The Eucharist has long been a point of discussion between Protestants and Catholics that has driven community, great talks, but also division. This article will be a defense or apologetic of the mystic union between partaker and Christ during the Eucharist. My view may differ than some protestants and I am sure it will be fully different than that of all Roman Catholics.
However, over the course of my study on this topic I’ve seen works both from Catholic Answers and The Masters Seminary that are troubling. You see, both sides, much like in the debate of Creation, attempt to “own” the Early Church Fathers. Ironically, sometimes they use the same Church Father but come to different conclusions. As someone who attests themselves to Paleo-Theology, I feel as though my grasp on the Early Church is substantial. I’ll be going over most of the Eucharist texts within their context and extrapolating the meaning that the Early Church was deriving. Let us be clear that the Early Church Fathers were fallible and did not pertain to the Scripture in the sense that they were inspired by the Spirit while writing.
The Reformed view of the Eucharist which overarches the main protestant view is that it is entirely symbolic in meaning and there is no literal flesh or blood while taking the sacrament. The Roman Catholic view differs in that they believe you are eating the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ. You will see that a truly defined mystical union view is the most accurate, at least, my hope is that you see this through the article coming.
There are a few main portions we need to cover before diving into proof texts or counter argument deconstruction. The first is the Biblical concept of blood debts that are found throughout the Ancient Near East , Old Testament, Silent Periods and the New Testament fulfillment Scriptures. We also must keep in mind, in 2021 nearly 2022, we lose sight that Christianity is highly ritualistic system.
Blood Debt in Scripture and ANE Context
This concept is also known in part as “blood guilt” which is a form of blood debt in the Ancient Near Eastern context. You might be immediately asking: “Why ANE? This is a New Testament issue…” well, like any New Testament issue, we find it’s roots in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
From the start of the Law to the fulfillment of the Law in the New Testament we have blood guilt & blood forgiveness as a staple. We also get extra nuanced context to something extremely vital to the Christian faith which is life. This also says that life comes from blood. Blood is seen as the gateway to the soul, in some sense. The use of blood in the sin offering provides an illustration of the role of metaphoric thinking in biblical ritual. Though all of the biblical offerings use some form of blood usages, the sin offering’s distinguishing characteristic is the smearing of blood on the horns of the altar (for offerings of individuals) and blood sprinkling in the sanctuary (for collective offerings). The results of these sin offerings are stated in a fixed formula which is repeated throughout Leviticus 4: “the priest shall expiate (kipper) for him/ them and he/ they shall be forgiven” (vv. 20, 26, 31, 35).
Let’s take a deep dive for a brief moment into some context as to why blood guilt is an important context to what we are looking at in the Eucharist. The relationship between compensation and bloodguilt can only be properly understood on the background of the biblical view of what is necessary to be done when a homicide occurs. Briefly, the fundamental belief is that innocent blood (דם נקי) demands retribution against the murderer. For example, Abel’s spilled blood calls out for vengeance against Cain (Genesis 4:10), though typically the biblical sources do not personify the blood, treating it as an invisible stain that must be removed lest collective punishment strike the community.[Dr.Feder]
In particular, it is the responsibility of the victim’s kin to act as the “redeemer of blood” (גאל הדם), to free the victim’s blood from its state of discord. For this reason, it was forbidden for the relatives to accept monetary compensation to appease their (subjective) outrage, despite the fact that this was an accepted practice throughout the ancient Near East. Only by addressing the objective guilt – by repaying the blood-debt – could collective retribution be averted. As God warns Noah (Genesis 9:6): “The one who spills the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilled” (שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך).
Why spend so much time on blood guilt and debt? This is because I need people to understand that the repaying of spilled blood is something vital to the Hebrew narrative in Scripture that we often overlook. There is no way that I will go so far as to say that Cain and Abel started the initial mystical blood guilt between man and God but it seems to lend itself to an interesting thought. The point is: Blood is important to the forgiveness of one’s sins.
To recap, the blood was seen as the life flow of people, it was seen as the most vital portion of the body, it was used in all forgiving rituals, it was the flow of the soul in the Hebrew and Ancient Near East thought. It was both of physical and spiritual importance.
The second topic we need to cover is Christ’s words about life and the bread of life and the Scriptures surrounding a very important text that man shall not live on bread alone.
