While recently reading Ignatius concerning the Trinity (parts one, two, and three), I noticed sentences and phrases that referred in some measure to the Eucharist. Below are a few thoughts concerning Ignatius' view, and how he interweaves this theme through a few of his epistles.
Unity – Ignatius was concerned for the unity of believers, so it comes as no surprise that he relates that breaking bread is a sign of unity (Ephesians, 20; Philadelphians 4) and pure doctrine (Trallians, 6-7). Those not partaking are deprived of that unity with the church as subjects of discipline (Ephesians, 5). Heretics apparently refused orthodox practice and abstained from the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans, 7) which all believers were instructed to do by Jesus and Paul. The presence of a separate Eucharist was considered schismatic as a probably sign of heresy (Philadelphians, 2-3). As a result the believers were encouraged to keep one that was properly sanctioned and administered (Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 8).
Means of Grace – Ignatius relates a function in the Eucharistic beyond a memorial meal. This is evidenced by a definite connection between the body and blood of Christ to the bread and cup in the following:
In addition he bestows the union of bread with Christ's body as “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil” (Ephesians, 20) giving clear testimony to a salvific effect.
Final Hope – Lastly, Ignatius' desire is to put away the symbols and passing of this world to “come to the Father” and partake of Christ as “the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and . . . the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” (Romans, 7).
I am not completely certain what to make of this for two reasons. First, Ignatius was a colorful writer using ornate word pictures to communicate many of his thoughts. This is especially seen in his use of musical themes for explaining his thoughts on church unity. It may be that he used the same rhetorical device in associating a real presence and salvific work to the bread and cup though the language seems to be clear enough. Second, while a real presence of Christ in the elements is possible (per Chemnitz' The Two Natures in Christ), I still question the actuality based on my understanding of the biblical evidence.
Sola Scriptura must be the governing norm, but epistles written in so close proximity both in time and distance deserve due weight. That said, I need to revisit this and come to a more firm conclusion.
Unity – Ignatius was concerned for the unity of believers, so it comes as no surprise that he relates that breaking bread is a sign of unity (Ephesians, 20; Philadelphians 4) and pure doctrine (Trallians, 6-7). Those not partaking are deprived of that unity with the church as subjects of discipline (Ephesians, 5). Heretics apparently refused orthodox practice and abstained from the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans, 7) which all believers were instructed to do by Jesus and Paul. The presence of a separate Eucharist was considered schismatic as a probably sign of heresy (Philadelphians, 2-3). As a result the believers were encouraged to keep one that was properly sanctioned and administered (Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 8).
Means of Grace – Ignatius relates a function in the Eucharistic beyond a memorial meal. This is evidenced by a definite connection between the body and blood of Christ to the bread and cup in the following:
| • | For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup into the unity of His blood (Philadelphians, 4) |
| • | [Heretics] confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. (Smyrnaeans, 7) |
Final Hope – Lastly, Ignatius' desire is to put away the symbols and passing of this world to “come to the Father” and partake of Christ as “the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and . . . the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” (Romans, 7).
I am not completely certain what to make of this for two reasons. First, Ignatius was a colorful writer using ornate word pictures to communicate many of his thoughts. This is especially seen in his use of musical themes for explaining his thoughts on church unity. It may be that he used the same rhetorical device in associating a real presence and salvific work to the bread and cup though the language seems to be clear enough. Second, while a real presence of Christ in the elements is possible (per Chemnitz' The Two Natures in Christ), I still question the actuality based on my understanding of the biblical evidence.
Sola Scriptura must be the governing norm, but epistles written in so close proximity both in time and distance deserve due weight. That said, I need to revisit this and come to a more firm conclusion.
2 comments:
You have to remember that Ignatius was also part of a culture steeped in Greek philosophy, and therefore would most likely add some ideas of his previous education into his theology.
He was the first to maintain that the Eucharist was not valid unless a bishop or his representative was present, which is totally unbiblical, and he is the first known to give it the idea of salvific quality, and to associate the Eucharist with the concept of a sacrificial altar, also unbiblical ideas.
Yep, stick with what the Scripture says.
And therein lies the problem—figuring out the amounts of Greek philosophy vs established practice. I'm thinking a great deal of the former.
Post a Comment