Εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες
εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες,
ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται,
δι᾽ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν
μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν·
If, then, those
who had lived according to ancient practices came to the newness of hope, no
longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day, on
which our life also arose through him and his death (which some deny), the mystery
through which we came to believe, and because of which we patiently endure, in
order that we may be found to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher.
(Ignatius, Magnesians 9:1 | Michael W. Holmes translation)
■ 9.1
Ignatius now turns to the early Christians who abandoned their allegiance to
Judaism. The view that he still has the prophets in mind (Hilgenfeld, Molland)
must be rejected. It would be unnatural to attribute to the “most divine
prophets” as described in Mag. 8.1–2
the need for conversion referred to here. Ignatius is speaking of the early
disciples who once lived as Jews (by observing the Sabbath) but came to live as
Christians (by observing Sunday). It seems only reasonable to suppose that the
discussion was prompted by pressures exerted by some in favor of Sabbath
observance. Yet that is not stated, and it may be that the question of the
Sabbath was brought up or at least over-emphasized by Ignatius himself because
it served as a convenient point of departure for illustrating the
unacceptability of “Judaism.” The Judaizers of Magnesia (somewhat like the
author of Hebrews or his audience) may have been more interested in the idea of
Judaism than in the practice of it. One possibility is that they seemed to
Ignatius to devote too much attention to the problem of the meaning of biblical
texts (about which Ignatius himself apparently knew little) and ran the risk
from his point of view of forgetting the centrality of Christ and of falling
back into Jewish practices (see on Phd.
5–9). This may account for the fact that the expressions “keeping Sabbath” and
“living in accordance with the Lord’s day” serve primarily to characterize two
whole ways of life. The exact situation in regard to observance in Magnesia
could thus be left conveniently up in the air.
In any event, Ignatius emphasizes the significance of Sunday by
connecting it with the Lord’s resurrection. In saying that on that day “our
life” (that is, Christ or the new being embodied in Christ) “arose” (ἀνέτειλεν), he uses a verb not usually associated
with the resurrection but with the rising sun. Similar imagery (though not
applied to Sunday) occurs also in Rom.
2.2. The meaning of Sunday was soon to be worked out more fully in such terms
by Justin (Apol. 1.67.3, 7). The
symbolism provided a significant point of contact with widely diffused patterns
of thought in Hellenism.
But Ignatius makes a characteristic move when he links the
resurrection with the mystery of Christ’s death and emphasizes the latter as
that through which faith comes. For it is Christ’s death that stands out as a
“mystery” in Ignatius’ mind (Eph.
19.1). One purpose of Ignatius here is to present the passion and resurrection
(not Scripture as misinterpreted by the Jews and Judaizers) as that which
determines the shape of Christian existence (and makes sense of Scripture). It
is for this reason that Christ is called the “only teacher” whose “disciples”
we must be (compare the use of the slogan “one teacher” in Eph. 15.1). Consequently, our “endurance” is a sign of our
discipleship precisely because, for Ignatius, Christ’s teaching consists of his
enactment of his Father’s will in being obedient to the point of death. This
interpretation is strengthened by the reference in 9.2 to the prophets as also
being “disciples” who awaited Christ “as teacher.” For their discipleship was
also evidenced by the fact that they were persecuted (Mag. 8.2); and no doubt Ignatius thought of the substance of their
expectations as centered about the passion and resurrection (cf. Sm. 5.1; 7.2). These expectations, now
realized in Christ, preclude any Jewish interpretation of Scripture (or any
observance of Jewish customs). (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of
Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia—a Critical
and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985],
123-24)
