Misquoting Ignatius of Antioch

Objection: Christians affirm that Jesus is “the exact imprint of the Father’s nature,” which goes beyond the language of Genesis 1:26-27, where humanity is said to be made “in God’s image.” Humanity reflects God, but not in the sense of being His exact image. If this unique description of Jesus is taken to mean He is fully God, then one must also reckon with Ignatius, who says that believers themselves partake in the Father’s charaktēra in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,  Chapter 5.

Response:

This is simply a misquotation and a lie on Ignatius. Let’s read what he says.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 5

“Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.”

ΜΑΓΝΗΣΙΕΥΣΙΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ

1. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τέλος τὰ πράγματα ἔχει καὶ πρόκειται τὰ δύο ὁμοῦ, ὅ τε θάνατος καὶ ἡ ζωή, καὶ ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν ἴδιον τόπον μέλλει χωρεῖν· 2. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐστιν νομίσματα δύο, ὃ μὲν θεοῦ, ὃ δὲ κόσμου, καὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα ἐπικείμενον ἔχει, οἱ ἄπιστοι τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, οἱ δὲ πιστοὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ χαρακτῆρα θεοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ πάθος, τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,  Chapter 5 (Greek, English short reading, English long reading)

1. The objection misrepresents Ignatius’ words and confuses the context. Ignatius never uses ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) in conjunction with χαρακτήρ (charaktēr) as Hebrews 1:3 does (“the exact imprint of His hypostasis”). In Hebrews, the phrase specifies Christ as the ontological expression of the Father’s being, grounding His full deity. By contrast, Ignatius (Magnesians 5) uses only χαρακτήρ (charaktēr), without reference to hypostasis. Thus, the parallel is superficial, not substantive.
2. Ignatius’ usage is metaphorical and ethical, not ontological. He compares humanity to coins stamped with an image: unbelievers bear the character of the world, while believers through love in Jesus Christ bear the character of God the Father. To press this into an ontological sense would yield absurdities: if unbelievers “have the character of the world,” then by the same reasoning they would ontologically become dirt, trees, or rocks or even humans. Depending on how you want to define the word world. Clearly, Ignatius means the moral likeness impressed upon a life, not identical to the divine essence.
3. Moreover, Ignatius qualifies this “character” by linking it to participation in Christ’s passion: “by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.” For him, the believer’s transformation is ethical and spiritual union with Christ’s death and life not ontological identification with the divine being. Christ alone in Hebrews 1:3 is described as the “exact imprint of [God’s] hypostasis,” a unique statement of His divine nature.

The Misuse of Philo of Alexandria

The next thing that an objector like a Muslim might use is to quote Philo of Alexandrea, as though he has any real relevance here, is simply to conflate two distinct theological frameworks. Christian sources and Jewish sources articulate their theology differently. To suggest that later Christians like John or Luke (Lk. 24:19) borrowed terminology from Philo is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Similarities in language do not prove dependence; that’s an association fallacy. It is far more consistent and probable that the New Testament writers were drawing directly from the Old Testament as their theological source, just as Philo himself drew from the Old Testament when articulating his philosophy. This is evident in their respective writings.

For example, in Genesis 15:1-7 Abraham addresses the Word as YHWH, the text itself identifies Him as YHWH and in verse 7 the Word calls himself YHWH. Similarly, in Jeremiah 32:26-27 the Word is sent by YHWH, functioning as His messenger, which is further illustrated in Zechariah 1:1-2 and 4:8-9. The Word has a voice in Psalm 102:20, showing that when the Word speaks, it is the same as YHWH speaking. Moreover, the Word creates life (Psalm 33:4-6; Jeremiah 1:4-5).

Therefore, to conflate Philo’s Logos with the Christian articulation of the Logos is a serious category mistake and ad hoc assertion. Both Philo and the New Testament writers are working with the same Scriptures, but the Christian understanding of the Logos arises directly from divine revelation in the Old Testament, not from Philo’s philosophical articulation. To claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the historical and theological context. Committing an Association, Category and other fallacies.

Philo Judaeas

ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES

(147) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

διὸ προήχθην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον ἐπαινέσαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν φασκόντων ὅτι „πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου“ (Gen. 42, 11)· καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀειδοῦς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου· θεοῦ γὰρ εἰκὼν λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος.

