04/13/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

 

Holmes, Michael W., editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed., Baker Academic, 2007.

 

Authorship and Date:

 

The author of the text is Ignatius of Antioch and his writings span only a few weeks of his life as soon after these letters he was martyred in Rome. Even though his name is followed by “of Antioch” it is unknown if he is native of Antioch. He was the bishop of Antioch at the very least hence the name, He wrote seven letters total which I plan to write all about. However, the focus of this study is on his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch (which is now in Turkey). He was arrested for his Christian beliefs (not much else is known about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and imprisonment) and subsequently executed in Rome. Ignatius knew Polycarp who was a disciple of John, but there is no evidence that Ignatius himself directly studied under John. 

 

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that Ignatius was arrested and sent to die in Rome during Trajan’s reign, and he assigned the date to 107/108 A.D. even though he gives no evidence for it. Here is his main passage on Ignatius from his Church History:

 

“Ignatius, still a famed name as second after Peter to succeed to the bishopric of Antioch. Tradition has it that he [Ignatius] was sent from Syria to Rome and became food for wild animals because of his witness to Christ. He was brought through Asia under the strictest guard, strengthening the Christian community by speech and encouragement in every city where he stayed. He warned them in particular to be on guard against the heresies that were then first beginning to spring up, urging them to hold fast to the apostolic tradition, which he thought necessary to put in writing for safety's sake. Thus, while he was in Smyrna where Polycarp was, he wrote one letter to the church at Ephesus, referring to their pastor Onesimus; another to the church at Magnesia on the Meander, in which he refers to Bishop Damas; and another to the church at Tralles, then under the rule of Polybius, as he states. He also wrote to the church at Rome, requesting in it that they not deprive him of his longed-for hope by asking that he be released from martyrdom.” (Eusebius of Caesarea. The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary. Translated and edited by Paul L. Maier, Kregel Academic, 2007, p. 123.)

 

Historical Context and Occasion: 

 

During Ignatius’ journey to Rome as a prisoner under guard, they paused unexpectedly at Smyrna, where the local believers and their bishop, Polycarp (another Apostolic Father), received him with deep warmth. That stop became the beginning of a close friendship between the two men. As he traveled, he saw firsthand both the strength of Christian fellowship and the vulnerabilities of the churches he passed through. In Smyrna especially, where Polycarp and the local believers embraced him, he encountered communities facing internal threats from docetic teachers who denied the real humanity and suffering of Christ. Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans to reinforce their unity around their bishop, to defend the reality of Christ’s incarnation and passion, and to warn them against teachings that undermined the very martyrdom he was about to face.

 

Text:

 

The text of Smyrnaeans used in this study follows the “middle recension,” the form of Ignatius’s letters accepted by the majority of scholars and reflected in Holmes’s critical edition.

 

Commentary: 

 

Chapter 1: 

 

Ignatius begins his letter to the Smyrnaeans by glorifying Christ and stating that Christ, who He identifies as God, made the Smyrnaeans very wise. While Ignatius was with them he observed they had an unshakable faith and he commends them for this using vivid imagery, being “nailed…to the cross,” to suggest total devotion. Ignatius attributes their discernment to Christ Himself. This frames the Smyrnaeans as a community whose stability is the work of God, not the result of intellectual achievements. He continues by stating their theological beliefs concerning Christology that this unshakable faith is also rooted in. He uses this Christological confession as a creed against Docetism. 

 

Docetism is an early Christian heresy that taught that Jesus Christ only seemed to be human and did not possess a real physical body, nor did he truly suffer or die. Docetism treats Christ’s humanity as an appearance or illusion rather than an actual incarnation. In fact, the word Docetism comes from the Greek dokein meaning “to seem” or “to appear.” The tenants of the Christological confession by Ignatius is below:

 

1. Christ is truly a human descendant of David. 

 

2. He is the Son of God who has divine will and power. 

 

3. He was born of a virgin.

 

4. He was baptized by John so that “all righteousness might be fulfilled by him” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1.1, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 249). 

