THE LORD’S SUPPER

A Biblical Reflection on the

Eucharist

By
Eric GATERA
November 24, 2018

Contact: https://practicalhelpwitheric.blogspot.com/
1
Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
REASONING FROM THE EXODUS ......................................................................................................... 5
1) THE PASSOVER ................................................................................................................................. 6
A) JESUS’ WORDS IN LIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL JEWISH PASSOVER ................................... 6
B) THE PASSOVER WAS A MEMORIAL ........................................................................................ 7
2) THE MANNA, PANIS ANGELICUS ............................................................................................... 10
A) DAILY BREAD ............................................................................................................................ 11
B) THE SACRED NATURE OF THE MANNA ............................................................................... 14
C) A TASTE OF THE KINGDOM TO COME ................................................................................. 14
D) THE DIVIDING LINE .................................................................................................................. 16
COMMON QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 18
1. DIDN’T JESUS SPEAK MOSTLY IN A SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE? ............................................ 18
A. JESUS SPEAK SYMBOLICALLY ABOUT THE ‘LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES’ .............. 18
B. IS JESUS A DOOR? ...................................................................................................................... 19
C. DESTROY THIS TEMPLE ........................................................................................................... 19
2. DIDN’T JESUS SAY, ‘THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING’? ........................................................... 21
3. HOW CAN JESUS GIVE HIS BODY WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE? ...................................... 22
TEMPORAL ABNORMALITY #1: JESUS HEALS THE SICK ..................................................... 23
TEMPORAL ABNORMALITY #2: JESUS FORGAVE SINS ......................................................... 24
4. WHAT DID THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH SAY ABOUT THE LORD’ SUPPER? .......................... 25
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH – EARLY SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 110] ............................................. 25
JUSTIN MARTYR - MID-SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 148] ............................................................... 25
IRENAEUS OF LYON – MID-SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 148] ....................................................... 26
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM – FOURTH CENTURIES [A.D. 350] ........................................................ 26
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA – FIFTH CENTURY [A.D. 428] .................................................... 26

2
 THE LORD’S SUPPER/ THE EUCHARIST
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Christians have debated the meaning of Jesus’ instruction on eating his body and
drinking his blood. While the majority within Christianity take Jesus’ word to be understood
literally, a minority but growing number of Christians (particularly within the Protestant
tradition) regards those words to be symbolic.
‘And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it,
and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is My body. And He
took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink all of
it. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins.’ - Mathew 26:26-28

However, what is not always considered by those who embrace the ‘symbolic’ perspective of
these words of Jesus is that it doesn’t lessen the perception of scandal that these words cause to
non-Christian particularly Jews who hear it. Here is an example of a contemporary Jewish
scholars1 such as Geza Vermes, who has this to say:

The imagery of eating a man's body and especially drinking his blood ...,
even after allowance is made for metaphorical-language, strikes a
totally foreign note in a Palestinian Jewish cultural setting (cf.John
6.52). With their profoundly rooted blood taboo, Jesus' listeners would
have been overcome with nausea at hearing such words.

Or Jewish Scholar, Joseph Klausner, reaction to Christ’s words:

It is quite impossible to admit that Jesus would have said to his disciples
that they should eat of his body and drink of his blood, ‘the blood of the
new covenant which is shed for many’. The drinking of blood, even if it
was meant symbolically, could only have aroused horror in the minds of
such simple Galilean Jews.

If modern Christians’ intention in rejecting the literal meaning of Jesus’ words was for the sake
of lessening its shocking tone ‘eat my body, drink my blood’, then we can recognize that these
efforts are total failures as seen by the quotes above, ‘even after allowance is made for
metaphorical-language … Jesus' listeners would have been overcome with nausea at hearing
such words’ or ‘even if it was meant symbolically, could only have aroused horror in the minds
of such simple Galilean Jews’.

However, it is worth noting that not all Jews were taken aback by Jesus’ words in subsequent
years once they saw how Jesus made them eat his body and drink his blood. The apostle Paul
spoke in an approving tone when asking this question to the Church members in Corinth,

1
Found in the book, Jesus and the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. (Extract here)

3
 ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ - 1Corinthians
10:16

His question about the communion in the body and blood of Christ will be discussed later on, but
suffice to say that Paul expected that believers should have communion with Christ’s body and
blood. The tacit implication here is that only if this body and blood was real could they have
communed with it. The question we should be asking is why some Jews were horrified by Jesus
statements while other Jews such as Paul did expect to have part and to commune with Christ’s
body and blood? I suggest that the reason is due to the fact that the same scriptures that made
Jews recoil in horror is the same Holy Scriptures that shed the light on why Jesus’ body and flesh
must be eaten.

The Synoptic gospels speak in one voice with the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus did order the
partaking of his body and blood to his disciples:

‘And as they ate, Jesus took a loaf and blessed and broke it, and He
gave to them and said, Take, eat; this is My body. And taking the
cup, giving thanks, He gave to them. And they all drank out of
it. And He said to them, This is My blood of the New Covenant,
which is poured out for many.’ - Mark 14:22-24
‘And He took bread and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to
them, saying, This is My body which is given for you, do this in
remembrance of Me. In the same way He took the cup, after having
dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is
being poured out for you.’ - Luke 22:19-20

The Lord’s Supper is often called Eucharist because the Lord blessed and gave thanks before he
gave it to his disciples, from the Greek: eucharistia meaning ‘thanksgiving’. Although the
Gospel of John does not have these words reported during the Jewish Passover feast, we find
nevertheless a similar language when Jesus spoke in a Synagogue:
‘Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not
have life in yourselves. Whoever partakes of 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 partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood dwells
in Me, and I in him … He said these things in the synagogue as
He taught in Capernaum.’ - John 6:53-56, 59

I think with all the textual evidences, it cannot be denied that Jesus has said in all four Gospel
that his Body and flesh must be eaten and his blood must be drunk. There is no escaping the
straightforwardness of those words. Later on I will deal with the most common objections I have
encountered, levelled against the literal formulation of Jesus words, ‘eat the flesh of the son of

4
man, and drink his blood’. For the time being, I would like to focus on the WHY Jesus has made
such an unheard demand of his followers.

REASONING FROM THE EXODUS

To put Jesus words in its historic context, Jesus referred to his blood as, ‘This cup is the new
covenant in My blood’2, an expression which any Jew would have immediately recognized since
Moses used similar words when he inaugurated the Old Covenant, ‘And Moses took the blood
and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Jehovah has
made with you concerning all these words’ – (Exodus 24:8)

We have to remember that Jesus ministry was often contrasted with Moses mission. Here is one
example, ‘For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ.’ John 1:17. Although Moses and Jesus lived in different centuries, there is an event in
Jesus’ life where the two meet. The account of their meeting is found in the Gospel of Luke:

‘And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and
Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of His exodus, which
He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.’ - Luke 9:30-31
This verse specifies the content of their conversation, it was about Jesus’ exodus soon to occur in
Jerusalem. Other versions translate it to be ‘His departure’ or ‘His Death’. However the Greek
word in this passage is the word, ‘ἔξοδος: exodos’. Regardless of the translation, these different
translations express profound theological truths about this exodus Jesus was about to undertake
in Jerusalem. His exodus was undertaken through his death and it was a departure to his Father to
prepare a place for his followers in the new Kingdom (John 14.3). Later on in the book of
Revelation we are told that those places he went to prepare is a city called the New Jerusalem
(Revelation 21). Just like the Mosaic exodus led the sons of Israel into the Promised Land where
modern Jerusalem is found, Jesus exodus will lead Israel and the gentiles (non-ethnic Jews) into
the New Jerusalem.
Coming back to the exodus and its relationship to Jesus’ instructions on eating his body, we
know at least of two specific aspects of the exodus that Jesus will make reference to in order to
help us understand his unusual command.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EXODUS?

Before the exodus described in the book of Exodus occurred, it was preceded by the terrifying
night of the Passover sacrifice and followed by a perilous walk through the wilderness. Before
the exodus, there was a Passover. After the exodus, there was a Manna. Both will be the anchor
for our reflections in order to understand the perplexing words of Jesus about eating his
body/flesh.

2
Luke 22:20

5
1) THE PASSOVER
It is not surprising that Jesus chose to speak those words ‘eat my body’ during the Jewish
Passover feast. From the beginning of his earthly ministry, he was already designated for death
by these prophetic words, ‘The next day John [the Baptist] sees Jesus coming to him and says,
Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’ - John 1:29

A) JESUS’ WORDS IN LIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL JEWISH PASSOVER

In the first Passover, a blameless lamb was selected for the sacrifice. This lamb was also known
as the Passover Lamb (2 Chronicles 35:1; Ezra 6:20). The blood of the lamb was put on the door,
but the flesh of the Lamb was eaten in each house. The Passover was not complete with the
selection of the Lamb. Nor was it complete with the killing of the Lamb. Not even with the
putting of the blood of the Lamb on the door. No! The Passover feast was considered completed
with the eating of the flesh of the sacrificed Passover Lamb. In these verses of the book of
Exodus, the command to eat the flesh of the Passover lamb is repeated 4 times:

‘And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire, and
unleavened bread. They shall eat it with bitter herbs. Do not
eat of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire,
its head with its legs, and with its inward parts. And you shall
not let any of it remain until the morning. And that which
remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. And
you shall eat of it this way, with your loins girded, your sandals
on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in
a hurry. It is Jehovah's Passover.’ - Exodus 12:8-11

Earlier I pointed out that St. Paul the apostle, though a Jew didn’t seem shocked by Jesus words
but rather he expected that believers should have communion with the body and blood of Christ.
He wanted them to partake of his body and blood. I suggested that it was because of his
appreciation of the Jewish scriptures such as the one quoted above in Exodus. And we know this
is the correct understanding of Paul’s theology because of what he, himself, said in an earlier
chapter of the same letter to the Corinthians:
‘Therefore purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new
lump, as you are unleavened. For also Christ our Passover is
sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast; not with old
leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with
the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ – 1 Corinthians
5:7-8
If Jesus Christ is our Passover, then what was supposed to happen to him? Asking the question is
tantamount to answering it. From Paul’s perspective, Jesus had to go through the normal process
expected of the sacrificial lamb.
a) The Passover Lamb (Lamb of God) was to be killed. This happened historically on the
cross.
b) The blood of the Passover Lamb was to be poured out to atone for the lives of those who

6
 were inside the house. Jesus brought an emphasis to the nature and purpose of his blood
by referring to his blood as the blood of the new covenant in order to place the atoning
action of the blood on the altar instead of the doors (Leviticus 17:11, Exodus 24:6-7)
c) The Passover Lamb has to be eaten by those for whom it was sacrificed.

To keep the feast of the Passover as Paul requested to the first century believers, one had to
comply in fulfilling all aspects of the feast (death of the blameless Passover lamb, pouring of the
lamb’s blood and the eating of the Passover lamb flesh). Since the death and the blood spilling
happened once and for all, and that there is no other sacrifice to be made (Hebrew 10:12), how
could then the feast be kept? The answer resides with the last element of the sacrifice, the eating
of the flesh. In the Jewish sacrificial system, it is not a substitute or a symbol of that which was
sacrificed which got eaten but rather it was that which was really sacrificed which got eaten and
not something else.

B) THE PASSOVER WAS A MEMORIAL

One particular objection about the literal reading of Jesus’ word, ‘eat my body, and drink my
blood’ is the fact that Jesus called it a memorial when he commanded to do the ceremony in
remembrance of him.

