Ignatius, Presbyter of Antioch

The Order of the Church in the Apostolic Era, pt. 2

For a more thorough introduction, you can look to my previous post on the topic but suffice it to say that this is a very contentious topic in online circles. Rome and the East consistently teach apostolic succession—that is, the requirement of an unbroken chain of ordinations leading back to the apostles—as well as maintenance of the threefold office of bishop-presbyter-deacon by divine right as a requirement to validate one’s sacraments. This, however, is certainly not the perspective of Clement, as we discussed previously. Now, we will wade into Ignatius, a figure much more famous for his high view of the episcopacy and see what he has to say about the topic. What's more, we will also hear him discuss church attendance and communion participation, which is very relevant to our days.

Ignatius' Ecclesiology

We have many more works from Ignatius than we do Clement, though there are many spurious works purported to be written by him. What remains is a series of letters that were written by the bishop on the long trek to his martyrdom, perhaps akin to St. Paul's extended trek to Rome in Acts. In any case, he wrote about a great deal of topics, with major themes being obedience to the bishop and other authorities, the Eucharist, and correcting false teachings about Christ. Because of his focus on obedience, we actually can glean a great deal about his view of the church!

One foundational text I will put forth concerning the matter is from Ignatius' letter to the Trallians:

"Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God's council and as the band of the apostles. Without these no group can be called a church."

This text, when quoted out of context by Eastern Orthodox Twitter accounts, sure sounds damning for the Protestant cause. "He says the threefold office is necessary for a church! Checkmate Protties!" However, if we actually look at the text, it reveals something striking: "Without these no group can be called a church." The word "church" is singular, which indicates that each congregation has deacons, presbyters, and a bishop. Also of note, presbyters is plural, indicating that each church has multiple presbyters. In fact, this doesn't simply refer to a church having multiple pastors, but here he talks about the presbyters as a "council." This is a common phrase he uses when referring to them (Ephesians 4:1, Magnesians 2, Philadelphians 4, and Smyrnaeans 8:1). While these quotations, unfortunately, do not help us understand what their actual role was in church governance other than that they are to be obeyed by the laity, it is significant that they are always mentioned in reference to either a council or at least in the plural. This indicates that they likely were a kind of ruling body that managed the church in her many tasks, though ultimately subject to the bishop, as Ignatius often describes.

Now we ought to look at how far the authority of such offices extends, since that is one fact that can be gleaned from Ignatius. This is especially relevant because a common counter-interpretation opposed to the one I am bringing would say that the "council of presbyters" refers to the priests in a given area as presided over by their bishop. This is unlikely for reasons mentioned above, but it is also excluded by Ignatius' description of their authority. At the beginning of his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius commends a deacon named Zotion, saying that he "is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the council of presbyters as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Magnesians 2). Notice that he is not just subject to the presbyter he is ordained into serving, but he instead serves the "council of presbyters." The question is, why is this deacon subject to multiple presbyters? There are a few possibilities. The first, and in my view most likely, is that, just as the bishop above, the presbyters all serve in the same congregational context. Otherwise, you have deacons liturgically assisting multiple parishes at once or serving in a kind of circuit, which seems rather unusual.

Besides presbyters and deacons, he also describes the jurisdiction of the bishop in both congregational and sacramental terms. On a congregational level, we will see quotes much like those I listed above and describe a bishop working in a congregation:

"Therefore, as children of the light of truth, flee from division and false teaching. Where the shepherd is, there follow the sheep." Philadelphians 2.1

This passage is fascinating because it describes the bishop in pastoral terms, using a shepherd imagery. However, he is not referring to the under-shepherds needing to follow their over-shepherd, but rather to sheep flocking around their bishop. In a much more specific passage, he centers this concept in worship:

"Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with him), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. Do not attempt to convince yourselves that anything done apart from the others is right, but, gathering together, let there by one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy, which is Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better." Magnesians 7.1

Here you see a similar call, which is very common in Ignatius, for the parishioners not to engage in worship without their bishop, listing the gathering, prayer, petition, and the Christian virtues as an obvious metonymy for the Lord's Day. This would be very strange if the bishop was like a modern bishop, as it would mean only one congregation could actually worship each Sunday. But it makes much more sense if this refers to a pastor whose title is "bishop."

