Particulars
of Christianity:
401
First Eight Writers' Consensus
4-5: Age
of the World (6000 Years);
Communion Meal
Early
Church Confirmation Rubric
Early
Church Consensus: Introduction
1:
Nature of the Godhead
2:
Covenants & O.T. Saints Relationship to the Church
3:
Kingdom (Hell), Timing of 2nd Advent and Kingdom
4-5:
Age of the World (6000 Years); Communion Meal
6:
Baptisms
7-8:
Law of Christ; Repentance
9-12:
Excommunication; Divorce; Sabbath; Tithing
13:
Freewill (A) Against Original Sin and Total Depravity
13:
Freewill (B) Against Unconditional Election
13:
Freewill (C-D) Against Ltd. Atmt.; Ir. Grace, OSAS
14-15:
Church Authority; Roles of Men and Women
16-18:
Charismatic Gifts; Civil Gov't., War; Men & Angels
Addendum
1: Eternal Begetting - Irenaeus and Ignatius
Addendum
2: Eternal Begetting - Justin Martyr
Full
Catalog
4)
View of Young Age of the World and
a 6,000 Year Limit of Human History
The
earth was only a several thousand years old as indicated
by the record of the Old Testament. The total length of
human history prior to the return of Jesus Christ to rule
his kingdom was no more than approximately 6,000 years. Jesus’
kingdom was seen as a seventh thousand years and that total
7,000 year period was seen as corresponding to the seven days
of Genesis 1, with Jesus’ kingdom corresponding to the Sabbath.
Barnabas
–
THE
EPISTLE OF BARNABAS(1)
CHAP.
XV. Further,(16) also,
it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue
which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount
Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the
Lord with clean hands and a pure heart."(17) And He says
in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then
will I cause my mercy to rest upon them."(18) The Sabbath
is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And
God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end
on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it."(19)
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He
finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years,
for a day is(20) with Him a thousand years. And He Himself
testifieth,(21) saying, "Behold, to-day(22) will be as
a thousand years."(23) Therefore, my children, in six
days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished.
"And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth:
when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the
wicked man,(24) and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun,
and the moon,(25) and the stars, then shall He truly rest
on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt
sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore,
any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified,
except he is pure in heart in all things,(1) we are deceived.(2)
Behold, therefore:(3)
certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we
ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer
existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord,
shall be able to work righteousness.(4) Then we shall
be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.(5)
Further, He says to
them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure."(6)
Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable
to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when,
giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the
eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore,
also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also
on which Jesus rose again from the dead.(7) And(8) when
He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.
CHAP.
XII. I also adduced
another passage in which
Isaiah exclaims: "'Hear
My words, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold,
I have given Him for a witness to the people: nations which
know not Thee shall call on Thee; peoples who know not Thee
shall escape to Thee, because of thy God, the Holy One of
Israel; for He has glorified Thee.'(3) This
same law you have despised, and His new holy covenant you
have slighted; and now you neither receive it, nor repent
of your evil deeds. 'For your ears are closed, your eyes are
blinded, and the heart is hardened,' Jeremiah(4) has cried;
yet not even then do you listen. The Lawgiver is present,
yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached,
the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need
of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the
flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual
sabbath, and you,
because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not
discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you
eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled.
The Lord our God does
not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any
perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be
so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the
sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands,
let him wash and be pure.
Irenaeus –
AGAINST
HERESIES, BOOK IV
CHAP.
XVI. Moreover, we learn from the Scripture itself, that God
gave circumcision, not as the completer of righteousness,
but as a sign, that the race of Abraham might continue recognisable.
For it declares: "God said unto Abraham, Every male among
you shall be circumcised; and ye shall circumcise the flesh
of your foreskins, as a token of the covenant between Me and
you."(13) This same does Ezekiel the prophet say with
regard to the Sabbaths: "Also I gave them My Sabbaths,
to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that
I am the Lord, that sanctify them."(14) And in Exodus,
God says to Moses: "And ye shall observe My Sabbaths;
for it shall be a sign between Me and you for your generations."(1)
These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were
not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose,
inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; but the
circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit.
