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.
Well done! It’s so sad to see that Catholics don’t see that it is another gospel that they preach.
It's amazing isn't it? Not one writer thought her important enough to even record anything about her after Pentecost. Absolutely no information about her from either secular or religious writers. Yet hundreds of years later they begin to claim she was assumed into heaven. The Catholic Church even claims a "home she lived in" where they charge people to see and sell "relics" and souvenirs and that only on the word of some lady who supposedly had a "vision" some hundreds of years after. Some Catholics celebrate the feast of the dormision yet others claim they don't know if she died or not. It's beyond bizarre that people would put their eternal destiny in the faith of that organization.
And in Matthew 26:29, Luke 22:18, and Mark 14:25, Jesus clearly calls it *the fruit of the vine*.
No he isn't and neither is CB or anyone else because we are not saying that chalice was really blood like the Catholics claim it is.
It's the Catholics and Catholic church which are attributing to Jesus the sin of consumption of blood by claiming the cup was His real blood.
The text in John shows which proverbs John was referencing, so all I have to do is show that. If your faith group has a tradition that the quoted text you referenced referred to what you just taught, please list the historical group and tradition. Perhaps some of the founding fathers of the reformation taught that. To argue He could have referred to something else other than the plain text does damage to the hermeneutic, so to speak. Take the text as it is.
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.
And again, the prohibition against eating the blood isn't only under the Law. It predates the law and post dates the Law when the Holy Spirit moved the Council of Jerusalem to instruct believers to avoid eating blood.
So even if the dietary laws were changed, it wouldn't effect the consumption of blood, which always has been forbidden.
There you go. Making sense again.
Uh-huh! I've been there!
Here is the house:
And here is a picture I took of the souvonier stand. Note the Turkish evil eye being sold right under Mary. They find a way to get money from everyone!
Peter is recorded as saying 'Lord', while the 'voice' referred to GOD, although not claiming to be GOD.
I was referring to a different set of statements by Paul, but this is also a good reference to the changes that occurred after the Cross. However, the other poster was opining that Jesus had made a change regarding clean and unclean animals in Mark 7, well before the Cross. I was pointing out his error in that context. I am fully aware that once Jesus died, we were no longer under the Law, because He was the fulfillment of the Law. But at the time of the Last Supper, Jesus and the disciples were still subject to the Law of Moses.
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur, think before you post. Catholics tell us all the time that Jesus was telling people to eat His flesh and blood already when He fed the five thousand. Now your telling us that "The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper." You even put DURING in all caps to emphasize the point. Is leading someone into sin a sin? I do believe the Catholic Church says yes to that question don't they?
And you had the audacity to tell CA he should read the Bible sometimes.
I'm not quite sure what your post is trying to say.
Ultimately it comes down to a belief that This Earthly Organization Is Specially Spiritually Charmed.
Evangelicals aren’t comparing this to a vacuum, and shouldn’t even be comparing this to their own organizations. It is about the special blessed walk with Christ. This is what moved Luther. Luther didn’t make a fuss and eventually walk out over a bunch of abstract theory. He was positive that he had met Christ, and that Christ didn’t need and in some cases didn’t even want the doctrinal encrustations.
Sure seems to be stretching things.
A symbol makes wonderful sense in the context.
Arthur, the answer is right in the verse, though you choose to ignore it: "do this in remembrance of me." The drinking of the wine was never meant represent the actual drinking of blood, as the Catholics seem to believe; it was to remind us of the blood that Jesus spilled for us. It represents the sacrifice Christ made. You are really turning yourself inside out on this one.
Look, if you want to believe you are literally consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus, I am not going to persuade you otherwise. My only point in engaging in this colloquy was to reveal the fact that your teaching is base solely on tradition, and has no independent Scriptural support.
Remember, in reading the Bible, if there can be more than one interpretation, and one interpretation is in harmony with the rest of the Scripture, and another interpretation is in opposition to the rest of Scripture, you have to go with the interpretation that agrees with the rest of Scripture. Since your interpretation would require Jesus to violate the Law of Moses, the reasonable conclusion is that your interpretation is incorrect. You don't have to agree.
Sure we were.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Catholics just refuse to believe it.
What do think that verse means?
Let's see. Jesus TALKED ABOUT giving us his body and blood after feeding the five thousand.
Later, at the Last Supper, he did so.
Please explain to me how TALKING about doing something, but actually DOING it later, is somehow impossible.
In their second point the use the quote from scripture ""These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink". Now please once again, explain why the apostles by the Holy Spirit do just that with their prohibition against eating blood in Acts 15.
In there next point they try to include blood in the statement by Paul about eating meat offered to idols. Paul didn't include blood in his statement.
Jesus was born under the law and any breaking of those commands would have been sin.
I see you are back to your old habit of seizing on a single word (out of hundreds) and making a snarky potshot out of it.
It’s cheap and obnoxious. And it doesn’t prove anything.
What do you think “manna” is?
In John 6, Jesus directly compares his body and manna. Those who ate the manna died. Those who eat Jesus’ body, the bread from heaven, will not die.
What a surprise. The Gospel of John and Revelation both relate the body of Jesus in the Eucharist with the manna in the desert.
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.