 

5. He was nailed to the cross in the flesh for us under the Pontius Pilate and Herod. 

 

Ignatius acted that from the fruit of the crucifixion we derive our existence. Ignatius is arguing that the Cross is not merely about forgiveness but also where humanity is recreated and new life begins. Subsequently, the resurrection is a public act by which God “raises a banner for the ages” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 249). In his imagery, the resurrection functions like a military standard lifted high after victory and it shows that death has lost and God has won. The risen Christ summons Jews and Gentiles alike into one body, the church, gathered under the sign of His triumph.

 

Ignatius’ confession functions as a creed against docetism because it systematically affirms the concrete, bodily realities that docetists denied, arranging them in a structured sequence that reads like an early doctrinal formula. By repeating that Christ was “truly” descended from David, “truly” born of a virgin, “truly” baptized, and “truly nailed in the flesh,” Ignatius confronts the docetic claim that Jesus only appeared to be human. His emphasis on historical markers such as Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the baptism by John, anchors Christ’s life in verifiable events rather than spiritual illusions. He then extends this realism to the resurrection, portraying it as a visible “banner for the ages,” a public and embodied victory that gathers Jews and Gentiles into one church. In doing so, Ignatius ties the church’s unity and salvation directly to the physicality of Christ’s suffering and rising.

 

Chapter 2:

 

Chapter 2 continues as Ignatius states that Christ suffered for our sake so that we may be saved. He maintains his rejection of Docetism by stating that Christ truly suffered and truly raised Himself. Not in the manner that docetists (who he calls unbelievers) argue, as they state he suffered in appearance only. He warns that their fate “will be determined by what they think” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 251), meaning their denial of Christ’s real suffering leads to their own disembodied and ultimately demonic end. In Ignatius’ view, a false understanding of Christ’s body produces a distorted destiny, making docetism not just an error but a path toward spiritual ruin.

 

Chapter 3: 

 

Ignatius continues that he knows and believes that Christ was in the flesh even after the resurrection. This is a stark contrast to Docetism. Not only does Ignatius reject that Jesus came in appearance only, but He argues that Christ remains in the flesh currently. He states, “and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: ‘Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon.’ And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 2.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 251). Ignatius here is quoting from the narrative in Luke 24:

 

“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭39‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

Ignatius’ line, “Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon,” is essentially a paraphrase and intensification of Luke’s wording. The phrase “disembodied demon” is Ignatius’ rhetorical flourish, but the underlying scene is unmistakably Lukan. The phrase “disembodied demon” sharpens the contrast with docetic teaching. He recounts that after the resurrection Jesus ate and drank with the disciples “like one who is composed of flesh” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 2.3, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 251). His reference here is likely to Luke 24:36-43 as he quoted that passage earlier where Jesus ate in Jerusalem after the resurrection. However Jesus also ate in John 21:1-14. According to Jesus’ divine nature, Christ is eternally united with the Father. According to His human nature, He is touchable, visible, and bodily present.

 

Chapter 4:

 

Ignatius continues by warning the Smynaeans of false teachers. He states that the Smyrnaeans are of the “same mind” as him but that he is guarding them in advance against these false teachers who he calls “wild beast in human form.” He warns and hopes that they should not only not welcome these false teachers but also not meet them if possible. The phrase “wild beasts in human form,” is a metaphor that underscores how docetism dehumanizes the gospel and threatens to tear apart the unity of the church. Yet, even though he warns heavily against these teachers, he urges his audience to pray for them in hopes they may repent, even though that may be difficult. He glorifies God stating that Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has power over this. 

 

Ignatius continues his writings against Docetism by stating that if the acts of Jesus were in appearance only then he himself is in chains in appearance only. His impending martyrdom is only an illusion if what the docetists say is true. This is a reductio ad absurdum aimed directly at the docetists. Ignatius is effectively saying that if their theology is true, then his entire life, his pain, his mission, and his witness collapse into unreality. He states that being “near the sword” means “near to God” and “with the beasts” means “with God.” He states that he suffers together with Christ, which is the crux of his main argument. His persecution and martyrdom is real, not merely an illusion. Therefore, Christ’s suffering and death must also be real and not an illusion. His strength to endure comes from Christ who Ignatius describes as the “perfect human being.”

