Re. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2
It would make sense in such a context
for Ignatius to appeal to the Eucharist as an evidence of Christ’s true
humanity. This is because the Eucharist has to do with Jesus’s body and blood. But
there is nothing about this sort of argument that demands a commitment to the
Real Presence paradigm rather than to Memoralism. The denier of the true
humanity of Christ and of his real sufferings would have just as much reason not
to participate in the Eucharist whether Christ’s body and blood are understood to
be really present in the bread and wine or they are thought to be represented
by them as symbols. It is the reality of the bodily suffering and death that is
being contested and not a purported eucharistic presence. This is why Ignatius
could have argued just as strongly against his opponents by appealing to the
symbolism of the Eucharist. (Steven Nemes, Eating Christ’s Flesh: A Case for
Memorialism [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2023], 106)
Re.
Epistle to the Romans 7:3:
Ignatius writes to the Romans in light
of his imminent arrival in Rome for the sake of being martyred. He asks from
the beginning that his audience not interfere and try to prevent his impending
death (1;2). He considers that by dying he will reach God and become a “word of
God” (2;1). He will be poured out as an offering and set to the world in hopes
of rising toward God (2:2). In death he will actually be a Christian rather
than merely calling himself one so long as they pray that he has the strength
to submit to death (3:2). He admits that he writes “to all the churches . . .
insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will” (4:1). He embraces
death “Let me be food for the wild beasts, through whom I can reach God . . .
Then I will truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world will no longer
see my body” (4:1-2). His present mistreatment at the hands of his guards makes
him more of a disciple (5:2). He also calls out, “May nothing visible or
invisible envy me, so that I may reach Jesus Christ” (5:3). This attitude makes
him lose all interest in the present order of things: “Neither the ends of the
earth nor the kingdom of this age are of any use to me . . . him I seek, who
died on our behalf” (6:1). He even says that to prevent his martyrdom would be
to bring death upon him and to prevent him from living (6:2). Ignatius
considers rather than upon death he will “receive the pure light, for when I
arrive there I will be a human being” (6:2).
It is in the context of such remarks
that he writes [Epistle to the Romans 7:1-3].
Klawiter argues persuasively that
Ignatius interpreted in context should be understood as referring to his own
martyrdom in eucharistic terms. (Klawiter, “Eucharist and Sacramental Realism,”
134) To die as a martyr is for him to gain “the bread of God, which is the
flesh of Christ” and “his blood, which is incorruptible love.” Ignatius would
seem to be referring by this phrase to the inheritance of the resurrected body,
“the flesh of Christ.” This body is spiritual in nature (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-49)
and thus incorruptible in its love for God. His martyrdom is therefore a ”Eucharist”
in the sense that it will confer upon him in a very literal way a renewed and
perfected bodily condition like that of Christ who also died for God. It is
also possible that Ignatius means that dying for God like Christ did is “eating
Christ’s flesh” as one does in the eucharistic meal. It is a way of
appropriating Christ to oneself by imitating his example in hope of receiving
the same reward. Faithful martyrdom and the hope of resurrection therefore seem
to be what Ignatius has in mind when he speaks of the food of Christ’s flesh
and the drink of his blood in the context of his Epistle to the Romans.
It is also possible to argue that
Ignatius is very likely not referring to the Eucharist celebrated by the
churches in the world. There are a few reasons for thinking. First, he would
have to remain in the world in order to celebrate that Eucharist. But he has
thus far in the epistle been insistent that he wishes to depart from the world.
Second, it would also be entirely discontinuous with his argument both before
and after this passage to interpret him as referring to the eucharistic meal of
the churches. He was not speaking about Eucharist but rather about his
impending death. It would therefore constitute an inexplicable change of
subject, as though in his frenzy Ignatius suddenly and without warning could
not stay on topic. This frenzy Ignatius suddenly and without warning could not
stay on topic. This would be to attribute instability of mind to the author. It
is more coherent to understand Ignatius as referring to his own martyrdom as a
Eucharist of sorts which will confer immortality upon him. (Steven Nemes, Eating
Christ’s Flesh: A Case for Memorialism [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2023],
112-13, comment in square brackets added for clarification)
Re.
