Ignatius of Antioch and the Gospel of John
“THE AFFINITY IN THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION”
by Bishop Jerry L Hayes
The problem presented to the modern world concerning the Letters of Ignatius range far and wide. Questions such as: Was Ignatius a disciple of John? to, Was Ignatius even a real historical figure? The former is a sensible question to ask and the purpose of this writing, the latter is preposterous to consider, so we will not here dignify its inquiry.
Historical tradition has the Bishop of Antioch in Syria as the disciple of John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and the brother of James. From the ensuing information we intend to show that the seven letters of Ignatius demonstrate such a dependency upon the Fourth Gospel as to demand the verdict that one of the following is true: Ignatius was in possession of as personal copy of the Gospel According to John, was discipled in a Johannine school, or, which we think most likely, was an hearer of the Apostle - therefore, personally discipled by him.
That there exist a deep affinity of thought and expression between John the Apostle, who wrote the Gospel bearing his name, and Ignatius of Antioch, is beyond reasonable doubt. In truth Dietze, a confirmed advocatus diaboli of literary dependence, had found in Ignatius the complete cast of thought and almost all the characteristic features of the Fourth Gospel; and regarded the “spiritual relationship” as deeply rooted; and the same affinity of ideas is at the base of Rackl's entire treatment. This striking kinship in the realm of thought has been recognized by others such as: Lightfoot, Zahn, Loofs, Ladeuze, Burney, Streeter, Lagrange. Consequently, the parallelisms in thought between Ignatius and John are here presented in outline.
The outline presents three main points:
The Christology,
The doctrine of the Eucharist,
And the doctrine of Christ as “the Life”.
I. The Christology Of Ignatius Is The Christology of John
In the Letters of Ignatius, as in John, their Christocentric character is the main thrust. The focus of the thought of both authors is the Person of Christ, and, more specifically, the “historical Christ.” There are two particular passages especially characteristic for the Christology of Ignatius. The first is Polyc. 3, 2: “Look for Him Who is timeless, the Eternal, the Invisible, Who became visible for our sake, the Impassible, Who for us became subject to suffering, Who endured in every way for us.” The second is the passage from Eph. 7:2, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord..” The former corresponds to John's prologue , the latter to the remainder of the Fourth Gospel.
The characteristics setting the Fourth Gospel on a plane apart are (1) the insistence on the fact of the Modalistic Monarchianism, expressed particularly in the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father; and, in the Prologue, the succinct, cohesive presentation of the dogmas, (2) of the Incarnation, and (3) of the Logos. Or, we may say that the main preoccupation of the Apostle John is the relationship of the Father and the Son: Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and man, Himself true God and true Man, united to the Father in His deity yet distinct from Him in His humanity, eternal Son of God, eternal Word of God, constituting an economy of modes in one Divinity.
If we turn to Ignatius, we are struck from the very beginning by the constant connection of the Father and the Son, presented as a single principle of grace and salvation (E.g. the introduction to Eph., Magn., Rom., Philad., Smyrn., Polyc; also Eph. 9:2; 21:2; Magn. 1:2; Trail. 1, 1; Philad. 1:1; 3:2. mE.g. Eph. 6:2 (in God); 8:2 (in Christ)). Further, Christians are, alternately, temples of God, temples of Christ (E.g.. Philad. 7:2; Eph. 9:2.), Who is in man not merely as the God Who sanctifies His temple, but as the Spirit that gives life (E.g. Eph. 3:2; Magn. 1:2; Smyrn. 4:1. ).
Between the Father and the Christian, the human Christ appears as Mediator, and His relation to the Father is the ideal model of the relation which the Christian should have towards Him. (Smyrn. 8:1; Eph. 5:1; Magn. 13:2; Eph. 3:2 (cf. Jo. 15:9; 20:21)). The doctrine of mediation is beautifully summarized in Philad. 9:1-2:
Good also were the priests, but better is the High Priest, to Whom has been entrusted the Holy of Holies, for to Him alone have been committed the hidden things of God: He Himself being the door of the Father, through which enter in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles and the Church. All these things [combine] to the unity of God. But the Gospel has something singular, the advent of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, His Passion and Resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced unto Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. . . .
Christ, for Ignatius, is true God (E. g. Eph. inscr.; 1:1; 7:1; 15:3; 18:2; 19:3; Trail. 7:1; Rom. iscr.; 3:3 ; 6:3; Smyrn. 1:1; 10:1; Polyc. 8:3). The subordination implied in certain texts (E.g. Magn. 13:2; Philad. 7:2; Smyrn. 8:1. ) is to be explained, not of Christ as God, but of Christ as Man. Ignatius’ Modalism is clear here. The Incarnation is also described as a manifestation of God in the Flesh, one will but recognize therein Johannine doctrine: the Son of God has appeared, and by His appearance has revealed to us the Father. Many a difficulty will vanish into thin air if we remember that it is in the reality of His human life, “God in the Flesh” that Ignatius embraces the Eternal Word. That real, “historical Christ,” the “Christ of earth” though united with the Father, is not identified with Him. Expressions like “united in spirit to the Father” (Smyrn. 3, 3: of the Risen Christ) or “the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united [to Him”] (Magn. 7, 1: of Christ before the Resurrection. ) are nothing if not pure Johannine doctrine (Cf. Jo. 5:19, 30; 8:28; 10:30). Eternity, impassibility, invisibility and the rest, what does this mean if not the dogma of monarchianism? Is there any difference in thought between the Nicene assertion of unity of substance and the Ignatian doctrine of unity “in spirit”?
Christ is Son of God (E.g. Eph. 4:2; 7:2; 20:2; Magn. 8:2; 13:1; Rom. inscr.; Smyrn. 1:1), from His virginal conception. It is true that Christ, as God, is spoken of as agrnnêtos (Eph. 7:2. ), but in the time of Ignatius, even in the first flowering of Arianism, we should look in vain for the distinction later drawn so precisely between agenêtos and agennêtos. One follows the rhythm of the thought-movement in Eph. 7:2, (“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassable, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”)
There is one Physician
of flesh .....................................................................and spirit
made……………………………………………and not made
existing in flesh .................................................................God
in death .......................................................................true Life
of Mary …………………………………………..and of God
passible …………………………………………… impassable
Jesus Christ, our Lord,
one will naturally assign the adjectives, the one to the human Sonship, the other to the Divine Nature. In passages, however, where the Divine nature is expressly asserted for various phases of Christ's existence, as: “and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God” (Eph 1:1), “… God became incarnate, true life in death, sprung from Mary and from God . .. Jesus Christ our Lord” (Eph 7:2). “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary by divine dispensation, of the line of David, and of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Eph 18:2,3), “Who was with the Father before the ages and at the end appeared” (Magn. 6:1), “Who proceeded from one Father, and is with one, and has returned to one” (Magn. 7:2), “... that the disobedient may be convinced that there is one God Who has manifested Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son” (Magn 8:2), "For our God, Jesus Christ, is more plainly visible now that He is in the Father" (Rome 3:3), “the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken truly” (Rom. 8:2), and “after the Resurrection He ate and drank with them as of the flesh, although united in spirit to the Father” (Smyrn. 3:3): the most natural interpretation is that the pre-existence of Christ, as well as the Incarnated One was/is God, Himself. It ought to be clear from the foregoing that Ignatius, as well as the Fourth Evangelist embraced and taught the full deity of Jesus Christ.
For Ignatius, the Son of God is the Word of God. The Word appears here not as the inward concept of God, but as that concept's exterior manifestation, proceeding from the sovereign silence of the Divine Life. To the Bishop ofAntioch the Word was the knowable God, (“... Jesus Christ, His Son, Who is His Word, proceeding from silence ...” (Magn. 8: 2). ). Christ is “the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken truly” (Rom. 8,:2. ). This manifestation of God by His Word is the Incarnation, for the Word “went out from Silence” when sent here below. Before the Incarnation “He spoke, and it came to pass, and whatsoever He has done [even] in silence, is worthy of the Father” (Eph. 15:1). He is the Salvation of the Old Testament (Philad. 5:2), the door of the Father through which all from Abraham to the Apostles and the Church have entered in (Philad. 9:1). All these manifestations, though, have their term in the supreme revelation that is the Incarnation:
But the Gospel has something singular, the advent of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, His Passion and Resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced unto Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. . . . Philad. 9:2.
Christ, however, is not only gnōmê Theou - mind of God (Eph. 3:2.) the practical understanding conceived as a rule of action. He is likewise gnōsis Theou -knowledge of God (Eph. 17:2) the speculative understanding considered in its own proper act. This is why we call the Word (Divine Logos) the Knowable God. Ignatius, also, associates the Holy Spirit with/in this inseparable oneness of the Father and the Son. Apart from the passages that formally link the three modes of the Trinity (Magn. 13:1; 13:2; Eph. 9:1) the Spirit is the principle of the virginal conception, the soul of the triple economy, the gift which the Lord has truly sent (Eph. 18:; Philad. inscr.; Eph. 17:2). He cannot be deceived, being “from God,” but penetrates and reproves the hidden secrets; He urges union with the Bishop, care of the flesh as of God's temple and imitation of Christ.
The Logos Concept
Ignatius tells the Magnesians that God inspired the prophets of old, to the end that disbelievers in later ages, by testing the prophecies, “might be convinced that there is one God, Who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, Who is His Word, logos, proceeding from silence, Who in all things was well-pleasing to Him Who sent Him" (8:2). He declares to the Ephesians that Christ is “the mind, gnōmê, of the Father” (3:2), “the knowledge, gnōsin , of God” (17:2). He writes to the Romans that Christ is “the unerring mouth, stoma, by which the Father has spoken truly” (8:2).
To Reynolds (p. 700) a reference to the Fourth Gospel in Magn. 8, 2 is “obvious,” as it is to Knabenbauer (p. 13). Lightfoot, too {Apostolic Fathers, p. 128), recognizes the reminiscence, as do Resch (p. 119), Lebreton (pp. 316-317, 320-321) and Jacquier (Hist, p. 55). Hopfl (p. 11) remarks that Ignatius had before his eyes Jo. 8, 29 (“And he that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him”); and on this verse of Jo., says Bernard (p. 304), “the language of Ignatius seems to rest;” while Dietze (p. 593) avers that an unprejudiced judge cannot fail to see here just such a borrowing. The weight of the double parallelism is admitted by Drummond (p. 258), Zahn (Geschichte, p. 904) and Gregory (p. 178).
In John the idea of the Logos dominates the prologue. The Logos is presented as pertaining to God, eternal, and God in fact. Though the doctrine of the Logos is found in other writings of the New Testament, (Cf. Col. 1:13-20; 2, 9; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 1:1-4. Pet. 1:23 and 2 Pet. 3:5, as well as Heb. 4:12) the term is proper to John. And, if we ask how this “Word” is to be understood, we must acknowledge that the Word is said to be eternal and Himself God.
