St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Epistles

Popular Patristics Series #49

by Ignatius of Antioch, Alexander Roberts (Translator), James Donaldson (Translator)

The epistles of St. Ignatius are presented here in their entirety, their historical insights imparted in an excellent translation to English. Saint Ignatius of Antioch was one of the foremost early Christians, acceding to the role of Bishop of Antioch in circa 67 A.D. . During his tenure as bishop he wrote several Epistles - letters - to various figures of the time. These are treasured as some of the earliest surviving Christian texts. As a committed traveller, Ignatius made effort to spread Christianity's influence. He coined the term 'Catholic Church', popularly used to this day. This edition contains letters generally agreed as authentic for their reference by the Roman historian Eusebius in the 4 th century. These are as Epistle to the Ephesians; Epistle to the Magnesians; Epistle to the Trallians; Epistle of the Romans; Epistle to the Philadelphians; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans; Epistle to Polycarp; Bishop of Smyrna. For the sake of completeness, this edition also contains annotated epistles whose authenticity is disputed by historians and Epistle to the Tarsians; Epistle to the Antiochians; Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch; Epistle to the Philippians; The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius; Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, Zarbus; First and Second Epistles to St. John; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Catholic, History, Church History

142 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 107

About the author

"Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Greek: Ἰγνάτιος Ἀντιοχείας, Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117), also known as Ignatius Theophorus (Ιγνάτιος ὁ Θεοφόρος, Ignátios ho Theophóros, lit. "the God-bearing"), was an Apostolic Father and the third bishop of Antioch. He was reputedly a student of John the Apostle. En route to Rome, where he met his martyrdom by being fed to wild beasts, he wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of very early Christian theology. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops."

-- Wikipedia

Reviews

[Fr. Kyle]

St. Ignatius of Antioch is one of my friends. I return to him year after year not just within the liturgy of the hours, but also in personal reading. This is great spiritual reading. It's short, concise, and directed.

For the historian and seeker, Ignatius provides the 'missing link' in the connection between the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church you know today. He sees the unity of the community in the bishop, who is Christ himself for the people.

His zeal for martyrdom can be difficult to stomach, but for me it challenges me to grow in my faith.

[Justin Tapp]

Why don't evangelical Christians study these historical texts more? There seems to be something taboo about quoting the early church fathers, yet nothing taboo about quoting 20th century sources, Puritans, or whomever else after, say, Calvin. These epistles from Ignatius Bishop of Antioch to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Rome, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Tralles, and to fellow bishop Polycarp are great history. If you've ever asked "what happened next?" while reading Paul and Peter's epistles, read Ignatius.

I believe these works also help in determining whether we're interpreting a New Testament text correctly. How does Ignatius quote from the gospels and epistles? He's writing to Ephesus and others after Paul, Peter, and John did, knew their strengths and weaknesses. Ignatius is writing from Syria (Antioch). He came to be Bishop of Antioch around 67 A.D. knew Polycarp, would have known John and was likely discipled by him. He died a martyr in 108 A.D. Ignatius was the first to use the word "catholic" for the universal church, which was later given a capital "C" and that makes Protestants today uncomfortable.

I find Ignatius continues the concern found in Peter and Paul's epistles for orthodoxy. Ignatius comments on the eucharist, the body and the blood, remind many of transubstantiation and makes them uncomfortable. Without a commentary, I see him referring more to the danger of gnostic influences who denied that God took on flesh. I also am reminded that the order of succession was important to the early church; if you didn't get your teaching from either the circulating gospels or epistles, or from someone who knew and got their commission from the Apostles, then it was in error. I think this sheds light on his exhortation not to take the eucharist or be baptised apart from an elder.
He has similarly strong Pauline and Johannine concern about the influence of Judaizers: "For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity."

Ignatius wrote these epistles rather hastily, likely on his way to martyrdom. For early Christians, that was just a given reality-- Jesus, his disciples, and the next generation expected and met that end with joy and peace. But Ignatius wanted them to meet it holding fast to the right gospel as well.

"I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ."

5 stars.

