The online journal of Luke Dockery

Tag: Church Fathers

Learning from the Apostolic Fathers: Ignatius

As I wrote in the first post in this series, I have been reading through Michael W. Holmes’s edition of The Apostolic Fathers in English as part of my daily devotional readings. Generally speaking, the term “Apostolic Fathers” refers to early Christian theologians from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, some of whom would have known some of the apostles personally and sought to pass on their teachings. More specifically, “Apostolic Fathers” is frequently used in reference to Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Today, I want to focus on the writings of Ignatius.

Ignatius and His Letters

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius served as bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria, and we become aware of him as he is journeying to Rome to be martyred early in the second century.[1] Following his arrest in Syria for unknown reasons, Ignatius is sent to Rome in the custody of soldiers to be executed. While on the journey, Ignatius composes a series of letters: to churches that send delegations to meet him on his journey, to the church at Rome alerting them of his impending arrival, to churches he had previously visited, and to his friend Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius disappears from the historical record after being warmly received by the church in Philippi; presumably, he was thrown to the lions in the Roman Coliseum. Our best guess is that he was killed during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (AD 98-117).

There are seven Ignatian letters that are held to be authentic: Ignatius to the Ephesians, To the Magnesians, To the Trallians, To the Romans, To the Philadelphians, To the Smyrnaeans, and To Polycarp. As Michael Holmes says, these letters collectively represent Ignatius’s last will and testament, and are of great value:

“[These are] seven letters of extraordinary interest because of the unparalleled light they shed on the history of the church at that time, and because of what they reveal about the remarkable personality of the author. Because of the early date of these writings and the distinctiveness of some of his ideas, particularly with regard to the nature and structure of the church, Ignatius’s letters have influenced later theological reflection and continue to be a focus in scholarly discussion of Christian origins.”[2]

Themes and Insights from the Ignatian Letters

The Image-bearerEach of Ignatius’s letters begin the same way: “Ignatius the Image-bearer to…” The Greek word for Image-bearer, Theophoros, “is commonly used in Greek inscriptions as a title, describing those who carry divine images or shrines in religious processions.”[3] It is possible that here, Ignatius uses the word as a name rather than a title (e.g. “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus”), but if so, this would be the first instance of such a usage. It is fascinating, then, that a church bishop of such renown would choose to describe himself in a way that places him on common ground with those to whom he is writing: humans created in God’s image.

Eagerness for Martyrdom: As mentioned above, Ignatius composes his letters while en route to be martyred, so it is not surprising that the topic of his impending death features prominently in his writings. What is more surprising, indeed startling, to the modern reader, is the degree to which he is eager about the violent death that looms ahead of him.

“For when you heard that I was on my way from Syria in chains for the sake of our shared name and hope, and was hoping through your prayers to succeed in fighting with wild beasts in Rome—in order that by so succeeding I might be able to be a disciple—you hurried to visit me.”

(Ignatius, To the Ephesians 1.2)

“For while I strongly desire to suffer, I do not know whether I am worthy, for the envy, though not apparent to many, wages war against me all the more.”

(Ignatius, To the Trallians 4.2)

“Since by praying to God I have succeeded in seeing your godly faces, so that I have received more than I asked—for I hope to greet you in chains for Christ Jesus, if it is his will for me to be reckoned worthy to reach that goal. For the beginning is auspicious, provided that I attain the grace to receive my fate without interference. For I am afraid of your love, in that it may do me wrong; for it is easy for you to do what you want, but it is difficult for me to reach God, unless you spare me.

For I do not want you to please people, but to please God, as you in fact are doing. For I will never again have an opportunity such as this to reach God, nor can you, if you remain silent, be credited with a greater accomplishment. For if you remain silent and leave me alone, I will be a word of God, but if you love my flesh, then I will again be a mere voice. Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as an offering to God while there is still an altar ready, so that in love you may form a chorus and sing to the Father in Jesus Christ, because God has judged the bishop from Syria worthy to be found in the west, having summoned him in the east. It is good to be setting from the world to God in order that I may rise to him.

