Resurrection in Polycarp

His Letter and His Martyrdom

(avg. read time: 12–24 mins.)

Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna who gave his life in faithful witness to Christ in approximately 155 CE. That story is told in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, wherein he is described by his persecutors as “the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods” (12:2). Besides this account of his martyrdom and his role (or the role of his testimony) in early debates about the celebration of Easter (as noted here), he is known for his correspondence with fellow Apostolic Father Ignatius, his being the teacher of Irenaeus, his being a disciple of John (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.4; Tertullian, Praescr. 32.2; Jerome, Vir. ill. 17), and his one extant letter to the Philippians.

When Polycarp was being commanded to deny Christ, to swear by the genius of Caesar, and to renounce his faith as “atheism,” he is famously quoted in the Martyrdom of Polycarp as saying, “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never did me any wrong; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?” (9:3). The reference to eighty-six years could refer to Polycarp’s entire lifespan (as is the majority view) or to the span of time since his conversion. Since the time of his death was likely 155, his date of birth would be either 69 or potentially as early as the 50s. If we take the majority view for granted, he would still be in his 30s by the end of the first century, by which time the apostles had died and Polycarp and his generation were the leaders of the Church.

He is obviously quite a valuable second-century witness like Ignatius, albeit with much less extant text. However, there is much in his one extant letter that is of interest to this analysis. We will also be considering the account of his martyrdom, although it was not written by him. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is important for reasons that go well beyond our focus (as, for example, it is the earliest evidence for the annual commemoration of martyrs), but it is especially noteworthy for how, like Ignatius’s texts, it links martyrdom with conformity to the gospel.

Explicit References

Letter to the Philippians

The first explicit reference to resurrection in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians comes in his first description of the Lord Jesus Christ. In a summary of the gospel, Polycarp says Jesus persevered because of our sins to meet even death, after which he describes him as the one, “whom God raised [ἤγειρεν], releasing from the birth pains/agony of Hades” (1:2). This is clearly referencing Acts 2:24, albeit with a different verb (ἀνεστήσεν) and the reference to “Hades” instead of “death” (though other witnesses attest to this noun, including Irenaeus, Codex Bezae, various Latin manuscripts, the Peshitta, and witnesses from Egypt like Middle Egyptian and Bohairic texts). Of course, the different verbs were used interchangeably even by the same texts, as we have seen in the NT (such as here) and among the Apostolic Fathers. And while Hades was obviously closely linked with the terminology of death at this time, such a use would also anticipate the reference to Hades from Ps 16:10 [15:10 LXX] used in this same text. For more on the text that Polycarp is referencing here, see here, here, and here.

This is the first of many references to mostly NT texts in Polycarp’s letter. It is particularly apropos here, given that Polycarp is providing a summary of the gospel, and he is referencing a text that is itself the first proclamation of the gospel after Jesus’s ascension. This is a key aspect of the foundational proclamation with which the Christians have identified themselves. Moreover, the reference to death followed by resurrection is meant to serve as a paradigm for God’s action for those who persevere in suffering for their faith, as has been hinted already as the occasion for his letter in referring to those who are in bonds (1:1). The statement also reaffirms the declaration he made about finding in the Philippians that the steadfast root of the faith proclaimed to them from the beginning has remained until now (1:2). This summary declares what the content of that faith has been.

The second reference appears in 2:1–2:

Therefore, girding up your loins serve God in fear and truth, leaving behind the vain and fruitless talking and the error of the many, because you have had faith in the one who raised [ἐγείραντα] our Lord Jesus Christ out of the dead [ἐκ νεκρῶν] and gave to him glory and a throne at his right hand, to whom all things heavenly and earthly were subjected, to whom every breath serves, who is coming as a judge of the living and the dead, whose blood God will require/demand an account of from those who disobey him. 2 But the one who raised [ἐγείρας] him out of the dead [ἐκ νεκρῶν] will also raise [ἐγερεῖ] us, if we do his will, walk/go in his commandments, and love what he has loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speech/slander, [and] false witness; not repaying evil in place of evil or reproach in place of reproach, or strike in place of strike, or curse in place of curse.

There are several items of interest in this quote. First, as we have seen many times in the NT and the other Apostolic Fathers, including the earlier reference in 1:2, the Father is identified as the agent of Jesus’s resurrection. As in other cases (including some of the examples in the OT), the adjectival participle conveys that this is an identifying action of God’s. It is an action that shows him to be utterly trustworthy as the one whose faithful love even death cannot ultimately hinder. Of course, it also identifies this same God as the one who constitutes the community around the gospel of this risen Lord. Furthermore, in light of what the rest of the text conveys, this shows how the gospel is the enactment of the Father’s will, reminding us of the Trinitarian dynamics of the gospel story, as Polycarp had also conveyed in different terms in the previous sentence by referring to how we have been saved by grace, not out of works “but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” (1:3).

