 As we draw to an end of this year, I want us to reflect on the incarnation of our Lord and it’s implications for our life. The act of God becoming man and identifying with his creation is the greatest event in the history of our world. St Athanasius, the 4th century bishop of Alexandria and defender of Nicene orthodoxy, said this in his pivotal work On the Incarnation, “For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father. For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world” (On the Incarnation, 2.7-8). Athanasius understood that God becoming man had major implications for our lives. First and foremost was our redemption. Only God can redeem sinful man, therefore, Jesus as God in the flesh through his propitiation is the only one able to fully redeem man. Jesus must be more than a man, because a man cannot redeem another man, only God can perform such venture. Second, the incarnation means we can know God. He is not distant, but intimately identifies with his creation. The writer of Hebrews says ”For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15 ESV). Athanasius again says, “The Savior of us all, the Word of God, in His great love took to Himself a body and moved as Man among men, meeting their senses, so to speak, half way. He became Himself an object for the senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might apprehend the Father through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body” (3.15).
The final implication of the incarnation I wish to highlight is our worship. We are now compelled to worship God together for the wonderful gift of his Son in order that we may be redeemed. Once again Athanasius says, “Worship, then, the Savior “Who is above all” and mighty, even God the Word, and condemn those who are being defeated and made to disappear by Him. When the sun has come, darkness prevails no longer; any of it that may be left anywhere is driven away” (8.55). We should not forsake intimate fellowship with one another and regular worship in the body so that we may continually feed on the spiritual nourishment provided by our Lord for our growth and his glory. Our communion should always properly reflect the glories of the incarnation, both in Christ’s humanity and deity. We should never devalue one for the sake of the other and vice versa. Because Christ came and brought with him grace, forgiveness and love, these are the things are to share with one another. Let us continually confess our sins to one another and enjoy the intimate fellowship at the Lord’s table and the proclamation of his gospel. The incarnation, once again, is the most substantial act to ever occur in the history of mankind. May we never tire of dwelling upon it’s profundity and implications for our lives and those whom have yet to come to faith. May we praise our God for his grace and truth. And may we commit to continue abiding in the body of Christ through intimate fellowship and worship, especially around the table of our Lord with his bread and his cup. May we eagerly await the return of our Lord and the hope of resurrection. As our brother Athanasius said, “Now, therefore, when we die we no longer do so as men condemned to death, but as those who are even now in process of rising we await the general resurrection of all, “which in its own times He shall show,” even God Who wrought it and bestowed it on us” (2.10). May you have peace and joy this holiday season as you ponder the sweet grace of our God, through Christ Jesus our Lord. To download a PDF copy of St. Athanasius’s On the Incarnation, click here. |
Latest Entries »
Ignatius has been the subject of much abuse. He has been mined for treasures regarding the practice and theology of the early church, with various conclusions throughout the ages. Though objective history is impossible to achieve in my opinion, it is still a worthwhile endeavor for us to reflect on Ignatius’s writings and discover the points of development within early church theology and analyze how our own practice as Christians may benefit. In regards to the Eucharist, evangelical Christians have much to gain from this endeavor and can still find jewels within the mines of early church writings. Our challenge, however, is to not focus solely upon these jewels and make them the treasure we die for but rather add these jewels to the golden crown of Christ, his church and the faithful teaching of the apostles.
In this second part of my reflection upon Ignatius in regards to the Eucharist, I will show how the Eucharist is seen as an act of unity within the church. A church without Eucharist is without unity. The dispenser of the Eucharist is the bishop (or one approved by him) and this, being the guarantee of proper Christology within the church, unifies the church as they gather together. For the next segment, I will consider the devotional aspects of Eucharist as yet another facet within the writings of Ignatius. For now, I wish to show here in this entry that not only was unity for Ignatius and the early church an important facet of their worship, but it should be just as vitally important for us today. As we continue to mine Ignatius, may we consider the jewels we find and may we put our treasures in the right places.