Just pray that I will have strength both outwardly and inwardly so that I may not just talk about it but want to do it, so that I may not merely be called a Christian but actually prove to be one.

(Ignatius, To the Romans 1, 2, 3.2)

“From Syria all the way to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts, on land and sea, by night and day, chained amidst ten leopards (that is, a company of soldiers) who only get worse when they are well treated. Yet because of their mistreatment I am becoming more of a disciple; nevertheless I am not thereby justified. May I have the pleasure of the wild beasts that have been prepared for me; and I pray that they prove to be prompt with me. I will even coax them to devour me quickly, not as they have done with some, whom they were too timid to touch. And if when I am willing and ready they are not, I will force them. Bear with me—I know what is best for me. Now at last I am beginning to be a disciple. May nothing visible or invisible envy me, so that I may reach Jesus Christ. Fire and cross and battles with wild beasts, mutilation, mangling, wrenching of bones, the hacking of limbs, the crushing of my whole body, cruel tortures of the devil—let these come upon me, only let me reach Jesus Christ!

Neither the ends of the earth nor the kingdoms of this age are of any use to me. It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. Him I seek, who died on our behalf; him I long for, who rose again for our sake. The pains of birth are upon me.”

(Ignatius, To the Romans 5.1-6.1.)

“For if these things were done by our Lord in appearance only, then I am in chains in appearance only. Why, moreover, have I surrendered myself to death, to fire, to sword, to beasts? But in any case, “near the sword” means “near to God”; “with the beasts” means “with God.” Only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ, so that I may suffer together with him! I endure everything because he himself, who is the perfect human being, empowers me.”

(Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 4.2)

Ignatius is clearly eager to die. To the Romans, he specifically requests that they not interfere in any way in an attempt to prevent his martyrdom, but to allow it to happen. If the beasts of the Coliseum prove too timed, he vows to “force” them to kill him. While this may come across as off-putting to modern Christians, there are a few factors to keep in mind:

  • Ignatius clearly believed that he could only fully be a disciple of Jesus if he followed Jesus to execution, and this explains his desire to die. Furthermore, this was the clearest and most direct way for him to reach Jesus, which was his life’s desire.
  • Additonally, Ignatius’s attitude could have been affected by the fact that, “…generally, the only basis for releasing a Christian condemned to death was apostasy; even if the Roman church had won his release for good reasons (something he feared they might attempt to do [Rom. 1.1-2.1, 4.1], rumors that he had apostatized likely would have arisen, and he no doubt wished to avoid such speculation.”[4]
  • There is no evidence that Ignatius sought out persecution or prompted confrontation with Roman authorities. But, once arrested, he sought to rejoice in persecution and glorify God in his suffering, as Scripture commands.

We might still quibble with aspects of Ignatius’s perspective, but on the whole, I think he represents a helpful corrective to many modern, Western Christians who seem to live in constant fear of the spectre of persecution. In the United States, Christians go to great lengths to accumulate political and cultural power as a means of remaining free to worship as we choose and to avoid persecution. I think that would be hard for Ignatius…or Paul…or Jesus to understand.

Obedience to the BishopI belong to a religious fellowship where we believe that Christ is the head of the universal church, but that local congregations are to be led by a plurality of elders (also referred to as shepherds or overseers) based on the teaching of the New Testament.[5] Although I would argue that the biblical witness is a little more complex and nuanced than we sometimes make it out to be, I affirm the basic validity of this model of church governance.

Having said that, it must be admitted that, in Ignatius, we have a very early witness to monoepiscopal church polity: the elevation of a single bishop as the leader of a church (likely, Ignatius refers to a church with deacons, presbyters/elders, and the bishop functioning as the “chief presbyter”).

Ignatius emphasizes the importance of obedience to the bishop in nearly all of his letters; some of his statements were jarring to me:

“Let us, therefore, be careful not to oppose the bishop, in order that we may be obedient to God.

Furthermore, the more anyone observes that the bishop is silent, the more one should fear him. For everyone whom the Master of the house sends to manage his own house we must welcome as we would the one who sent him. It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself.

(Ignatius, To the Ephesians 5.3b-6.1)

“Flee from divisions as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the council of presbyters as you would the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you do may be trustworthy and valid.”

(Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8)

Honestly, I’m not quite sure what to make of this. It seems there are a few different options:

  • We can, based on Ignatius’s words and testimony, suggest that monoepiscopacy was the form of governance in the early church, and that this developed soon after the writing of 1 Timothy and Titus, or that instructions in those letters should be read in light of Ignatius.
  • We can view what Ignatius says as non-authoritative, classify the church governance model that he describes as an early departure from the biblical model, and reject it accordingly.
  • We can conclude that governance in the early church is perhaps not quite as clear as we sometimes make it out to be, and approach discussions of the topic with a dose of humility. This is my current position.[6]

Core Christian DoctrineNot unlike with Clement, we see in the writings of Ignatius an emphasis on key elements of Christian faith.

In multiple places, he emphasizes the centrality of certain facts about Jesus: that He really came in the flesh, suffered and died for our sins, was physically resurrected, and will come again:

“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

(Ignatius, To the Ephesians 7.2)

“But the gospel possess something distinctive, namely, the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering, and the resurrection. For the beloved prophets preached in anticipation of him, but the gospel is the imperishable finished work.”

(Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 9.2)

“For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself—not, as certain unbelievers sa, that he suffered in appearance only… For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection…And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh, although spiritually he was united with the Father.”

(Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 2.1, 3.1, 3)

Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.”

(Ignatius, To Polycarp 3.2b)

Ignatius also emphasizes radical daily living that echoes the Sermon on the Mount:

“Pray continually for the rest of humankind as well, that they may find God, for there is in them hope for repentance. Therefore allow them to be instructed by you, at least by your deeds. In response to their anger, be gentle; in response to their boasts, be humble; in response to their slander, offer prayers; in response to their errors, be steadfast in the faith; in response to their cruelty, be civilized; do not be eager to imitate them. Let us show by our forbearance that we are their brothers and sisters, and let us be eager to be imitators of the Lord, to see who can be the more wronged, who the more cheated, who the more rejected, in order that no weed of the devil may be found among you, but that with complete purity and self-control you may abide in Christ Jesus physically and spiritually.”

(Ignatius, To the Ephesians 10)

On the importance of the church meeting together regularly:

“Therefore make every effort to come together more frequently to give thanks and glory to God. For when you meet together frequently, the powers of Satan are overthrown and his destructiveness is nullified by the unanimity of your faith.

(Ignatius, To the Ephesians 13)

Concluding Thoughts

I enjoyed the letters of Ignatius more than 1 Clement; although the content from letter to letter is similar, the individual letters are much shorter so it is easier to follow the argumentation throughout each.

Ignatius’s views on martyrdom and church bishops were jarring enough to me that they forced me to reflect upon my own views of these topics. Although I am ambivalent about his exhortations regarding church governance, I do believe that his perspective on suffering and martyrdom is a needed corrective for Christians who are so used to comfort and power that we seek to avoid persecution at all costs. This reason alone is sufficient for Christians to read Ignatius today; his powerful testimony of important Christian doctrines is an added bonus.

[1] Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers in English (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006): 87-95, is the source of the background information that follows.

[2] Holmes, 87.

[3] Ibid., 96.

[4] Ibid., 89.

[5] Typically speaking, Churches of Christ are opposed to the “Senior Pastor” model, and are rigidly opposed to hierarchical models where multiple churches fall under the authority of a regional bishop (or archbishop, or Pope, etc.).

[6] I think it is worth pointing out here that there is a wide gulf between what Ignatius seems to describe here—a singular bishop of a congregation or perhaps a city who functions as the head of a group of elders/presbyters, possibly a “first among equals”—and the full-blown hierarchy that was later developed and still exists within the Roman Catholic Church. But, it is easy to see how the principle of the former could have led to the development of the latter.

Learning from the Apostolic Fathers: Clement

I have long been interested in church history, and especially the history of the early church, but despite this, I have not done a good job of immersing myself in early Christian writings outside of the New Testament. To work towards remedying this deficiency, I began reading The Apostolic Fathers in English late last year as part of my daily devotional reading. Generally speaking, the term “Apostolic Fathers” refers to early Christian theologians from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, some of whom would have known some of the apostles personally and sought to pass on their teachings. More specifically, “Apostolic Fathers” is frequently used in reference to Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna.

