Is It Merely Bread? A Look At The Holy Eucharist (Communion)

Is It Merely Bread? A Look At The Holy Eucharist, The Blessed Sacrament

I am unsure where to begin with this entry. Always, I make it a point to be polite, gentle, but also convincing, reasonable, and faithful to the claims of the Church. But really, I want to be helpful, eye-opening, and I want to show the world what I have discovered, but I realize with the subject that I am going to write about, it can only be a revelation from the Lord. We can discern with our reason as humans and Christians, but ultimately God will have to write this claim on your heart. But let me insert this caveat before I end that thought: just because God does not noticeably place this on your heart does not mean it is not meant for you. Ever think about that in your walk? That we use this rationale when thinking about the lost of the world, and how to them God does not exist; that doesn’t make that a fact. Facts are facts because they are unalterable; our thoughts, beliefs, and what-nots, don’t change the facts. So consider that when you read this; that even thought it might be convincing, or a nice exegetical analysis of scripture and history, and just because your emotions or in pray your don’t think you receive anything, does not mean that this is not for you – because if you get this, you will see that this is the whole summation, the whole enchilada, the very gift from God to the Church: his flesh and blood. It really will change everything for you.

What the scriptures say:

The Evangelists, AKA the Gospel authors all discuss this important topic. Now, commonly, the Gospel writers would speak of separate issues. For example, Luke, a physician, noted the many actual names for the diseases that were healed; or Matthew the tax collector kept an accurate tab on numbers such as the miraculous feedings; or Mark, which is traditionally called “the Q” is said to be co-written with the testimonial input of Peter and thus records a massive account of the Passion more than any other Gospel (don’t forget how much his denial meant afterword to Peter). So you see the Gospels are sort of written differently cause of the occasions that meant much to that writer. But in each of the Gospels, specific account is given in reference to the conversation and events that took place with the Holy Communion. I will use the account in John for this though (Chapter 6):

“²⁵ When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”
 ²⁶ Jesus answered, “I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. ²⁷ Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.”
 ²⁸ “What can we do to perform the works of God?” they asked.
 ²⁹ Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.”
 ³⁰ “What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You?” they asked. “What are You going to perform? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
 ³² Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the real bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
 ³⁴ Then they said, “Sir, give us this bread always!”
   ³⁵ “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again. ³⁶ But as I told you, you’ve seen Me,^[i] and yet you do not believe. ³⁷ Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
 ⁴¹ Therefore the Jews started complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They were saying, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
 ⁴³ Jesus answered them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me— ⁴⁶ not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.
   ⁴⁷ “I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that anyone may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
 ⁵² At that, the Jews argued among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
 ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. ⁵⁴ Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, ⁵⁵ because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. ⁵⁶ The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the manna your fathers ate—and they died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Above the Manna

I have done the pleasure of underlining the important phrases here in John 6 that are the focus of the study. First of all, understand how cultured the Jews were in this time. For the past 1300 years or so, Moses was their prime Patriarch, giving them the Law, the revelation of the Lord, the Promise land, and all of this through a miraculous, slow to anger God. Jesus quickly inserts his teaching that the multitudes ought not to look for mere food, but to look for the bread of heaven. Yes, Jesus was referring to himself and then seconds later declared this as a fact, not a mere metaphor (v 27 & v 35). But he makes a sharp comparison between the manna, given to the Hebrews to survive, and himself, a bread that will give eternal life. Again, first, he declares that he is above the manna in stature and nature. Ever thought of what a super claim that was? He was saying that the bread of life is more powerful, more vital for survival eternally than the manna. How can a metaphor be superior to a supernatural gift from God? He says that Moses gave them the manna, but the Lord gives a superior meal. You see plainly where Jesus says that eating the bread of life is a real act, and a real substance. That Greek word there in verse 50, “… anyone may eat of it and not die” in the Lexicon means “to consume a thing, to take food, eat a meal, to devour.” Thayer’s Lexicon says that this word literally means to chew on a substance to satisfy ones hunger and thirst. The reference gives other versions of the word for poetical use, like a metaphor, but that is not the word here that Jesus used. 