 

Chapter 5:

 

Ignatius states that some people in their ignorance deny him, and from the context it is likely he is talking about the docetists as shown by his later statement of how they do not confess that Jesus was “clothed in flesh.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 5.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 253). He exclaims that these people are not advocates for truth but instead are advocates for death. Certainly he is speaking of the spiritual second death of unbelievers, which is exactly what Ignatius calls them. He makes the belief that Jesus was truly in the flesh and not just an illusion a part of the gospel itself. The prophets and the law of Moses have not persuaded these unbelievers. The gospel and the suffering of the martyrs have also failed in this retrospect. He even states that these unbelievers have the same opinion about the martyrs suffering as they do Christ’s, that it is in appearance only. Ignatius states that anyone who denies that Jesus was clothed in flesh denies Jesus completely and therefore they are clothed in a corpse. They are spiritually dead and their flesh is simply a corpse. He chose not to mention these peoples names, as they are unbelievers ant it didn’t seem “worthwhile.” Ignatius does not even want to remember them unless they change their mind and believe in the resurrection.

 

Ignatius’ statement that belief Jesus comes in the flesh literally is a part of the gospel is grounded in scripture:

 

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

‭‭1 John‬ ‭4‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Chapter 6: 

 

Ignatius begins to speak and expose the bad teachers and bad beliefs. He starts off by stating that not only are humans subject to judgment if they do not believe the true gospel, in which belief in the literal shedding of the blood of Christ is necessary, but also heavenly beings, angels, and rulers. The bad leaders boast in themselves and their rank or status. Ignatius warns that such authorities are in contrast to true Christian leadership in which it is rooted in faith and love. He argues that those who have heretical opinions about how Christ came to us are contrary to the mind of God. He gives two specific examples:

 

1. Ignatius exposes the character of the false teachers and how they have “no concern for love” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 255). They don’t show compassion for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, the prisoner, those who have been released, the hungry, or the thirsty. No doubt their high ranking pride caused them to look down on the poor and weak. Ignatius stated that love is foundational to Christian leadership earlier, and now he shows that these false teachers are absent of that foundation.

 

2. “They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up.”  (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 255). I have decided to include this entire passage as it is widely debated between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox. A few comments on this passage are in order:

 

1. Who is Ignatius speaking of here?

 

From the prior context above, he is speaking of the docetists, those who believe Christ came in merely appearance as an illusion and not literally. 

 

2. What is the meaning of the passage?

 

With this context and intent in mind it seems the texts is indicating that the docetists were abstaining from the Eucharist because they did not believe Jesus had come in the flesh. Ignatius is more concerned here with condemning Docetic heretics than he is with constructing a positive, detailed, and nuanced view of the eucharist itself. His statement “they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ” may simply mean that the Docetics are rejecting the Supper because they reject the passion of Christ, which the context of this passage seems to indicate. Therefore, since they believe Christ did not suffer in the flesh, the Eucharist meal has nothing to do with Him or His flesh.  For people to read the later doctrine of transubstantiation back into the Ignatian writings is both premature and presumptuous. This does not necessarily mean that Ignatius had a Protestant perspective of the Eucharist, but simply that it is not the smoking gun some seem to believe that it is against the memorialist view.

 

Ignatius’ choice of σάρξ (flesh) rather than the New Testament’s usual σῶμα (body) for Eucharistic language is intentional and theologically charged. Whereas the NT uses σῶμα, as in Matthew 26:26, to speak of Christ’s body in the Passover meal, a term that fits symbolic liturgical usage, Ignatius pointedly selects σάρξ, the word tied to Christ’s material, incarnate humanity (e.g., John 1:14). By doing so, he stresses the tangible, physical reality of the Incarnation in direct opposition to Docetic claims that Christ only appeared to have flesh.

