The Ignatius "Sunday" passage

"BEFORE we make any statements or quotations concerning Ignatius or the epistles ascribed to him, we will give the only passage in the epistles which is supposed to teach the observance of Sunday. 

It is the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Magnesians, and, as translated, reads as follows:  If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a

new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for him as their teacher? 

And therefore he whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead."

The writer of the article, “The Lord’s Day,” in Kitto’s Encyclopedia of Religious Literature, after mentioning several alleged testimonies in favor of Sunday, says: "We must here notice one other passage of earlier date than any of these, which has often been referred to as bearing on the subject of the Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about 100 AD). The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt….The passage is as follows:

If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord’s life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again, through him, and his death which some deny),...how shall we be able to live without him? 

In this way (allowing for the involved style of the whole) the meaning seems to us simple, consistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous introduction of words understood; and this view has been followed by many, though it is a subject on which considerable controversy has existed.

On this view the passage does not refer at all to the Lord’s day; but even on the opposite supposition it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term “Lord’s day” (for which it is often cited), since the material word nuepa is purely conjectural."
---Thus we have the testimony of an unprejudiced witness, a scholar and critic, and an observer of the first day of the week, to the effect that the oft-quoted passage from Ignatius makes no reference whatever to the first day of the week, sometimes erroneously called “Lord’s day.” 

But the candid man who knows the truth about the writings of Ignatius would not consider the Sunday cause strengthened in the least, even if they contained the most explicit and unequivocal reference to it. 

We shall now proceed to learn what we can of Ignatius and his epistles. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The information we get in regard to Ignatius, up to the time of Eusebius, is exceedingly scanty." 

McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia says: "We have no trustworthy accounts of the life and ministry of Ignatius. The chief authority is the “Martyrium Ignatii,” but even those who assert the genuineness of that work admit that it is greatly interpolated."

Uhlhorn, in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, says: "The only sources from which any information can be drawn about this celebrated

person are the epistles circulating under his name. Eusebius knows nothing more of him than what can be extracted from the epistles, with the exception of a few short notices by Irenaeus and by Origen, which he also knows. But the list which he gives of the bishops of Antioch is doubtful with respect to its chronology…. What tradition else has preserved concerning Ignatius—the story that he was the child spoken of in Matthew 18:5, and other fictions by Simeon Metaphrastes and Vincentius—is completely worthless."

And the Encyclopedia Britannica says still further: "The letters of Ignatius cause great difficulty to the critic. From the above, then, it would seem as if not very much would be known with certainty, since we get all our information from the epistles, and the epistles themselves are of somewhat doubtful authority. But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity."

Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again, discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture."

How, then, it may be asked, do we know that such a person existed? 1. There is slight reference made to him in one or two other documents. 

2. If there had not been such a person, it is not probable that letters would have been put forth bearing his name. 

The Catholic Church has never hesitated to manufacture history or doctrine when it could not find what it wanted already written. 

These documents have always been given the name of some person of good repute, and they served the purpose of the church as well as if they were genuine. 

*Now when we remember that this same “mystery of iniquity” was working even as far back as the days of Paul, we need not be surprised that, less than a century later, writings already in existence were garbled, and that designing persons wrote epistles and signed the names of eminent men to them, in order to give them currency. 

Indeed, we find that this very thing was done in the days of Paul, and that his own name was used to give currency to false doctrine. 

In 2 Thessalonians we read his own words: 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, That you be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,... 

Here we find that the Thessalonians had received letters purporting to come from Paul, which declared that the coming of Christ was imminent. 

This was contrary to his first epistle, and he himself, after telling what should take place before the coming of the Lord, says: 5 Remember you not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 

Yet, notwithstanding the instruction which Paul had given them, these letters came so seemingly direct from Paul, that the Thessalonians were greatly disturbed. Paul cautions them against being deceived, and in closing this epistle, he gives them to understand how they may know that an epistle purporting to come from him is genuine. 

---When he comes to the close, he says: 2 Thessalonians 3:17,18 The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 

From this we learn that although Paul usually (probably always, with the exception of the epistle to the Galatians, see Galatians 6:11) employed an amanuensis, he always wrote the benediction and signed his name with his own hand, so that none need be deceived. Any letter bearing a signature other than his might be known to be spurious." 

E.J. Waggoner