"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." - Hebrews 12:1

Thursday, March 14, 2013


The Holy Spirit: Person or Force?

(A brief look at The Shadow of the Almighty by Witherington & Ice)

By Rand York+

 


Ben Witherington III & Laura Ice in their book The Shadow of the Almighty demonstrate an understanding of the Holy Spirit that is Eastern Orthodox and Nicene. They see the Spirit not as a force or an activity or as a relationship, but as a Person: “The question of personhood becomes a pressing one when it comes to dealing with the Holy Spirit, who has often been seen in [western] church history and even today as a force or a power or a presence of God, but not as a person of the Godhead…Nevertheless, there is indeed evidence in various parts of the NT, particularly in the Fourth Gospel and in Paul, that the Spirit is seen not merely as a power but as a person distinguishable from both the Father and the Son” (pp. 101-102).

I have recently read a half dozen or so books on the Holy Trinity by Roman Catholic, Scotch Calvinist, American Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox, and Methodist writers (by “Methodist” I mean that they hail from Asbury Seminary – specifically Ben Witherington III, Laura Ice, and Stephan Seamands). Of these, only the Orthodox and the Methodists viewed the Holy Spirit as a person. The rest all viewed the Holy Spirit as either a divine force (as in “May the Force be with you”) or as the love binding God the Father to God the Son. I found myself stunned that the personhood of the Holy Spirit has been tossed aside by so many. It would appear in these last days that many Christians are, when it comes right down to it, really no longer Trinitarian, but Binarian in their theology. Many Orthodox theologians will tell us that this is the unsurprising result of the addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed (see my article on this).

Make no mistake. The Holy Spirit is from God and is God. It is the Holy Spirit who remains with us and in us until Jesus returns.  It is he who changes and sanctifies us…  “Burn holy flame until the same heart that’s in you is burning in me” (Clay McLean).

This brings us to an additional consideration. We speak of who the Holy Spirit is, but we must also speak of who we are. Witherington and Ice remind us that we are not our own. We are made to be indwelt – to be possessed, if you will.  If we are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, we are an empty house vulnerable to invasion. Jesus put is this way: 24"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' 25When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first" (Luke 11:24-26).

We will be indwelt, but by whom, and what is the difference? Witherington and Ice answer, “The difference is that the Spirit leads, guides, prompts, directs, and in general respects the personal identity or integrity of the individual in which the Spirit dwells. The unclean spirit by contrast coerces, dominates, takes over the control center of the person, simply uses the person to its own ends, even uses the person as a mouthpiece to speak its own words” (p. 109).

We will continue in this process of becoming or unbecoming until we are completely whole or completely destroyed.

©2013 Rand York

Tuesday, March 12, 2013


The Oxford Movement 

By Rand York+
 


Throughout Europe the churches of the Reformation left Rome, and eventually each other, because of theological differences. The exception to this rule was the Church of England. Because the English church left the Catholic fold so King Henry VIII could put away his wife and remarry openly, rather than leaving for reasons of faith, it did not have a strong independent theological identity. Indeed, throughout the rest of Henry VIII’s lifetime, the faith and practice of the Church of England remained virtually indistinguishable from that of the Roman Catholic Church. This changed after Henry’s death, and over the decades and centuries to come, one side or another (Puritans, Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, etc.) would gain the upper hand in the ebb and flow of influence within the church. From the time of the ouster of James II, Britain’s last Catholic monarch, Catholics were viewed with suspicion and even fear. The association of Catholicism with high church meant an increasing dearth of the Anglo-Catholic experience within the Church of England, which in turn made for fertile ground for the Oxford Movement of the 19th century.
 


John Keble

The Oxford Movement, with its focus on apostolic succession and church tradition, along with its view of communion as central to worship, provided an Anglo-Catholic challenge to the Evangelical reformers of the English church. It began with a sermon preached by John Keble on July 14, 1833, to the Judges of Assize at Oxford on the topic of “National Apostacy.” In his sermon, Keble deplored Christians in public life allowing themselves to be swayed by public opinion, rather than holding fast to their Christian principles and remaining obedient to the authority of their bishops, as “Successors to the Apostles.”