 

Chapter 7:

 

Ignatius continues his warnings of where docetism will lead as he now explains the spiritual consequences of the heretical belief and how the Church is to respond. Ignatius’ phrase “the good gift of God” refers most naturally to the incarnation and passion, the concrete, bodily self-giving of Christ. For Ignatius, to deny Christ’s flesh is not an intellectual mistake but a refusal of God’s saving generosity. They “perish” not because Ignatius curses them, but because rejecting the incarnate Christ severs them from the very life they claim to seek. Ignatius is arguing that for one to deny Christ’s real suffering is to become incapable of rising with him.

 

Ignatius states that Docetists could still repent. Ignatius is not fatalistic; he believes love could reorient them toward the truth they have rejected. Ignatius then shifts to give the Smyrnaeans guidance. He states that they should avoid the docetists for protection. False teachers are spiritually corrosive; proximity breeds confusion. Ignatius refuses to let docetism become a topic of fascination or debate. Ignatius redirects the community’s attention to authoritative sources:

 

1. “Prophets” = the Hebrew Scriptures read christologically.

 

2. “The gospel” = either the preached apostolic message or a written gospel text (likely the former, though the latter is possible).

 

These sources reveal the passion and resurrection as historical, bodily events, the very truths docetists deny.

 

Chapter 8: 

 

Ignatius viewed schisms as a spiritual threat and believed that the church needed to be unified. He tells his audience to follow the bishop just like Christ followed the Father. Two points should be made of this:

 

1. Ignatius believed in regional bishops (as in each letter he mentions or commands his audience to follow their bishop) and so this text from Ignatius should not be viewed as support for the papacy. 
2. The Father cannot err. Nothing false or deceitful can come from the Father. The Bishop should, therefore, follow the word of God in his actions and statement. We should not understand Ignatius to mean that cities should blindly follow the bishop even if it goes against the word of God. 

 

The bishop is the center of the unity, and the presbyters are like the apostles in Ignatius’ analogy. Ignatius makes an extremely strong claim that only the Eucharist celebrated under the bishop’s authority is valid. Only baptisms performed with the bishop’s approval are permissible. Even agape feasts require episcopal sanction. This is extremely unscriptural. Firstly, communion or the Eucharist is given guidelines by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and in that text there is no statement of the necessity of a bishop for it to be valid. Secondly, Christ commands all his disciples to baptize in Matthew 28:18-20. It seems Ignatius is so concerned about unity that he is going farther than what the scripture teaches concerning scriptural traditions and sacraments. 

 

Ignatius states that "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.2, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 255). We should not understand Ignatius to be talking about the Catholic Church denomination today. Instead, the term in its Greek simply means universal or general. The church is “catholic” wherever Christ is present, and Christ is present where the bishop and the gathered community are united. “Whatever he approves is also pleasing to God.” This is not a claim of personal infallibility. It is a claim that God works through the church’s visible order, and that obedience to the bishop is obedience to the divine structure Christ established. This chapter from Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans is certainly controversial and perhaps needs more attention in the future. For now, it seems that Ignatius was so concerned about unity that he added rules and guidelines beyond what the scripture teaches while also elevating bishops to an almost infallible level with the assumption they could not themselves be divisive or go against scripture. This is further seen in chapter nine.

 

Chapter 9:

 

Ignatius exhorted his audience to acknowledge both God and the bishop. The bishops were a visible sign of unity and the christian communities needed to follow their bishop in their region to maintain unity. Ignatius goes so far as to say that acting without the bishop is serving the devil. This reflects his fear of schism. It seems to be extreme compared to the scripture which stresses unity but does not go so far to say that acting without the bishop is like serving or is serving the devil. He then shifts from exhortation to gratitude and blessing. Ignatius states that the recipients are “worthy,” not in a self‑exalting sense, but because their conduct has demonstrated genuine Christian virtue. Their hospitality and encouragement, “you refreshed me in every respect,” are portrayed as tangible acts of love that mirror Christ’s own ministry of refreshment. The author assures them that the same Jesus who empowered their kindness will, in turn, sustain and reward them. Their love was consistent “in my absence and in my presence,” showing that their devotion was sincere rather than performative. The closing line, “God is your reward; if you endure everything for his sake, you will reach him,” reframes endurance not as grim stoicism but as a hopeful journey toward union with God.