Just Plain Offensive

Let us move on. The Jews then began to argue and contemplate his words because they were offended. But… how could they be so offended by a metaphor. They were literally convinced that he meant what he said, that if they wanted to follow him any longer, they must chew on his flesh and drink his blood. Even his disciples (some of them) said it was tough teaching. But notice that Jesus never corrects that it is a mere “teaching” but that it is a requirement. Jesus was always happy and helpful in explaining his parables. But the one reference that Jesus makes that offends the entire multitude, he simply repeats his message and commands them to stop arguing – they have no rebuttal. “Unless you eat… and drink…”

I am sure at this point they are all thinking, “please clarify!” and he does. “My flesh is real food… my blood is real drink…”  The academic Greek in blood and drink are very convincing. The reader really has to pray and ask themselves why all the people would leave Jesus over a metaphor? Why would he not correct them? All he needed to say was “wait! Here is what I was really saying.” All he says is “there are some among you who don’t believe”(v 64) “will you leave me too.” (v 67) I was astonished at what I had missed in this the first million times I read it. Sort of makes you think, no?  But this is the promise, next comes the institution.

The Institution

 As a devout and defensive Protestant, I always went to the institution of the Lord Supper as a defense for the metaphorical viewpoint. I thought it was spotless. I now believe I was very wrong.  I’ll use Matthew Chapter 26 first:

“²⁶ As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat it; this is My body.” ²⁷ Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks, He gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you. ²⁸ For this is My blood that establishes the covenant; it is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. ²⁹ But I tell you, from this moment I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it in a new way in My Father’s kingdom with you.”   

Luke’s Gospel accounted the “do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19)”

I haven’t underlined anything because this whole paragraph is so important to the doctrine of the Eucharist and how the Church celebrates it now and always. First look at that word in verse 26, that Jesus blesses it. This is no mere thankful blessing; that one comes in the next verse. The word here actually means “to consecrate.” From this moment on, it is never referred to as bread and wine again by the utterance of Jesus. He tells them after that what in fact they are. Interesting point here that the same words he used in Johns Gospel for “eat” and “drink” are the very same Greek words. His promise was fulfilled before their very eyes.  And in Luke, “remember” is not anything other than what he says it is. I mean to say that Him (Jesus) saying this does not make it a metaphor. In fact, once again Jesus is only explicit about the contents of the wine and bread being now blood and flesh, only commanding us to remember Him when we do it. Then I consider this: Jesus says the “blood” which they are to drink is the blood that was shed for the eternal covenant. Jesus dies a real death, he bled real blood. He didn’t metaphorically die, and did not metaphorically believe, so what else what He referring to?

The Two Views

There are two views about this topic and it would not be important if it did not have a very dogmatic sounding name, right? No laughs? Okay. The first is Transubstantiation which is the belief that the real presence of Christ is present within the bread and wine under the appearance of bread and wine still. You could say: it transforms in everything besides appearance. This is a matter of “substance” over appearance. The other is Consubstantiation, which is the belief that it is still bread and wine, period. Yes these are two medieval words. As with several other doctrines, the words were given to clarify what the Church officially believes. In fact, this teaching was not questioned for 1000 years and didn’t enter into any form of Christianity for 1600 years! Much like the “Trinity,” modern words are not given until heresy presents its ugly face. Trinity was a word given to fight the Gnostics and later the Arian heresy.   

Consider this: "Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its color the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

Examination (what else does the Bible say?)

Are there any other references in the bible that support the Catholic doctrine? Why yes, there are, thank you so much for asking. Let me show you.