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018.tlg013.1st1K-grc1:146-150

ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT

XIII. (1.72) And he subsequently alleges a reason why he “met the place;” for, says he, “the sun was Set.”{15}{#ge 28:11.} Not meaning the sun which appears to us, but the most brilliant and radiant light of the invisible and Almighty God. When this light shines upon the mind, the inferior beams of words (that is of angels) set. And much more are all the places perceptible by the external senses overshadowed; but when he departs in a different direction, then they all rise and shine. (1.73) And do not wonder if, according to the rules of allegorical description, the sun is likened to the Father and Governor of the universe; for in reality nothing is like unto God; but those things which by the vain opinion of men are thought to be so, are only two things, one invisible and the other visible; the soul being the invisible thing, and the sun the visible one. (1.74) Now he has shown the similitude of the soul in another passage, where he says, “God made man, in the image of God created he him.” And again, in the law enacted against homicides, he says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed in requital for that blood, because in the image of God did I make Him.”{16}{#ge 9:6.}

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book21.html

Τὴν δ’ αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρει, δι’ ἣν τόπῳ ὑπήντησεν· „ἔδυ“ γάρ

φησιν „ὁ ἥλιος“ (Gen. 28, 11), οὐχ ὁ φαινόμενος οὗτος, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀοράτου καὶ μεγίστου θεοῦ περιφεγγέστατον καὶ περιαυγέστατον φῶς. τοῦθ’ ὅταν μὲν ἐπιλάμψῃ διανοίᾳ, τὰ δεύτερα λόγων δύεται φέγγη, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ αἰσθητοὶ τόποι πάντες ἐπισκιάζονται· ὅταν δ’ ἑτέρωσε χωρήσῃ, πάντ’ εὐθὺς ἀνίσχει καὶ ἀνατέλλει.

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018.tlg019.1st1K-grc1:1.71-1.75

The above text in red doesn’t have the word χαρακτῆρ (charaktēr) in it. However I quote it just in case it is used to say that the word is ther or to conflate the concept of Philo’s image εἰκών (eikón) theology.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, I

(61) What then must we say? That this tree is both in the Paradise and also out of it. As to its essence, indeed, in it; but as to its power, out of it. How so? The dominant portion of us is capable of receiving everything, and resembles wax, which is capable of receiving every impression, whether good or bad. In reference to which fact, that supplanter Jacob makes a confession where he says, “all these things were made for Me.”{12}{#ge 42:36.} For the unspeakable formations and IMPRESSION of all the things in the universe, are all borne forward into, and comprehended by the soul, which is only one. When, therefore that receives the IMPRESSION of perfect virtue, it has become the tree of life; but when it has received the impression of vice, it has then become the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and vice and all evil have been banished from the divine company. Therefore the dominant power which has received it is in the Paradise according to its essence; for there is in it that characteristic of virtue, which is akin to the Paradise. But again, according to its power it is not in it, because the form of virtue is inconsistent with the divine operations

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html

πῶς; τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἡμῶν πανδεχές ἐστι καὶ ἔοικε κηρῷ πάντας τύπους καλούς τε καὶ αἰσχροὺς δεχομένῳ· παρὸ καὶ ὁ πτερνιστὴς Ἰακὼβ ὁμολογεῖ φάσκων “Ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐγένετο πάντα ταῦτα“ (Gen. 42,36)· ἐπὶ γὰρ μίαν οὖσαν τὴν ψυχὴν αἱ ἀμύθητοι τυπώσεις
ἁπάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ παντὶ ἀναφέρονται· ὅταν μὲν οὖν δέξηται τὸν τῆς τελείας ἀρετῆς χαρακτῆρα, γέγονε τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλον, ὅταν δὲ τὸν τῆς κακίας, γέγονε τὸ τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ· ἡ δὲ κακία πεφυγάδευται θείου χοροῦ· τὸ δεδεγμένον οὖν αὐτὴν ἡγεμονικὸν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ ἐστι καὶ ὁ
τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτὴρ οἰκεῖος ὢν τῷ παραδείσῳ, δυνάμει δὲ πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ὁ τύπος ὁ κακίας ἀλλότριός ἐστι θείων ἀνατολῶν.

