January 11, 2004

THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD: Understanding the Eucharist

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” - - Catechism (1324)

What is the Eucharist? It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is consumed by the faithful in mass. The Eucharist contains the second person of the Trinity and was instituted by Him at the Last Supper. There is significant confusion over the Eucharist, so I’ll take a look at what the Bible says about the “sum and summary of our faith” (Catechism 1327). But for starters, I’ll clear up the biggest misconception about the Eucharist: We do not re-sacrifice Christ at every mass. The Eucharist is a participation in the singular sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is as difficult to explain as the Trinity or Jesus becoming man, but it is no less true. The bread and wine actually and really become the body and blood of Jesus during the mass – and here’s the Scripture to prove it:

THE OLD TESTAMENT
First, we must understand that from the beginning, God began giving His people hints of the future (prefiguring the Eucharist, just as other events such as Calvary are prefigured). For example:


Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem [ed. note: this became Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Remember Melchizedek was the greatest High Priest of the Old Testament. And, Jesus was tied to Melchizedek by God:

Psalm 110:1,4. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

But these don’t define specifically the reason for the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, like many other sacraments, a building upon an Old Testament event; a replacement that actually has power to change us and give us grace. For example, the Old Testament ritual of circumcision (as the route to entering the church) was replaced by the powerful rite of Baptism that really washes away sin (circumcision did not have this power). In the Old Testament, God instituted the Passover as a clear prefiguring of the Eucharist. The Passover was a one-time event (only once did the firstborn males die), but it was repeated annually as a way to partake in the one-time actual Passover. The details are important:

Exodus 12:5-11. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteen day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

Some key points about the Passover:


  • It must be a perfect lamb
  • You must consume the lamb with unleavened bread
  • The ritual continued as a key part of the Jewish religion

This passage depicts the future sacrifice of Christ. Melchizedek offered bread and wine made by humans, but Christ offered himself, body and blood as the perfection of Melchizedek’s offering. In addition, God prefigured the Eucharistic sacrifice in another way:

Exodus 16:4, 14-15, 35. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not. . . And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.” . . . And the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

God has fed his people literally as well as figuratively at times. The Eucharist is God’s way of feeding us spiritually (giving us grace) through the physical act of consuming God Himself. Another Old Testament passage:

Micah 5:3-4. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.

My emphasis is noted. This is a key verse prophesying the coming of Christ and it specifically notes that He will “feed his people.” In the Old Testament we have references to bread and wine and prefiguring of the Eucharist. But in the New Testament we have a clear explanation of the Eucharist.


THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are a series of events in the New Testament that can be tied closely to the Eucharist. We’ll take a look at them and how they are relevant. The first of these is the multiplication of the loaves (bread). Before we look at this verse, it’s important to note that the New Testament was written after the Crucifixion. This seems trivial, but the Greek word for “Thanks” is where the word “Eucharist” is derived. And we know from early Church writings that the word “Eucharist” was being commonly used before 100 A.D. Most scholars agree that John intentionally focused on the word “thanks” in this discourse to bring to mind the Eucharist:


John 6:4, 10-14. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. . . Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up all the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”

This is the only miracle of Christ that is found in all of the four gospels, which underlines its significance. Jesus showed us here that He has the power to multiply bread, to feed multitudes from the same loaf. He also sets the table for His “bread of life” discourse, which is the second event in our series. But first, let me refer to a passage in Crossing the Tiber by Stephen K. Ray on the multiplication of the loaves:

In this narrative, John gives us a beautiful picture of the Church: “all the people” numbering about five thousand men (excluding women and children) representing the universal Church, gathered in “small groups” of fifty to one hundred, representing local churches, all be fed by Christ, the Great High Priest, who provides “bread” to all the people through the hands of his priests, the apostles. Later he explains that the bread is his flesh, which must be eaten, just as the meat of the Passover Lamb had to be eaten.

This is an important part of understanding the Eucharist. Next, we move immediately into the Bread of Life discourse later in John 6. This shows Jesus’ view of the Eucharist:

John 6:43, 48-58, 66-68. [Note: I recommend reading all of John 6 at this point] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves . . . I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” . . . After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;”

You should probably read that passage again. It’s interesting that Jesus understood the difficulty of His words. He repeated the same essential sentence in several ways to make it clear that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Also the word “eat” in this passage is similar to the word “gnaw” in our language. Jesus was not speaking metaphorically, He was as clear as He could be. Scripture tells us that “many” of His disciples left after this passage. Jesus never said, “Wait, it’s just a metaphor!” He never suggested, “You’ll just be eating bread and drinking wine!” No, He let them leave. Because Jesus was not speaking symbolically. He was serious. [Note that in the occasions where others misunderstood Jesus, he corrected them: ex. John 3:1-15, Matt 16:5-12]

Next we move to the third event in the series: the Last Supper. The Last Supper is where Jesus actually instituted the Eucharist.


