Works or Grace?

Paul writes,

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6 KJV)

For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8 KJV)

Then James seem to contradict him with the rejoinder that,

You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24 KJV)

In light of this, Joseph Mizzi, writes, in opposition to what he perceives to be Catholic doctrine by taking a broadside at the former Pope, Benedict XVI by accusing him of substituting the works of faith for the works of the Law and thereby effectively negating the necessity for sola Grace altogether. In other words, according Benedict XVI, Mizzi says,

Thus when Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the Law, he was really saying that we are not justified by the Law of Moses, but he does not exclude that we are justified by the works of love.

“That’s the Pope’s argument in a nutshell,” writes Mizzi. “The Pope,” he continues,

“Rightly points out that in his epistles Paul discusses the division between Jews and Gentiles, and that now all believers are united in Christ irrespective of the ethnic background. But that was not his only concern. Paul also addresses the universal human tendency to self-righteousness, that is, our attempts to gain favor with God on account of personal works and merits.

That’s not all, Mizzi, continues,

The Law of Moses served the purpose of keeping God’s covenant people, Israel, distinct from pagan idolatry, as the Pope said. But the moral aspects of the law, whether written on tablets of stone or on the human conscience, also served to expose our depravity, guilt and helplessness. ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20).

Moreover Paul could not have limited the concept of ‘works of the Law’ to the Torah. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote:

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5).

Thus, Mizzi concludes, that

In this context ‘works’ could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of ‘works of the Law’ exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general. Abraham could not boast before God because he was justified faith and not by works. The same applies to us all.

This argument would be convincing, indeed, if, however, the former Pope had advocated works without grace can save us. This he did not. All he was saying was that neither faith nor works operate in a vacuum—Grace, God’s grace, is foundational to all.

In that regards it should be said that each time the former Pope or any other theologian expresses an opinion on matters of faith, it is not necessary to include an elementary introduction to presumed beliefs.  Grace, and the doctrine thereof being one of those.

Now, what Benedict XVI may have been alluding to is prevenient grace which according to the Cornelius paradigm is that affirmed when—

Peter opened his mouth, and said, "‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.’” (Acts 10:34-35)

Now, that’s a pretty hard one for Mizzi to wiggle himself out of; since, it should be said, God’s grace is operative here also, as I am convinced Benedict XVI would agree.

Faith Without Works is Dead . . . Useless

Sola fide—that is, by faith alone, when left to stand alone is an invitation to heresy. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that we are saved by faith only. No, not one place. We are, however, told that we are not saved by faith alone, for you see, the Scripture says in plain English that “faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless. (James 2:17).”

Yes, it is true that we are justified before God by faith alone, but faith does not stand alone. Saving faith is also an obedient  commitment—a recognition of the Lordship of Christ. We mustn’t “just listen to God’s word. We must do what it says. Otherwise, we are only fooling yourselves (James 1:22).” “For merely listening to the law doesn't make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight (Romans 2:13).”

Consider this, the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "Because I was faithful, I obtained mercy;" but, "I obtained mercy to be faithful."
In other words, faith always produces works! Good works. Not to save us, but as proof of our salvation. I am afraid that many of us have been sucked into the lie that we can just live like the devil and make it to Heaven. This “cheap grace” as Bonhoeffer called it is not what Christ had in mind when he said,

“[But] like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth (1 Peter 1:15-17 NIV))”

As you know, I love to write. Perhaps, my next book should be “Whatever Happened to Holiness?” But then to do so, I must define holiness.

In a nutshell, holiness is simply living your life as Christ would live it.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely what Paul had in mind when he said,

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).”

Now, may I ask you, would Christ frolic in the foolishness that some Christians do?  I think not, for as Paul says we must—

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:1-7 NIV)

But, please understand me carefully. These verses are not a list of don’ts but one simple do. That is, we must walk in the way of love . . . just like Christ!

So, the works that accompany a sanctifying faith is always positive—not a list of don’ts.
Of course, there is much more that I could say, but by now I am sure you get the picture, if you haven’t already.

With that said, please keep in mind that we are not in this journey alone. He walks beside us each step of the way.

JimR_/

 

When history ain't really history . . .

