The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part III

                                                                      

                                                                          I. Introduction:

The Gospels were written after both the Old Testament and the Pauline Epistles. Since they concern the life and ministry of Christy, however, in some regards, they are even more important glimpses into the thoughts of Christ Himself than any other books in Scripture. Indeed, none of the Bible should be divorced from itself. The work of every good theologian should be to attempt to connect the Biblical theology of both the Old and New Testaments together, even in difficult places where there are perceived contradictions. Far too often, is the study of the Eucharist in most Evangelical churches simply a reference to one or two verses of the New Testament, without an understanding of both the Jewish Passover and the Hebrew Sacrifices of animals, both of which I connected to the New Testament Eucharistic Sacrifice in the previous post. 

Certainly, in the previous post, I believe that I have proven that the Eucharist was more than a symbol of Pauline theology. I also believe that I have demonstrated Paul understood the Eucharist as a New Testament Sacrifice under a new priesthood instituted by Christ. Thus, I believe that I have already made a strong Biblical case that the Eucharist is indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ, as well as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The literal meaning of Eucharist is “Thanksgiving.”  

Nevertheless, the objector against my claims may point to the four Gospels and claim that Christ never understood ''This is my Body and this is my Blood,'' as anything more than a figure of speech. That is why this post has been written. 

                                                                   II. The Eucharist and John 6

John 6 is one of the greatest proofs of the Eucharist being Christ's Body and Blood in Scripture. If Christ was speaking non-literally here, why would the apostles have found his words about those who eat His Body and Drink His blood so hard to believe? 

Now, some have argued that the context of John 6 is not that of the Lord's Table. They point to how this chapter precedes his institution of the Lord's Table and thus, they argue, it is speaking of His crucifixion instead.

Nevertheless, John 6 is not the only passage from the four Gospels used by those who believe in the Eucharist Sacrifice. Even if this passage was proven to be only about Christ's early crucifixion (a point which I disagree with), there are many other reasons from the Gospels to believe that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. I will discuss I believe that soon. 

                                                       III. The Lord's Table in The Four Gospels

Christ instituted the Lord's Table on what liturgical Christians have historically called ''Holy Thursday.'' He was crucified on Good Friday, joined His Father on Holy Saturday, and was resurrected on Easter Sunday. During the institution of the Eucharist (Luke 22: 7-38, Mark 14: 12-26, Matthew 26: 17-30, John 13), Christ famously said of the meal, ''This is my Body and This is my Blood, do this as often as you drink of eat in remembrance of me.'' 

I have already addressed Biblical evidence showing that the Lord's Table is in remembrance of Christ, but certainly not a remembrance only. Now, I wish to show that Christ did actually understand His own words about the Eucharistic meal to be literal, and not merely figurative. 

Firstly, when Christ said that the Eucharistic cup is of the new covenant (Luke 22: 20), He ended the Jewish Passover as the old sacrifice. Secondly, He is fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi 1: 11 that the New Testament Eucharistic Sacrifice shall be known throughout the world, even in Gentile Lands. As will be proven by John 6, Christ understood the Eucharist to be His actual Body and Blood. Thirdly, He gives us no reason that by the context of His speech, that he speaking in a parable here. In fact, those who say that He is merely speaking in a orange, are the ones making an assumption about Him. 

                                                               IV. A Figure of Speech?  

But Christ spoke in parables! He also said that he was the Vine and the Door. Surely, Christ did not think that the wine and bread before Him were the actual Body and Blood of Christ. If they were, how Christ be present in both the meal and in His human figure feeding upon? These are common objections against the idea that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. 

First, let me answer the last of these objections. For those who say that Christ cannot have been present at in His own Supper while feasting upon it, let them look to how Scripture articulates that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110: 1, Mark 16: 19) and yet God (the Trinity, including God the Son) is always present everywhere Isaiah 57: 15). Most Evangelicals, however, take no issue with how Jesus was a man on Earth and yet still God's son nor do they attempt to explain how Christ is both at the right hand of the Father and yet in the hearts of believers (Ephesians 3: 17), yet they expect it to be understood how Christ ate Himself at the Lord's Table, or how His sacrifice is everywhere in multiple places. Their own position is full of contradictions and contrary to the mysteries of God that we are bound to believe by the teachings of Holy Scripture. 

Now, as to those who object to the Eucharist on the grounds of the parables of Christ, let us look to Biblical reasons to see if Christ was speaking figuratively at the Lord's Table as He so often did in His parables. 

Some have pointed to Christ’s reference in John 6: 63 to ''Spirit'' as evidence that Christ was only speaking symbolically. However, ''spirit'' is never used this way in Scripture. On the contrary, it is always a reference to faith in God. 

