Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
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.
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:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
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?
In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.
Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?
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).
How should we think about such statements?
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?
In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:
* * * * *
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.
The consecrated wine is often referred to as “wine” even in the Catholic Mass. The consecrated Host is referred to as “bread.” This usage is similar to that employed by Jesus at the Last Supper. He wasn’t giving a technical, philosophical, metaphysical discourse on the Eucharistic Presence.
There are two reasons that the use of the terms “bread” and “wine” are legitimate:
One: they still look like bread and wine. They WERE bread and wine.
Two: Even after the consecration, at which they BECOME Christ’s body and blood, they still FUNCTION AS SYMBOLS of flesh and blood.
That’s why they are fitting matter for the sacrament: They CAN become Christ’s body and blood because they are fitting NATURAL symbols of flesh and blood. One could argue that because a block of wood cannot be eaten, and a lump of coal cannot be drunk, Jesus COULD NOT make those into the sacrament of his body and blood. The bread and wine CAN be changed into Christ’s body and blood because they NATURALLY symbolize flesh and blood.
You imply that those uses of the words “bread” and “wine” utterly vitiate any belief in the Real Presence. But those uses of the words are not categorical, technical, global, univocal statements of Catholic belief about the Eucharist. They are convenient and qualified terminology.
The Church has always been unequivocal that the Eucharistic Species are to be worshiped with exactly the same worship that is due to Jesus Christ. It is preposterous to say that the use of the words “bread” and “wine” in certain contexts signifies that the Church does not believe in the Real Presence, set beside the constant insistence of the Church that the Eucharistic Species are to be WORSHIPED.
We don’t know whether or not Mary died.
She was preserved from sin by the merits of Christ. So she DID have a savior—Jesus Christ.
Mary, being sinless, very possibly did not die.
On the other hand, it seems probable that she would WANT to experience death out of a desire for SOLIDARITY with her Son, and with the rest of the human race.
Hi Mom,
Do you remember this humongous thread years ago?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1318819/posts
It raised many of the same debate and topics.
True. Jesus spoke in proverbs, metaphors, parables.
And immediately after speaking so to the crowds, he would explain the meaning of his parables to the disciples. Those explanations are also recorded in the gospels.
So, according to the Scriptures, Jesus did not speak ONLY in metaphors and parables.
When it comes to the Eucharist, we are NOT told that Jesus explained to the disciples privately that he was speaking in metaphor only, when he said we must gnaw and chew his body, and drink his blood.
“Day of the Lord” is no good as a synonym for “Sunday”?
How about “the Lord’s day,” then?
So the dormition of Mary wasn't really the dormition of Mary right? And that whole story about the apostles being transported to her bedside at her death was just a fake? A fable? What was that?
I think if it weren't for double speak Catholics wouldn't have much to say.
Ah, you see that's what happens when you don't read the whole chapter. If you did, you would see that Jesus was not talking about foods that were declared clean and unclean under the Law. That whole discussion was concerning the fact that the disciples were not following the Jewish tradition (not Law) of ceremonially washing their hands before they ate. The Pharisees were offended by the fact that the disciples didn't follow the tradition. Never once in that chapter did the topic of whether the foods were "clean" or "unclean" according to the Law come into the discussion - as a matter of fact, the food they were eating was bread.
With regard to the "Real Presence", I am not well versed in Catholic terminology, so I assume you are referring to Christ being physically present in the bread and the wine. Seems like a strange theology, and one that doesn't make much sense. It also seems superfluous - since I have Jesus present in me at ALL times, why would He need to be in the bread and the wine? I don't take Jesus into my body through my mouth - He is in my heart through His Spirit at all times.
And the fact that you worship any man-made item, whether that be a statue, a piece of bread or a cup of wine, clearly puts you unto the category of idolatry. We are not to worship the creation, we are to Worship the Creator only.
Since you can provide no Scriptural basis for this statement, just you man-made tradition, this statement has no more validity that your other statements based on Church tradition. And like your other statements, it is in direct opposition to the actual Scripture, which says "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." And also, "it is appointed unto man once to die; and after this, the judgment."
(By the way, if you want to argue about Enoch and Elijah, just who do you think will be the two witnesses that are killed in Revelation?)
Amen
That’s true what you say but two things:
One, the fact that He was speaking of a ceremonial law being abolished (the washing of hands before eating) actually only compliments the argument(s) made on Catholic.com regarding the alleged prohibition of drinking blood still in effect today. For indeed the author of that piece made the same point to whit: since Jesus said that it is no longer “unclean” to eat before ceremonially washing one’s hands it’s indeed the dirt of one’s hands that is the subject of His edict there. So even if one doesn’t agree that blood is food, then in Mark 7:18-19 we can still see Jesus lifting the “uncleanliness” of not ceremonially washing one’s hands, which isn’t due to food per se but rather dirt. (Read the article). So if accidentally consuming dirt with one’s meal no longer makes a man unclean, then surely it can’t be said that purposefully consuming the blood of Jesus is unclean, since that contains His life.