For "we," says the apostle, "have been circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands."(2) And the
prophet declares, "Circumcise the hardness of your heart."(3)
But the Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day
in God's service.(4) "For we have been counted,"
says the Apostle Paul, "all the day long as sheep for
the slaughter;"(5) that is, consecrated [to God], and
ministering continually to our faith, and persevering in it,
and abstaining from all avarice, and not acquiring or possessing
treasures upon earth.(6) Moreover, the Sabbath of God (requietio Dei),
that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created
things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered
in serving God (Deo assistere) shall, in a state of rest,
partake of God's table.
Irenaeus
–
AGAINST
HERESIES, BOOK V
CHAP.
XXVIII. 2. …[He gives
this] as a summing
up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during
six thousand years. 3. For in as many days as this world was made,
in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for
this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and
the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God
brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that
He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all
His works."(6) This
is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is
a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is
as a thousand years;(7) and in six days created things were
completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to
an end at the sixth thousand year.
CHAP.
XXXIII. 2. For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this
world, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers
for which a return is made? These
are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is,
upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which
God rested from all the works which He created, which is the
true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be
engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table
at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all
sorts of dishes.
5)
View of the Communion Meal
The
communion meal was an actual meal shared by all
believers during church gatherings. It commemorated
the atonement brought by Jesus Christ and celebrated the saints
future resurrection to participate in the kingdom
of God on earth when
Jesus Christ returned. Since it was associated with participation
in the kingdom of
God eternally, taking communion symbolized having
eternal life. (“Transubstantiation,” the doctrine that
the bread and wine change to become the actual body and blood
of Jesus Christ was not held. At most, it could be argued
that the “Apostolic Fathers” believed in “consubstantiation,”
the doctrine that the bread and wine remain actual bread and
wine without being changed, but in a spiritual sense, they
are joined with or by the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
However, upon closer examination in detail, the surrounding
context of the quotes indicates otherwise.)
Ignatius
–
THE
EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS
CHAP.
XX. If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your
prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little
work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you
[the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to
treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His
faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection.
Especially [will I do this 14] if the Lord make known to me
that ye come together man by man in common through grace,
individually,(1) in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was
of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the
Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery
with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which
is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent
us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for
ever in Jesus Christ.
Ignatius
–
THE
EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
CHAP.
IV. Take ye heed, then,
to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth(1)] the unity of
His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery
and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever
ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
Ignatius
–
THE
EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS
VI.
Let no man deceive himself. Both
the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels,(7)
and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not
in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.(1)
"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."(2)
Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth
all is a faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred.
But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect
to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed
they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love;
no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of
the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
CHAP. VII. They abstain
from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess
not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His
goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak
against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of
their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with
respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep
aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either
in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets,
and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ]
has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully
proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
CHAP.
VIII. See that ye all
follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and
the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the
deacons, as being the institution(17) of God. Let
no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.
Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered]
either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of
the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there
is the Catholic Church. It
is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate
a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that
is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may
be secure and valid.(2)
NOTE
1: Ignatius’ Words in Textual Context – When Ignatius
says that unbelievers deny “the Eucharist to be the flesh
of our Saviour,” what he means is that they deny Jesus’ body
and blood were a sacrifice for our sins.
There
is a parallel between the phrase “they confess not the Eucharist
to be the flesh of our Saviour” and the previous phrase “they
believe not in the blood of Christ.” Ignatius does not say,
“they believe not in the wine” but “the blood.” This shows
that Ignatius has in view the actual shedding of Jesus’ blood
while he was on the cross.
Similarly,
in the parallel phrase that follows, we should look for Ignatius
to speak of the flesh of Christ that died on the cross, rather
than the bread. And Ignatius does exactly that, using the
term “Eucharist” metaphorically to apply to Christ’s body
and even explicitly specifying for us that this is what he
means.