‘And He took bread and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave
it to them, saying, this is My body which is given for you, this
do in remembrance of Me.’ - Luke 22:19-20

What is not realized sometimes is that the original Passover feast was also supposed to be a
memorial. It was something to be done in remembrance of the original Passover throughout
generations of the sons of Israel. This doesn’t mean that what was celebrated generation after
generation was no longer the use of the real blameless lamb put to death, real blood being poured
and real flesh being eaten in each household. No, it still was. The memorial did not remove the
reality of the sacrifice and other important aspects of the feast such as ‘eating the flesh of the
Passover lamb’.

‘And this day shall be a memorial to you. And you shall keep
it as a feast to Jehovah throughout your generations. You
shall keep it as a feast by a law forever.’ - Exodus 12:14

Given that Jesus was inaugurating a New Passover in his own body and his blood, he must have
meant it to be a memorial to be remembered generation after generation by his followers just like
the Jewish Passover feast. This parallelism makes it easier to understand what Jesus meant
through the background of the Jewish Passover.
In the old Jewish sacrificial system, each year and generation a new lamb was sacrificed during
Passover. However for Christ we hit a wall. What about Jesus once and for all sacrifice that
cannot be repeated? (Hebrews 10). To appreciate how it is done in the New Testament, we need
to go back again to the Old Testament. When we do this, we quickly come to the realization that
the Passover sacrifice which was remembered each year was not regarded as a different Passover

7
sacrifice but rather as a form of the same Passover that was sacrificed in the original Passover
night.

‘And it will be, when your sons shall say to you, What is this service
to you? Then you shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jehovah's Passover,
who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt, when He
struck the Egyptians and delivered our houses. And the people bowed
and worshiped.’- Exodus 12:26-27
‘And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What
is this? you shall say to him, Jehovah brought us out of Egypt by the
strength of His hand, from the house of bondage.’- Exodus 13:14

It is interesting to note that regardless of how much time in terms of centuries or millennia that
has passed between the original Passover event and the later generations who keep the Passover
feast, the father will always identify his house as being one of the houses that the Lord has
rescued from the hands of Pharaoh and the angel of death. This is seen by the repeating words,
‘He struck the Egyptians and delivered our houses’ or ‘Jehovah brought us out of Egypt by the
strength of His hand, from the house of bondage’. By using the pronoun ‘our house’ or ‘brought
us’, the father would be identifying himself with those who were leaving Egypt during the
original event.

If this reflection seems to you a bit far-fetched, consider then the third time this dialogue
between a Jewish father and his son is recorded. It is done with a renewed emphasis which
moves from the general, collective ‘we’, ‘our’ to the personal pronoun ‘I’ and ‘me’. It is an
identification of the future family celebrating Passover with the original and first generation
celebrants:

‘And you shall tell your son in that day, saying, This is because of
what Jehovah did for me when I came out from Egypt. And it shall
be a sign to you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your
eyes, that Jehovah's Law may be in your mouth. For the Lord has
brought you out of Egypt with a strong hand.’ - Exodus 13:8-9

This is the meaning of the memorial. It is not a mere souvenir but a re-enactment of the same
Passover that occurred in Egypt with the first generation. All the descendants have to celebrate
their Passover as if it was the very same Passover as the one done during the time of Moses. This
understanding is not only a private interpretation or a peculiar way of reading the biblical texts
on the topic of the Passover memorial. This understanding of doing it in remembrance of the
original Passover night is also the view of the Jewish tradition:

“In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came

forth himself out of Egypt, for it is written And thou shalt tell thy
son in that day saying: ‘it is because of what the Lord did for me
when I came forth out of Egypt’ (Exodus 13:8). Therefore we are
bound to give thanks … and to bless him who wrought all these
wonders for our fathers and for us. He brought us out from
8
 bondage to freedom, from sorrow to gladness, and from
mourning to a Festival-day, and from darkness to great light, and
from servitude to redemption; so let us say before him the
Hallelujah.”- (MISHNAH, PESAHIM 10:5)”3

A theologian and scholar who specialized in 'Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity', Dr. Brant
Pitre also pointed out4: “With these words (Exodus 13:8), we see quite clearly that for ancient
Jews, the Passover feast was not just a remembrance of what God had done for their ancestors.
In some mysterious way, they saw each Passover, ‘in every generation’ as a way of sharing in
the original acts of redemption. Although living centuries after the first exodus, the father would
speak of the event as if it were something he himself had experienced ... In other words, ancient
Jewish celebrants did not just remember the exodus; they actively participated in it. From their
perspective, no matter how much time had passed since the days of Moses, the salvation won in
the exodus was not just for ‘our fathers’ but ‘for us.’” (Page 65-66)

As argued above, breaking the bread during the Christian Eucharistic consecration means more
than a souvenir of what happened at the cross 2000 years ago. Modelling the Jewish Passover
sacrifice, Jesus’ call to “do this in remembrance of me” is an invitation to each community
throughout generations and ages to make real and present the original sacrifice of the Lord Jesus
Christ himself. It cannot be a symbol of his death but a presentation of the same body which was
sacrificed. St. Paul says as much once again in the same letter to the Corinthians when he said,
“In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in
My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me." For "as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.” 1 Corinthians 11:25-
26

Did we get what he said? Paul said that when we ‘do this in remembrance of’ Jesus, we matter of
fact ‘show the Lord’s death’. We are not showing a symbol of his death but the ‘Lord’s death’.
He said, ‘you show" the Lord's death until He shall come’. The latter part, ‘until he shall come’
includes all times this action will be repeated up to the day Jesus manifests himself in Glory in
his return. Until that day, this is the only way we will be able to ‘show the Lord’s death’. This is
what doing it in remembrance of Jesus means. It is to make present, it is to show the Lord’s
death which happen 2000 years ago to each generation who will celebrate the New Passover.

