Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1)

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | May 23, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

[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.

16

[Elsie]

BECAUSE WE SAY SO does not impress Protestants at all.

Neither does...

Because we wuz FIRST!
Because we wuz founded on Peter!
Because we are the OLDEST!
Because we are RIGHT in ALL our teachings!
Because we compiled YOUR bible!
Because we believe in visions and apparations!
Because Mary loves us so!
Because we Francis will turn out to be one of our better Popes!

[Elsie]

Uh...

...you might want to scratch that last one.

[Elsie]

John WHAT; exactly?

[RnMomof7]

LOL...I sure do..maybe time to restart it huh??

[Arthur McGowan]

Several posters asserted that:

1) Drinking the blood of the victim in a sacrifice was a sin under the Old Law.

2) Therefore: If Jesus actually gave his blood to drink, it would be a sin.

3) Therefore: Jesus did NOT actually give his blood to drink.

I raised this question: If Jesus merely gave wine to drink, symbolizing the drinking of his blood, then he was commanding a ritual action that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.

That seems just as unlikely as Jesus’ commanding the actual commission of a sin. Why in blazes would Jesus command us to PRETEND to be committing a sin, any more than he would command us to sin?

So far, NOBODY has responded to my question.

[Elsie]

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

Is this REALLY a valid way to IGNORE what comes LATER in John's writing?

It is ROME's seven churches that are teaching ERROR!

You guys want it from day one?

Yumpin' Yiminy you GOTS it!

[RnMomof7]

>>We don’t know whether or not Mary died.<<<
But they know she was "assumed" into heaven

[RnMomof7]

yep

[Springfield Reformer]

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

If you don't have time or energy to post the arguments from the link, I don't have time or energy to respond to them.  On to what you have posted.

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.

Jesus didn't change the law.  The passage in question is this, I believe:

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(Mark 7:18-20)

Here He is explaining where the real contamination comes from, the heart.  The food just goes in one way and comes out another.  It's not the issue, spiritually. Put another way, He's arguing (and thank you for pointing this out!) that the banned foods are not intrinsically evil, as your author in the above link incorrectly presupposes.  But even if the food is perfectly wholesome, the prohibition stands until the fulfillment of the law has been accomplished, and to the best of my knowledge, no one on these pages, as much as we disagree about other things, is arguing that the law could possibly have been fulfilled before Jesus died for our sins, because that was the big event everything in in the Mosaic sacrificial system was pointing forward to.

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

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

If you took the trouble to read my earlier post, you will note I already dealt with this.  But just to be clear, in the long history of law, in Western civilization built upon the principles of the Judeo-Christian systems of religious law, it has been long recognized that some things are not intrinsically evil and some things are. Lying and adultery are mental, spiritual acts that have an outward manifestation.  Eating one food or another involves no intrinsically evil mental act.  It is what Blackstone would call a "thing indifferent."  

And as you so helpfully pointed out, even Jesus Himself confirms to us your author is wrong, because Jesus asserts that consuming a particular food is not intrinsically evil.  Therefore, your author's premise, that symbolizing such an act would violate any law of God is simply wrong.  Unlike the moral sins, there is no required evil mental act in eating a particular food.  It is the actual act of eating that is prohibited, and if one steers clear of that, all is well.

The usual analogy given in law school is speed limits versus murder, or some such pair.  In murder, we don't find guilt without the mental act, the Mens Rea, the intent to kill or do great bodily harm.  If you have a seizure while driving through no fault of your own, and your out of control car kills a pedestrian, there will be no finding of murder.  But if you do a burglary where your partner kills the homeowner, you're going down on felony murder, even though you didn't personally do the deed, because you had the right mental state.

But if you draw a picture of yourself driving 100 mph in a 30 mph zone, one might ask why you did that, but there'd be no crime in it.  It might even be a good thing, say, if you were teaching your granddaughter what NOT to do. :) There is no inherent moral difference between 30 and 100 miles an hour, all things else being equal.  It's just a number.  From a moral point of view, it is a thing indifferent. The only moral question is, how do you respond to divinely appointed authority?  Are you willing to obey a law that tells you to actually drive at 30 mph?  If that is all the faster you go in that speed zone, you will not get a ticket. Period.

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

Your disinterest in following up duly noted. No harm no foul. :)

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

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

I think you may have missed something in your list of things being DONE IN HEAVEN.

Where is the WAFER and WINE?

Your referenece; the EUCHARISTIC HOST: 2:17; doesn't seem to apply...

Revelation 2:17 New International Version (NIV)
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

[Elsie]

I remember Paul making that statement, but where did Jesus say that?

Acts 10:9-16

⁹ About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. ¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

¹⁴ “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

[RnMomof7]

2) Therefore: If Jesus actually gave his blood to drink, it would be a sin

Arthur YOU REALLY need a GOOD BIBLE STUDY

The Gospels are actually Old Testament ..because they are looking back at the life of Christ WHICH WAS UNDER THE Old Testament LAW

Jesus remained under the law at the last supper because He had not yet been sacrificed, risen and ascended ..

So yes drinking blood was still forbidden ... and if Jesus drank that blood..HE was no longer a sinless lamb

[Elsie]

I remember Paul making that statement, but where did Jesus say that?

The text is NOT specific as to whom the 'voice' belonged.

Peter is recorded as saying 'Lord', while the 'voice' referred to GOD, although not claiming to be GOD.

[Elsie]

HMMMmmm...

I don't think that THIS has quite that meaning.

Mark 7:18-19 New International Version (NIV)

“Are you so dull?” he asked.
“Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

[Elsie]

Mary, being sinless, very possibly did not die.

POSSIBLY?

Do I see some DOUBT creeping it???

[Elsie]

Do I see some DOUBT creeping it???

Mary, possibly being sinless, very possibly did not die.

May as well apostatize ALL the way!!!

[Elsie]

When it comes to the Eucharist, we are NOT told that Jesus explained to the disciples privately that he was speaking in metaphor only

Don't you know that not everything Jesus ever said has been recorded???

(See how that works?)

[af_vet_1981]

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.

The immediate context of your quote about proverbs clearly shows the referential context of the proverbs. It is about the returning to the Father, and Messiah's relationship with the Father. Previously there were references to "the door" of the sheep, which he explained. The previous context of this passage, which you partially quoted and then erroneously tried to apply to the Synoptic Gospels, is amidst his sayings about "my Father's house," his unity with the Father, being "the true vine" with the Father as the husbandman. They then became confused when He said He was going away for a little while and they would see Him afterward. He said he would not use the proverb and explain more clearly that He came from the Father, entered the world, would leave the world, and return to the Father. They then agreed He had explained it clearly.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. 17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. 19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me? 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. 21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. 22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
-John, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses sixteen through twenty nine, as authorized by King James

[Elsie]

Jesus spoke in proverbs and analogies very often...

Are you still so dull?

Proverb?
Analogy??
Plain fact???

[Springfield Reformer]

See my posts 265 and 309. You can say you don’t like my answer. That wont hurt my feelings. :) But you are incorrect to say there has been no response.

Peace,

SR