The Church of Jesus Christ

Completing our series on Igantius’ letters (Part 1; Part 2), we find a smaller content in his three remaining letters:

Philadelphians

In the Bishop’s greeting to the brothers and sisters at Philadelphia, we find Ignatius using a Pauline greeting similar to the one used in Galatians 1.3: ‘God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ’ (θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) Much like the rest of Paul’s introductions, there is no ‘the’, reading in some translations, God our Father and Lord, Jesus Christ. Farther, in the greeting Ignatius writes that the holy Spirit is Jesus Christ’s. In contrast to this, the Bishop in chapter 7 writes, ‘yet the Spirit, as being from God.’ (See Romans 8.9) For Ignatius, the Spirit that comes from the Christ, is the same Spirit that comes from God.

In chapter 3, as we have seen so many times in Ignatius’ writings, he compares the relationship between the congregation and the Bishop (overseer) to that of the unity between God and Jesus Christ. In chapter 7, he urges that the congregation ‘be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father. This calls to mind the prayer of Christ in which He sought for unity among the brethren that mimicked the united between the Father and the Son. If we understand the unity in the light of the Incarnation of God, we see that Ignatius understands a physical separation exists between the congregation and the Bishop, but there must be one will that united the two. It is difficult to believe, especially with Ignatius’ use of the phrase ‘our God, Jesus Christ’ that the sees a post-Incarnation distinction between the two. If he does, they he further sees that Christ is a ‘follower’ of God, and can never be a part of God.

Smyrnaeans

In the letter to the congregation of Polycarp, Ignatius boldly states in chapter 1 that he glorifies ‘Jesus Christ, the God who has given you such wisdom.’ (James 1.5). This statement that Jesus Christ is God, with the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit, as would later be deemed heretical is followed by Ignatius’ expansion of Romans 1.3, which seems to take the form of an early creed. He returns to this confession of Faith in chapter 7 when he is speaking about the heretics that abstain from the Eucharist. It all of Ignatius’ writings, never once does it consider the Son a God beside the Father, never referring to Christ as God the Son, but always, simply, God. If there is a distinction to be made between the Father and the Son, as is in chapter 1 and chapter 7, it always revolves around the Incarnation.

To Polycarp

The letter to Polycarp is filled with touches of friendship, last words, and thoughts for the congregation that Ignatius is leaving behind. In his last words to his friend on this side of heaven, the Bishop of Antioch writes to the Bishop of Smyrna, that he will pray for your (Polycarp) happiness forever in Jesus Christ our God.’ There is no mention of God the Father or God the Son, or even the Spirit, but simply, as Ignatius as shown throughout his letters, to the one God, Jesus Christ.

Tags: ecomony, God, holy trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, jesus only, modalism, oneness, Oneness Pentecostalism, religion, theology proper, trinity

This is part two of a series began here.

Romans

The Bishop’s letter to the Roman church is one of exasperation – they must have implored him to save himself, or perhaps allow a rescue attempt (divine or otherwise). He implores them to let him die, willingly for God. We must read this letter in light of Ignatius’s service for God, in his attempt to suffer the same passion as Christ (Chapter 6). We have seen Ignatius already attempt a separation based on the Incarnation – never once does he refer to the Incarnation as God – although Jesus Christ is God, the only God – nor does he refer to Jesus Christ as the Father. It is in this letter that the Johannine Theology[1] that surrounded Antioch, and indeed Asia Minor, is the best pronounced.

Ignatius greets the Roman Christians by stating that he has obtained mercy through the ‘majesty of the Moth High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.’ This is a common Johannine greeting as the Apostle used it in 1^st John 1.3 and 2^nd John 3 (“and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ and from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father,” respectively). This does not imply an eternal distinction but one of doctrine, as in the same section, the Bishop goes as far as Paul, but in a indisputable fashion, when he writes, ‘in Jesus Christ, our God,’ a familiar refrain.

In chapter 2, the friend of Polycarp writes that the congregation should be joyous at his impending martyrdom and that they should ‘sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus’. We find parallels to this in John 14.6 (no mans comes to the Father except by Me) and Colossians 3.17 (And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.) Further, we understand that the Incarnation is the mediation of the New Covenant, in that through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, we can now come to God (Galatians 3.20-26; 1^st Timothy 2.5; Hebrews 8.6, 9.15). Ignatius points the way to God, even in sorrow, is through (the man) Christ Jesus.

