St. Ignatius: the Victory of the Incarnation

For Ignatius the victory over evil, and so also the grand exorcism of Satan from the Earth, was primarily a focus of the incarnation. This expressed in Ignatius’s threefold statement concerning what was accomplished against evil at the incarnation. (Ign. Eph. 19.3) The threefold deliverance for the world was from magic, ignorance and the old kingdom. Magic and spells represent all evil powers that work against humanity (Lightfoot, 83), ignorance is a contrast with the knowledge of God (Ign. Eph. 17.2), and the “old kingdom” was the dominion that Satan possessed over mankind before Christ. Each of these three evils was connected with Satan and the demonic, so that for Ignatius the demons were defeated by the incarnation (Twelftree, 228). With the destruction of these powers came the opportunity for new life (Ign. Eph. 19.3), which was the central concern of Ignatius, and so this passage reflects his views on the chief exorcistic event of history.

Ignatius draws on Pauline ideas found in such places as Colossians 2:14-15, where he calls “this age” the “ancient kingdom” which was overthrown and defeated by the cross. (Lawson, 118) However, there are some differences between the Pauline idea and Ignatius. First, Ignatius is not only connecting the defeat of the world rulers with the death of Christ but also, and more centrally, with his incarnation. In fact Ignatius says that the ancient kingdom was abolished when “God appeared in human form,” Second, Ignatius’s emphasis is on an entire kingdom defeated, more than Paul seems to demonstrate in Col 1:13. This distinction is important in seeing his worldview shaped by a combat between two kingdoms, not just one kingdom that is ruled by God through Christ opposed to illegitimate rulers.

The Church now awaits the consummation of the victory over Satan that had been won for her. This is not overtly clear in Ephesians 19, nor in Ignatius’s letters in general because, more then eschatology, Ignatius places the incarnation as central due to it being the event in which death itself was abolished (Corwin, 155). However, although the victory has been won, he also talks about a future kingdom of God with punishment for the wicked, (Ign. Eph. 16.1-2) along with a brief statement of the Two Ways doctrine which seems to imply a future end to each of the ways (Ign. Magn. 5.1). Although the powers of evil have been defeated, these powers of the old age will be finally done away with at the Second Advent (Russell, 34).

Lawson, John. A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Lightfoot, J.B. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. Vol. 2. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981.

Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Twelftree, Graham H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Corwin, Virginia. St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960.

Web Link - See of Rome cracks down on false miracles

Bad picture of the Pope (biased reporter maybe?) but nice bit of information. I'm glad to see Rome is actively investigating these claims and cracking down on false ones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1113943/Pope-declares-holy-war-people-falsely-claim-seen-Virgin-Mary.html

Biblical criteria for miracles?

Must the Bible define what constitutes a true miracle?

In the sense that Scripture provides the foundation for the Theology of the Church, yes.

But in a legal-type sense, no.

What do I mean by legal sense? This is where the bible is treated like one might treat the US code of law. If I wanted to know how I am supposed to drive, I would look up US and/or state law, and find directives probably along the lines of “the driver of the vehicle shall obey posted speed limits” or some such. As well, if I wanted to know what the meaning of the word “vehicle was” according to the law, I would find a definition spelled out.

However, except for the Torah proper specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy there is no law code recorded. God does not in scripture give a definition of a miracle. And it is an assumption that only the specific ways that scripture record miracles are the ways that a miracle will always happen.  

This of course deals with issues of the “regulative principle” and systems that use scripture as a law book of sorts to provide a comprehensive system for order in the Church and theology. 

Instead scripture records events and contains occasional letters. Just because they are inspired, doesn’t imply they are to be used in a “regulative” manner in the same way we in the US use the constitution. 

When it comes to miracles, it is important what scripture says about miracles and the supernatural and the nature of God. Not so that the Church will only believe in miracles that fit the exact manner described, but so that in determining a modern day miracle or supernatural occurrence the Church has a solid foundation to analyze it from. 

Just because all miracles in scripture have trait X doesn’t imply that all miracles God ever does have trait X and must have trait X to be considered from God. The results of the miracle (people moved to love a life of grater faith, hope and love) is more important then criteria which scripture never gives us anyway. 

For instance, in the martyrdom of Polycarp there are several supernatural visions that the Christians claim occurred at his death. The text reads as if none of these were seen by the non-Christians present. Yet, just because when miracles in scripture always seem to be public, doesn’t mean when God does miracles he only makes them public. 

This is because miracles don’t exist in the bible, they exist in reality. (see HERE for more argument behind this concept) The bible records miraculous event at certain times, but there is not reason to think it records all of them that God has ever done or that the descriptions are intended to give us a complete picture of what all supernatural events much look like. 