While these writings are not part of the Christian canon, I have still found them to be interesting and insightful, and I wanted to share some reflections from a few of them in a short series of posts. Today, I want to focus on 1 Clement.

Clement of Rome and 1 Clement

The letter known as 1 Clement is written on behalf of the church at Rome to their fellow believers in Corinth.[1] It is believed to have been written at roughly the same time that John wrote the Book of Revelation, but while the latter has a very negative portrayal of the Roman government, the perspective of 1 Clement is more positive. As Michael Holmes states:

“…The elements of peace, harmony, and order that are so important to the author (or authors) of this letter reflect some of the fundamental values of Roman society. Thus it provides important evidence of the diverse and creative ways in which Christians sought to come to terms with the Greco-Roman culture and society within which the church was so rapidly expanding.”[2]

Clement of Rome

First Clement is unified in style rather than disjointed, which suggests one author rather than a composite work, and well-attested ancient tradition identifies this author as Clement (despite Clement not being named in the text itself). The exact identify of “Clement” is harder to discern, however. Catholic Church tradition identifies him as the third bishop of Rome after Peter, but the “office of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time.”[3] More likely, church leadership consisted of a group of presbyters or bishops, of whom Clement was likely a leading figure. It was probably written during the last two decades of the first century.

The intended recipient of the letter is the church at Corinth. This group of Christians had received repeated correspondence from Paul in previous decades, and the spiritual problems of that church (and divisiveness in particular) clearly persisted after his death. In the days of Clement, some of the younger men in the church at Corinth had apparently deposed the leadership of the congregation, and the church at Rome was so distressed by this turn of events that they produced this letter and dispatched mediators in an effort to restore unity and order to this fractured church.[4]

Themes and Insights from 1 Clement

Close Dependence on ScriptureAs I read 1 Clement, I was struck by the degree to which the author relied on Scripture, and the Hebrew Bible in particular, to make his argument. Clement gives ancient examples of both jealousy and good behavior from the Book of Genesis, and warns the Corinthians about the former while admonishing them to follow the latter. Although he references New Testament texts less, Clement is still closely connected to the apostolic era, and invokes Jesus, Peter, and Paul as examples to follow.

Orthodox TheologyI was also interested to see 1 Clement’s affirmation of key Christian doctrines that, although taught in the New Testament, are sometimes dismissed by critical scholars as later theological developments that early Christians wouldn’t have recognized. Clement is an early, extrabiblical witness to the doctrine of resurrection:

“Let us consider, dear friends, how the Master continually points out to us the coming resurrection of which he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruit when he raised him from the dead.”

(1 Clement 24.1)

He also reflects Trinitarian language and thinking:

“Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was poured out upon us?”

(1 Clement 46.6)

Finally, although this is a less controversial idea in the history of Christian theology and interpretation, Clement heavily emphasizes the doctrine of unity. Indeed, the whole letter represents an urging for the Corinthian Christians to give up their schisms, submit to their rightly established leadership, and be united in Christ.

A Marvelous PrayerI was struck by a beautiful prayer near the end of 1 Clement, and wanted to share a section of it:

“You alone are the benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh, looking into the depths, scanning the works of humans; the helper of those who are in peril, the savior of those who are in despair; the creator and guardian of every spirit. You multiply the nations upon the earth, and from among all of them you have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ your beloved servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us.

We ask you, Master, to be our helper and protector. Save those among us who are in distress; have mercy on the humble; raise up the fallen; show yourself to those in need; heal the sick turn back those of your people who wander; feed the hungry; ransom our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the discouraged. Let all the nations know that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.

For you through your works have revealed the everlasting structure of the world. You, Lord, created the earth. You are faithful throughout all generations, righteous in your judgments, marvelous in strength and majesty, wise in creating and prudent in establishing what exists, good in all that is observed and faithful to those who trust in you, merciful and copassionate: forgive us our sins and our injustices, our transgressions and our shortcomings.”

