The Early Church and the Eucharist

Growing up, I was always taught that communion, the Lord's Supper, was simply a symbolic gesture. It's a nice little way of remembering that Jesus died for us--that His body was broken like the bread that the Pastor breaks apart in the front of the Sanctuary and that His blood was poured out like the juice in the communion trays with all those little plastic cups.

When I first ran into Catholic Theology on the issue and was informed that the bread--the little wafer--was literally the body of the Lord and the wine was literally his blood, I was, honestly, amused. I really couldn't imagine how in the world thinking people could read Jesus' words at the Last Supper (This is my Body and Blood) and come away thinking Jesus was speaking literally. I mean really, the whole thing was ridiculous. It made no sense.

Well, curious to find out what the earliest Christians believed, I started scouring the internet looking for full texts from these early Church Fathers. And what I found was amazing--something I never expected: The earliest Christians were Catholic in theology--at least in terms of the Eucharist. From what I could see, the Catholic Church in its earliest form took the doctrine of the Eucharist and preserved it just as Jesus taught it even though they didn't always understand it. We Protestants on the other hand seem to have taken that same doctrine and changed it in order to make it easier to understand.

Below you'll find just a few of the available writings. Read them for yourself and voice your disagreements or whatever in the comments. (The full texts of these documents can be found by following the links--I'm trying to quote a significant portion of text to give a feeling for the context, but, by all means, click the links and dig deeper.)

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.50-117 AD)
Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch (Peter was the 1st) and it's commonly thought that he actually listened to the teaching of the Apostle John.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Epistle to the Smyraens, Ch.7 (AD 110)

Ignatius states the Docetists he was writing against rejected the Eucharist because they didn't believe it was the flesh of Jesus. He then goes one step farther and shows that he's not speaking of symbolic flesh when he writes "which suffered for our sins."

To say that he's speaking symbolically would be to say that Christ's death was only symbolic. He's as convinced that the Eucharist is the actual flesh of Christ as he is that Christ died in the flesh.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Epistle to the Smyraens, Ch.8 (AD 110)

This quote is interesting because this is the earliest written reference to the Church as the Catholic Church. And the way he words it, it's pretty clear that this isn't the first time the title or name was ever used. In all likelihood it was being referred to in this manner well before the date of this writing.

Also interesting is the mention of an established church hierarchy. (Ignatius' letters to the Churches--all written quickly as he was being marched through the country toward his martyrdom--contain many references to an established hierarchy and even refer to Apostolic Succession--but that's another post.)


Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD)
Justin Martyr was an early Christian Apologist writing around 148 - 150 AD or so.

This first quote is from his First Apology where he's writing to the Roman Emperor to explain what Christianity really was. It's interesting that there were rumors circulating that the Christians were cannibals and Justin was writing to clarify. (In all likelihood, the charges of cannibalism came from the secular world's misunderstanding of the Christian teaching of the Eucharist).

Here, Justin writes about what Church was like in early Christianity and then he goes on to describe the Eucharist:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, [Baptism] and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

First Apology, Ch.LXVI

St. Ireneaus of Lyons (c.120-180 AD)
Ireneaus was the Bishop of Lyons. Little is known of his life, but one thing that is almost certain is that he listened to the Bishop Polycarp, who himself was a hearer of the Apostle John (the author, by the way, of the Gospel that most clearly describes the Eucharist in terms of Jesus' body and blood).

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world.

Against Heresies, Bk.4, Ch.18, Paragraph 4

When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.

Against Heresies, Bk.5, Ch.2 Introduction

The one thing worth pointing out here is that Ireneaus ties together Jesus' true blood which He shed for us and Jesus' true flesh which is in the Eucharist. In his mind, Ireneaus is as sure that the flesh in the Eucharist is as authentic as the blood that was shed. If one is meant symbolically, then, by the very structure of the sentence, the other must also be symbolic.

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins."

Against Heresies, Bk.5, Ch.2, Paragraph 2

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?

Against Heresies, Bk. 5, Ch.2, Paragraph 3

Arrogant, Elitist or Straight-Up-Honest? On Jesus and His "Eat My Flesh" Teachings

In John 6, Jesus told the hearers of his word that "unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Further on in the same chapter, he explains that "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."

In saying these things, Jesus made sure that everybody listening understood that "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" was a salvation issue. This means His words should be (and, consequently are) of critical interest to Christians everywhere. We need to understand exactly what Jesus is saying here.

Now, among Protestants, we typically say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. That was always my standard interpretation of these verses. I always just assumed that Jesus was using figurative language to make a point--much like his "I am the door" and "I am the vine" statements. In fact, Protestants often point out that later, when Jesus explains that His words are "spirit" (Jn 6:63), He is basically admitting to His disciples that He was speaking figuratively.

That was my standard approach to this passage. But there's a problem. And it's a big one.

Now, first off, I want to point out that there is little or no evidence in scripture of the word "spirit" being used as a synonym for "figurative". So, when Protestants point out that Jesus said His words were "spirit", there is no real Biblical support for such a conclusion. The word "spirit" just doesn't mean "figurative". However, that's not the big problem with the passage. The big problem actually comes when you allow the figurative interpretation.

To illustrate, let's say that the Protestant approach to this passage is right and Jesus really is speaking metaphorically and these followers were just too dense to get it. So far, so good for the Protestant position. But then comes the logical consequences of that interpretation. And, as far as I can see, there are two of them. And neither one is acceptable.