The Bishop of Antioch tells the Romans to pray that he may attain martyrdom in chapter 3. There is a reason – ‘Nothing visible is eternal’ he writes. It is his goal to prove himself a Christian, not in name only, but in deed, and once found faithful, that he should ‘no longer appear to the world’. This underscores, indoctrinates rather, his statement, ‘For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed.’ This line is not about separation or distinction, but about the glory revealed through the Eternal. Immediately, we must refer to the prayer from Christ to the Father as found in John 17.

The reason for the prayers from the Son becomes clear when we understand that the Incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. The Incarnation does not imply a transmutation of God into a man, but allows that God remained who He was both in and after the manifestation. If God had changed into a man He would cease being God, or at least cease being the same God He was prior to the Incarnation. As God came to exist in flesh, complete in the limitations of humanity, Christ had the capacity of and the need for relationships. Because of the reality His humanity He even had need of a relationship with God. As man (servant) Christ experienced the same limitations all humans experience along with a dependence upon God. These prayers are not an example as some Modalists try to say as a cover, but a real act; real, because Christ, as a man, needed to pray because of his dependence on God. His prayers are rooted in His humanity, not in His divinity.

This prayer is important as well, in that we find Christ prays for the unity that the Logos had with the Father before the Incarnation. The phrase ‘with the glory which I had with you before the world was’ is recalled here in the words of Ignatius. God told Israel by Isaiah (42.8) that He would not give His glory to another. The glory of God is God’s alone. Again, we turn to Hebrews 1.3 whose author calls Christ the emanation of His glory. We should rightly understand that if a distinction in God existed, then glory would have to be shared and given to another; yet, if the Son is understood as an emanation, then it is easy to see that the Son emanated from the Father’s glory, without distinction, and only in the flesh does the Son existed without the Glory of God.

Ignatius is reminding the Romans that the glory of Christ – in that His Faithfulness and Righteousness – was revealed not on earth, but when He ascended. Ignatius is demanding no glory on earth, but waiting to be revealed in heaven. Again, this calls us to John’s writings,

Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 John 3:2-3 NKJV)

It is not a stretch of the mind to place both ourselves and Christ into the place of ‘children,’ and understand what Ignatius is rightly saying.

In chapter 6, Ignatius writes, “Permit me to be the imitator of the passion of my God.” This is easily connected to the passion of Christ. It is the next phrase that draws our attention. He writes, ‘If anyone has Him within himself,’ indicating not the Father or the Spirit as the agent of the Indwelling, but Christ. Ignatius, although he readily points to a separation during the Incarnation, never has a cause of distinction after the ascension.

We see this point solidified as he writes, “I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’. (See John 6.35) The flesh is the crucifixion – His body broken for the world. This again turns the congregation back to the impending death of Ignatius and the connection with the passion of Christ. It was only in the flesh that Christ suffered. These are more than code words from the Bishop, but words of comfort and consolation to the suffering congregation who no doubt would be the ones to witness the last minutes of Antioch’s overseer.

Conclusion to Romans

Ignatius’ use of words and phrases are Johannine, and rightly so. It is in this gospel that we have the intense application of the deity of Christ and the humanity Christ so heavily, and theologically, enforced. Ignatius, unlike the Apologists of later generations, is not writing to correct or promote doctrine, but he is writing in the common dialect to urge people to keep the faith, and in this case, to not plead for him, but to let him find the glory of being a Christian. He nowhere, like the Apostles before him, calls Jesus Christ the Father, implying the Father’s distinction only during the Incarnation. He uses biblical phrases – as any good preacher does – to extort his audience to the right way; however, there is not dogmatic in his approach. For him, Jesus Christ alone is God.