(1 Clement 59.3-60.1)

Concluding Thoughts

To compare it to New Testament writings, 1 Clement is a very long letter (about 50% longer than Paul’s longest letter, 1 Corinthians), and Clement is painstakingly deliberate about the way in which he constructs his argument and structures his plea to the Corinthian Christians. Perhaps this is because, unlike Paul, he cannot rely upon apostolic authority and instead has to build the weight of authority from lengthy biblical examples.

This means that 1 Clement not a fast-paced read, but it is absolutely worthwhile. The extended use of Scripture as the foundation for Christian behavior and practice is exemplary, and the drumbeat emphasis on the importance of love and unity within the Christian community is need in every time and place. First Clement is an edifying early-Christian writing that all Christians would do well to read, reflect upon, and appreciate.

[1] Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers in English (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006): 36-38, is the source of the background information that follows.

[2] Holmes, 36.

[3] Ibid., 37.

[4] Ibid.

A New Heaven & A New Earth Part 11: Voices From the Past

This post is part of an ongoing series. You can find links to all the posts here.

We have spent a lot of time now looking at the idea of renewed eschatology from a variety of different perspectives, and for some readers, a lot of different pieces are starting to click into place and make a lot of sense.

But something that may be bothering you (it certainly bothered me as I was studying through this): “If this is the correct view, why am I just now hearing about this? I mean, Christianity has been around for 2000 years, and we’re just now understanding what the Bible actually teaches about eternity?!”

The question, “why am I just now hearing about this?”, is a difficult one, but the short answer is that the view of eternity where this world will be destroyed and then we will go off to heaven and have some sort of eternal spiritual existence with God has been the dominant view within conservative, evangelical Christianity for all of our lives.

But here is the important idea I want to emphasize: just because this idea is relatively new to you, or because it was new to me when I first heard it does not at all mean that it is a new idea.

I am very suspicious of brand new ideas in Christianity. When someone suggests an interpretation of a particular verse that I can’t find anywhere else, that makes me very suspicious. I am supposed to believe that in the whole history of Christianity, this guy is the first person to come along and actually figure out what this means? But that’s not the case here, and what I want to emphasize in this post is that the renewed earth perspective is not new at all. It is actually a very old understanding of what the Bible teaches about eternity.

Now, I am not going to trace this perspective in detail for 2,000 years, because for the majority of people, that would be mind-numbingly boring. However, I do want to give you some examples from different time periods to emphasize that this is not a new idea.

Early Church

Irenaus is one of what we call the “Church Fathers”, Christians who lived and wrote in the first few centuries. Irenaus wrote a famous work called Against Heresies in the late 100s, in which he opposed false teachings that had arisen. One very popular heresy was called gnosticism and it held, among other things, that material creation is evil. Irenaus rejected this notion, and argued that the Bible teaches that creation is good. He also says:

  • The righteous will “rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated…”[1]
  • Speaking of Jesus’ words in Matthew 26.27-30 (I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom), he says “[Jesus] cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.”[2]
  • For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated.”[3]

Irenaus viewed resurrection as a bodily experience that was directly tied to the restoration of all creation. Clearly, the renewed earth perspective is an ancient view.[4]


You are likely familiar with the Protestant Reformation that began in the 1500s. Two of the major figures of the Reformation were Martin Luther and John Calvin. These two men differed in significant ways, but they  make similar, interesting statements in their commentary on 2 Peter 3 (a text we looked at earlier):

“…some may disquiet themselves as to whether the saints shall exist in heaven or on the earth. The text seems to imply that man shall dwell upon the earth, yet so that all heaven and earth shall be a paradise where God dwells…”[5]

“Of the elements of the world I shall only say this one thing, that they are to be consumed, only that they may be renovated, their substance still remaining the same, as it may be easily gathered from…other passages.”[6]

If you have been following along with this series, these ideas will seem very familiar.

Now, Luther and Calvin agreeing with the NHNE perspective doesn’t automatically make it correct. Indeed, these men hold a variety of views that I disagree with on various topics. My point here is not that we should believe in renewed eschatology because Luther and Calvin did; rather, I am simply illustrating that this is by no means a new perspective.