In
short, Ignatius is using “Eucharist” here to speak of Jesus’
physical death on the cross rather than to speak of the bread
and wine, which represent and remind Christians of that sacrificial
death.
NOTE
2: Ignatius’ Words in Historical Context
– Justin Martyr is a close contemporary of Ignatius, and he
uses similar language concerning the communion meal.
First,
Justin held that it was by remembrance that Christians saw
in the bread and wine the sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood,
not through an actual change of substance.
Second,
that the bread and wine did indeed remain normal solid and
liquid food without changing substance (i.e. transubstantiation).
Third,
Justin understood the foundation of communion meal imagery
in a way that is reversed from Roman Catholic views. Justin
did not start by thinking of the bread and wine as being Christ’s
body and blood. Instead, for Justin and his contemporaries,
the initial step was to think of Jesus’ body and blood on
the cross metaphorically as sacrificial bread and wine. From
there, by extension the communion meal itself could be spoken
of in terms of Christ’s sacrificed body and blood. It was
the application of the terms “bread” and “wine” as metaphorical
descriptors to Christ’s body that formed the basis of the
communal language. It was not the application of the terms
“body” and “blood” as actual, literal descriptions of the
bread and wine.
If
we apply this contemporary view to Ignatius words, we further
understand that when Ignatius says that unbelievers deny “the
Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour,” what he means is
that they deny Jesus’ body and blood were a sacrifice for
our sins.
Justin
Martyr –
THE
FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAP.
LXVI. And this food
is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that
the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed
with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto
regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive
these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having
been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood
for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the
food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from
which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,
is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6)
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are
called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took
bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye
in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that,
after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks,
He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them
alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries
of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that
bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations
in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either
know or can learn.
Dialogue
of Justin –
PHILOSOPHER
AND MARTYR, WITH TRYPHO, A JEW
CHAP.
LXX. Bread shall
be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye
shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far
off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord.
Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? where is he
that numbers those who are nourished,--the small and great
people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the
depth of the voices, so that they heard not. The people who
are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him
who hears.'(5) Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion
is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat,(6)
in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His
believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which
He gave us to drink,(6) in remembrance of His own blood, with
giving of thanks.
Dialogue
of Justin –
PHILOSOPHER
AND MARTYR, WITH TRYPHO, A JEW
CHAP.
CXVII. "Accordingly,
God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through
this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer,
i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which
are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world,
bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But
He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests
of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at
your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting
my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye
profane it.'(4) Yet even now, in your love of contention,
you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those
who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says
that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of
that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices.
Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are
the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also
admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken
to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and
liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God(5) which
He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests
of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned
and blasphemed over all the earth.
NOTE
3: “Transmutation” – In the first quote above, Justin
uses the term “transmutation” with regard to the bread and
wine of communion. In saying these things, Justin is not asserting
that the bread and wine actually become Jesus’ body and blood
in any sense.
“Transmutation”
here simply refers to the physical change in the food that
takes place when our bodies digest it for nourishment. The
word “transmutation” occurs in a phrase accurately enclosed
in commas: “and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation
are nourished.” This enclosed phrase modifies the word “food”
and the occurrence of the word “transmutation” is in connection
to the nourishment that our bodies derive from food. Connecting
the two conveys the simple idea that “the food from which
our blood and flesh are nourished by transmutation.” In saying
that the food is changed into nourishment for our bodies for
normal digestion, Justin actually affirms that the food remains
normal food and the only change in the substance of the food
is the normal and natural change of digestion.
NOTE
4: “The food is the flesh and blood of Jesus”
– As indicated above, the word “transmutation” occurs
in a phrase enclosed in commas, which is an adjectival phrase
applied to the food. However, if we skip over the intervening
descriptive phrases about the food, Justin still says “we
have been taught that the food…is the flesh and blood of that
Jesus who was made flesh.”