Second, this is another one of those cases I noted in a previous analysis on the phrase about resurrection “from/out of the dead.” There will be another example to observe below, but this is the one that gives further significance to that one, since it is describing Jesus’s resurrection. As with other uses of the phrase, it signals Jesus’s distinction and separation from the rest of the dead in his resurrection.

Third, this text supplies the rest of the traditional three-stage gospel summary. The first two stages of the major gospel events of the crucifixion and resurrection had already been referenced. And now the resurrection is referenced again and followed with the third stage, which is Jesus’s exaltation. Again, Polycarp references the Father’s agency in this, showing how God’s will drives the gospel narrative, as it is his will that has been fulfilled in it.

Fourth, Jesus’s resurrection is linked with his coming as judge of the living and the dead. On the one hand, this fits what we have seen previously from Barnabas as well as texts in the NT, such as Acts 10:42; Rom 14:9; 2 Tim 4:1; and 1 Pet 4:5, where this phrase is also used. It also fits more general motifs in the Gospels showing Jesus’s expected role in the final judgment, which is necessarily predicated on his being resurrected (see here and posts on the Gospels here). On the other hand, this fits broader tendencies across Scripture (as well as Second Temple Jewish literature) in linking resurrection with final judgment, as it is said that he will judge the living and the dead. The living will be brought before the judgment seat and the dead will need resurrection to appear as well. A peculiar way—among texts we have examined thus far—in which Polycarp signifies this is in referring to God demanding an account of the blood of Jesus from those who disobey him at the final judgment. The phrasing reflects scriptures that likewise refer to rendering judgment by requiring, seeking out, or demanding an account of blood (Gen 9:5; 42:22; 2 Sam 4:11; Ps 9:12 [9:13 LXX]; Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:6, 8; Luke 11:50). For those who have faith in Christ, his blood is already accounted for as having cleansed them in acceptance of what he had done in shedding his blood. For those who deny him and continue to disobey God, a different account will be rendered as a result of their scorning the blood Jesus shed.

Fifth, in line with texts like 1 Cor 15, God’s action of raising Jesus is presented as paradigmatic action for those who follow him. This is accentuated by the statement that “the one who raised him out of the dead will raise us also” (2:2). This is a way of expressing Christomorphic resurrection belief, wherein expectations of resurrection are shaped around what God did for and in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is thus a sense of our being conformed to the gospel story in this way by the action of God (thereby making the gospel story our story). Resurrection life is also the goal of faithful, participatory union with him, which is expressed here in terms of loving obedience.

Sixth, this text is one of many that shows the theological-ethical functions of resurrection belief. The prospect of judgment after our own resurrection is presented as a reminder for the need to live righteously in faithful love for the God we serve, the one who raised Jesus and who will raise us. As we were created to bear the image and likeness of God, the reminder of God’s character also serves as a motivator, for our lives are shaped by the Spirit to be more like him, which bears fruit in faithful living like Polycarp describes in terms of doing his will and walking in his commandments, loving as God loves (cf. Matt 5:43–48 // Luke 6:27–28, 32–36), and abstaining from sin, such as those forms Polycarp lists. If we are to be raised like Christ by the same God who raised him, and the Spirit’s goal is to conform us to the image of Christ (to the end of conforming us to his transformative resurrection to everlasting life), then we ought to live like Christ in the line with the role we were born to play.

Polycarp continues invoking this theological-ethical function to motivate his audience to be well pleasing to the Lord in this life. For, he says, if we are well pleasing in this age, “we will also receive the coming age, just as he promised to us to raise [ἐγεῖραι] us out of the dead [ἐκ νεκρῶν]” (5:2). This is then followed in the same sentence with the promise that if we conduct ourselves worthily as citizens (Phil 3:20–21; cf. also Phil 1:27), we will also reign with him in that coming age.

To receive the coming age is to receive a share in the kingdom of God and the new creation, and we will require resurrection and/or transformation (depending on if we are alive or dead at the time) in order to receive the everlasting life necessary for that promise. This is another theme we have seen many times over in the NT, as well as in the Apostolic Fathers. Polycarp highlighting that this is the content of God’s promise also accentuates that the coming resurrection will be an expression of God’s faithful love in keeping his promises that not even death can hinder.