The name Logos is applied by Ignatius to Jesus Christ, Who is for him the eternal God in flesh, the Creative Word Who, before His Incarnation, “spoke, and it came to pass;” true Man in the Incarnation (Magn. 8:2; Rom. 8:2; Smyrn. 1-4). Thus, the Ignatian Logos, like that of John, unlike that of Philo (Philo’s “logos” was now personal and God, now impersonal. He maintained this contradiction throughout his writings.) is a concrete Being, is Creator, is Son of God with a strictly Divine Sonship. Since, therefore, Ignatius uses the term Logos in the sense of John, then, inasmuch as in John alone are this doctrine and this term combined, we have a strong argument for dependence on the Fourth Evangelist: an argument confirmed by the highly probable dependence of the relative clause, “Who in all things was well pleasing etc.,” on Jo. 8:29.
We may sum up the differences between John and Ignatius under two points. Firstly, while John presents the Logos specifically, not only in His historical existence, but also in His eternal pre-existence, Ignatius refers expressly only to the Logos Who is the “Christ of history.” Let us reflect, though, that the Gospel prologue is a deliberate condensation, in a few lines, of the very essence of the Gospel itself, and let us contrast with this the circumstances under which our Bishop wrote, his purpose in writing, and the absence of any intention of presenting a complete summary of the Logos-doctrine. Secondly, John's Logos is “verbum internum intellectus,” Ignatius' Logos is “verbum oris sensibile;” a divergence which, together with its explanation, is reducible to the former. Finally, we cannot insist too much on the rugged strength of mind that almost compels Ignatius, not only so to digest another's thought as to express it in his own language, but actually to envelop it within the framework of his own original ideas. To explain Magn. 8:2 adequately, a recourse to the Fourth Evangelist seems necessary.
We may sum up the differences between John and Ignatius under two points. Firstly, while John presents the Logos specifically, not only in His historical existence, but also in His eternal pre-existence, Ignatius refers expressly only to the Logos Who is the “Christ of history.” Let us reflect, though, that the Gospel prologue is a deliberate condensation, in a few lines, of the very essence of the Gospel itself, and let us contrast with this the circumstances under which our Bishop wrote, his purpose in writing, and the absence of any intention of presenting a complete summary of the Logos-doctrine. Secondly, John's Logos is “verbum internum intellectus,” Ignatius' Logos is “verbum oris sensibile;” a divergence which, together with its explanation, is reducible to the former. Finally, we cannot insist too much on the rugged strength of mind that almost compels Ignatius, not only so to digest another's thought as to express it in his own language, but actually to envelop it within the framework of his own original ideas. To explain Magn. 8:2 adequately, a recourse to the Fourth Evangelist seems necessary.
Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.
II. Ignatius’ Eucharistic Teaching Is the Eucharistic Teaching
of John
The reader who is familiar with the Eucharistic discourse in Jn. 6 will feel at at home with Ignatius. For the Bishop of Antioch the “Eucharist” (Philad. 4) is “the bread of God” (Eph. 5:2; Rom. 7:3). In sharp contrast to the “food of corruption” (Rom. 7, 3) the Eucharist is the “medicine of immortality, the antidote that we may not die, but have life in Jesus Christ forever” (Eph. 20:2). For it is “the flesh of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 7:3; Philad. 4), “which suffered for our sins, which the Father in His goodness raised up” (Smyrn. 7:1), “the gift of God”, the symbol of “faith” (TralL 8:1); and it is “His blood” (Rom. 7:3), the symbol of “love incorruptible” (TralL 8, 1).
The ideas expressed on the Eucharist are unique to Ignatius and John. John and Ignatius alike unite the Christological and Eucharistic dogmas so closely as to make them inseparable; further, that the Eucharistic theology of neither can be reduced to symbolism, for in both the symbol supposes a reality, the flesh of Christ, real and living and life-giving.
In Eph. 5:2 Ignatius, speaking of one who is cut off from the fellowship of Christians which centers about the Eucharistic altar, says “he is deprived of the bread of God”. This phrase, with the definite article employed with both nouns (tou artou, tou Theou), is identical in form with “the bread of God” in Jo. 6:33 (artos tou Theou).
Again in Rom. 7:3 we find, with “bread of God,” a series of expressions which may be compared with phrases in St. John's sixth chapter. The passage in Ignatius runs: “I delight not in the food of corruption nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, of Him Who is of the seed of David, and as drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” Here the words “food of corruption” recall John's “meat which perisheth” (6:27); “the flesh of Jesus Christ” calls to mind “my flesh” (6:51, 54-56) ; “as drink . . . His blood” reflects “and drink my blood” (6:54-56).
There can be no serious doubt but that Jn. 6 (at least from verse 51) and Rom. 7:3 refer to the Eucharist. Now, just as John opposes to temporary satiety and perishable food - the bread of God which remains forever, so too does Ignatius contrast the “food of corruption” with the “bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.” The divergences from John in Ignatius’ mode of expression are obvious: “food of corruption” for “meat which perisheth;” omission of the articles with “bread of God;” slightly different nouns to express “drink”. The identity of thought, however, and the striking similarity of expression; the fact that Ignatius compresses into a single sentence ideas and language scattered through one connected discourse in John; the significant observation that, in the sentence immediately preceding, there is, as we shall see, the startling Johannine echo, “living water;” the recollection of the characteristic originality of Ignatius, who grasps the thought of another, only to make it his own; the realization that the Bishop wrote not from the seclusion of an episcopal study, but “in bonds amid ten leopards, that is, a company of soldiers” (Rom. 5, 1): all combine to render extremely improbable any explanation save dependence upon the Fourth Evangelist.
Writing to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius says (7:1) of certain heretics: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father in his Goodness raised up. They, therefore, that gainsay the gift of God, perish by their disputing. It would be of advantage to them to love, agapan, that they might also rise.” Here, as in Jo. 6:54, the Eucharist is expressly connected with the Resurrection and Eternal Life.
Again, Ignatius urges the Philadelphians (4): “Take care, then, to observe one Eucharist: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto unity in His blood.” (The point to be noted is the use of sarx, for the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, as in Jn. 6, a phraseology not found elsewhere in the New Testament ). And he exhorts the Trallians (8:1) to refresh, recreate, rebuild themselves “in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.” It will be observed, that Ignatius associates faith with the Bread (as in Jn. 6), while he associates agapê (love) with the Wine (as in Jn. 15). Though the hypothesis of dependence on John is strengthened by the use of the characteristically Johannine sarx instead of the sōmatos of Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 16, and, in the passage from Trallians, by the symbolism (presupposing, of course, the reality: the flesh and blood of Christ) of faith and love.
Concluding his letter to the Ephesians (20:2), Ignatius gives expression to his hope of writing to them again on the subject of the New Dispensation in its relation to Christ, especially if he should learn that, among other things, they come together to “break one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, given as the antidote that we may not die, but have life in Jesus Christ forever.” John had said (6:58): “he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
(To Zahn's mind (Gescbtcbte, p. 904, note 3; cf. also his IgnatU et Polycarpi Eppstulae, Martyria, Fragmenta, ed. post Dresselianam alteram tertia, fasc. II [Lipsiae, Hinrichs, 1876. Pp. lvi-403, p. 27) this passage and Smyrn. 7, 1 rest upon several verses of Jo. 6. Boese (p. 77) claims that Jn. 6:58 certainly hovered before the Bishop's mind. The parallelism in thought has been noted likewise by Holtzmann (Lehrbucb der Neutestamentlicbm Tbeologie, II [Freiburg im Br. und Leipzig, 1897. Pp. xi-532], p. 502, note 2), Loofs (Leitfaden, p. 101) and Rackl (p. 336). )
To sum up. The Eucharistic passages in Ignatius (Eph. 5:2, Smyrn. 7:1, Philad. 4, Trail. 8:1 and Eph. 20:2, especially Rom. 7:3), demonstrate a dependance upon the Fourth Evangelist.
III. Ignatius’ Obsession with “LIFE” Was John’s Obsession
The vivifying action of Christ is one of the most cherished of Ignatius’ dogmas, one of those Ignatianisms that shows most clearly the influence of Paul, but especially of John. (Cf. Jn. 6 and 15). For “Life” holds the same place of honour in the Fourth Gospel that the “Kingdom of God” holds in the Synoptics. While the combined vocabulary of the Synoptics presents the term but sixteen (16) times, it is found in the Gospel of John forty-six (46) times. It is the ultimate explanation of Christ's Person, His mission to men and Divine oneness with the Father (e.g. Jn. 14:6; 10:10; 5:26). For John “Life” is a reality both present and future: eternal life is begun on earth by the possession of Christ through faith that is quickened by love, and is perfected in heaven by the sovereign will of God. Death, then, is not annihilation, but a transition to God and eternal happiness.
“Life” to John is a grace offered by God to all men. He merely demands of men that they show good will, hear Christ with a receiving heart, believe in Him as the Son of God, in His Divine mission, in the truths He teaches, receive Baptism for the remission of their sins, receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit, receive the Body of Christ to nourish that grace of “life” and have their post baptismal sins remitted, if necessary, to regain it. The effects of “Life in Christ” are light, satiety, prayer of the most intimate kind, and resurrection.
For Ignatius, Christ is “our Life” (Magn. 9:1), “our true Life” (Magn. 5:1), “true Life in death” (Eph. 7:2), “our inseparable Life” (Eph. 3:2), “our never-failing Life” (Magn. 1:2). He appeared in the likeness of man to introduce a new order of things, which is Everlasting Life (Eph. 19:3). As a result, death and Life are set before us (Magn. 5:1). We are to beware lest Satan lead us captive from “the Life set before” us to pursue (Eph 17:1). No longer are we to live after the manner of Judaism (Magn. 8:1), for, if even the prophets lived after Christ Jesus (Magn. 8:2), “how shall we be able to live apart from Him?” (Eph. 20:2)? We are now to fashion our lives, not after the Sabbath, but after the Lord's Day, “on which our Life arose” (Magn. 9:1). We are to live “after Jesus Christ” (Philad. 3:2) who died for us, that, by believing in His death, we might escape death (Eph. 20:2.). For apart from Him we “have not the true Life” (Trall. 9:2). And the reason why we break one Bread is “that we may not die but have Life forever in Jesus Christ” (Eph. 20:2). For the one thing that matters is that we be “found in Christ Jesus unto the true Life” (Eph. 11:1). Perfect faith in Christ and perfect love towards Him: this is “the beginning and the end of Life: faith the beginning, love the end” (Eph. 14:1). No wonder, then, that Ignatius, in his plea for martyrdom, urges the Romans not to “hinder” him “from living” (Rom. 6:2). It is the Holy Spirit, “living water” (Rom. 7:2), Who speaks to him in the inmost depths of his soul and calls him to the Father.
