Discussing episcopal
authority and leadership in his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius declares that
anyone who are not in fellowship with the local bishop actually “lacks the
bread of God” (Ign. Eph. 5,2). Here Ignatius links the concept of unity
with the bishop to that of the efficacy of the eucharistic. It appears that
behind this rhetoric Ignatius is calling into question the validity of the
eucharistic meals of his opponents who did not recognise the authority of the
local bishop. In a striking passage Ignatius attributes curative spiritual
power to the eucharistic elements. He declares the act of “breaking one bread”
to be “the medicine of immortality, the antidote we take in order not to die
but to live forever in Jesus Christ” (Ign. Eph. 20,2). For Ignatius the
antithesis of death is not simply life, but life in Jesus Christ. Therefore the
eucharist is not simply a remedy against mortality, but it facilitates
participation in the life of Jesus. While the related images of medicine and antidote
by suggest a mystical (if not even a magical) aspect within the healing
imagery, the thought is perhaps more involved than simply asserting that
partaking of the eucharist is a protective against mortality.
The protective aspect of the
eucharist appears to be in Ignatius’ thought when he address the Trallians. In
a somewhat fleeting aside Ignatius comments, “you, therefore, must arm
yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh
of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ)” (Ign. Trall.
8,1). The references to ‘the flesh of the Lord’ and “the blood of Jesus Christ”
in combination naturally evoke eucharistic perspectives. Here Ignatius
declares “strength in faith” to be equivalent to “the flesh of the Lord”, and
“love” as equivalent to “the blood of Jesus Christ”. He does not, however,
explain the basis for these suggestive equivalencies that he presents. In many
ways, Ignatius’ simple presents these pairs alongside each other as striking
juxtapositions, without the need to explain the basis of the linkage. A similar
metaphor, or juxtaposition of bread and wine with other theological claims,
occurs in the letter to the Romans. In this context Ignatius states that “I
want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of
David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love” (Ign. Rom.
7,3). Here the focus appears more on another of Ignatius ’ key theological
concerns, rather than developing his eucharistic thought. That concern is
arguing against a docetic Christology. This is achieved by equating the bread
of God, with the flesh of Christ which in turn is identified with the Christ
being from the seed of David. Hence the bread of God language affords Ignatius
another opportunity to affirm the reality of Jesus’ Davidic decent and thus to
present the reality of the incarnation.
Writing to the
Philadelphians, Ignatius again present his concerns over unity in Christian
communities. He sees that unity being achieved in a twofold manner – by
participating in the ‘one eucharist’, and submitting oneself to the threefold
ministry of bishop, presbyters and deacons. Thus he warns the Philadelphians:
Take care, therefore, to
participate in one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one altar, just as
there is one bishop, together with the council of presbyters and the deacons,
my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do, you do it in accordance
with God. (Ign. Philad. 4,1).
Almost incidentally,
Ignatius makes a number of affirmations concerning the eucharist. Although the
bread is not explicitly mentioned, implicitly it is identified with the ‘flesh
of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and the eucharistic is explicitly seen as the container
of the blood of Christ. The eucharist is to be celebrated in accordance with
God, which as the parenthetical comment suggests is achieved when the eucharist
is celebrated under the sanction of the local bishop. Thus as Vall observes,
“Ignatius ties the eucharist very closely to the episcopal ministry”.
However, it is in the letter
to the Smyrnaeans that the theology of the eucharist comes to the fore, and it
is presented as a dividing issue between Ignatius and those whom he accuses of
holding “heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ”. These opponents
are accused of refusing to participate in the eucharist because of their
docetic Christology. Thus Ignatius declares, “[t]hey abstain from the eucharist
and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the eucharist is the flesh
of our saviour Jesus Christ” (Ign. Smyr. 6,2). In this key passage
Ignatius unambiguously declares the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, and
concludes that his opponents refuse to participate in the eucharistic meals
conducted by the local bishop because they deny the reality of the incarnation
or enfleshment of Christ. Therefore, in this context “identifying the
eucharistic flesh with Jesus’ historical flesh”, Ignatius insists “on the
strongest possible bond between the paschal mystery and the church’s
sacramental life”60. Again it is in Smyrnaeans that the strongest statement is
provided between the link of episcopal authority and the validity of the eucharistic
meal. Ignatius states, “only that eucharist which is under the authority of the
bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid” (Ign. Smyr.
8,1).
Therefore, in the writings
of Ignatius it is possible to trace a marked development and shift in
eucharistic thought in comparison with the same topic as articulated in the New
Testament. In the synoptic gospels the links with the Jewish Passover meal are
far more prominent. By contrast, in Ignatius this aspect has disappeared.
Moreover, the Pauline perspective that the eucharist is both preparation for
and anticipation of the Parousia are also absent in Ignatian thought. For
Ignatius, the eucharist is the central sacramenta l demonstration of the
reality of Christ’s incarnation, and hence it rebuts the claims of his docetic
opponents and explains their refusal to participate in the eucharistic meal.
The reality of Christ’s flesh in the eucharist, according to Ignatius, negates
their claims that Christ’s human appearance was only a mere semblance.
Furthermore, the refusal to participate in a valid eucharist under the
authority of the local bishop demonstrates the opponents refusal to accept the
divinely ordered structure of the church in the pattern of bishops, presbyters
and deacons. These are marked develops in theology from those eucharistic ideas
to be found in the New Testament. Moreover, the ideas on the eucharist that
occur in Ignatius’ writings are foundational for subsequent developments in
regard to eucharistic theology at least till the time of the Reformation. (Paul
Foster, "The
Ignatian Problem: The Recensions of a letter corpus as a reflection of
theological concerns and developments," pp. 14-16)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