Epistle to the Ephesians 20:2 and the Eucharist being the medicine of
immortality:
A real union of a robust metaphysical
sort is accomplished between Christ and the believer such that the latter is ontologically
predestined toward resurrection and immortality. But this idea has problems. With
the highly disreputable exception of John 6, there is no clear biblical basis
for believing that the food of the Eucharist makes a person capable of
immortality and the life of the world to come. (Against Pitre, Jesus and the
Jewish Roots, 112) The bread of life discourse rather ascribes this effect
to faith in Jesus. The Pauline doctrine is that the reception of the Holy
Spirit at conversion sets a person on the trajectory to resurrection and eternal
life (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14). As the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians says: “Do
not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for
the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). If Ignatius does mean to say that the Eucharist
itself makes a person capable of immortality, there would seem to be no clear
context for such an idea to have come to him.
It is also worth noting that the Real
Presence interpretation of this passage does not adhere to it very closely and
actually makes it to be false. Experience teaches that a person is not
necessarily made especially resistant to death, whether this be understood physically
or spiritually, simply because he or she has partaken of the Eucharist, even with a clear conscience. One can often sin just as easily after the consumption
of the Eucharist as before. If that is the case, then what Ignatius says is
false: the Eucharist apparently does not function as an antidote in that sense.
But it is also clear from experience that what does in fact make a person
resistant to spiritual death is one’s state of spirit. What prevents death is
specifically ardent love for God and for Jesus in the Holy Spirit. Such love is
the possible effect of the Eucharist even apart from the commitments of the
Real Presence paradigm insofar as the Eucharist is the symbolic self-offering
of Christ to the believer for that person: “We love because he first loved us”
(1 John 4:19). The Eucharist has the purpose of strengthening the union between
Jesus and the believer by increasing their mutual love. It does this by making
Jesus’s person and work as savior of the world present-to believers through the
use of bread and wine as symbols. It is likely preaching the gospel in a manner
that engages more of the senses. This is the sense in which the proponent of
Memorialism can affirm that the Eucharist is a “medicine of immortality.” It brings
immortality in just the same way that ordinary evangelization does, namely
because it fosters love for God and for Jesus.
The Eucharist is the medicine of
immortality because it fosters the love for God and for Jesus that will be
rewarded with resurrection. This interpretation coheres with the rest of the
epistle in context. Earlier Ignatius says that the cross or sacrifice of Christ
“is a stumbling block to unbelievers but salvation and eternal life to us”
(18:1). If the cross of Christ is salvation and eternal life to Christians,
then the Eucharist can be the medicine of immortality insofar as it
symbolically presents believers with that cross and its salvific significance.
He also says that “faith and love toward Jesus Christ” are “the beginning and
the end of life,” so that “everything else that contributes to excellence
follows from them” (14:1). If the orientation of the person toward Jesus Christ
in faith and love is the beginning and end of life, then it would be perfectly
natural to say that the Eucharist is the medicine of immortality. It presents
the Christian with the symbols of the cross or sacrifice of Jesus and invites
him or her personally to appropriate its promise of eternal life in faith and
love by consuming them. Making the sacrifice of Christ present-to believers
cultivates their faith and love toward him in this way leads them to eternal
life. There is consequently neither need nor obvious benefit in complicating matters
with the speculative metaphysics of Real Presence when Ignatius is clear: “faith
and love toward Jesus Christ . . . are the beginning and the end of life”
(14:1). It is contextually more appropriate to understand Ignatius as saying
that the Eucharist is the medicine of immortality in the sense that it
cultivates love for Jesus Christ in believers by making his person and work
present-to them. (Steven Nemes, Eating Christ’s Flesh: A Case for Memorialism
[Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2023], 114-15)