St. Paul goes even far in that same chapter by pointing out that during the Lord’s supper the
astute spiritual man must be able to discern that what he sees and partakes during communion in
the consecrated elements of bread and wine is the Lord’s body itself, “For he who eats and drinks
unworthily eats and drinks condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” – 1
Corinthians 11:29

To close this section on the Passover Lamb, let us summarize what we have learned. First, the
New Testament establishes a direct link between the Lamb of God and the person of Jesus (John
1.29). Second, there is a direct identification of Jesus as our Passover, hence we are encouraged

3
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=917
4
Brant Pitre, ‘Jesus and the Jewish Root of the Eucharist’, page 65.

9
to also keep the new Passover feast just like the Jews were exhorted to keep their Passover feast
(1 Corinthians 5:7-8). Third, for the Passover feast to be kept, not only that the lamb had to be
killed, but the Lamb flesh must also be eaten in order to complete the Passover feast (Exodus
12.8). This sheds light to Jesus forceful words that his body must be eaten (Matthew 26:26; Mark
14:22; Luke 22.19). Fourth, the Passover sacrifice must be a memorial, a remembrance. This
remembrance doesn’t mean a simple reminder of what happened in history, but it was a re-
experience of the initial Passover. For the Jews, it was being present in the original Passover in
Egypt (Exodus 13.8). For believers in Christ, it is to be present at the Lord’s death each time we
partake of the consecrated bread and wine (1Corinthians 11.25-26, 29).

2) THE MANNA, PANIS ANGELICUS

We started this investigation with the exodus of Christ to be undertaken in Jerusalem (Luke 9.30-
31). We’ve explored what happened before the exodus took place both in Egypt with Moses and
in Jerusalem with Jesus. The Passover happened before both exoduses. It is now time to tackle
the second aspect of the Exodus. What happened once the exodus occurred with ancient Israel
walking away from Egypt? Or to put it as succinctly as Dr. Brant Pitre articulated, ‘if Jesus saw
himself as inaugurating the new exodus, then what food did he think would be given for the
journey?’

It is a matter of biblical history when it comes to what type of food Israel ate for 40 years in the
wilderness,

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain down bread from
heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion
every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or
not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be
twice as much as they gather daily ... " And the LORD said to Moses,
"I have heard the murmurings of the sons of Israel; say to them, 'At
twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with
bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.'" In the
evening quails came up and covered the camp; and in the morning dew
lay round about the camp. 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 sons 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
house of Israel called the name of it Manna. And it was like coriander
seed, white. And the taste of it was like wafers with honey." - Exodus
16:4-5, 11-15, 31

There are at least four important elements to take out from the text above,
1) God gave Israel food on a daily basis. Every day they would come out of their tents and
collect food. The daily nature of the miraculous food will become important as we
advance in our study.

10
 2) The food that came each morning was totally unknown to Israel. They did not know what
it was. That is why it was called, ‘What is it?’ In Hebrew it is translated ‘man hu’ which
later was simply called, ‘mân’. This is probably where our English word ‘Manna’ came
from.
3) The Manna (man hu) was also labeled ‘bread from heaven’. It is more a description of its
origin than its meaning. The psalmist calls it the bread of angels or the panis angelicus,
‘Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance.’- Psalm 78:25
4) The Bread for Heaven, the Manna had a series of tastes and one of them was honey.

These three facts will serve us as a reference point as we navigate through this second enigma of
the exodus.

A) DAILY BREAD
In the only prayer that Jesus taught his disciples, we see a passing mention of what could only be
a reference to the Manna.

Therefore pray in this way: Our Father, who is in Heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For Yours is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;
but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses.
Matthew 6:9-15

In this prayer that our Lord taught us, there is a statement that seems to be unusually worded. In
Matthew 6:11, we are taught to ask ‘this day’ our ‘daily bread’. I once thought that we were
taught to ask the Lord to provide all our daily needs. Certainly, the Lord promises to take care of
us, but the phrasing of this particular verse doesn’t lend itself to this particular explanation. I
encountered an analysis of this in the excellent book of Dr. Brant Pitre ‘Jesus and the Jewish
Root of the Eucharist’. I highly recommend its reading for a deeper insight. Since I can’t do
justice to it, I will paste a selection of texts from his book that deals with this issue in a
comprehensive manner5:

Why did Jesus repeat himself in this line? Why not just say "Give us our daily
bread" or "Give us this day our bread"? Why the redundancy? Why emphasize
the daily nature of the bread the disciples are to ask for?

Although most English versions translate this line as if the word "day" or
"daily" occurred twice, in fact, it does not. The normal word for "day" in
5
Brant Pitre, ‘Jesus and the Jewish Root of the Eucharist’. Page 93-96

11
 Greek is hemera. Behind the English word "daily" lies another word, found in
both versions of the "Our Father."

"Give us this day our epiousios bread." (MATTHEW 6:11)

"Give us each day our epiousios bread." (LUKE 11:3)

What is the meaning of this word? What is this epiousios bread? The word
epiousios is what scholars call a neologism (a "new word"). It occurs for the
first time in ancient Greek literature right here in the Lord's Prayer.