_________________________
Eucharist as Unity
A cursory reading of Ignatius’s epistles will reveal a heavy emphasis on the unity of the church. In Eph. 4.2, as if describing a symphony of harmonious instruments, he explains such a picture as “perfect unity” with the purpose to “always have a share in God.” He continues to build upon this notion in 5.2 stating, “If anyone is not within the sanctuary, he lacks the bread of God.” Those who do not meet together, therefore, are “arrogant” thinking perhaps that the unity of the body is not important compared to the desires of self. In 5.2, the context is not specifically Eucharistic yet the idea of nourishment, the prayer of the bishop and the unity of the congregation are present. It is difficult to see this as anything other than the Eucharistic act taking place. Those in the body, led by the prayers of the bishop, do in fact have the bread of God.
Later in Ephesians, Ignatius makes an appeal for the body to “make every effort to come together more frequently to give thanks.” Here we do see explicit use of eucharistian. In this frequent unity “the powers of Satan are overthrown” and conceivably Ignatius would have considered the Docetic heresy such a power of Satan. The point to be made regarding such a statement is that unity should be desired above all and such unification of the body is capable of great power. The language of Eucharist as unity becomes explicit in Eph. 20.2. Here the church is called upon to yield to the bishop and council of presbyters with an “undisturbed mind” while “breaking one bread” which he tells us is the “medicine of immortality.” Unity is the means in which the bread is partaken and seen as the “antidote….in order not to die but to live forever in Jesus Christ.” Schismatics can not enjoy this one bread as they have disassociated themselves from such submission to leadership and unity.
In similar fashion to Paul in Eph. 4.4-6, Ignatius uses the language of “one” to further advance his call for unity under Eucharist. To the Magnesians, he implores the church to do everything in “godly harmony” and united under the leadership of God.[1] It is through this harmony that the people have the same hope, mind, prayer and petition which allows the church to look to one altar and one Jesus Christ, with the idea of the altar undoubtedly symbolizing the idea of the Eucharist meal. The church is one, united under one savior who is celebrated at one altar, that is, the Eucharist. Ignatius continues the image of oneness is Phil. 4, making clear mention that one Eucharist, the celebration of the flesh and blood of Christ, “leads to unity.” In this context, he juxtaposes this unifying act to “evil plants” who “hold to alien views.” In this case, practicing the one Eucharist (mia eucharistia) is the means to achieving unity under the leadership of the bishop and the presbyters. Christ’s blood clearly unites, echoing Paul in Eph. 2.13-15, and for Ignatius unity indicates being in accordance with God.
Clearly Ignatius appeals to unity, not just within the various exhortations, but also specifically when referring to the Eucharistic meal. Using the language of “one,” “harmony,” and “unity” Ignatius refuses to allow his readers to assume anything less being represented within the act of Eucharist. Only under the leadership of the bishop and presbyters can the Eucharist be seen as legitimate; anything else is disharmonious and therefore, not the true Eucharist. Eucharist begins as an act of oneness and from there takes on a character of devotion, a facet to which I will direct my attention in the following segment. Take care and come back soon!
- Coleman
[1] Mag, 6.1.
Eucharist, the act of giving thanks in the church, has been since from the very beginning a focal point of church worship. In the 21st century, there are more views regarding the Eucharist among denominations than deacon meetings in any given month at a Southern Baptist church. Every tradition desires to appeal to history for authority regarding their particular Eucharistic theology. Like a 49-er panning for gold, so too have Christian writers been mined for their particular Eucharistic views. In many of these cases, the author’s scope had little or nothing to do with Eucharist.
In the following entries, I will again go back to the bare quarry and dig deep into the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and interact with his various statements regarding the act of Eucharist in the church, that is, the church in the early second century. I do not expect to discover any new or rare gems that have not been previously discovered. I do hope, however, that readers will leave with a sense of that which Eucharist has always been, a mystery. Whatever your own tradition may say, Eucharist belongs to the church and is a specific act which has always pointed to the work of Christ and points forward towards his return. May this goal be achieved in your reading!