[J. Michael]

Some of the most important stuff I’ve read outside of Holy Scriptures.

[Lennart Kreide]

Irgendwie besonders Briefe von jemandem zu lesen, der die Apostel möglicherweise persönlich kannte, als „die Erde noch warm war vom Blute Christi“. Ignatius ist gefangen auf dem Weg nach Rom wo er hingerichtet werden soll.

Mein Highlight-Zitat in seinem Brief an die Römer:

„Ich ermahne euch mir kein Wohlwollen zu zeigen. Lasst mich der wilden Tiere Fraß sein, durch die zu Gott zu gelangen ist. Gottes Weizen bin ich, und durch wilder Tiere Zähne werde ich gemahlen, auf das ich als reines Brot des Christus erfunden werde. Schmeichelt lieber den wilden Tieren, dass sie mir zum Grab werden und nichts von meinem Körper überlassen, damit ich nach meinem Tode noch jemandem zur Last falle.“

[Gabriel Franke]

Bishops are Apostolic

Submit to the Episcopate

Christ is Lord

I’m in Greece

[Noah Reagan]

Crazy insightful read. Guy that’s literally discipled by Peter and Paul, feels like reading scripture I never knew about. It’s not a lengthy body of work and was a super light read but was extremely helpful and challenging.

Encouraging to see his theology nearly identical to that of scripture which definitely strengthens my faith in early church orthodoxy, but honestly his views on Episcopal structure and church government got me questioning a lot

He says crazy things about the authority of Bishops in this and I don’t know if I can take it all to be culturally specific. Raises questions and honestly just sadness about how divided the church is today. I mean bro literally said you’re not taking communion if you’re taking it apart from the bishop and the local body. What does that say about our theology of communion?

Got me thinking a lot and put me on a road of reading the church fathers which I can’t thank him enough for. You’re lit Ignatius sorry you got torn apart by wild beasts in the coliseum

[Ryan Chan]

3.5

The style reminds me of Paul, in the sense that both people are writing letters!

I think one of my bigger takeaways is the constant discussion of the bishop, which seems to eclipse that of the presbytery and the deacons (though the latter two are still usually appended as a “and likewise” kind of comment.) I’d want to learn more about how he understood these offices. It also sounds like the bishop would always be interacting with the lay people—is this the case today too?

I also thought reading the letters would be super shocking or startling, as some of the reviews seem to suggest, but I didn’t seem to see anything like that (apart from the constant talk about the bishop), at least coming from a Protestant/Evangelical view. I guess that’s a good thing? 😆

It was also nice to just read the continued encouragement of St. Ignatius to the communities he was writing to; again, a bit reminiscent of Paul (maybe because we are coming out fresh from a Paul course.)

A good (and relatively short) read! Perhaps will revisit since I may have missed some things.

[Monique Mathiesen]

Wow! Three things really stood out to me.

Firstly, that St. Ignatius truly didn’t see justification as a one and done thing where Christ is attained (past participle). His emphasis on salvation being a future reality really hits hard against my previous Protestant views. He truly saw his salvation as something he would reach in faithfulness (by the grace of God) not mere belief.

“Now I begin to be a disciple...
Let fire and cross, flocks of beasts, broken bones, dismemberment.. come upon me, so long as I attain to Jesus Christ.”

Secondly, he constantly warned the church from divisions and and religious activities not authorized by the bishop. His reverence for the role of the Bishop and his view of those operating outside of the Bishop is crystal clear, thus confirming the Catholic idea of a visible church. He also makes clear the three fold office of bishop, priest, and deacon.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. [] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [7 Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

And thirdly, his view on the Eucharist being the true body and blood of Christ and that this Eucharist could only be truly administered under the authority of the bishop.

“Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with His Blood.”

“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.” Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).

To those seeking the true church, this book is extremely confirming.

[Matheus]

The context in which this is written only makes it stronger.

Ignatius shows the importance of unity in the Church, wrecks gnostics and those who deny the body and blood in the Eucharist, and bonus, destroys Islam five centuries before Mohammed shows up. Absolute chad.

I’ve been abandoning my baptist roots for quite a while and this strengthens that tendency.

