Matthew LaMaster —
Most Protestants know about Augustine, and a few less know about Athanasius. If we’re really lucky Protestants know a few details about the Creeds. Most Protestants, however, assume that there is basically nothing written down between the age of those great saints, and the New Testament. Many are surprised to learn that there is a group of writings written directly after the age of the New Testament which are called the Apostolic Fathers. Who they are and why do they matter?
Who are the Apostolic Fathers?
They are the earliest generation of Christians writing after the age of the Apostles. Most, if not all, are dated before or around the year 100 AD. Many of these early Christians had personal relationships with the apostles. The best recent translation of the Apostolic Fathers is by Rick Brannan. Most editions contain:
- Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians (1st Clement)
- An Early Christian Sermon (sometimes labelled as 2nd Clement)
- The Letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Polycarp
- The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
- The Didache
- The Letter of Barnabas
- The Shepherd of Hermas
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp
- The Letter to Diognetus
Additionally, in Schaff’s classic collection Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volume 1), several pseudepigraphal letters attributed to Ignatius as well as the fragments written by Papias are included. This group of writings constitutes the writings of the earliest Christians outside of the New Testament. While there are several other valuable documents which attest to this period of Christianity from outside the Christian world (such as the letters of Pliny, the edict of Claudius, etc.), these are the earliest writings by Christians from this time period.
Why are they important?
There are at least three interlocking reasons why they are important.
They tell us how the earliest Christians after the New Testament interpreted the Bible.
One of the immediate features that is apparent when reading these works is how replete they are with references and citations to both the Old and the New Testaments. There is scarcely a collection of the Bible from which they do not quote and cite. Even the way that they thought is deeply shaped by the Scriptures. For example, 1 Clement has a long list of heroes which culminates in Christ (1 Cl 9–16), much as Hebrews does (cf. Heb 11:1–12:4). The reason that their interpretation of the New Testament is particularly important is because they are well positioned to understand the New Testament. Many of them personally knew the apostles, they had heard them preach, they lived in the same culture as them, and they had walked alongside them. In essence, if anyone is in a position to help us understand them better; these brothers were.
That being said, however, they are not infallible. These fathers were very clear that they were not in the same class as the other apostles. The Epistle to Diognetus places the apostolic writings in the same class as the OT law (Diogn. 11.6). Ignatius clearly distinguishes between his authority and the apostles’ (Ign. Rom. 4.3). This is particularly important to remember; they do not always get it right. There are several problematic passages in the Apostolic Fathers. They should always be held up to the light of Scripture, as they themselves would do with us.
When they come in handy, however, is when we see particular ways in which these writings interact with the same passages and theology as the NT. For example, in my dissertation, I discussed the possibility of an intra-Trinitarian imitation in Hebrews. This is something some have argued for forcefully in the Gospel of John. Whether or not this is true in John, it is patently clear in the letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians that Ignatius believes in intra-Trinitarian imitation, “Be imitators of Jesus Christ, as also he is of his Father” (Ign. Phil. 7.2). The Apostolic Fathers are like a commentary on Scriptures that are written by people who were in the same circle as their authors.
For reasons like this, the Apostolic Fathers are growing in popularity.
As we have already shown, this group of writings is a particularly useful tool for New Testament interpretation. If you are a pastor, you cannot afford to not read the Apostolic Fathers. They are a favorite, in particular, of the Roman Catholic theologians. I suspect this is why many Protestants and, in particular, Reformed Protestants, shy away from them. They assume that the Roman Catholics are right about the Apostolic Fathers. This ceding of the ground grants an unwarranted apologetic to the Roman Catholics. We need not make the Apostolic Fathers say something they do not. But, if the Apostolic Fathers agree with Scripture (which they often do), then they are no enemy. In fact, as we will see, the Apostolic Fathers sound much more like Protestants in regards to the Gospel than Rome.
The Apostolic Fathers preached the Gospel.
When I say gospel, do I mean the Protestant gospel? Do the Apostolic Fathers teach justification through faith alone in Christ alone? Do they teach penal, substitutionary, particular atonement? I’ll let them speak for themselves on this one:
“through the blood of the Lord, redemption will come to all who believe and hope on God” (1 Clem. 12.7)
“Let us hold the Lord Jesus Christ in reverence, whose blood was given on behalf of us” (1 Clem. 25.6)
“we, therefore, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, we are not justified through ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or deeds which we accomplished in holiness of heart, but through the faith by which all those since the beginning the Almighty God has justified to him be the glory forever, amen.” (1 Clem. 32.4)
“Because of the love that he had for us, he gave his blood for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” (1 Clem. 49.6)
“For the Lord endured for this reason: to deliver his flesh to destruction, that we might be purified by the forgiveness of sins, that is, by his sprinkled blood. For it was written concerning him, some of which to Israel, others to us.” (Barn. 5.1)
“Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate or reject or bear a grudge against us but he was patient and bore with us, having mercy he himself experienced our sin, he himself gave his own son, a ransom on our behalf, the Holy for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else than that one’s righteousness could cover up our sin? In who else than in the Son of God alone could our lawlessness and ungodliness possibly be justified? Oh, the sweet exchange! Oh, the fathomless creation! Oh, the unexpected benefits that the lawlessness of many should be concealed in the one righteous, and righteousness of the one should justify many lawless.” (Diogn. 9.2–5)