First, before we can interject and suppose that
the bread and wine actually become Jesus’ body and blood,
Justin himself explains that the bread and wine are taken
as a “remembrance” of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Second,
we must remember that the opening statement of this sentence
is “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive
these.” Justin’s point is to explain how and why the communion
meal is not regarded as an everyday meal.
On
the night the Passover meal was eaten, Jesus announced to
his disciples that his body and blood would be sacrificed
for them, using the Mosaic Passover sacrificial meal as an
illustration. As instructed by Christ, the Christians merely
appropriated the Passover meal, which previously foreshadowed
Christ’s sacrifice, only now the meal would look backward
at Christ’s historic sacrifice rather than forward. Justin’s
language merely reflects this Christian association of this
particular meal as uniquely intended to depict the Messiah’s
sacrifice.
Justin
is specific about this in two later chapters (the second and
third quotes above, which we referred to previously.)
First,
he states, “the bread which our Christ gave us to eat,(6)
in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His
believers” and “the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance
of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”
Second,
Justin states that “in the remembrance effected by
their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the
Son of God(5) which He endured is brought to mind.”
In
both passages, Justin plainly states two important ideas.
Number
one, the bread and wine indeed remain “solid and liquid food,”
even that Christ gave Christians this bread and wine “in remembrance
of His being made flesh” for their sakes. They do not change
into something else.
And
number two, the reason that this meal was not regarded as
an ordinary meal by Christians was because this meal in particularly
was intended for reminding Christians of the incarnation and
sacrifice of Christ.
Consequently,
the fact that this meal was given by Christ “in remembrance”
of his incarnation and sacrifice fully explains Justin’s opening
statement that “not as common bread and drink do we receive
these.”
NOTE
5: “In like manner…so likewise” – Lastly,
it is necessary to address Justin’s opening phrase as a whole.
Justin states, “in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,
having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh
and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught
that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,
and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,
is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6)”
Does this mean that Justin understood that the bread and wine
became actual flesh and blood in the same sense that the Word
of God became flesh and blood? There are two reasons why the
answer to this question is “no.”
First,
the bread and the wine cannot in any way be observed to become
real flesh and blood. Nor would any test or proof reveal them
to be anything other than ordinary bread and wine. Consequently,
if Justin means to convey that the transformation of the bread
and wine into Jesus’ flesh and blood is the same as the Word
miraculously becoming flesh and blood, then this comparison
undermines the reality of the incarnation.
For
the parallel to be true, it would mean that the Word only
became man in some intangible sense, which could not be observed
or proven any more than the bread and wine can be observed
or proven to be flesh and blood. In other words, the incarnation
would only be intangible.
But
such a doctrine would undermine the constant insistence of
the early Christians that the Word truly became real flesh
and blood, a real man in actuality, not just in some intangible
spiritual sense, and furthermore that the death of Jesus Christ
was the ultimate proof of the reality of his humanity, without
which all hope for salvation was meaningless. (See Philippians
2:5-11.)
So,
there is good reason to reject even the possibility that Justin
intended the comparison in this way, especially when a much
more acceptable, logical, and likely comparison is available.
Second,
Justin’s meaning is best understood in the following way.
Human
flesh and blood is common. Every man has it, even sinners.
But by taking on flesh and blood, the Word made it holy and
by extension opened the way for all men, though flesh and
blood, to live holy.
Nevertheless,
at the incarnation the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ remained
actual flesh and blood. They did not change their substance.
The change was that these ordinary, physical things common
to men were made holy.
So
likewise, when we apply this pattern to the communion meal,
the result would be that the bread and wine remain actual
bread and wine, just as when the Word became flesh and blood
these were real, actual flesh and blood and their substance
was not changed.
But
in like manner, just as the common substance of flesh and
blood was made holy by the presence of the Word, so the communion
meal becomes holy, even though it does not change into anything
other than ordinary bread and wine, because Jesus’ promised
that he would be present wherever two or more of his followers
gathered in his name.