A reasonably unreasonable conclusion …

“All that an insane person has left is his reason”– G. K. Chesterton 1874 – 1936

*****

All reason is circular. That’s a fact. False premise, false conclusion. True premise, true conclusion. It is just as simple as that. The theorems of science are presupposed to be factually true, and reliable once tested and proven as such; however, science at its best is only a blueprint on how we are expected to investigate reality.

The truth is, however, much of what we believe to be true—reality, as it were,  is just a matter of opinion, sometimes an educated guess at best. I have no quibbles with science. What I do have problems with, however, are the invested prejudices found embedded in much of what tries to pass itself off as pure science regardless of the disciple under consideration—be that, theology, history, or something else.

Purported truth, therefore, must be checked against the facts. Church history as a disciple is no exception, either. As any student of Church history knows, such history is loaded with outright forgeries, and revisionism is defended on the principle of throwing a better light on the subject at hand. By ‘a better light’ I do not mean a fairer assessment, or necessarily changing the facts— although, this is always a possibility— I simply mean this, that history is often filtered through the sieve of today’s standards, particularly as it pertains to the politically correct ‘hot issues’ inherent in contemporary society like racism, sexuality, egalitarianism, or social or financial inequalities. Scripture, for example, can, and is, often twisted to fit the mores of a convenient contemporaneity.

Sadly, however, this has been a reoccurring standard throughout history, above all is it evidence in sacred history. History is not just retold, it is retold with a theological slant in mind. Collins Dictionary, as a matter of fact, defines sacred history as “history that is retold with the aim of instilling religious faith and which may or may not be founded on fact.” Which illustrates, at least to me, that it is a reputation well-earned considering the fact redactors down through ecclesiastical history have felt justified to change entire passages to suit their fancy.

Further, what I have in mind is a reductionism that does not just try to simplify a certain passage or translation to say essentially the same thing, but to change its meaning entirely by injecting an acceptable orthodoxy into the text to comply with some perceived or otherwise real standard.

Rufinus Aquileiensis, a nemeses of St. Jerome who quibbled with him over the orthodoxy of Origen who to prove a point spent considerable time redacting much of the Early Church Father’s work to make him sound more in line with the theology of Rome—i.e., Pope Anastasius I (399-401). Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, part of which he also translated was redacted considerably, etc.

These are well-known fact, attested by William A. Jurgens, as well as Mark Vessey, from Cambridge another  well know scholar of the period.

Nor does it stop there. Take for example, Jacques Paul Migne (25 October 1800 – 24 October 1875) a French priest who took on the task of publishing volumes of theological works, encyclopedias and the texts of the Church Fathers, with thought of providing books to train young men for the Catholic priesthood. Problem is, he rushed these translations through at such a rate that he left a trail of questionable documents. Not that they were all wrong, but it does take some of the enthusiasm out of reading them because one is not sure of when on certain occasions something is bogus or not.

Protestants do the same thing. Need I go into that? Well, there is not a whole lot to go into prior to the 1500’s.

So, although I shall continue to read, I have sadly come to the conclusion that I cannot base my faith on history, it must have a firmer foundation than that.

Of course, we all know what that foundation is, it is the foundation of all truth—that is, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

---

[i] http://www.collinsdictionary.com/

[ii] Mark Vessey, 'Jerome and Rufinus', in Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, (2010), p325 

Roman Catholicism by a former Catholic

This evangelical ministry by Dr Joseph Mizzi is dedicated to Roman Catholics who desire to know how to be saved. It is our sincere desire to proclaim to you the Good News of Jesus Christ, because the Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

• Answers from the Bible
• Are Works Necessary for Salvation?
• The Forgiveness of Sins
• Baptism
• The Bread of Life
• Blessed Mary
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Assumption
• Mary Worship? (Mary Ann Collins)
• Evangelical and Catholics Divided
• Church Unity
• John Paul II and Benedict XVI
• The Worship of Images
• A Brief Guide to Catholicism Today (Alan Howe)
• Pope Benedict on Justification
• An Evaluation of Natural Family Planning

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a five-fold ministry or a four-fold one?

Your Question:

In your opinion, does Ephesians 4:11 speak of a fivefold ministry or a fourfold one? In other words, does ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους (pastors and teachers) refer to one office or two?

My Answer:

When we read in Ephesians 4:11 is that "he gave…some, pastors and teachers." Here "pastors and teachers" refer back to the single "some," describing two facets of the same work.

Now, the big question is: Who were these apostles and prophets? For we find that the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Eph. 2:20 and further, even more disturbingly for we Protestants is that very Church is called "the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15 Not, the Scriptures, mind you, but the Church.

So, I've got to be honest with you. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is a magisterium of one, I get a little nervous. Perhaps, it would do us all good to do a little research into church history and see what Christians before us taught; and please let's not start at 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses onto a Wittenberg Church door.There's more history before that, than afterwards.

Could we possibly learn something from our Catholic and Orthodox, yes, and Anglican brethren? What about the Apostolic Fathers— Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? What about the Greek Fathers—Irenaeus of Lyons or Clement of Alexandria or Origen of Alexandria or Athanasius of Alexandria? What about the Cappadocian Fathers—John Chrysostom or Cyril of Alexandria or even John of Damascus? Oh, my, we can’t skip the Latin Fathers, either. There’s that old tongues speaker Tertullian and oh yes, another one called Hilary of Poitiers . . . whew, I am running out of breath. Oh, did I fail to mention St. Augustine, a favorite of both Luther and Calvin?

The point is, we don’t have to scratch out our theology like chickens in a barn yard. Most of it has already been packaged for us and is there for the taking.

Now, as far as the Greek goes believe me I have terrible trouble with a God who expects me to ferret out these truths when we have perhaps over 4,000 manuscripts to choose from, and again every Thomas, Richard, and Harold has his opinion on that, too. Surely, there must be a teaching magisterium besides old Tom, and old Dick, and old Harry. We have better resources that just that of someone with a correspondence school diploma from Podunk Hollow pontificating on every nuance that suits their fancy.

Truth and where to find it!

Early in my career, I discovered that theology is never static— that is God’s purposes and plans are progressively understood incrementally over time, and from the very beginning this has be so. This fact, however, does not mean that truth—or as Francis Schaeffer used to say, “true Truth” changes; it simply means that we understand the essence of truth better.

As for example, it is safe to say that no conscientious Old Testament Jew, prophet or otherwise, in their wildest imagination while reciting The Shema: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) would ever assume a Trinity. That refinement must wait until the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and beyond for a clearer understanding and richer insights into this deep mystery.

Now, however, who would argue that historical fact? Certainly, I wouldn’t.Thus we can say in a real sense understanding God’s purposes and plans, and as a matter of fact, His very nature has and is in a flux of refinement—the testimony of which is found in the abundance of Christian opinions. The end goal of all good theology, however, is change to us, not visa-versa. For as any believer knows, He has declared

“I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
So with the poet we can say,
Change and decay in all around I see—
O thou who changest not, abide with me!
— Henry F. Lyte

Thus we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both the Father and the Son is the same God as the God of The Shema and affirmed once again when we read in Scripture that,

“Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, today and forever.” (Heb. 13:8 Phillips)

Which, to me indicates both a fulfillment of a Godly purpose as well as a further refinement in understanding His nature and purposes.

The big question is, however, ‘How do we know or understand the nature and purposes of God?’

Shall I cut to the chase since I assume that you are a Christian or otherwise you would not be reading this? The answer is that we depend entirely on God’s grace to reveal His nature and eternal intentions to us. This, we believe, He has done through nature and His Word as revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Herein, however, lies the crux of the controversy—that is ‘How can we know what we perceive and/or have been told is really true Truth?’ or just a product of a wishful imagination?

In a word, we accept what we believe is true Truth intuitively by faith—His Spirit bears witness with  our spirits that we are children of God. (Romans 8:16) Human reason alone, however, is insufficient; Godly grace is required. This I like to think of as God affirming the intuition which I believe the Greek makes clear in the verse just cited. I say this because the Greek verb (συμμαρτυρεῖ /symmartyrei) conveys the meaning of "bears witness along with"— meaning, in my estimation, that affirms the intuition.

Consider the Apostle Peter’s confession in this regard. Matthew says that—

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 16: 13-17 NIV)

Surely there must have been other mitigating factors involved, a gradual dawning, or a peculiar awareness that this man Jesus must be different, someone special; but the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Hardly. No, that intuitive insight came in a flash accompanied by an affirming revelation that Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of the living God, the long awaited Messiah.

