If you did not read Part I or II, click here to read Part I, and click here to read Part II. They are necessary to understand this one.
MODERN CHRISTIAN: Can you quote me something from these writers?
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN: Yes, Justin Martyr said, “We do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (The First Apology, Chapter 66, c. 150s AD).
We can further discuss mentions of the Eucharist in the writings of the earliest Christians.
Image by Pixabay
MODERN CHRISTIAN: That is just one writer. We would need several who did not know each other nor lived in the same place from the 2nd Century to establish continuity with the Apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ in the 1st Century and show that the belief that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus goes back to Jesus and is therefore correct.
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN: There are several writers who did not know each other nor lived in the same place that all had the same belief about the Eucharist, and this establishes continuity with the Apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ.
MODERN CHRISTIAN: Like?
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN: Like Ignatius of Antioch. This is a man who was a disciple of John the Apostle and knew Peter the Apostle as well. He died as a martyr at the hands of the Romans around 107 AD. He began traveling under Roman guard from Antioch to Syria for his martyrdom. On his way there, he wrote seven letters. Think about this. These are the thoughts of a man who knows he will die within weeks. They show you a glimpse into the heart of a 1st Century Christian and what he thought most important. In addition, it shows you what he held fast to, what was taught him by the Apostles.
In four out of the seven letters he wrote, he spoke about the Eucharist. It is interesting how a man who does not have much time left would spend so much time on the Eucharist, which you think is only a symbol, when he could have spent time on other things like giving money to the poor.
In his Letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius wrote, “All of you, individually and collectively, gather together in grace, by name, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who physically was a descendent of David, who is Son of Man and Son of God, in order that you may obey the bishop and the council of presbyters with an undisturbed mind, breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote we take in order not to die but to live forever in Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 20, Holmes translation).
How can a symbol be the medicine of immortality? I thought only our Lord Jesus Christ was that? Oh wait, the Eucharist is also the Body and Blood of our Lord, and Ignatius makes that clear here.
Then, in his Letter to the Romans, as he wrote about dying as a martyr in graphic terms, he said, “I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want His blood, which is incorruptible love” (Romans 7.3, Holmes translation). A soon-to-be martyr is preoccupied with the Eucharist, but you believe the earliest Christians (including Ignatius) thought it was a symbol. That is interesting indeed. He is comparing his death with Christ’s death, and his love for Christ with Christ’s love as shown in the shedding of His blood for us. This is why he is fixated on the Eucharist because it really is the Body and Blood of Christ, “which suffered for us,” as he later said to the Smyrnaeans.
In his Letter to the Philadelphians, he said, “Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for these is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through His blood” (Philadelphians 4, Holmes translation). He is as clear as crystal here.
Then, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote that the heretics, “Abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up” (Smyrnaeans 6.2, Holmes translation).
The heretics whom he was writing against, known as the Docetists (who denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was human), denied the Eucharist because they understood correctly that this was the Body and Blood of Christ. But, how could they partake of it if they didn’t even believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh?
Now we have two Christian authors who did not know each other: Ignatius of Antioch lived in the late 1st century through most of the first decade of the 2nd century. He lived in Antioch. Justin Martyr, who I mentioned earlier, lived in Rome in the mid-2nd century.
There is a third Christian I would like to mention: Irenaeus of Lyons. He lived in Lyons, in what is modern day France in the late 2nd Century. This man wrote a book called Against Heresies which listed the beliefs that the church had received from our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles and how the different heresies stood against these beliefs. He wrote about the Eucharist and said, “Just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection” (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.4-5, c. 180 AD).
You have three men, from three countries, who all bore witness of the same reality: “By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). There are many other witnesses of the reality of the Eucharist, but the point is clear.
All Christians until Ulrich Zwingli (early 1500s), unless they were heretics who denied essential truths about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit like our Lord Jesus Christ being human, believed that the Eucharist was really the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is continuity and universal witness among Christians. It is very well documented.
If you liked this blog entry, follow my Facebook page here OR sign up to my email list to receive my latest blog entries every week in your inboxes, and you will also receive my free eBook The Way of Christ. Click here to sign up.
Thank you Daniel for your wonderful writing. I think, as a former Protestant, one of the reasons the Eucharist is thought to be more or less an afterthought in worship is that it is also the rite which continually incorporates us as the Body of Christ. We receive the Body of Our Lord and thus become the Body of our Lord. His entering into us transforms us into Him. This goes with the rite of initiation, Baptism, as well. Baptism is a rite of justification in Christ though our dying and rising with Him – through which we are brought out of the mass of alienated humanity into the illumined Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let me go further. One of the most treasured, and unspoken, beliefs of Protestants is freedom of conscience – a belief of the enlightenment. In other words, I reserve the right to believe something or not to believe it. I don’t mean that we don’t have true freedom to believe in Christ, I mean that in its Protestant expression it is more a reserving of ones self will. I still retain the right over my life, not God. The Protestant manner of this is to see ‘conversion’ as inviting “Jesus into my life” rather than understanding that we are called to Follow Him – which means Jesus has invited me into HIS life. This means being incorporated into his Body. The problem with this for a Protestant is the desire to ‘pick’ the ‘Church’ they want to associate with. This involves an unspoken assumption, as heirs of the Reformation, that the Church is something that agrees with me and my personal convictions. this also entails a view of the Body of Christ which is Docetic – what they call the ‘invisible Church’. But this is not what we see in the Ancient Church. They were called to be ‘disciples’ – enshrined in the ancient ‘Catechumenate’ – to believe certain things – things which are in accordance with Christ and the ‘Scriptures’.
It took me 10 years to gain a glimpse of this reality. As Paul says, my mind had to be renewed. I am not my own. And as St John says – if you don’t love your brother, you don’t love God. You can’t say you love Him who is not seen if you can’t love your brother who you do see. Most Protestants that I know in reality find that simply something that they cannot believe involves there being “One Church” which alone is “the pillar and ground of the truth”. There is One Church because there is “One God and Father of all, who is over all and in all”. If the Church is not One, What exactly did Jesus die for? He died so that there might be “One flock under One Shepherd”.
This very reality of the Church violates that inner ‘freedom of conscience” that Protestants hold so dear. I say that as a former Protestant who attended a well known Bible College. This ‘freedom’ is enshrined as an unspoken assumption which guides their whole approach to ‘Church’. As a result, everything is about ones personal/individual faith. It must be, then, that nothing except ‘faith’ in Jesus is required. Anything else is ‘legalism’ or at best ‘symbolic’ of MY faith. Because Baptism and Eucharist are ‘in-corporating’ rites initiating us into a way of life that incorporates me into itself, into Christ and His Kingdom, ‘faith’ cannot be ‘personal/individual’. This ‘Faith’ is the deposit given to me, not one which I deduce or hold as a personal/private belief – but if you believe something else – ‘that’s ok’.
In the end, what I realized is that in order to ‘follow Christ’ I must also be a ‘disciple’ of his ‘disciples’ – I.e. of those who had kept the deposit of faith from the beginning. This meant, in relation to the Church, the “pillar and ground of the truth’, what was required of me was submission to her teaching AND manner of life. In other words, I had to ‘die to myself’ and ‘live for Christ’ in His Body through which He laid down his life for all without distinction or favoritism. In other words, to love like Jesus loved is to love the One Body, His One Body, not the ‘body’ that I want to love and feel comfortable with.
I went on longer than I planned! Thank you for your love for Christ and his Church and your passion to share His life-giving Gospel.