This is a must read for every christian.

[chelsey]

bro that was awesome :')

[Jesús]

Who do you believe: the Reformers like Zwingli/Luther or the very words of Christ?
Ref: https://youtube.com/shorts/EKBcWbv7ydc [Spanish]

[Truls Ljungström]

Jag vill först säga att jag läst en annan utgåva, så jag är inte säker på att min rekommendation går även för kindle-versionen. Ignatius tar upp tre teman genomgående: Att undvika inbördes strider, undvika att ändra i religionen genom personlig gnosis, och vidmakthålla ett avstånd mot världen och dess smuts. Detta går i Ignatius personliga fall så långt som till en längtan efter martyrkronan.

Ignatius är befriande ärlig med sina preferenser - det viktiga är att folk håller ihop, visar respekt till och med mot sina minsta medlemmar, och förhåller sig ödmjuka mot varandra och mot de lokala biskoparna. Genom denna ortopraxi menar Ignatius att praktisk kristendom föds; vilket inte vill säga att doktrin är oviktigt enligt Ignatius - framförallt i relation till treeninghetsförnekare är han mycket skarp - men den förefaller oviktigare. Återkommande är order att skydda änkor, och vidmakthålla harmoniska familjeförhållanden. Flera av breven är adresserade till enskilda individer - diakonissor, diakoner, äldstar, och till och med jungfru maria (detta ligger under "spuriösa brev").

Om man är intresserad av förnicensk kristendom rekommenderar jag denna bok. Som vishetslitteratur duger den, men är inte det som jag självklart skulle gå till först.

[Alex Connell]

I read St. Ignatius' letter to the Church in Philadelphia as a part of my sermon prep for Revelation 3:7-13. I decided to read the rest of the volume. The version I had access to was 2 volumes, so it only contained 4 of Ignatius' letters.

These letters are a great look into the early church, composed of the generation of people just after the apostles.

[Mark]

A news article came out a few weeks ago claiming the discovery of the oldest known inscription stating that Jesus is God, from ~230AD. This puzzled me, as all stupid headlines do, because the article authors (and many scholars) act as if this is A) surprising, B) new, or C) necessary. The more I read (of the Fathers, of Church history), the more I'm shocked at the willful incredulity of many people, especially concerning the antiquity of Christian doctrine and the unity of Christian teaching. Both can be plainly found in Ignatius of Antioch, who fired off a flurry of letters before he was executed in Rome.

Ignatius (along with Polycarp) was taught by Saint John himself, the author of the fourth Gospel. Ignatius plainly states in his letters that Paul "was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh mention of you in Christ Jesus." Here he's writing to the Ephesians, which means that that final sentence actually gives direct primary document testimony that Paul did in fact write that epistle (contrary to contemporary scholarship, who rely on mistrusting eyewitnesses, dismissing ancient consensus, and other methodological absurdities).

Most infuriatingly of all, in almost every single one of his letters, he makes a point of including a proto-Apostles Creed which explicitly states that Christ is God, and that Christ had human flesh, died, and bodily rose (on a couple occasions he makes fun of "certain persons who are godless, that is unbelievers, [who] say that He suffered only in semblance, being themselves mere semblance"). All of his letters were written somewhere between 108-140 AD, with the earlier dates being more likely (during the reign of Trajan, c. 98-117 AD). The reason why I'm infuriated is that for some reason, the burden of proof is on orthodox Christianity to prove its legitimacy, when you could not get any more antiquity, unanimity, continuity, and consistency if you tried. Not only do all of the Gospels state that Christ was God, but almost every Church Father since also attests to this. The burden of truth rather should be on the much later, much more esoteric gnostics to prove they're the "real" church, or on contemporary scholars to prove that the ancient testimonies aren't trustworthy. But the gnostics are such obvious forgeries and perversions that they don't deserve any further rebuttal than Irenaeus already gave them. As for contemporary scholars, they are much smarter, but dare I say not much wiser.