Now, if we look carefully and are open we also find that God has continued this unfolding process down through history, up to the present time. Otherwise, theology would be stagnant, wooden, and underdeveloped.

This is not to suggest that God changes; but it is to suggest that our understanding does as of knowledge of Him expands in an ever increasing revelation of who He is.

God has not left us without a witness, however. The Church is the creation of Jesus, from whom it receives its authority; He gave authority to the Apostles to determine and institute doctrine, to declare the correct and false, to establish faith and morals. Paul highlights that in his instructions to young Timothy whom he had asked to stay in Ephesus to shepherd the fledgling fellowship in that city with these words:

 ‘[If] I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

Yes, the Church is that witness—not the opinion of some solo artist that decides that God has infused them with special knowledge that will enlighten the presumed theological idiots that by chance may disagree with them. Godly appointed authority? Never, these self-appointed magisterium of one have the answer—“Sola scriptura,” they shout in defense against any and all authority. And, for the information of any that would like to hear it, I would say that we should put them all in the same basket as all the other heretics out there. Surely there is a hierarchy of brethren to guide the church in all its fulness.

For me, I have submitted to the wisdom and leadership of my denomination which have prayerfully develop a statement of doctrine orthodoxy—albeit, a simple one; but none-the-less a sound one. I have a hunch that we are not through, but time is on our side and no doubt certain points will be fine-tuned in the years to come. As Dwight Longenecker says;

“Ironically, in rejecting an external infallible authority we are encouraged to embrace the most fickle and fallible of all authorities – our own judgment. We then cling to our opinions like a shipwrecked man clings to a splinter of wood, and before long, our opinions are unassailable. In the end we don’t have one objective, infallible authority but millions of subjective “infallible” authorities, and in this absurdity, we rejoice.” 

Remember, I am with you for the journey,

Early Church Fathers: Eucharistic Theology

It has been alledged by some well intended Christians that the real presence of Christ under the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) ceremony was a doctrine that developed late in Church history, culminating in the Council of Trent  (1545–63).  However in summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: 

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Personally, I find it difficult to accept such a literalist position, I do believe however that Christ  is truly present at the table with us, as He has promised that "where two or three are gathered to gather in His Name, He is in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20)

However, historically, from the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).


Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). 

Justin Martyr 

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). 

Irenaeus 

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). 

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). 

Clement of Alexandria 

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). 

Tertullian 

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). 

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., 
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan 

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). 

Theodore of Mopsuestia 

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). 

Augustine 

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). 

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). 

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). 

Council of Ephesus 

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

In Conclusion

Truly Symbolism is always based on realism, or if it is to be believed, it should be. Did Christ truly die for our sins? Yes, indeed, He did. Was His body pierced for my iniquities, and am I by His stripes healed? Yes, indeed. Was His blood offered as an atoning sacrifice for my sins? Yes, indeed it was. Has He kept His promise that, "Lo, He is with us until the end of the age?" Yes, indeed He has. Does, He live in my heart? Yes, indeed He does. By His kind gift of salvation am I assured of my Heavenly reward? Most definitely, I am. Then in obedience I pledge to remember His death, burial, and resurrection until He comes again by commemorating His sacrificial gift of Himself for me, once and for all time.

The real question is, however, is Jesus truly present in the wafer and the wine when I participate in this commemorative act? Yes, I believe that He is present in the process, but am I prepared to say that the wafer contains the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus in form as well as essence? In the sense that He is omnipresent, yes. And, is it not true that He dwells in me? Yes, it certainly is. However to objectify this form in the same way in which His earthly body was objectified and transform and posit Him in bodily form in the thousands of eucharistic services that are conducted each day seem rather unnecessary—not to mention impossible since God can not be divided into pieces—since God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. 

However, since I do not understand how something is done does not give me a right to deny it; otherwise, I would have to deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and a host of other miracles recorded in scripture. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church the following caveat is given for just that reason. It reads:

"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1350)

Although, this fails to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, it does none-the-less make the singularity of the event significantly a matter of faith. In good conscience, however, I can not as Zwingle did consider the ceremony in which the bread and wine are simply symbols or signs not unlike the symbol of a country's flag that invokes a sense of patriotism or a reminder of what a great country we live in. To put the Lord's supper in the same category of a memorial, say  for instance, like the The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. is not what I think Christ intended.