Restoration Movement

In Churches of Christ, we are spiritual descendants of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. If you know me well or have read The Doc File for long, you know that I am extremely interested in the history of our movement. Imagine my surprise and fascination when I discovered that the renewed earth perspective that we have been talking about was held by influential early leaders in our movement!

Alexander Campbell was likely the single most influential thinker in the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Campbell was famous in the 19th century, and disseminated his perspectives as an orator, editor, debater, educator, and author. Among the many topics he touched on in his vast array of writings was eschatology and the renewal of creation:

“The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regenerations or new creation of the heavens and the earth. This [is] the ancient promise of God confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was purified by water; but the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire. But the dead in Christ will have been regenerated in body before the old earth is regenerated by fire. The bodies of the saints will be as homogeneous with the new earth and heavens as their present bodies are with the present heavens and earth. God re-creates, regenerates, but annihilates nothing; and, therefore, the present earth is not to be annihilated. The best description we can give of this regeneration is in the words of one who had a vision of it on the island of Patmos. He describes it as far as it is connected with the New Jerusalem, which is to stand upon the new earth, under the canopy of the new heaven.”[7]

“The impression prevails in many minds, that the earth is to be annihilated. Such is not our belief. There is a vast difference between annihilation, and change, or general alteration. This earth will, unquestionably be burned, yet, through the process of variation and reconstruction of its elements, God will fashion the earth and heavens anew, and fill them with tenants to glorify His name forever.”[8]

Walter Scott was another key early Restoration leader.[9] Unlike Campbell, Scott’s focus was particularly on evangelism, and his use of simple, memorable methods led to thousands upon thousands of baptisms in the Western Reserve. Scott was also a theologian who mused on the nature of eternity. From Embracing Creation:

“Just as the present world was “formed out of the ruins of the first and original one, so the third and future world shall, by the power of God, be constructed from the ashes of the present one.” The “present habitable globe,” like the primitive one, will be destroyed, but “from the ashes will rise another heaven and another earth…the abode of [the] righteous.” This is “the new heavens and new earth…created as the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This “new earth” is the inheritance promised Abraham (Rom. 4.13) and it is the “hope of all Christians.”[10]

In case the above language is confusing, Scott is reflecting on ideas from 2 Peter 3. He is referencing the “destruction” of the world through the flood, and then the future “destruction” by fire. This accounts for his three worlds.

David Lipscomb was an influential leader in Southern Churches of Christ following the Civil War (so, a different generation of leadership than Campbell and Scott). Lipscomb was primarily an educator, and also served as the longtime editor of the Gospel Advocate. In his words:

“God is holy. As a pure and holy being, he cannot tolerate guilt and sin. The two cannot permanently dwell together in the universe. When sin came into the world, God left this world as a dwelling place. He cannot dwell in a defiled and sin-polluted temple. He has since dwelt on this earth only in sanctified altars and temples separated from the world and consecrated to his service. He will again make this earth his dwelling place, but it will be only when sin has been purged out and it has been consecrated anew as the new heaven and new earth in which dwelleth righteousness.”[11]

James A. Harding was a contemporary and close associate of Lipscomb, but while Lipscomb functioned primarily as a teacher and editor, Harding was a traveling preacher. His thoughts on renewed creation closely resembled Lipscomb’s:

“But—thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ grace came with a mighty hand to meet this great, dark, cursing, onrushing tide of woe and death, to roll it back, to free men from death and the earth from every curse of sin, and to give to it a glory and beauty never dreamed of by Adam and Eve in the midst of their Edenic home. This earth, with its surrounding heaven, is to be made over, and on the fair face of the new earth God himself will dwell with all the sons and daughters of men who have been redeemed through grace…through Adam we lost the garden of Eden; through Christ we gain the paradise of God.”[12]

“…the earth is God’s nursery, his training grounds, made primarily for the occupancy of his children, for their education, development and training until they shall have reached their majority, until the end of the Messianic age has come; then it is to be purified a second time by a great washing, a mighty flood, but this time in a sea of fire. Then God will take up his abode himself with his great family upon this new, this renovated and purified earth.”[13]

Jimmy Allen was one of my favorite teachers at Harding University; he was legendary there for his class on the Book of Romans. He was a longtime teacher at Harding, but was most famous for being a revival-style evangelist in the tradition of Billy Graham. Back in the 1960s, he would preach to overflowing arenas and baptized thousands.

