The Real Presence in the Eucharist

The Eucharist is our participation in the saving death of Jesus

We believe we “eat His Body and drink His Blood”

Introduction:

When we ponder the reality of Church, we need to understand that we are a part of a living reality encompassing those living today, along with those who have been baptised from the time of Pentecost down through time.  The Church includes those living eternally, those singing the praises of God around the heavenly throne.  The Church has always been far greater than its material footprint, its buildings and institutions. The Church is and remains forever the Body of Christ.

It is equally important to remind ourselves of another reality.  Theology did not begin when Martin Luther nailed his theses onto the cathedral door in 1517 and launched the Reformation. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has faithfully maintained and proclaimed the teachings of the Apostles.  This was carried out under the guarantee given by Jesus to Peter, and so to the Church…  “the gates of hell will not prevail against you”

The theological word for this is Indefectible, meaning that something is not subject to failure or decay, and is free of significant faults in matters of faith. That does not mean it cannot make mistakes, just not in matters of faith.  The church as indefectible, meaning it will endure and maintain its essential characteristics. It will get things wrong but not regarding the “teachings of the apostles”.

This is a vital theological teaching because it rests on the work of the Holy Spirit.  If we reject indefectibility, we are saying that since the year 312 (when Constantine converted to Christianity and thus the Roman empire embraced Christ, effectively ending pagan control), the universal Church has not been faithful to God’s commissioning.  Has not listened to and been guided by the Holy Spirit.    That is a big call to make.  For 1200 years, Christian leaders were led, not by the Spirit but by who?  Satan?

As we are opening our reflections on the Eucharist, it is essential that we keep in mind the historical perspective.  Some things have been consistent, unchanged from the time of Pentecost, and one of those “somethings” is that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are fully, truly the body and blood of Jesus.   This is the way Christians have understood the words of Jesus: “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot have life within you”.

Do we really believe that the theology of the Church, regarding its understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was wrong for most of its existence?  Something so central to its life identity and mission?   That it was only with the Reformation that the Church finally made its way out of error and back to the community Jesus imagined!  That is a tough position to maintain.

Do we really believe that there was not activity by the Holy Spirit between 50 AD and October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany?   That Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church was also wrong.

What we need to do is to come to a faithful explanation of what Jesus was teaching when he said to the crowd “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, there is no life in you.”

Some helpful biblical texts to guide us

We can begin with Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 11:23-26, which was written around 50 – 58 AD (remember Jesus died 30 or 33 AD).

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 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. 

But this text has a context that helps the reader focus on the full message of Paul:

1 Corinthians10 helps keep the focus on what Paul and the apostles understood to be the meaning of the words of Jesus:

14: Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15: I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.  16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Three things are important here:

First was the phrase, “the cup of blessing which we bless.”  Paul seemed to imply seriously that the cup of wine of the Lord’s Supper becomes a blessing through our actions or Paul’s or maybe the elders of the Corinthian church — actions that he placed parallel with breaking the bread.

Second, these actions he insists are a “participation” in the Blood and Body of Christ. What is this participation? The word is important: it is koinonia, also translated communion or fellowship.  In John’s First Letter, he wrote:

“that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship [koinonia] with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 1:3).

Is this koinonia with the Father and Jesus, or with the Blood and Body of Christ, clearly more than a close association.  St Paul uses it to identify the intimate union of the faithful with Christ and among themselves.  It is not about proximity but the coming together of two or more so that they truly become one.   This unity takes shape as the Body of Christ.  Regarding the Body and Blood of Christ, it carries the image of intimacy, a genuine unity with rather than just a membership. 

The third thing in this text is the emphasis on “breaking” the bread.

St. Paul continued on in his argument:

17: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.  18: Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?  19: What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?  20: No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.  21: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.  22: Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Here Paul seems to be stressing how participation [koinonia] in the Body and Blood of Christ unites all Christians in the same sacrificial way that the Old Testament sacrifices united the Israelites with the altar and that pagan sacrifices unite them with demons. The partaking of the bread and wine of the table of the Lord is more than a symbol or a reminder; it is a blessed sacrificial participation or koinonia in the Body and Blood of Christ that unites us with Him and one another.  It is thus a great deal more than just remembering what happened.

The words of these verses call to mind another verse: Acts 2:42. This occurs after the Apostle Peter’s first Christian sermon and the resultant conversion and baptism of three thousand souls. Scripture reports that:

…they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Here again were the terms fellowship, or koinonia, and the breaking of the bread. This verse sets down for Christians the four key elements of the life of aspects of the daily life of the early Church:

1.      the Apostles’ teachings represent that which Jesus handed onto the Apostles as an everlasting legacy through which the believers could maintain a faithful life according to the teachings of the Lord.