True miracles will first of all be miraculous. When it comes to healings the Catholics have seven criteria developed by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (latter Pope Benedict XIV):

1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat. 

2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery. 

3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained. 

4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly. 

5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ”– Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial. 6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural. 

7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear. 

(From De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione. liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2)

Along with this a miracle from God must glorify God and encourage true faith and good works. These really just follow the rules that one of the few law books in scripture actually gives us in Deut 18:18-22: 

“But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-- that prophet shall die." You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?"  If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.”

The legal usage of scripture isn’t even used in the legal books. Of course, I could write a thesis on the problems with the regulative principle, but that would be a bit much for this blog. 

These are theological criteria that allow God to show us the supernatural in ways we haven’t seen before yet also keep us out of following everything that claims to be supernatural. Christians shouldn’t be functional Deists (the supernatural only happened back then) or fall into trusting everything (like former Bishop Pike)

Baptismal Exorcism in the Apsotolic Fathers: Barnabas

One of the few places in the corpus of the Fathers that mentions exorcism by concept is in the letter attributed to Barnabas. In the context of answering the question of if there is still a Temple of God (Barn. 16.6), Barnabas describes what a person looked like before salvation in relation to demons (Barn. 16.7-10). The analogy he builds is the person is a temple, which was once full of demons (Barn. 16:7) but after receiving forgiveness and being born anew the person is then dwelt by God. This is salvific exorcism, where the person is purified of the demonic by Christ as part of salvation, and as part of preparation for instead being indwelt by God, thus making the person truly a temple of God. 

Barnabas does not actually say that he has baptism in mind, but based on his sotieriology, baptism is most likely in view. Barnabas’ view of the Old Testament is one of fulfillment, where everything in it, even down circumcision (Barn. 9) and the kosher laws, (Barn. 10) was intended to point to Christ and the New Covenant. In fact, for Barnabas these are the only acceptable interpretations, (Armitage, “Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache” 1926, 10) to take the Old Testament literally was to be deceived by the “evil angel” (Barn. 9.4). If the entire New Covenant was foreshadowed, then he asks “was the water and the cross” (Barn. 11.1) foreshadowed?” This leads to his characteristic allegorical interpretation in defense that the Old Testament testifies to the death of the Messiah and to Baptism. 

First he defends Baptism, saying that Israel would never accept the “baptism that brings forgiveness of sins”. (Barn. 11.1) Baptism in Barnabas is connected with the cross event, brings forgiveness of sins, converts the sinner and brings hope. After quoting several prophets he claims they linked both baptism and the cross together. (Barn. 11.8) Those who are rewarded, the righteous as pointed out in 11.7, are those who in 11.8 “having set their hope on the cross, descend into the water” which brings “conversion and hope to many”. Those who go down into the water “laden with sins and dirt” (Barn. 11.11) obtain both “fruit” in their hearts and hope in Jesus.

Second he comments on how the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed the cross. (Barn. 12) The main focus of his argument comes from Moses and especially the bronze serpent, which was a symbol of the cross. (Barn. 12.2) This is the sign that would bring life (Barn. 12.5) and salvation. (Barn. 12.7) The cross does more then this, as it also brings victory over Satan. Taking the allegory of the serpents in the wilderness to the next level, Barnabas argues that the reason God sent serpents to punish Israel when it was falling was because the “fall happened though the serpent, with the help of eve”. The bronze serpent brought victory over the power of the serpents in the desert the same way that the cross would bring victory over the Satan who deceived Eve. Due to the connections between the cross and Baptism, Barnabas sees the benefits as parallel, particularly that Baptism is the means by which a person receives the benefits of the cross. (Barn. 11.8) This demonstrates that Baptism brought about the victory over Satan to the individual.

Going back to chapter sixteen, the purification of the demonic element is a result of the salvation even of the water and the cross, which happens at Baptism. Barnabas assumes his previous theological assertions when speaking of inner cleansing. There are two sections, the first is the state of the person before salvation, (Barn. 16.7) and the second describes the process of salvation. (Barn. 16.8-10) Before salvation a person is ruled by demons. Their heart, or inner person, was “corrupt and weak”. After the person receives forgiveness of sins they are made new and “God truly dwells” in their “dwelling place”, (Barn. 16.8) which is the heart mentioned earlier. Either a person is indwelt by demons or by God, and the difference is made in being purified though forgiveness and new creation. These are the result of the water and the cross, which are inherently connected for Barnabas. 

Barnabas’ exorcistic views of Baptism in chapter sixteen are very explicit (Kelly, “Devil at Baptism” 2004, 52) on the grounds of his theology of Baptism itself found in 11-12. It would go beyond the evidence to say there was a separate exorcism rite involved in baptism according to Barnabas, although there may have been, but it is certain that he saw baptism itself as exorcistic. This connection between baptism and exorcism is missed by Twelftree when he argues that it is not exorcism but “coming to faith in conversion” (Twelftree, “In the Name of Jesus” 2007, 225) that removes the demonic and that Barnabas’ discussion on baptism fails to mention exorcism. This is true, but Barnabas does connect baptism to the cross, which brings victory over Satan and then latter does connect the same results of baptism to the removal of demons. It is not just faith in the sense Twelftree sees it, but the faith under the rite of baptism that removes the demonic.  Kelly (p52) makes the same mistake by assuming that exorcism must be mentioned at the same point where baptism is for Barnabas to have an exorcistic baptismal theology. The connection is instead made though the forgiveness of sins, which Barnabas sees as being a result of both the Cross and Baptism, (Porter and Cross, “Dimensions of Baptism” 2002, 211) though which is also the cleansing of the inner soul from demonic influence. (Ibid. 221) It is at the moment of the ritual initiation that the person, like the Israelites did with the serpent, looks at the cross and gains victory over the serpent. 

Background study in the Early Church: "the gods of the nations"

The Early Church didn’t just produce its theology of Satan and spiritual warfare out of nowhere. Going into their theology was a background of thought that had roots in the Old Testament, flourished during the intertestamental period and became solidified for Christians in the New Testament. The Fathers of the Early Church adopted these concepts and they became a standard part of Christian thinking.

The primary place to begin with the Fathers’ understanding of the Church’s place in the cosmic war is the Jewish and subsequent New Testament backgrounds to the demonic and the world. In the Old Testament, demonology is sparse but there is a definite idea of evil spirits in connection to pagan gods. The intertestamental period saw a lot of development in demonology, which was farther endorsed by Jesus and followed by Paul with the other New Testament writers. Combined, these ideas of the demonic and its connection to the world outside the People of God became the foundations for the Father’s own demonology and views of the Church militant.

Although Bamberger argues that Judaism has always been rationalistic, and denied the realty of the nations gods, (Bamberger, “Fallen Angels” 74) the Old Testament has many concepts that were farther adapted by the Fathers. Fallen angels are found in Genesis and Psalms, showing a real belief in evil spirits. Many times sacrifices to the pagan gods are considered sacrifices to the demonic. It is also evident that these ideas were real for the Jewish people leading up to the Second Temple period. 

In the Old Testament there was a class of beings who, due to sin, fell and became what the New Testament would call demons. A major possible reference to this is in Genesis 61:1-4. (Others include Psalm 82 and Daniel 10) Here the “Sons of God” came to take wives from the daughters of men. Certainly it can be debated whither these are angels, but for the purpose of the Fathers background it is important to know that this was the interpretation they would have inherited. It was the traditional interpretation, and found its way into such influential intertestamental literature as 1 Enoch (1 En 6-8) and was known by enough of the Early Church that the period after the Fathers that Justin Martyr uses this passage for his theory of the origin of demons. (2 Apo 5)

 

Throughout the Old Testament the Israelites are condemned for worshipping these demons as gods through idolatry. One prominent example is Deuteronomy 32:14-21. At first God condemned their forefathers for making sacrifices to the ~ydIVe [shedim for non Hebrew font] which is translated as demons (NRSV, NASB, NJB, daimoni,oij [daimoniois for non Greek font] in LXX). These are called “gods” that they did not know, and connected in 32:21 with the worship of idols. It is notable that the LXX rendered this word as daimoni,oij, which latter became in the New Testament and Church Fathers the term for fallen angels.

During the intertestamental period this association between evil sprits, increasingly focused on Beliar, became stronger. Jubilees 15:33 presents Beliar as the primary being behind Israel abandoning the covenant of circumcision. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, references are made to Beliar as leader of the spirits of deceit (TLevi 3:3, TJud 25:3), and his works contrasted with the law of the Lord (TLevi 19:1). In the Martyrdom of Isaiah Beliar is explicitly referred to as the ruler of the “this world” (2:4). Satan in the literature is probably to be seen as synonymous with Beliar, as he takes the same roles of ruler of the wicked spirits (TDan 5:6; Jub 10:11), and contrasted with the Lord (TAsh 6:4; MartIs 2:2). All this produced a mild dualism that would later be picked up by the Fathers through the New Testament.

As for Bamberger, the OT combined with the intertestamental data suggests there was a Jewish tradition that truly saw the nations’ gods as real beings. The mild dualism was not just a product of hellenized Jewish-Christianity, but came out of the Old Testament ideas of idolatry. When the Old Testament talks about the gods being “vain”, it is not likely a ontological statement, but functional one. They implied inferiority more then non-existence. (Langton, “Demonology” 184) This is the background that influenced both the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers.

Following the trajectory into the New Testament, Jesus and Paul both connect the idols and demons, and go one step farther to make Satan the ruler of this world, confirming the role of Beliar in the intertestamental period. For Jesus, his combat is with Satan and the fallen angels, as evidenced by his exorcisms and statements about Satan. Paul as well sees Christ in light of a cosmic war between God and Satan. By the time of the writing of the last New Testament book, the ideas culminated into Revelation with foresaw the end of the cosmic conflict.

During the ministry of Jesus, he defines his messiahship in contrast to the kingdom of Satan. One of the main ways he does this is by performing exorcisms. These exorcisms all happen after Jesus’ confrontation with Satan in the wilderness and are intended to create a pattern of cosmic combat within the Gospels. In the wilderness temptation, Satan offers Jesus the “kingdoms of the world” (Mt 4:1). The passage presents a real offer and so implies that Satan is in some way seen as ruler of the world’s kingdoms by Matthew. This is the first instance of Satan in the role that was made prominent by Satan/Beliar in the intertestamental period. Later, Jesus makes the statement that a sign of the Kingdom of God is the casting out of demons (Mat 12:28). These ideas of casting out appear also in John, where Jesus connects his crucifixion with the casting out of the “ruler of this world”. Considering the history of this term, Jesus is likely considering this to be more then just the emperor, yet he uses the phrase in relation to his coming capture and death by the Jewish and Roman authorities (Jn 14:30). This parallelism between Satan and the governing world that persecutes God’s people will continue through Paul to the Fathers.

Paul’s main comments over idols and demons can be found in 1 Corinthians 10:14-20. Paul warns the Corinthians against the worship of idols. They cannot, he says, both partake of the Eucharist and sacral meals of the temples. The reason he says this is that, although the gods of the nations are nothing, they are focal points for demon worship. In Paul’s mind, the pagans’ sacrifices are actually being made to demons, following the Old Testament ideas in Deuteronomy 32:14-21. These demons are the ones who once lead the people in disobedience, which is equated with following the world (Eph 2:2), as Satan is the “god” of this world (2Cor 4:4). This is why he considers those who are rejected from the community, to also have been handed over to Satan (1Cor 5:5-13), who is in control of the people outside of the Church, (Langton, “Demonology” 184) those who were once enslaved to beings who were not gods (Gal 4:8). This theme would latter be picked up on by the Fathers when dealing with heretics and schismatics.

Other writers also portray this cosmic war between Christ and Satan. In Hebrews it was specifically the mission of Jesus to destroy the works of the devil (Heb 2:14). Revelation is even stronger, as its apocalyptic imagery presents the eschaton in the context of cosmic war. Revelation 12 is important in that it is actually commentated on by Papias. The great war in heaven where Satan is thrown down by St. Michael and his angels in then culminated by Christ who returns to destroy his enemies and have Satan thrown by an angel even farther down into the lake of fire (Rev 20:1-4). This is an important passage for Papias’ demonology. He sees these fallen angels as once given rule over creation, but by their sin lost their proper place. (see fragment in Andrew of Caserea)

For Jesus and the New Testament writers, Satan is the ruler of this age, and behind him are the evil powers that lure men into rebellion against God. In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as the champion of God who casts out the servants of Beliar and ultimately is martyred by the “ruler of this world” who is in control of the human governments. In Paul, Satan is the ruler of the evil spirits who is behind the idols of the nations, and so led them astray. For the other writers, Satan was in charge of death and leads his armies against God, and who was defeated by Christ and will be finally conquered by Christ at the end of the age.

These ideas would become part of the theology of the Apostolic Fathers both in the way they viewed the world outside the Church as an agent of Satan and how they saw both heretics and schismatics as instruments of satanic powers. All three of these concepts would continue to influence Christian thought throughout the history of the Church.

St. Michael and All Angels

Today is the feast day of St. Michael and All Angels!

Revelation 12:7-12 :

And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back,  but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.  The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.  Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.  But they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they did not cling to life even in the face of death.  Rejoice then, you heavens and those who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

Collect:

O Everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the ministries of angels and men in a wonderful order: Mercifully grant that, as thy holy angels always serve and worship thee in heaven, so by thy appointment they may help and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

I had wanted to use this oppurtunity to blog on guardian angels, but got busy with school, perhaps later.

Web Link -55% of Americans believe in Angels

According to the Washington Times (Here) a survey conducted by Baylor University found that 55% of Americans believe in angels. 

Here are some quotes from the article:

A big dose of irony:

"theological liberals are more apt to believe in the paranormal and the occult - haunted houses, UFOs, communicating with the dead and astrology - than do conservatives." 

Not too surprising:

"Atheism is a “godless revolution that never happened,” the survey said, adding that irreligion often is not effectively transmitted to children who, when they reach adulthood, often join conservative religious denominations."