The final passage, which is a smoking gun in favor of a "congregational bishop," is from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans:

"Wherever the bishop is, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Christ is, there is the catholic church." Smyrnaeans 8.2

This is a very important passage because of the distinctions it makes. This text is almost always cited incorrectly as "wherever the bishop is, there is the church." However, that is not what Ignatius says; the distinction between "congregation" and "church" actually does exist in the Greek. The word he uses for the former is πλήθος (pleythos) while ἐκκλησῐ́ᾱ (ecclesia) is the word for Church. With that said, these are close to synonyms, as church can refer both to the Church universal as well as a congregation. However, as we see above, Ignatius himself makes the distinction between the two, saying that the congregation is to meet with their bishop and not otherwise, just as the church catholic cannot meet without Christ being present in word and sacrament. This distinction between "congregation" and "church" here is very helpful, because it once again denotes the distinction between an Ignatian bishop--a pastor--and the modern bishop, which Rome and the East would say are a requirement for the church to be present, contra most Protestants.

This is an excellent segue into how this affects the intersection between his ecclesiology and his sacramentology. However, this is an already sizable post and Ignatius' view of the Eucharist, while very relevant here and helpful to my argument, has further applications that are outside the scope of this post. So keep a lookout for a later post on Ignatius if you're interested!

My final note about Ignatius' limitations on the office of bishop comes from his epistle to the Trallians:

"I am sure that you agree with me regarding these matters, for I received a living example of your love and still have it with me in the person of your bishop, whose very demeanor is a great lesson and whose gentleness is his power; I think that even the godless respect him. Because I love you I am sparing you, though I could write more sharply on his behalf. But I did not think myself qualified for this, that I, a convict, should give you orders as though I were an apostle." Trallians 3:2-3

Here, he begins his chastisement of their disrespect for their pastors with a striking note that his authority does not carry apostolic weight. This is especially significant for a few reasons. First of all, he was a bishop of Antioch, which was one of the five most powerful patriarchates in the early church. Often these were said to bear apostolic authority, as we see with the bishop of Rome (the Pope) claiming Peter's. However, Ignatius himself puts that idea away. Thought they don't have the same language concerning ecclesiology, it's possible that this passage may help us interpret Clement's more controversial passage that we discussed in the last post. The aforementioned Clementine passage could be interpreted as saying that the apostles set up the bishops and, in doing so, made the apostolic offices immortal by means of their successors. While there are textual reasons in Clement to question this interpretation, as I gave earlier, we may also use Ignatius' writings to help us interpret Clement's. The distinction in ecclesiology between Ignatius and Clement does come off as a very natural evolution from the latter to the former. Clement's two-office model is very similar to what is described in St. Paul's epistles, though there are some places that sound rather Ignatian as well ("council of elders," 1 Tim. 4:14), and Ignatius' possible innovation of a presbyterial council is a natural system that would aid the bishop in managing an organization of a large group of people. However, if Clement really meant that the bishops share in the office of the apostles, it would be very strange to say that Ignatius had no idea about this, as he has a rather strong apostolic pedigree as well. Thus, it seems further unlikely Clement meant to say the bishops stood in the place of the apostles.

Conclusion

In summary, we have addressed some of the Roman and Eastern ecclesiological claims with Ignatius himself. Contrary to the general consensus online of him as an apostolic-era witness to the importance and necessity of bishops for the existence of the true church, what we see instead is something we need all too often now: encouragement to love and submit to our pastors. I have heard discussion online where pastors accuse others of "Romanizing tendencies" or that they are trying to raise up the pastoral office to an inordinate degree. However, in seeking to raise up the "priesthood of all believers," what these folks have done is denigrated the office, and as Ignatius would say, the church with it. We must heed Ignatius' warning and follow our shepherds rather than making the sheep drag along their own shepherds.