Luke 22:19-20. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

See also Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25. I quoted Luke because of the direct command to “do this in remembrance of me.” The word “remembrance” had sacrificial correlations for the disciples as it was used in the Old Testament only in situations referring to sacrifice (Lev 24:7, Num 10:10). So Luke was trying to convey the sacrificial nature of the body and blood of Christ.

The next import point involves the number of cups. In the other Last Supper narratives, the authors specifically note that Jesus does not drink the fourth cup until he is on the Cross (vinegar is old wine). This is significant because of the way the Passover is structured. The Passover requires four cups (drinks). Jesus is putting His crucifixion into the middle of the Passover sacrifice (it ends when he drinks the vinegar towards the end of the crucifixion). This reinforces the “Lamb of God” motif throughout the New Testament, but we must remember that this Lamb is the one sacrificed during the Passover. And, if you remember the Old Testament narrative above, eaten by the believers. Jesus made clear His intention to institute the Eucharist.

Going forward in the New Testament, there are numerous verses referring to the Eucharist, but to keep this from turning into a book, I’ll just focus on the most important verses. At the end, I’ll list some of the others as well.

First, one more verse concerning Jesus after the institution of the Eucharist. It’s important to set this up correctly: This is the apparition of Jesus on the road to Emmaus. He meets some travelers (followers) and first explains the entire Old Testament as it concerns Him (boy would you like to hear that sermon!). The travelers do not recognize Jesus during this exposition, but invite him to stay with them:


Luke 24:29-31. But they constrained him [Jesus] saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

What is fascinating here is that Jesus spoke with these followers for a significant period of time (we don’t know how long) and yet they did not recognize him until he took “bread and bless, and broke it, and gave it to them.” Luke is using very similar language to the words he used in explaining the Last Supper to directly tie the events together. Clearly this was one of the first masses ever celebrated.

Next, a verse which explains how seriously the apostles took the Eucharist in the early Church and how they understood the teaching at the Last Supper:


1 Cor 11:23-27. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance with me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.”

This is a profound statement by Paul; he’s clearly saying that the power of the Eucharist is so great that the unworthy may die if they eat it. This doesn’t sound like a symbolic act to me – it sounds very real and very serious. Also note that Paul ties it directly to the Last Supper. For more of Paul’s thoughts, see 1 Cor 10:15-21.

Other verses:


  • Heb 9:11-14. Notice that the blood of Jesus “purifies your conscience”
  • Rev 5:6. The slain “Lamb of God” which is reminiscent of the Passover lamb.
  • Acts 2:41-42. Note that they dedicate themselves “to the breaking of bread”

We can see in the New Testament the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise: Christ not only sacrificed Himself for our salvation, but gave to us His Flesh as food indeed that feeds us spiritually as well as physically. God is good. The New Testament is unambiguous about the Eucharist and it’s place in our lives. If you are not Catholic, I suggest you consider the evidence and join the Church Jesus founded in order to partake in His Holy Sacrifice.

FINAL THOUGHTS
The other common error I hear is that the Eucharist was just founded in 1551 during the Council of Trent. This is an error that shows how little early Church writings are read these days. The Church simply moved to define a doctrine that had been believed from the beginning, but was being perverted by a fallen away priest. In fact, this is often the way the Church works – it clears up problems and questions during the current period. To prove this, simply look at the early Church Fathers. For example, the Didache, which was written between 70 and 90 A.D., says:


Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one.

Other early Church mentions of the Eucharist are by Clement of Rome (before 100 A.D.), Ignatius of Antioch (around the same time), and many, many others after these. I recommend you read them yourselves – these are often interpretations of Scripture by those who personally knew the apostles. They are not infallible, but they are valuable.

To finish, I think blessed Mother Teresa said it best:


When you look at the crucifix you understand how much Jesus loved you then. When you look at the Sacred Host you understand how much Jesus loves you now.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by Jay at January 11, 2004 09:51 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Good work, Jay! Thank you for taking the time to write all of this. Lengthy is is, but considering the topic I'd say it wouldn't have been just to make this any shorter.

Posted by: Krista at January 13, 2004 10:46 AM

Jay writes: .. the Old Testament ritual of circumcision (as the route to entering the church) was replaced by the powerful rite of Baptism that really washes away sin (circumcision did not have this power).

As a Biblical fact, circumcision is a pre-Mosaic law which had noting to do with entering the church - as there was no such thing as church or temple when circumcision was required of Abraham and his generations.

The act of circumcision speaks for itself - the penile skin is CASTAWAY - symbolizing the rejection or casting-away of Ishmael, the fruit or result of the penile action between Abraham and Hagar. The book "Circumcision Factor - Ishmael to Islam" deals with this topic and its consequences on the Islamic world.

As for Baptism, if it really washed away sins, John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus would have been enough. In fact it is the Blood of Jesus Christ that really washes away sins. Baptism being a demonstration of that faith.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at February 16, 2004 05:24 PM

JOJE,
First, I think you should reconsider if you feel that the Jews did not believe circumcision was the entrance into the church. Yes, it was instituted before the Levitical priesthood, but there was a priesthood at that time. Note that circumcision is instituted in Gen 17:10, but in Gen 14:18 we see a priesthood in place. Also, if you read Acts, you'll see that many questioned whether you could be a Christian if you weren't circumcised - circumcision was clearly seen as the entrance to the church.

