrested and taken to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts.
Now, we don’t know a whole lot about Ignatius’ life. It is generally believed he was born around AD 35, and it is fairly certain that the time of his martyrdom was around AD 107. According to some early biographies of the man, he was a convert to Christianity and was a disciple of the Apostle John. And, although we obviously can’t know for certain, but given the facts that Peter lived in Antioch for a time and that the Church in Antioch was actually Paul’s “home church” that supported his missionary journeys throughout the 50s, like with Clement of Rome, it is entirely plausible to assume that Ignatius knew Peter and Paul as well.
What we do know about Ignatius really comes from the seven letters he wrote to various churches in Asia Minor as he was being taken to Rome as a prisoner. During a stop in Smyrna, Ignatius wrote four of his letters: to Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, and Rome. Then during another stop at Troas, he wrote three more letters: to Philadelphia, Smyrna, and a personal letter to Polycarp.
Reading these letters gives us a pretty interesting glimpse into the mindset of Ignatius as he was being taken to his martyrdom. It also reveals a little bit about the challenges facing those early 2nd century churches and the things that Church leaders like Ignatius emphasized and taught those 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. Although I will not be able to supply my own truncated paraphrase for all seven of his letters, I thought I’d at least highlight the main points he makes in each one. Upon reading the summaries, you’ll notice a number of recurring themes.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Ephesus
Ignatius begins his letter by raving over how wonderful the Ephesian visitors, led by their Bishop Onesimus, have been. (While some speculate this Onesimus was the same one Paul mentions in Philemon, we don’t know—in fact, in this case, it would seem unlikely. By AD 107, it would have been at least 52 years since Paul’s writing of Philemon, so I suppose it is possible that a 20-year-old Onesimus then could be a 72-year-old bishop in AD 107, but there is just no way to know).
In any case, the bulk of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesian Christians consists of him reminding them to meet regularly to celebrate the Eucharist with their bishop and imploring them to submit and obey the bishop—Church unity under the bishop was the key to fending of Satan’s attacks. He also encourages them to reject the false teaching of the hypocritical heretics. He ends his letter by telling them that God’s plan of salvation that involved Mary’s virginity, Christ’s birth, life, and death, was something that Satan didn’t see coming and was totally confused about. He didn’t realize that the coming of Christ signaled the overthrowing of the “old empire” (of Satan) and the establishment of a new, eternal order (the Kingdom of God).
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Magnesia
Ignatius begins his letter by raving over Bishop Demas, who, together with some Christians from their church, came to visit him in Smyrna. He then tells the Christians in Magnesia to make sure they don’t disrespect Demas simply because he was young (how young, we don’t know). And like in his letter to Ephesus, Ignatius encourages them to be unified, to treat their bishop as they would Christ and their deacons as they would the apostles.
He also warns them against the false teachings of Judaism. We should remember that in AD 107, it had only been 35 years since the Jewish War, and only about 20 years since the post-war re-formed Pharisaic Judaism we now know as Rabbinic Judaism had formerly cursed Christianity (they called it the “Nazarene” movement), so there was obviously still some antagonism there. But in addition to warning them against Judaism, Ignatius also warns them of the heretical views of Docetism, which denied that Jesus really was a flesh and blood human being, and thus also denied the resurrection.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Tralles
Ignatius raves over Bishop Polybius of Tralles who had come to visit him in Smyrna and encourages the Christians there to be sure to obey their bishop as they would Christ and to honor their deacons as they would the apostles. He then tells them to avoid heretical teaching and to take their cues from their bishop and the Apostolic tradition and institution that he teaches. He encourages them to live gentle lives, but to keep a strong grip on their faith that is rooted in the body and blood of the Lord. The reason he emphasizes Jesus’ body and blood, and his actual life in history should be obvious—Ignatius wants them to not be fooled by the heretical teaching of Docetism, which he calls “deadly fruit.”