Moreover, this is now the third time that we have seen the phrase “out of the dead” connected to resurrection. The previous two times appeared close together in reference to Jesus’s resurrection. Now the reference is applied to the eschatological resurrection to signify the distinction and separation from the rest of the dead. The resurrection that is “out of the dead” distinguishes those who are objects of this Christomorphic resurrection action of God from the rest of the dead who will also be raised for the final judgment.

Finally, we should note that this text resembles 2 Tim 2:11–12, which we have reviewed here, even as it is also linked with Phil 3:20–21. The verb for “reigning with” him is the same as used in 2 Tim 2:12 (συμβασιλεύω). And in both texts, the emphasis is on conformity to the gospel story. Those who persevere in faithfulness unto death like Christ in his cruciform life will be raised like Christ was, and they will reign with him.

The next reference comes in ch. 7. In the triptych statement of 7:1 Polycarp first says that whoever should not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist. As with most early texts drawing from the language of 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 (at least, those not written by Origen), this is a reference to Jesus’s incarnation (Tertullian, Carn. 24; Marc. 5.16; Praescr. 33; 3 Cor 1:14; Cyprian, Test. 2.8; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.25). This is made even clearer by the rest of the triptych, since the second part says that whoever should not confess the testimony of the cross is from the devil. The final part of the triptych thus declares, “and whoever should pervert the sayings of the Lord to their own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection [ἀνάστασιν] nor judgment, this one is the firstborn of Satan” (7:1).

It is noteworthy that this denial is stated more generally than as simply being a denial of Jesus’s resurrection. Of course, given the linkage we have seen elsewhere, such as 1 Cor 15 (see here in particular), affirming or denying Jesus’s resurrection and the general resurrection are inherently linked. One cannot consistently affirm or deny one without affirming or denying the other in orthodox Christian theology. We also see here another link between resurrection and final judgment.

The next reference is not as clear as the others we have noted to this point, but it is at least suggestive. Polycarp speaks of holding fast our hope, which he has already defined the content of and which he identifies as Christ Jesus, who he also identifies as the pledge of our righteousness (8:1). He says Christ took up our sins in his own body on the tree, who himself did not sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth, “but for our sakes, in order that we should live [ζήσωμεν] in him, he endured all things” (8:1). I say that this reference is at least suggestive because the reference for us living in him is probably broader than a reference to resurrection. But it does at least include reference to resurrection given the reference to the risen Jesus as our hope and because of previous references to resurrection. The verb in question can also refer to resurrection, as we have noted elsewhere in posts on resurrection in the NT and the Apostolic Fathers (as well as the LXX).

Another reference follows in ch. 9 after Polycarp has cited the examples of perseverance from Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus. He is convinced that they are in their due places in the presence of the Lord with whom they suffered, “For they did not love this present age, but the one who died for us and who arose [ἀναστάντα] by God for our sakes” (9:2). As with earlier instruction, love for God in Jesus leads to sanctified imitation. And as we have seen in texts like Rom 4:25, both his death and his resurrection are said to be for us. We also see God the Father’s agency emphasized by a prepositional phrase and the function of the adjectival participle in articulating identifying action.

Chapters 10 through 12 are not extant in Greek, but our last relevant reference from this letter comes from 12:2. Polycarp wishes for God’s blessing on the audience by God bestowing a lot and portion among God’s saints on them, him (as well as other leaders), and all who are under heaven “who will believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised [resuscitavit] him from the dead” (12:2). The last phrase implies that this would have been another use of the ἐκ νεκρῶν in the Greek predecessor. We also see another reference to God’s agency in Jesus’s resurrection as well as this being an identifying action for God.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

As we move to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, there is only one explicit reference to consider. As the moment of Polycarp’s death approaches, he praises God:

I bless you, because you deemed me worthy of this day and hour, to take my part in the number of the witnesses/martyrs in the cup of your Christ unto/for resurrection [ἀνάστασιν] to everlasting life of both the life/soul as well as the body in the absolute vivification/incorruption of the Holy Spirit, among whom may I be hospitably received in your presence today as a fat/rich and acceptable sacrifice, just as you prepared beforehand, revealed beforehand, and fulfilled, o trustworthy and true God. (14:2)

This one explicit reference has a few notable features for our purposes. One, the speech attributed to Polycarp has him referring to taking part in the cup of Christ. This is one of many features of the story that connects Polycarp’s martyrdom to the death of Christ as connections of imitation (1:1; 19:1).¹ The author(s) has certainly selected, emphasized, and otherwise configured certain details to highlight the comparison, but I see no reason to think that Polycarp historically would not have intentionally engaged in the actions attributed to him for the express purpose of being conformed to Christ and his gospel story. We have already seen multiple indications of the idea of conformity to the gospel in his one extant letter, and we have also seen this theme in Ignatius’s letters. He also clearly knew the contents of the Gospels, as shown by his letter, and tradition links him specifically with John the apostle. Furthermore, the story calls for imitating Polycarp precisely because he imitates Christ (1:1–2), which is in turn reminiscent of the notion of double imitation presented in some NT texts (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2;14; Heb 6:12; 13:7).

