Ignatius and the Real Presence

The Need to Read Church History in Context

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Well, I was rolling the cart with the last 40 copies of Debating Calvinism that I had just finished signing. Back to the room where we fill our orders. And it wasn't CNN, no one around here would watch CNN.

Fox News was on. And as I rolled around the corner, I heard a discussion where there was this controversy in the Georgia State Legislature. And there were legislators who were complaining that the ministers who came in to offer prayers were addressing social issues in their prayers.

And this wonderful, lovely, liberal, leftist, socialist person comes on the screen. And she says, I think that these men should not address issues, social issues or moral issues. Since they're religious men, they should just talk about how God loves us all.

And at that point, I began throwing copies of Debating Calvinism at the television set. No, I didn't do that. But I did just shake my head at the abject irrationality of the world around us. Welcome to The Dividing Line.

Yeah, I know, we all experience that every day. We better get used to it because it is happening all around us at all times. Yes, the book is on its way to you. At least yesterday, I think we got about 54 of them out the door.

And that was the first run. And I got the rest of them signed today. So the UPS guy had better be on the ball today. He's going to have some packages to pick up, multiple hundreds of them, I think. And so we got them all done.

And yeah, some of the last signatures, you're not, you know, hey, I gave it my best shot. My signature isn't all that good to begin with. And so after a couple hundred, it's pretty ugly. But anyway, that's all taken care of.

And obviously, I don't think that it would be worthwhile to discuss Debating Calvinism yet because hardly anybody's read it. So give that a couple weeks to sink in and people start responding to it. And then we'll have some discussion concerning that particular book.

Why This Ignatius Passage Gets Misused in Catholic Apologetics

But today, if you saw the blog, and I hope you saw the blog. I hope you checked the blog. Didn't do much blogging yesterday because I was busy with numerous things. And I announced there that we were going to have somewhat of a class today on the dividing line.

I am currently teaching a class called Development of Patristic Theology through Augustine. And basically what we get to do in that class is sit around and read early church fathers and stop and discuss things.

And I know that I'm not supposed to do this because I'm not connected with the space-time world at all. And nothing I believe is relevant to how I live my life. I mean, I just go out and party all the time and get drunk and do all sorts of things like that because my faith has nothing to do with how I live.

But actually what's really strange is even in Development of Patristic Theology and talking about church history and things like that, we actually make application to ministry and to life in the space-time world.

We actually do that. I know there's some that just are going, no way. But yeah, we actually do. And so we'll sit around and we'll make application of what Ignatius was talking about. We're currently going through Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and his writings from around the years 107 -108 in that particular period of time.

And we won't be taking calls until much later in the program, so no reason to even have folks wasting the phone lines right now. Might open the phones after the break at the half hour if we get that far.

If not, no problem. I'll let everybody know when you can call today. Hang up the phones. Give up on it. Forget it. Anyway, we talk about how church history is applicable to today and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

So anyhow, that's what we were doing. And this past Monday night, we had a shortened class because there was a seminary chapel between the Systematic Theology class that I was teaching and then I'm teaching in the Patristic Theology class.

So we didn't have quite as much time. So we got into Ignatius and the specific passage that we got into was his epistle to the Smyrnians and especially the misuse of this passage in regards to Roman Catholic apologetics.

Now, we haven't discussed Catholic apologists and apologetics for a while, and we most definitely need to continue to do that. So don't forget we have a debate coming up in May, May 20th on Long Island against Catholic apologist Gary Machuta on the subject of the Apocrypha.

And so those of you out toward Long Island, you might want to be keeping that in mind. But this passage, there's a particular passage in Ignatius' epistles that is constantly cited over and over again.

In fact, I took some time today to go online and do a little looking around. And I went to both Catholic .com, which is the Catholic Answers website, and to EnvoyMagazine .com, the website for, of course, Envoy Magazine.

And that is, of course, the ministry, the apostolate of Patrick Madrid. And I have seen for years and years and years and years the Fathers Knows No Best series in This Rock magazine, things like that.

And you'll see these almost always, not always, but almost always, contextless citations of early church fathers. And what you do, it's similar to the way that Juergens does it in his set, is you'll set up a topic, you'll set up a certain concept, and then you just start quoting these fathers as if you are, in essence, the reader has to trust that the author is being fair with the context, because you're not given enough context around the quote to really know whether the writer, this ancient writer, is actually addressing what you're talking about or whether he isn't.