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Rome
In this letter, Ignatius is obviously sending ahead to the Christians he’ll see when he finally gets to Rome. The gist of this letter is pretty simple. Ignatius wants them to know, in no uncertain terms, that he doesn’t want them to try to prevent him from being martyred. He says he is ready to be poured out like a libation to God. And so, he doesn’t want them praying for or working toward his release. All he wants them to pray for is that he finds the strength to endure the lions’ mouth. He says he realizes he will be a meal for the lions and says his body will be like wheat that is ground up in their mouths.
Speaking of beasts, Ignatius tells them that the soldiers who have been taking him to Rome have been unnecessarily cruel to him. Hence, he is being taken to Rome by beasts to be thrown to the beasts. In any case, upon thinking about his upcoming death, Ignatius says that he hopes that the lions make a quick meal of him. He might be ready to die, but he certainly doesn’t want it to take long. Still, he realizes that by his martyrdom he will be imitating Christ’s own passion. He is literally imitating Christ by being handed over to death for following Christ. And so, after again asking the Roman Christians to pray that he keeps his resolve, he also asks them to pray for the Church in Antioch. After all, he was the bishop there, and so he was concerned about them.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Philadelphia
Like the other letters, Ignatius tells the Christians in Philadelphia how impressed he has been with their bishop who had come to visit him. And, like the other letters, he encourages them to stay loyal and obedient to their bishop. He also relates to them some good news he had just received about his Church back in Antioch—they were doing well and were at peace. Still, Ignatius asks the Church in Philadelphia to send a deacon to Antioch to help them.
Now, the thing to know about Philadelphia, (as we know from the Book of Revelation) is that there was a large Jewish community there. Not surprisingly, Ignatius tells the Christians there to steer clear from Judaism. They are children of the light, and so they should do all they can to stay united (under the bishop, of course!) and to not allow any false teaching (like Judaism) to take root. He even calls it “poisonous weeds” that causes division, and that no one who causes divisions can inherit the Kingdom of God. Instead, they are to faithfully share in the common Eucharist so that God can dwell in their midst, with Jesus Christ as their high priest.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Church in Smyrna
Remember, Ignatius had stayed briefly in Smyrna—that’s where he wrote his first four letters. Once he moved on to Troas, he wrote his letter to Philadelphia and then wrote a letter back to the Church and Smyrna, along with a personal letter to Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna. In this letter, Ignatius takes the time to warn them against Docetism by emphasizing that even though Jesus Christ is the “Divine One,” that he nevertheless was truly in the line of David, truly lived a real human life, and truly died and resurrected. And so, not only did he was a real human being and have a real, physical body, now the Church together was the one body of Christ. For that reason, they are to avoid the Docetists—pray for them, but don’t get taken in by them because ultimately, they were just destroying themselves by their denial of Jesus’ full humanity.
Apparently, these Docetists claimed to be followers of some sort of “divine-spirit Christ,” and so they looked upon the celebration of the Eucharist with disdain and would refuse to take part. By doing that, Ignatius says that they were cutting themselves off from Christ’s body. Therefore, Christians should avoid them, and instead follow their bishop and respect their deacons.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna
Ignatius’s final letter is a partly a personal letter to Polycarp and partly a final encouragement to the Church in Ephesus. In the personal note to Polycarp, Ignatius says a number of interesting things. First, he tells Polycarp to keep up the good work he was doing. Second, he tells him to focus more on the troublesome students (presumably of the catechetical school). Basically, the good students can take care of themselves, so Polycarp should spend more time with the not-so-good students. They are the ones that need more help.
Ignatius also tells Polycarp not to get too upset over false teaching and those who try to pervert the truth. Sure, stand firm against them, but don’t get wore down and agonized over it. Ignatius’ advice is simple: Speak against them, take their punishment and derision, and you’ll come out victorious in the end. He also tells Polycarp to encourage husbands to love their wives and to let the single people know it’s okay to be single. Still, if some single people start to brag about how “chaste and spiritual” they are, Ignatius tells Polycarp to have a chat with them and tell them not to boast, because it smacks of pride. He also tells Polycarp to encourage couples to get married by him and with his blessing.