_________________________
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, appears to us as a somewhat of a mystery. He is like a “meteor” which has traveled through space for eons, only to briefly blaze across our sky and expire in a “shower of fire.”[1] The only glimpse we receive of him is through his seven epistles written to various churches en route to martyrdom in Rome. He wrote no dialogues nor expounded on any facet of Christian theology at length, but Ignatius has become for us a window into the world of the post-Apostolic church and a “focus in scholarly discussion of Christian origins,” as Holmes insists.[2]
Though he gives us a window, this window has become murky and somewhat stained throughout centuries of theological parlay and doctrinal development. For some, Ignatius has become the banner waver in the discussion of church leadership and monarchial episcopacy.[3] Others have used him to champion various views regarding the social circumstances regarding Jews and Christians in Syria.[4] Our dear bishop has also been cited in various debates regarding his view of the Eucharist, and it is to this that will turn our attention. In his own words, how does he describe this central act of the church? How has it been interpreted variously throughout the ages? For the purposes of this study, I will summarize the statements of Ignatius regarding the Eucharist by synthesizing his words with various authors into three succinct, however not exhaustive, categories for the reader’s consideration.
Eucharistic Vocabulary
As I break down the Ignatian discourse regarding Eucharist, I feel it appropriate to categorize such language into three distinct categories: Eucharist as unity, Eucharist as devotion and Eucharist as polemic. Over the course of seven letters, Ignatius speaks variously regarding the unity of the body; mostly as it comes to their alignment with the bishop, presbyters and deacons. “Do nothing without the bishop,” Ignatius exhorts his readers at Tralles (2.2); a theme echoed throughout the extent of his letters. Eucharist, for Ignatius, signifies unity of the body to Christ under the submission of her leaders.
Also, Eucharist as revealed in these letters becomes the foremost activity of devotion. The breaking of bread in communion together is the “medicine of immortality” and the “antidote” against death in order to live forever in Jesus Christ.[5] For Ignatius, the incorporation of this devotional language to the Eucharist remains inseparable. Eucharist can be variously associated with a polemic against docetist teachings. Docetists, those who denied the corporeal sufferings of Christ, refuse to partake in Eucharist according to Ignatius because of what it represents, the passion of Christ in the flesh. Christ was truly crucified and died and was truly raised from the dead; those who say “he suffered in appearance only” can not be seen as legitimate partakers in the authentic meal.[6] In my next entry, I will expand upon this nomenclature regarding these categories of Eucharist within Ignatius’s letters. We will then continue to illustrate what the Eucharist was for Ignatius in his time as best as we can discover. My final entry will conclude with some final thoughts for our consideration in light of what Ignatius has written. Come back soon!
[1] Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 166.
[2] Ibid.
[3] See Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (New York: T&T Clark, 2007).
[4] See Thomas A Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009).
[5] Eph. 20.2
[6] Trall. 9.1-2; 10
When I was in grade school, I had a shirt with a statement which read, “In case of rapture, this shirt will be unmanned.” It was cartoony and cute, but it revealed an eschatological foundation upon which I was raised. I was taught (and still believe) that Christ would return to gather up his saints in the end of days. My church context did not afford me specific lessons upon millennial discussions, but there was an ever-present reality that Christ was to return and we Christians were to be ready at all times. We didn’t know what we were specifically supposed to be ready for, but we knew we needed to be on our best behavior. What might have served us better was an understanding of our true Christian hope, the return of Christ and the resurrection of our bodies unto glory. Somehow this teaching got buried along the way. We saw in part 3 that this reality was central to the eschatological understanding of Irenaeus. Against the Gnostic notion of disembodied spiritual release, the Christian hope is a fleshly renewal of life to be shared for eternity with our Lord. A new heaven and new earth lies in our future, one in which Christ reigns supreme in a very real and physical sense. This kingdom begins with a one thousand year reign of Christ on earth before final judgement is executed. This is undoubtedly the expectation of early church fathers such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers by the likes of Barnabas.