So with all that idiocy out of the way, what else do we learn from Ignatius? For one, he is extremely concerned about oneness, about unity: of the Church, of God, and of the Church with God. He knew one of the last living apostles (if not the last), and with them all gone he knows how imperative it is to keep the faith. Contrary to contemporary insults against their intelligence, he and every other ancient knew how quickly legends can spring up, how teachings can change, and how stories can become corrupted, which is why he emphasized so strongly that they adhere to people who were taught by the original apostles, namely the Bishops.

In making this assertion, possibly the one he is most concerned about across all of the letters, he makes an interesting argument along the lines of what would later be called the "Great Chain of Being:" ...yet not to him [the bishop], but to the Father of Jesus Christ, even to the Bishop of all. For the honour therefore of Him that desired you, it is meet that ye should be obedient without dissimulation. For a man doth not so much deceive this bishop who is seen, as cheat that other who is invisible; and in such a case he must reckon not with flesh but with God who knoweth the hidden things. Here Ignatius sets up a chain of transmission, responsibility, and power from God the Father, to Christ, to the bishops and other church leaders (through the Holy Spirit).

Other quotes which echo the same thing:

...that ye run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ.

...joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity. Let no man be deceived. If any one be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God].


Though Ignatius was implicitly denouncing the gnostics and what would eventually become the Arians, his warnings also align with Mormon and progressive Christian tendencies:

...As children therefore [of the light] of the truth, shun division and wrong doctrines; and where the shepherd is, there follow ye as sheep. For many specious wolves with baneful delights lead captive the runners in God's race; but, where ye are at one, they will find no place.

...Abstain from noxious herbs, which are not the husbandry of Jesus Christ, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found division among you, but filtering.


I found this last sentence very interesting, not "division," but "filtering;" I don't know what the original Greek is, but I think this very filtering out of false doctrine is something that contemporary progressive Christians are so deathly afraid of; they can't give up their false gods (social trends, politics), and thus damn themselves, separating themselves from the unity of the traditional church:

For if He should imitate us according to our deeds, we are lost. For this cause, seeing that we are become His disciples, let us learn to live as beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by another name besides this, is not of God.


(Hence people who put social trends and politics before doctrine, etc.). As a rule, I don't find it necessary to argue against progressive Christian readings. All I will say is: though they think they take more seriously Christ's command to love our neighbors, they (like Tolstoy and Calvin and all others who cherry pick the verses/books/church fathers who they want to read), the progressives are easily the worst group in terms of perverting the Gospel. Their central problem is that they simply do not believe "There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord." They place themselves in the place of God, asking God to conform to their trendy morality, rather than the other way around. To do this, they make soteriological exceptions in the direction of universalism, they conveniently forget Christ's teachings about judgement, they forget Christ's extremely harsh moral teachings about sexuality (Matt 5, Mark 9), and they choose to forget every Apostle and Church Father's teachings which back these up. As Ignatius says earlier in his epistles:

They that are of the flesh cannot do the things of the Spirit, neither can they that are of the Spirit do the things of the flesh; even as faith cannot do the things of unfaithfulness, neither unfaithfulness the things of faith. Nay, even those things which ye do after the flesh are spiritual; for ye do all things
in Jesus Christ.


To me, ever since I was a child, one of my central beliefs, even deeper than some verbal dogma I recited, something I felt and knew to be true inside my every waking moment, was the "in, not of the world" distinction. To me, this is where progressive Christianity ceases being Christian altogether. As Ignatius sums it up, "The Work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of might whensoever it is hated by the world." This directly echoes the sentiments of Paul in 1 Corinthians where he boasts of Christ, not of logical argumentation or social conformity. Christianity became the juggernaut it currently is because it was and still remains counter-cultural and non-conformist in literally the only way which actually matters. It is the only religion in the world which could inspire such strangely beautiful martyrdoms, ones where zealous men and women (such as Ignatius) willingly went to their deaths, not resisting, not launching a guerilla war, not starting some revolution (Ignatius warns Christian slaves to not get egotistical about their spiritually high rank in the eyes of God!). Christ's teachings, straight from the apostles, through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the only thing which could prompt Ignatius to write the beautiful sentence "I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]."