Christ as the fulfilled Priest from the Old Testament
“Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God the Most High. And he blessed [Abram]” (Gen 14:18-19). That should sound familiar to most readers of the New Testament. Here we have an early instance of bread and wine together blessing someone. This setups Christ’ fulfillment of it into the New Testament. “[Melchizedek] is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (Heb 7:3). St. Jerome wrote in the 5th century, “Just as Melchizedek had done, the priest of the Most high, when he offered bread and wine in the prefiguration of him, he [Christ] too would present it in the truth of his own body and blood [on the cross] (Commentary on Matthew IV).
To deliver the Israelites from Egypt, God commands Moses to tell his people: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male…they shall take some of the blood and put it on the doorposts…They shall eat the flesh that night” (Ex 12: 5-8). St. Paul writes: “For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). Jesus is identified with the Passover lamb, and the eating of the lamb with the eating of Jesus’ spiritual body, as Jesus says: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn 6:55).
God commands Moses to build a Tabernacle and place the Ark of the Covenant in it, so that he may “dwell in their midst” (Ex 25:8). He then commands him, “And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always” (25:30). Later on, David ate this bread, which was given to him by the priest Abimelech: “So the priest gave [David] the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence” (1 Sam 21:6). Jesus states, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry… how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence… I tell you, something greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:1-8).
Christ fulfills the Old Testament theologically, literally and spiritually. The bread of Presence in the Old Testament was not a bread that contained any flesh or any substance outside of a representation of seeking God’s face.
Bread of Life
When we digest food we are taking in nourishment for the physical life and sustaining our physical well being. Therefore, when Jesus says that one may not live on bread alone it is more than significant to the reader or listener. He stating that there is more than just the physical - there is the spiritual. Note: Spiritual doesn’t mean non-tangible, the realm of the spiritual is tangible as we know in Elisha/Elijah’s cases.
Now, the most important contextual verse when it comes to the Eucharist, in my opinion of course.
John understands that that this Word which man lives by from Deuteronomy 8 is Yeshua, the Messiah. He is the Word of God and He became flesh. This understanding of “the word, the flesh, and the bread” comes together in Yeshua’s testimony of Himself in John 6:48-51. His own words were:
“I am the bread of life… 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.”
He is referring to the manna during the exile period of Israel. Christ is the manna that sustains those who believe in Him. Just like many examples we could give from the Old Testament to the New Testament - Christ is making a theological fulfillment of something physical in the Old Testament. His statement would resound with Hebrew listeners and they would be eagerly taken back when they heard that Christ is not only stating that He was the provider of the manna but now He has come to be the manna for those who are lost. He will sustain our souls, not our bodies.
If you’re not fully tracking let me start creating the formula for you so that you can fully understand or grasp the argument that I’m making thus far:
(1) Blood was seen as a vital importance in the Old Testament rituals and viewed as the life flow. Manna was used to nourish exiled Israelites and sustain their bodies. (2) Christ comes and has said so far that He is the manna to come to this world and provide nourishment to those who “eats of this bread” and “this bread is my flesh” in a theological tone. Christ foretells of his death and resurrection by telling the Disciples in the last supper context that by taking the cup and the bread He is dying for man kinds sin and fulfilling the Old Testament bloodguilt (more on the cup soon).
Is Christ stating that people must come up to him and eat him? Negative. He is making a theological statement which we will see later comes to fruition in conjunction with John 3:16. If you’d like to shortcut this thought - did the man on the cross next to Jesus who would be in Paradise with Christ that very moment eat Jesus or drink His blood? We can assume not.
In John 6:35 and John 6:48 we get the phrase “bread of life” and Christ in v35 reiterates that his statement is theological. In saying “all who come to me shall not thirst” we know we all get physically thirsty but if we are resting in Him we are no longer spiritually thirsty.
To conclude “bread of life”; “bread”; “manna from heaven” are all theological statements by Christ stating that He is the fulfillment of exile, spiritual depravity, and the source of all life.
Let us further compound the theological trope from exile to Jesus to revelations that contain the manna/bread theme. In part of the Lord’s message to the church of Pergamum, we read, “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” (Revelation 2:17). We have again, manna, being something given and then taken, in this sense futuristic.
