Note: "Eucharist" comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστία, which means “thanksgiving.” It is one of several names the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches give to Holy Communion.One of the things that most troubled me as I moved away from the Baptist faith was coming to terms with the idea that the bread and wine (actually Baptists use grape juice) are not just symbols, but are, in fact, the Body and Blood of Christ.
Virgin birth? Fine. Death and Resurrection? No problem. But please, I would say, don’t try to tell me that those elements are actually Christ’s Body and Blood. That’s simply more than I can accept.
Well, as it turns out, it was more than some others could accept as well. St John records that, after Christ astonished His disciples by dividing five loaves of bread and two fish into food enough for a crowd of five thousand to eat their fill, He hit them with this:
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn 6.53-56).
To which, after witnessing what was arguably Christ’s most staggering miracle to date, His disciples said “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v.61) It was at this point that many of his followers turned their backs “and walked no more with Him” (v.66). In fact, I have heard it said that this is when He lost Judas: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (v.64)
So, after thinning the crowd of those who didn’t have the stomach for His teachings, Christ turned to His Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (v.67)
This was a question I was suddenly forced to confront several years ago when I began attending Lutheran worship, and again as I began the move toward Orthodoxy. Was this teaching too hard for me as well? Could I stand the idea of taking Christ at His word?
I didn't like it. I wasn't comfortable with it. It didn't sit well with me. I had always understood that Communion was symbolic, that the bread and "wine" were just that. I had always understood that when Christ said "this is my body" (Mt 26.26; Mk 14.22; Lk 22.19), He was speaking metaphorically like He did when He called Himself the “true vine” (Jn 15.1), or the “door” (Jn 10.9).
But, how could it be, I wondered, that we can “eat or drink damnation on” ourselves by not discerning…a symbol? (1Cor 11.29) Were many of the Corinthian Christians sick or dead because they didn’t recognize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine? (v.30) Did the men and women who had previously followed Christ walk away from Him because they thought he was speaking metaphorically?
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked (Jn 6.52). At this point, Christ might have said “Calm down, people; I’m speaking metaphorically.” He had cleared up confusion at other times (Mt 16.5–12), so if this was simply an honest misunderstanding by His listeners, He could certainly have said so. But He didn’t. Instead He turned up the heat: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
The New American Standard Bible translates this as “Truly, Truly.”
The Message says “Jesus didn't give an inch.”
The Amplified Bible: “I assure you, most solemnly I tell you.”
New Living Translation: “I tell you the truth.”
No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to infer from Christ’s own words that He meant this symbolically. In today’s language, He may as well have been saying “I kid you not, folks. This is the real deal.”
If St Paul’s warnings were correct, then any confusion here would have had grave consequences. Jesus knew that. But He didn’t back down. Rather, He turned up the heat even further:
“My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (v.55).
By my count, Christ told His disciples twelve times that He is the bread from Heaven, and four times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not once did He back away from this.
So maybe I’m reading it wrong, I thought. Maybe the Greek text is nuanced in a way that I can’t get a hold of. Perhaps I should find out what others have to say on the subject.
St Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch during the first century. He was a disciple of John. Yes, that John! The very author of the Gospel I’ve been citing. Also known as John the Theologian. If anyone can shed some light on this doctrine, surely St Ignatius can:
“I have no taste for corruptible food,” he wrote to the Christians in Rome, “nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7.3).
Okay, but that doesn’t quite say that the bread and wine are really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. However…
He later warned the Smyrneans to “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).
And while I was at it, I found these:
Justin Martyr, a second-century theologian explained thus in a letter to a Roman pagan: “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e. has been baptized] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).
Origen, a third-century Christian scholar and theologian wrote, “You know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13.3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth-century bishop and theologian: “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4.22.9).
Theodore of Mopsuestia, a fifth-century bishop: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5.1).
In fact, I was unable to find a single dissenting voice among the Early Church Fathers. They all believed that Christ truly did mean what He said.
What, then, could I do, but echo St Peter’s answer when Christ asked the Twelve if they planned to leave Him, too:
“Lord, to whom shall [I] go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And [I] believe and [am] sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (Jn 6.68-69).
St Peter and the Twelve didn’t understand what this was all about; they didn’t realize at the time that Christ’s Body and Blood would come to them in the Eucharist. All they heard was: You have to eat My flesh and drink My blood. That must have sounded like insanity to them. But they trusted Christ. Even if it didn’t make sense to them at first, they trusted Him. I knew I had to do the same.