Secondly about the lifting of all food restrictions: if accidentally consuming dirt is now ok, then surely it can’t be said purposefully consuming any food is “unclean” as St Paul later goes on to teach again. In other words St Paul wasn’t just making up what he taught about clean/unclean foods, he was just repeating what was taught by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19.
As I said before I will now say again: I won’t respond any more unless all the points in that article are addressed and I’ll say this now too: in one post. I’m not going to chase down a myriad of posts to get a cohesive reply to all those points (in the linked article above).
So even if you disagree with what I’ve said here that doesn’t change my mind since you haven’t addressed all the points there.
Actually, no. Your logic is fallacious, because you are comparing two different things as if they were the same. The prohibition against consuming blood was given by God Himself; the tradition of washing hands was developed by the priests and Pharisees. There is a WORLD of difference between overturning a man-made tradition and overturning a Law given by God.
With regard to Paul, if you read the Scripture in context, he is clearly addressing the issue of the Jewish Christians trying to make the Gentile Christians live under the Mosaic law. Paul's point is that after the Cross, we are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law because it was completely fulfilled by the life and death of Christ. Rather, the Church is governed by the grace of God. The moral laws of God are written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, not on tablets of stone. But once again, that was AFTER and as a RESULT OF the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not before.
And as I told Arthur, I am not trying to change your mind - just allow others to see the flaws in your argument and tradition.
You may think you are doing that but you aren't. As anyone who wishes can read the article on catholic.com and see for themselves that you still haven't shown how what is said THERE, is wrong.
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?
For those who wish to see for themselves how your reply lacks.
that was the last Passover Arthur ..Jesus was explaining to them the fulfillment of the the "type "(passover ) and now they were to remember Him as the fulfillment
He was the bread of life ...with out leaven (sin)
The four cups of wine at the passover correspond to the four expressions of redemption in the Torah: "I took you out...I rescued you...I liberated you...I took you to Me for a people."
It seems that Jesus offered the 3rd cup (I liberated you ) ..."..He was fulfilling the passover..eliminating it and replacing it with Himself
They understood his metaphor ..not one apostle questioned Him about this BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD
You just can not understand Arthur
Mat 13:15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.' 16"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
No, unless you can show once from scripture that Sunday or the first day of the week is referred to as the "day of the Lord" or "the Lord's day". The only instance in all of history that I can find "the lord's day" referring to Sunday is in paganism referring to the day dedicated to the sun god.
BTW The Greek wording for Revelation 1:10 would be "in, on, or among" the Lord's day. That would be consistent with the rest of scripture when "the day of the Lord" or "the Lord's day" refers to a time period.
>>How about “the Lord’s day,” then?<<
Shoe where it is ever in reference to Sunday or any other specific identifiable day.
And immediately after speaking so to the crowds, he would explain the meaning of his parables to the disciples. Those explanations are also recorded in the gospels.
So let's make sure we make your position clear for the readers at home.
Jesus has His Last Supper with His disciples, during which He establishes the practice of Communion (or the Eucharist, if you prefer). In this, He says "this is my Body, this is my Blood", etc.
RIGHT AFTER the meal and BEFORE leaving the room, Jesus is speaking to His disciples and tells them "I have spoken to you in proverbs..."
And YOUR argument is that Jesus was talking about things He had said to them at other times, but specifically NOT about what He had been telling them just before making that statement, even though a literal interpretation of those statements would have indicated a command from Jesus to violate a Law of God that had been in effect for thousands of years.
Now THAT is a feat of logical gymnastics that would get a 10.0 even from the East German judge!
Jesus spoke in proverbs and analogies very often, which He clearly stated. So to argue that He COULDN'T have been speaking of the blood and body in a metaphorical usage is clearly wrong. And since a literal interpretation of that command would have resulted in a violation God's Law against consuming blood, the symbolic or metaphorical usage is the one that is in harmony with the rest of the Scripture.
You've not MADE a point yet.
The church at Rome has taught it's members that certain verses are Literal and certain ones are Virtual: symbolic if you will.
There has been NO evidence produced by her as how she determines which as which.
BECAUSE WE SAY SO does not impress Protestants at all.
I fail to see how her members; if they think logically at all; can fall for it.
No Arthur ..that is not what the scriptures say ..Arthur you really need a good bible study
Gal 3:23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
You are correct that the law continues in effect.. but only for those that seek to be justified by it.. ( an impossibility ..because only Christ can keep it perfectly)
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.
Arthur you continue kick against the goad ... come to Christ ..let Him carry your burden for you
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.