In terms of Baptism, the Bible notes that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Why could you not go to Heaven if Baptism is merely symbolic? Mark 16:16 also requires baptism "to be saved." I recommend you read this article on the necessity of Baptism. What we believe is that Baptism washes away original sin (and other sins committed before Baptism), but it is personal. Jesus was baptized to show the importance of the Sacrament, but His baptism can't remove your sins! You must be baptized to do this. In the end, it is the blood of Christ that removes sins, but Jesus decided to use Baptism to effect this grace.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 16, 2004 05:56 PM

Jay:

The following verses may clarify my point with reference to both circumcision and baptism.

Colossions 2.

8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
(NIV: in him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ)
12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the FAITH of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at February 17, 2004 11:37 PM

JOJE,
Yes, if we were talking about the "tradition of men", but we're not. All tradition is not bad, just "tradition of men." If you look at Matt 16:18 you'll see Jesus founding a Church. Why would He do this unless He intended it to continue on with Tradition? Also see 1 Tim 3:15 where the Church is called "the pillar and foundation of Truth."

There are also numerous Biblical passages calling us to adhere to the oral word (Tradition) as well as the written (the Bible). I recommend this article on Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura for specific verses.

In the Old Testament, circumcision was symbolic, powerless. In the New Testament, Baptism is powerful (it removes sin) and is "the circumcision done by Christ." This verse confirms the correlation between the two.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2004 08:57 AM

Jay:

How can you equate the OT circumcision with the NT circumcision, UNLESS the old also removed something?

Looking at it deeply, the OT circumcision REMOVED the penile skin signifying Ishmael the fruit or result of the penile action, as explained in the book CIRCUMCISION FACTOR - ISHMAEL TO ISLAM, and it involved the flow of blood.

Likewise, the new circumcision which is the blood of Jesus Christ through his suffering on the Crucifixion REMOVED our sins.

Baptism is symbolic and not the sacrifice or blood that REMOVES sin.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at February 19, 2004 08:55 PM

Circumcision was the shedding of blood, a covenant, where through would later pass the sperm, making the offspring party to the covenant.

Just as marriage is also a blood covenant (and therefore cannot be broken except by death, as in the vows) You can fill in the picture yourself.

Just as God kerit berit (cut the covenant) with Abraham, by having Abraham cut the animals in half, and then God passing through, bringing the curse of the covenant on Himself, were He to break it (which of course God never does).

The baptism that saves is that which is done in the heart by the Holy Spirit, not that which is done on the body by the hands of men.

It would be helpful if key words passages under dispute could be posted in the original, rather than in translation.

Posted by: Steve at February 19, 2004 11:45 PM

Steve:

Just logged on after the 19th - busy!

After Sarah's death Abraham had six sons through his second wife Keturah.

If it revolved around the "passing of the sperm" these sons would also have received equal right with Isaac - the ONLY ONE to received Abraham's inheritance (Gen 25).

Baptism is by "hands of men" symbolic!

Posted by: JOJE at February 29, 2004 12:17 PM

Post a comment











Remember personal info?






 
The Bloggers
Danny Young married Catholic
Jay Baptist convert
Joe Cradle Catholic

Categories
Recent Comments
On Prayer Requests
elaine
said:
Father, I bring before Your throne all those who are in need of a share of Your healing and peace, E... [read more]


On Becoming Catholic: Francis Beckwith’s reasons
Randy
said:
Those early church fathers, it is amazing how powerful they are in completely destroying the protest... [read more]


On Islam: A lesson for Christianity
Burnt Marshwiggle
said:
It almost seems like we have a historical "paper-scissor-rock" situation where people choose weak-Ch... [read more]


On A strong presidential candidate for Christians
Daniel
said:
I was thinking of "power" in the secular sense of the word - economic, political, military, etc. Bu... [read more]


On The Patron Saint of the Americas
Burnt Marshwiggle
said:
Michael O wrote: That being said, I feel more of a devotion to Our Lady each passing day. I appr... [read more]


On Who is the Woman Clothed in the Sun of Revelation 12?
samantha
said:
this woman isat war with bablylondon the great, or vice versa . she is a natural country type who li... [read more]


On Why can’t non-Catholics receive Holy Communion?
Burnt Marshwiggle
said:
Sandra, If you need help with the sacrament of confession, I would highly recommend reading a book ... [read more]


On What’s the point of Godparents? The Role of the Godmother and Godfather
Burnt Marshwiggle
said:
Mary, Yes, this has been possible since the Second Vatican Council (I can find the reference from t... [read more]


On Contact Information
Ken Kelley
said:
Please help me in finding someone or forwarding this to someone who has the gift of the Holyghost in... [read more]


On Clean Shopping, Clean Conscience
when we were one
said:
Lacey St. Thomas Aquinas noted that God created only good... what man chooses to do with his creati... [read more]


Communities
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.