The ensuing religious movement swept up older dons like Edward Copleston, Blanco White, and Richard Whately, along with younger men such as Keble himself, Richard Froude, Edward Pusey, and John Henry Newman. In their enthusiasm for encouraging the church to defend its authority, these men produced a number of tracts on a variety of topics. Hence, those responsible for the Oxford Movement were also known as “Tractarians.”

 

John Henry Newman

The most famous of these was John Henry Newman. In his writings, Newman showed appreciation for those doctrines shared by both the Roman and Anglican churches, such as Apostolic Succession and Eucharistic Presence; but he also saw a great significance in the antiquity of doctrines that were distinctly Roman, such as the necessity of Unity and the Supremacy of Rome. Newman saw in the Church of England a “middle way” between Catholicism and Protestantism, but eventually allowed his research and the resultant development of his beliefs to carry him into the Roman Catholic Church, where he was made a cardinal. This apparent betrayal of, or at least disloyalty to, the Anglican Church dealt a severe blow to the later influence of the Tractarians and mitigated the impact of the Oxford Movement.

Still, the Oxford Movement did introduce an Anglo-Catholic vein that became an effective offset to Evangelical influence within the Church of England, which had sought a closer kinship between Anglicans and the Protestants of Europe. This fresh appreciation by the Oxford Movement for the Catholic heritage of the Anglican Church rekindled monasticism in England, brought renewal to the church’s devotional life, and helped restore a balance to the Church of England that has made it unique among the churches of the Reformation.
 
©2013 Rand York

Monday, March 11, 2013


St. Polycarp 

By Rand York+

 

“Knowing then that God is not mocked,

we ought to walk worthily of His commandment and His glory.”

(St. Polycarp to the church in Philippi, ¶5)
 
  
            St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and was martyred most probably in 155 or 156 AD. But he was much more than a bishop and a martyr. Polycarp’s life was the final extension of the Sub-Apostolic Age, and with his death came the close of that age. After the death of Polycarp, it was no longer possible to hear directly from a student of an Apostle. Polycarp’s memory was filled with the teachings and the stories told to him by the Apostle John, and he related those teachings and stories to his flock in Smyrna. One of the most entertaining accounts of John in Polycarp’s recollections is of a time when John “went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words, ‘Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within!”[1] Such stories would sink deep into the hearts of the Christians in Smyrna. When they lost Polycarp, they lost their last eyewitness connection to John, who most probably installed Polycarp in his episcopal office. Because of the advanced years of both John and then Polycarp, the Sub-Apostolic Age lasted far longer in Asia than it did in Europe, where it most likely ended with the death of St. Clement of Rome late in the first century.[2]

            Polycarp’s bishopric also did much to establish the importance of apostolic succession in the church, a decisive tool in combating heresy, especially Gnosticism. New Advent notes, “To whom, demands St. Irenaeus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches?”[3] Helmut Koester sees Polycarp without question as, “the most significant ecclesiastical leader of the first half of II C.E.”[4]

St. Irenaeus on Polycarp

            Polycarp’s disciple, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, tells us that God was so in love with humanity that His original plan, regardless of the Fall, was to become human. It was not the Fall of mankind that somehow forced God to alter His original plan by incorporating incarnation into it. Rather, He had always intended to become human, and mankind’s need for redemption worked completely into that original plan.[5] This teaching likely came from Irenaeus’s teacher, Polycarp, and so the church in Smyrna is quite likely to have receive this same teaching, understanding their Lord to be a God of love desiring to be intimately involved with every aspect of their lives. As Polycarp’s teacher, John left his mark on Smyrna, and as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:7), he understood his Lord to be the lover of souls. Charles Wesley’s Jesus Lover of My Soul or Terry Butler’s Deep Deep Love would have been wonderfully appropriate and expressive songs of worship for the Christians of Smyrna. Here was a church closely bound to each other and to the Lord.