Ignatius then tells the congregation once again that they are to follow and respect their bishop and the rest of the clergy and work toward unity, with Christ as their Commander. He ends with another request for Polycarp to send someone to Syria (to Antioch) to help the Church there, and to write letters to the other surrounding churches to do the same thing as well, because he was about to be taken on the last leg of the journey to Rome and wouldn’t have time to write any more letters.
What Does All This Show?
It shouldn’t be hard to figure out what Ignatius felt was important: (1) Church unity, with obedience to the bishop paramount. Why was obedience to the bishop so important? Because of apostolic succession—he was appointed in succession to the apostles themselves, and he had the task of preserving the teaching that Jesus himself handed down to his apostles. (2) A big part of that unity was to faithfully celebrate the Eucharist together as a Church, under the guidance of the bishop. (3) Be on guard against false teaching and heresy, specifically both Docetism and the emerging Rabbinic Judaism. Why? Because it inevitably leads to division—and the Church, as the body of Christ, should not be divided. Finally (4) Live lives worthy of Christ, even if it means (as in his case) sacrificing your life and imitating Christ in his death.
Being faithful to the original teaching of Christ that he handed down to the apostles and living in unity as the Body of Christ—that pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? Ultimately, it’s not complicated—there are just so many temptations to make it complicated!
That was a good summary. Couple of questions related to Ignatius.
Do you think the Docetist heresy is the false teaching that denied Jesus came in the flesh that I and II John warn the Ephesians so stridently against (he actually calls them “antichrists”)? Is that the reason the author in the prologue spends so much time insisting that Jesus was seen, touched with their hands, heard, etc.? I think it might’ve been because of Docetism, which a few decades later morphed into outright Gnosticism.
What are your thoughts on when the leadership of the Church shifted from multiple elders/bishops/shepherds in the congregations to the mono-episcopate we see at the time of Ignatius? In other words, when did the transition from multiple elders to one bishop occur?
Just interested in your opinion.
I definitely believe more Evangelicals should get familiar with the Church Fathers.
Pax.
Lee.
I think the reality is that the Greek/Roman pagan world already was very much “anti-material” in their outlook–the body is this disgusting “mortal coil” sort of thing. And so, when the Gospel started being spread throughout the pagan world, it was inevitable that some “Greek-minded thinkers,” even if they were initially attracted to the Gospel, would start to twist the message (consciously or subconsciously) to fit with their presuppositional biases regarding the material world. So, I don’t doubt that by the time John wrote his stuff, that kind of thing was already around.
Well, even when you read Ignatius, although he really stresses obedience to the bishop, right along with that he’s stressing the deacons with him. So, I’m not so sure there was really much of a change. I think that so-called change might be blown out of proportion a bit. I think there was always a “leader” (bishop) in the various churches (or church regions) and then deacons/presbyters as part of the Church organization. I think Ignatius is emphasizing the bishop as he is in his letters because the fact was that at the time, persecutions were happening–so circle the wagons and look to the bishop for unity.
I think there is some confusion with the church as we know it today, particularly with Catholicism. There were leaders as suggested, but only one “bishop” per jurisdiction.
The point of manyu of the letters of the time was to show one sheperd, though many teachers or disciples
It very interesting that a movement that denied the physical existence of Jesus could take hold that early. Do you know when the movement actually started and where?
I think early on it wasn’t a formalize movement. Like I expressed in my comment to Lee, I think when the Gospel went out to the pagan world, it was inevitable that some pagans, even if they were initially attracted to the Gospel message, would superimpose their own “Greek” biases and worldview on it to an extent. To the Greeks, the material body was icky and bad, so some might be initially attracted to the idea of Jesus being Lord who is “in the heavenly realms” and who is divine, but the idea of him inhabiting a physical body and, after dying, RESURRECTING into a physical body, just short-circuited their brains.
So, I think that was probably the tendency with some from the beginning. And that is what is so interesting regarding the birth of Christianity. On one hand, it came out of Judaism–which shared with it the conviction that the material world was GOOD and that God would bring about a NEW CREATION–but the idea that Jesus was divine along with being human, was revolting to traditional Jews. But then the Gospel goes out to the pagan world, and that view is completely opposite–Docetists liked the idea of Jesus be a “divine spirit,” but recoiled at the idea that he was a real human being with a real physical body.