Thus through death, life and resurrection. What a profound, shocking claim. Let's be careful, lest we water it down with trends, allegorization, or selfish fears. Let us instead boast in it.

[Samuel Hunter]

Recommended to me by my friend Zach Miller, I found the Letters of Ignatius (Popular Patristics) to be an interesting study of martyrdom. If I’m being honest Ignatius occasionally came off as masochistic almost desiring to die, but I think a better reading would be Pauline IE “To live is Christ, to Die is gain”. I was surprised to find myself more impressed by the expanded pseudo-Ignatius which I felt enriched and clarified many of the saints points as well as St John Chysostom’s biography which drew out Ignatius’ death as a public testimony to all of Rome. I was particularly moved by his call to “bless those wild animals” before his devouring in the coliseum. He saw his suffering and death as a reflection of Christ and believed that where he ended, Christ began.

I’ve included a few of my favorite quotes:

“Grant me this brothers: do not hinder me from living, do not wish that I should die. Do not give the world the who wishes to be God’s, nor charm him with the material. Allow me to receive the pure light. When I have arrived there I will truly be human.” (Pg 71)

“I however do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality” (147)

When talking about unity in the church and submission to the bishop:
“As to a single temple of God you should all run together, as upon one altar, upon one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father and is one with him, to whom re returned.” (pg 49)

[Alexa Bennett]

This should be required reading for all Christians. These letters are so essential to understanding the beginning of the church and what the apostles passed down to us from Christ himself. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle St. John. He knew St. Peter and St. Paul, he followed St. Peter as the Bishop of Antioch. To read his letters to the church on the road to his own martyrdom is so powerful. How is it that I’m only just now reading the early church fathers? It breaks my heart I didn’t have exposure to this history sooner. Praise the Lord for opening my eyes. I’m so grateful. I loved the inclusion St John Chysostom’s sermon on his life exhorting believers to stop and remember the sacrifices that the early martyrs made for us to know Christ and the gospel. It’s truly incredible.

[Nathan Stine]

It’s great to see that the same faith in Christ and joy in the church has marked God’s people throughout the ages. I don’t see Ignatius’ split between επίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος, but I understand his desire to develop unity behind one person in such a discordant time. Still seems too weak of an argument to have such a hierarchical church polity though. I definitely love how much he lifts up the cross as the centerpiece of our faith as well as our fellowship. True communion must come out of true doctrine. Separating them leads to either a theological club with no familial bonds or a social club with no larger meaning, both perversions of the church.

Good read for sure.

[Adonis McReynolds]

Blessed Ignatius led by the Spirit of God stood firm as a rock in the faith and provided unbelievable insight into the apistolic mind. He is one of the first five church fathers I read and his explicit statements on church government and other matters of Christian practice convinced me to re-evaluate my faith in the best of ways. Thankful for these precious letters!

[Garett Collins]

Very eye opening on what the earliest church taught when it comes to the Eucharist, formal authority structure and how one should submit to it, and more.

My favorite quote from this book was St. Ignatius' letter to St. Polycarp, "Stand Firm, as an anvil when it is smitten. It is part of a great athlete to receive blows and be victorious."

[Mera Adel]

اعتقد بنحتاج دايما نرجع لوقت الأباء عشان منتوهش و دة فعلا من اجمل الكتب, محتاج يترجعلوا كل شوية

[Daniel Kleven]

"the bishop"! For a Baptist, I've got a lot to chew on here...

[T.G.P. T.G.P.]

I learned about Saint Ignatius months ago from one of Lee Strobel's books, The Case of the Historical Jesus. I decided to buy the epistles to learn more. He was one of the first bishops of Antioch and a student of Saint John, who wrote the revelation. The text of these epistles is known in three different recensions, or editions: the Short Recension, found in a Syriac manuscript; the Middle Recension, found only in Greek manuscripts; and the Long Recension, found in Greek and Latin manuscripts. They are a good source of information for those who want to learn the beliefs of the first church, back in the first century, but also proof of the apostolic succession from the Prophet to the bishop.