Tags: ecomony, God, holy trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, jesus only, modalism, oneness, Oneness Pentecostalism, religion, theology proper, trinity

I. Introduction

I believe in the fully deity of Christ, recognizing the temporal distinction created between the Father and Son during the Incarnation. I reject anti-biblical words in branding my theology, preferring rather ‘economist‘. I attempt to govern my doctrine by two simple principles – is it Scriptural and is it verified by the generation(s) after the Apostles. The historical ‘modalist’ and modern ‘oneness’ view fails this test, as neither makes room for the temporal distinction between Father and Son during the brief moment of the Incarnation. I will attempt to define a more sure doctrine of the Economy by using the works of Ignatius, contemporary of Polycarp, and one who had touched the Apostles.

Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. But Jesus came and touched them and said, “Arise, and do not be afraid.” When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only. (Matthew 17:1-8 NKJV)

The proper exegesis of this passage must first begin in Hebrews 1.1-2,

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1-2 NKJV)

It was not that the Father disappeared, but that instead of the Law and the Prophets, it was now the position of the Incarnation (the Word) which was the Father’s voice.

Many Oneness Pentecostals consider themselves ‘Jesus-Only,’ with the phrase in use taken (erroneously) from this passage in Matthew. The issue with that, is that they create a fatherhood for Jesus where none is intended. We must first acknowledge that the modern application of ‘father’ to God (or Jesus in this case) is one removed from the Apostles and the earliest Christian writers. Dr. Kelly, in Early Christian Doctrines, exposes us to some of the early writers who readily defined God as one, as Creator and as Father only in the aspect of His creator ship. He states (pg83) that “‘Father’ (in this period) referred primarily to His role as creator and author of all things. This comes at the end of a series of statements where Hermas writes (88-97) that the first commandment is to ‘believe that God is one, Who created and established all things, bringing them into existence out of non-existence’. Moving to Clement of Rome (88-99), we read that Clement saw God as ‘the Father and creator of the entire cosmos’ while for Barnabas (c100), He is ‘our maker’. Kelly acknowledges that this ideas derived directly from the Bible and from latter-day Judaism, and rarely from the philosophy of the day.

Kelly then goes on to mention Theophilus and Athenagoras in describing creation ex nihilo. It is interesting to here Theophilus’ description of God, which Kelly relates,

‘Without beginning because uncreated, immutable because immortal, Lord because He is Lord over all things, Father because He is prior to all things, most high because He is above all things, almighty because he holds all things; for the heights of the heavens, the depths of the abysses and the ends of the world are in His hands’.

It is noteworthy because of what is lacking: any notion of a ‘Son’ and thus a traditional understanding of the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. We also see that the notion of ‘Father’ and ‘Almighty’ is in line with Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. Even here, in the philosophers, we fail to find any mention of the Father as described in the Trinity.

The biblical understanding of Father was not as used in the Father-Son relationship, but used to describe, much like Judaism, the Creator or sole principle. Trinitarians and Oneness believers alike, however, understand ‘Father’ in parental contexts.

Ignatius of Antioch (c.30-50 to c.98-117) was the third Bishop of Antioch (with Peter being the first, Evodius the second) as well as a student to at least two Apostles – Peter and John. On his way to his martyrdom for the name of Christ, he wrote a series of letters which has survived more or less intact, although there is at the moment two recensions – short and long. (For this study, I will use only the short, preferring what is undoubtedly the closest to the original).  It is important to read Ignatius as he is the closest, besides Polycarp, to the Apostles – having set in tutelage from those that had walked with Christ. Further, it is important that any doctrine that one so holds be found at some other point in history – and the closer that history is the the Apostles, the more firm the doctrine.

Ephesians

Nowhere in the Gospels do we see the application of the term ‘Father’ to Christ – the same is said with the Apostolic Fathers. In Ignatius’ letter to the church at Ephesus, we see several instances in which term ‘God’ is applied to Christ, but when it comes to ‘Father’ it is applied directly to God – which Jesus remaining separate. In the introduction, we read ‘being united through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God.’ God is not distinctly applied to the Father, but to Christ. In chapter 7, Ignatius says refers to God/Christ as the ‘one Physician who is possessed of both flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in the flesh…even Jesus Christ out Lord.’ In chapter 18, he refers to Christ again as God, ‘For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the economy of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but also by the holy Spirit.’