But Church Tradition points the finger at Simon Magnus (from Acts 8) as the “godfather” of Christian heresies. Even Eusebius in his History of the Church traces some of the early Gnostic leaders back to him.
Of course, as NT Wright points, out the idea of God incarnating as a human doesn’t violate the Shema:
“The oneness of God [asserted in the Shema] was not a reference to the inner nature of God (ontology), but to God’s supremacy over all other gods and rulers (politics).” (*Paul and the Faithfulness of God*)
Am I correct in saying that orthodox Jews didn’t really have a problem with incarnational theology–at least in theory–until the early church claimed that Jesus was God incarnate? It was only as a result of Christian theology that orthodox Judaism began digging in its heels and reading the Shema as a statement of God’s inner nature and arguing against the impossibility of an incarnation, right?
Pax.
Lee.
It is hard to say. Obviously, in the OT there are passages where God (or an angel of God) appears to people, having a meal, etc. But in those instances, it is clear that that “person” IS GOD…not the human being “Bob” WHO IS ALSO divine. Jews knew Jesus was a real person from Nazareth–therefore, he can’t be God.
In I Corinthians 15 Paul has to correct a misunderstanding of some of the Corinthians that the resurrection was some kind of spiritual, allegorical or figurative event and not a literal one.
As you say, this was gonna give interested pagans problems, which is likely one reason the gospels go to such lengths to stress that Jesus’ resurrected body was a flesh-and-blood body–albeit a somehow glorified one.
Part of the problem as Wright sees it, and I think he’s right, is the way many translations translate the word *sarx* in Corinthians 15 as “flesh and blood,” which gives the false idea that material bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If the word here was *soma* (body) that translation would make more sense to me, however *sarx* refers to “sinful human nature” and not physical bodies.
Pax.
Lee.
Yes, basically correct there. And when Paul talks about a “spiritual” body, he’s not talking about a non-material one. He’s talking about a resurrected physical body now empowered by the Holy Spirit. Our natural bodies (being “in Adam”) are souls that succumb to death and decay. In Christ, we die as corruptible souls and we are resurrected in Spiritual bodies (I think it should be a capital “S” to signify the empowerment of the Holy Spirit) that are no longer susceptible to death and decay.
The word “docetism” comes from the Greek word, dokeĩn, which means “to seem. The Docetists believed Jesus was a real being, only a purely spiritual being, not an embodied flesh-and-blood human being. Some scholars posit an incipient form of mid-late 1st c. Docetism and argue this is the heresy I and II John condemn. No one knows precisely when or where it started, though some have postulated Syria, Egypt, etc.
Docetism made the rounds of the Mediterranean
Gnosticism, which absorbed Docetist views about Jesus, sprang up ca. 115-120 AD and was essentially Platonism on steroids. Gnosticism argued that the space-time universe was the evil creation of a being called the “demiurge,” which some Gnostic sects equated with the Jewish God YHWH. At creation “divine sparks” became trapped in physical bodies; in the Christian version of Gnosticism, Jesus was a spirit “emanation” from the “high god” sent to earth to show a few select, mostly make initiates how to use secret
“gnosis” or knowledge (hence the name) passed on to certain enlightened disciples to spiritually evolve out of their material bodies (kind of like the Ancients in Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis who “ascended” to become beings of pure energy). Under Gnosticism, Jesus couldn’t die, much less be physically resurrected from the dead, because he was a spirit being and an embodied human being. Thus, contrary to what *The Da Vinci Code* would have us believe, the *last* thing Docetists or Gnostics wanted was a human Jesus.
In Gnoticism, creation of the space-time universe by an imposter god with delusions of grandeur was the “original sin.”
Some scholars believe Gnostic ideas about Jesus not having a physical body have influenced Islam, as the Quran says:
“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.”
Pax.
Lee.
Lee.