And I have seen the section from Ignatius quoted over and over and over again in that a-contextless way, that just, you know, in the middle of argument, just throw this particular quotation out, let's not worry about what it actually said.

Just an example, if you go on to the EnvoyMagazine .com website, you go to the back issues, you go to 1 .2 nutsandbolts .html, so it's EnvoyMagazine .com slash backissues slash 1 .2 slash nutsandbolts, one word, dot html.

This is a Tim Staples article. And if you want something without context, let me tell you something, that's going to be where you find it. And watch this, I've itched dollars to donuts. Yep, I didn't think so.

Oh well, I knew the computer wouldn't be on. But anyway, we just had some applause and channeling. Under the title, My Flesh is Real Food, here's a brief step-by-step way to explain the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Now, we stop immediately and say one of the first things you have to do in dealing with Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic apologists is to differentiate something that they do not differentiate, that they just automatically assume is the same thing, and that is real presence from transubstantiation.

Because an early church father can believe that Christ is truly present in the supper without believing in transubstantiation. They managed to do it for a thousand years, so it's not surprising that we need to clearly differentiate.

Now, they won't do so. They'll just simply use those terms interchangeably. They'll talk about how all the early church fathers believed in the real presence of Christ. And everybody, Tim Staples especially, will do that.

He will just simply make these broad, broad claims that could never be substantiated. And all you've got to do is listen to the cross-examination that I did of him the last time we debated, and you'll see that that's the case.

You could watch it, too, if the people who sponsored that debate were honest enough to live up to their own commitments. But anyway, he'll make these broad things. And so you've got, just on this article here, it's this scenario.

You're at the annual family reunion barbecue. In the midst of the fun, you overhear your cousin Mark, who left the church in college and now attends a fundamentalist Baptist church. Fundamentalist is always capitalized.

Arguing heatedly about religion with several of your Catholic relatives. He's got his Bible out and is vigorously explaining why the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is unbiblical. I would like to put in my own description here.

Of course, none of the Catholics he's talking to have a Bible with them. Only he does. I continue on. You don't really believe that you eat Jesus when you receive communion, do you? He rolls his eyes, shaking his head, the very thought.

It's obvious from scripture that Jesus was speaking symbolically when he talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He didn't mean that literally. Now, of course, we being who we are would be consistent in saying to this particular fellow, Well, you know, I agree with you there, but you know the reason that's true is because you roll the context back here and discover that Jesus is talking about his centrality in the work of salvation and, in fact, the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Do you believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation? We talk about John 6 from that perspective. But that's another subject. Your relatives are no match for Mark's energy and confidence. And besides, they don't have Bibles with them.

Ha! See? So he's pretty much in charge of the conversation. Oh, I love this. Sitting here reading this on the screen and up comes Norton Antivirus and another idiot has sent me that stupid virus. Thank you, Norton, for catching it.

I should be thankful for that. Oh, I love this. I bring up the mail program and it's someone spamming my own address at aomin .org. Isn't that nice? I just love these folks. Hey, if you're listening, it didn't work.

Oh, and there's a reminder that I'm going to be on Paul Edwards' program for those of you in the Detroit area who will be listening to... Oh, what is that up there? What's the Detroit station? I can't remember.

Anyways, I'm going to be on the Paul Edwards program an hour after this one. So, 3 o 'clock Eastern time. And you know who I'm going to be discussing? Roman Catholic apologists. So, anyway. Oh, he says, give me your first availability.

Anytime and I'll adjust my schedule accordingly. Oh, okay. Well, I'll have to try during the break to let him know that I can come on right afterwards. We can go for two hours. That matters. Talking about Roman Catholic apologists.

It's always fun. Anyhow, so I go back to Tim Staples. I am far too easily distracted today. I finished signing all those books. It's so good. And so, he goes into how you would respond to Mark in regards to the subject of the Eucharist.

And when you go down to step 2, let me read what step 2 says. Ah, someone's calling me. Step 2. Next point out the fact that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist... Rich, if you could answer that, please.