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018.tlg002.1st1K-grc1:1.61?q=%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%84%E1%BD%B4%CF%81&qk=form

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, III

XXXI. (95) On which account God also calls Bezaleel by name, and says that “He will give him wisdom and knowledge, and that He will make him the builder and the architect of all the things which are in his Tabernacle;”{45}{#ex 31:2.} that is to say, of all the works of the soul, when he had up to this time done no work which any one could praise we must say, therefore, that God impressed this figure also on the soul, after the fashion of an approved coin. And we shall know what the IMPRESSION (χαρακτὴρ) is if we previously examine the interpretation of the name. (96) Now, Bezaleel, being interpreted, means God in his shadow. But the shadow of God is his word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. For, as God is himself the model of that image which he has now called a shadow, so also that image is the model of other things, as he showed when he commenced giving the law to the Israelites, and said, “And God made man according to the image of God.”{46}{#ge 1:26.} as the image was modelled according to God, and as man was modelled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book4.html

καὶ Βεσελεὴλ ἀνακαλεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὀνόματος καί φησιν αὐτῷ δωρήσασθαι σοφίαν καὶ ἐπιστήμην, καὶ δημιουργὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀρχιτέκτονα πάντων τῶν τῆς σκηνῆς, τουτέστι τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔργων, ἀποδείξειν (Exod. 31, 2 ss.), μηδὲν ἔργον, ὃ κἂν ἐπαινέσειέ τις, προϋποδείξας αὐτοῦ. λεκτέον οὖν ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα τῇ ψυχῇ ἐντετύπωκεν ὁ θεὸς νομίσματος δοκίμου

τρόπον. τίς οὖν ἐστιν ὁ χαρακτὴρ εἰσόμεθα, ἐὰν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πρότερον τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀκριβώσωμεν.

ἑρμηνεύεται οὖν Βεσελεὴλ ἐν σκιᾷ θεοῦ· σκιὰ θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίει. αὕτη δὲ ἡ σκιὰ καὶ τὸ ὡσανεὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἑτέρων ἐστὶν ἀρχέτυπον· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς παράδειγμα τῆς
εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰν νυνὶ κέκληκεν, οὕτως ἡ εἰκὼν ἄλλων γίνεται παράδειγμα, ὡς καὶ ἐναρχόμενος τῆς νομοθεσίας ἐδήλωσεν εἰπών· „καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ“ (Gen. 1, 27), ὡς τῆς μὲν εἰκόνος κατὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀπεικονισθείσης, τοῦ δὲ ἀνθρώπου

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018.tlg002.1st1K-grc1:3.95-3.99?q=&qk=form

XXXII. (97) Let us now, then, examine what the character which is impressed upon man is. The ancient philosophers used to inquire how we obtained our conceptions of the Deity? Men who, those who seemed to philosophise in the most excellent manner, said that from the world and form its several parts, and from the powers which existed in those parts, we formed our notions of the Creator and cause of the world.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book4.html

τὴν εἰκόνα λαβοῦσαν δύναμιν παραδείγματος.

32τίς οὖν ὁ ἐπιγινόμενος
χαρακτήρ, θεασώμεθα. ἐζήτησαν οἱ πρῶτοι, πῶς ἐνοήσαμεν τὸ θεῖον, εἶθ’ οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄριστα φιλοσοφεῖν ἔφασαν, ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐνυπαρχουσῶν τούτοις δυνάμεων ἀντίληψιν ἐποιησάμεθα τοῦ αἰτίου·

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018.tlg002.1st1K-grc1:3.97?q=%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%84%E1%BD%B4%CF%81&qk=form

The usual word for “image” in Philo’s writings is εἰκών (eikón). The closest parallel found to the usage of χαρακτήρ (charaktēr) as it appears in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 5 occurs in Allegorical Interpretation III.XXXI.95. Here Philo describes the χαρακτήρ (charaktēr) of God in terms of a coin bearing the impression of the original seal God, or more specifically, His Word (with an apparent allusion also to Exod. 25:40). For example, ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT I.72-74, he interprets Genesis 1:27 and 9:6 through the same category of εἰκών (eikón,) explicitly identifying the Logos as the image of God impressed upon creation and humanity. He explains that this “impression” stamped upon the soul reflects the model, but is not identical with it. In this way, humanity participates in the power and character of the archetype (the Word), while still remaining a likeness rather than the very essence of the original.

Source:

https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0018