Was the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in
the Eucharist, which was eventually defined by the Catholic Church as
transubstantiation, always taught by the Church?”
Second Rebuttal
Before I address Kyle’s response, I
wish to pick up where I left of proposing what I believe about the teaching of
transubstantiation in the early Church and through the middle ages.
First off, I believe that there we
two views that may be attributed to the early Fathers that can be seen in the
history of the Church concerning the Lord’s Supper: a spiritual/figurative view
and a materialistic view. Church
historian, J.N.D. Kelly, helps us to see to see this in his work Early Christian Doctrine (from here ECD):
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality the represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was to be given a renewed lease of life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine.” (ECD, pg. 440)
Kelly earlier quotes from Tertullian’s work Against Marcion 1.14 in which Tertullian explicit refers to the bread of the Eucharist as a representation.
“Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator.”
Church Historian Phillip Schaff also is in agreement with Kelly’s assessment regarding the dual positions of the mode of presence in the early Fathers. He writes:
“In both cases the conflict was
between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and
its effect. The one was based on a
literal, the other a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and
the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of
Schaff notes the though some of the Fathers did not define the “real presence” as transubstantiation in any way, he acknowledges that some Fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom and John of Damascus to use terms that imply a miraculous change of the elements. It should be noted that Pope Gelasius (late 5th century) acknowledged that the bread and wine retained their nature. In his work against Eutyches, he writes ““The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” (Italics mine).
Now, my point in citing these works is to demonstrate that historians have acknowledged that the there has not ever and only been one view of the mode of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, there were at least two views that were acknowledged throughout the history of the Church. In fact, in the middle ages the dispute was brought to the forefront of theological concern (prior to this, Christological heresies were up front). In the 9th century, Paschasius Radbertus had – for the first time – clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation in his work “On the body and blood of the Lord”. While he did not use the word “transubstantion” (coined in the 11th century), he clearly taught the idea. He was opposed by the spiritual interpretation of Ratramnus, who appealed to the support of Augustine especially Augustine’s definitiveness use of John 6:63 to justify the spiritual interpretation. Later, this controversy would surface again in the battle between LaFranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours (11th century). All these and others, including John Scotus, Jean Wycliffe and the Reformers included, are a testament to the fact that there were at least two different views within the history of the Church growing side by side along each other.
Now, with the remaining space that is left I would like to address some issues raised by Kyle in John 6. I will not be answering all the questions as there will be a period to exchange question and answers later.
It was asserted
that John 6 “took place during the passover”. This is
not so clear in the text. We know only that the “Passover was near” (6:4) but
not how near and so not to read much more into the text, it is safest to say
that it was not yet the Passover. While it is possible that since the Passover
was near that the idea of the pascal sacrifice could
have been in the minds of the audience, from the context it is highly unlikely.
In 6:4-14, we see Jesus performing a miracle and feeding five thousand from
only a few loaves of bread. In 6:15-21, we see Jesus departing from that mob
whom he had just fed because they wanted to make him king. 6:22-40 picks up on
the “next day” in which the crowds had followed Jesus to
Here, Jesus makes it very clear to their audience that they are seeking him for the wrong reasons – for their physical needs. We should note here that the kind of “hungering” and “thirsting” that Jesus quenches is not merely physical, but spiritual. Hence, we see that Christ is clearly referring to a spiritual lack on their part and filling that void with something spiritual as well. Jesus furthers this point in 6:63 by saying, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” In saying that his words “are spirit” he was intimating that we are we to understand them spiritually. So concurs Augustine “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What means are spirit and life? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? So also are they spirit and life, but are not so to you.” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 27.6).
Now, you said that at this point in the text Jesus is submitting himself “as a sacrifice for sin.” I think there is ample enough evidence within the text to show that this nearing of the Passover did not take place in the same year that Jesus actually died. We have already noted that in 6:4 the Passover was near. If we go on to 7:2 we see that the Feast of Tabernacles” is not “at hand” showing that the Passover had passed. Also in 10:22, we see that Jesus lived on to the “Feast of Dedication” and then we come to 12:1-2 which says that Jesus came to Bethany and then Jerusalem roughly 6 days BEFORE the Passover in which he submitted himself as a sacrifice. It is not until late in his ministry and nearer to his death that he begins to make reference to his death (see 13:1). Remember, that even in the synoptic Gospels, Christ didn’t make references to his death until late in His ministry and his own followers did not even anticipate the Messiah dying nor did the Jewish people; they envisioned a powerful ruler and king, not a suffering servant which explains why they wanted to make Jesus King in 6:15.