Next point out the fact that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist was a doctrine believed and taught unanimously by the Church since the time of Christ. The Catholic literal sense was always and only, always and only the sense in which the early Christians understood Christ's words in John 6.

The figurative or metaphorical sense was never held by the Church Fathers or other early Orthodox Christians. I suppose at that point, if Mark has read any of William Webster or anybody like that, he might whip out Augustine and talk about Augustine.

You know, his quotation wherein he talks about, you know, if you believe, you've prepared your mouth already, and it's faith. But hey, this is Tim Staples. We're not confused by facts. This can be proven not just by appealing to the writings of the Fathers, but also by the fact that ancient Christian traditions such as the Copts and Orthodox Churches also hold and teach the doctrine of the real presence just as the Catholic Church does.

Oh, you mean they believe in transubstantiation the exact same way? Anyways, here's where we're going. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Antioch, wrote, quote,.

They, the heretics, abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised up again.

End quote. Epistle to the Smyrnians, 6, A .D. 107. Now, you can just imagine in that context there at the family reunion barbecue, Brother Mark dropping his Bible into the roast chicken, having been refuted so soundly, especially by someone who can quote from Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrnians from A .D. 107.

But you will note that there is no context offered for that particular statement, and let me read it again. They, the heretics, abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised up again.

And so, what you see, and it's almost like a template. What in the world was that? It's almost like a template that is passed around to converts to say, I read the early church fathers and they were Catholics.

I mean, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard that, and I also cannot tell you how many times when you actually pressed a person who said something like that, that in reality they had never read anything more than things like this.

They had never read Ignatius, thank you, in any way, shape, or form. They had no way of evaluating the context of this, anything of the kind. So, with that as a background, now knowing why we might want to take the time to look at this, you may have followed the links off of my blog page, and you may be looking at the CCEL reference to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnians.

We're only looking at the Greek version, that's the quote-unquote shorter version, not the longer version. And that may throw some curves your direction when it says shorter and longer versions. I'm going to be reading from Michael Holm's edition of this, because that's the version we're using in class.

It has both the Greek and the English, but it's a little smoother translation, a little bit more useful along those lines. And this is available fairly cheaply from Amazon .com if you're looking for a nice edition of it.

Ignatius Against Docetism and the Denial of the Incarnation

So let's just go ahead and start. As we get started, I'm going to have to stop a couple times and provide some background, because the one thing that we all ostensibly want to do, anyway, is to handle historical documents in the proper fashion.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's put it this way. Let's say you have the opportunity of writing something, putting it in print on an important subject to you. Let's use as an example the new Debating Calvinism book.

And let's say 2 ,000 years from now, someone digs up my book, as if somehow it was going to survive that long, and, well, out here in Arizona it might. I might bury one in the backyard, it's so dry, it would be fine 2 ,000 years from now.

And they dig it up, and as they read that, I want them to listen to what I'm saying in the context in which I said it. I don't want someone to take me out of my context, out of what gave meaning to my words, what gave passion to my discussion, I don't want them to take me and stick me in their context.

Because if you do that, you're being grossly unfair to me, but you're also not going to have the foggiest idea of what in the world I was talking about. I mean, seriously. The conflicts of a situation 2 ,000 years from now are probably going to be different in many ways than the conflicts that I am addressing.

And so if you try to read me as if I was addressing the issues that you're addressing 2 ,000 years later, you are going to be grossly misrepresenting me. And it would be wrong for you to say, Ah, see, here's an ancient writer from 2004, and he's on our side.

He agrees with us on this subject, and the subject is something I've never even thought of before in my life. I have no knowledge of it all. That's called anachronism. If you read back into ancient documents, into documents of the past, concepts, contexts, meanings, definitions that were not a part of the context of the writer, of their own world view, of their own situation, of their own vocabulary, you are dealing with them in a disrespectful manner, first of all, and you cannot meaningfully say that what you are concluding from reading them in that way is at all relevant to the issue that you're attempting to make it relevant to.

And yet, in my experience, the Roman Catholic apologist not only practices historical anachronism to the nth degree, but really is almost forced to do so by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

I mean, if you take seriously the definitions of Vatican I regarding the infallibility of the Pope, if you take seriously the concept of the infallibility of the Church, and when the Church says it has been the ancient faith all along, they use all these big, grandiose words that normally communicate the idea that everybody believed this, that this is the ancient faith, the Church, then how can you not read the writings of early Church writers and not come to the conclusion that's what they're talking about?