Closer historical context also helps us to see that John 6 was about the Eucharist. Christ uses a similar phrase about eating His flesh as was used about the Hebrews in the Old Testament, in Micah 3: 3. For those who claim that Christ is speaking only symbolically in John 6: 63, the same phrase, when read in Micah 3: 3 and then examined by John 6: 63, seems to defeat that. 

In Micah 3: 3, to eat the flesh of God's people means to publically disgrace them. As Father John O'Brian noted, if John 6: 6 is thus read symbolically, then Christ promises everlasting life to those who hate and disgrace Him---a position that would run contrary to the teachings of the New Testament in many other areas. 

As others have noted, the context of ''This is my Body and this is My Blood,'' in John 6 are very different from those of ''I am the Dorr'' and ''I am the Vine.'' This is important to note as many Evangelicals see no distinction between ''This is My Body and Blood'' and Christ's many other parables. 

First of all, when Christ says that He is the door (John 10: 9) and that He is the vine (John 15: 1), both of these passages are not in the context of the Eucharist. However, the fact that Christ said that He was the vine and the door does not take away the meaning of His words in John 6 and throughout the Gospels about the Eucharist. 

Secondly, Christ affirms the Eucharist to be distinct from his previous parables. In John 6: 55, he does not merely the bread and wine to be Himself, but further emphasizes this truth by saying ''For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink (John 6: 55).'' By adding ''true'', Christ separates His own speech of the Eucharist hears from his previous parables about the door, vine, etc. 

Thirdly, Paul repeated the message of Christ's Body and Blood to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 11) (and without himself speaking in parables). Paul, however, never instructed the church to receive the vine worthily or they may receive upon themselves damnation, bearing further evidence that he understood the Eucharist to be the precious Body and Blood of Christ. He understood that judgment was possible for some taking the Eucharist, though, and unlike the concepts of ''vine'' and ''door'', Paul refers back to John 6 in his encouragement to the Corinthian Church that they receive Christ's Body and Blood worthily. Paul does not assume Christ’s words to have been figurative as mere bread and wine. If anything, he knows them to be serious because he clearly understands the Eucharist be far more than bread and wine. 

But, why would Christ receive His own Body and Blood? 

To this question, why was Christ baptized? Did He need to outwardly profess His faith in Himself as we do in Him?

Christ was both baptized and received the Lord's Table because out of obedience to His Father, He wished to show us how to live. Likewise, the context of 1 Corinthians shows (and as St. Augustine noted) that we not only receive Christ at the table, but we receive the Body of Christ as in the church. 

For those who accuse our Lord of cannibalism and thus invoke blasphemy on their own part, let them reconsider the mysteries of God (Romans 11) and that not all things about our Lord, are we expected to understand. We are expected, however, to believe what Scripture teaches about Him. Ironically, some of the arguments used against religious Christians today about the Eucharist, such as accusing Christians of cannibalism for eating Christ's flesh and Blood, are the same claims that the pagan Romans hurled at the Early Christians. Indeed, those who accuse Christians of cannibalism for eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, ought be concerned about God’s judgement on their persons. 

Still, even if John 6 was only referring to the crucifixion and sufferings of Christ, as I have already noted, there is no reason to believe that His words, ''This is My Body and this is My Blood'' were non-literally met at the institution of the Lord's Table in the Gospels. Thus, while I believe that John 6 supports the Eucharist, it is one of many New Passages that support this teaching. 

Lastly, John 6, as we know, preceded the institution of the Eucharist. For certain, some may feel that it is instead referring to Christ's work on the cross. However, when the modern reader also looks to Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 11, which refer to John 6, all evidence points to John 6 being about the salvation of mankind through the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 

Finally, when Christ spoke parables, He was not necessarily always teaching key doctrines of the church for all to believe. His stories often concerned our obedience to Him. And again, Paul did not understand His parables to be literal, though Paul did understand the Eucharist of Christ's Body and Blood to be. 

                                                                        V. Conclusion

A low view of God says the Lord's Table is just wine/grape juice and bread. A high view of God, however, understands it to be the precious Body and Blood of Christ. Likewise, a low view says that the Lord's Table is just about remembering what Christ did for us; a high view, however, says the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood, which we need for our salvation, and we need for our growing in Christ. 

When read as a whole, however, I believe that Scripture clearly supports the Eucharistic Sacrifice. While there are Biblical problems, in my view, with all views of the Eucharist that state it not to be a sacrifice, defending memorialism, is defending the indefensible. This view is so outright unbiblical that it is hard to believe that it has gained such wide acceptance among so many Evangelicals. 

Now, it is time to turn to church history and philosophy to see other evidence of the Eucharist as the Body and Bloof of Christ. Before I do this, however, we have more to discuss about the New Testament Priesthood. 

So Jesus said to them, “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.”

-John 6: 53, ESV