The interpretation that Christ in the flesh be- came God has the context against it, for Christ did not become dyiwriTos, nor iK deov : He realizes at one and the same time the two antinomial series of predicates. Through the irvevp-a wiiich is iv crapKl, Christ is one with the father : He is TrvevixaTLKGis 7]v(:j/jLivos T(p irarpl (Smyrn. iii. 3), and yet after the flesh He is subordinate to the Father ({viroTayel's'] rui irarpl Kara ffdpKa, Magn. xiii. 2) and has pleased God who sent Him (e{)y)piaTr)ffev t(^ irinxpavri avrdv, viii. 2). It is very difficult (in spite of Harnack [Dogmengesch.* i. 21G]) not to recognize in these statements of Ignatius all the presuppositions of the doctrine of the two natures ; in any case, adoptianism is excluded.
Tlie union of man and God in Christ is nowhere defined by Ignatius, but one passage may be taken to have this meaning: 'If,' says Ignatius to the Ephesians (v. 1), ' I in a short time had such con- verse (ToiavT7]v crvvrideiav) with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in tlie Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him (iyKeKpafiivovs) as the Church is with Christ Jesus and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity ' ('iva irdvra iv evorijTi (rv/j,4>wva fj). Here we have the union of Christ with the Father compared to the union of the Church -with Christ, and the union of the believers with the bishop. The two terms o-vviqdeLa and iyKpa(ns are not equivalent, the second being metaphorical, and only the first counting. But it would be rather risky, especially when dealing with Ignatius, to base a whole logical theory on a single word.
Christ is called ^eo's, although He is distinct from the Father. Ignatius speaks, e.g., of 'the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God' (iv 0e\ri- fjLari rod warpbi Kal 'IrjcroO ^piffrou toD deov i]i^u>v, Eph. inscr.). Even in His Incarnation Jesus is called Oeos : 6 ^e6s i7ai<2»' 'iTja-oOi 6 Xpiffrbs iKvo(pop-^0T) vvb Mapias Kar oUovop-iav 6eov (Eph. xviii. 2 ; cf. jiom. inscr. and iii. 3). Von der Goltz is quite ju.stified in saying that Ignatius distinguishes between Christ and the Fatlier in so far as He is a person, pre-existent, historical, or exalted ; all modalism is excluded, and only subordination remains possible. In the opinion of the present writer Ignatius regards Jesus Christ as God in His own person. Von der Goltz supposes that for Ignatius, Jesus Christ is God in relation to us, but Ignatius liimself excludes relativism. In Eph. xv. 3 he writes: 'Nothing is hidden from the Lord, but even our secrets are nigh unto Him. Let us therefore do all tilings as knowing that He dwelleth in us, to the end that we may be His temples and He Himself may be in
us as bur God. This is so, . . .' ('iva Si/xev airov vaoi Kal avTos iv y^plv 9e6s' birep Kal icxTiv). Christ is our Godnotonly in .so far as He lives in us, but absolutely (Hirep Kal icmv). The expression debs i]/xu>v does not give God a purely subjective value. Again, Jesus Christ is not only our God or God for us, He is very God : ' I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you ' (So^d^ia 'lyiaovv Xpicrrbv rbv debv rbv oiiruis ii/uids ao<piaavTa, Smyrn. i. 1) ; cf. Trail, vii. 1 and Smyrn. x. 1, where the designation 0e6s is given to Clirist absolutely. We shall omit Smyrn. vi. 1, where a gloss has been inserted in the text.
The work of Christ consisted in giving man a knowledge of God. Jesus Christ is the \6yos of God, come forth from the silence of God (Magn. viii. 2). He is the mouth which lieth not, and in which the Father hath spoken truly (rb dxf/evbis (TTofia iv (^ 6 irarrip iXdXijcrev dXijdQs, Mom. viii. 2). He is the knowledge of God : ' wherefore do we not all walk prudentlj', receiving tlie knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ' (Xa^ovres Oeovyvuicnv, 5 ia-Tiv'Ir]cTovs Xpiards, Eph. xvii. 2; cf. iii, 2). The teaching of Christ is a doctrine of incorruptibility (diSaxv d<pdap<Tias, Magn. vi. 2). The iucorrupti- laility is not the fruit of the 8i8ax'^ but the fruit of the Death and Resurrection of Christ. The Cross, ' which is a stumbling-block to them that are un- believers, is to us salvation and life eternal ' (c7w- rrjpia Kal ^urj aldsuios, Eph. xviii. 1). God became manifest in the flesh to prove the newness of im- perishable life, and the destruction of death (Kaiv6- T7)Ta d'Cdiov ^ojrjs . . . davdrov KardXvatv, xix. 3). The Passion of Christ and His blood shed for us are an earnest of this renewal of humanity ; it is what Ignatius calls olKovo/j.ias eis rbv Kaivbv dvOpwirov 'iTjaovv Xpicyrdv, iv ry avroO irliTTei Kal iv tj avrov dydiry, iv irddei avTou Kal dvaarda-ei (xx. 1). Ignatius gives no explanation of this mystery — either of the virtue of Christ's Passion or of the manner in which this virtue is communicated to the believing. But he lays great stress on the Passion of Christ and on the d^dapaia it procures — an insistence which is explained when we remember not only that he was refuting Docetism but also that tliis tenet of Pauline tiieology was for him one of fundamental importance.