As I conclude this study on the hope of the early church I walk away with new insights, and new challenges. Perhaps we should reconsider the eschatological views of the early fathers of the faith, those most closely linked to the apostles and prophets of our Lord Jesus Christ. Isn’t it possible that these fathers were teaching what they heard from disciples of apostles who heard it from the apostles themselves who heard it from Christ? Isn’t is probable that those writing in the late first and early second century of the church (like those writers found within the collection of the Apostolic Fathers) had a closer insight to teaching regarding the last days than those of the 4th and 5th centuries and beyond? These are the questions I have begun to ask myself through this study, and perhaps you will too. We should not so easily dismiss views which are so closely linked to the life and ministry of Christ, should we? Though no eschatological view regarding the millennium holds orthodox primacy over another, it would serve us all to reevaluate the hope we have as Christians to see if it aligns with the hope of those who came before us. Those great men of the faith were just as indwelt by the Holy Spirit and were seeking to build up the body of Christ in their day, as we are in ours. May God grant us wisdom as we continue to hope in the return of Christ and the resurrection unto eternal life!
___________________
Conclusion
We began by bookending our view of the second century church with two authors who first set up the canvas and also placed the finishing touches on the masterpiece of historic premillennialism in the second century church. In between these two we saw two artists working one after the other to bring the painting together. Justin, responding to persecutions and accusations, sketches the outline of a bodily resurrection and a future kingdom in a millennium following the return of Christ. In doing so, he makes Christianity distinct and refutes the claims of outside critics. Irenaeus, taking up the easel and brush, colorfully fills in the sketching. His response to the Gnostic community further places the emphasis on the bodily resurrection and future millennial kingdom to come. If Christ was flesh and was raised in the flesh, so shall we be and live in the flesh with him forever.
In the final analysis, it’s helpful to note two things. First, while I believe that Justin and Irenaeus arrive at their conclusions based largely on Scripture, their eschatological response is but a footnote to their greater concern at hand, whether that be acting as the apologist or the adversary to heresy. Second, even as a footnote, their dedication to their claim is evident and should not wholeheartedly be dismissed only as a rhetorical response. I believe that the context and circumstances drove them to respond in such a way, and in so doing, their premillennial views were reinforced. This does not deny the truth of their claims; rather it helps clarify their reasons. It is clear that the bulk of their writing deals with their contextual circumstances, and their response seek to answer those circumstances. They did not write a systematic theology for the purpose of establishing doctrine. I conclude as Irenaeus in Against Heresies, “In and through all this the same God the Father will be shown forth.”[1]
In part two of our look at the millenium according to the early church, we summarized the view espoused by Justin Martyr. Though dedicated to Plantonism and other philosophical pursuits earlier in his life, Justin through a conversion experience came to know Christ and garnered a love of God’s Word. He began the process of defending the faith through his Apologies as well as a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. We saw that Justin’s primary eschatological focus was bodily resurrection (a core tennet of the faith), yet this hope runs in tandem with the millennial expectation of a New Jerusalem upon the return of Christ. This belief is not systematically established as we might see similar modern views explained, but it is nonetheless present in his theology and is strong evidence for it’s overall belief within the early church. Though these claims are undeniable in Justin’s writings, it is Ireneaus of Lyons who most clearly indicates the eschatological views of the early church. In this third part of my series, we will take a closer look at the writings of Irenaeus and how they reveal a premillennial expectation of Christ’s return. Be sure to return soon with some concluding thoughts in my fourth and final installment of The Millenium: What the Early Church Believed.
___________________
Irenaeus Against the Heretics
Irenaeus of Lyons, according to Daley, “must be seen above all as a polemical response to the typical Gnostic understanding of God, the world and human salvation.”[1] He is seeking to set things right and expose the “unfruitful works of darkness.”[2] In his heralding text, Against Heresies, Irenaeus traces each contemporary Gnostic thought to its origins and attempts to expose each falsity found within. In doing this he gives a Christian response to the dualistic views of Gnostic teaching. He sets to establish the importance of material reality to the Christian faith, while not denying the spiritual, yet emphasizing that our faith is founded in the substance of life, namely, Christ.
