Today is Easter in the calendars of the Orthodox Churches. So let me begin by proclaiming: Christ is risen, truly He is risen. I do recommend that you read a book written by a good Protestant theologian, Christopher A. Hall, entitled “Learning Theology with the Church Fathers”, InterVarsity Press, 2002. I could lend it to you when you’re back in town. Hall is a collaborator with Thomas Oden and this book is part of a series they edited together. It may possible to show that some of what the Reformers said conformed with the Fathers. But even conceding the Western Christian definition of the term Church Fathers, which pulls in such figures as Tertullian, you cannot make any connection between Zwingly’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the teaching of the Church Fathers. They unanimously taught that the bread and wine (no such thing as non-alcoholic grape juice) do become the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Zwingly deprived many of the medicine of immortality, as Ignatius of Antioch (a bishop and martyr who learned at the feet of St John the Evangelist) calls it.

The liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great both have a prayer which says “send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here present. And make this bread the very Body of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (I am typing from memory so don’t treat this as a citation). I would also like to note that the prayers of these liturgies were not fully composed by these fathers but, like such things as the sign of the cross, they were handed down to them from earlier Christians. One criteria I use when selecting a Children’s Bible to read to my kids is what the authors did with the words of Christ in the last supper. One version we were given as a gift says “take, eat, this is like my body”. Thankfully, my eldest now reads along with me from the NKJV rather than paraphrases.

Forgive me if I have offended. This is your domain and good on you for using it to spread the Gospel. Christos Anesti … Alithos Anesti!

No offense taken whatsoever brother. In fact, your note deserves careful consideration.

You mention the Church fathers in line with Zwingli’s take on the Lord’s supper - I probably needn’t go to the Church fathers, Luke 22:19 (& parallels), 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 “This do in remembrance of me”. It mightn’t be a foolproof argument, and you might say, “well, in that case the Church fathers don’t really agree with the Reformers on all issues”, but there are grounds in Scripture and the early traditions of the Church for Reformed belief.

Further to Zwingli’s interpretation of the Lord’s supper, it seems he himself must have felt he was standing on a firm Scriptural foundation. As you know at the close of the Marburg Colloquy (during which Luther unveiled what he considered his great proof - hoc est corpus meum) he shed real tears and said that there was no one he would rather have fellowship with than Luther and Melanchthon. However, there was something more important to him than such fellowship, and that was the intellectual integrity of sticking to his interpretation of these very issues.

alithos anesti!

James

Let me take a little time to address some of what you said. Apart from the fact that the whole thing began with citing certain teachings as being consistent with the Scriptures and the fathers and ending with not needing to go to the fathers. Surely one cannot establish Zwingly’s consistency with the early Church by appealing to Zwingly and ignoring the writings of the early Church. Please treat the following as a demonstration that we all approach Scripture with presuppositions rather than as “proofs” on my part.

1 Cor 11:20 is part of the scolding of the Corinthians, whose “meetings do more harm than good”. It was common for early Christians to have an agape meal when they met for worship (which was liturgical by the way, none of this “just talking to God” business). The Corinthians indulged in glutony and drunkenness.

In the same passage, Paul repeats the “words of institution”. He then tells them what a big deal it is, “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself”. When we take the bread, we are to recognise the body of the Lord. Christ told us to do this in remembrance, but “this” referred to what? We have to refer to what He did and said to find out. His words contained an actuality rather than a representation “this is my Body”, “this is my Blood”.
1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” The NIV sutdy Bible understands this as a symbolic fellowship and, to prove the point, it says “When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Christ had not yet poured out his blood”. In other words, the authors of the study notes think that Christ did not really mean what He said. The authors of the children’s bible I referred to in my earlier comment would have have been more reliable. How can I argue against such logic? They are also sure that John 6:41 - 59 does not refer to communion.

In the end, we make parallel arguments that do not meet. This is because we believe certain things and then read the Bible. Neither of us came to the Bible as a clean slate, even if we would like to think that. It is interesting that the person who proclaimed “Sola Scriptura” felt it necessary to revise the canons of both testaments, relegating some books to apocryphal status and others to the status of a second canon. He even took offense at those books which did not agree with his thesis (James was an epistle of straw, had no evangelical merit, mentioned Christ only twice etc…)

A 15th century figure may have argued his doctrine with vigour, sincerity and intellectual integrity. To me this counts for nothing if his arguments were inconsistent with the practice of the early Church which wrote down and died for the Word. The Holy Spirit could not have waited 15 centuries to lead us into all truth.

Again and again, Christ is risen!

Ziad.

Thanks once again for your comments. I guess my initial intention in making my post wasn’t to enter into a debate of this magnitude. I’ll have to concede you the winner, and take comfort in the fact that I’m in good company with the editors of the NIV Study Bible. They, themselves, may well not make any claims re: connection between Zwingli and the Lord’s supper - granted.

I look forward to catching up on my return to Melbourne. Doubtless it’ll involve food (and plenty of children running around!).

Blessings once again,

James

Al Massih Qam!

Ziad.