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 Catholic Church holds that faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works. Vice-versa, the Church holds that such works are so intimately joined to faith, that, without them, it is impossible for the believer to grow or persevere in his faith.(1)
(excerpt)
We believe in both.
The blood is for atonement. It’s not for consumption.
God expressly forbids the eating of blood throughout Scripture. No way is He going to demand practicing something He’s declared sin.
While “majick juju” is not appropriate terminology for the words at the Seder meal, (it’s outright disrespectful) one must beware of one’s orthography -magic with a “k” at the end could be misconstrued -it was a part of Aleister Crowley’s thelemic “religion.” The TCT Channel had a special on him awhile back: to warn people to AVOID him like the plague. I believe you did not intend that! Just a heads up...
No, that's not true according to Scripture.
John 1:11-13 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Those who are not born again have no idea of what a regenerated spirit's response to sin is.
Anyone who thinks that a true born again believer can sin with impunity cause they know they're saved, clearly does NOT understand that work in the heart by the Holy Spirit.
And there is the aspect that someone else brought up, that somewhere some Catholic is busy biting their fingernails down thinking that somewhere, some Christian is getting away with something they can't do.
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings?
These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Do what the Lord said to do:
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. (Luke 11:4)
And Peter:
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (Acts 8:22)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Forgiveness can also be synonymous with healing, (Mt. 9:2-7) and I believe there can be cases in which God is chastening a believer due to sins he is ignorant of, or are otherwise unconfessed, or in discipline for a fault, and in which case God has regard for intercessory prayer from the righteous.
Which primarily is a function the NT pastors (not Cath. priests ), but which James teaches also extends to all righteous believers. Which Elijah exampled in binding the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosing them again. (Ja. 5:14-18; cf. 1Kg. 17:1; 18:42-45)
Thank you again for your kind reply, I appreciate the courtesy, but look to the Wiccans, Muslims, or a forum elsewhere with Satanists. We'll fight alongside you to try and change their minds, just as many faiths united recently in the March for Life. But you'll not change mine.
I, too hate conflict. But I'll stand in front of an abortuary with you; pray with you against the Satanists; and I pray to God that I'll persevere if some Muslim extremist wants to decapitate me because of the Crucifix I wear. I will not deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament! God bless you in your endeavors; may we meet some day in Heaven!
Of course, it had always been forbidden. This is precisely why so many departed when Jesus DID demand that we drink his blood.
I don’t see how you can possibly say that “no way” would Jesus demand that we drink his blood, when, in John 6, Jesus DOES demand that we drink his blood.
And if you say that his words were merely symbolic, why would Jesus even speak SYMBOLICALLY about doing something that was forbidden?
Unless, of course, Jesus was God, in which case he had the authority to establish a new law, a new covenant, and a new sacrament.
We are His Children, made in His image and likeness.
God bless you!
</signoff>
The question has to be asked: Did the REASON for the OT prohibition on drinking the blood of the victim continue to exist after Jesus had sacrificed himself?
These connections [between the action and the words of Jesus on the one hand and the Passover celebration and sacrificial thought in the Old Testament on the other] could not have been introduced only later in the Lord’s Supper tradition. This is proved by the great difficulty that the idea of the blood of Christ causes in this connection. That the body of Christ is eaten, in fact must be eaten, as the body of the true Passover lamb is understandable if the parallel between the Passover in the Lord’s Supper is really to be valid. But the idea of partaking of blood had to cause most serious offense for those whose thinking was schooled in the Old Testament. For partaking of blood was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament, and even the parallel between the covenant blood in Exodus 24:8 and the covenant blood in the Words of Institution is seriously distorted when the latter is given to the disciples to drink. The difficulty is so great that one can credit no one, least of all Paul or John, with having burdened the idea of the Lord’s Supper with it after the event. There is really no other possibility than the assumption that Jesus himself is the originator of the idea that not only is His body taken as that of the “Lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:19) but also His blood... But if Jesus did express this idea that was so offensive to Jewish and perhaps all human thought, then His meaning could only have been the following: Partaking of blood is forbidden in the old covenant because according to Lev. 17:11 the body’s life is in the blood and because the life belongs to God. But the life of Jesus has been offered up for men. It should be for their benefit. For here men do not bring a sacrifice to God through a priest, but the High Priest offers Himself as a sacrifice to God for the sake of men. That Christ gives His blood to those redeemed by Him to drink is the strongest expression of the fact that He sacrifices Himself for men entirely, unreservedly, and completely. (Sasse 1985, 89-90)
http://dawningrealm.org/papers/passover.pdf
In short, the REASON for the ancient prohibition no longer existed after Jesus sacrificed himself, because: Under the Old Law, the life (blood) of the victim belonged to God.
Christ, on the other hand, in sacrificing himself, gave his life TO US as a gift. He tells us to drink his blood precisely in order to tell us that he is GIVING US HIS LIFE.
Again:
"Partaking of blood is forbidden in the old covenant because according to Lev. 17:11 the body’s life is in the blood and because the life belongs to God. But the life of Jesus has been offered up for men. It should be for their benefit. For here men do not bring a sacrifice to God through a priest, but the High Priest offers Himself as a sacrifice to God for the sake of men. That Christ gives His blood to those redeemed by Him to drink is the strongest expression of the fact that He sacrifices Himself for men entirely, unreservedly, and completely."
In other words, to REJECT drinking Christ's blood is to say that, in his sacrifice, Christ did NOT give his life TO US as a gift.
To refuse to drink the blood of Jesus is to CLING TO THE OLD COVENANT AND THE OLD SACRIFICES, refusing to accept the life Jesus has given to us.
completely destroys the false catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist.
I taught a class on Communion to my Methodist Men’s group. That’s exactly what it teaches. They don’t believe it is merely symbolic but don’t exactly define what happens.
There is usually very little left.
Not for a true Catholic, it doesn’t!
HaHa...We got all the study material we (and you) need right here...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Thus when someone approaches us and posits that a certain thing we do is a sin - we welcome the critique since we hate the idea of not following the commandments of our Lord much more than the temporary embarassment of being confronted with our own sin. Since the true believer frequently studies the Word of God and prays, and they keep the Lord in their thoughts continually and have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, they may realize from time to time sins in their thoughts, words or deeds, and these evoke the same response.
The Bible tells us that the response to sin must be repentance.
and
While we all fall short of the glory of God, and our human nature is that we are born into sin, the Bible tells us that we will not live a sinless life, that even the most faithful among us will occasionally sin, sometimes not so serious a sin, sometimes a grave sin. We may find ourselves sometimes repeating a sin that we have confessed before. That being said, if we find ourselves having little or no success at all in avoiding repetition of our past sins, the professing Christian should really consider the condition of their soul - have we really put off the "old man", are we born again ? Anyone professing Christ while they continually and habitually commit grave sins for which they are not repentant is clearly not convicted of their own sin in their heart, they do not fear the Lord, and they actually are an unbeliever. Many Christians profess Christ outwardly, but are unregenerate sinners, unbelievers, and this is evidenced by their habitual, grave sins that display a hatred of God's Word and their rejection and opposition to it.
Additionally, as Paul speaks in Romans 7, even those who are regenerate and born again, will sin. The difference is that they do not want to sin. They take no pleasure in sin, their pleasure is in pleasing the Lord because He has put a heart of flesh in them to give them that desire. Oh, there may be some initial "pleasure" in sinning, but it is fleeting because sooner or later, they have to come to grips with knowing they have sinned against the Lord that they love. Then comes the struggle many know so well of coming to repentance, to quit struggling with God and giving control over to Him in that temptation to obey Him rather than our sin nature. And oh, what blessed peace there is then! And we know that this cycle will be repeated, over and over, but as it is, we also know that He is conforming us more into His image.
Contrast this process to the unregenerate who thinks they have to do all these things to not sin. That it is up to them. They have a pride in all that they do or can do, in order to live "holy" lives. Instead of having a great desire to obey their Redeemer, knowing they are unable in and of themselves, they look to the things they can do or say or touch or eat, or whatever and put their trust that God will be more pleased with them if they do so.
The gospel is simple: He is a holy God and we are not and can never be and we need Him alone to fix what is broken in us. So simple, but so difficult.
Amen.
hint: Saying something in a big font does not make it true, does not prove your position, and does not speak well of you in a civilized discussion. Just saying...
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.