No Ordinary Meal

A few weeks ago, my friend Ricardo and I grabbed lunch at a local restaurant. As co-workers, we’ve become good friends over the years. Being a Cuban refugee, he always has an interesting take on life. I’m always inspired by his stories, his love and nearness to his family, his enormous sense of patriotism, and his willingness to do anything for a neighbor. He is also a very devout Roman Catholic. While I suspect we wouldn’t agree on some finer points of theology, I’ve observed in His relationship with Jesus Christ as pure, humble, and genuine. He takes it very seriously. On top of that, he also fully accepts me (a non-Catholic) as a true brother in Christ (as I do for him). Because of this, I’ve always felt safe to ask him questions about the details of his faith and how Roman Catholics view spiritual topics.

In the weeks leading up to lunch, I had been thinking a lot about the Eucharist—the meal of bread and wine that we share when we gather. I was curious about the doctrine of transubstantiation—the Roman Catholic belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the presence of a sacramental prayer by the priest. After we received our order and thanked the Lord for our food, I sheepishly asked my question…

“So, Rico, I’ve cut my lip before. I know what blood tastes like. So, when you take the Holy Eucharist does it taste like blood or wine to you?”

I asked the question not to by snarky or coy. I simply wanted to better understand the nature of the distinction Roman Catholics made between the elements and the blood of Christ itself.

The second I asked, he stopped chewing his food and put down his sandwich. He looked at me and his eyes narrowed. He recognized where I was going with that.

“Mike,” he said. “It’s not like that…”. Befuddled with how to explain it in a simple way, he pressed toward the profound.

“The Holy Eucharist”, he whispered, “is a great mystery.”

Indeed, it is.

To most Christians, the elements of bread and wine are no mere meal. When we eat, both scripture and tradition tell us there’s something much deeper and more significant going on than just sharing food and drink. With any mystery, it’s only natural to have questions:

Is it just a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice or is something more going on?

What did Christ intend for us when He instituted it?

What is Paul referring to when he talks about the risk of partaking in an “unworthy manner”?

What is the nature of Christ’s presence within the meal?

In this post, I want to explore these questions by looking at them from all angles. First, we’ll first look at what different Christians believe about the Eucharist. Next, we’ll view them through selected passages of scripture. Lastly, by examining the evidence, I’ll also offer my own thoughts with an idea that I don’t think I’ve heard from anyone else before. Throughout the post, I’ll use the words Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion interchangeably to refer to the fellowship meal that Christ instituted in the Upper Room nearly 2,000 years ago.

Clues from Tradition

What follows is a primer on the most common views held about Eucharist. In the interest of time, I’ve provided only a very broad explanation of each. I’m sure a lot could be learned by studying the reasoning and history behind each one. Several of these ideas have been rigorously developed over the centuries.

The Non-Essential View

Some Christians simply do not observe the Eucharist (at least in the form of physical bread and wine). The Salvation Army takes an agnostic stance on the practice, saying that they neither condone nor discourage the use of sacraments in the life of a believer. Traditional Quakers are another group that does not observe the sacrament. Part of their reasoning is a concern that ritual observance can become a distraction to their connection with the Lord. For the Quaker, the Eucharist is a “spiritual” partaking of Christ rather than a physical meal. (Keep that thought in mind as we continue.)

Memorialism

Other Christians, such as the Baptists, Anabaptists, other off-shoots of Zwinglian reformation, and many “non-denominational” churches see the Eucharist primarily as a ceremonial remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. In this view, nowhere in the emblems is Jesus present. The Anabaptists specifically point out that the presence of Christ is not in the elements, but rather in each believer. Arnold Snyder explains that, for them, the “mystery of communion with the living Christ in his Supper comes into being by the power of the Spirit, dwelling in and working through the collected members of Christ’s Body”. So, for the memorialist, it’s not so much that communion with Christ isn’t occurring, as a denial that He resides within the physical elements.

Receptionism

Reformed Christians, most notably the Presbyterians, base their understanding of the Eucharist on the teachings of John Calvin. Calvin, in his Institutes, makes a distinction between the literal presence of Christ and His spiritual presence. Unlike Memorialists, Receptionists see the Eucharist is more than a mere symbol. But like Memorialists, you are not partaking of Christ by way of the meal, but by way of the Holy Spirit during the meal. When you partake of the Holy Communion, you are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ by way of the Spirit (rather than by the physical elements). Because the elements are consecrated and received “by faith” (rather than by a priestly prayer) this view is referred to as receptionism.

Cosubstantiation

Martin Luther taught that Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with and under” the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Lutheranism believes that both the physical elements of the bread and wine and the spiritual element of Christ co-exist in the same place and time. Luther referred to this as the sacramental union. He explained that, in the same way that iron becomes red-hot when placed in fire, the iron and the fire remain distinct. This concept, called cosubstantiation, differs from receptionism in that Jesus is attached to the elements in a literal sense. This is referred to in theological circles as the Real Presence of Christ.

Transubstantiation

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions takes the Real Presence of Christ a step further by teaching that the “whole substance” of the bread and wine are changed to the “whole substance” of Christ’s body and blood through the Eucharistic prayer of a priest. This differs from cosubstantiation in that the bread and wine are no longer also physical bread and wine but rather are fully Christ under the accidents and appearances of bread and wine.

Note that several are distinguishable only in nuance. Also note that they aren’t entirely exclusive of each other as they each contain an element of universal truth shrouded in mystery. For example:

Christians do partake of Christ spiritually.

It’s true that Lord’s Supper is a memorial observance.

Few would argue that the Holy Spirit interacts with us by His indwelling within the church body.

Few would disagree that we receive Christ by faith.

If “Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11), then why would He not, in some mysterious way be in the elements (while also being “with and under” them)?

Rather than being fully exclusive ideas, there seems to be significant overlap. Any differences are mostly a matter of emphasis. That’s something to think about as we move forward.

The Risk of Constricted Thinking

It’s interesting that such a wide range of very specific, highly developed beliefs presumably have their origin such a relatively small number of Bible passages. The passages we have simply don’t provide sufficient detail to fully flesh out these doctrines. Instead, much of it has been derived over the centuries through the lens of tradition and theological bias. The derivation is driven largely by rigorous and academic clarification, explanation, and counter-argumentation. Like just about every other Christian belief, the views you hold about the Lord’s Supper are much more a matter of faith in how your particular church’s doctrines have developed than what Christ intended for His meal from the beginning.

Knowledge abhors a vacuum. But in the pursuit of explanatory depth and theological certainty we too often displace the mystery. We’re so busy explaining how other believers are theologically incorrect that we never stop to notice how similar our beliefs are for things that actually matter. Avoiding valuable discussion robs us from a different perspective. It robs us from an opportunity to see a broader truth where our idea might provide only a piece of the puzzle. This doesn’t mean that some theology is simply incorrect. But before we paint with such a broad, condemning brush, we should at least try to seek the truth in anything a brother or sister would speak. Among the body, no one denomination has a monopoly on the truth.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to scrape away layers of doctrine which may only serve to cover a deeper truth. We look instead to the Author. We must read relevant passages with spiritual eyes. Sometimes we consider what other brothers and sisters observe in practice. We avoid filling every vacuum with high-minded speculation. We hold fast to what’s revealed. We surrender the rest to mystery.

Now let’s turn to what scripture reveals about Christ’s original intention for this meal.

Clues from Scripture

The Holy Communion didn’t begin in the Upper Room on the night Jesus was betrayed. In fact, the bread and wine have make appearances throughout the Old Testament as symbols of the Lord’s presence, provision, and sustainment for His people for thousands of years prior. Bread and wine were presented by Melchizedek when he confirmed Abram’s blessing (Genesis 14:18-20). Unleavened bread as a reminder of the Israelite’s redemption from Egypt, later memorialized in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover meal. A form of bread, manna, sustained the Israelites for 40 years (Exodus 16:1-36). The showbread (the bread of presence) within the tabernacle symbolized the life and sustainment of the Israelites. We see bread and wine serve as an extension of fellowship when Boaz offered them to Ruth (Ruth 2:14).

In today’s parlance, the bread and wine were clues–“easter eggs” that point to something much greater to be revealed at a later time. As Christians with the benefit of hindsight, we see Jesus Christ pre-figured in these elements.

In the New Testament, it’s significant that Jesus’s first miracle is the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2:1-12). Comparing Himself to the manna, Jesus refers to Himself as the “bread of life” through which His followers would partake of and gain eternal life (John 6:25-58). As He approached the crucifixion, He instituted a meal and included bread and wine as a means of memorializing and proclaiming the sacrifice that He would become for the world’s sins (Matt. 26:26-28). After Christ’s ascension, we also know that this meal was the central part of their gatherings of the early church (Acts 2:46) and that it would continue after Christ’s inauguration as King by His resurrection (Matthew 26:29).

But despite the elements of wine being a recurring theme in scripture, we’re left with very few passages that describe the nature and purpose of the Eucharist. With what scriptures we do have, let’s examine them closely. Let’s let them speak for themselves. Let’s let them speak as a whole.

John 6:25-58

Our first passage comes early in Jesus’ earthly ministry. After the miracle of feeding the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes, He returned to Capernaum. After the crowds caught up with Him the next day, Jesus implores them to quit looking for food that perishes (which they were provided earlier), but for “food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.” (v.27). The crowds ask Jesus for the sign that they might believe Him and follow Him, referring to the “manna from heaven” that was given to the Israelites after they escaped Egypt. Jesus responds by explaining that He Himself is the “true bread from heaven” and “the bread of life”. The crowds are confused by this statement. But rather than explaining it, Jesus doubles-down on His identification:

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 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.
John 6:48-51 (ESV)

Debate among the Jews intensifies. But Jesus doesn’t let up:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
John 6:53-57 (ESV)

One debate that has been going on for centuries is whether Jesus was speaking metaphorically or literally about his followers eating His body and drinking His blood. On one hand, we know from recorded events that Jesus never offered a slice of His elbow or thigh to His followers to consume (neither in His carnal nor His resurrected, pre-ascension state). Material cannibalism of his physical body prior to His ascension clearly wasn’t what He had in mind.

On the other hand, His choice of words seems pretty literal. It would be easy to dismiss if He only said it once, but here we find Him proclaiming what Jewish ears would identify as cannibalism over and over again. He was either doing this to intentionally offend their sensitives or to make a very critical point. (Maybe both.) The fact that John records this interaction is a sign that this is a very significant interaction in Christ’s ministry.

Let’s keep going.

Matthew 26:26-28 & 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

In our next passage, Jesus is with His disciples in the Upper Room while He waits for His arrest and crucifixion. Here He institutes the His meal for the first time.

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.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:26-28 (ESV)

He asks His disciples to take the bread and eat it, adding that it is His body. He does the same with the wine, adding that it is His blood. There’s a clear connection between what He says in this passage and His words in John 6 regarding His identity in the elements. Luke’s version of this event adds that Jesus asked to partake of the meal as a remembrance of Jesus (Luke 22:19-20). The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment by describing the meal as a memorial as well as a proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice until He returns:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV)

This passage suggests that the meal is both a memorial observation and a proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice. When we partake, we’re not just internalizing it, but we’re also saying something. We’re proclaiming to one another and to the world that the Messiah has arrived; this world has a new King.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 & 11:17-33

The apostle Paul initiates 1 Corinthians chapter 10 with a stern warning against idolatry. The issue was of consuming meat offered to idols. It’s likely some of the Corinthian believers were finding it tricky to respond appropriately to the hospitality of their pagan neighbors who offered them a meal from a pagan sacrifice. In verse 16 he begins to argue that a believer cannot partake in the meal of Christ while also partaking of the “cup of demons”, since by partaking in either we are engaging in it.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV)

Beyond being involved in a memorial observance of Christ’s sacrifice, Paul was reminding the Corinthians that by participating in Holy Communion, they were participating in Christ.

What is it to participate with someone but to commune with them? And since Christ was no longer in the flesh, this communion was by way of His Spirit who indwelt them. He follows this up with an illustration reminding them that they are unified as a body. This is a point that would Paul would drive even deeper in the next chapter.

In chapter 11, Paul is concerned about divisions among the members of the church. These divisions are evidenced by some who are eating fellowship meal ahead of others. This is causing others to go hungry. Others are getting drunk from the wine. This selfish behavior was driven by status-consciousness where some of higher social status helped themselves to the food first, leaving little for the poorer members of the body. Paul first reminds them of Christ’s words from the Upper Room (Luke 22:19-20). He follows this with a stern warning:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died … So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another…
1 Corinthians 11:27-30,33 (ESV)

To Paul, following cultural customs in this case was merely the symptom of a bigger problem. To eat and drinking in an “unworthy manner” was to partake of the meal without recognizing their unity and equality under what Christ has done for them. By not “discerning the body” properly they were inviting God’s judgement. In fact, Paul points out that some had become weak, sick, and even died as a result of this selfishness (though it’s not clear whether this was a direct result of God’s judgment or the natural result of impoverished members being denied a sufficient portion of the fellowship meal). Bottom line was that this attitude wasn’t a negligible offense. Partaking of the meal in an unworthy manner was having a direct and negative impact on the body.

His admonishment was for the church to “wait for one another”. Only by waiting and sharing in the meal would they demonstrate their unity and equality under Christ.

Putting It All Together

In the first century, bread and wine were the most common staples of any good meal. There remains some debate as to whether the Lord’s Supper was a shared meal consisting of several items, a special meal of bread and wine specifically, or whether there was special significance placed on the bread and wine amid a larger meal. We might even wonder if a flavorless wafer and some juice from a clear plastic cup is an acceptable substitute. We can spend a lot of time teasing these things out, but I really don’t think it matters.

The Lord instituted His meal with the simplest and most common of food items so that even the most impoverished believers could share and partake. The form it takes is less important than the purpose for which we observe it. The real question is, when we partake do we recognize it as Jesus intended? Is it a dead ritual or is it an opportunity to participate in the Life we share?

Among the many things Christ teaches us, our unity among a local assembly of believers is among the greatest. By beholding Him in the meal, we participate in Christ whom we share corporately. Whereas today many Protestants think of a prepared sermon as the main part of the gathering, the fellowship meal was the centerpiece of the early church. The Holy Communion is both a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice for the world. As we eat, we proclaim not only what He did by way of His sacrifice, but also what He’s doing and what He’s going to do. We declare His authority and office as our High Priest and King. By partaking in the meal together we also recognize and proclaim the unity and equality we’ve been given under Christ’s headship.

I think these things are pretty clear from scripture. But what of the real presence of Christ?

Does Jesus literally indwell the Eucharist?

Here are my thoughts…

First, as we already mentioned, Christ engages in dramatic and emphatic metaphorical language when he identifies the bread and wine with His body (John 6:25-58 and Matthew 26:26-28). To me, this rhetoric goes beyond what we normally see even in His parables. This alone doesn’t mean that He was being literal. But if I were going to tell you that I was, in some mysterious way, literally a meal that you would partake in, the language He uses in these passages is the kind of language I would be using.

Second, this would not have been the first time Christ was found in a material “edible” form. In a previous post, I explained that the fruit the Tree of Life bore in the Garden was the means by which Adam and Eve would have physically “consumed” divine life. Though it’s not specifically mentioned, this fruit contained the divine life of the Lord. And if this precedent had been set, why should we think that Christ’s life couldn’t be dispensed again in similar fashion?

Third, most of the debate and explanatory mechanics surrounding whether Christ literally is (or is present in) the Eucharist suggests a false distinction between what is real and what is spiritual. In another post, I explained that there is presently a separation between the spiritual and the material worlds. Each is just as real and literal as the other. Because we are most familiar with the material world, we’re pre-disposed to thinking that the material world is more “real” than the spiritual. But humans are hybrid creatures–living fully in the material while striving to remain aware and operate in the spiritual (where Christ dwells within us). In scientific parlance, the Lord’s Supper has a “quantum nature”–being altogether two different things at the same time. Once we clarify this distinction, accepting that Christ may actually literally indwell this meal isn’t such a leap after all.

When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we’re consuming a meal (in the physical) while consuming Christ (in the spiritual). The Eucharist is simply a critical means by which we “consume” Christ as we also do in other ways.

So I agree with my Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran brothers and sisters that we are literally consuming Christ in the Eucharist. However, I don’t believe that that the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches hold any special monopoly on its consecration or administration.

In the early church, just like today, we are a priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:9). As we partake of the meal, it becomes the body and blood of Christ the moment we recognize it as such. Exactly how that happens is a glorious mystery. But it’s a mystery that all believers are freely invited to partake.

For the King Himself has invited us to His Table.