2.      fellowship, which was the gathering of believers to celebrate and to share the living Christ who was in their midst.

3.      the breaking of bread, a descriptor that was an early expression used when speaking of the institution by Jesus, of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

4.      and the prayers, which were the continuation of the Jewish praying of the Psalms and other biblical canticles.

Next, can turn to Luke 24:27-35. This was the Emmaus road experience where the resurrected Jesus appeared to two disciples who were not convinced yet of His resurrection. They did not recognise Him, and Scripture reports that Jesus “interpreted for them all of the scriptures that involved matters concerning himself (related to).

28: So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,  29: but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them.  30: When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.  31: And their eyes were opened and they recognised him; and he vanished out of their sight.  32: They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”  33: And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, 34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”  35: Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

What we see here is that in His reenacting before them what He had done in the Upper Room, they all of a sudden recognised Him. He explained to them all the typological references in the Old Testament, but this was still not enough to convince them.  Here is a key point. The scriptures alone, even thoroughly explained by Jesus Himself, were not enough. It was in their reception and partaking, or as Paul said, their participation in the blessed, broken bread that “their eyes were opened” and “he was known to them.” This participation in the bread being broken and wine poured out was more than a symbolic act. Much more.

If we look at the words Jesus used at the Last Supper, Luke 22:19-20, it is difficult to believe that Jesus was only talking about a symbolic act of feeding. Luke wrote:

19: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”  20: And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Here again were the clear words, “THIS IS MY BODY.”

In these verses Jesus chose to use a particular Greed word for “remembrance,” “anamnasiv,” a rare word in the Bible that is only used in the context of a memorial sacrifice. There were other words, out of all the alternative Greek words He chose this one.  Why?  Because of its association with sacrifice, pointing directly to His immanent sacrificial death on the cross.  Jesus is telling his disciples that they are to ‘remember” his death by participation by partaking of the sacrament.

Anamnesis is at the heart of the liturgy in both the Old and New Testaments, but the simple English definitions of “memorial” or “remembrance” do little justice to what anamnesis means in Greek, which is more accurately rendered: “to make present.”

We see anamnesis in the Old Testament celebration of the Passover when the Lord commands the people of Israel to observe the Passover as “a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout generations, you shall observe it as an ordinance forever,” (Ex 12:14).

Every year, during this feast, the Jewish people commemorate the covenant God made when He freed the tribes of Israel from slavery in Egypt by publicly recalling the stories, reading relevant documents and laws, and repeating the details of the covenant. Further, the rubrics of the Passover celebration require that all of this is to be spoken in the present tense, as if the events being remembered are taking place now, placing those present in the middle of the story as it is unfolding, rather than reflecting on a one-time past event.  This is the sense used by those early Christians, and Paul, when they choose that word with relation to the Eucharist.  It means not that Jesus is re-crucified but that we are standing there beneath the cross as Jesus is dying.  The past and the present are one.  That is the memorial sacrifice.

It is also worth noting the juxtaposition of the words “took bread,” “had given thanks,” “broke it,” and “gave it to them.” This was parallel with all the miraculous feedings of the crowds we read of in the four Gospels.  This is generally interpreted as meaning he was giving his disciples a demonstration of those actions that would sit at the very heart of their ministry in the world.   It includes the phrase “had given thanks,” which in Greek is “eucharistasas,” and it is from that word this memorial sacrifice would get its name.  In their later understanding the Eucharist, the Apostles could go back to these miracles to help in their teaching.

It should be noted that the early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarising the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, The renowned Protestant scholar/historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:  “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioning realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the earliest possible days of the Church’s   Christians referred to the fullness of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Below I offer a few of the more important examples.  I was not able to find any that offered an alternative, symbolic reading of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Didache is an ancient document for whom authorship is unknown. The majority of biblical scholars believe that it was written sometime between AD 50-150, with many believing it was written at the same time as the other New Testament documents. In the earliest days of the Church, many included this book in the canon of the New Testament. In chapter 9, we read:

Concerning the Eucharist, celebrate the Eucharist in this way. First, concerning the cup, we thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. Concerning the broken bread, pray like this: “We thank you, our Father, for life and knowledge that you have made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be glory forever. As the broken bread was scattered on the mountains and then gathered into one, thus let your church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom because yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. Let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those who are baptized in the name of the Lord. For the Lord said about this, “Do not give holy drink to dogs.”

Here we see that the breaking of the bread and blessing of the cup is now being called the Eucharist, that it is understood as a means of unity, and that is to be partaken of only by those who have been baptised. In chapter 14, we learn a little more:

On the Lord’s Day, once you have gathered, break the bread [of the Lord], and celebrate the Eucharist, after having confessed your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure.

In following Paul’s warnings, therefore, one must not partake unworthily but first confess one’s transgressions. We also hear clearly that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, not merely a ritualistic symbol or reminder.

Ignatius of Antioch was born in Syria around AD 50 and was martyred in Rome between 98 and 117. Tradition has always held that he was a disciple of the Apostle John. In his letter to the Smyrneans, he wrote:

You have noted those who teach heterodox things about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us. How they are contrary to the mind of God! They are not concerned about love, neither the widow, the orphan, the afflicted—whether bound or free, the hungry nor the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from [set times of] prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that flesh which suffered for our sins but which the Father raised in his kindness. Those who contradict the gift of God with strife will die.

Justin Martyr was a Christian apologist, born around AD 100 at Flavia Neapolis, converted to Christianity about 130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165. In his First Apology, he wrote a long section describing, in very familiar terms, the Eucharist of his day. Here is a short portion:

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (First Apology, 66)

“Not as common bread nor common drink” but as “the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him.” Justin implies that the very prayers used for the consecration of the Eucharist were passed down from Christ Himself to His Apostles as a part of the deposit of faith. And this food, which is “the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” nurtures our blood and flesh. It completes us; it completes our baptismal regeneration.

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons, in what is now France. His life spanned most of the second century. Tradition holds that he was a disciple of Saint Polycarp who himself was a disciple of Saint John and a friend of Ignatius of Antioch. In Against Heresies, he wrote:

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? (5:2)

Here St. Irenaeus clearly describes the koinonia/participation that takes place when a baptised believing Christian partakes of the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus tells us how we are to abide in Him and how He is to abide in us is found in John’s gospel.  It is through our participation/koinonia in His Body and Blood.  This abiding is a great deal more than Jesus’ dwelling in my heart by faith, or through Baptism.   

 This helps us understand why the Church insists, “Baptism is only the first sacrament of initiation and demands to be completed by the Eucharist.” Jesus remains in us through our koinonia in His Body and Blood. If we deny this, or as Saint Paul warned, refuse to “discern the body,” or as Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote, refuse to “confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ” and teach alternative views of the Eucharist, then we are turning our backs on the empowering grace of forgiveness, healing and life that the Spirit brings to us in the sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood.

The entire chapter six of John’s gospel serves as his narrative of the Last Supper, a narrative that also speaks of the centrality of the Eucharist in the life of those who follow Jesus as his disciples.  In this chapter, Saint John describes the winnowing effect of the Eucharist. The chapter begins with large crowds following Jesus everywhere, but as Jesus proclaims in serious and unequivocal terms, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, there is no life in you,” the crowds dwindle down until only the Jewish leaders and then until it is only the Twelve who are remaining.

Several times Jesus had clear opportunities to explain to the crowd, the Jewish leaders, and His disciples that He was only speaking symbolically and that they should not be offended by the challenging language. But He steadfastly avoided using language that was less stark and challenging.  Quite the contrary. He proclaimed boldly and with an admirable level of clarity in verses 53-59:

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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats 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 he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

Scripture then reports, in verse 60, that “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’”

Once again, Jesus had an opportunity to straighten out any misunderstandings. In other circumstances, He had admitted to His followers that to the crowd He often spoke in parables while to them He was clear, sharing with them the secrets of the kingdom of God (cf., Luke 8:9f). So, as with the parable of the Sower, He could have given them the keys to unlock His symbolism. But He was most definitely not speaking in symbols. He only said, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe” (61-64).

Using symbolic language would not have brought about the response we find among his closest friends.  They did not understand Him as speaking in symbolic language, for we read in verse 66 that “[a]fter this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”  Not understanding what Jesus was saying, they were repulsed at the though of eating his flesh as if they were cannibals.

From the very beginning the Church understood what Jesus was offering to them in the Eucharist.  Until the time of the Reformation, that gift was the gift of his Body and Blood.  They were not consuming in a symbolic way but eating and drinking of his Body and Blood.  That is a mystery of faith.  We cannot really explain it. We believe it because Jesus commanded to eat of his Body and drink of his Blood.  That is precisely what Christians faithful to the “teachings of the apostles” and so the traditions of the scriptures have been doing for more than two millennia and will continue to do until the Son of Man returns in glory.

Bishop Michael Hough                                                                          February 2025