You have to. And so this is almost a dogmatic anachronism. And if you want a really good example of it, look at what Vatican I said about papal primacy, about the interpretation of passages regarding Peter, and the role of Peter, and things like that.

And you can obviously go to the early Church writings and discover that's not true. It's just a false statement that has been dogmatized. And then watch Roman Catholic apologists who, sadly for them, seek to be faithful to what they've been taught, absolutely destroy the early Church fathers to try to make them fit into the dogmatic mold that's been provided by Rome to whom they have submitted their minds in obedience.

It's a sad thing to watch. Well, anyway, to the Smyrnians, let's try to avoid the subject of anachronism in the sense of not practice it. To the Smyrnians, Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, which means one who bears God in his body, to the Church of God the Father and the beloved Jesus Christ at Smyrna in Asia, mercifully endowed with every spiritual gift, filled with faith and love, not lacking in any spiritual gift, most worthy of God, bearing holy things, hardiest greetings in a blameless spirit, and the Word of God.

Sounds a lot like Paul to me. I pointed out in class that it's interesting even though Ignatius is most closely tied with the Apostle John, he uses a tremendous amount of Pauline language as well, which would seemingly indicate to us that the apostolic message was a unified message, not like many people seem to assume it today, that, well, if you only knew John, then you only got John's element of things, things like that.

By the way, for those of you who are not familiar with this, Ignatius is on his way to his martyrdom in Rome. He knows he's going to die there. In fact, when he writes to the Romans, he asks that they do not interfere so that he may do so.

And that certainly gives some context to what is being said. Section number one. I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you wise, who made you so wise. Please note, Ignatius refers to Jesus Christ as Hotheos, God, numerous times.

If you'd like to see a discussion of how the Watchtower Society has massacred that fact, go to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society section of our website. There is a fairly lengthy paper there that you might find useful.

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observe that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit.

Now, I'd just stop for a moment. And if you've read Ignatius, you know that Ignatius likes to use this kind of language. He's not speaking literally. He's not saying that the church at Smyrna has nailed itself to crosses.

He is talking in a very metaphorical and allegorical way. But his meaning is very, very clear. He's talking about unshakable faith. Having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit, and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ.

Okay, firmly established in love by the blood of Christ. Now, are we talking, have we gotten to Eucharist here? Have we gotten to sacraments here? No, we're talking about the love that the believers in Smyrna have for one another.

And he attaches this to the blood of Christ. Well, how is this? Is this some sacramental thing? Or is he talking about the fact that these individuals, because they have been washed in the blood of Christ, because that is the common confession of all believers, that there is this love that exists because of their common confession in the sacrifice of Christ.

Firmly established in love by the blood of Christ. Totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent. Son of God with respect to the divine will and power.

Now, obviously, let's stop right there. What are we talking about here? Why would Ignatius start talking about the idea? He's talked about the cross. He's talked about body and spirit. Now he's talking about the blood of Christ.

And now he's talking about the Lord, that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent. If you read Ignatius, and no one argues this, I found references in Roman Catholic sources today where they recognize that this is true, this is a historical fact, though they didn't then bring out what the full meaning of this would be to their own interpretation.

It is a historical fact that Ignatius, like John, was deeply concerned about certain kinds of heresy in the church. He saw certain kinds of heresy, certain kinds of false teaching as being absolutely inimicable to the essence of the Christian faith.

And when we think about the Apostle John, what does he constantly say? He constantly says, who is the Antichrist? But he that does what? Denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. So we need to stop for just a moment and get a little bit of historical background here on something called docetism.

Docetism. D-O-C-E-T-I-S-M. The docetics, the term comes from the Greek term dakhein, which means it seems. It seems. Dakhein means it seems. So a docetic was an individual who, because of another belief called dualism, dualism being the idea that the spiritual realm is good, the fleshly created realm is evil.

Therefore, the docetics were individuals who, coming as their religion encountered Christianity, they encountered this person of Jesus Christ, they interpreted him, it was very clear from what the Christians were saying, that Jesus Christ was a great person, he was a saviour, he was a wonderful person, etc.