So for me, The Lord's Supper is not just a reminder, it is also a meeting place where I in communion with the Body of Christ (i.e., His Church) and with Him consider these signs as a reminder that He is indeed with us in the fullness of His presence. 

Seder Meal or New Covenant Meal? The choice is not up for grabs!

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a feast that is generally mistaken for Passover. Passover however is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

Summary verses:

KJV of Mark 14:12

12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Correct Translation:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

Or as NIV puts it: 12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Further clarification:

THE “FIRST DAY” OF UNLEAVENED BREAD Mat 26:17 Now the first (#4413) day (not in original) of the feast of (not in original) unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Mark 14:12 And the first (#4413) day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Luke 22:7 Then came the day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

The translators have grossly mistranslated these three verses in regards to the words “first” and “day”.  They knew that the Greek used both of these words generally, as well as specifically.  They chose to translate these words specifically – creating a contradiction in the scriptures.  Moreover, nothing in the immediate context requires a specific translation.  In fact, a perusal understanding of the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread reveals that a specific rendition of these words creates a contradiction.  Because of this mistranslation, commentators have stumbled over the intent of these verses for centuries!

Let us look at the word in Matthew 26:17.  2Peter 2:20 uses the same word.  There the KJV translates it as beginning.

2Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning (#4413).

Realizing that the word and are not in the original in Matthew 26:17, the verse should be translated as follows: Matthew 26:17, Now at (toward) the beginning of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua - Joshua), saying to Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?

This is a correct translation because the 15th of Nisan is the first day of unleavened bread.  As the evidence points out that the time of this verse was earlier than the 15th Nisan, the KJV translators made an error in translating this verse as though it was already the 15th, when the Greek did not require this narrow translation.

Now let us look at Mark 14:12.  This verse uses the same word for (#4413).  We have already shown how one should translate this word.  This verse does include the word (#2250), in the original.  Notice how the following passages translates this word day (#2250):  Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days <2250> of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days <2250>; where we abode seven days <2250>.

Lu 1:5  There was in the days <2250> of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Lu 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this?  For I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years <2250>.

Lu 9:51  And it came to pass, when the time <2250> was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,As we see from above scriptures, the word #2250 is general.  It can be specific, if the context requires specific information.  By translating this verse as they have, the KJV translators made the day specific.  The problem is that the translation is in error because the first day of unleavened bread is on the 15th and the Romans put the Messiah on the tree on the 14th!  

Therefore, we have an impossible translation – it does not agree with the facts.  The 14th is not the first day of unleavened bread!

The word #2250 is many times translated as in a general sort of way as in  Luke 1:5 above.  A correct translation of Mark 14:12 follows:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

It was at or toward the beginning of the time or season of unleavened bread that this took place.  Moreover, we all know that it was during the season of unleavened bread when the Passover was slain. The disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua – Joshua) before the evening began, and when the evening came, they sit down together; therefore, this had to be no later than the 13th Nisan.  Consequently, if anyone wants to call the 14th the first day of unleavened bread, which it is not, the translation is still in error – for the day in question was earlier than the 14th Nisan!

The thrust of the time is the beginning days or season of unleavened bread, which began, directly, on the 10th of Nisan.  The Jews did prepare roads, reconstruct bridges, and whitewash tombs – among other activities – before the 10th Nisan, but the penning of the lambs specifically for the Passover began on the 10th Nisan.  We will see that it had to be even earlier than the 13th when the disciples came to Christ for instructions to prepare for the Passover!

Luke 22:7 is even more revealing.  The Greek word is Strong’s #2250.  We have seen a correct translation using that word.  Moreover, unless one translates it, as we have shown, we have a gross error.  The day the Passover was slain was not a day of unleavened bread!  The Festival of Unleavened Bread encompassed only 7 days.  If we include the 14th Nisan, the day for slaying the Passover lambs, as a day of unleavened bread, we have 8 days of unleavened bread.  This would be an impossible translation – even if one accepted the erroneous idea that the day involved was the 14th Nisan!  Here is a correct way to translate this verse:

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Correct interpretation:

A correct translation of these scriptures must reveal that the writers referred to the season of unleavened bread, rather than a specific day of unleavened bread – otherwise we have a contradiction.  Additionally, the above translation is well within the meaning of the Greek.