[Not Well Read]

[Disclaimer: this review was written some time after my completion of the book. Please judge it accordingly.]

The letters of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, form one of our most important documents for our understanding of the early church. With his execution looming, Ignatius took the time on his journey, lugged around in chains by the brutish Roman soldiers, to write to various Christian communities, mainly to stress the importance of unity and togetherness within the church but, more covertly, to stress the primacy of the bishop over all other clergy and congregation. (In connection to the priority of a ‘united’, καθολικός, church, he is also credited with coining the ‘Catholic’ church. His letters also give us some hints of the goings-on in these communities in the second century, and of Ignatius’ approval or disapproval of them, but I think the most important contribution is to show where the disconnect between the life and times of Christ and the church as we know it start to arise.

Reviewing them more as historical documents than as religious texts, I suppose I am not as taken with them as others seem to be: an interesting point, for instance, is that he repeatedly encourages the churches not to engage with travelling prophets and other ‘disruptive’ figures, but writes to Polycarp giving him advice on how to engage them. He seems to me to be playing the game pragmatically here, on the assumption that the congregations are impressionable and can be led astray where Polycarp is not likely to budge from his own place of authority. He knows where his allies are when it comes to his agenda of unity, order, and episcopacy.

More critically, on the other hand, if he really does see himself in the same position as Christ, then he is more egotistical than the subsequent martyrs who tended to refuse the comparison. (He also underlines the point by saying that the bishop symbolically is Christ, or should be in the eyes of the community.) This could perhaps suggest he worked on the assumption that other churches and officials really would take his advice, though we have no evidence that they actually did so. He may have really believed this, and believed it was the best thing for the church and the wellbeing of its congregation, but there seems to be a consciousness of this posturing in his letters while at the same time he tries to downplay it through his own obsequiousness to other churches.

Authenticity, naturally, is always a thorny issue with such early texts, as it is with Paul, though Ignatius’ inclusion in Eusebius is usually a good testament to their reliability. Any edition should make clear that some of the letters are considered forgeries, so this should be a caveat lector accounted for. Unfortunately the person of Ignatius is heavily characterised by those who took up his cause later on — he seems to have had much more impact in the long term than in his own time, though of course it’s difficult to get an idea of whether the letters’ recipients would have taken heed of his advice or not.

All in all, it’s important not to let the ultimate triumph of Ignatius’ vision get in the way of how we assess these letters — he may be a preeminent church father to us, but was probably not viewed as such an authority in his own time. Of course, martyrdom helps matters somewhat, and he could only anticipate that status in his own lifetime. Whatever the cause of his arrest was, he seems very apologetic about it, and very eager not to have the church of Antioch tarred with the same brush as they carry on without him. For a historian, it’s important to avoid hindsight bias and to do our best to review the second-century context, even when evidence scarcely makes it possible to do so; for a Christian, to remember the humbleness and precariousness of the Christian church in its origins.

[Maresa]

Reading this book feels like eavesdropping on the "Early Church" in its most literal sense. Writing around 107 AD, Ignatius provides a staggering perspective from a man who lived within a generation of Jesus and likely learned at the feet of the Apostles (tradition says John). For anyone curious about how the first Christians actually lived, prayed, and organized themselves, this is a primary source that can’t be ignored.

The book does an excellent job of contextualizing Ignatius’s seven letters, specifically tackling the "big questions" that still ripple through Christianity today:

• The Eucharist: Ignatius refers to it as the "medicine of immortality," showing a very early and profound belief in the Real Presence (many Protestant denominations outside of Lutherans and Anglicans have departed from this)
• Church Structure: He is one of the earliest advocates for the clear role of the Bishop (Episcopos) as a point of unity for the local church
• Martyrdom: His journey to Rome to face the wild beasts is harrowing. He doesn't just accept his fate; he embraces it as the ultimate way to "imitate the passion of my God."

One of the most moving sections of the book for me is Ignatius's exhortation on Christian discipline and community. He writes:

Seek to please the one in whose army you serve, from whom also you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism remain your weapons; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your endurance as your full armor. Your down payment is your works so that you can receive back wages. Be patient with one another as God is with you.”