We see this when we recall that Jesus made His teaching here a salvation issue. When He said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you," He was basically saying, "figure this out, or you will die eternally." And yet, when the people can't accept the teaching--when they can't figure it out--when they ask "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"--Jesus simply repeats himself (4 times) and then lets them walk away.

We can't move past that too quickly. We need to stop and slow down and think about it: Jesus, who's mission is to save mankind from sin and open up the gates of heaven to all, let's people walk away from eternal life. He lets these people go away, potentially into eternal damnation.

But that's not the worst of it: if Jesus was speaking metaphorically--if "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" were merely symbols of "believing" and "following", then we're left with two unacceptable conclusions: Jesus either let these people leave because He was an arrogant, prideful teacher, more in love with his metaphor than in love with his audience; or, he was an intellectual elitist who wasn’t above weeding out some of the “dumb” masses.

Let's look at these conclusions one at a time:

CONCLUSION 1: JESUS WAS AN ARROGANT TEACHER

If Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically--and since the stakes were so high--why didn't He explain Himself? This is a question we must answer--all of us. We must deal with this bizarre scenario. Why didn't Jesus stop everybody and say: "Guys, hold on . . . I was just speaking figuratively. I'm not asking anybody to eat me! Come on, back--it's just bread . . . ."

Jesus could have done all of that--could have called these people back. Sure, he'd have to accept the fact that maybe his example wasn't the best--that maybe he didn't make the best choice of words when explaining himself to simple people--but really, wouldn't that be worth it? Wouldn't eating some "humble pie" be better than allowing people to walk away from a teaching that would lead them to eternal life?

If you looked out the window of your home and saw a child playing in the street and then looked down the street and saw a dump truck barreling down on him, you could shout out "Smallish Human! Smallish Human taking up residence on the asphalt path! Behind you approaches a ponderous, immense waste disposal vehicle. Flee! Flee to safety!"

Yes, you could shout that out, but it'd be a terrible choice of words. And of course, if you did shout out something that dumb, you can bet that the smallish human you were shouting to would look up at you with confusion. Now, at that point, you could do one of two things. You could either shrug and repeat yourself--word for word--knowing the child wasn't getting it; or, you could clarify yourself. You could shout: "Get out of the road! There's a truck coming!"

The matter's so important that none of us would choose the first option. In all likelihood, none of us would repeat the convoluted warning to a child who doesn't understand.

We'd own up to the idiocy of our choice of words and we'd adjust the message. We'd fine-tune our words to our audience and we'd do everything possible to save that child.

And yet, we’re ready to say that Jesus would do the opposite--that he would refuse to fine-tune his convoluted message and make it accessible for his audience. He would rather let them walk away in ignorance and confusion than clarify His teaching.

CONCLUSION 2: JESUS WAS AN ELITIST

But maybe Jesus wasn't arrogant. Maybe he just didn't like stupid people. We all know how that can be, right? Maybe these folks just got under his skin because they couldn't figure out what He was saying. Maybe He got sick and tired of explaining himself to them and figured He'd let them wander off to Hell rather than keep putting up with their incessant questions and misunderstandings.

Now, that sounds ridiculous, but, again, we need to remember that these were people who had been following Him for a while. They weren't scoffers and mockers out to catch him in a trap. These were people who believed that Jesus was special, different, somebody to whom they should pay attention. Problem was, they just didn’t understand what He was teaching.

In fact, the worst charge we can make using the Biblical evidence is that these folks were dense. They were too "slow", too "stupid" to realize that Jesus wasn't telling them to really "eat his flesh." And yet, even though the worst we can say about them is that they were dense, Jesus (apparently) figures it's enough to let them walk away from eternal life. Rather than stop them and point out the fact that they had misunderstood--rather than clarify his teaching--Jesus let them walk away from teachings that would have led them to eternal life. Maybe it was because they were so mindnumbingly dumb.

IS THERE A THIRD OPTION?

Do either of those two conclusions make any sense at all? Do either of these scenarios paint a picture of Jesus we want to hang on our walls or in our hearts? Do either of them reflect the way scripture depicts Him? That he was a snob with His metaphors? That he'd rather let people go to hell than to admit that his wording was a little convoluted? Or that he simply wanted to hang with the intellectual crowd and wasn't above weeding out the gene pool?

No, those conclusions don't mesh with the Jesus we read about in Scripture, yet that's exactly what we're left with IF Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Because IF He was speaking metaphorically, ALL He had to do was call these folks--these real, true followers--back. All it would have taken was an "I'm sorry I wasn't clear--let me explain it this way...." Yet, he didn't do that.

And when we think about it that way, we realize the whole passage doesn't really make sense. That is, unless Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically.

If Jesus wasn't using flowery, symbolic language, but was actually speaking as clearly and literally as he could, then there was no more clarification he could make to these who wouldn't believe. In fact, that’s really the only interpretation that makes the passage understandable. IF Jesus was speaking literally, he did exactly what we'd expect him to do--what we would do in his exact situation: he repeats himself. Four times.

When they still won't believe, Jesus' hands are figuratively tied. He's tried to make them see, but they won't. Thus, they walk away from eternal life not because they're too dense to figure out his meaning, but because they don't have the faith to do the work of God and "believe in Him who He has sent" (Jn 6:29).