            Through Irenaeus, we get a few glimpses into the life of Polycarp and his influence as a bishop, preserved in part by Eusebius. In one entry, we find that Pope Victor of Rome, in an attempt to fix the date of Easter to be the same throughout the church, managed to excommunicate the churches of Asia soley because of their adherence to the celebration of Easter on the 14th of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. Evidently, this was a major issue for Rome long before the Synod of Whitby! Irenaeus took issue with Victor’s rather extreme behavior by writing him a letter  contrasting his actions with those of his predecessor, Pope Anicetus, who welcomed Polycarp to Rome and recognized his ministry as the bishop of Smyrna, in spite of their disagreement regarding the date of Easter. Anicetur and Polycarp both saw the issue as one of a diaphora, and so did Irenaeus:

“And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetur, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither would Anicetus persuade Polycarp… nor Polycarp Anicetus… But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace.”[6]

 
            The aforementioned is by no means the only example of Polycarp’s post-humous influence as a bishop. Irenaeus also writes to Florinus, a heretical presbyter of the Roman church, appealing to their mutual memories of Polycarp:

“These opinions… Florinus are not of sound judgment… I saw thee when I was still a boy in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court, and endeavoring to stand well with him. For I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than the events of recent occurrence… I can describe the very place in which the Blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed… his personal appearance… and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words… I can testify in the sight of God that if the blessed and apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and cried out after his wont, “O good God, for what times hast thou kept me that I should endure such things?’… This can be shown from the letters which he wrote to the neighboring churches for their confirmation.”[7]


Smyrna & Persecution

While Polycarp’s influence extended throughout Asia-minor and beyond, his primary work was as a pastor to his church in Smyrna. Located on the west coast of Asia Minor, Smyrna (modern day Izmir in Turkey) was perfectly situated to align with Rome in an attempt to offset the naval power of Rhodes. Rome wanted to expand eastward, and Smyrna wanted to be on the winning side. It was a perfect match. Smyrna’s crucial service to Rome earned her the right to build a temple to Tiberius and to become the Asian seat of emperor worship. There were eleven applicants for this honor in the first century, and Smyrna came out on top. In short, in the realm of religion (and therefore of politics) Smyrna became the Rome of the East.[8] As such, Smyrna also became the most difficult city in the empire, outside of Rome itself, in which to be a Christian.

Persecution was never constant in the Roman Empire, as each emperor set his own policy, and most preferred to leave well enough alone and preserve Pax Romana. Still, persecution did break out, and when it did the churches in Rome and Smyrna were often likely to be on the front lines. There was a very hostile Jewish synagogue in Smyrna, referenced by John in Revelation 2:9, that was no doubt quite happy to do some finger pointing at the Christians there, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Romans and to hurt the church.

How Christianity came to Smyrna is not clear, but Smyrna is quite close to Ephesus where St. Paul spread the Gospel, and John is also known to have been active in the area. So the church in Smyrna could well have been a result of Paul’s initial work sealed by John. However it came about, the seed took root and dug deep. Smyrna was one of the most solid churches in Asia, and that solidity carried through for more than a thousand years, as Smyrna was one of the last bastions of the Byzantine Empire to fall to the Moslems.[9] That kind of strength reflects a strong foundation, a foundation laid by Paul, John, and Polycarp.

As the bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp had the privilege of hosting St. Ignatius when he stopped in Smyrna on his way to martyrdom in Rome. Of the seven extant genuine epistles of Ignatius, four were written while he was Polycarp’s guest, two contain references to Polycarp (Ephesians and Magnesians), and one Ignatian letter was written directly to Polycarp. This visit of Ignatius to Smyrna occurred some forty or more years before Polycarp’s own martyrdom. It is noteworthy that Ignatius, like his mentor Paul, aggressively sought out Rome as a final venue for his ministry and martyrdom. Polycarp likewise followed the example of his mentor John, and eschewed seeking martyrdom, or even the limelight. Polycarp was not in the least afraid to die for Christ; he just did not seek it out, but rather was in love with pastoring his flock in Smyrna and doing what he could in those early years of Christianity to establish Apostolic tradition. The letter he received from Ignatius included some deeply insightful pastoral advice: “Every wound is not healed with the same plaster: if the accessions of the disease be vehement, mollify them with soft remedies: be in all things, ‘wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove.’”[10]

In 111-113 AD, Pliny the Younger was the governor of Pontus/Bithynia, and he communicated with his superior in Rome, the emperor Trajan, on many matters that came before him.[11] Pliny’s request for advice on how to deal with Christians, and Trajan’s reply, offer not only a fascinating view of the early Christians from a contemporary outside perspective, but also set in place an imperial policy regarding Christians that remained the law of the empire until well into the third century,[12] and thus was the law of the land at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom. In his request, Pliny related how he had dealt with Christians up to that point, noting that he interrogated anyone denounced to him as a Christian, giving them three chances to repent of it, and then executing those who persisted: “For… stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.” Any of these “obstinate” Christians who were also Roman citizens, he shipped off to Rome to be tried, as was their right of appeal. The more Christians he tried, the more accusations came, until the problem became too large for him to handle without some imperial direction. Trajan’s response is worth quoting here in its entirety, as official Roman policy during the post-Apostolic years of the early church:
 

“You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; it they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it – that is, by worshiping our gods – even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.”[13]

 
            It is often said that adversity can bring out the best or the worst in people. In the case of the church in Smyrna, it seems to have brought out the best. It is notable that in the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, the Lord does not have any corrective words for that church:

 
            “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’ (Revelation 2:8-11)

 
            Philadelphia was the only other church in that neighborhood of west Asia not to receive any upbraiding or correction, but only help and encouragement through God’s Revelation to John (whom this author believes to be the Apostle John, rather than John of Ephesus).[14]

 
Martyrdom

            It is perhaps ironic that, given Polycarp’s long life and ministry, his most memorable contribution is his martyrdom, detailed in a letter the Smyrnæan church sent to the Christians in Philomelium, with the intention that it be copied and forwarded to Christians throughout the world. That these copies were indeed made and sent on is evident by the well-informed references to the martyrdom by many, including Lucian’s account of Peregrinus Proteus (165 AD) and the Letter of the Gallician Churches (177 AD).[15]

            In their account of the martyrdom of their bishop and others from their congregation, the Smyrnæans were quite graphic in their description of the tortures by whippings, wild beasts, and fire, to which the convicted Christians were sentenced in the public arena. The bravery and peace with which the Christians faced their martyrdoms both awed and frustrated the crowd, riling them still further into a loud demand for Polycarp himself to be found and brought to the arena. Polycarp unwillingly left Smyrna and went into hiding in the countryside only after his church persuaded him to do so. At the first farm where he stayed, he was given a vision of his pillow on fire, which he understood to mean that he was to be burned alive. Polycarp escaped to a second farm shortly before the authorities closed in on the first one. They did, however, capture and torture two slave boys for information regarding Polycarp’s whereabouts. One of the boys confessed, allowing the police finally to zero in on their target. Rather than run any more, Polycarp declared his capture to be God’s will, and invited the police to a meal. They granted him an hour to pray, and after two hours of listening to Polycarp’s prayers, many of their hearts were moved to the point that they became genuinely sorry they had come for him.
 
 

            They brought Polycarp back to the city and were met there by the captain of police, Herod, and his father, Nicetus. These two took Polycarp into their carriage and tried to persuade him to save himself by offering incense to Caesar as Lord. When he refused, they shoved him out of the carriage so hard that he bruised his shin. Nonetheless, the aged Polycarp walked resolutely all the way to the stadium where he was brought before the proconsul, who also attempted to persuade him. In only one request did they get any cooperation from Polycarp, and that when they asked him to say, “Away with the atheists.” This he promptly did, waving his hand to the crowd, indicating that they, not the Christians, were the true atheists. When told to revile Christ, he responded that he had served Jesus for eighty-six years and would not turn his back on him now. When offered a chance to convince the crowd, Polycarp disdainfully refused, holding them in contempt as unworthy of discourse. When threatened with wild beasts, he challenged the proconsul to bring them on, because he would never reject righteousness in favor of evil. When threatened with fire, Polycarp noted that such a fire would burn only a little while, but told the proconsul of an eternal fire awaiting the ungodly. Out of options, the proconsul ordered the herald to announce to the crowd three times: “Polycarp hath confessed himself to be a Christian.” Upon hearing it, the stadium was in an uproar, with the crowd shouting that Polycarp was, “the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the puller down of our gods” (Smyrnæans 12:2). They demanded a lion be released to devour Polycarp, but the Asiarch Philip quickly removed himself from any involvement by claiming that it was unlawful to do so since he had already closed the games. At this, the crowd screamed as one that he should be burned alive, and so Polycarp’s vision was fulfilled.

            The crowd went about collecting the wood for the fire themselves, “the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont” (Smyrnæans 13:1). When all was ready, Polycarp stripped himself from the waist up, and loosened his girdle. He had trouble taking his shoes off, because he was unsure of just how they worked. It had been decades since Polycarp had put on his own shoes or taken them off, since so many people had vied for the chance to do it over the years. He was respected and loved for his pure heart and holy life, and this had been a way to show it. He told the authorities he would not need to be nailed to the stake, because God would give him the ability to stay there unmoved, and so they tied him instead. After Polycarp prayed a final prayer, the fire was lit:

“The fire, making the appearance of a vault, like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, made a wall round about the body of the martyr; and it was there in the midst, not like flesh burning, but like [a loaf in the oven or like] gold and silver refined in a furnace. For we perceived such a fragrant smell, as if it were the wafted odor of frankincense or some other precious spice. So at length the lawless men, seeing that his body could not be consumed by the fire, ordered an executioner to go up to him and stab him with a dagger. And when he had done this, there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the fire; and all the multitude marvelled that there should be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect.” (Smyrnæans 15:3 – 16:3).
 
 

            “A dove and” was likely an addition by pseudo-Pionius to the original Smyrnæan letter, but that is not a reason to dismiss it. Pseudo-Pionius was likely engaging in the time-honored tradition of leaving a story better than you found it. And what better addition than this one which touches on the unseen real? If any physical body was ever the temple of the Holy Spirit, it was that of St. Polycarp. When his body was lanced, life was drained from it, both biological and spiritual. The biological we see in the blood; the spiritual we see in the dove. The blood, by the way, is quite believable to have been enough to quench the remainder of the fire, as the fire must have burned low enough to allow the executioner near enough to stab Polycarp.

Quintus

            Smyrnæans 4 relates that a man named Quintus had recently arrived from Phyrgia. Presumably this man was a Christian, since upon learning of the persecution underway in Smyrna, he volunteered himself to face the Roman persecution and persuaded others to do likewise. His follow-through, however, was not as admirable as his original intention. It seems from the account that, following his valiant and apparently heart-felt decision to join the Christians being charged before the proconsul, Quintus was dissuaded from his original intention by a combination of entreaties from the proconsul and the very real threat of a painful and violent death from the jaws (and claws) of the wild beasts ready to tear him and his associates apart for the sport of it in order to entertain the crowd. While we do not know the fate of his compatriots, we do know that Quintus himself yielded to the urging of the proconsul “to swear the oath and to offer incense.” This experience, in addition to Polycarp’s own original flight from the authorities, quite naturally led the Christians of Smyrna to see martyrdom as something to which God calls Christians, and not something to which Christians call themselves: “For this cause therefore, brethren, we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gospel doth not so teach us” (Smyrnæans 4:4). Such a reaction is quite understandable given the circumstances. Quintus betrayed Christ, but then so did St. Peter, and through our sin do we all do the same. Certainly such betrayal is not praiseworthy (in fact, it is damnable), as the Smyrnæans properly note, but what of those voluntary martyrs who did indeed see it through and laid down their lives? Such a blanket rejection as is given by the church in Smyrna is most unfair to those voluntary martyrs who were “faithful unto death” (Revelation 2:10). And what also of those who did not volunteer, but were sought out and charged by the Roman authorities, and yet their courage failed them in the end? No, the evil is to be found in the apostasy, not in the volunteering. Indeed, there were other churches who disagreed with the Smyrnæans on this point, base on their own experiences.[16] Still, it is reasonable to leave the call to martyrdom to God and so to the authorities he has set in place, rather than to the zealous and rash, though well-meant, desires of his chosen ones to die for him.