As the manna of the Exodus sustained and strengthened the Israelites for the forty years of desert wanderings, so Jesus strengthens and sustains us spiritually as we walk through this life on our way to heaven. Jesus is the “manna” from heaven—the spiritual sustenance we need.
“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . . This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever” (John 6:48–51, 58). The manna that sustained the Israelites was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ.
Focusing on a particular phrase here: “Your ancestors ate manna and died…” but we know that millions of Jews were saved by their forward faith in God’s promise through Abraham and Moses. They died physically, not spiritually. Again, we die physically, not spiritually when eat of Christ’ teachings and truth —not of his actual body.
John 1:12 tells us how to ingest these truths and it is not by consuming Christ body or blood but by faith as it were in the Old Testament. It has always been faith in Christ that leads to eternal life and we are sustained in this world by His teachings through the recorded Scriptures.
One last connection between 1 John and Revelation is those who obtain the hidden manna: The recipient of the hidden manna is specified in Revelation 2:17 as “the one who is victorious.” The overcomer is one who endures in his faith, despite trials and hardships. 1 John “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” It is not the one who is saved by Eucharist but by faith, belief in Christ.
Back to the Cup and the Blood
Christ in the garden says this in Matthew 26: And going forward a little he fell down on his face, praying and saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
Once more we have Christ speaking theologically, not literally. No physical cup is present, there is no cup outside of the figurative cup of the Cross that which Christ must drink in order to forgive sins. (Hint: later, we drink the fulfilled cup of the cross…as a mark of redemption).
In conjunction with Christ’ theological references to manna/bread we have this text in the same book as the others which gives us more information to both the bread and the cup:
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me (John 6:54-57).
There are several glaring things to point out here but let us stay on course with John’s theological discourse. He [Christ] earlier tells us that He is the bread of life in conjunction with “whosoever believes by faith” digests this bread. He also states again that He is the bread of life, the manna from heaven, which is conjunction with Revelation’s hidden manna to those who overcome. Christ also tells us that He is the one who sustains our life, He holds all things together. Therefore, do we need physical nutrition from Christ to overcome? No, the entire scope of the Scriptures is overcoming Chaos and Sin. We need spiritual cleansing (baptism) and spiritual truth and nutrition which can only come from the hidden manna or the bread of life that is Christ, Himself.
Let us keep in mind that John’s gospel is highly Jewish in nature. This can be found in another article where we go over why this is the case and how many true tropes we have from John’s Gospel in conjunction with the Old Testament language, Hebrew concepts of faith and law and much more. Thus, when Christ tells this to Jewish listeners that aren’t wondering —they know exactly what He is saying. He is the sustaining life that they must come to in order to live on forever with YHWH.
Mark 14 and Luke 22 record a more narrative picture in which Christ says: “This bread you eat is My body. This cup you drink is the covenant in My blood”. This cup, we know is a theological arc for Christ in which He must take on the sins of the world. He has now created a method by which we can remember His blood guilt fulfillment and His teachings of truth: “Do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)
So, are we to do this in remembrance of His actions and teachings or are we do this to obtain eternal life? Roman Catholicism skates too near the concept of Christ being a physical eternal well that we must find and capture to obtain eternal life—like that of Pirates of the Caribbean. Instead, we must take all exegetical context as a whole and we saw that in John Christ was using figurative language to tell people that they MUST believe in Him in order to have eternal life. Looping back around to the sinner on the cross —did he obtain eternal life by faith or by eating Christ?
By faith.
As baptism is the outward symbol and sacrament that tells the world we have been washed clean in Christ and the Spirit descends on us as it did Christ. The Eucharist is a theological sacrament that REMEMBERS (as Christ says) the fulfilled covenant of redemption. He passes the “cup” to all disciples and tells them to drink of it because it is His blood that will be spilled as He endures the “cup” which the Father set out before Him to endure.
“All who eat of my flesh…”
All who understand and put faith in His words that He is the hidden manna and the everlasting one who gives eternal life to those who overcome sin in the world through faith.
”All who drink of this cup…”
All who commit themselves to the narrow and believe that He died for our bloodguilt, rose again, and lives today at the right hand. All those who drink that cup through faith are saved.