Holy Spirit as the Living Water of Life
In Jn. 3:8 we read: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” Christ, having told Nicodemus that he ought not marvel at the necessity of a rebirth, implies that, just as a thing is not to be denied because the manner in which it is done is obscure, so neither is the difficulty of knowing the way in which regeneration takes place a proof of its impossibility. This He illustrates by an example. The wind, here personified, blows wherever it pleases, without hindrance. One hears the sound of it, but knows not from what determined place it begins to blow, nor where it will finally go. So, too, one can recognize the new birth of a man from certain effects, but the process of that regeneration and its blessed term one cannot plainly comprehend.
In Jn. 8:14 we read: “Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.” Christ says, in effect, to the Pharisees: I know that I Am from the bosom of God, that I came visibly into this world by the Incarnation, that I will return into heaven by the Ascension. Therefore My testimony is true, for I am God, and God can neither be deceived nor deceive. But you, through your own fault, do not know My Divinity, you do not know that I am come from heaven and will return to heaven.
Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians (7:1): “For even though some have desired to deceive me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God. For He knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth, and reproves that which is hidden.”
A certain borrowing from Jo. 3, 8 is asserted by Pope (p. 276), de Grandmaison (p. 131), Reynolds (p. 700), Hopfl (p. 11), Knabenbauer (p. 13), Bernard (p. 108), Lightfoot {Apostolic Fathers, p. 266; Biblical Essays, p. 82), Bardsley (p. 211), Zahn (Geschichte, pp. 903-904), Rackl (pp. 331-333), Resch (p. 80) and Dietze (pp. 598-599); and at least implied by Boese (p. 77), Strachan (p. 875), Lagrange (p. xxvi), Jacquier (Hist., p. 56), Drummond (p. 257) and Stanton (pp. 19-20). A highly probable dependence is the tenet of Camerlynck (pp. 3 5-36) and Inge (p. 82),
The circumstance to which Ignatius alludes in the context is admittedly obscure. It seems best to hold with Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, p. 266) that the phrase “according to the flesh” “points to some deceit practiced upon him (and perhaps successfully) in the common affairs of life. ... In this province they might deceive him, but in the sphere of the Spirit no deception was possible.” For the Spirit is from God, and, though no one else can trace His movements, He Himself knows them. Rackl, however, interprets the context thus: Some persons wanted to lead me into error, but did not succeed. “According to the flesh” a deception was possible, for man, the flesh, does not know everything, does not know whence the Spirit comes and whither He goes. But “according to the Spirit” a deception is impossible: the Spirit, Who is from God, cannot be led astray, for He knows everything, even the hidden things. He, Who is Himself Spirit, knows what no man knows: i.e., whence He comes and whither He goes.
Concentrating on Jn. 3:8, it is true that the Ignatian and Johannine contexts differ: that is but natural. The texts in question are identical, save for the person of the verb “to know.” The thought, directly, is divergent. In John the particular expression is the first member of a comparison with the Spirit, and, since a comparison is instituted not with itself but with something analogous, it is logical to interpret John's pneuma in the first member as referring directly to the wind. The pneuma of the Ignatian text refers only to the Holy Spirit.
What, then, are the arguments for dependence on the Fourth Evangelist? Firstly, the literal repetition of the Johannine phraseology in Ignatius, who could not have come closer to a citation without expressly quoting the passage. Secondly, the thought-relation is not lacking. For it is certainly true that the concept of the movements of the Holy Spirit, invisible to men but none the less efficacious for all that, is at least the necessary basis or complement of the phrase in John, just as it is the very essence of the phrase in Ignatius. Thirdly, as Lightfoot points out, the application in the Gospel is natural. The application in Ignatius is strained and secondary, nor is his language at all explicable, except as an adaptation of a familiar passage. (Apostolic Fathers, p. 226. Cf. Drummond (op. cit.t p. 257): “It can hardly be questioned that in John the connection is more appropriate and original.” Here is grist to the mill that would seek to establish Johannine priority on purely internal grounds.)
Finally, Dietze's argument deserves a hearing. Ignatius, he says, is defending himself against the reproach of uncovering factions by “gadding about the community fishing for news.” He protests: “It is not flesh and blood that have revealed this to me, but the Spirit, and He cannot err, because He is from God. For the Spirit knoweth, etc.” Now, for Ignatius' conclusion to be valid, he must argue to the inerrancy of the Spirit either because He is from God or because He knows whence He comes and whither He goes: “beides nebeneinander ist zu viel.” And, because the second phrase merely repeats the first, the “for” cannot be intended as proof. Hence the sentence that it introduces is intended precisely as a citation; “for” has the meaning here of “namely.” This “citation” would then rest upon a combination of Jn. 8:14 and 3:8. In 8:14 Christ makes use of this expression in the same way and for the same end as Ignatius. This testimony of Christ in the same situation would then be the occasion of the “citation,” and, seeing that the subject was the Spirit, Jn. 3:8 would come to mind with the form of the expression there found. Thus the “citation” would have received the form we actually find in Ignatius. Dietze may not have written finis to the controversy, but his thoughtful study has surely presented us with a confirmatory argument.
After the above presentation it would seem that the only objection of import is the claim of a dependence of Philad. 7:1 on Philo (Thus Abbott (“Gospels,” col. 1830) holds that the expression is “a tradition from Gen. 16, 8, quoted by Philo.. . . Ignatius is closer to Philo than to John.”) But, as Bernard has pointed out, Philo's “conviction, speaking to the soul says to her: Whence comest thou and whither goest thou?”, is not verbally akin to Ignatius as is Jn. 3:8, and bears no resemblance in thought. Schlier's case for a debt to Gnosticism is patently unconvincing, and there is little reason for questioning a dependence on the Fourth Evangelist, and specifically on the expression as it appears in Jn. 3:8 alone, or in 8:14 alone, or as a combination of the two.
In His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Christ exclaims that, if she only knew the tremendous favor granted her by God, that is, of speaking with Him, if she knew Who it was Who spoke to her and asked her for drink, she would undoubtedly have asked of Him, and He would have given her “living water”: water, that is, gushing forth ceaselessly from a fountain (Jo. 4:10). This “living water” is the Holy Spirit, which quenches the thirst of the soul and becomes in it the source of eternal life. This Spirit exists in the soul as a perennial fountain, ever gushing, “springing up into life everlasting.” And, if we turn to Jn. 7:38, we hear from the lips of Christ that He will pour out upon the believer the gifts of the Holy Ghost (cf. v. 39), not only to revivify the soul, but that, like "rivers of living water," they may overflow into every good work.
Ignatius, on the road to martyrdom, deliberately seeking death in the midst of life and its attractions, writes to the Romans (7:2): “My lust has been crucified, and there is not in me the fire of love for material things: but there is water living and speaking in me, saying within me: Come to the Father.” There is little doubt but that Ignatius’ “living water” is the Holy Spirit.
Plummer (p. 108; cf. p. 149) holds the Ignatian "living water" "a scarcely doubtful reference" to Jo. 4, 10. Lightfoot {Apostolic Fathers, p. 224) considers the reference "doubtless." Reynolds (p. 700) refers it to 4, 14, and Bardsley (p. 210) is enthusiastic about a use of c. 4. High probability is again Inge's verdict (pp. 81-82). Stanton (p. 19) sees here "an interpretation and application of the saying to the woman of Samaria," effected through combining it with Christ's teaching elsewhere in Jo. The hypothesis of dependence on Jo. 4, 10 ff. and 7, 59 is "thoroughly cogent" to Dietze (p. 597).
The employment of the identical phrase, “living water” hudōr zoê, in a metaphorical sense, of the same object, the Spirit, is a telling stroke for the hypothesis of a “borrowing” from John. Secondly, the fact that the sentence immediately following, “I delight not in the food of corruption, etc.,” has proved a strong argument for dependence, lends added strength to our already powerful case. Bardsley's “Mosaic of Johannisms” is no mere play of fancy. Thirdly, if, instead of “and speaking” (kai laloun), “springing up” (allomenon) be the correct reading (As Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, p. 224) and Bardsley (p. 210) are disposed to believe. ), the parallel with Jo. 4:14 is likewise striking, especially as only in John is allomai applied to water (Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London, Adam & Charles Black, 1906. Pp. xxvii-687), p. 243). Fourthly, the words “Come to the Father” suggest the thought of Jn. 4:23: “The Father seeketh such, etc.” Finally, the obscurity of the expression is inexplicable unless we hold that Ignatius could presuppose in his readers the knowledge of the metaphor and its application to the Holy Spirit. But where, save in John, do the metaphor and application appear simultaneously?
Against a dependence on John it has been urged by Richardson that the phrase “living water” is such a common Greek metaphor that no argument can be drawn from its use. But our argument for dependence is based not on the use of the metaphor as such, but on the application of the metaphor to the Holy Spirit. More elusive is Schilling's theory that “‘the living water speaking within' is an image borrowed from the 'speaking fountains' at Daphne . . . The popular view was that he who drank this 'talking water' would receive prophetic inspiration.” This is more than doubtful when we try to conceive how Ignatius, after having personally applied the phrase to the Holy Spirit, could rely on his Roman readers to make the application themselves.
IV. Responding to Objections
The foregoing discussion of the affinity in thought between Ignatius and John has plunged us very definitely in medias res. We propose to apply the touchstone of criticism to those who do raise objections to the Letters of Ignatius having any dependence or relation to the Fourth Gospel of the Fourth Evangelist himself.
What Are The Principal Objections Against Such Dependence?
A. Von der Goltz asserts that Ignatius is completely lacking any of the Johannine forms. Counter to that we do not hesitate to affirm, with Dietze, that the Bishop’s agreement in form with the Apostle is not less exact than in the most sweeping Pauline reminiscences. There are certain considerations that render the accusation quite unjustifiable.
1. Firstly, the relative clause closing Magn. 8:2 (“who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him”) does bear a striking resemblance to Jo. 8:29 (“And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”), when we realize Ignatius' penchant for borrowing without giving credit either by actually citing or exactly quoting the original author: a manifestation of the recognized Ignatian independence of form. Presupposing this, the use of the third person would then be quite necessary in this particular case, if Ignatius is to reproduce the words of Christ.
2. Secondly, the use of pempō (sent/send) in relation to Christ is characteristically and almost exclusively Johannine.
Drummond (Johannine Vocabulary [London, Adam & Charles Black, 1905. Pp. xviii-364], p. 226), has this significant summary:
English Greek Mk. Mt. Lk. Jn.
Send, including— pempō 1 4 10 32
“He that sent (me, him)” ho pempsas (me, auton) 0 0 0 26
3. Thirdly, the term Logos and its application have a corresponding term and application combined in the Fourth Gospel alone. Finally, the double parallelism (Logos and the relative clause) adds weight to the hypothesis of dependence. (Note that the Synoptic equivalent of our final relative clause is: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased" (Mt. 3, 17; 17, 5; cf. Mk. 1, 11; Lk. 3, 22).)
B. Again, Von Der Goltz (p. 131) does not find the idea of the Creative Word in Ignatius. But, the creative act of the spoken Word is, indeed, referenced in Eph. 15:1. So, Ignatius does reflect the Creative Word.
C. Bauer (In Lebreton, op. cit., p. 322, note 4 ) states that Ignatius identifies God with sigê (silence) while Abbott (“Gospels,” op. cit., col. 1830 ) deems “from Silence” “a dangerous expression, hardly possible for one who devoutly accepted the Fourth Gospel.” In answer: Lightfoot, showing that the Ignatian “procession from Silence” should be assigned to the Incarnation,—inasmuch as a reference to the Divine Generation would neither suit the context nor accord with the language of Ignatius elsewhere,—touches our problem as he continues:
As Logos implies the manifestation of Deity whether in His words or in His works, so sige is the negation of this. Hence the expression 'proceeding from silence’ might be used at any point where there is a sudden transition from non-manifestation to manifestation; e.g. Wisd. xviii. 14:15 . . . where the reference is to the destruction of the first-born in Egypt. To the Incarnation, as the chief manifestation of God through the Word, this language would be especially applicable. . . . Since therefore the whole context here relates to the Incarnation and human life of Christ .. . it is natural to refer apo sigês proelthōn to the same. (Apostolic Fathers, p. 127. ).
This interpretation of “silence” is confirmed, as Lightfoot recognizes, by Eph. 19:1-2, where Ignatius refers to the virginity and child-bearing of Mary and to the death of Christ as “three mysteries to be cried aloud, which were done in the silence of God,” and asks “how were they made manifest to the ages?”; also by Rom. 8, 2, where Christ is “the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken truly.” Then, too, proelthein had just before (Magn. 7, 2) been used of the Incarnation. Abbott's objection falls with Von der Goltz.
The Conclusion of the Matter
The foregoing discussion has shown that we can postulate for Ignatius a dependence upon the author of the Fourth Gospel. The problem of passing beyond this conclusion and maintaining that Ignatius depended upon the actual text of the Gospel, would be simplified if the Fourth Gospel, as we have it, never constituted the subject-matter of its author's public discourses or intimate conferences, but saw the light of day only as a written document. In this case, since it appears that in the first half of the second century the Fourth Gospel was actually circulating in Middle Egypt (This on the basis of the discovery of a fragment of a leaf of a papyrus codex, containing on the recto part of JN. 18:31-33 and on the verso part of Jn. 18:37-38. Cf. C H. Roberts, ed., An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, Manchester U. Press, 1935. Pp. 35), p. 25. ), there would be little difficulty in its transmission to Antioch (if, indeed, it was not actually written in Antioch) in time for Ignatius to submerge himself in its doctrine and spirit.
Our challenge, however, is so, well, challenging, precisely because the substance of the Gospel was included within the apparently larger compass of John's oral subject-matter, even if it did not issue from his lips under the precise form, division, unity and reflective character of the written record. For the primary office of the Apostle was to teach, and, since the Fourth Gospel deals with important phases of the life and personality of the Master, it is inconceivable that John would have neglected the substance of these events in his oral teaching. Further, the Gospel itself furnishes intrinsic evidence of long-continued repetition with the help of memory. Finally, New Testament scholars appear to take such oral preaching for granted (Cf. Gaechter (Summa, p. 173), Huby (L'Evangile et les Evangiles [Paris, Grasset, 1939. Pp. 306], p. 242), Grandmaison (op. cit., I, p. 183), Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 197), Stanton (The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part III. The Fourth Gospel [Cambridge, University Press, 1920. Pp. x-293], pp. 178-179), Donovan (op. cit., pp. 31-32), MacRory (The Gospel of St. John, ed. 4 [St. Louis, Herder, 1916. Pp. lviii-378], p. xlvii). For other arguments, see Donovan, pp. 47, 206. ). Which leaves the question wide-open. For then the oral transmission of the substance of the Gospel would account for the striking affinity in thought, while the employment by Ignatius of such isolated Johannine phrases as we have studied would hardly postulate the precise form, division, unity and reflective character of our actual text. If, however, it is true, as Huby and Stanton (Gospels, III, pp. 178-179) hold, that John's Logos-doctrine was not the seed from which the remainder of the Fourth Gospel developed, hut rather the “open blossom,” the harmonious synthesis acquired only after the body of the Gospel had “accumulated during years of meditation and teaching;” if it is true that “in the Prologue and the remainder of the Gospel we have the history of the Evangelist's thought in inverse order,” we may find difficulty in explaining Ignatius' Logos save by recourse to the written document. Yet, though I grant that the Prologue as we have it was more probably never preached anterior to its composition as a Gospel summary, I am loath to admit that John never used or strove to expound the term Logos till he came to pen his recollections and reflections.
If, then, Ignatius never made the acquaintance of the written Gospel, he must have absorbed its substance either through the medium of personal discipleship, or through contact with a Johannine School, or by way of oral tradition. The earliest direct statement that Ignatius was a disciple of John occurs in the Martyrium Colbertinum. The Eusebii Chronicon II (PL 27, 461), adds Ignatius to Eusebius' Papias and Polycarp as “auditores insignes” of John.
Lightfoot has remarked that “we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'School of St. John'” (Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London & N. Y., Macmillan, 1889. Pp. ix-324), p. 217. Cf. Pope's table of “The School of St. John in Asia Minor” in Aids, IV (ed. 2), p. 273; he includes Ignatius.). The Muratorian Fragment mentions “his fellow-disciples” and “his bishops” as importuning John for a written Gospel. Irenaeus often appeals to such a body as preserving and transmitting Apostolic tradition (Cf. Adv. Haer. 2, 22, 5; 3, 3, 4; 5, 33, 3; Eus., Hist. Eccl. 5, 20).
