Day Eleven: St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to Polycarp (full text)

Who: Ignatius converted at a young age and later became Bishop of Antioch. A friend of Polycarp and fellow disciple of John, there is a long standing tradition that Ignatius was the child that Jesus held in his arms and blessed in Mark 10:13-16

What: A letter addressed personally to Polycarp giving him advice and encouragement as a bishop, plus some instructions on marriage to the church, which are reminiscent of Paul’s epistles.

Why: Ignatius wrote a series of letters to the churches in Asia Minor whilst en route to Rome to face martyrdom by wild beasts in the Colosseum around 108 AD.

Advertisement

When: Around 107-108 AD

This is the final letter by Ignatius, and it ends with him writing personally to his fellow bishop Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (modern day Izmir, Turkey) who was the leader of the church in which yesterday's reading was addressed to. Whereas the previous letters were all written to the church as a whole, with praise and exhortations of their bishops, this one is addressed directly to a bishop personally.

Ignatius aims to encourage Polycarp in this letter by acknowledging his strengths and steadfast faith, and also by reminding him off his duties and role as a bishop. There's a brief warning against “those who seem worthy of credit”, but actually “teach strange doctrines” which may fill Polycarp with some “apprehension”.

This warning would seem to be against Docetism again, as in all of Ignatius's previous letters, which leads him to write this short creed about Christ just to reiterate the Church’s stance on the matter, and although it’s only short, I do like it, especially the parallelism:

Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.

What follows this are a few instructions, or maybe advice, to Polycarp, which isn’t too unusual since Ignatius is the elder of the two bishops – probably well into his 70s by this point, Polycarp maybe in his 40s. We see the inverse of what the previous letters have encouraged the church body to do: “do nothing without the bishop”, where here we see that same advice given to Polycarp but from a leadership point of view. “Let nothing be done without thy consent” he is told, but also not do “anything without the approval of God”. The position of bishop was not one to be abused, those who held that office were to be subject to God and leading of the Spirit all the more.

Polycarp is encouraged to “flee evil arts”, or “wicked practices” as other translations have it, but to also make sure he preaches against such things in public. Within the rest of this chapter, there is a quick run down of instructions concerning marriage and how to pastor those who want to be married, or who already are. There are similar calls to marriage purity and relationships as Paul gives in Eph 5:25, which is probably what Ignatius is quoting when he writes that Polycarp should encourage the men to “love their wives, even as the Lord the Church”, but also to those who are unmarried and virgins, they should strive to remain “in a state of purity” – another echo of Paul’s teaching on marriage in 1 Cor 7:8.

But there is a definite change of thinking between what Paul wrote and what Ignatius says to Polycarp in the remainder of this chapter. Where Paul says that “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Cor 7:9) with no other rules attached, Ignatius writes saying that those who wish to marry should plan to “form their union with the approval of the bishop” so that it may be a Godly coupling and not something formed “after their own lust”. For all of times that Ignatius quotes Paul in his letters, it seems strange now that there has been a subtle change with regards to marriage which departs slightly from Paul’s instruction. Maybe this is a rule formed from the inference in what Paul says in 1 Cor 7 about widows who want to marry again, but “only in the Lord”, ie. to other believers; or more explicitly, from 2 Cor 6:14 where he instructs that believers should not be “unequally yoked” (or “mismatched”) with unbelievers. But even when taking this into consideration, requiring permission from the bishop is a new one.

Advertisement

After this there is a shift of audience in the letter as it appears to go from talking personally to Polycarp, to speaking to the whole congregation. “Give ye heed to the bishop” chapter six begins, speaking of Polycarp in the third person, and not by name. What follows is a familiar call to live in unity with one another, but said in words which are reminiscent once again of Paul:

Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please ye Him under whom ye fight, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that ye may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you.

I don’t know about you, but when reading this except I can almost feel the desire which Ignatius had towards his fellow churches and his passion to see everyone live out that goal to have “love for one another” which Jesus prayed for in Jn 13:35, so that “everyone will know that you are [Jesus’] disciples”.

The closing chapters display more of this unity of the churches being lived out as there are instructions to send various letters and messengers between the churches far and wide where Ignatius won’t be able to make it to, so that the message and teaching may be consistent.