I would argue that the most accurate (and ancient) translation is the one most
often overlooked. If we break up the word into its two main parts and just
translate it literally, this is what we find: (1) epi means "on, upon, or above,"
and (2) ousia means "being, substance, or nature." Put these two together and
the meaning seems to be: "Give us this day our supernatural bread." Indeed,
among some ancient Christian writers, it was very common to translate the
Greek word epiousios as literally as possible. In perhaps the most famous
translation of the Lord's Prayer ever made, in the fourth-century Latin Vulgate,
Saint Jerome writes these words:

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. (MATTHEW 6: 11)

What is the meaning of Jerome's translation? He himself tells us elsewhere:

the bread of the Lord's Prayer is supersubstantial because "it is above all
substances and surpasses all creatures." In other words, it is supernatural.
And Jerome is not alone in this understanding. Significantly, Saint Cyril,
bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century A.D., also says of the Lord's Prayer:
"Common bread is not supersubstantial, but this Holy Bread is
supersubstantial" (Mystagogic Lectures, 23.15). Likewise, Saint Cyprian of
Carthage, writing in the third century A.D., says in his treatise on the Lord's
Prayer that the bread Jesus speaks of is "heavenly bread," the "food of
salvation." At this point you might be thinking, It's all Greek to me! But it's
also all very important. If Jerome was right and the "Our Father" is a daily
prayer for supernatural bread, then in a first-century Jewish context, it can
only be referring to one thing: the new manna from heaven. While modern
ears may miss the echoes of the Old Testament, any ancient Jew who heard a
prayer for bread that was both daily and supernatural would have immediately
thought of the manna of the exodus.

Israel knew of only one bread that was both daily and supernatural, it was the Manna. Why is it
important to know? Because Jesus has identified himself to the heavenly manna in John 6 as we
will soon see. This is the first point to remember; the Manna was given so that it could be eaten.

‘And when the sons of Israel saw, they said each one to his brother, What is
that? For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, This is the
bread which Jehovah has given you to eat.’ - Exodus 16:15

12
In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus is encouraging his disciples to pray so that God will give them their
Daily Bread, the Manna. Though still veiled in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus is already pointing out in
which manner He would be present with his disciples on a daily basis and it shows in which form
he will appear to them on the daily basis for their spiritual nourishment. Just like the Old
Testament Manna was given to Israel for more than their physical nourishment but also for their
spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 10.3) so is the New Manna given to us for our spiritual
nourishment as we pilgrim toward the New Jerusalem.
It is also of interest to note that epiousious means ‘super-substantial’ or transcendental substance.
This is exactly what is being taught in the Oldest Church, the Catholic Church, that the Eucharist
is Tran-substantial which gave us the formulation of the doctrine of ‘Transubstantiation’. If you
ever wonder how the Catholic Church derived this doctrine, Dr. Pitre suggested that this is the
avenue which was used through centuries of reflection. Though the word was not used as such
before the 16th century, that very concept could have very well have been derived from the
Lord’s Prayer. As Carson correctly pointed out, ‘They confuse a new term with a
new doctrine, forgetting that, while the expression of a truth may sound unfamiliar, the truth
itself may have been held from the beginning’6.

Upon reflection, we may now start understanding that the Tran-substantial bread is from above,
it is from heaven just as the Lord Jesus himself referred to his heavenly origin despite his earthly
birth.
‘Then the Jews murmured about Him, because He said, I am the bread which
came down from Heaven. And they said, Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? How now does this One say, I have come
down from Heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said to them; Do not
murmur with one another … I am the Bread of life. Your fathers ate the
manna in the wilderness, and died. This is the Bread which comes down from
Heaven, so that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread
which came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he shall live
forever. And truly the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world.’ - John 6:41-43, 48-51
It is important to emphasize this aspect of the mystery of the Daily Bread during the Eucharistic
service with this confrontation of the Lord Jesus with his Jewish listeners in the Synagogue of
Capernaum. Just like the Bread we partake during the Lord’s Supper has a supernatural identity
despite the fact that we may know its physical origin, in the same manner Jesus argued for his
supernatural origin from heaven even though the Jews murmured about his physical origin by
saying, ‘Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How now does
this One say, I have come down from Heaven?’

This comes back to the exact perplexity the Old Testament Jews experienced when they first saw
the Manna, they rightly asked, ‘What is it?’ Today, we encounter the same question about the
New Manna from heaven. ‘How it is that Jesus said he came from heaven when we know where
he is from because we know his mother?’ the Jews basically argued between themselves. Same

6
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1192&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1877985

13
goes with people who observe us at the Mass celebration when we say that this bread which is
consecrated is the Lord’s Body. It is a Tran-substantial bread. It is really from heaven. They
wonder, ‘How can it be? Is it a really supernatural bread? What is it really?’ This is the essence
of the Manna. It is supposed to be a mystery for those who encounter it.

B) THE SACRED NATURE OF THE MANNA

By putting the Manna in the Ark of the Covenant which rested in the third part of the tabernacle,
the Holy of Holies, God was pointing out to the Israelites that this bread was not only miraculous
bread but also that is was holy and sacred.

‘And Moses said, This is the thing which Jehovah has commanded: Fill
an omer of it to be kept for your generations, so that you may see the
bread with which I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you
forth from the land of Egypt. And Moses said to Aaron, Take a pot and
put an omer full of manna in it, and lay it up before Jehovah, to be kept
for your generations. As Jehovah commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it
up before the Testimony, to be kept.’ - Exodus 16:32-34

Despite its sacredness, the Manna was accessible to all in Israel. Unlike other sacred objects
which was prohibited to the wider public, to my knowledge the only object to be this sacred from
the Holy of Holies and at the same time accessible on a daily basis to the sons of Israel
regardless of who they were is the Manna.

The Holy of Holies was inaccessible to the general public, even to some consecrated priests. It
was only rarely accessible to the High priest himself. And yet, the manna in all its sacredness and
mystery could be both close to God and easily accessible to man. This reminds us the scripture
which tells us that God the Father dwells in an inaccessible light that human can’t reach (1
Timothy 6.16), and yet Jesus who is the image of God (Colossians 1.15) and who once said to
Philip that who sees him sees the Father (John 14.9) is accessible to all. The Lord Jesus is the
true manna of God who is both accessible to all on a daily basis while also being utterly holy and
sacred.

