The Lord’s Supper
Christendom is split into three distinct branches. Orthodox, Roman Catholicism and the Reformed networks. Two out of the three of these — Orthodox and Catholic Churches — view the Eucharist with a seriousness that rivals the specifics and weightiness of the Levitical Priesthood’s duties in the Mosaic (Old) Covenant. Reformed circles have a tendency — mainly in modern North American evangelicalism — to view the act of communion as mostly symbolic.
Which is the true practice of the Eucharist as intended by Christ and practiced by the first generation of Christians?
Mosaic to Messianic Covenant
The Mosaic Covenant was comprised of a sacrificial system so detailed that it required an entire book (Leviticus) and parts of three other books (Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus) in the Pentateuch to establish its intricacies.
Christ left us with only two rituals when He ushered in the Messianic Covenant.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
What did the Early Church Fathers believe about the Lord’s Supper? What did Christ Himself say it was?
The Eucharist
In The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, circa 50-120 AD) we first see the Lord’s Supper labelled ‘Eucharist.’ It is from the Greek ‘εὐχάριστος’ or ‘eucharistos’ and means “thankful.’ It stems from the New Testament accounts in which Jesus — while performing the Supper — “gave thanks” before enacting it.
One of the roots of the Lord’s Supper — the Eucharist — is the act of worship through thanksgiving. In the Mosaic Covenant (i.e.: Old Testament) one of the acceptable sub-categories of the Peace Offering was a Thanksgiving Offering:
“This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings… if he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice unleavened cakes mixed with oil…” (Lev 7:11–12)
Mosaic Covenant: Shadow of the Messianic Covenant
In Exodus, Israel is in the desert and is physically fed by manna coming down from the sky. Without which their bodies would have perished. In John 6:32-35 Jesus compares Himself to the Manna and states that His Body is the True Manna from Heaven and that, unlike earthly manna:
“whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
This places the Messianic Covenant as superior to the Mosaic because it is the actual Sacrifice that ends the Levitical priesthood. It deals in Spiritual Reality and not earthly survival. But was there a literal meaning behind Jesus’ invocation for us to eat this Bread from Heaven?
In Exodus 24:8 Moses throws blood of bulls on the congregation of Israel to seal the Mosaic Covenant. In Mark 14:24 Christ states during the Last Supper:
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”
The very next day He sealed the Messianic Covenant with the blood of the Son of God, shed on the Cross, becoming the Final Sacrifice and the true Passover Lamb. Something merely foreshadowed for 1,500 years through the Mosaic Covenant. Again, was there a command here for us to do this literally? Through the wine of communion?
Everything about Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic system was done on a Spiritual and therefore a higher and more real plane of existence. All of the protocols and creatures used in the sacrificial system were earth-bound representations of Christ. Not actually Him. Is it possible that the elements of communion are also earthly representatives of His Spiritual work and covenant? Or are some Christians missing the more literal instructions Christ was giving us?
Christ Introduces the Lord’s Supper
In three of the four synoptic Gospels, Christ speaks literally about the wine and the bread:
MATT:26:26 “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
When Christ speaks in literal terms, is it possible He is speaking metaphorically?
In John 2:19, while confronting the Pharisees at Herod’s Temple, Christ states “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jewish leaders took it literally, but it was a metaphorical statement about His Body upon Resurrection. Then Nicodemus was told, in John 3:3, that he had to be “born again” to see the Kingdom of Heaven. He took it literally at first, and then was told by Christ that this second birth was a physical analogy to the spiritual realities that accompany receiving salvation from Christ. Jesus told the Samaritan woman — who was drawing actual water from an actual well — “Whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never thirst.” Christ never did give her actual water because He was speaking metaphorically of the Messianic Covenant and water was used to symbolize what it did throughout the New Testament: purification, baptism and the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 5:30 Jesus declared “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.” Interestingly, this has never been practiced literally in Christendom. Is it because Leviticus 19:28 forbids self mutilation? Perhaps, but Christians have always understood what metaphorical statements look like when it comes to this particular passage.
However, when Christ states “eat my flesh and drink my blood” in John 6:53 (not at the Lord’s Supper but at a synagogue in Capernaum) we are told by some that we are locked and bound to absolute literalism. Never mind that cannibalism was seen as the judgement of God upon the nation in the Old Testament period and that drinking blood was strictly forbidden (Deuteronomy 12:23).
In John 6:35 Jesus declared “I am the bread of life, whoever comes to Me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst.” This is a literal statement but Christians have hungered and thirsted — even to death — after coming to Christ. Therefore we come to the conclusion that Christ was, yet again, speaking metaphorically of metaphysical realities. Then in John 6:51 we are told “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Taken literally — while He was teaching at a synagogue in Capernaum, would have led to people rushing at Christ to devour Him.