Chapter eleven of the first letter to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11), Paul is quite displeased about the abuse of this sacrament, the Eucharist. ***Click this sentence to go to the chapter. *** This chapter starts out pretty scary for a Bible-only Christian when Paul mentions “you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Now… hmmm. Paul is “delivering traditions” which means that the delivery had a starting point. He did not make this up all by himself. Anyone who makes a delivery receives it (whatever it is) and carries it and hands it off to the intended receiver. Well, that leaves an awful lot to consider. It means we have no idea what he delivered. But that Catholic Church remembers what he delivered very well, this is the application of Apostolic Succession.

Paul has a few things to get out of the way but then starts on the point in verse 17. He says that he heard that they eat in division, and they act as if the Lords Supper (he calls it this, not me) is any other event, getting drunk, and getting their stomachs full. He is upset because they eat it as if it is not the Eucharist, as if it is just bread and wine, while when they are supposed to be coming together to remember Jesus as a community in cohesion as a body! Remember Jesus’ words “when you do this remember me.” He then recounts the story (remember this is another tradition cause it was not “scripture” until 394ad). Well, it that same “eat” word again, esthio. It pays to discover. Read on about the judgment and condemnation they will receive for this unholy act.

“²⁷ So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. ²⁹ For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. ³⁰ That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹ But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. ³² Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world” (NIV).

I cannot see how if we are condemned for “not discerning the body of Christ”, it can’t just be a mere metaphor. Is there any other example you can think of where God condemns us for not believing a metaphor? I cannot think of one. Use your reason; the authors intent is much more serious than metaphor.  

Paul consecrates the bread in Acts 27:35. The actual Greek word used in Acts is eucharisteō. What word does that appear to look like? It is the Eucharist. Its biblical proof that, so far as the objector is concerned, the word exists in the bible.  

It really is an important issue, too. Do not convince yourself that this is another rag bag spine issue that we don’t have to really understand. This is one of the things that we find in every Gospel account. Jesus said to us that “you do not have life in you” and Paul tells us that if we do not discern His body when we take it, that we are damned and condemned. Even more so, Paul told us that we must reflect deeply as to not accept it unworthily. I was too offended when I was “trying out” or “checking out” Catholic Mass and I was instructed not to take it. I was thinking “but I am a Christian! Half these people in this room aren’t as devout as me.” But they were right, and I was arrogant.

A Possible Conclusion

The straightforward name of this sacrament is “Communion.” Well if it is a metaphor, what are you in communion with? Nothing. This is a difficult teaching, the disciples were right. But Jesus made a way for us to literally be at one with Him while on Earth. He made possible what we don’t see as possible or probable. Will we believe that one chapter before his promise of this, that he made a few loafs into many, but cannot believe this? Will we believe that at Cana he turned water into wine, but cannot accept that he can turn wine into blood? So why don’t we believe it? I think there are three reasons: 1) we don’t want to believe it, it offends us, 2) we don’t think we need to believe it, or 3) we don’t think God is actually asking us to drink blood and eat flesh. If yours is #1, the consequences, let me remind you are grave. If yours is #2, again, how can you be condemned for a metaphor? And #3, God made it how He wants it to be, and be thankful that it didn’t actually turn into blood or meat, God is so merciful! If you have a reason other than this, like you’re not convinced, okay, but keep reading on the subject I urge you. All of the evidence isn’t even here, there is much more to be said and discovered.

I want you the reader to consider the following. I have laid out some common evidence that many consider extremely convincing. If it is or it isn’t for you, either way, consider this: if it isn’t true, no big deal, but if it really is Jesus, don’t you want some?! Wouldn’t you want to take Him in every day? And if it is true, you should really consider the rest of what Catholics teach. This is the one part of Catholicism that either pulls people in or bounces them away.

History is the greatest demonstration of evidence. All Christians believe that "truth is truth" and is not subject to change. If that's so, then why the change in the 16th century for Protestants? There is not teaching contrary to that of Catholicism before this time. So I ask again, why the change? If it was truth once, it is always truth.

I really hoped you enjoyed this. Comment if you have a question, a thought, or a rebuttal.