Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)

Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.

This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.

The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:

In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 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).

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus again: “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?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).

Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).

Origen (182–254): “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’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).

Augustine (354–430): “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).

Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.

But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?

1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.

Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).

In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.

A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.

Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.

2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.

We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.

At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.

At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.

Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.

You are, of course, ignoring my point.

You don’t deny that Jesus said, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”

You say that the drinking of Jesus’ ACTUAL blood would be a sin, and therefore, the Eucharist must be a mere symbol.

You say that the words are symbolic.

Fine. What that means is that Jesus is telling the apostles to perform a ritual that SYMBOLIZES A SIN.

I asked for any other examples of Jesus recommending that we COMMIT a SIN SYMBOLICALLY.

You ignored my point, and pointed out that Jesus was, in general, opposed to sin. Duh.

You say that the Eucharist is a symbol, BECAUSE drinking the blood of Jesus would be a sin.

But you can’t deny that Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink, all of you..This is the chalice of my blood...”

So you are defending the proposition that Jesus commanded the apostles to carry out a ritual that SYMBOLIZES A SINFUL ACTION, drinking his blood.

I asked you to point to other examples of Jesus’ commanding us to SIN SYMBOLICALLY, like a ritual that SYMBOLIZES ADULTERY, or SYMBOLIZES IDOLATRY.

You ignored what I said, and instead ranted some more against Eucharistic realism, and ranted some more about how I have been stuffed full of Catholic propaganda.

Here’s an idea: How about READING what I wrote, and RESPONDING to it rationally?

According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.

Arthur, that appears to me to be a misrepresentation of CA's argument. That is not a consequence of his position, but yours. His position, that Jesus is using metaphor, resolves the dilemma. Especially because a dietary restriction is what is known in the law as a "thing indifferent," versus a moral prohibition, such as adultery or lying. With a moral prohibition, there is an evil that is occurring that is inherent to the act, the act in moral law encompassing the mind as well as the body.

But there is no inherent moral issue in eating or not eating a particular substance. Paul makes that clear in his discussion of meat offered to idols. Therefore, there is no way to "symbolize" moral sin (I shudder to think of how that might look) without actually engaging in the sin itself, because the mental component would be there, and as we know from the Sermon on the Mount, that is sufficient to produce real guilt. No such mental aspect exists in consuming blood. The sin cannot be committed except by doing it in physical terms. Therefore doing it by symbol is not a violation of the law.

Peace,

SR

>>He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.<<

Not any more then Ezekiel was symbolically eating the physical scroll. I don't think it "symbolizes" anything. Christ said to do it as a "remembrance" just as the passover meal was a "remembrance".

It's God's word that feeds us. Jesus is the word. As Ezekiel did we "eat" as in "take in" or "internalize" the word of God. He didn't literally eat the physical scroll. As Ezekiel we feast on the information which feeds our souls. Just as manna in the desert sustained the Israelites so God's word sustains us today.

Christ's death on that cross and the shedding of His blood is the atonement for our sins. We are redeemed by the shed blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19). Peter wrote that election is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). Do Catholics also sprinkle real blood? Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. It refers to atonement. To eat His flesh and to drink His blood means to believe on Him and "eat" the words and internalize them.

\ Just as the Israelites commemorated or remembered the passover so we commemorate or remember the broken body and shed blood of Christ for our atonement. Christ said "this do in remembrance of me". He didn't say "repeat doing this to me".

Christ also said He would again drink of the vine in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25). Would you say He is once again going to drink the blood?

As I have said often. Jesus lived as an observant Jew, keeping the Torah or Laws of Moses and teaching others to do the same. Jews were strictly forbidden to consume blood or even to eat meat that had not had the blood properly drained and removed (Lev. 7:26-27). Had He condoned the eating of blood and done so at the last supper He would have been breaking the law and would have been unworthy to be the forever atonement for our sins.

Now, you love to ask questions but haven't answered mine. We know that death is the result of sin. Christ died for our sins having "taken our sins upon Him". Whose sins did Mary die for?

Very well said, but it will fall on deaf ears.