Concluding this section, because Christ fulfilled the Old Testament in His death and resurrection we have the ability to have faith in His words, His actions, and His ability to save. He is our Spiritual nutrition, He is our life flow. He paid our blood guilt, He gave us a way to be cleansed of chaos. Therefore, Christ is present in the Eucharist insofar as He is Spiritually present and providing us the hidden manna, the spiritual manna to help us overcome the fallen world. He uses non-fallen means to overcome the fallen. That is, not real biological flesh or blood, but theological, spiritual flesh and blood from His realm of existence. The realm unseeen. This is the mystical union. This mystical union is the essensce of Christianity, we are, upon faith in Christ, unified with Christ. Christ doesn’t stand in front of us, we do not stand behind Christ, we are unified. His blood, His flesh, His mind, His work, His fulfillment lives and flows through us. In this, I believe Catholics would agree. Thus, it is Christ’s work in the flesh that gives us Christ’ resurrected flesh. It is Christ’ work on the cross and spilling of His physical blood that gives us His resurrected life flow (blood). In Him resurrected, we live. Christ is our showbread from the Old Testament, Christ is our wine of blessing from the Old Testament priest. The Eucharist is a remembrance of this and His work in resurrection.
Physical Errors
This seems basic but let us take the physical act of eating and drinking the Eucharist. If the Roman Catholics are to be correct, at some point that wine and that bread must turn into flesh and blood when digested. Unless they are willing to admit that it is Spiritual in essence in which case we can agree by stating that there is a mystical union between that which is physically real and spiritually real as we see all throughout Scripture. However, to admit such a thing for the Roman Catholic may mean to cease being a Roman Catholic.
Early Church Father Errors
The Didache is often quoted for some reason but it bears no context or remarks on a literal body or blood in the Eucharist. Instead, it backs up what all Christians should believe and that is to believe that this ritual is sacred and that it is a remembering sacrifice to the fulfilled sacrifice on the Cross of Christ. Rather, the Didache affirms that which is taken inwardly is SPIRITUAL NUTRITION: “but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.”
Ignatius is used as well because he mentions the “eucharist” and states: They [the Gnostics] 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.” What we don’t have is Ignatius defending Christianity from heretics by stating that “they don’t believe in the material and physical presence of the Eucharist”. Instead, we have him pointing out they deny the savior-ship of Christ and His power. Reading the entire writings of Ignatius helps as he is known for using direct language from Scripture rather than creating his own. This is part because he was close to the time of Scriptures.
Here we see it further: “Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses (Mat_18:19) such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Ch.V). He uses “bread of God” which is the direct language from John chapter 6. But again, we don’t find any argument or blunt text from this stating a material, physical, and biological flesh is being eaten.
Justin Martyr being another example where Roman Catholics attempt to “own” an Early Church Father. Let us look at two texts from his First Apology:
(65) Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
(66) “And this food is called among us Eucharistia [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, 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.”
We have here Justin stating that it is normal food, bread, water mixed with wine, and it is only for the baptized. This not only immediately removes the concept that you must have taken the Eucharist to be saved but it also lends to the concept of theological versus material. He states in the end of 66 that “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh..” which seems to say it is literally Jesus’ flesh and blood but again, it doesn’t say that. It simply proclaims that Christ blessed this sacrament and when we take it we are nourished by Christ because of His flesh and because of His blood ie., because He became flesh, because He spilled His blood. His resurrection is why we have His resurrected blood and flesh in us.
Irenaeus is probably the most quoted by Roman Catholics, which is entirely ironic, as he is the best example of the mystical union, not the literal biological blood and flesh. Here we have a quote from a Catholic Website and look at what they put in bold: For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Here is what I’d like to emphasize: consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Irenaeus states here that it is both physical (the bread we consume) and heavenly the nourishment of resurrection that is the Eucharist. It is the resurrection body and blood of Christ that flows through us already, not through the Eucharist, but represented by it. We remember the resurrection through the Eucharist because that is what Christ instructed. The common bread unified with heavenly [spiritual] substance that nourishes our souls eternally (not earthly).
There are many more instances that I could refer to but you gather the point. It is not merely symbolic and it is not biological or material alone. We eat that which is material and it is unified with that that is spiritual. We nourish our bodies “not by bread alone” but by His work in the resurrection.
We are in a mystical union with Christ, eternally. He is our Epiousios bread…that is to say “Our supernatural bread” and I’ll leave that cliff hanging word as our close.