Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.

last_supper

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


TOPICS: Apologetics; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Other Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicbashing; communion; evangelicals; transubstantiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-428 next last
To: Arthur McGowan

Thanks for showing yet another change in teaching from the unchanging teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.


381 posted on 01/31/2015 3:53:11 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
If Jesus has not given us his true body and his true blood to be received in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED.

There!

I've DISCUSSED your chosen religions teaching.


The added words, created by Rome, have infested Catholic brains like a CANCER!

They must be COMPLETELY removed or they'll grow back even WORSE!

382 posted on 01/31/2015 3:56:46 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
... the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah ...


Matthew 26:52-56
 

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

383 posted on 01/31/2015 4:14:41 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
... so afraid I would go to hell if I died before the following Saturday confession.

AHHhhh...

What we have here is a classic example of...

...The Hand in the Cookie Jar Syndrome.

384 posted on 01/31/2015 4:21:28 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Luke 16:29-31

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”


385 posted on 01/31/2015 4:23:43 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced...


Art; LISTEN to them!

It is all WRITTEN down!!!

386 posted on 01/31/2015 4:25:22 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; CynicalBear; daniel1212; ...
If a person allows the Host to dissolve completely in the mouth, and never actually swallows any part of the host, he does not receive the sacrament.

Pinging a bunch of former Catholics for them to find out that for their entire lives, they had been lied to about how to take communion and that they never really received the sacrament.

Now, that (not actually properly receiving the eucharist) according to Catholic doctrine would then probably put untold millions of Catholics for generations in hell.

And the RCC's answer for that is....... what?

387 posted on 01/31/2015 5:23:40 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Show us where the term *eucharist* is found anywhere in Scripture.

And provide us with the references as to properly receive it.

And provide us with the OT prophecies that have not been fulfilled because of your claim.


388 posted on 01/31/2015 5:26:00 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Iscool

Do Do That Voodoo That You Do So Well


389 posted on 01/31/2015 6:03:30 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
>>"Then all the disciples deserted him and fled".<<

Don't tell that to some here.

390 posted on 01/31/2015 6:06:43 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Placemaker


391 posted on 01/31/2015 7:19:25 AM PST by Mark17 (Calvary's love will sail forever, bright and shining, strong n free. Like an ark of peace and safety)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Placemaker


392 posted on 01/31/2015 7:20:14 AM PST by Mark17 (Calvary's love will sail forever, bright and shining, strong n free. Like an ark of peace and safety)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

LOL... I have neither the time nor temperament any more. But we did have fun.


393 posted on 01/31/2015 8:01:10 AM PST by ThomasMore (Islam is the Whore of Babylon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Proposition:

If Jesus has not given us his true body and his true blood to be received in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED.

Discuss.


Discuss what Arthur?  I could make a proposition that "the Scriptures predict that scientists will one day discover the Moon's core really is made of green cheese." Would you be interested in discussing that?  Especially if I made no case whatsoever that there were actual prophesies that predicted exactly that?  I didn't think so.

BTW, if you're thinking of Malachi, that's already been discredited repeatedly as prophecy of the Roman version of the Eucharist.  So here's a counter-proposal:

Proposition:

There is no OT prophecy of anything remotely like the Roman version of the Eucharist as a ritual practice for the Ecclesia that Jesus is building.

Discuss.

Peace,

SR
394 posted on 01/31/2015 8:33:23 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Elsie; metmom; CynicalBear; Springfield Reformer
Proposition:
If Jesus has not given us his true body and his true blood to be received in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED. Discuss.

Could you provide us with the prophesy that would not be fulfilled ?

395 posted on 01/31/2015 9:25:21 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
LOL... I have neither the time nor temperament any more. But we did have fun.

Yes it was fun, good back and forth .. some of the people that posted I think have left this world , some have left FR.. and some just no longer have time.. :)

Have a good week end TM

396 posted on 01/31/2015 9:28:03 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Ga 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: All
Saul of Tarsus was a Jew who studied at the feet of Gamaliel. (who, by the way, is quoted in the Jewish Talmud, a wonderful read, but, I digress)

Saul felt, in his heart of hearts, that the new cult that were followers of a man named Jesus (Yeshua) were heretical and dangerous. As his Faith told him, he was doing the right thing, and rejoiced when Stephen the Deacon was stoned to death.

Well, we all know the rest of the story, (including those of us who don't memorize). The lesson here: Saul, later Paul, was a great man, however misguided his original intent. It did take an act of God for him to realize, however, that (pardon the bold print, apparently it is considered by some to be gauche) all that hate in the name of his beliefs was wrong.

What will it take here?

I've known people of all kinds of faiths in my life (yes, I do have a life, thank you!): I've even had some friends who were agnostic, along with an atheist or two. The kind of upbringing I had taught me respect for people, and that respect was, and continues to be, returned. The people I knew were not militant: we lived side-by-side.

Not so with cyberspace!

There are times when things become so ridiculous and so crude, it's more like the Jerry Springer show than a religion forum. (And, no, I do not make a practice of watching asinine TV. Tell me one of you out there does not know who he is!)

I know, when I enter a forum such as this one that I will be bombarded with insults, both to myself, my fellow Catholics and to my Faith; answering of questions with other, rhetorical questions (which more often than not, have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I personally have said); requests to account for everyone else's behavior, including people who have been dead for centuries! When all else fails, my style and choice of font are criticized, in the light of credibility in this forum. What nonsense!

I'm Roman Catholic; my Faith, Catholicism, is hated here. What credibility would I possibly obtain? Why would I want it? It would mean compromising what I believe. No one, least of all anonymous strangers on the other end of a computer server, is worth that to me.

Reading and memorizing the Bible and living what It says are two different things. Sharing one's faith and cramming Bible verses out of context (yes, Catholics are taught to study Scripture in context) down people's throats is another.

If this is truly about saving souls, prayer is the greatest help. Kindness; a sense of humor that does not need to be at another's expense; gentleness, not pressure; guidance, not pushing can help a soul to find the God we were each created to know, love, and serve.

Instead of Jerry Springer, how about "Family Feud" instead? We are all family, you know...

As always, God bless you, and may we all meet one day in Heaven!

397 posted on 01/31/2015 10:54:57 AM PST by Grateful2God (That those from diverse religious traditions and all people of good will may work together for peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Proposition:

If Jesus has not given us his true body and his true blood to be received in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED.

You first. You make the proposition, but provide no Scriptural basis for it. Please provide a Scriptural foundation, not relying on Catholic tradition, for that idea, and then we can discuss it.

398 posted on 01/31/2015 12:12:01 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It can mean; I'd suppose; 3 different things; depending on how someone classifies it.

Possibly. But in that case, you have to look at which meaning is in harmony with the rest of the Scripture. God is not going to have one part of His Word contradicting another part.

399 posted on 01/31/2015 12:13:51 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Wow rules about the rules. I remember back when the cup was not offered to the laity. About the late 70s that changed and only for those over 18.


400 posted on 01/31/2015 12:54:30 PM PST by redleghunter (Your faith has saved you. Go in peace. (Luke 7:50))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-428 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson