‍ 

Dialogue on the Real Presence of Christ

 

A humorously sarcastic discussion of Ignatius 

of Antioch’s comments about the Eucharist

 

Gary Hoge

 

Obviously, Ignatius was mistaken.

 

Maybe he should have paid better attention to what John was saying to him, then he wouldn’t have made such a fundamental blunder. If only he had lived a few centuries longer (about fifteen) someone could have set him straight. :-)

 

Well, perhaps he knows better now.

 

I hope so because he sure had some radical ideas about the Eucharist. He even wrote that it was the “medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, . . . a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.” It’s a shame that John was such a lousy teacher. For that matter, I guess all of the apostles were lousy teachers, because all of the early Christians believed this nonsense. Oh, where was Luther when we needed him? Oops, I forgot: Luther believed this stuff too. Where was Zwingli when we needed him? :-)

 

I’m surprised at you—turning to “that German monk” for instruction in things spiritual! I thought you knew better! For shame!

 

Well, as you once said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day! :-) But I agree with you, if we want to know what John meant when he wrote, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you,” we should certainly not put much stock in the opinion of a German monk who was born fourteen centuries after John died. Neither should we put much stock in the opinion of a Swiss politician and lawyer (Zwingli) who was similarly remote from John himself. Instead, we should look to those who learned the proper interpretation from John himself. Men like Ignatius. :-) Of course, Ignatius (and every other Christian who put pen to paper for the next eleven centuries) could have gotten it wrong . . .

 

Very open-minded of you to say so.

 

Thank you! Just because a position is absurd doesn’t mean it might not be true! :-) Maybe when John tried to explain to Ignatius that it was just a simple memorial supper, poor Ignatius just didn’t get it. Neither did Polycarp. Or Justin Martyr. Or Irenaeus. Such dullards! Maybe when Ignatius read the original manuscript of John’s gospel in his own native language, he just didn’t understand it as well as we do.

 

Do you suppose the words meant something different then than now?

 

No, of course not. They still mean exactly what they say. Only the interpretation has changed. Catholics interpret the Bible literally, Protestants don’t. Talk about ironic! The question is, whose interpretation is right? We must remember that John’s gospel (and the rest of the NT) was addressed to people in his own culture who spoke his own language. When we read it, our understanding of it will only be as good as our understanding of first-century culture and linguistics. The less we understand first-century thought and idiom, and the less we understand Greek, the less accurate our interpretation is likely to be.

 

Ignatius was a first-century, Greek-speaking disciple of John who read the unadulterated original of his gospel. We, on the other hand, are twentieth century, English speaking disciples of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. who read an English translation of adulterated fifth-century Greek copies of John’s gospel. All things being equal, I’d say Ignatius was in an infinitely better position to interpret it correctly--especially because he had access to the author himself!

 

Yet he still screwed it up!

 

Then I think you should definitely stick with Zwingli’s novel sixteenth century symbolic interpretation, and praise God that you have access to more reliable teachers than Ignatius did. :-)