C) A TASTE OF THE KINGDOM TO COME

The Manna has one specific particularity about its taste, it tasted as honey, ‘And the house of
Israel called the name of it Manna … And the taste of it was like wafers with honey’ Exodus
16:31. Scholar Dr. Brant Pitre thinks that this is important to note for this specific reason: The
Manna had the taste of the type of meal the sons of Israel could expect to taste once they reach
the promise land.

If we are conversant with the book of the Exodus, we may remember that the promise land was
called the Land that flowed with milk and honey, ‘And I have said, I will bring you up out of the
affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites … to a land flowing with milk and honey.’
Exodus 3:17

14
This means that the Manna was a foretaste of Israel future. A foretaste of how life would be in
the promise land. The Manna was not the full experience of how it would be to live in Jerusalem
(the Promised Land) but just a hint of it. This reasoning seems to be pointing on the right
direction given that even Joshua remarks that once Israel ate something from the Promised Land,
the Manna stopped coming. There was no more need for a foretaste since they had now full
access to the Promised Land, ‘And they [the sons of Israel] ate of the old grain of the land on the
next day after the Passover, unleavened cakes and roasted grain in the same day. And the manna
stopped on the next day after they had eaten the old grain of the land. And there was no more
manna to the sons of Israel, but they ate the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.’ - Joshua 5:11-
12

Today, Jesus’s body serves as a foretaste of the Kingdom to come. However once he will come
fully in his heavenly kingdom with the appearance of the New Jerusalem, there will no longer be
any need to have the supernatural bread which is his flesh. St. Paul expects as much in a verse
quoted earlier, ‘For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's
death until He shall come.’ – 1 Corinthians 11:26. This means that the new Passover feast of the
Messiah should be kept until the Lord comes. Today we see incompletely the manifestation of
the Kingdom. We show Christ through the consecrated bread and wine which is his true flesh
and true blood veiled into a different appearance. However once he comes we will see him fully.
Paul makes a similar point two chapters later, ‘For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to
face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know even as I also am fully known.’- 1
Corinthians 13:12.

I think Paul could speak this way given our background knowledge of how the Lord Jesus has
appeared to his disciples after his resurrection by taking different appearances. These various
appearances made him physically unrecognizable by many of his disciples. Think about the
disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24), or Mary Magdalen at the Tomb (John 20.24), or Peter at the lake
of Tiberias (John 21). But it wasn’t less the Lord Jesus himself, even though he had a different
appearance. So it is with the Manna from heaven, his appearance is unusual to say the least but
this is the appearance he chose to appear and be physically eaten in order to communicate eternal
life to those who eat his flesh as he promised.

I want to push this reasoning a little bit further. With the self-revelation of Jesus as the Manna of
heaven and knowing that the Manna is a foretaste of the Promised Land, what is the Christian
tasting during the Eucharist? In my humble opinion, and this doesn’t represent anyone I have
ever read but myself, during the Eucharistic communion to the Blood and Body of Christ we are
given a glimpse of what is written in Hebrews 6. The verse lists at least 4 aspects which are
tasted: the heavenly gift, the Holy Spirit, the good Word of God and the Power of the world to
come.
‘For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made
partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word
of God and the powers of the world to come,’ - Hebrews
6:4-5

15
Today, the range of tastes for spiritual realities is limited to foretastes. But we know that when
Jesus returns, we will experience more of the Promised Land, more of the New Jerusalem. New
Testament scholar, N. T. Wright in his observations on the Lord's Prayer wrote, ‘[the] Manna
was not needed in Egypt. Nor would it be needed in the Promised Land. It is the food of
inaugurated eschatology, the food that is needed because the kingdom has already broken in and
because it is not yet consummated. The daily provision of manna signals that the Exodus has
begun, but also that we are not yet living in the land.’.

D) THE DIVIDING LINE

Jesus tells us in no ambiguous terms that his flesh must be eaten and his blood must be drunk.
Admittedly, Jesus’ words were shocking to his first audience and certainly they are still shocking
for some modern hears. However, as we surveyed the scriptures and read Jesus’ words in light of
his Jewish environment (the Old Testament), it becomes clear that the Lord Jesus had the right
theological basis to make those statements such as ‘eat my Body’ or ‘eat my flesh’. No wonder
that the majority of the early believers were essentially Jews and they understood from their
personal experience that the Passover flesh must be eaten. They also knew from their religious
education that the Manna was also eaten.

The only thing I think they couldn’t find acceptable is why the Lord gave his blood to be drunk,
especially given the clear prohibition against blood drinking. To appreciate what Jesus was
saying we need to read those specific texts prohibiting blood drinking.

‘And any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that are staying
among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that soul who
eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of
the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make
atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes atonement for
the soul.’ - Leviticus 17:10-11

God prohibited the drinking of animal blood because the life of any flesh is in its blood. As Brant
suggested, we consider that Jesus ordered the drinking of his blood for the very same reason that
God prohibited it, because his divine life is in his blood. This is the biblical way he could
transmit us his life, his eternal life by giving us his life to drink through his blood. If this
suggestion is correct, then we understand the urgency Jesus had when he emphatically said,

‘Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in
yourselves. Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He who partakes of My
flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him.’ - John 6:53-54,
56

In principle, blood and flesh are naturally inseparable, ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’.
However, Jesus wants us to understand that when he speaks of his flesh, he really means his
flesh which has blood. This chapter uses the word, blood, four times. In the text above, the blood

16
of Jesus which has his divine life, according to the Leviticus principle, is given so that whoever
drinks of it may receive Jesus’ life. That is why he said, ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves’. Why not? Because the life of the
Lord is in his blood. So to get this life, one is invited to partake of his blood. This is how
biblically the life of a flesh can go into another flesh. That is why drinking blood from animals or
else was prohibited, for all lives belong to God. But God is not limited by the same injunction he
imposed to his creation, for He wants to give his life to us and puts it into us. We hear a lot about
the call to abide in Christ but few tell us how to do it practically. Well, Jesus tells how this can
happen for us to abide in him and him in us, ‘He who partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood
dwells in Me, and I in him’. This is reminiscent of what Jesus will tell his disciples later in the
same Gospel as he is heading toward his exodus (his physical death), ‘Jesus answered and said
to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will
come to him and make Our abode with him.’ - John 14:23. No wonders we see in the Early
Church, the disciples keeping the word of Christ by keeping the Passover feast, the breaking of
bread, in another words the Lord’s Supper in order to allow the Lord to abide in them (Acts 2:42,
46).