NOTES
1-5 CONCLUSION:
First,
both Ignatius and Justin use the metaphor of the bread and
wine in reverse of the common misperception. Instead of saying
that the bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood in the
communion meal, they are speaking of the Word metaphorically
becoming sacrificial bread and wine when he took on body and
blood at the incarnation.
Second,
Christians do not regard this meal as ordinary because, unlike
other meals, this meal was intended to remind them of the
incarnation and sacrifice of their Savior. It was the remembrance,
not any change in the food, which made it more than a common
meal.
Third,
Christians understood that the bread and wine did not change
but remained ordinary food and drink, yet the meal was changed
from “common” and “ordinary” to “holy” by their remembrance
of the presence of the Lord in the same way that the presence
of the Jesus Christ, the Word of God, dwelling among men in
flesh and blood made, made his flesh and blood holy and opened
the way for all of us to become holy by means of his sacrifice.
The change was from common to holy despite the fact that the
substance, whether flesh and blood or bread and wine, remained
unchanged.
NOTE:
In the quote below, Justin refers to the bread and wine of
the Eucharist as “sacrifices.” Justin does not indicate or
intend to convey that Christ is “re-sacrificed” again and
again at every communion meal as though the bread and the
wine were his actual body being sacrificed repeatedly in a
real sacrifice. First, “sacrifice” is plural here, not because
Christ is repeatedly re-sacrificed, but because “sacrifices”
here refers to both the bread and the wine distinctly. Both
are sacrifices. Moreover, Justin specifies why he is calling
the bread and the wine sacrifices. His reason is not that
they become Jesus body and blood and so, Jesus is re-sacrificed
every time the meal is eaten. Justin’s explanation is far
simpler. He speaks of the bread and wine as sacrifices because
the Old Testament sacrifices are types or prefigures of the
bread and the wine. Thus, the bread and the wine are “sacrifices”
so to speak.
Dialogue
of Justin –
PHILOSOPHER
AND MARTYR, WITH TRYPHO, A JEW
CHAP.
XLI. And the offering
of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed
to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy,
was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance
of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who
are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may
at the same time thank God for having created the world, with
all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering
us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing(4)
principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to
His will. …He then
speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer
sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also
the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify
His name, and that you profane [it].
NOTE:
The language of the quote below does not including anything
outside the same figurative language associated with the communion
meal in the New Testament itself. The language is figurative
and, from its earliest usages in John 6, it was clearly understood
by the disciples as metaphorical rather than literal. Further
evidence that the language of “sacrifice” is intended metaphorically
here is shown by the reference to the prayers of the saints
as an offering of incense. Prayers, of course, do not transubstantiate
into incense, or vice versa.
Irenaeus
–
AGAINST
HERESIES, BOOK IV
CHAP.
XVII. 5. Again, giving
directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits(5)
of His own, created things--not as if He stood in need
of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful
nor ungrateful--He
took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said,
"This is My body."(6) And the cup likewise, which
is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed
to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant;
which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God
throughout all the world... 6. Since, therefore, the name
of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent
God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says
well on both these grounds, "And in every place incense
is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice." Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that
the "incense" is "the prayers of the saints."(9)…
NOTE:
The “spiritual” reality of our bodies when they receive
the Eucharist does not entail an actual physical change to
those visible, corruptible bodies. Instead, the “spiritual”
reality is the receiving of “the hope of the resurrection.”
Consequently, “spiritual” here does not denote what is actually
occurring in the invisible realm, as though the bread and
wine were bread and wine in the visible but in the invisible
they are the body and blood of Jesus. Instead, here “spiritual”
means (as it sometimes does in New Testament scripture itself)
a hidden meaning to physical thing, a reality to come in contrast
to the one in the present. A contrasting phrase would be “speak
after the manner of men” as found in Romans 6:15-23 or Galatians
3:15-17 (see also Galatians 4:22-26), in which cases a physical
example is offered, not to indicate a simultaneous alternate
spiritual reality, but to illustrate a spiritual truth. In
this case, the physical body is made alive by physical food,
such as bread and wine, and that signifies not an alternate
present reality in the spiritual realm, but the hope that
by keeping Christ’s words in us, his words and his Spirit
will make us alive again in the resurrection.
CHAP.
XVIII. 3. …Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need
of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that
sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God
to accept [the offering] as from a friend. "But the
sinner," says He, "who kills a calf [in sacrifice]
to Me, is as if he slew a dog."(10) …5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with
the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption,
and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either
alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just
mentioned.(4) But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist,
and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we
offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship
and union of the flesh and Spirit.(5) For
as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives
the invocation of God, is no longer common bread,(6) but the
Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly;
so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no
longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to
eternity.
NOTE:
In the quote below, there is language indicating that
the cup of wine at communion is Jesus’ own blood and the bread
is his own body. However, as the text continues, it becomes
apparent that these expressions are not meant as literal descriptions
about what happens to the communion bread and wine. The communion
bread and wine are being used here as metaphors illustrating
what the Lord does for our bodies through his body. In the
same way that our mortal bodies are nourished and build up
by food and drink, by becoming God incarnate, dying, and rising
again, Jesus has likewise made his human body into a means
of strengthening our mortal bodies into immortal bodies. Such
statements are plain in the quote. And this is the meaning
of the phrase, “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured
bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood
and the body of Christ is made,(5) from which things the substance
of our flesh is increased and supported.” This statement is
not intended to convey that the physical bread and wine is
entered into or indwelled by the Word himself and so changes
in substance in some spiritual way to become the Eucharist.
Instead, the word “receives” simply relays the idea that in
the metaphorical illustration of the communion meal, the bread
and the wine “received” the position that is analogous to
the role performed by the Word Himself through his incarnation.
Irenaeus’ point is that, if the bread and wine can receive
this role in illustrating what the Word’s body does for us,
then how can the heretics deny that the Word truly had a body?
In other words, Irenaeus is simply pointing out that to deny
the incarnation is to deny the fundamental, illustrative purpose
of the communion meal. Consequently, when properly understood
rather than taking key phrases out of context, this statement
does not infer that the bread and wine actually become indwelled
by the presence of the Word.
Irenaeus
–
AGAINST
HERESIES, BOOK V
CHAP.
II. 2. He
has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation)
as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and
the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established
as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.(4)
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the
Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of
Christ is made,(5) from which things the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that
the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which
is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body
and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that
"we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His
bones."(6) He does not speak these words of some
spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor
flesh;(7) but [he refers
to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual
man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,--that [flesh]
which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives
increase from the bread which is His body. And just as
a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in
its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and
becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the
wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and
having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which
is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being
nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering
decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time,
the Word of God granting
them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father,
who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,(8)
NOTE:
In the quote below, Irenaeus argues that the saints will
inherit and inhabit the earth for all eternity in the kingdom.
And in particular, he argues that Jesus’ promise to drink
wine with his apostles in the kingdom is proof of this. His
point is that since the fruit of the vine is a physical, earthly
substance, it cannot be consumed in some super-celestial reality,
nor can it be consumed in some way that does not involve a
body that physically ingests it. All such statements necessarily
imply that in Irenaeus’ view, the communal meal (of which
the Last Supper was the first occurrence) is actually a physical
meal comprised of normal, earthly substances of bread and
wine. If the bread and wine become super-celestial or non-corporeal
spiritual concepts or realities, then Irenaeus’ argument would
not work, because such spiritualized bread and wine could
arguably take place in some non-corporeal, celestial manner
and location.
CHAP.
XXXIII. 1. …Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the
earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of
[His] sons; as David says, "He who hath renewed the face
of the earth."(3) He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine
with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the
inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine
is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the
flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which
also received the new cup. And
He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit
of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in
a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of
flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains
to flesh, and not spirit.