Ignatius the Universalist?
Was Theophorous a universalist?
Preface
People often retort that Ignatius was not a universalist, but either an annihlationist or infernalist; on the contrary, there is much implicit evidence that neither Ignatius, Clement, nor Polycarp were post-mortem exclusivists. Though the center of discussion here will be on Saint Ignatius. This is dedicated to a friend as well.
The Passages in Question
“Such a one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into unquenchable [ἄσβεστον] fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him” (Ephesians 16).
The term “unquenchable” does not denote an eternal duration, but indicates the quality of the fire instead. Eusebius the historian records martyrs of Alexandria being killed by a fire, which he termed as “unquenchable”: “After them Epimachus and Alexander, having remained in bonds for a long time, and endured countless agonies from scrapers and scourges, were also consumed in an unquenchable [ἀσβέστῳ] fire” (Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 41). And this is in reference to an earthly temporal fire, and not an eternal flame. Some translations dishonestly render Ignatius’ use of asbeston as eternal unfortunately.
“From whence all sorcery was undone and every bond of wickedness was destroyed; ignorance was abolished, the old kingdom was dissolved when God was humanly manifested unto newness of eternal [aidiou] life; and the beginning of that which was established by God was being received. Therefore, all were provoked together through the mediation of the abolition of death” (Ephesians 19).
Ignatius employed the term “eternal” in reference to the newness of life for all beings since he argues that all were provoked through a mediation of the abolition of death. Ignatius did not employ the scriptural language for the fate of the righteous like aionios, which conveys an indefinite duration; however, he employed aidiou which strictly conveys an eternal duration. If Ignatius were an infernalist dogmatically, then he would have employed aidiou in reference to the fate of the wicked. Based on this reading, there is no infernalist passage, but only a subtle universalist direction. In chapter 18, he does employ aionios concerning salvation and life, which the text should be rendered as “Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life unto the ages.” Ignatius is saying that an immortal life (salvation) will be given to the Church in the future since he elaborated this in chapter 17: “For this end did the Lord allow the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church,” so my rendering of aionios as “unto the ages [futurity]” is an accurate translation.
“I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal [aionios] and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit” (Philadelphians preface).
Some might appeal to this translation as rendering aionios as eternal; however, this appeal is faulty. There is no reason to add the term “eternal” in the same sentence with the word “enduring”. The term aionios in this context should be rendered as “long-lasting” which renders “enduring” reasonable in this context. Christ is our long-lasting and enduring joy, but if he wanted to convey “eternal,” the usage of “enduring” is misplaced, redundant, or unnecessary. Because the word “long-lasting” or aionios might imply a temporal duration (which is rare), or an indefinite duration (which is typical), he modifies it with enduring to convey something that continues beyond its perceived limited duration. The term “eternal” needs no word modifier.
Partial Eschatology and Doctrine of Reserve
The Ante-Nicene Fathers were universalists, but they did not openly proclaim it to those who were spiritually infantile in their faith. This tradition of reserving some dogmas of the faith was a very common strategy that Ignatius himself employed. He says: “Am I not able to write to you heavenly things? Yes, but I am afraid that I should do you harm ‘seeing you are babes.’ Pardon me, for I refrain lest you be choked by what you cannot receive. For I myself, though I am in bonds and can understand heavenly things, and the places of the angels and the gatherings of principalities, and ‘things seen and unseen,’ not for this am I a disciple even now, for much is lacking to us, that we may not lack God” (Trallians 5.1–2). The Ante-Nicene Fathers concealed their universalism by proclaiming a partial resurrection to the infantile (while knowingly deviating from Paul on Romans 5:18, 1st Corinthians 15:26–28), which essentially means only the righteous experience salvation in the body. A universal resurrection, to them, implied universal salvation since if the body of the wicked needed to be restored, then their souls also needed to be restored back into its original condition. This kind of rationale inevitably leads one into apokatastasis lest the belief itself seem purposely inconsistent. Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, and the Didache demonstrate a partial eschatology:
“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits” (Smyrnaeans 2). — The Docetists will have no resurrection but remain incorporeal.
“But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness…” (Polycarp to Philippians 2). — The resurrection is conditional upon good works.
“And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” (The Didache 16). — The resurrection is reserved for the elect or the righteous, but the wicked are excluded.
“Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfill His promise? For [the Scripture] says in a certain place, ‘You shall raise me up, and I shall confess unto You,’ and again, ‘I laid me down, and slept,’ ‘I awoke, because You are with me’; and again, Job says, ‘You shall raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things’ ” (1st Clement 26). — He limits the resurrection to only the righteous or pious as well.
Methodius of Olympus: “[Origen] speaks in order, explaining in the Psalms, in the tenth verse of the first Psalm: ‘From here, the simpler believers, starting their argument, believe that the impious will not experience the resurrection. What do they think about the resurrection?’ ” (On the Resurrection, Book 1, Chapter 20 edited by Georg Nathanael Bonwetsch).—This is an extra, but Methodius reports Origen’s account of infantile believer’s perspective on the resurrection. I will be honest that I couldn’t find this quote in an online English edition, but apparently this Greek passage is found in Nathanael Bonwetsch’s edition, which was published by De Gruyter. I used the Bellerophon app which confers me access to this edition, so whether this Greek passage is included, omitted, or translated into German in the other accessible mediums of his edition, I don’t know.
Resolution
The Ante-Nicene Fathers concealed their universalism away from the immature Christian masses by asserting a partial eschatology on the resurrection, in the hopes of immature Christians not becoming too morally sluggish or an apostate. Because the majority of Christians could not read at the time of the patristic era or apostolic era, the educated bishops had an advantage over them. Origen himself also elaborates on the doctrine of reserve in Contra Celsus Book 1, VII.
The universal resurrection (along with salvation) was taught by Paul in Romans 5:18 where he argues: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification to life for all people,” and in 1st Corinthians 3:14–15, Paul distinguishes saints and sinners who are part of the Church, “If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” Those who lived according to the love of God, Paul affirms their reward, which is an early resurrection and a Christological reign (cf. Revelation 20:5). Paul affirms those who are sinners, especially of the Church, will undergo the divine fire, suffer a loss of time since they will not partake of the first resurrection, but he says they will be saved in regard to resurrection and liberation from sin.
In regard to the patristic era, the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not wish for the immature to understand the doctrine of apokatastasis, but it was limited to prayers for the dead since the Epistle of the Apostles (120–150 CE) affirms this principle: “I am the word: I became flesh, and I wearied myself (or, suffered) and taught, saying: The heavy laden shall be saved, and they that are gone astray shall go astray for ever. They shall be chastised and tormented in their flesh and in their soul. 40 And we said unto him: O Lord, verily we are sorrowful for their sake. And he said unto us: Ye do rightly, for the righteous are sorry for the sinners, and pray for them, making prayer unto my Father” (Epistle of the Apostles 39–40). While this passage is not strictly universalist, it is more towards the universalist direction. In this case, if certain immature Christians were close to grasping universalism, they would have most likely been taught a soft form of universalism in the guise of praying for the dead. And because the Nicene creed affirmed a universal resurrection with no particular distinction, nor condition for the resurrection, this partial eschatological tactic employed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers became obsolete after the time of Origen. However, the doctrine of reserve persisted beyond Origen and the Ante-Nicene Fathers with examples like Gregory Nazianzus (4th century) or Maximus the Confessor (7th century) (cf. Oration 40.36; Ad Thal. 11.3). In context with everything said, Ignatius along with the other Apostolic Fathers (and documents) I have mentioned were universalists in a private sense, but not public about it.