Advertisement

This is the final letter of Ignatius due to him being martyred shortly after by wild animals in Rome. There is another letter called “The Martyrdom of Ignatius” which isn’t included in this Lent reading plan, but you can read it in full here at newadvent.org.

Scholarly opinion is somewhat divided on the authenticity of The Martyrdom epistle, with some accepting it as totally genuine, others partially and some rejecting it completely. You can read a brief overview on this subject here: biblestudytools.com/history/.

In brief though, if it is genuine, the letter is supposed to written by those who accompanied Ignatius on his travels through Asia Minor and who also witnessed his execution in Rome. After a lengthy trip, they eventually landed in Rome where Ignatius “was thus cast to the wild beasts”. The believers in the city “spent the whole night in tears” and prayer to the Lord, and it is recorded in the closing chapter of this letter that some “saw the blessed Ignatius” standing with them and embracing the group, and “others beheld him again praying” for them and lastly, some saw him sweating and “standing by the Lord” as though coming from “his great labour”. Whether you accept the genuineness of this last letter or not, I think it gives some nice closure to the life of Ignatius which we’ve briefly been following over the last few days.

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 112 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS

‹ Return to Blog

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

On the Feast of the Nativity, a sermon by Leo the Great

| 22nd December 2018 | Christmas

In the days leading up to Christmas, I wanted to share a sermon from a man known as Leo the Great (aka Pope Leo I), who was a Pope from 440-61 AD. He was one of the most significant and important men in Christian antiquity, as he tried to combat the heresies which seriously threatened church unity in the West, such as Pelagianism. This sermon of his about the incarnation of Christ and what it means for us has always stuck with me since I first read it last April when writing my own book on the Early Church Fathers. It's not that long, so take the time to read it through and let the words sink in as we prepare for Christmas to remember and celebrate the birth of our Saviour and Lord, Christ Jesus. On the Feast of the Nativity, I. I. All share in the joy of Christmas Our Saviour, dearly-beloved, was born today: let us be glad. For there is no proper place for sadness, when we keep the birthday of the Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity. No one is kept from sharing in this happiness. There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all. Let the saint exult in that he draws near to victory. Let the sinner be glad in that he is invited to pardon. Let the gentile take courage in that he is called to life. For the Son of God in the fullness of time which the inscrutable depth of the Divine counsel has determined, has taken on him the nature of man, thereby to reconcile it to its Author: in order that the inventor of death, the devil, might be conquered through that (nature) which he had conquered. And in this conflict undertaken for us, the fight was fought on great and wondrous principles of fairness; for the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth (Job 19:4). Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body. And lest in ignorance of the heavenly counsel she should tremble at so strange a result, she learns from converse with the angel that what is to be wrought in her is of the Holy Ghost. Nor does she believe it loss of honour that she is soon to be the Mother of God. For why should she be in despair over the novelty of such conception, to whom the power of the most High has promised to effect it. Her implicit faith is confirmed also by the attestation of a precursory miracle, and Elizabeth receives unexpected fertility: in order that there might be no doubt that He who had given conception to the barren, would give it even to a virgin. II. The mystery of the Incarnation is a fitting theme for joy both to angels and to men Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who in the beginning was with God, through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made (John 1:1-3), with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the p...

Who was the real Santa Claus?