As you and I know, the wine, being red, is to remind us of the blood He shed for our sins. The bread being broken reminds us of His body being broken for us. When we take these elements during Communion, we are to meditate on these things, to remember the tremendous sacrifice He made on our behalf.

Since Communion is not what saves us, it is not necessary to believe that the wine and the bread become the literal body and blood of Christ - we are commanded to partake in Communion as a memorial, a remembrance of the price He paid. We are never told how often we should do this, but as often as we do, we are do it in remembrance of Him.

^^He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.^^

Not any more then Ezekiel was symbolically eating the physical scroll. I don't think it "symbolizes" anything. Christ said to do it as a "remembrance" just as the passover meal was a "remembrance".

If that's what you think, then you are the first person in the history of the world who thinks that the Seder is not symbolic.

Jesus actually DID SAY that the chalice he was holding was filled with his blood. He told the apostles to drink his blood.

You say that drinking blood was a sin, and that drinking the wine at a "communions service" is symbolic.

Thus, according to you, Jesus was telling the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED committing the sin of drinking his blood.

You have not answered why Jesus would command a ritual action that SYMBOLIZES a sinful action.

I think the following addresses and rebuffs this "If we drink the actual blood of Jesus then we sin according to the OT" claim. Some of the points there Father already made but there are some others there that haven't been considered in your discussion/debate so far.

Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

Also two points made there haven't been addressed in your debate even though Father made the original point to whit:

When Jesus declared all foods clean, it took effect immediately, not "after the Cross". There is nothing in the text that necessarily says otherwise.

Secondly, even a symbolic act that symbolizes something evil is itself evil, so even if the Eucharist is meant to be just a symbol, it would still be blasphemous to engage in an act that would break an OT law, even if it's just symbolic.

To say otherwise is akin to saying, "it's not really sinful to dip a Crucifix in urine, after all that's not really Jesus on the Cross its just a symbol".

The above two points may be contended further but speaking for myself I don't see a reason to respond to any post unless all points (in the linked article) are addressed (and even then maybe no response is necessary if the only "rebuttal" is something to the effect of "I don't agree with that interpretation of Scripture").

In the book of Revelation, we find liturgical action, centered on an altar. Among the features of the liturgical action and the community carrying it out, we see the following:

Sunday worship: 1:10
A HIGH PRIEST: 1:13
an altar: 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:8
PRIESTS: 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
VESTMENTS: 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
CONSECRATED CELIBACY: 14:4
lamp stands: 1:12; 2:5
penitence: chapters 2 and 3
INCENSE: 5:8; 8:3-5
the book, or scroll: 5:1
the EUCHARISTIC HOST: 2:17
CHALICES: 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
the SIGN OF THE CROSS: 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
the Gloria: 15:3-4
the Alleluia: 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts: 11:12
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus: 4:8
the Great Amen: 19:4; 22:21
the Agnus Dei: 5:6 and throughout
the prominence of the VIRGIN MARY: 12:1-6; chapters 13-17
INTERCESSION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS: 5:8; 6:9-10; 8:3-4
DEVOTION TO SAINT MICHAEL: 12:7
antiphonal chant: 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
readings from Scripture: chapters 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
the priesthood of the faithful: 1:6; 20:6
CATHOLICITY OR UNIVERSALITY: 7:9
silent contemplation: 8:1
the marriage supper of the Lamb: 19:9, 17

What is the explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church has or practices all these things contained in Scripture, while Protestant or “Reformed” Christians do not have or practice so many of these things contained in Scripture?

In other words: Are there “Christians” who disregard much of what Scripture says are features of Christian worship and life?

You don’t deny that Jesus said, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”

Arthur, the one thing you continually ignore is that immediately after giving the disciples the cup of wine and saying, "this is My blood of the new testament...", Jesus then said, "I will drink no more of this wine (fruit of the vine) until I drink it new in the Kingdom of God." So even Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as wine AFTER giving to the disciples.

Furthermore, in John 16, AFTER the Last Supper when Jesus was talking to the disciples He told them, "These things I have spoken unto you in proverbs (figures of speech); but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs." So Jesus plainly tells His disciples He has been using metaphors and proverbs with them.

Care to provide a Scriptural rebuttal to the very words of Christ?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.