Steven Carr

Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Romans
'Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave.'

This must have baffled the Roman Christians , who knew that Paul and Peter were not free at all, but had been martryred convicts, just like Ignatius was going to be himself.

Or perhaps Ignatius simply didn't know that Paul and Peter were convicts and were not free.

Chili

This could very well mean that Peter and Paul had "completed the race" and were free in their own mind = Freeman, while Ignatius had not yet completed his own race and was still working towards this final liberation ("anagami" going towards an "aharant"). Ignatius would have been past Epiphany and had received the gifts from the Magi that would unfold to be his richess in heaven.

According to this Peter and Paul were ready for their second death when they were martyred while Ignatius was still enslaved to the liberation from his own human nature.

Steven Carr

But surely Ignatius is not referring only to a spiritual enslavement, but also to a real captivity, and contrasting that with the freedom that Peter and Paul had.

Yes, there is a spiritual meaning to his talk of being a slave, but his captivity was also real, and he implies that Peter and Paul were not ever captives.

Magdlyn

Odd that he emphasized this, as Paul talks continually about being a slave to Christ as the ideal relationship to be in. "Slave" usually being wrongly (dishonestly IMO) translated as "servant" in Bibles.

Peter Kirby

Note that Ignatius says "I am until this moment a slave," not "I am until this moment free." Ignatius believes that his martyrdom makes him "free."

William R. Schoedel writes: "Surely Peter and Paul were thought of by Ignatius as 'free' and capable of commanding obedience even apart from their martyrdom, and surely that is why the bishop recognizes his inability to speak to the Romans with the same authority as they (cf. Eph. 3.1, Tr. 3.3). Ignatius differs from the apostles in that only through martyrdom can he become as they were." (Ignatius of Antioch, pp. 176-177)

best,
Peter Kirby

Chili

That doesn't look good for Ignatius who obviously was not "singing in prison."

I don't know, Peter, and I maybe should have left this tread alone but I think that there is a difference between freedom in Christ and being enslaved to Christ. There are those who are free in Christ and will not take upon themselves the yoke of slavery a second time (Gal.5:1) and then there are those who are enslaved to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It looks as if Paul was both, but then, he was the mythmaker with an agenda and was neither slave nor free because of that.

Chili

I like "slave" since it shows the inner determination instead of the rational decision to be obedient. Ie, "it is not me but Christ living in me" that makes me the slave.

Peter Kirby

Please explain what you mean.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Hi Peter - Chili is Amos. Just so you know.

Chili

If his martyrdom was needed to bring relief he was a suffering servant who had no victory in his life but was counting on the [ill] perceived promise of eternal life after he died. That would be a good reason why he had no first hand knowledge and therefore no authority.

Paul, on the other hand, though he was not an eye witness of Jesus, could retell the story because it was first hand to him . . . which is possible if the event is archetypal and the story came prior to Paul via nature.

The basic difference here is that Ignatius would die his first death while Paul and Peter died their second death when they were executed. The irony here is that Peter and Paul 'left' heaven when they died while Ignatius thought that he was going to heaven when he died.