The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part II

                                                        I: The Passover in the Old Testament

For the first post in this series, check out the following link: https://newtestamentchristianityat.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-eucharist-in-new-testament.html

The Eucharist is central to the theology of Christianity. Our views of communion will affect so many other aspects of our faith. Indeed, Eucharistic theology is as essential and central to the very essence of Christianity as virtually any other doctrine. 

Since not all the verses have been pasted onto this post, I encourage the reader to use a reliable Bible translation as a reference point through reading this post. I encourage them to consider and challenge my thoughts in light of Holy Scripture. 

It's hard to have a serious theological discussion over most topics without referring to the Old Testament for even in places where Old Testament worship and practice are no longer relevant, without the Old Testament, we would not know that Christ fulfilled Jewish prophecies. Therefore, even in the case of the Eucharist, we benefit ourselves from studying Old Testament theology. 

The extent to which the Jewish Passover is/is not the root of the New Testament Eucharist, has been greatly debated. Traditionally, Catholics have seen the Jewish Passover as the origins of the New Testament Eucharist, while Eastern Orthodox have historically seen the two as strongly distinct. 

The Lord's Table was instituted during Passover. An article from Ligonier ministries, a Reformed apologetics ministry, argues that Christ did this to show the old exodus of Moses and the Hebrews out of Egypt is over, while the new exodus was us being saved through Christ*1. 

Whatever one's theology of the Eucharist is, as a historical note, the Jewish Passover, was celebrated among the people of God for many centuries before the first coming of Christ. For many of the Hebrews, they knew that a Savior was coming and that all of their animal sacrifices were symbolic of the one Savior on their behalf (John 1: 29). 

The Eucharist, as a true and real sacrifice, was foretold in the Old Testament: ''For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered in my name, and a pure offering (Malachi 1: 11, English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Here, God is clearly not speaking of a sacrifice among the Hebrews, as the verse says that this sacrifice will be known among the Gentiles. Nor is the Old Testament passage simply referring to Christ's work on the Cross as there was no liturgical service of intense the moment that Christ was crucified. No indeed, Malachi 1: 11 is a prophecy that the New Testament Eucharist is a sacrifice which shall be known throughout the world. 

As further proof that Malachi is prophesying of the Eucharist Sacrifice, we ought to turn to Genesis 14: 18 and Hebrews 5: 8, as these two passages help further illuminate us to the meaning of Malachi 1: 1. In Genesis 14: 18, we learn that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High. Later, in Hebrews 5: 8, we learn that Christ Jesus is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Thus, Malachi understands the prophecy to be one under the New Covenant, not the Old. 

Still, how can a new sacrifice be offered if there is no more a priesthood? 

First of all, there is still a priesthood. This is proven by Romans 15: 15-17 where Paul the Apostle understands himself as part of the priestly ministry in serving the church. In this passage, Paul does not refer to all else in the church as having the same priesthood as him (for those who claim that this authority was just for Paul, see my previous posts on church government). 

Koine Greek provides further insight into the ministry of Paul. Those who don't know Greek, will all the more miss the meaning of this passage. One of the Greek words that Paul uses, however, in this passage is hierourgeo. The literal meaning of the word is ''temple-worker.'' In other words, it is someone who officiates as a priest. Paul acted as a priest as pertains to the Mass, which will be shown later in this same post. 

Secondly, Baptist Greek Scholar A. T. Robinson has confirmed this definition of the priesthood in the passage. He defines priesthood in Greek as ''to work in sacred things, to mister as a sacred post*2.'' 

In light of both the Old Testament and New Testaments, the priesthood authority of offering the Mass has never been universal to all. Again, more on that later in this post. 

As a final post on Old Testament Theology concerning the Eucharist, the Passover was a symbol of the coming Savior (John 1: 29). Malachi 1: 11 teaches us that there shall be a sacrifice done throughout the world. When looking at passages like Genesis 14: 18 and Hebrews 5: 8, we learn that there is a priesthood under Christ, while, unlike the end, shall never end. When we turn to Romans 15: 15-17, we see that Paul understood himself as part of the priesthood and when read in Greek, the priesthood, is a temple-worker, as were those in the Old Testament who brought animal sacrifices into the Tabernacle, and later, the temple. Now, I am about to prove that the New Testament teaches a real and true sacrifice of Christ in the writings of Paul the Apostle. 

                                        II: Paul the Apostle and the Sacrifice of the Mass

Considering that the Eucharist is so central to Christianity, our views of ''This is My Body and Blood, Do this in Remembrance of Me,'' are key to many other areas of doctrine. In this second post of my series on the Eucharist, I wish to demonstrate why both the Suspension and the Memorialist Views specifically are unbiblical. 

As a reminder, the Suspension view holds that the Lord's Table was just for Christ and His Apostles or the first-century church. Therefore, the ordinance, they argue, is no longer relevant. 

The problem with the Suspension view is three main issues, as far as I am concerned. Firstly, if the Eucharist was just for the Apostles, why was it still essential to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 11). Secondly, the Eucharist is central to the Book of Revelation, which includes the church until the time of Christ. Because of this, the Eucharist is clearly participated in long after the apostles ceased. Thirdly, the church has practiced the Eucharist for two thousand years. Therefore, to say that the Lord's Table was just for the Apostles or the first-century church is a view that runs into both Biblical and historical problems. In short, I consider this to be one of the weakest views of the Eucharist. 

But how about Memoralism? This is certainly a far more popular view among mainstream Baptists and other Evangelicals as well as Pentecostals. Could it be that the Eucharist or the Lord's Table is still relevant, but Christ's words, ''This is My Body and Blood'' were non-literally meant. Was Christ speaking like he so often did throughout his parables? 

This is a very important question. If Memoralism is true, then Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many liturgical Christians throughout Christendom as well as nearly every church father got it dead wrong on Holy Communion. That's a strong claim to make. Nevertheless, for many modern Evangelical Baptists, this is the case. For many of them, not only did Catholics get it wrong, but so did the Lutherans, for example, who supported a view called ''The Sacramental Union.'' 

On the other hand, if the Eucharist is far more than remembering what Christ did in his earthly ministry, then Baptists and others are guilty of not all profaning the Lord's Table, but also of misleading many to believe that God's efficacious grace cannot be found in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 

Growing up, the Memorialist view was the one which I was most exposed to in the churches that I was raised. I knew very little to nothing of the other views. To me, I tried to commemorate Christ's work on the cross when I took the grape juice and bread before me. Although I didn't know much about Eucharist theology, I was afraid of God's judgment on my sin, should I receive it unworthily (1 Corinthians 11). 

To be fair, the memorialist view is far more Biblical than the Suspension view. For one, it rightly asserts that the Lord's Table is all for Christians throughout time. For second, Clement of Alexandria, an ancient church father possibly held this view, showing some potential earlier history to this teaching than is the case of Suspension, which derives primarily from the Quakers. As a third point, memorialism is Biblical to point out that we partake in the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ (Mark 14: 22-25). 

Indeed, when we partake in the Lord's Table, we should be mentally recalling the pains and sufferings that our Lord went through on our behalf. We should be contemplating how very much he loves us. 

However, remembering the work that Christ accomplished on the cross and his lifelong ministry on earth, are not the only points of the Eucharist. Memorialism is not unbiblical because it teaches that we should remember Christ's work for us. It is unbiblical because it teaches one aspect of truth at the expense of another great truth. 

Today, all liturgical Christians commemorate Christ's work on the cross. They believe that just as many Baptists do, Christ's death and resurrection should be on our minds as we partake in the Eucharist. They also know, though, that while Scripture teaches that we do this in remembrance of Him, it teaches far more than that. 

As evidence that Scripture teaches the Eucharist to be more than a memorial of His walk on earth, we must look to the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, as all of these New Testament works touch on the Eucharist. Since Paul's letters were written, however, I will be discussing the gospels in my forthcoming post. 

Paul the Apostle was possibly the greatest theologian of the first-century church. For those who say that Christ was not literally speaking of the Eucharist as His Body and Blood, they should turn to the writings of Paul for in 1 Corinthians 10: 16, Paul argues that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Paul, who did not speak so often in the parables of our Lord, is convincing the Corinthian Church of the seriousness of the Eucharist. Later, in verse 19, Paul affirms that those who partake in the Lord's Table unworthily, receive judgment upon themselves. Certainly, it seems quite peculiar that an ordinance only meant for the remembrance of Christ would be influenced by God's judgment on those who receive it unworthily. 

Memorialists will have a far harder time, in my view, defending 1 Corinthians 11 according to their view than will those of all the other views except for Suspenion. For even Presbyterians, who deny the Eucharist to be Christ's literal Body and Blood, admit a unique spiritual presence of Christ at the table (as does Paul) that goes far beyond simply remembering the work of Christ. I don't think that those who endorse the Memorialist position can truly defend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 to somehow mean that Paul was only encouraging the church to remember Christ. 

''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. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants at the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything (English Standard Version Bible, 2002, 1 Corinthians 10: 16-19)?''

Paul uses an interesting mix of both symbolism and literal meanings in the passage above. He speaks of literal food to idols, for instance, but speaks of a non-literal body of Christ, as in the church. Some might also ask, is he speaking thus figuratively when he says the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I think not. Elsewhere, Paul is quite clear that the Bride of Christ is the Body of Christ (2 Corinthians 12: 27, Ephesians 4: 4-9). Given the context of who the church is, which includes men and women in the church partaking in the Eucharist, it is clear that the Body of Christ cannot be a literal body. However, the context is very different from that of the Eucharist. By a sense of reason, we understand that participants at the Eucharist are many individuals, but reason does not demand that we think of the Eucharist as many individuals, which Scripture teaches it to be of Christ Himself. 

Furthermore, Paul gives us reason throughout the New Testament to believe that the Body of Christ (as in the church) is not a literal Body, but he does no such thing as pertains to the Eucharist. If anything, 1 Corinthians 10: 16-22 gives further insight into why the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. 

In verse 20, Paul writes, ''No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to participants with demons (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, 1 Corinthians 10: 20).''

By this point, Paul is now contrasting the sacrifices of the Hebrews with those of paganism. Beginning in verse 19, he connects the Eucharist to the Jewish sacrifices of animals. Thus, already, Paul is implying that the Eucharist is some sort of sacrifice in itself. For those who object and say that he sees the Old Testament sacrifices as hardly as being continued with a Eucharistic Sacrifice, realize that the blessed apostle parallels the two without any reason for us to believe that the Lord's Table is not a true and real sacrifice. Since a correct view of hermeneutics (as I have argued in other posts) is that we should hold to Old Testament Theology except where the New Testament says otherwise, this principle of interpreting Scripture, should also lead us to conclude that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Look to verse 22: 

''Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, 1 Corinthians 10: 22)?'' 

Paul understands that we cannot live the Christian life without participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. He exhorts us to the Table to receive God's grace to us. Just as animals were sacrificed in the Old Testament for the atonement of men's sins in light of a coming Savior (Leviticus 4: 37), the Eucharist is a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Indeed, this teaching has been testified by many of the ancient fathers and medieval theologians (and even some of the reformers). In the modern age of church history, however, it has gained rejection among many Evangelicals who have skimmed over these passages without careful consideration as to how the early church understood the Eucharist. In place of the Eucharist, are references to the preacher's performance. He is now glorified in many Baptist Churches over the precious Body and Blood of Christ. In replacement of the church's focus being on the power of the Holy Spirit giving sacraments of grace to us, many modern Evangelical churches have placed their emphasis on the impressive performance of the pastor's sermon. 

Ironically, there is no such thing as a sermon found in the New Testament Church during corporal worship. That is not to say sermons are bad. It does say, nevertheless, that the Eucharist was more important to the first-century Christians of Paul's day than was the lectures of preachers to Christian congregations. While the New Testament is full of many references to open-air preaching and evangelism to those outside the church, we know that the letters of Paul and others were read to New Testament believers. Interestingly enough, many of the same so-called ''Bible-believing Christians'' who affirm the centrality of the sermon to church service, often downplay the role of the Eucharist in the life of the Christian believer. 

                              III: Does Hebrews 7: 23-25 contradict the Sacrifice of the Mass?

 

 Now, many who object to the idea that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood will claim that if the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, then this would mean that Christ did not die once, but dies repeatedly every time Mass is offered. 

Those who isolate Hebrews 7: 23-25 from Romans 15: 15-17 will often believe that Christ is the only priest now. However, when Romans 15: 15-17 is read in Greek, it reveals that there are temple priests still. 

Likewise, the point of Hebrews 7: 23-25 is not that there is no more priesthood. Rather, it shows that the Old Testament Jewish priesthood has been rescinded with the New.

On the other hand, objectors against belief in the Eucharist as a true and real sacrifice will point to verse 25 about Christ having the power to save us completely as evidence against the Mass. They assert that this proves the Mass takes away from Christ's work on the Cross. I disagree for the following reasons. 

Firstly, when the Eucharist is offered as a sacrifice, it is Christ who saves us still. 1 Corinthians 15: 2 teaches that we are being saved. Just as we are being saved, Christ is still saving us, but as God's way are not our ways (Romans 11: 33-36), it is not for us to know the mysteries of God. 

Secondly, in 2 Thessalonians 2: 13-17, it teaches us that the Holy Spirit saves us. Does this take away from Christ saving us? According to the reasons proposed by those who object to the theology of the Mass, it would have to imply this as well. 

However, Scripture teaches both. Christ saves us, as does the Holy Spirit. Additionally, Christ is saving us continually just as we are being saved. Likewise, if Christ is offered every time that we engage in the Eucharist (Malachi 1: 11), this does not take away from the work that Christ did for us at Calvary. To say that it that it did, would also require, for reasons of inconstancy, that the Holy Spirit does not save us now. But since Scripture teaches the Sacrifice of the Mass (Malichi 1: 1) and that the Holy Spirit saves us (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-17), then we do not blaspheme Christ by saying that His salvation for us began with the Cross, but did not end with it. On the contrary, those who assert otherwise, are actually the ones guilty of blasphemy. They strip the Holy Spirit of His powers over believers and deny the beauty of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist offered on our behalf (1 Corinthians 11). 

                                                               V: Paul and Hebrews 10

 Still, the objector of the Eucharist Sacrifice, may point to Hebrews 10 and say this passage is proof that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was his one-time sacrifice for our sins. 

However, when one reads Hebrews 10: 1-18, the context of the passage is not a criticism of the Christian Mass, but a contrast from Christ as the one Sacrifice from the sacrifices of the Jews. Since the Reformation, some have read this passage outside of its Jewish contexts (Hebrews was written for the Jews) and have instead used it as an attack upon what the church held and believed for 1500 years. Ironically, even Martin Luther understood the Eucharist as a sacrifice*3. 

Later, in verses 19-39, the author of Hebrews told us that it is Christ, not the Blood of animals which makes us right before God. This passage in no way, downplays the sacrifice of the Mass. If anything, by contrasting the sacrifice of Christ on the cross with that of the Jewish sacrifice of animals, it supports it. 

As to the point about Christ's sacrifice only being a one time, even Catholics affirm this. This, though, does not downplay the centrality of the Mass in church services. 

God is outside of time. Romans 11, as mentioned earlier, teaches that His ways are not our ways. It cannot be fully understood by reason how God can be three Persons, yet One God, or how Christ appeared to Paul, (Acts 9: 1) yet He also sits at the right of the Father (Matthew 22: 44). Most Evangelicals don't dispute that there are many attributes about God which cannot be understood, such as the fact that through His Incarnation, He was both God and man. Yet when it comes to the Eucharist, they expect it to somehow make complete sense to us. It is a mystery, though, how God is eternal, sent His eternal Son to die once and for all, and how every time Mass is offered, Christ's sacrifice is offered again. It is not that Christ dies multiple times, but rather, that despite our limited reason, we receive His Body and Blood at Mass from His once crucifixion every time that there is a true Eucharist present. 

The study and acceptance of the Eucharistic doctrines cannot be understood fully by reason. Ultimately, it rests on our faith. If we are wise, we will look to Scripture and the church fathers to see that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. If we are holy, we will approach the table with thanksgiving and repentance. 

                              VI: Final Thoughts on Paul and the Sacrifice of the Mass  

 Since the Bible teaches the Lord's Table is for all time, the Suspension view is unbiblical. Because Scripture teaches that the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood and a real and true sacrifice, therefore, memorialism and receptionism, while both holding deep aspects of the truth, are still devoid of truly Scriptural teaching. This leaves the views of the Sacramental Union and Transubstrantion to be considered in future posts. 

In short, those who hold to memorialism assume that ''Do this in Remembrance of Me,'' is the only passage in the Bible applicable to the Eucharist. They illogically assume that this passage means only in remembrance of Christ. They ignore the writings of Paul which affirm it to be the Body and Blood of Christ in his rhetorical questions to the Corinthian Church. They also ignore that Christ's parables were in different contexts than His Last Supper with the Apostles, as shall be revealed in the next post. They also assume that most in church history were dead wrong until they suddenly got it right. Many of them also rarely quote 1 Corinthians 10: 16-22 in many of their pulpits and rarely, if ever, during the Lord's Table. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Lord's Table is just a remembrance. 

But, the memorialist, may argue, Scripture does say, ''Do this in Remembrance of Me?'' Does this not mean, then, that the Lord's Table is a memorial only?

To answer this, let us look to Scripture as an analogy. Matthew 1: 25 tells us that Jesus was truly and fully a man. Philippians 2: 6-8, in the meantime, however, says that he is also Fully God. Do we take only what one of these passages says to the exclusion of the other? 

But this is exactly how believers' baptism-only advocates argue. They point to passages like Acts 16: 25-40 about the Philippian jailor as evidence that repentance must be found before Baptism but then ignore passages in Scripture that teach Baptism to be for the children of believers (Acts 2, Colossians 2). In many ways, the hermeneutics of those supporting believers' only baptism is very similar to those who believe that the Eucharist is just in remembrance of Christ. They isolate key Biblical texts, which they believe support their position, ignore all else, and live as if the theological issue is so easily favored towards their positions by simply quoting one or two verses. 

Some years ago, I remember a Oneness Pentecostal becoming quite fiery against me when I preached that a person must be baptized into the Trinity in order to be validly baptized. He pointed to Galatians 3: 27 about us being baptized into Christ as evidence that we have to be baptized into Christ alone (even though the mentioned passage is not written in exact quotes of what was said at the New Testament baptism). However, when I pointed him to Matthew 28: 19-20 about how Christ told His Apostles ''Baptize them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,'' he was quick to dismiss that passage and attempted to force me in responding to his preferred isolated text. His theology was more dangerous than the advocates of believers' only baptism and memorialists, but his hermeneutics in this regard, was the same. It's the idea that if Scripture articulates something in one passage that benefits the person sharing it, then all other passages must be excluded for this interpretation to work. Indeed, many of the believer's baptism advocates ignore that the household baptisms in Acts were done in a culture in which ''household'' included infants through Jewish literature. Likewise, many Congregationalists ignore how Paul told Titus to ordain elders in Titus 1 rather than congregations appointing their own pastors without the consent of higher church leaders. Additionally, it is the same for those who reject the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Two things can be true both at once. As mentioned earlier, Christ was both God and man. Likewise, it's like saying I'm a son and because I'm a son, I'm a son only because I'm a son. The person saying this about me downplays that I'm a brother and only emphasizes that I'm only a son. They don't recognize that I can be both. Being a son does not cancel out me also being a brother. Being a brother does not also cancel out me being a son.  Likewise, believers' baptism can be true for those converting to the Christian faith (Acts 2) but this does not restrict baptism to only believers as it was intended for the children of Christian believers and specifically includes the baptism of children in Christian households under the new covenant (Acts 2, Colossians 2). Affirming that adults conversion to Christianity should be baptized after repentance, does not mean that no infants should be baptized. To say otherwise leads to illogical exclusivism. 

Yet this is exactly what memorialists do. They take, ''Do this in Remembrance of Me,'' in Scripture to the full exclusion of all other Biblical passages that teach the Eucharist to be Christ's true Body and Blood. When confronted, many of them do little else to Biblically support their view. Oftentimes, their criticism resorts to objections against the Eucharist as a Mass, based on their lack of faith in how wine and bread could become the true Body and Blood. Oftentimes, they accuse the Eucharistic Sacrifice as blasphemy for asserting that Christ sacrificed during the Eucharist, all the while, not Biblically supporting their own position and ignoring Paul's teachings about the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. 

As a final point, terms like ''Mass'' and ''Eucharist'' are not found in Scripture but neither is ''Trinity'' or ''believer's baptism'.'' Oftentimes, theological terms are formed based on what the proponent of that argument believes is Biblical. 

For now, it is important that the reader keep focused on the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 as pertains to the Eucharist. In my following post, I will argue Biblilially that Christ was speaking literally when he described the elements of wine and bread as His Body and Blood. Later in this series, I will appeal to both philosophy and church history as further evidence that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood. 

I realize that this post has not answered some of the common objections against the belief that the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood. I have still have to say on this topic. For now, however, hopefully, those who disagree with my claims will take the time to go through one passage after another that I have drawn from Scripture and explain their own position. Hopefully, they will not resort (as some of them so often do) to cherrypicking one or two Bible verses that they think settle the entire debate. 

Lastly, we gain further insight into Scripture from those who lived closest to the times of Christ. Below, I have shared quotes from two beloved church fathers who believed that the Eucharist is a true and real sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. 

Saint Ambrose of Milan has further helpful insight on the Eucharist: 

''If the word of Elijah had power to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the character of the elements? But what need we have of arguments? Let us take our Lord himself as an example, and prove the truth of the Mystery by the mystery of the Incarnation. We know that the Virgin gave him birth beyond the order of nature. And this that we make by consecration is the Body born of a Virgin. Why seekest thou here the order of nature in the matter of Christ's Body, seeing that beyond nature the Lord Jesus was born of a Virgin (Book on The Mysteries, Chapter 9?''

Lastly, to quote Saint Jerome of Rome, one of the foremost of church fathers:

''After the typical Passover had been fulfilled and Christ had eaten with Apostles the flesh of a Lamb, he takes bread and passes on to the true Passover Sacrament, that as Melchizedek had done of old in a figure, offering bread and wine, he himself might show forth the truth of His Body and Blood (Commentary on Matthew 26).''

Notes: 

*1-https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/why-institute-lords-supper

*2-https://www.ncregister.com/blog/was-the-apostle-paul-a-priest

*3-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0040571X6406752902?journalCode=tjxa#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20Eucharistic%20sacrifice%2C%20of%20which%20Luther%20speaks%20in,will%20and%20promise%2C%20behave%20differently%3F

Further Sources: 

The Douay Catechism. 

Baverstock, A. H. The Eucharistic Year. (1930). Moorehose Publishing.