To say that the bread is His literal flesh and that it must be frequently and literally eaten in order to attain salvation pushes aside the overwhelming majority of the New Testament verses about the mechanics of salvation: the trusting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross.
There are 3 passages in the Gospels that recount the Lord’s Supper and 5 that show Christ speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood and about 3 or 4 more that mention Christians practicing communion. In contrast there are nearly 200 verses that speak of attaining salvation through faith in Christ.
Church Fathers
The Didache
Our earliest record of faith and doctrine outside the New Testament is a collection of the teachings of the Apostles. Known as The Didache (“The Teaching” in Greek) it was written between 50-120 AD and speaks on matters of church protocol. Regarding the Lord’s Supper it states there must be baptism before a believer’s first communion and it lists a prayer to accompany it. Unfortunately, it does not weigh in on the literal presence of blood and body.
Ignatius of Antioch – 50s-107 AD
Possibly a direct student of Peter the Apostle he was sentenced to death by Emperor Trajan in the Roman Colosseum in 107 AD. On his route from Antioch he wrote to Christians awaiting in Rome and stated the following about his martyrdom:
“Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts, through whom it is possible to attain unto God. I am God’s wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread of Christ.”
Ignatius’ letter to the Romans 7:3
Here Ignatius likens his death to “pure bread of Christ.” Identifying the giving up of one’s body to death as the definition of bread in liturgical terms. In most translations of his work, the very next verse is:
“I have no taste for corruptible food 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.”
Given the fact that Ignatius saw his own death as ‘bread’ in the previous verse, should we read the very next verse as saying that the ‘bread of God’ is the ‘flesh of Christ’ in the same sense: that it is a representation of Christ’s Sacrifice at the Cross and His literal flesh? This would seem the correct contextual interpretation. And when Ignatius writes to the Ephesians and calls the Eucharist the
“bread of immortality, the antidote,”
it should be taken in the same vein for consistency. Especially given the account of Christ’s command during the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22:19:
‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’”
The term “remembrance” is very specific. In the Hebrew it is zākar (זָכַר) and is used in Genesis 9:15 when God designates the rainbow as a remembrance of His Noahic Covenant:
“And I will remember My covenant… and the waters shall no more become a flood.”
It is also used in Exodus 12:13 when God institutes the Passover meal to remind Israel of their deliverance from the Angel of Death in Egypt and their escape:
“This day shall be to you a memorial (זִכָּרוֹן, zikaron); you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD.”
Our Greek New Testament uses the word anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις) which is used in Luke 22:19 (see above) as well as in Hebrews 10:3 when speaking of the Levitical Sacrificial System and Priesthood:
“In those sacrifices there is a remembrance (anamnesis) of sins every year.”
I believe this is the Rosetta Stone for the Eucharist question. The definition of the act of remembrance embedded in these Hebrew and Greek words is not purely symbolic. It is the literal re-enactment of a past event being done in the present in order to practice a covenant in real time. It is not purely symbolic and it is also not literally the event itself. It resides in both realities.
Polycarp – 69-155 AD
A student of John the Apostle he does not weigh in on the body and blood matter. He simply reminds us that the Eucharist is one of the unifying acts for all Christians.
Justin Martyr – 90s-165 AD
In his work First Apology no.66 he refutes the notion that communion is just simple bread and wine:
“we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… …is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
And in his Dialogue with Trypho no. 117 he comments on a Malachi verse:
and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations
– Malachi 1:11
Justin believes this incense is not the prayers from Gentiles but the practice of the Eucharist being performed throughout the nations as the Church expands. Yet Psalm 141:2 says:
“Let my prayer be set before You as incense, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.”
In Exodus, Aaron the first High Priest is instructed to have continual incense burning in the Holy Place. This symbolizes the prayers of God’s people going up before Him:
“Each one had a harp, and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”
– Revelation 5:8
I would have to disagree with Justin on his strict interpretation. I see Malachi 1:11 as signifying the gathering, thanksgiving and worshiping of His saints in the New Covenant era (as would Clement of Alexandria). And this would certainly include the Lord’s Supper. However, I am faced with the fact that many of our early church records show that the Fathers specifically believed Malachi prophesied the Eucharist.
Irenaeus of Lyons – 125-202 AD
In Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 17 he states when the elements of communion, which are “produced from the earth” receive the “invocation of God” they cease to be common and partake in
“two realities, earthly and heavenly.”
Tertullian – 160-230 AD
In chapter 39 of his work Apology Tertullian was writing to Roman magistrates defending Christians against accusations of cannibalism and other pagan practices. He wanted to clarify that the misunderstanding of the Eucharist had led to such charges because Christians — although they were consuming actual bread and wine — believed these were the “flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.” The implication was that the elements of communion were earthly AND they were other worldly. But they certainly were not actual human flesh.
In Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 8, Tertullian argues against Gnostics who did not believe Christ had ever become flesh. He reminds them that the reason our Lord told us to “[feed] on the body and blood” is precisely because He had an actual body of flesh and a human nature.
Hippolytus of Rome – died circa 236 AD
His opus magnus was the Apostolic Tradition completed around 215 AD as an attempt at a systematic compilation of the Apostle’s teachings. In chapter 18 (Alistair Stewart’s translation) we see a Eucharistic passage:
“…let them give thanks over the bread, the representation of the body of Christ; and over the cup, which is the antitype of the blood which was shed for all who believe in Him.”
“Representation” and “antitype” show a more metaphorical view of the elements during communion. However given other passages in this work that speak of consecration of the elements by bishops through prayer and worship and the bringing of these to the sick and needy, it is obvious that Hippolytus did not have a “common food only” view of the Eucharist.
IN CONCLUSION
Overview
Long before the Council of Trent (1545–1563) declared that the Roman Church viewed the Eucharistic elements as physically transforming into the literal body of Christ (i.e.: transubstantiation), the view of the Early Church was that of them having a dual nature. Often called consubstantiation. Common elements that, through consecration by believers when praying, giving thanks and worshiping are supernaturally endowed with the Real Presence of Christ during His Crucifixion and consequent Resurrection. A remembrance practiced like the Passover Meal in which our present experience arches back — by the power of the Holy Spirit — to a true, past Event so that we commune with its Reality.
Martin Luther himself held this view:
“We maintain that the bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and are given and received…”
— Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528)
“The body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are truly given and received with the bread and wine.”
— The Small Catechism, 1529
“God’s Word is clear.
‘Is’ means is.”
— Marburg Colloquy, 1529
And as we see in Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians and Philemon, the first churches gathered in people’s homes where worship, prayers, meals and the Eucharist were practiced. We have no record of official bishoprics in any given city at that time and no record of bishops being required for communion by the twelve apostles. Acts 14:23 does record that every church planted in Acts had an elder appointed. This was relatively early on in church history and for the next 3 centuries these churches would have planted other churches which spider webbed to three continents in multiple nations and languages. I find it hard to believe — seeing as Acts does not prescribe it — that no Lord’s Supper was performed by non-elders/bishops. This protocol appears later (second century) where church leaders such as Ignatius prescribe bishops or people assigned by them perform proper communion.
But remember the questionable dictates of some early church practices. Such as Hippolytus of Rome’s Apostolic Tradition passage where he prescribes that all new believers undergo a 2 to 3 year probationary period before receiving communion and baptism. Something Philip did not seem to know when he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch relatively quickly upon his conversion.
As essential as it is to study the first few generations of the Church, we must remember that the Holy Spirit used men (whom are fallible) to generate truth but this does not mean everything that come from the pens and hearts of these Fathers was inerrant:
Sometimes:
Church Fathers + tradition = God’s Will.
And sometimes:
Church Fathers + tradition ≠ God’s Will.
The Rosetta Stone is Scripture itself.
Because what is ALWAYS true is:
God’s Word = God’s Will.
The Heart of the Issue
In Psalm 51:16-17 we see the heart of God behind sacramental rituals:
“For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”
Just like Simon the Magician in Acts 8 was baptized but unconverted and the thief on the cross was unbaptized but converted, we are judged by our heart’s true response to God. Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross and His Atoning Death and Resurrection are the actual real time historical actions that have paid for our sin.
The Levitical Priesthood and entire Sacrificial System, as intricate as they were and as central as they were to life in Israel, served only as a foreshadow to the Cross. The Sacrament of Communion is a pointing back to it. But the anatomy of our salvation is the Death and Resurrection of the Son of God. Our access to this atoning Sacrifice is through the heart and mind’s response to this Fact. Not by a “perfectly” performed Lord’s Supper by a particular priestly line but by a humble and contrite heart that obeys Christ’s commands, regardless of when or where they find themselves on this green earth. This is what the Scriptures, in the Mosaic (Old) Covenant and the Messianic (New) Covenant teach.
Yet, our Saviour has commanded us to perform the Lord’s Supper until His Return.
The most logical conclusion we can come up with when dealing with the Eucharist is that it is a Sacred Ritual.
A Sacrament.
Something beyond human understanding. Divinely orchestrated.
Not a common gesture like the sign of the cross or a slight bow to a dignitary.
An act that will always carry deep mystery but was one of only two rituals commanded to us by our Lord.
Let us approach it with this sober reality.
SEE NEXT CHUNK PART 9
What Christians Believe 