Virgin birth? Fine. Death and Resurrection? No problem. But please, I would say, don’t try to tell me that those elements are actually Christ’s Body and Blood. That’s simply more than I can accept.
Well, as it turns out, it was more than some others could accept as well. St John records that, after Christ astonished His disciples by dividing five loaves of bread and two fish into food enough for a crowd of five thousand to eat their fill, He hit them with this:
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn 6.53-56).
To which, after witnessing what was arguably Christ’s most staggering miracle to date, His disciples said “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v.61) It was at this point that many of his followers turned their backs “and walked no more with Him” (v.66). In fact, I have heard it said that this is when He lost Judas: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (v.64)
So, after thinning the crowd of those who didn’t have the stomach for His teachings, Christ turned to His Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (v.67)
This was a question I was suddenly forced to confront several years ago when I began attending Lutheran worship, and again as I began the move toward Orthodoxy. Was this teaching too hard for me as well? Could I stand the idea of taking Christ at His word?
I didn't like it. I wasn't comfortable with it. It didn't sit well with me. I had always understood that Communion was symbolic, that the bread and "wine" were just that. I had always understood that when Christ said "this is my body" (Mt 26.26; Mk 14.22; Lk 22.19), He was speaking metaphorically like He did when He called Himself the “true vine” (Jn 15.1), or the “door” (Jn 10.9).
But, how could it be, I wondered, that we can “eat or drink damnation on” ourselves by not discerning…a symbol? (1Cor 11.29) Were many of the Corinthian Christians sick or dead because they didn’t recognize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine? (v.30) Did the men and women who had previously followed Christ walk away from Him because they thought he was speaking metaphorically?
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked (Jn 6.52). At this point, Christ might have said “Calm down, people; I’m speaking metaphorically.” He had cleared up confusion at other times (Mt 16.5–12), so if this was simply an honest misunderstanding by His listeners, He could certainly have said so. But He didn’t. Instead He turned up the heat: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
The New American Standard Bible translates this as “Truly, Truly.”
The Message says “Jesus didn't give an inch.”
The Amplified Bible: “I assure you, most solemnly I tell you.”
New Living Translation: “I tell you the truth.”
No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to infer from Christ’s own words that He meant this symbolically. In today’s language, He may as well have been saying “I kid you not, folks. This is the real deal.”
If St Paul’s warnings were correct, then any confusion here would have had grave consequences. Jesus knew that. But He didn’t back down. Rather, He turned up the heat even further:
“My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (v.55).
By my count, Christ told His disciples twelve times that He is the bread from Heaven, and four times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not once did He back away from this.
So maybe I’m reading it wrong, I thought. Maybe the Greek text is nuanced in a way that I can’t get a hold of. Perhaps I should find out what others have to say on the subject.
St Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch during the first century. He was a disciple of John. Yes, that John! The very author of the Gospel I’ve been citing. Also known as John the Theologian. If anyone can shed some light on this doctrine, surely St Ignatius can:
“I have no taste for corruptible food,” he wrote to the Christians in Rome, “nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7.3).
Okay, but that doesn’t quite say that the bread and wine are really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. However…
He later warned the Smyrneans to “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).
And while I was at it, I found these:
Justin Martyr, a second-century theologian explained thus in a letter to a Roman pagan: “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e. has been baptized] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).
Origen, a third-century Christian scholar and theologian wrote, “You know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13.3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth-century bishop and theologian: “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4.22.9).
Theodore of Mopsuestia, a fifth-century bishop: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5.1).
In fact, I was unable to find a single dissenting voice among the Early Church Fathers. They all believed that Christ truly did mean what He said.
What, then, could I do, but echo St Peter’s answer when Christ asked the Twelve if they planned to leave Him, too:
“Lord, to whom shall [I] go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And [I] believe and [am] sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (Jn 6.68-69).
St Peter and the Twelve didn’t understand what this was all about; they didn’t realize at the time that Christ’s Body and Blood would come to them in the Eucharist. All they heard was: You have to eat My flesh and drink My blood. That must have sounded like insanity to them. But they trusted Christ. Even if it didn’t make sense to them at first, they trusted Him. I knew I had to do the same.
1 comment:
Something to ponder ... along with all the other things I have to ponder.
Post a Comment