Epistle Of Polycarp By Alvan Lamson
We now come to the Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to the Philippians. Irenaeus tells us that he, in his youth, knew Polycarp well, that he was acquainted with his manner of life, his person, and discourses. Polycarp, he says, was a disciple of the Apostles, and conversed with those who had seen the Lord. Jerome makes him a disciple particularly of John ; J and Irenaeus says, that he was in the habit of relating to him conversations he had with that venerable man. According to Jerome he was ordained by John. The time of his birth and death cannot be ascertained, though it is certain that he lived to a very great age, and that he ended his days by martyrdom. The learned differ as to the date of this event, some placing it as early as 147, others, among whom is Bunsen, as late as 169. His death, if the relation given in the Letter of the church of Smyrna to the other churches on the subject of his martyrdom is to be relied upon, was in the last degree noble and affecting, though portions of the narrative certainly have the air of fable. The genuineness, in the main, of the Epistle to the Philippians ascribed to him, though called in question by some among the older, as well as more recent critics, and denied by those of the Tubingen school, who make Polycarp a "mythical personage," there is no sufficient reason, perhaps, for doubting. Mr. Norton receives it as a genuine relic of the martyr, with the exception of a passage near the end relating to the Ignatian Epistles, to which he, in common with other critics, takes exception, as bearing clear marks of interpolation or forgery. It is supposed to have originally ended with the doxology in the twelfth chapter. The early part of the second century is assigned as the probable date of its composition.
The Epistle, which is mostly hortative, and retains the old simplicity of thought and expression, is brief, and will help us very little in our inquiry as to what Christians of that day believed concerning the origin and precise rank of the Son. Its testimony to the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son, however, is clear and decisive. Thus we are saved "by the will of God through Jesus Christ"; — "who died, and was raised again by God for us." Again, the writer speaks of believing in "him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory and a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven and on earth are made subject, whom every living creature shall worship"; not, however, as supreme. The prevailing language of the Epistle teaches the contrary. So in the following quotation: "Now the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he himself, the everlasting high-priest, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth." Here the Son is sufficiently distinguished from the Father. The high-priest makes an offering to God, but is not God himself.
Such passages, scattered over the short Epistle, show clearly enough that this old martyr had no conception of Jesus Christ as equal with God, or as one with him except in will and purpose. Here are no metaphysics, no confusion or obscurity, no hair-splitting distinctions. The Father is separated from the Son by a broad and distinct line, one as supreme, the other as subordinate; one as giving, the other as receiving; the Father granting to the Son a "throne at his right hand."
No comments:
Post a Comment