Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context? (#2)

In our last video, we started reviewing the comments Steve Ray made on Catholic Answers Live regarding Ignatius and his teachings from Steve Ray's perspective on the subject of the Eucharist. And we're contrasting that kind of presentation, which is very common.

Ray's not the only one doing it. He's just sort of following what other people do there. That kind of approach, that kind of presentation, with an examination of what Ignatius actually said. This examination was originally presented on the Dividing Line webcast back in February of 2004.

And so, again, just a brief clip of what Ray said, and then we will continue our examination of Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnians.

Ignatius, the Eucharist, and the Problem of Docetism

Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 107, he wrote this on his way to Rome when he was getting eaten by lions. He knew the apostles. They're the ones who trained him. In fact, John Chrysostom says that he was ordained when the hands of the apostles laid on his sacred head.

And it says, Make certain, therefore, that you observe one common Eucharist, for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup of union in his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice, even as there's one bishop with his clergies and deacons.

He says, look to these men who have perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come down to us, and see how contrary to the mind of God they are. They even abstain from the Eucharist and from the liturgical prayers, the prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the same body of our Lord Jesus Christ that suffered on the cross.

Because they reject God's gifts, they are doomed in their disputation. Obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds. Share in one common breaking of bread, the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ.

Now, I don't know how you can get much clearer on the Eucharist than that as far as the Catholic position.

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 dachain, which means it seems, it seems. Dachain 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 savior, he was a wonderful person, etc., 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 bit 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. 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, back and forth.

It's 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, and all righteousness might be fulfilled by him.

Quotation from Matthew 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-Dosetic? 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 Dosetics 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 2. How does he understand John 2? He says, and he truly suffered, just as he truly raised himself.

Hmm.

Isn't that interesting?

Not as certain, please note the next word, unbelievers say. And if you followed the link to the Greek, notice apistoi. Those without faith, they are unbelievers.