This passage perfectly captures his "soldier of Christ" mentality, balanced with a deep, Christ-like tenderness for the flaws of others.

This is an essential read for history buffs and believers alike. It strips away centuries of later theological debate and takes you back to a time when the faith was dangerous, fresh, and incredibly focused.

[Gabriel Gioia Ávila Oliveira]

Inácio foi um bispo da igreja de Antioquia na virada do século II d.C. que foi martirizado publicamente em Roma. Suas cartas, que somam 7 no total, são suas últimas recomendações e conselhos para outros bispos e suas igrejas, em estilo bastante parecido com Clemente, aproximadamente uma década antes, e principalmente Paulo.

Em comparação com Clemente, Inácio é bem mais apaixonado por Jesus, e é consciente do que ele chama de "enraizamento" na fé e no Amor, através do Espírito Santo. Assim como Clemente, há um foco acentuado no testemunho e vida prática perfeitos, com implicações de mérito nessa vida santificada, coisa tipicamente católica e já diferente do que Paulo escreveu. A prática perfeita parece ser o objetivo ao invés da consequência da vida entregue ao Espírito Santo.

Além disso, o martírio é um tema recorrente nas cartas. Enquanto escreve, Inácio está sendo escoltado até Roma para ser executado em um espetáculo público, jogado para ser comido por animais, talvez no Coliseu. Como seria de se esperar, Inácio está em paz com seu sacrifício em nome de Jesus. Mas me soou exagerada a voluntariedade dele em morrer executado, quase como se ele estivesse torcendo para que acontecesse. Como se ele preferisse ser vitimizado e morrer mártir do que viver em ministério nesse mundo. Fiquei pensando que até o martírio pode ser egoísta, se o objetivo for a glória de ser um mártir.

[Emmanuel Borisyuk]

The epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch are a collection of letters written by St. Ignatius to 7 churches/communities of the early church. This collection of writings is very important in the early church history of the Catholic and Orthodox churches (New Testament Churches). He was an early church father who was appointed by Saint Peter the Apostle to be the first bishop of Antioch. He coined the term “Catholic” which is still used to this day. His life ended when he was martyred on his way to Rome.
I think this collection of letters is extremely important to over 1.7 billion Catholic and Orthodox Christians who live today because it explains a lot about the early church. I believe that St. Ignatius was holy and beneficial to the early church. St. Ignatius's explanation that the "Eucharist" is not symbolic but is the literal body and blood of Christ, he claimed to have gotten this information from St. John the Apostle, and additionally, he plays a big role in why the “Eucharist” is a sacrament done by all Christians to this day. St. Ignatius, appointed by St. Peter the Apostle and a disciple of St. John the Apostle, solidifies him as an important figure in the early church. Overall, I think the collection of letters is important and helps answer many questions that a new beginner in faith might have.

[Joseph]

The Epistles give us the story of Ignatius, a Bishop in Antioch. He was a true Christian willing to die for Christ's name. He believed in the Eucharist, and condemned those who denied the Host as truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

pg 67-68: pg8: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."


This historical record disproves the Protestant conspiracy theory that the Early Church denied the Eucharist as literally the Body and Blood of Christ. It is proof of the basic Eucharistic doctrine held by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches on the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Daniel]

A disciple of St. John, a central theme in his letters is a call to unity, and in particular, to be united with the bishop and do nothing without the bishop's consent.

Is this the first reference to some sort of real presence in the Eucharist?
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."

[Aaron]

A phenomenal collection of epistles from Saint Ignatius of Antioch. This man looms large as a giant of the faith in the early Church. I can't recommend this enough to both Orthodox and Catholic readers. I also highly recommend that any Protestant who desires a "faith seeking understanding" give these a read, they may change certain perspectives and open eyes.

[Jamie]

The importance of study of the early church fathers cannot be understated, particularly one who studied under the Apostles. A fantastic read, and fantastic as a guide for spiritual advisement. Though addressed to many different early churches, a reader can take much from the universal, inspired message of St Ignatius.