To conclude the Ignatian Christology series, it seems fitting to compare Ignatius’s Christology found in Ignatius’s letters with some of the other documents in the same early Christian collection known as the Apostolic Fathers (AF). These works are placed in the post-apostolic period, which is between AD 70–150.[1] The collection holds the early documents: First Clement, Second Clement, The Letters of Ignatius (seven authentic letters), Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle to Diognetus (and The Fragments of Quadratus), Papias (fragments). Some scholars debate the last documents should be replaced in other collections, but for most, the list is affirmed. (This list is taken from Michael Holmes’s The Apostolic Fathers 3rd edition.) Though, here, only a selected few will be used to compare Ignatius’s Christology.
In the following, first, we will look at the consistencies among the others in the early collection. This will show the development, expansion, and unity of Christian doctrines in the early stages of the church’s growth amidst the competing theologies emerging during this period. Secondly, we will briefly look at the Christological distinctions, which shows the complexity of theological developments and the variety of thought in the early church.
Christological Consistencies with Other ‘Apostolic Fathers’
Ignatius clearly displays a high Christology, which is important to note given that it is one of the earlier dated documents.[2] Still, such Christology is not foreign to the others in the corpus. Ignatius focused on the humanity and deity of Christ, and Second Clement seems to do the same. Regarding the humanity of Christ, the preacher (the author of this pseudonymity-homily) corrects a false understanding of the flesh, in that in it we were saved, by it we will be judged, and because of it, the very temple of God dwells in us (2 Clem. 9.1–4). His argument is, “If Christ, the Lord who saved us, became flesh (even though he was originally spirit) and in that state called us, so also we will receive our reward in the flesh” (2 Clem. 9.5). This language is similar in the way Ignatius combatted the Docetists, in that Christ came in the flesh, to bless us in the flesh, through the resurrection (Ign. Smyrn. 1.2). This emphasis on the flesh of Christ is also seen in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians. Polycarp argues, “For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist” (Pol. Phil. 7.1), which seems to be the same opponents Ignatius dealt with in his letters. And Polycarp may be loosely quoting what the Apostle John originally wrote in 1 Jn. 2:22–23, as it could be argued that John was the original apologist to this heretical emergence.
Returning to Second Clement, it has a similar, though not exact, theology of the deity of Christ. The preacher wrote in his opening line, “Brothers and sisters, we ought to think of Jesus as we do of God, as judge of the living and the dead” (2 Clem. 1.1). One can see in comparison to Ignatius, the language here is relatively weak, but it is still there. Also, in the quote above, Second Clement states that before Christ became flesh, he was “originally spirit” (2 Clem. 9.5), which does connect with Ignatius’s antithesis of “flesh and spirit” (Ign. Eph. 7.2).
There are also some similarities to the deity of Christ in Ignatius’s letters with the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, it states that after Polycarp died, the church leaders advised that his body not be handed over to the people lest they worship him. However, the writer of this account also notes that it would not be right “to worship anyone else” other than Christ, as the trade-off would be “to abandon the crucified one” (Mart. Pol. 17.2). The author goes on to say, “For we worship this one, who is the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord, as they deserve on account of their matchless devotion to their own King and Teacher” (Mart. Pol. 17.3). Here, again it is noted to worship the Son of God only, giving him, as it were, the position of deity. Furthermore, there is mention of Christ being their Kyrios (“Lord”), who came and was martyred for his people as a possible reference to the Son of God becoming man and dying in the flesh. Also, it is important to notice in this text Christ was their teacher, which is similar to Ignatius’s view that if one is a disciple, then Christ is their “only teacher” (Ign. Magn. 9.1).
Another area of comparison in Ignatius’s letters with the rest of the Apostolic Fathers is the use of the Triadic formula. Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians that “in the Son and the Father and in the Spirit” they may prosper if they were grounded in the precepts of the Lord and his apostles (Ign. Magn.13.1). Similarly, First Clement argues that because we “have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was poured out upon us,” we should not have divisions in the congregation (1 Clem. 46.6; see also 1 Clem. 58.2). This expression is also seen in the Didache concerning baptism. The early church manual states, “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in the running water” (Did. 7.1; see also 7.3), which Larry Hurtado notes as a “trinitarian baptismal formula” used early on in the church (see Mt. 28:19).[3] The Didache, though not a theological treatise, does convey a high Christology as it later converts this baptismal formula to “baptized into the name of the Lord” (Did. 9.5), in which the context is referring to Christ, not the Father.