 

Chapter 10: 

 

Ignatius continues his gratitude to the church in Smyrna by stating that they did well to welcome Philo and Rhaius Agathopus (some ancient authorities read Rheus and others Gaius), who are deacons of God. Evidently, the Smyrnaeans gave these deacons similar hospitality that they gave to Ignatius as they also were “refreshed” by this community. To “refresh” (anapsychō) means: “to revive the weary.” God sees and rewards such acts which is why Ignatius writes, “[y]ou will certainly not lose any of this!” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 10.1, in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 257). Ignatius deepens his gratitude by noting that the Smyrnaeans did not despise his chains nor shrink back from the shame that Roman society attached to imprisonment, but instead received his suffering as an honor. In this brief but potent remark, he transforms the cultural meaning of chains: what the world treats as disgrace becomes, for the church, a visible participation in Christ’s own passion. Their refusal to be ashamed of him demonstrates their spiritual discernment and their fidelity to the crucified Lord, and Ignatius interprets this as evidence that Christ Himself, the “perfect hope,” will not be ashamed of them at the final judgment. Thus, their hospitality toward Philo and Agathopus and their respect for Ignatius’s suffering are not merely acts of kindness but signs of their alignment with the true faith against the docetic distortions he warns about throughout the letter.

 

Chapter 11:

 

Ignatius continues his letter to the Smyrnaeans by thanking the Smyrnaeans for praying for the church in Antioch, explaining that their prayers helped restore Antioch’s stability after a difficult period. He reminds them that he himself came from Antioch “in God‑pleasing chains,” showing both humility and his belief that his suffering is something God allowed, not something he earned. Ignatius then urges the Smyrnaeans to send a faithful representative to Syria to congratulate the Antiochene church and strengthen the bond between the communities. He treats this practical task as a spiritual act that honors God, showing how early Christian churches supported one another through prayer, letters, and personal messengers. Throughout the section, he praises the Smyrnaeans’ maturity and uses that encouragement to motivate them to follow through, blending pastoral warmth with a clear call to action.

 

Chapter 12-13:

 

The closing of this letter radiates a deeply human warmth that complements its theological seriousness. The writer lingers over names, households, and communities not as an afterthought but as an extension of his pastoral identity. His greeting from Troas, carried by Burrhus, becomes a small window into the lived texture of early Christian fellowship, hospitality, shared labor, and mutual refreshment. Burrhus is held up as a model of service, not because of status but because his presence has tangibly strengthened another believer. 

 

The greetings that follow are richly layered. The bishop, presbyters, and deacons are acknowledged with reverence, but the blessing is not confined to leadership; it extends “individually and collectively” to the entire community. The invocation of Christ’s flesh, blood, suffering, and resurrection, explicitly described as both physical and spiritual. anchors the unity he desires for them. It is a unity grounded not in sentiment but in the concrete reality of Christ’s redemptive work. The cascading benediction of “grace, mercy, peace, patience” reinforces that this unity is sustained by divine gifts rather than human effort alone.

 

The second half of the passage widens the circle even further. Households, spouses, children, and even the “virgins who are called widows” are greeted with the same pastoral tenderness. This phrase likely refers to consecrated women devoted to prayer and service, and its inclusion shows how diverse the early Christian community already was. The writer’s prayers for Gavia, that she be grounded in faith and love “both physically and spiritually,” echo his earlier insistence on the holistic nature of Christian life. The naming of individuals like Alce, Daphnus, and Eutenus adds a personal texture that reminds us these were real people, not abstractions in a theological treatise. The final farewell “in the grace of God” gathers all these threads, affection, exhortation, unity, and blessing, into a single, steadying conclusion.