It is now evidently clear that the only way that the blood being drunk under the appearance of the
consecrated wine cannot just be a symbol of the blood but rather it must be the real blood of the
Lord in order that his life which is contained in his blood may enter the life of the one drinking
it. If it is a metaphor or a symbol, it is unfathomable why the Lord insisted in the drinking of his
blood. For a symbol or a metaphor of blood doesn’t have life in itself because it is not real. Only
real blood has real life, real soul in it. Symbolic blood has only symbolic life. Are we to think
that Jesus spoke urgently so that his disciples may receive symbolic life? This doesn’t add up,
especially given that the Lord lost countless of disciples because of this Eucharistic teaching
(John 6.66). The only reasonable approach is to take the Lord Jesus at his words, however
difficult and incomprehensible they may sound at first. The Lord Jesus said about his flesh and
his blood that,
‘My flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink.’ - John
6:55
If he said that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink, and we still come to the
conclusion that they are symbolic and not true realities for our nourishment, then I would be
interested to hear what is the proposed suggestion one would have wanted Jesus’ words to sound
like or what does one think should have been his words and what he could have said better to
make us understand that he meant it truly and not symbolically?

What is certain, the earliest believers understood it literally. The majority of believers do indeed
take his words to mean exactly what he said it to be, ‘his body, his blood’, for Jesus repeatedly
stated it in so many ways and in no uncertain terms. My invitation is for you to consider taking
Jesus’ words at face value and to contemplate and ponder its implication for life.

‘Taste and see that Jehovah is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him.’ - Psalm 34:8

17
COMMON QUESTIONS

This work would be incomplete if I do not address some questions usually asked in relation to
the Lord’s Supper as usually interpreted by the Oldest Christian Church, the Catholic Church.
Although the biblical case has been laid down in the previous section, there are some notable
challenges worth being addressed separately from the main corpus of the texts.

1. DIDN’T JESUS SPEAK MOSTLY IN A SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE?

The Lord Jesus was known for speaking in parables and in symbolic language. It was a landmark
aspect of his ministry. However as it was brought to my attention, when Jesus’ words was
misunderstood in the Gospel for whatever reasons a clarification was always provided either by
the Lord Jesus himself or by the Gospel narrator post-facto. Interestingly we note that when
Jesus spoke about ‘eating his flesh’, he never gave any additional clarification nor does the
Gospel narrator. What we see rather is the Lord who keeps forcefully deploying the most
literalistic language that can be found to emphasise that they have to ‘eat his flesh’. Allow me to
demonstrate it with some examples. These are the usual examples which are brought to my
attention.

A. JESUS SPEAK SYMBOLICALLY ABOUT THE ‘LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES’

On this occasion, Jesus spoke to his disciples to ‘beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the
Sadducees’. However the disciples didn’t understand what he meant and thought Jesus was
speaking literally about loaves (bread). In the verses below we see the Lord Jesus taking pain to
explain himself:

“And when His disciples had come to the other side, they forgot to take
loaves. And Jesus said to them, Take heed, and beware the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves,
saying, It is because we have taken no loaves. And knowing Jesus said to
them, Why do you reason among yourselves because you took no loaves,
little-faiths? ... How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak
to you about loaves, but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of
the Sadducees? Then they understood that He did not say to beware of
the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.” - Matthew 16:5-8, 11-12
Jesus recognizing that his disciples did not understand his façon de parler went on to clarify the
matter for them by saying, ‘I did not speak to you about loaves’. The result of the clarification?
The verse goes on to show that the disciples understood that he was not speaking literally but
figuratively, ‘Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of
the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ However, we do not have such a clarification in
John 6. May I suggest that the reason we don’t have any clarification in John 6 is because there

18
was nothing to be clarified? All we see is emphasis over emphasis with no retractions.

B. IS JESUS A DOOR?
A common rebuttal I have encountered is on this familiar saying of Jesus. I was asked if I
thought that Jesus was a real ‘Door’? The reasoning behind this question is based on a quote
from the Bible where Jesus said clearly that he was a ‘door’. As for any claim, a contextual
reading is always worth exploring.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by
the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a
robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To
him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his
own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own
sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his
voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from
him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” Jesus used this
illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to
them. Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am
the door of the sheep.” - John 10:1-7

That specific statement, ‘I am the door of the sheep’ in the Gospel of John was a clarification
Jesus was giving to his disciples. The text tells us that Jesus was not speaking literally but that it
was an image, a metaphor, an illustration: ‘Jesus used this illustration, but they did not
understand the things which He spoke to them’. As we know, illustration has meaning. Just like
the word ‘leaven of the Pharisees and the Saduccees’ was an illustration for the doctrines of the
Pharisees and the Sadducees (see above), so does the word ‘the door of the sheep’ in the
illustration Jesus gave. It was a reference to his own person. He represented the door in that
illustration (in that metaphor). Here again, we see Jesus taking the pain to explain himself when
the disciples misunderstood him. And the author of this Gospel goes on to clarify in the narration
that it was an ‘Illustration’, it was not to be taken literally. However, we do not see such warning
being deployed by the same author of the Gospel of John when we read chapter 6. We see on the
contrary an explicit language which reinforces what was already said earlier when he said, ‘eat
my flesh’.