Ignatius connects the name of God to the name of Christ several times in his letter to the Ephesians. In chapter one, we read of the ‘name of God’, while in chapter 3 we note that he considers himself bound (perhaps his current state of imprisonment) because of the name of Christ. In chapter 7, the Bishop is critical of those who carry the name of Christ in ‘wicked guile,’ practicing things unworthy of God. This is not mere folly or invention on Ignatius’ part, as it is based on the fact that he considered Christ as God in the flesh. Further, we read in John 17.6 that Christ manifested the name of the God on earth.

Ignatius’ Incarnational motif is a central theme underpinning his letter of hope and steadfastness to his fellow Christians. We start in chapter 4 were we find the bishop urging the congregation to sin with one voice ‘to the Father through Jesus Christ.’ This is parallel to John’s Gospel which quotes Christ as saying Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” In the previous chapter, Ignatius writes, ‘For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father’, harkening back to the entire passage in John 14 concerning the relationship of the Father and Son. In chapter 19, we see the bishop of Antioch applied the birth of Christ to the manifestation of God on earth (the Incarnation), as he wrote, ‘How, then, was He (God – speaking about the mysteries of renown) manifested to the world?’ and ‘God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.’ For the mediator of the abolition of death is applied to God as well.

In chapter 5 we see a much deeper Incarnational and Ecclesiology ideal applied to Christ and His Church. The Bishop writes, ‘joined to him (bishop) as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father.’ The Church is the Body of Christ carrying His name (chapter 7) just as Christ is the Incarnation of God, carrying His name (see above). (1^st Corinthians 12.27; Ephesians 4.12 and Romans 16.26; Colossians 1.26; 1^st Timothy 3.16; Hebrews 10.5) We see at once that Ignatius had no disputation with Paul who wrote, ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, (Colossians 1.15).’

Magnesians

The letter to the Magnesians centers on unity, ‘fleshly and spiritual’, and in doing so, Ignatius calls attention to the distinction of the Father and Son and yet the supreme unity as enjoyed by the Father and Image, Harmony, and Inseparable Spirit, Jesus Christ. It would be wrong to take these writings of Ignatius as a step by step outline of doctrine; instead, we should look at it as his thoughts broken and defined in the same letter. He no doubt wrote these letters in a relatively short time, perhaps hours, days, or weeks – as personal encouragement, like the Pastorals, and not as theological treatises, such as Romans or Galatians. It was his attempt, the last attempt, that he could do express the call for a unity among the congregations, uniting each the lay and clergy into one solid body.

The idea of a unity between the Father and Jesus Christ starts in chapter 6 but is defined in chapters 7 and 8 with the distinction highlighted in chapter 13. In chapter 6 Ignatius writes that the ministers are ‘entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed’. He defines this in chapter 7 with the thoughts ‘As therefore the Lord did nothing with the Father, being united to Him,’ and ‘Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has one to One.’ Finally, in chapter 8, we read ‘being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth in silence, and how in all things pleased Him that sent Him.’ Thus, what was begun in chapter 6 with Christ (qualified in chapter 8 as the Word eternal) with the Father we understand now as a manifestation of the one God.

In a chapter devoted to prosperity in unity, Ignatius writes ‘be subject…as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.’ In this thought we find that subordination existed between Father and Son during the Incarnation – and by that we know that a distinction must have existed.

Ignatius ends his letter with ‘Fare well in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.’ Thus, we see no distinction in the unity of the one God.

Trallians

Ignatius’ letter to the congregation in the city of Tralles is one of little theological value, as he himself said that he considered the congregation as ‘babes in Christ.’ He does, however, have three phrases that are worth mentioning. In chapter 1, he notes of only one ‘will of God and Jesus Christ’ while in chapter 3, he again sets up the Church government with an eye to Christ, with the phrase ‘let all reverence…the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father.’ This must be misunderstood to reflect later Roman doctrine to mean that the bishop (Pope) acts in the stead of Christ, but that the minister answers to Christ in the manner that Christ answered to the Father in John 17. Finally, in chapter 7, he again stresses unity with the overseer of the congregation as he writes, ‘and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God.’ Ignatius was a product of the persecution that was descending upon the Church, and he knew that only with a strong unity around the ministry (doctrine) could the Church survive.

Tags: ecomony, God, holy trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, jesus only, modalism, oneness, Oneness Pentecostalism, religion, theology proper, trinity