The Most Straight-Forward Verse About the Eucharist in the Bible
Much of what Christians are asked to believe is not explicit in Scripture. In fact, some of what we believe is arguably not contained in Scripture at all. Questions about the canon of Scripture itself, the nature of biblical inspiration, who can write Scripture, when the canon closed, when a couple is joined in marriage, and by whom, is there on going public revelation, and more, are not contained explicitly in Scripture.
But the Eucharist is definitely does not fall in the above category. There is much that is remarkably clear in Scripture about the Blessed Sacrament, especially concerning the real presence. The institution narratives, of course John 6, 1 Cor. 10:15-18, etc., come to mind immediately. Â But in this post, I would like to deal with what may well be the plainest text of all: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (though some may argue for John 6 and make a strong case):
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
According to St. Paul, a constitutive element involved in a Christianâs preparation to receive the Eucharist is âdiscerning the body.â What body is St. Paul talking about that must âdiscernedâ you ask? Itâs really not very hard to tell. He just said, in verse 27, âWhoever . . . eats . . . in an unworthy matter will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.â Any questions?
These very plain words were a stark reminder to the Corinthians 2,000 years ago, and should be for us as well. We must recognize not just what it is that we are receiving in the Eucharist, but who it is: Jesus Christ.
St. Paul uses unequivocal language in describing the nature of the Eucharist by using the language of homicide when he describes the sin of those who do not recognize Christâs body in this sacrament and therefore receive him unworthily. He says they are âguilty of the body and blood of the Lord.â According to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6 and elsewhere in Scripture, to be âguilty of bloodâ means you are guilty of shedding innocent blood in murder. This is not the language of pure symbolism. This is the language of real presence.
Think about it: If someone were to put a bullet through a picture of a real person, I am sure the person represented in the photo would not be thrilled about it, but the perpetrator would not be âguilty of blood.â But if this same perpetrator were to put a bullet through the actual person you better believe he would be âguilty of blood.â And thatâs what Paul is saying in a manner of speaking: you better believe!
Thus, the language used here in 1 Corinthians 11 is very strongâsome of the strongest language St. Paul could have used, in factâto underscore the truth that when he says we must âdiscern the bodyâ here in the Eucharist, he means we must âdiscern the bodyâ here in the Eucharist! This is conclusive evidence of the real presence of our Lord!
Many, especially our Lutheran friends, might see and even cede the point of the Real Presence here but then point out that St. Paul also refers to the sacrament as âbread:â âWhoever eats this bread and drinks this cup . . .â Even if someone agrees to the real presence here, could this statement of St. Paulâs point more to a Lutheran notion of consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation? In other words, even if Christ is present here, wouldnât Paulâs reference to the sacrament as âbreadâ prove the âbreadâ is also present âalongsideâ the body and blood of Christ?
It does not come as a surprise to Catholics that St. Paul would refer to the Eucharist as âbreadâ and âwine.â We do it commonly in the Church. This is so for at least two key reasons. First, Jesus is âthe true bread come down from heavenâ and âtrue drinkâ according to John 6:32 and verse 55. It is entirely proper to refer to the Eucharist as such because the Eucharist is Jesus. Second, in human discourse we tend to refer to things as they appear. This is called âphenomenologicalâ language. We say âthe sun will rise at 5:45AM tomorrow.â Does this mean we are all geocentrists who believe the sun rotates around the earth? I hope not!
We find examples of phenomenological language in many texts of Scripture as well. Daniel 12:2 in the Old Testament and Acts 7:60 in the New Testament refer to death as âfalling asleep.â I assure you there is an essential difference between dropping dead and taking a nap, but the inspired authors use this language because it was and still is common to do so. When someone dies, his body looks like he âfell asleep.â Thus, the dead are often referred to as having âfallen asleep.â When it comes to the Eucharist, it retains the appearances of bread and wine; it should be expected that it would be referred to at times as it appears.
A critique of âconsubstantiationâ
The problem with consubstantiation boils down to two central points:
1. It attempts to claim Christ is âreally present,â but then denies a truly bodily (physical) component to that presence. That makes no sense. If Christ is merely âspirituallyâ present, which is what consubstantiation suggests, then he is not wholly present. Christ can âappear in another formâ as we see in Mark 16:12 when he appeared to Clopas and the unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus, but if it is truly and really Christâbody, blood, soul and divinityâthere must be what Pope Paul VI called in Mysterium Fidei a truly âphysicalâ reality to our understanding of that âtrue presence.â Otherwise, there would be no real distinction between that presence and the presence of Christ in his word or in us as Christians.
2. Consubstantiation ultimately denies the word of Jesus Christ who said, âThis is my body . . . This . . . is the new covenant in my bloodâ when he instituted the Eucharist in Luke 22:19-20. âConsubstantiationâ claims Jesus was still holding bread and wine in his handsâeven though it also claims a sort of undefined âreal presenceâ alongside the breadâbut Jesus declares the âbreadâ and âwineâ to be his body and blood. Unless we are having some trouble with the meaning or use of the word âisâ Christâs words in context are very clear. Christ is presenting himself as the New Covenant âlamb of God who takes away the sins of the worldâ who must be consumed in order for the people of God to participate in his saving sacrifice (John 6:53). This is the language of the real presence, including the bodily part, not the language of either consubstantiation or pure symbol.