There are plenty of other similarities within the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, but this is just a preview of similar Christologies.
Christological Distinctions with Other ‘Apostolic Fathers’
The differences between Ignatius’s Christology and the other works of the Apostolic Fathers, for the most part, have no major heretical variants, according to this period. These works stay within the biblical parameters of who Christ is, with some exceptions. Ignatius refers to Christ as theos (“God”) in several accounts, while First Clement or the Martyrdom of Polycarp may refer to Christ as kyrios (1 Clem. 58.3; Mart. Pol. 17.3, this verse also notes Christ as the Son of God). Though, it is worth noting that First Clement addresses God the Father as kyrios (1 Clem. 59.3).
Clement of Rome, who wrote First Clement, does seem to address his doxologies only to the Father and not to Christ directly (1 Clem. 38.4; 43.6; 45.7). However, the ascent of praise to the Father is mentioned to occur through Christ (1 Clem. 58.2; 61.3; 64.1; 65.2). This does not jeopardize his view that Christ is divine, though my questioning is whether this may work as his economic aspect of the Trinity or if it is some early form of Subordinationism. Since, regarding the latter, Clement does view Christ as a “unique agent” for the Father (1 Clem. 16.2; see 1 Clem. 59.2 for Christ as the servant of the Father).[4] Though, there may be no issues with these since their structure is in the NT and the other AF documents (e.g., Dogn. 11:3, which subsequently mentions Christ’s eternality).
Another difference in Ignatius’s Christology compared to the rest of the Apostolic Fathers is the notion of judgment from God. Ignatius seems to give this authority to God the Father (Ign. Eph. 11.1), while others seem to provide this right to Christ who judges “the living and the dead” (2 Clem. 1.1; Pol. Phil. 2.2, 6.2; Barn. 7.2; Diogn. 7.6). These differences with Ignatius’s understanding of the coming judgment do not discard the reality that God himself, whether the Father or Christ or both, will come to judge the “living and the dead.” So, their views, when it comes to Judgment Day, are similar.
There is one significant distinction from Ignatius’s Christology that should be mentioned, which could be a concern for orthodoxy. It is found in The Shepherd of Hermas, which is an apocalyptic book full of visions written around the mid-second century. The author does mention the preexistence of Christ (Herm. Sim. 9.12.2; as do the others in the AF; for example, Diogn. 11.4–5; Ign. Mag. 6.1, Barn. 5.5), but he states the preexistent Christ is the Holy Spirit who took on flesh (Herm. Sim. 5.6.5). However, there does seem to be two Spirits mentioned, as the Spirit with flesh “served the Spirit well” (Herm. Sim. 5.6). And this may have connections with 2 Clem. 9.5, which states that the preexistent Christ, before “he became flesh…was originally spirit.” Or since the Trinitarian God is spirit and holy, there may be an explanation for this confusion. Unfortunately, there is not enough room to discuss it here.
Conclusion:
Ignatius’s Christology is not so “otherworldy” compared to the rest of the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers. Though they have minor differences, there are plenty of similarities. Christ is seen to be the center of worship in most, if not all, the works. Along with the idea that Christ was preexistent in spirit before he became of fleshly descent. Ignatius stands out in his frequent and vivid use of Christ as theos, while the others seem to use kyrios more commonly. It is also interesting to discover that most of the Apostolic Fathers position Christ as the Judge of the “living and the dead,” while Ignatius seems to hold that the Father will authorize this account. The distinctions are minor and within the boundaries of biblical correctness, though we did find an issue with the Christology of The Shepherd of Hermas. However, surveying through these early documents in the AF, one can see the early Christians carry the torch of truth for the succeeding figures in church history. And for that, modern Christians who value their faith should have sincere gratitude to those in the early church, whom we are deeply indebted to for what we now believe.
[1] Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 3.
[2] J.B. Lightfoot concludes, “His martyrdom may with a high degree of probability be placed within a few years of A.D. 110, before or after” (J. B. Lightfoot with Ignatius and Polycarp, The Apostolic Fathers, Part II: S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp: Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, Second Edition., vol. 1 (London; New York: Macmillan and Co., 1889), 30. W. H. C. Frend dates Ignatius’s letters around A.D. 107–108 (The Rise of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 124).
[3] L. W. Hurtado, “Christology,” ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 181.