This specific image of the cup, besides its own suggestive connections, links him to the gospel story because his death is approaching. But it is also reminiscent of Jesus himself referring to his disciples James and John drinking of the cup he would drink from and being baptized with the baptism he would receive (Matt 20:22–23 // Mark 10:38–39). In both Matthew and Mark, the episode in which Jesus makes this statement immediately follows one of his predictions of his death and resurrection (Matt 20:17–19 // Mark 10:32–34), which further links this imagery to conformity to the major events of the gospel narrative, as does the fact that this declaration leads into him telling his disciples that he came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45).

Two, partaking in the cup of Christ is directly linked with the resurrection to everlasting life. Although Jesus’s resurrection is nowhere explicitly referenced in this text, this theme of imitation of Christ assumes it, as it assumes knowledge of the larger gospel story, including of Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation. His anticipated reception of resurrection to everlasting life is a consequence of his allegiance to the God of the gospel embodied in his imitation of Christ in testimony to the same. Whether or not Polycarp spoke these words as such, they are at least in agreement with his own declarations of Christomorphic resurrection belief. He looks forward to his final conformity with Jesus in rising to receive the divine, everlasting life in the eschatological resurrection as the goal of his current conformity to Jesus in his death.

Three, the description of resurrection is unusual, at least at this point in our analysis. We have not seen anywhere else in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers a reference to “resurrection … of both the life/soul and the body.” Granted, this is the latest text we have examined so far, even though it is a second-century text (I have seen no good reason to date it later than the same decade of Polycarp’s martyrdom). But it still comes from a time in which a new development of resurrection language had been introduced and popularized by Gnostic teachers like Valentinus (Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 7.5; 61.5–8). We do not see as many responses to Gnostic use of resurrection terminology or even such references to the “modality” of resurrection until later, but I would suggest this is one of the earliest indicators of the indirect effects of their teachings, as it was now perceived to be necessary to specify a resurrection “of the body.”² This is in contrast to earlier times when it could be safely assumed, even in the absence of explicit reference to a body, that literal resurrection involved a body (as I have shown here).

It is not entirely clear to me that ψυχή should be rendered as “soul” or if this is just a tendency translators today just too easily give into. But even if it should be understood as referring to a person’s soul as a distinct substance or aspect of them, and not more simply as that which enlivens the body, the perceived need to make clear that the resurrection of one does not preclude the resurrection of the other stems from the impetus to distinguish from Gnostic teaching. I also suggest that there are a couple possible analogies for this description. One is from 1 En. 22:8–14, where the terminology does not refer to the “resurrection” of spirits as such but to their removal from the realm of the dead (or lack of removal, in the case of the wicked) in order to be reunited with their bodies. That is, this appears to be simply a more elaborate description of traditional resurrection belief. Another analogy is from Matt 10:28, where Jesus warns his disciples to fear “the one who is able to destroy both the life/soul and the body in Gehenna/hell.” I have noted this elsewhere as an implicit reference to resurrection, specifically the resurrection to condemnation that results in a person’s complete destruction. This text does not refer to a resurrection of “both the soul and the body,” but it does show how both could be invoked in referring (albeit implicitly) to resurrection that fits traditional beliefs.

Four, another description of the resurrection is that it will happen “in the absolute vivification of the Holy Spirit.” As we have seen elsewhere, this is one of the ways of stressing the Spirit’s role in resurrection as the giver of life (which also serves as a precedent for the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed). Irenaeus, Polycarp’s student, would similarly refer to the resurrection body as possessed by the Spirit and having qualities of the Spirit (Haer. 5.9.3). The key term that I prefer to translate as “absolute vivification” (ἀφθαρσία) is the same one used in 1 Cor 15 (specifically, vv. 42, 50, 53–54), on which see here and here. It is another way of referring to resurrection to everlasting life, specifically by reference to being so absolutely vivified that no trace of mortality remains, as death is utterly swallowed up. This speech is thus implicitly linked with a text featuring one of the clearest declarations of the links between our resurrection and Jesus’s resurrection.