Now, you continue to say that “the Jewish audience understood this parallel” – the reference to the sacrifice. I would disagree because in the context, Jesus initially is lecturing to them about the “Manna” that their fathers ate as God’s provision to them. He has just finished feeding these five thousand graciously and freely, and they seek him to provide for them. In fact, in v30-31 it is the Jews who draw the connection between what Jesus did and the manna in the desert. In them eating the manna daily, they were sustained physically. But now, Christ, perceiving our real need, our spiritual need says he is our sustenance. He is to be our daily “meal” to satisfy our spiritual hunger. Jesus refers to himself as the “true bread” and that we partake and are satisfied by this bread when we “come” to him and “believe” in Him. Their complaint is about Jesus claiming to be the true sustenance from God, especially in light of the fact that they think they know his origins (6:41-42).
Now, at this point I do need to bring something up to address your point in which you say, “Jesus did not correct his followers who left him. If there was a misunderstanding, don’t you think he would have cleared it up?” I bring up this point not as a matter of debate, but because it is within the text at hand and relevant to your point. That is, there is the principle of election and predestination that is at work here. After Jesus tells the audience that they need to “come” to Him and “believe” in Him, he quickly tells them “But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet, do not believe(v36)”. Jesus goes on to say why these don’t believe even though they have physically laid eyes on Christ Himself!!! He says,
“All that the
Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from
heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who
sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has
given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that
everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and
I will raise him up on the last day.”(37-40)
Jesus makes it very clear that the
only ones who “come” to Christ are those that are first “given” by the Father.
Christ even states His mission from the Father is to save only those whom the
Father has given to Him and to raise them up on last day. The ones who “look”
on the Son – which is to believe in Him – have eternal life (cf. Jn 3:15-16).
At this point in the text, the Jews
complain about Him. Now, having said what He did about those who would come to
Him, Jesus seeks to further offend them because He knows that they will not
believe. So he tells them, “Do not murmur among yourselves…”
“No one can come
to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the
last day. It is
written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has
heard and learned from the Father comes to me— not that anyone has seen the Father
except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you,
whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of
it and not die. I
am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread,
he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world
is my flesh.” (v44-51).
Here Jesus makes it very clear that
“no one can come” to Him without the Father first drawing them. The Father does
not draw all, for not all will be raised up on the last day. As we have already
seen, only those who believe will be raised up and the ones who believe are the
ones who were first drawn by the Father.
Note again how Jesus calls for faith in order to possess eternal life
and the reiteration of Himself as the “bread of life”
that gives true and eternal sustenance like the manna in the desert could not.
Jesus furthers to metaphorical
language to further offend the Jews in verses 52-58 by adding the “drinking of
His blood”. Now, did the audience understand literally eating flesh? Again, probably not. Note in verse 60 that the crowd and
even His own disciples said “who can understand it?”. Jesus then speaks to them and clarifies that
His words are to be understood spiritually (v63). He also reiterates that there
are some who do not believe despite all that he has said and the Scriptures
even tell us that Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who did not believe
and even who would betray Him and reiterates “Therefore, I have said to you
that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted by My Father.”
Again, my point is not to debate
predestination but only to say that Jesus didn’t want to correct his audience
misconceptions at all. He wanted to leave them in unbelief. John 12:37-42
brings this out as well. Also Matthew 13:10-17 explicitly says that Jesus used
parables to hide the mysteries of the kingdom from the Jews and others. It
should be noted that both of these passages make reference to Isaiah 6:9-10
which speaks of Isaiah’s ministry of hardening the people of
There is much more that I wish I
could address but space is fleeting and I will have to wait.
God bless,
Moses