Pionian Legend

            Before leaving the historical section of this study, the “Pionian Legend” should be addressed. There is a short biography of Polycarp that can be traced back at least to the fourth century, and authored by a certain Pionius. This Pionius managed to include in his story absolutely nothing that corresponds to any authentic tradition regarding Polycarp, and Lightfoot esteems it to be, “a huge heap of falsehood.”[17] It is unclear if it was penned by the same pseudo-Pionius who copied and likely embellished the Martyrdom of Polycarp, or if it might be a Smyrnæan presbyter named Pionius who suffered in the Decian persecution.[18] Regardless, there is no corroboration for it anywhere, and most scholars reject it from consideration as authentic history.

Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians

            In addition to what others wrote about him, it is possible also to glean somewhat from Polycarp’s own epistle to the Philippians. Although it is not long, and contains much that is already found in the New Testament, it is nonetheless a window into the soul of the man. The authenticity of the epistle is virtually unquestioned today, although there was a strong anti-episcopal challenge in seventeenth century. The motive for such a challenge would seem to be unclear since Polycarp, unlike Ignatius, lays no stress at all on the subject of the episcopacy. Nevertheless, reservations regarding this epistle of Polycarp, as well as those of Ignatius, have long since been put to rest.[19]

            Eusebius cites the assertion of Irenaeus that Polycarp was the author of numerous epistles,[20] and it is lamentable that the one to the church in Philippi is the only one to have survived. It would be most interesting to see by comparison if this epistle (likely a cover letter accompanying the letters of Ignatius which the church in Philippi had requested) is representative of Polycarp’s writings.

            This particular letter is remarkably unoriginal and filled with quotations from the New Testament, especially I Peter. It is revealing to compare this with the letters of St. Ignatius, whose knowledge of the New Testament, according to Lightfoot, “betrays itself in casual words and phrases, stray metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coincidences of thought.”[21] This difference between Polycarp and Ignatius should not be surprising, as Polycarp appears to have been a student of the Apostles, particularly John, while Ignatius seems to have been more a of a peer of the Apostles. Hence, Polycarp would naturally be much more careful regarding the orthodoxy of his phraseology than Ignatius would ever need to be.

            Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians may be, as suggested above, filled more with New Testament teaching than with much original thought, but this could very well be a result of Polycarp’s own humility shown in a personal desire that anything written by him should point to God’s truth as revealed through others. It could be because it was basically a cover letter. It could be because of his position as a local pastor, and not a herald to the broader church. Whatever the reason, he is likely to have been much freer in his oral instruction of his pupils and his local flock in Smyrna.

Marcion

Polycarp’s teachings would not be necessarily limited to first century New Testament considerations, but his pastor’s heart would naturally lead him to address many issues contemporary to his congregation, specifically including the second century heresy of Marcion. Indeed, Polycarp’s disdain for Marcion and his teachings is best exemplified by St. Jerome’s mention that Polycarp met Marcion on the street in Rome. When Polycarp took no notice of him, Marcion said, “Do you not know me, Polycarp?” To which Polycarp replied, “Yes, I know you to be the firstborn of Satan.”[22]

