Ignatius of Antioch’s Use of Γενητὸς

Does Ignatius Deny Eternal Generation?

A Oneness friend of mine recently asked for a Trinitarian perspective on a passage in Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage in question is Ign. Eph. 7: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” The section of text rendered in this translation (Roberts and Donaldson) as ‘both made and not made’ is the phrase ‘γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος’, which can also be rendered ‘generate and ingenerate,’ or ‘born and unborn.’ My friend argued that Ignatius here seems to reserve the idea of Christ’s generation to his nativity, thereby denying eternal generation (contra the Pro-Nicene tradition exemplified by Athanasius). Many questions follow from this contention, but it is this core concern that I sought to engage.

First, while the Patristic witness is important, we ultimately ground our doctrinal understandings in the testimony of Scripture. I do believe that one of the outcomes of Jesus’ promise that the Spirit would lead us into all the truth was that the Church over time received further clarity about how to rightly articulate the truth, but this is also grounded in the right reading of Scripture.

Second, this particular passage has been debated for centuries. Even with the middle recension there are manuscript differences (γεννητὸς or γενητὸς). Brill Ignatius of Antioch’s Use of Γενητὸς a scholarly work on the debate over this text, but I don’t have $150 to spend on it (though I would love to read this at some point).

Third, it is certainly possible that this is an erroneous passage. I hold to the scholarly consensus that the middle recension of his letters are accurate (though it might be tempting to appeal to the longer recension here). There are times when Ignatius misquotes (Ign. Smyr. 3) and even in this epistle his description of the star at the nativity goes well beyond the biblical witness (Ign. Eph. 19). The Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers are not without their errors. Clement of Rome seems to think the phoenix is a real bird. Justin Martyr reaches heterodox conclusions, I believe, because of his limited access to the canon. Irenaeus argues that Jesus lived to be fifty years old. I reject their errors without needing to reject what they rightly teach as it accords with Scripture.

Fourth, he maintains in this and his other letters a distinction between Son of God and Son of Man (c.f. Ign. Eph. 7 and 20), which would seem to be nonsense if the titles mean the same thing (incarnation) as the Oneness position holds. This is all the more clear when he speaks of his being γένους (descendant) of David according to the flesh and Son according to the will and power of God (Ign. Smyr. 1). This indicates that Sonship predates the incarnation.

Fifth, he maintains clear distinctions between the Father and the Son. While he is unafraid to call Jesus God (the passages are so numerous I need not list them), he also speaks of him as coming from and returning to God (Ign. Magn. 7) and his submission to the Father according to the flesh (Ign. Magn. 13).

Sixth, he has a couple overtly Trinitarian passages that speak of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in distinction and yet worthy of submission and worship (Ign. Eph. 9, Ign. Magn. 13).

In conclusion, assuming the middle recension is accurate, I think there are four possible readings. The first could be that Ignatius believes generation and therefore Sonship only refers to the incarnation, but as I’ve argued above he doesn’t seem to hold to a oneness view. The second could be that it’s simply an erroneous passage (ie Ignatius did not believe in eternal generation, but he did believe in a distinction between the Father and the Son). The third is that he consistently uses the language of birth/generation in reference to fleshly birth in order to emphasize that the incarnation was genuine. In multiple letters he warns against Docetist groups, going so far as to emphasize the physical presence of the bishop as the grounds for unity in the Church because Christ was visible in the incarnation (esp. Ign. Smyr.). With this view the passage in question would be emphasizing that he was physically born according to the flesh, but not according to his divinity. The fourth, which was the view of Athanasius, is that Ignatius is emphasizing the distinction between creature and creator, the Son being originate according to the flesh, but unoriginate according to his divinity (ie the creator/creature distinction). Athanasius spells this out in De Synodis 46-47.

My firstborn son’s middle name is Ignatius. My second son’s middle name is Athanasius. I’m torn with which reading to land on, though on further reflection it seems they may work hand in hand. Ignatius emphasizes the genuineness of the nativity of Christ against the Docetists who want to deny his humanity, but also emphasizes that Christ is ingenerate as God (though generated personally by the Father) and therefore not a creature. This feels akin to reading On the Unity of Christ, where Cyril uses phusis in more than one way before such usages would be deemed outside the bounds of Orthodoxy (at Chalcedon). So also, Ignatius was writing before the Arian controversy, and yet when it arises he is found to be on the Pro-Nicene side of the debate.