Here are some thoughts from Allen in his commentary on Romans (and also, from 2 Peter):

“The point about groaning creation is that when man fell, the earth was cursed, when man is glorified, the earth will also be glorified…This means, if I am correct, that at the end of time our present system will not be annihilated…

What are the “new heavens” and “new earth” (II Pet. 3:13)? There are at least two Greek words that are translated as new. One is “neos” and the other is “kainos.” A few times they are used interchangeably…However, there is a difference in the two words. “‘Kainos’ denotes new, of that which is unaccustomed or unused, not new in time, recent, but new as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old… ‘Neos’ signifies new in respect of time, that which is recent” (Vine, III, pp. 109-110).

The word translated as “new” in connection with the earth at II Pet. 3:13 is not “neos,” signifying an object that is “brand-new” like the Ford pickup truck that has been in my carport the last couple of weeks. Rather, it is “kainos,” meaning new as to its form, quality, or nature. We will have new bodies in the next life in that they will be changed from what they are now. Similarly, we will have a new earth in eternity in that it will be this one changed by fire into what is glorious and incorruptible.”[14]

These influential leaders from Restoration Movement history are certainly not infallible, but for me, as someone who has great respect for Campbell, Lipscomb, Harding, and others, it was a relief to see that they held these views. In a sense, it was almost like it “gave me permission” to believe this myself: “we” had historically believed this!

Again, all of these quotations—from the Early Church, the Reformation, and from Stone-Campbell Movement history—do not prove anything about the accuracy of the New Heavens/New Earth perspective. That stands or falls based on what Scripture teaches, and we have spent several posts examining that case. But these quotations do demonstrate that this is not a new perspective, and for those in churches of Christ, this is a perspective that has historical roots in our own heritage.

[1] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32,

[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 33,

[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 36,

[4]Other Church Fathers refer to elements of renewed eschatology as well. Papias (Eusebius, Fragments of Papias VI) was a historical premillennialist, and understood that there would be a personal reign of Christ on earth after the resurrection. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (late first century, early second century document) believed that Christians in eternity would reign over birds, fish, and beasts, clearly suggesting a material existence.

[5] Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990): 285.

[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (New York: Cosimo, 2007): 421.

[7] Alexander Campbell, Christian System (Pittsburg, PA: Forrester & Campbell, 1839): 257.

[8] Alexander Campbell, Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch (H.S. Bosworth, 1887): 310.

[9] Scott, along with Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell (Alexander’s father), and Barton W. Stone (the “Stone” in “Stone-Campbell Movement”) are often referred to as “the big four”. Scott is less remembered than the other three, but was of tremendous importance in the solidification and spread of the Movement and its ideals.

[10] This quotation comes from John Mark Hicks, Bobby Valentine, and Mark Wilson, Embracing Creation: God’s Forgotten Mission, (Abilene, TX: Leafwood: 2016): 203. The quotations referenced herein are from Walter Scott,“Of a Succession of Worlds, and of the Great Physical Destinies of Our Globe, as Spoken of in the Scriptures,” The Evangelist 6 (January 1838): 3-5, (February 1838): 34-35, and (April 1838): 77.

[11] David Lipscomb, Salvation from Sin (Nshville: McQuiddy, 1913): 35-36.

[12] James A Harding, “Three Lessons from the Book of Romans,” in Biographies and Sermons, ed. F.D. Srygley (Nashville: McQuiddy, 1898), 249.

[13] James A. Harding, “What Are We Here For?” The Way 5 [3 December 1903], 1041).

[14] Jimmy Allen, Romans: The Clearest Gospel of All (Searcy, AR, 2005): 178-80.

© 2021 The Doc File

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