| 17th December 2018 | Christmas

It's that magical time of year when the lights go up, the trees get decorated and a familiar bearded man in a red suit pops up everywhere. He goes by a few names: Santa Claus, Father Christmas, Saint Nick. But who was the real Santa Claus? Well, to answer that, we need to go way back in history to the fourth century to a Bishop called Nicholas of Myra (present-day Demre, Turkey). Memes abound about St Nicholas and Arius Some early lists place him as one of the Bishops who attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and there are some questionable legends which states that he was temporarily defrocked (a removal from office) and imprisoned during the Council for apparently slapping the heretic Arius across the face! The following is an excerpt from a book called The Book of the Saints, which details some of the main aspects we know about St. Nicholas’ life and the miracles attributed to him: ST. NICHOLAS was born into a wealthy family at Patara, Lycia, Asia Minor. He was imprisoned during the persecution of Diocletian, attended the Council of Nicaea, and died at Myra, where he was buried in the cathedral. Nicholas was chosen Bishop of Myra and devoted himself to helping the poor. Tradition says that Nicholas devoted himself to works of charity. Hearing that an impoverished father had to sell his three daughters into prostitution because he had no money for their marriage dowry, Nicholas threw a small bag of gold into the poor man's window on three different evenings, and his daughters were able to marry. Finally, he was discovered as the bearer of these gifts. At one time, he saved three innocent young men from execution by the powerful civil governor, Eustathius. At another time he came to the aid of seamen who called for his help during a storm at sea off the coast of Lycia. Suddenly appearing on their ship, he manned the ropes and sails beside the weary sailors and brought the vessel to port. Another tale relates that during a famine in his country, Nicholas was able through his prayers to guide some passing ships filled with grain to come to relieve his starving people. Needless to say, with stories like these to his credit, Nicholas became a popular saint after his death. Seamen throughout Europe and Asia, as well as his own people, adopted him as their patron. His relics were carried to Bari, Italy, in 1087, after the Moslem invasion of Asia Minor. Countless churches in England, France and Germany bear his name. In Germany he became associated with Christmas, and as a giver of gifts on that holyday he is known in America as the kind and generous "Santa Claus." “Lord, giver of good gifts, make us generous to others, especially to the needy.”  The book of the Saints, Hoagland, V, Regina Press, pp. 288-290 From the excerpt above, it becomes clear how Nicholas became associated with gift-giving and charity, and the level of miraculous events that were part of his life could explain how “Old Saint Nick” came to be seen as a magical figure too. So how did a fourth century Bishop from Turkey end up as a jolly old man with a beard and a red suit? Well you can thank the sailors who took him on as their patron saint for that. As they travelled, stories of St. Nicholas went with them all over the world, eventually going to the Dutch who called him Sinterklaas (or Sint-Nicolaas). This, in time, became “Santa Claus” via American Dutch settlers where the tradition then came to England and merged with other ancient traditions of “Father Christmas”, a 15-17th century personification of Christmas in Britain. Sinterklaas played by Bram van der VlugtBy Gaby Kooiman, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link It’s also from the Dutch incarnation of St. Nicholas that we get the traditional red outfit and big white beard of Santa Claus. In the Dutch tradition, the Sinterklaas figure wears a red outfit styled after a liturgical vestment and traditional Bishops items, such as the mitre, alb and a crosier – a ce...

John Chau, missionary to the Sentinelese: martyr or madness?

| 03rd December 2018 | Missions

You've probably seen it in the news lately: John Chau, the American guy who tried to evangelise the secluded Sentinelese tribe off the coast of India. Much of the debate in secular media has centered around the grief of his friends and family; how he could have brought outside disease to the tribespeople and potentially killed them all (despite this not being their first contact with outsiders, with no known ill effect), or that he ventured there completely in ignorance with no preparation or wisdom — something which the missionary agency, All Nations, has recently debunked. But the question I want to look at is this: was Chau's mission total madness or is he a modern-day martyr? Well first, what is a martyr? The dictionary definition is simply: “a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs”, and the word itself comes from ancient Greek meaning “witness”. For those who may be unfamiliar with the whole story (as much as we can see), John Chau had said since 2011 that he felt called by God to go and tell the good news of Jesus to the Sentinelese people. After many years of preparation, about two weeks ago in late November, he succeeded in getting to the remote island via a fishing boat (which was illegal to visit under normal circumstances). But after a few attempts at making contact, he is believed to have been killed. The fishermen saw some tribespeople dragging Chau’s body across the beach, so it has been assumed that he is dead – and no one knows any differently to date. So in the strictest sense as the definition above, he may not be a martyr as he wasn’t necessarily killed because of his beliefs, as the tribespeople couldn’t even understand his preaching, and on the face of it, it does seem like madness. In the broader sense of the word, I think it’s fair to call him a martyr, as that would be one who “sacrifices his or her life, station, or something of great personal value, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause”. His cause was Christ, his principle was to spread the Gospel and he sacrificed his life for it. This was living out the message of Jesus to its fullest. Luke 9:23-24 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. There are those who argue that he died purely because the islanders were hostile towards any who would try and step foot on their land, and his death had nothing to do with whatever purpose Chau went there with, therefore he wasn’t technically martyred. But if that is the case, then you could make the same point about many of the early Christian martyrs who were killed by the Romans. Sure, there were times of specific and targeted persecutions against the Church, but there was also times where persecution was more of a by-product of the Roman Empire’s hostility to those were disloyal to the Emperor. The men and women who were killed during those times were still seen and declared to be martyrs for the faith since they stood strong in their convictions in the face of death. For example in the early centuries, on pain of death, the people of the Roman Empire had to swear loyalty to the Emperor and publicly perform some act of worship and veneration towards him. This wasn’t an attempt to root out Christians necessarily, but they did refuse to partake due to their beliefs in worshipping God alone and not committing idolatry by performing an act of worship towards the reigning Caesar. As far as the Romans were concerned, the Christians were traitors and committed a treasonous act. It didn’t really matter why, only that they couldn’t be convinced otherwise and were killed for it to be an example to others. Were these early Christians martyrs or completely mad? How you answer that, I suspect, will inform you of how you view young John ...