Therefore, he could not truly have been flesh. He could not truly have been incarnate, because the true God had nothing to do with the created world. The creator of this world was a demiurge, a lesser being, still able to create, but far removed from the true, pure God.

And so the docetics did not believe that Jesus had a physical body of flesh and bones. They denied the incarnation. John warned us. He called them antichrist. And Ignatius cannot help but constantly make reference to the danger of these false teachers.

Isn't it interesting that one of the earliest heresies in the church was not the denial of the deity of Christ, but the denial of the humanity of Christ. Long before Arius comes along, the very first documents outside the New Testament, and even within the New Testament, demonstrate to us the fact that this was the greatest concern that they had.

So, the docetics are the ones who would tell stories, for example, of how Jesus and one of the disciples walk along the seashore, and Jesus is opening these great Gnostic secrets to the disciple, and the disciple turns around, and guess what?

There's only one set of footprints in the sand. And it's not because of that old poem that Jesus picked him up and stuff like that. No. Jesus doesn't leave footprints in sand because he only seemed the kind to have a body of flesh and bones.

And so they would also say, well, how could Jesus suffer upon the cross if he didn't have a body of flesh and bones? And they would say, well, he only seemed to suffer. It was only a display. It was only a show of suffering.

It reminds me a little bit of what Jehovah's Witnesses say when they say that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body after his resurrection. He manifested a physical body to try to prove to the disciples he had been raised.

I think there's an element of that there. But anyway, now you know a little about the docetics, and Ignatius is worried about them. That's why he says, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David.

You see why that's an anti-docetic comment. With respect, family of David, with respect to human descent, son of God, with respect to the divine will and power. If you really want one of the most beautiful descriptions of the dual nature of Christ, look at his epistle to the Ephesians, where he describes Christ in these two ways, back and forth backwards.

Just really beautiful. And so early on, it destroys a lot of theories about how Christology developed. Anyway, truly born of a virgin, he didn't just beam out, he was truly born of a virgin, baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, quotation from Matthew chapter 3.

Truly nailed in the flesh for us, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch, the cross took place in history, in time, in reality, and in the flesh. From its fruit we derive our existence, that is, from his divinely blessed suffering, suffering, true suffering.

You see how this is all anti-gnostic, anti-docetic, Jesus was truly the God, man, the human nature of Christ. You see, I mean, from the very first paragraph, this is the subject of this epistle. Now, were the Smyrnians having a special problem with this?

Actually, it's found in pretty much all of his epistles, so it's a constant theme of his. But maybe he knew that there was an especially large group of the ascetics in that area, I don't know. Anyway, in order that he might raise a banner for the ages through his resurrection for his saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his church.

If you notice, there's nothing objectionable that we've even looked at so far. And it's all very consistent with what it's saying, section 2. For he suffered all these things for our sakes in order that we might be saved.

For he truly suffered, just as he truly raised himself. Notice that one, ding-dong, little red flag goes up here. Those of you in Channel, remember just, oh, I don't know, two, three weeks ago, we had a Jehovah's Witness in Channel who was arguing that John 2 does not mean that Jesus raised himself.

Here you have one of the earliest writers associated with the same writer of John chapter 2. How does he understand John chapter 2? He says, and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself. Hmm.

Isn't interesting. Not as certain, please note the next word, unbelievers say. And if you followed the link to the Greek, notice apostoi, those without faith, they are unbelievers. It says, not as certain unbelievers say that he suffered in appearance only, it is they who exist in appearance only.

There is another very, very, very, very, very, very, very important point. I'm just looking in Channel and an hour and 45 minutes ago I said the program starts in an hour and 45 minutes. Someone just came in, I thought it started at 1 .45.

Err. Sorry. Anyway, this idea of appearance only. Remember what I said earlier, the Dos Etix told stories, Jesus only seemed to suffer. He didn't really suffer because he didn't have a physical body to suffer with.

Now he says it, not as certain unbelievers say. So he's talking about unbelievers, he's talking about their enemies, and he says that he suffered in appearance only, it is they who exist in appearance only.

Indeed, their fate will be determined by what they think. They will become disembodied and demonic. Wow. What he's saying is these individuals, these individuals are not, these are not people who are not in the church.

