Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Cordial Catholic

Home
Catholic
The Lord’s Supper, Literally

The Lord’s Supper, Literally

Last updated on: August 3, 2015 at 3:59 pm by K. Albert Little

The Lord’s Supper, Literally 2015-08-03T15:59:37-04:00 K. Albert Little

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo Credit: SnoShuu.

Since digging deeper into Catholic theology it’s become clear to me that, for those who swear by a literal interpretation of Scripture, the Catholic understanding of the Lord’s Supper should be the most preferable.

The sixth chapter of the Gospel of John is a fascinating one for a number of reasons. First, John records Jesus turning a little’s boys meager offering of five loaves and two fish into enough food to feed five thousand men (not counting women and children). Next, John records Jesus walking across the water, meeting the disciples as they crossed the sea of Capernaum in a boat. And then, Jesus says that we must, literally, eat His flesh.

The Lord’s Supper, as held by Christians, is the renewal or memorial of the New Covenant, the death of Jesus which has redeemed us, and creation, for all time. We live in this New Covenant and the Old Covenant of the Jewish people, the sacrifices and legal framework, is no longer necessary. The Lord’s Supper, Jesus Himself tells us, is that renewal or the memorial of this new covenant with God.

Catholics, in particular, hold that when Jesus commanded us to eat and drink His flesh He meant it literally. Other mainline Protestant denominations, like Lutherans and Anglicans, believe similarly although the mechanics of the miracle are different. The evangelical circles I’ve run in—Baptist and Pentecostal—deny any such presence of Jesus in the bread and the wine and see it as a mere memorial. His words, theologians in these evangelical schools assert, were merely metaphorical.

Now, before going any further, I want to avoid two traps. First, is the trap of painting all evangelicals with the same brush. I’m of the school of thought that “there’s no such thing as Protestantism, only Protestants.” That is, there is no amorphous Protestantism but, instead, groups of Protestant believers who differ from each other in a variety of ways. Some groups, like the Church of Christ, interpret the Bible so literally as to see no place for musical instruments in their worship services (because they weren’t explicitly used in the Early Church). When I say “Protestant” or “evangelical” what I try to mean is the Protestants (who are evangelicals) that I know.

Second, I want to avoid the trap of being anything but cordial.

That said, I’m seeking to understand.

I’ve known Protestant circles who take the Bible very literally. The case of the Church of Christ was mentioned above. Yet, amongst these groups, none hold to the literal interpretation of Jesus’s words about the Lord’s Supper.

Yet, there are examples in history.

As early as 110AD Ignatius of Antioch is writing, clearly, of the literal flesh of Jesus, eaten during the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper,

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

Augustine, beloved by Catholic and Protestant alike, in 411AD writes in equally powerful language,

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ.

Indeed, Christianity for 1,500 years, and beyond, held that the Lord’s Supper, the bread and the wine, became, in some miraculous way, the actual body and blood of Jesus. The miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’s walking on water, as recorded by John, served directly to illustrate and foreshadow the incredible miracle of Communion.

The Lord miraculously multiplies the fishes and the loaves and demonstrates command over the natural world in the same way that he miraculously multiplies His body and changes the form of the bread and the wine in Communion.

What puzzles me, then, is that the most literal interpretation of Jesus’s words should, I argue, take Him at His word.

Addressing His followers Jesus said that He was the bread of life and that His followers must eat Him. When His followers found that difficult to digest, because of the strong, literal language He chose, He emphasized it in even more strong terms. Using the Greek word that means to gnaw, He told His followers that they must gnaw on Him. Again, even when His closest disciples, who are always getting it wrong, confront Him in private He doesn’t clarify by saying, “I didn’t mean it literally.” He stands, firmly, by what He said and the interpretation of the crowd.

Even a detailed, contextual reading of this section of the gospel leads us to a literal interpretation of Jesus’s words precisely because those listening to Him interpreted Him literally and He did not correct them. This, to me, bears repeating: Those listening to Jesus took Him literally.

In other cases, where Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and He does much speaking in this form, He explains His meaning especially to His disciples—especially when they’re confused, which is often. In this case, there was no confusion just, as the murmuring of the crowd indicates, “hard teaching.”

What puzzles me is that, in this case, the Catholic Church seems to provide the most literal interpretation of Scripture. What puzzles me is that even the most literal of the Protestant denominations don’t come to this same conclusion.

If we’re going to take Jesus at His word—what He literally said—we must believe that, in Communion, the elements become Jesus’s flesh and blood. This, I argue, is the most literal interpretation of the Lord’s Supper and it’s found, for its part, in the Catholic Church.

Previous Post

January 28, 2015

What I Learned From a Tired Priest

Next Post

February 3, 2015 The Physical, Tangible Catholic Church

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Appearances Christian Living Explaining the Faith Podcast Tough Questions Uncategorized Why I'm Catholic

Select a Month January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In the Parable of the Talents, what did the faithful servants receive?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nothing More responsibility Riches Punishment

Support this
Column