Implicit Links

Both works also feature plenty of texts that either implicitly refer to resurrection or are implicitly linked to resurrection belief by assuming it for some point. Sometimes this is as subtle as referring to fetters as true diadems (Phil. 1:1) because of how wearing them for testimony to Christ makes one more like him. Or it could be in how Polycarp continues to invoke commandments after he theologically-ethically tied them to the promise of resurrection in Phil. 2:2 (2:3; 3:3–4:1; 5:1; 6:3). It is also arguably implied in reference to the apostles preaching the gospel (Phil. 6:2), given what we have seen of the content of their gospel elsewhere.

Other texts are more suggestive. We have already seen the general theme of conformity to the gospel and imitation of Christ that animates both Polycarp’s letter and the account of his martyrdom (besides the various narrative elements, note the explicit declarations in Mart. Pol. 1:1; 19:1). We have focused on where that theme is directly linked to resurrection belief, but there are other times when it is not explicit. When Polycarp calls on his audience to be imitators of Jesus’s perseverance (Phil. 8:2), the resurrection is not explicitly referenced, but it is clearly animating his instruction, since he has referenced Jesus’s resurrection and our resurrection on multiple occasions by this point in the letter. The implicit point is that the end goal of Jesus’s perseverance was his resurrection and glorification, and so it will be for those who imitate Jesus in participatory union with him. He himself continues the NT theme that will also be continued in the Martyrdom of Polycarp about the double imitation of Christ and those leaders who imitate Christ (Phil. 9:1–2). Yet both Polycarp and the author(s) of the Martyrdom of Polycarp go a step further and speak of the martyrs as suffering with and sharing in the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 9:2; Mart. Pol. 6:2). In light of the larger gospel story of Christ, the goal of this union in suffering will be that those who suffered with Christ will also rise with him to everlasting life in the age to come.

While it is difficult to know just which of the words attributed to Polycarp in his martyrdom account actually go back to him and to what extent, in one case relevant to our interest we can see something that likely exemplifies what Polycarp taught. We have noted on many occasions before how the christological description of Jesus as the eternal and heavenly high priest is most peculiar to Hebrews in the NT. That is not to say that other texts do not present Jesus in such terms, but nowhere else is it so explicitly and extensively articulated as in Hebrews. From what writings are available from the second century, the imagery does not appear to have been invoked that often, as we have observed it previously in Ignatius, Phld. 9:1. Yet in both his letter and in the account of his martyrdom, we see Polycarp refer to Christ as the eternal high priest (Phil. 12:2; Mart. Pol. 14:3). As we have noted to be the case in Hebrews, this declaration of him being the eternal high priest after his death implicitly relies on the assumption of the event of his resurrection.

There are also elements of eschatology in these texts that are implicitly linked with resurrection. The notion of inheriting the kingdom referenced in both texts is a case in point (Phil. 5:3; Mart. Pol. 20:2; 22:1). Both texts have made clear there is no notion of eschatological inheritance that does not involve resurrection to everlasting life for those who have died beforehand. Likewise, the notion of having a lot or share among the saints in Phil. 12:2 appears in proximity to a reference to God as the one who raised Jesus and after other references to the hope for eschatological resurrection based on this identifying action of God.

Another relevant aspect is reference to final judgment. We have seen already that for Polycarp, as for other authors of the OT, the NT, and Second Temple Jewish literature, resurrection of the dead is inherently tied to the expectation of final judgment. And thus we should understand resurrection being implied for those who die beforehand when Polycarp refers to the expectation of all of us appearing before the judgment seat (Phil. 6:2). Likewise, the references to everlasting judgment in Mart. Pol 2:3 and 11:2 assume that the dead will be raised to face everlasting consequences of one kind or the other.

One last image should also be observed. While it only appears in Martyrdom of Polycarp, the reference to a crown of “absolute vivification” (17:1; 19:2) is clearly informed by the expectation of resurrection for those who die before the eschaton, as Polycarp did. The term used here (ἀφθαρσία) is the same one in the reference to the life the Holy Spirit will give in 14:2. While resurrection is not explicitly referenced in either of these texts, there is no reason to think that the theological freight of that word is not transferred here, especially since it is also in reference to the reward for the righteous.

1. For more on this theme, see Shawn J. Wilhite, “‘That We Too Might Be Imitators of Him’: The Martyrdom of Polycarp as Imitatio Christi,” Chm 129 (2015): 319–36.

2. Ignatius, Symrn. 12:2 has been suggested as a text that refers to bodily and “spiritual” resurrection. As I have stated in my entry on Ignatius, I am inclined to disagree with that reading of the Greek, but even if the phrase in question modifies “in his passion and resurrection,” I think there is another way to understand that idea, which I describe in the aforementioned post.