            It is in this anti-Marcion connection that a portion of Polycarp’s teaching may indeed have been preserved by Irenaeus in book 4 of Against Heresies. Charles Hill makes a convincing argument that Irenaeus in AH 4:27-32 is doing exactly what he said he could do in his letter to Florinus: namely, recalling from memory the teachings of Polycarp.[23] If Hill and other recent scholars are right, then much more of Polycarp’s own teaching is available than previously thought, and the personal recollection of Irenaeus of those teachings takes on significant added value. One such anti-Marcion teaching that is exceptionally insightful is found in AH 4:29:1: “It is one and the same Lord who inflicts blindness on those who do not believe but set Him at naught (the sun, His creature, has much the same effect on those who, because of some infirmity of the eyes, cannot look upon its light), and bestows a fuller and greater illumination of the mind on those who believe and follow Him.”[24]

Ad Diognetum

            Here it should be mentioned that Hill also makes a less persuasive argument for Polycarp’s authorship of the ad Diognetum, as well. It is a letter, a version of which was discovered in a Constantinople fish market among the packing papers in 1435, the original of which is thought now to be dated most likely from 120-200, primarily because of the style of Greek in which it was written. It is essentially a letter to a pagan named Diognetus, who evidently was in some sort of official position. It begins with an attack on paganism and Judaism, and then proceeds to contrast Christianity favorably against them, focusing especially on the love of God. Andrea Gallandi included it among his Apostolic Fathers in 1765.[25] If indeed authored by Polycarp, its rejection of paganism and Judaism would certainly reflect second-century Smyrna’s strong presence of both religions, and its focus on God’s love would be much in accordance with Polycarp’s heart, both as a pastor and as a disciple of John.

Conclusion

            God gave Polycarp a crucial role in the life and development of the early church, and a long life with which to fulfill that calling. Bishop of the church in “the Rome of the East” at a time when church and empire were just getting to know each other in what would prove to be a volatile relationship, Polycarp exemplified the love, patience, and perseverance that would eventually win an entire civilization to the Christian faith.

©2013 Rand York

 
 
 
Bibliography

 

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981/1990.

Burton, Edward. The Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century. Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909.

Butler, Alban. The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints: St. Polycarp. D.&J. Sadlier & Company, 1864. http://www.cin.org/saints/polycarp.html

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1984.

Hill, Charles E. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament, volume 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982.

Lightfoot, J.B. & J.R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers, one-volume edition. Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 1891/2004.

Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Part Two, Ignatius & Polycarp, Volume 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1890/1981.

New Advent. Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Polycarp. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm , 1911/2003.

O’Donnell, James J. Pliny and Trajan on the Christians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2002. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

Radice, Betty, ed. Early Christian Writings. London: Penguin, 1968.

Richardson, Cyril C., ed. Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1970.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.


[1] New Advent. Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Polycarp. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm , 1911/2003.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Helmut Koester. Introduction to the New Testament, volume 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982) 308.
[5] Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1984) 70.
 
[6] New Advent. Op. cit.
[7] Alban Butler. The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints: St. Polycarp. D.&J. Sadlier & Company, 1864. http://www.cin.org/saints/polycarp.html
 
[8] Merrill C. Tenney. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) v. 5, p. 462.
[9] Ibid. 464.
[10] Edward Burton. The Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century. (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909) 117 (The Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp II:1).
[11] James J. O’Donnell. Pliny and Trajan on the Christians. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2002). http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
[12] Gonzolez. Op. cit. 41.
[13] O’Donnell. Op. cit.
[14] Gonzolez. Op. cit. 29.
[15] J.B. Lightfoot & J.R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers, one-volume edition. (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 1891/2004) 185.
 
[16] Gonzolez. Op. cit. 45.
[17] J.B. Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Part Two, Ignatius & Polycarp, Volume 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1890/1981) 435-436.
[18] Richardson, Cyril C., ed. Early Christian Fathers. (New York: Macmillan, 1970) 121-122.
[19] New Advent. Op. cit.
[20] Eusebius Hist. V.xx.8.
[21] J.B. Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Part Two, Ignatius & Polycarp, Volume 1. Op. cit. 596.
[22] Butler. Op. cit.
[23] Charles E. Hill. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 15.
[24] Hans Urs von Balthasar. The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981/1990) 29.
[25]Betty Radice, ed. Early Christian Writings. (London: Penguin, 1968) 139-140.