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.
But we are all sinners and fall into sin again and again. What do we do then?
Nothing...Jesus did it all...One time...For all time...
Jesus will convict our conscience to confess our sins to him...Jesus has forgiven all our sins...Even those we forget to confess and those we don't think are sins...
well done...thanks...
What a falsehood that is!
Does not your religion teach that a Catholic can be forgiven of these things as long as confession is made and the price of penance is paid???
Thank you, but in this case it needs to be proclaimed loudly and clearly. Jesus in the Eucharist needs to be proclaimed!
That's right...Jesus handed out bread and wine and said, 'This is my body'...'This is my blood'...
Jesus said, 'Hand out and eat and drink this bread and wine in remembrance of me'...
Making up stuff Jesus DIDN'T SAY is an odd form of argument for someone who claims to take Scripture seriously.
Which makes Rome concurring with Reformers:
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
“..that alone can be called Christian faith, which believes without wavering that Christ is the Saviour not only to Peter and to the saints but also to you....Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22]
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]
More .
But Rome teaches that that beginning with baptism, one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)." (Catholic Encyclopedia> Sanctifying Grace)
And thus this salvation process usually ends with the RC atoning for sin and once again becoming good enough to enter Heaven through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) of the purgatory of Rome (EOs reject the purgatory of Rome)
And which is taught as something one deserves:
Regarding those who cooperated with grace, Trent concludes that,
"nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
Canon 32 similarly states,
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)
Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."
While it is true that God blesses obedience, and by which a believer grows in grace and virtue and solidifies his election against falling, (2Pt. 1:5-11) and that God rewards faith (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of his works, by which one is judged fit to be rewarded, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) yet no one can take credit for this, much less his salvation. For it is God who created him, and in grace enables this dead soul to be drawn and convicted by God, opening his heart, and granting repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:9; Actd 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) which is counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:4-6)
And whatever theological distinctions are made btwn types of merit, what Rome conveys and what RCs typically profess is that they trust they will go to Heaven because they are good enough (God in His mercy grading on a scale), but never can testify to a day of salvation in which they came to God as lost damned + destitute but contrite sinners, and cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. And which faith they confessed in baptism, and followed Him.
Instead, we hear such professions as this:
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
And as a result of never having been truly born again and realized the profound basic changes in heart and life, then such RCs know not the essential "fellowship of the Spirit" which born again believers spontaneously realize with each other as they walk in the Spirit. Because they found Christ and who fundamentally changed them.
And i speak from experience as a former RC in a heavily Cath;/ area, who by God's grace became born again while being a weekly mass-going RC, and remained therein for 6 years, during which i served as lector and CCD teacher, (while finding my hunger for Bible teaching met thru evangelical radio), and know the difference btwn institutionalized religion and evangelical faith. Though i yet need to grow more therein, and not take steps backward.
Oh yes I did... exactly... precisely. It is the profane who think that objects can be made to hold magical powers... That food can be fortified with magic and spirits. But of course, my comment was not against the seder, as the Jews do not impart blessing upon the food, and that was my point. The food is just food. The Jews call YHWH blessed, which is right where the holiness belongs.
My comment was more toward those who think some old fart, in a funny hat, muttering arcane sentences, can impart mystical power into such things, and thus make them holy (or unholy) (that'd be all y'all for those of you in Rio Linda). ; )
And by the way, the word magic cannot be misconstrued. It is either the demonstration of profane power or the act of charlatans who mimic them...
You just reiterated my point. :)
Naw...No one ever drank any blood or ate raw meat...No one in Exodus ate raw lambs or drank the blood...
Priests in the Temple did not eat raw meat...It was always cooked...And they certainly didn't drink the blood of the lambs...
So your Eucharist is NOT a real representation of Passover...
If the disciples at the Last Supper would have thought there was actual blood in the cup, they wouldn't have drank it any more than they would have embraced each other in a passionate kiss had Jesus ordered it...They would have immediately lost faith in Jesus as the Lord...
They need Jesus too...
I never said the Eucharist is a representation of the Passover, because the Eucharist is NOT a representation of the Passover. The Jewish Seder is a representation of the Passover.
The Eucharist is related to the Passover, because it was prefigured in the Passover. The Eucharist is a re-presentation of the gift Jesus gave to us by his death. Since the purpose of the death of Jesus is to give us the life of Jesus, we receive the living, risen Christ in the Eucharist.
This requires admitting the act is a sin, admitting that we committed the act, and thus we sinned; in a word, acknowledgement - not an excuse, blameshift, etc. We must confess our sin to God, and to the person we sinned against as well, if we sinned against a specific person. Our confession to God, of course, is a prayer, directly to God, in the name of Jesus Christ. In our prayer, when we repent, we also, having recognized and acknowledged our sin, resolve to not repeat it. This confession and resolution to turn away from that sin is essential part of true repentance. The Bible clearly says we do not have a license to sin, that simply asking forgiveness from God somehow entitles us to repeat the sin over and over again, as long as we confess each time and ask for forgiveness. Such a wicked game is clearly and specifically refuted in the Bible. The regenerate sinner, the true believer, born again, has the help of the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, and when the situation arises again in the future, we should find ourselves being repulsed by the idea of committing a sin again that we have confessed to God and repented of. Otherwise, there has not been true repentence regarding that sin.
Amen!
So you deny that God is omniscient ?
Nice try Arthur..
But that would mean they did not eat the REAL ACTUAL flesh of Jesus..that means it was as many church Fathers said SPIRITUAL..not PHYSICAL
Since this was done at the Passover, where eating the lamb was essential to the ritual under the Old Covenant, and since Jesus was the Lamb about to be sacrificed (He carried his cross at the same hour as the lambs were being slaughtered all over Jerusalem.) it makes perfect sense that eating the Lamb would be an essential part of the ritual in the New Covenant. St. John in particular emphasizes that Jesus is replacing the old Passover with a new Passover, the old lamb with the Lamb of God (himself), the old sacrament with a new sacrament.
Remember Arthur that the Lamb they ate was not THE REAL ACTUAL PASSOVER LAMB.. it was the symbolic lamb.. a remembrance of the actual passover
Something really "special"
But yet those of your religion claim that THEY offer the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father...Which of course is ridiculous...
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)
Nothing more than the musing of human philosophers...
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.
Jesus told Paul to tell us to continue to avoid drinking blood...
I didn't post a word for word quote from scripture but what I posted is what Jesus said...
What Jesus did not say is, 'turn this bread and cup into flesh and blood...
When Jesus said, 'do this', all that Jesus did was break bread and pass the bread and wine out...Jesus then said eat it...And then said, 'do this in remembrance of me'...
LOL Arthur do you make this stuff up as you go along ???..So we can drink his blood now because it looks and tastes like wine?? That is just foolishness.. almost a childish reply to metmom..
Scripture say "the life is in the blood" It also then forbid the jews from consuming it
Do you remember what was done to the blood of the sacrificed lamb on the day of atonement ( the day Jesus was fulfilling)? It was completely poured out on the MERCY SEAT
To me it was not a casual comment when Jesus told told His disciples.. "8And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.…(Luke24:39)
No mention of blood here Arthur.. His life was no longer in blood.. He lived before them now a new Christ ..a risen Christ..that" had poured out His blood on the Mercy seat"
Yes it is indeed correct only Rome that makes an idol out of man made bread....
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.