In bringing our discourse to a close it would be appropriate for this author to make some personal observations that are totally apart from the hosts of scholars referenced in this work. We have considered the possibilities of just how the thoughts and teaching of Ignatius became so Johannine: possession of a personal copy of the Fourth Gospel, a student in a Johannine school, or a personal disciple of the Fourth Evangelist himself. I would suggest all three.
This author has written considerably of how unlikely it is that John the Apostle was ever bishop of Ephesus, let along maintained a long term residence there. In spite of all the external evidence of such an Ephesian bishopric for John the actual evidence is scant and questionable. It appears that the late date for the writing of the book of Revelation and the Ephesus residents of John the apostle go hand-in-hand. Irenaeus is the sole witness placing the Apostle as bishop of Ephesus. He claims that through his teachers, Polycarp and Papias, he has direct record of John the apostle’s residence and work in the Ephesian region (Irenaeus, Adv.Her. III.3.4; V.33.4). Irenaeus reports hearing these things from Polycarp when he (Irenaeus) was a boy (Eusebius, History, V.20.5). Irenaeus further claims that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle. Counter to this, Eusebius states flatly that “Papias himself, in the preface to his discourse, makes it plain that he was in no sense a hearer and eyewitness of the holy apostles” (Histories, III. 39.2.). Eusebius goes on to quote Papias as making a distinction between Apostle John and John the Elder (Histories, III. 39.4.). Polycrates of Ephesus speaks of the Ephesian residence of a “John” and adds that he was a “priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate:” (Eusebius, Histories, V.24.3.) this would suggest a “John” who was of priestly origin—most likely not the apostle. At any rate, if Irenaeus was wrong concerning Papias having heard John the Apostle, and he seems to have been, then the force of his testimony is considerably weakened. Compounding his credibility problem is his apparent confusion over James, the Lord’s half brother, with James the son of Zebedee (Iren. Her. III.12.15.). Another concern to this writer is the fact that both Polycarp and Ignatius write epistles to the church at Ephesus, and neither mention John at all, let alone as having a long term residence there. The absence of Apostle John from the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius to the church at Ephesus seems odd, and unlikely if—as tradition has it—Ephesus was the headquarters of John’s bishopric. Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, speaks of Paul and their present Bishop, but says nothings of John.
Furthermore, there is the matter of John’s possible martyrdom as reported by George the Sinner (eighth - ninth century) and Philip of Side (fifth century). In both accounts both sons of Zebedee were martyred. This report has support in ancient Church calendars which listed John among Christian martyrs. But more weighty to this author is the statement of Jesus, found in Mark 10:39, where He seems to be telling the sons of Zebedee that they both would have to be killed for the cause, just as He (Jesus) was going to be killed. What is clear enough is that in the zeal of the ancient advocates to establish a long life for John, the Ephesus residency and bishopric was invented. One might ask: Why? Irenaeus felt a strong need for an apostolic touchstone. In his zeal he attempted to bridge his church, via Papias and Polycarp, to the apostolic Church of Apostle John. Sadly, the claim of Irenaeus of Lyon is unconvincing as reliable evidence.
So, then, if ancient Church history is correct (apart from Irenaeus) and John was martyred, as Jesus suggested he would be, his death most likely occurred before 70 A.D. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D the center of Christianity moved to Antioch in Syria. It was this same Antioch that was the bishopric of Ignatius from A.D. 69 until his martyrdom in A.D. 107-8. If a Johannine school existed any where in the Roman Empire Antioch would have been the most likely place. The possibility for a young Ignatius to have been both a hearer and disciple of the Apostle, and to even have been personally consecrated by him as bishop of Antioch is better than good - it is likely.
With all the apostles dead and Jerusalem in ruins and Antioch the Christian center of the world (It should be noted that Rome had no claim to preeminence among the Christian communities for roughly another 300 years.), the bishop of Antioch would have been a very respected position in the Christian community at the time. This does, indeed, account for the authoritative tone Ignatius takes with Polycarp and the leaders of the other churches at the time of the writing of his letters.
So in asking the questions: Did Ignatius of Antioch come in contact with the Johannine School? Oral tradition? The Fourth Gospel as document? The Apostle himself? Since we are ignorant of the Bishop’s early life, education, ministry, travels—though we know he came to Christ at a young age—we cannot affirm with certainty that any or all of these contacts did not take place. We have presented our evidence of how all are likely to have occurred and to have produced the Johannine thought and phraseology that became part and parcel of his mental equipment and public exposition of doctrine.
Amen
Credit is given to W. J. Burghardt for much of the research found in this paper, especially from the German scholars.
Ignatius wrote during the apostolic age of the Church. We would like to introduce the Apostolic Orthodox Church International, a truly Apostolic church that Ignatius would recognize. Order your personal copy of this enlightening book from Amazon today. Order at the link provide here:
Credit is given to W. J. Burghardt for much of the research found in this paper, especially from the German scholars.
Ignatius wrote during the apostolic age of the Church. We would like to introduce the Apostolic Orthodox Church International, a truly Apostolic church that Ignatius would recognize. Order your personal copy of this enlightening book from Amazon today. Order at the link provide here:
https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Orthodox-Church-Century-Christianity/dp/1514666243/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Jerry+Hayes%2C+dApostolic+Orthodox+church&qid=1554155187&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0
Thank You For Your Support
By Purchasing Our Books For Your Library
Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:
