Episode 25: Did the Early Church Teach the Real Presence?

Episode 25 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast is a response to a CARM.org article, which claims that certain early church fathers denied the real presence and taught a symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper.

“Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ – the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ – the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14).

• Athenagoras: “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8).
  • Athenagoras wasn’t talking about the Eucharist, but was proving the resurrection by the fact that human flesh may not be eaten. : https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-resurrection.html See Chapter VIII: Human Flesh Not Proper or Natural Food of Men:
    • CHAP. VIII.–HUMAN FLESH NOT THE PROPER OR NATURAL FOOD OF MEN.
      But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,–then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance; but, removed from the influence of the nourishing power, and scattered to those parts of the universe again from which they obtained their first origin, they are united with these for as long a period of time as may be the lot of each; and, separated thence again by the skill and power of Him who has fixed the nature of every animal, and furnished it with its peculiar powers, they are united suitably, each to each, whether they have been burnt up by fire, or rotted by water, or consumed by wild beasts, or by any other animals, or separated from the entire body and dissolved before the other parts; and, being again united with one another, they occupy the same place for the exact construction and formation of the same body, and for the resurrection and life of that which was dead, or even entirely dissolved. To expatiate further, however, on these topics, is not suitable; for all men are agreed in their decision respecting them,–those at least who are not half brutes.
    • Pulling the quote from Athenagoras, “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act” as an example of an ancient church father rejecting the real presence is dishonest. He was not speaking of the Sacrament at all. Rather, he was arguing from the natural law against cannibalism that the resurrection of all flesh is necessary.
    • The author thinks a passage against cannibalism is a passage against the real presence. This ignores that fact that all who confess the real presence, Roman Catholic and Lutherans alike, reject the so-called Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body and blood.
      • “However, this is not in a crude, carnal, Capernaitic way, but in a supernatural way, beyond understanding.” SD VII 64-65.
      • “When Dr. Luther or we use the word spiritual in this matter, we understand this: the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly way that Christ is present in the Holy Supper. … By this use, we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the crude and fleshly presence that is attributed to and forced on our churches by the Sacramentarians against our many public protests. This is how we want the word spiritually to be understood when we say that in the Holy Supper Christ’s body and blood are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk. Even though this participation happens with the mouth, the way it happens is spiritual.” SD VII 105.
• Augustine: “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9).
  • This quote from Augustine is also dishonestly taken out of context. This comes from a letter in 408 AD, answering a question from Boniface, whether a baptized infant is harmed by his parents offering sacrifices to a false god, and if not, why then an infant is benefited when brought by his parents to Baptism. Augustine explains that the child having been given the new birth, is not under the bond of the sin of another to which he does not give consent. Later in the letter, he uses the Sacrament of the Altar as a parallel to Baptism, giving what it symbolizes. The author of the blog takes Augustine’s quote out of context as if Augustine meant that the Lord’s Supper only resembles Christ’s body and blood. But in the very next sentence, Augustine says that the Sacrament gives what it resembles, just as the Sacrament of faith (Baptism) also gives faith and its effects. Here is the Augustine quote in context.  
    • “For if the sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and according, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death.” He does not say, “We have signified our being buried with Him, “ But “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.”[1]
  • “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24).
    • This text does not have an immediate statement confessing the real presence as the last one did, however there are two points to make here.
      • First, this quote is from John 6, not the institution of the Sacrament. And the figure he says is in it is not the Lord’s Supper, but sharing in the suffering of the Lord. He doesn’t say the figure of eating Christ’s flesh and blood is eating bread and drinking wine, but sharing in suffering. So, he is not talking about the Sacrament.  
      • Yet, following the lesson Augustine is giving, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.”[2] Augustine does not teach that the body and blood of Christ are eaten and drunk in a Capernaitic way, but in a way veiled to those without faith.  
        • “So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and Them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. … Eat Life, drink Life, thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, ‘It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you,’ saith He, ‘that believe not.’ Such were they who said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can hear it?’ It is hard but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.’”[3]
  • The author’s ripping Augustine’s quote out of context is also especially dishonest, because even if that quote stood alone, we have many more quotes from Augustine which clearly confess the real presence. Here it is important to note, speaking of the figure represented in the Sacrament does not automatically mean you deny the real presence. Here are a few quotes from Augustine, which clearly confess the real presence:
    •  “Now will He speak openly of the same Sacrament, whereby He was carried in His Own Hands. “O taste and see that the Lord is good” (ver. 8).[4]
    • “Let them who already eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, think What it is they eat and drink, lest, as the Apostle says, ‘They eat and drink judgment to themselves.’ … “How is the Flesh of the Lord eaten, and the Blood of the Lord drunk? We are thinking what He saith.’ Who hath closed it against thee, that thou dost not know this? There is a veil over it; but if thou wilt, the veil shall be taken away. … “But those of you who have not yet wives, and who yet already approach to the Lord’s Table, and eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood, if ye are about to marry, keep yourselves for your wives.”[5]
    • “They were converted from among this people of the Jews; were converted and baptized. They came to the Lord’s table, and in faith drank that Blood, which in their fury they had shed.”[6]
    • Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.[7]
• Clement of Alexandria:
  • “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ – the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ – the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6).
  • Concerning the first quote from book 2, chapter 2 of The Instructor, Clement speaks of Word figuratively being shed. But calling it a figure does not mean that it is not a real presence as well. Earlier in the same chapter, Clement explains what he means by the Word:
    • “This was a sign to them, when trained for wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both—of the water and the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of the Word became flesh, to the Word.”[8]
  • Concerning the second quote from Book 1, Chapter 6, Clement is not speaking of the Lord’s Supper but of the preaching of the Word. He calls the Blood the Word. He is speaking of Jesus’ discourse in John 6, which Clement does not see merely as Sacramental, but as spiritually speaking of the Spirit and the Word’s work through faith.
  • In this same chapter, Clement has a quote which may be speaking of the real presence: “”Eat ye my flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink my blood.’ Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth.”[9]
• Eusebius: For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3).
  • This statement does not deny the real presence. The mention of the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood does not deny a real presence, especially when you understand the word mysteries. This passage is about how Melchizedek’s priesthood foreshadows Christ’s priesthood, and that Christ’s priesthood does not come from Aaron. Nothing in this statement suggests that the Sacrament is not Christ’s true body and blood.
• ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1).
  • And the words, “He will wash his garments in wine, and in the blood of the grape his girdle,”[Gen. 49:11 (Jacob’s blessing of Judah)] will shew you surely how as in a secret way He suggests His mystic Passion, in which He washed His garment and vesture with the washing wherewith He is revealed to wash away the old stains of them that believe in Him. For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His |115 blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying (b) their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.”
    The words, “His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,” again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. “His eyes are cheerful from wine,” seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk.” This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, “Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”
    But these matters should be examined at leisure, for they require deeper criticism and longer interpretation. For the present I must refuse to enter on that great task, in order that I may incorporate in this work the evidence that the time of the Saviour’s Coming from above was known to the (381) ancient prophets, and clearly handed down in writing.[10]
    • With this quote, we see that Eusebius’s discussion of wine and bread does not stem from the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but from the prophesies of the Old Testament. He shows that when Jacob said that Judah would wash his garments in wine and his girdle in the blood of grapes, by wine he meant blood. The statement, “For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His |115 blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying (b) their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.”, does not refer to the Lord’s Supper, but to Christ’s bloody death being applies to the sinner in Baptism. “For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood,” Eusebius means, “For with the wine, the referent of which is His blood.” He is explaining the Old Testament prophecy.
    • Likewise, in the statement, “For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk.” This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, “Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”, he indeed is speaking of the Sacrament, but he does not deny the real presence. He is calling the referent of the bread His body. The word symbol should not be understood as denying the real presence. Those who confess the real presence do not deny the symbol/sign given in the Sacrament.
• Tertullian: “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14).
  • Again, context is needed. Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, who denied that the God of the New Testament is the creator God of the Old Testament, and denied that Jesus took on human flesh, but espoused a form of Docetism. Tertullian is proving that Christ, the God of the New Testament, did not hesitate to use created material to institute His own sacraments. It is not that he is saying the bread and wine are mere symbols of his body and blood, but He is in a way proving the incarnation of Christ by Christ using created material for His Sacrament.
  • Saying the bread represents His proper body does not mean that the bread does not give His proper body. The author is imposing an anachronistic understanding to Tertullian’s vocabulary.
  • In Book 4, chapter 40, Tertullian again uses language that modern Sacramentarians think refers to a mere symbolic view of the Sacrament. But Tertullian is not denying the real presence, but rather proving the incarnation of Christ by the material reality of the Sacrament.
    • “Then having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however ,there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! …”[11]
    • Tertullian makes clear that by figure, he does not mean a mere representation. He is using the word to prove that Christ has a real material body.
  • Tertullian confesses the real presence in other writings:
    • “The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God.”[12]
• This concludes the references made by the author of this CARM article. I do not believe that any of the church father’s quoted are denying the real presence with their quotes. However, even if some of them were, or if you were to find other examples where early church Christians denied the real presence, that would not prove that the early church denied the real presence, let alone that the Apostles or Scripture does. The church father’s serve as witnesses of the truth, but Scripture serves as the source and norm of all teaching. However, the witness of the church fathers overwhelmingly supports the doctrine of the real presence.
  • “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by His goodness raised up.”[13] (Ignatius, ca 110 AD).
  • “And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [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. 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, 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.”[14]” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
  • Others can be found at https://www.churchfathers.org/the-real-presence

---

[1] Letter 98:9, NPNF 1:409-410.

[2] On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24, NPNF 2:563.

[3] Sermon LXXXI, 1, NPNF 6:501.

[4] Psalm XXXIV, 11 from NPNF 8:75.

[5] Sermon LXXXII, NPNF 6:504-505.

[6] Sermon XXVII, 4, NPNF 6:343.

[7] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

[8] ANF 2:242-243.

[9] ANF 2:220.

[10] Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8, Chapter 1 https://tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm

[11] Against Marcion Book IV, chapter 40, ANF 3:418.

[12] On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 8. ANF 3:551.

[13] The Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6. The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Michael W. Holmes. Baker Academic. 255.

[14] The First Apology, LXVI, ANF 1:185.