He is primarily concerned with answering each Gnostic teaching with a counterpoint of Christian thought. In so doing, Irenaeus focuses heavily on the resurrection as well as a physical return of Christ and earthly kingdom to come. To set the stage for our look at Irenaeus’ millennial hope, let’s turn to the observations of Daley:
Central to Irenaeus’ hope is the resurrection of the body, which he expects at the time of Christ’s return. Hope in such a resurrection is an integral part of the Christian tradition of faith Irenaeus is concerned to protect…His argument is essentially a moral one: for adequate retribution to be possible, divine justice requires that both the just and the unjust should rise in “their own bodies” as well as “their own souls” (AH, 2.33.5).[3]
Irenaeus is directly answering the Gnostic challenge by stating it is the one Creator who will raise us as he raised Christ, as opposed to the lesser demi-urge in whom Gnostics claimed was responsible for our prison of flesh. In this regard, for the purpose of this essay, we will turn our focus to book five of Against Heresies.
Flesh and Blood
Once again, Irenaeus’ main focus is to establish a firm response to Gnostic thinking surrounding him in the mid-to-late second century. Book five of Against Heresies is the “apologia for the material reality of the resurrection of the body.”[4] It is the capstone for his response regarding the Gnostics. Irenaeus narrows in on biblical prophecies regarding the physical re-establishment of Israel.[5] He proceeds to discuss the New Jerusalem with the new heaven and the new earth, highlighting the promise of the material reality of such an existence.[6] Again, in response to the Gnostics, Irenaeus emphasizes the substance stating “since men are real, their transformation must also be real, since they will not go into non-being but on the contrary will progress in being.”[7] This foundation is important for Irenaeus’ concluding statements in Against Heresies.
In emphasizing the physical reality of the future kingdom, Irenaeus transitions into how long one can expect that kingdom to last. Emphasizing that in the kingdom, “man will live on earth,” he should expect to enter his rest after the six days of creation.[8] This rest is the seventh day, again interpreting each day to be one thousand years; this rest will be the millennium “in which they (the just) will exercise imperishability after the creation has been renewed for those who have been preserved for this.” [9] This is the final note in Irenaeus’ thought and answers the question, in response to the Gnostics, of man’s final destination. We are made physical by God in order to experience a final material kingdom, and those who follow him “will take back their bodies and rise perfect, that is, bodily, as also the Lord rose, and thus will come to the vision of God.”[10]
Summarizing Irenaeus
Unfortunately the scope of this essay does not afford us the opportunity to fully explore Irenaeus and the totality of his theology and writing. What we can surmise, however, is that Irenaeus picked up the banner of historic premillennialism from Justin and, in so doing, responded to the Gnostic controversy in his context. Irenaeus centered on the importance of flesh and blood, as indeed he says, “For if the flesh were not to be saved the Word of God would not have become flesh (John 1:14) and if the blood of the just were not to be requited the Lord would not have had blood.”[11]
Irenaeus’ understanding of Christ in the flesh allowed him to sufficiently refute the claims of the Gnostic thinkers of his day. His logical thought regarding the material reality of the Christian faith provided the basis for his view on the coming millennial kingdom. This kingdom is also a material reality, a hope to look forward to in tandem with the resurrection and was only to be understood as a corporeal existence. Irenaeus concludes, “For God wanted his firstborn Word to descend into his creation and be held by it, and in turn for the creation to hold the Word and ascend to him, thus surpassing the angels and coming to be in the image and likeness of God.”
[1] Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 28.
[2] Ephesians 5:6-14.
[3] Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 30.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), pp.178-182.
[6] Ibid., 183-184.
[7] Ibid., 184.
[8] Ibid., 185-186.
[9] Ibid., 186.
[10] Ibid., 178.
[11] Ibid., 168.