They are condemned. This belief, this teaching is absolutely opposite to the Christian faith. If I keep going like this, we're not even going to finish today. I've got to stop expanding upon every point.

By the way, this is just how the classes go. That's why I really love that class is we just sit around and we get to do all this for more than just an hour. Anyway, section 3. For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection.

See the point there? See the point there? For I know and believe that he was in the flesh incarnation 1 John chapter 2, 1 John chapter 3, 1 John chapter 4, 1 John chapter 1, 1 John chapter 1, that which we've touched, seen, felt, etc. etc.

He was in the flesh even after the resurrection. Notice those people say, ah, see the resurrection, it's all spiritual. And when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them, take hold of me, handle me and see that I am not a Now here's, I would love to expand on this, we talked about it in class.

I am not a disembodied demon. And the term in the Greek is daimonion. In Luke, it is pneuma. And it's not unclean pneuma in Luke. There is a comment at the bottom of the page here in Holmes' edition. Compare Luke 24 -39, the now lost gospel according to the Hebrews and the teaching or possibly preaching of Peter are reported to have contained the same or a very similar saying.

Now that's interesting. Where did it come from? I don't know. Was this the source that then led to the others? Vice versa? I don't know. But that would be the first thing that I would question is probably what Ignatius has referenced to here or has received here is he seems to know Matthew but possibly not Luke.

And if he had Luke, then he'd have the correction to that as far as the source is available to him. That takes us into all the discussions of the early church and the canon of scripture and the development of scripture over time in the sense of what books were available and what areas.

And again, this is why you take classes when they're offered on such subjects like this because you have more time to do it. I continue on. And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood.

Okay. Stop right there. What's he talking about? He's talking about the resurrection. He's talking about what we would identify as those post-resurrection appearances when Jesus enters into the room.

And notice what he says. And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood. Nothing about Eucharist here. Nothing about transubstantiation. Nothing at all. If they're associated with his flesh and blood, what he's talking about is the reality of his physical existence.

He was truly raised from the dead, right? Okay. Just reading it here. If you can come up with something else, let me know. But we're just reading it here. For this reason they too despised death. Indeed they proved to be greater than death.

And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh, although spiritually he was united with the Father. What's he talking about? You say, okay, we've got it already.

Yeah, well, I know, but we need to keep the theme going here all the way through so that we can hear exactly what Ignatius is saying. We're getting close. Number four. Now I am advising you of these things, dear friends, knowing that you are of the same mind.

But I am guarding you in advance against wild beasts in human form, men whom you must not only not welcome, but if possible not even meet. Nevertheless, do pray for them if somehow they might repent, difficult though it may be.

Now he's talking about false teachers. He's talking about people who are going around and these individuals are teaching these things. He's saying, do not welcome them, do not meet them, do not bring them into your fellowship whatsoever.

He says, Jesus, but Jesus Christ, our true life, has power over this. Isn't it nice to know that Christians have always believed, even when facing false teaching, even when facing the horrible result of false teaching, seeing people give in to false teaching.

That in the midst of that he says, but Jesus Christ, our true life, has power over this. Isn't that what we all say? The Lord is still in control. For if these things were done by our Lord in appearance only, then I am in chains in appearance only.

I love that. If all the stuff that Jesus did, the suffering, everything it demonstrated, his true physicality was just simply a ruse, it was just simply an appearance only, then hey, you know what? These chains that I'm wearing, I'm being dragged to Rome to die, they're in appearance only too.

Doesn't really help me much, does it? Because I still can't get out of them, even if I think they're in appearance only. Why, moreover, have I surrendered myself to death, to fire, to sword, to beasts?

But in any case, near the sword means near to God, with the beasts means with God, only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ that I may suffer together with him. I endure everything because he himself, who is perfect man, empowers me.

So, again, he's on his way to his own martyrdom. He knows what's going to happen to him. He cannot help but have that come out in what he is saying. Section 5. Certain people ignorantly deny him, or rather have been denied by him, which is interesting, for they are advocates of death rather than the truth.

Not politically correct when dealing with heresy, is he? We might learn something from how he handles things. Neither the prophecies nor the law of Moses have persuaded them. In other words, scriptural exhortation and demonstration of the physical nature of the incarnation, resurrection of Christ, not persuaded them, nor thus far the gospel, nor our own individual suffering.