The Reality of Sin

| 19th November 2018 | Sin

Sin is like a mold on us, like a rotting, black skin disease. If only we could see it on us, we'd be disgusted and repulsed! Zombies are popular on TV etc. right now, think of the grossness of those images and realise that when we sin and keep sinning, that's what we end up looking like before God! We are living stones, together building up the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 2:5; 1 Cor 6:19). Think about that for a moment. Think of the splendor of Solomon's temple when it was built (re-read it again if you can’t remember: 1 Kings 6:14-36). We are that and SO much more! But now imagine it with mold and mildew and all that horrible black damp growing and spreading across the walls. Totally unbefitting of a holy temple for the Lord! You'd clean it up straight away if that happened in your home, but for some reason we just let it fester in the temple of God like it's no big deal. But what happens if it's left? It can destroy the wall with rot and become poisonous causing sickness. These days we can just buy some spray to squirt on the walls and wipe clean, but how did God command his people to deal with mold and mildew in the Old Testament? Leviticus 14:45He shall have the house torn down, its stones and timber and all the plaster of the house, and taken outside the city to an unclean place. Pretty drastic, right? But it's a serious thing! And sin is an even more serious thing to God, much more than mold in a house, but if WE are that house and WE have that mold then how much more serious will God take that? How much more will God tear down our bodies in order to save us from the disease festering in our lives? Look at what Paul told the Corinthian church to do with a man living in sin: 1 Corinthians 5:5you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Did you catch that? They were to hand this person over to Satan! How? By putting them out of the church— excommunication, basically, so that the "rotten" one wouldn't infect the rest. 1 Corinthians 5:13God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” Deuteronomy 17:7 So you shall purge the evil from your midst. God takes sin amongst his own people very seriously, as you can see from the verses above. And he will deal with us as he sees fit so that he can form and shape us into the image of his Son, Christ Jesus. That is the aim and purpose of our salvation (cf. Phil 2:5; Rom 12:2). As Irenaeus (and Athanasius) said: Jesus became what we are so that we might become what He is! In other words, we are to be renewed and transformed into the image of Christ so that, as Peter wrote, we “may become participants of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Remember, judgement begins with the house of God! (1 Peter 4:17). We aren't spared from God's judgement simply by being Christians; no, if anything we will be judged more! We represent Christ on earth (2 Cor 5:20), we should be doing good works in the power and name of Jesus for the glory of the Father. God will judge those works and our lives as Christians (Matt 5:16; Eph 2:10; Rom 2:13), which is a different kind of judgement to non-believers. Consider the following verses; God will judge and destroy any of those who destroy his temple! Are we exempt from that judgement simply by being that temple if we are still partaking in that destruction through our sin? 1 Corinthians 3:16-17Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. We can have hope though, if we are judged, because the Lord doesn't judge us without purpose or just to punish for the sake of it, but he does it for our own good and salvation; so that we are disciplined in order not to be condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:32; cf. Rev 3:4-6) — sometimes that judgement includes ...