C. DESTROY THIS TEMPLE

This is another example that illustrates clearly what happened when Jesus’ words were
misunderstood. They were explained either by Jesus, himself, or the narrator of the Gospel. In
this case it is John, the gospel writer:
“Then the Jews answered and said to Him, What sign do you show us,
since you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this

19
 temple and in three days I will raise it up’. Then the Jews said, ‘This temple
was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?’ But He
spoke of the temple of His body. Therefore when He had risen from the
dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they
believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.”- John 2:18-22
In this final example, Jesus said, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up’ and it
attracted the negative reaction of the Jews present. They thought Jesus wanted the physical
temple of Jerusalem to be destroyed. And the narrator of the gospel corrects the
misunderstanding immediately in his narration by saying that Jesus was speaking of ‘the temple
of His body’ and not of the Brick and Mortar edifice in Jerusalem.

Now contrast how Jesus and the narrator of the Gospel of John have dealt with misunderstood
statements (Matthew 16, John 2 and John 10) with how Jesus and the narrator of the Gospel
interact with these provocative words of Jesus, which matter of fact cause Jesus to lose many of
his disciples except his 12 apostles:
“I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If
anyone eats of this Bread, he shall live forever. And truly the
bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of
the world. Then the Jews argued with one another, saying, How
can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus says to them,
Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in
yourselves. Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” - John
6:51-54
We know how Jesus or the author of the Bible proceeded when they saw people incorrectly
interpret Jesus’ words. The procedure is rather simple. The misconception is immediately dealt
with. If they took something literally which was meant metaphorically, they tell us so, in the next
verses. Judge for yourself therefore, if Jesus meant these words symbolically, ‘I am the Living
Bread which came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he shall live forever. And
truly the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’. We know
how the first century audience reacted when they heard him. They reacted with horror and
unbelief for they took what he said literally and they argued, ‘Then the Jews argued with one
another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ The next question is a crucial one.
What do you think would have been Jesus logical next step after he heard them argue in such a
manner? Should he not have followed the pattern that we already observed him follow in the
scriptures? A pattern in which his statements which were meant symbolically but were taken
incorrectly as literal were immediately clarified?
This is exactly what Jesus would have also done here except he did not correct the literal view of
what he had previously said about being ‘the living bread’ and that they were invited to ‘eat of

20
his bread’, but he proceeded to clarify what he meant when he said it, ‘Then Jesus says to them,
Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do
not have life in yourselves. Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the last day.’ In some sense we could say that Jesus did clarify his
language. He wanted them to understand that when he said this bread, he really meant his flesh.

2. DIDN’T JESUS SAY, ‘THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING’?

Another objection I have heard is this one, ‘Jesus pointed out that the flesh is of no use.’ Hence
Jesus wasn’t speaking literally about his flesh in the whole chapter. As for the claim about Jesus
being a ‘Door’, here again the context is crucial.

“Then when they had heard, many of His disciples said, ‘This is a hard
saying, who can hear it?’ But knowing in Himself that His disciples
murmured about it, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if
you should see the Son of Man going up where He was before? It is the
Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to
you are spirit and are life.’ But there are some of you who do not believe.
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and
who is the one betraying Him. … From this time many of His disciples
went back into the things behind, and walked no more with Him.” - John
6:60-64, 66

It is important to point out from the out-set that Jesus did not say, ‘my flesh profit nothing’ but he
rather said, ‘the flesh profits nothing’. It is not about ‘his flesh’ but rather about the ‘the flesh’.
Why is this an important clarification and nuance? Because Jesus has spent a whole chapter
making sure that we understand that ‘his flesh’ should be eaten and that eternal life was
connected to the consumption of his flesh, ‘Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’(John 6:54).

So what does he mean by the ‘the flesh’? To understand it, we need to go no farther that the
Gospel of John. Let us remember that Jesus made this statement in response to the reaction of the
Jews who had heard what he said and deliberated in judgment by saying, ‘This is a hard saying,
who can hear it?’ And this led to their final verdict, ‘From this time many of His disciples went
back into the things behind, and walked no more with Him’. And Jesus perceiving this reaction
from his disciples in response to his specific teaching, ‘eat my flesh’, recognized that they were
in unbelief and he said, ‘But there are some of you who do not believe’. If you are still wondering
what does this unbelief of his disciples has anything to do with ‘the flesh’, then I invite you to
read Jesus’ continued conversation with the Jews two chapters later in John 8:

“Therefore the Pharisees said to Him, ‘You bear record concerning yourself;
your witness is not true’ … [Jesus said], ‘You judge after the flesh, I judge no
one.’” - John 8:13, 15

21
If we keep reading the Gospel of John, we see Jesus coming again into an argument with the
Jews just like he did in the Bread of Life discourse in chapter 6. And the Jews reacted the same
way as before and showed their unbelief, ‘your witness is not true’. To which Jesus once again
called upon the expression ‘the flesh’ to explain their rejection of his person and of his message
just as the former Jewish group did in John 6. Jesus is clearly not talking about his flesh which
we know gives eternal life, but rather his use of the expression the flesh is there to contrast the
lack of spiritual awareness of those who have heard him speak and still rejected his message.
There is no doubt that when they tried to judge his teachings according to ‘the flesh’ they fell to
appreciate Jesus’ teaching. It was of no use to them in John 6 and the flesh is once again of no
use to them in John 8.

But wait there is more!

When we read attentively Jesus statement in John 6.64, we notice that he speaks of two
categories:
(i) It is the Spirit that makes alive,
(ii) the flesh profits nothing
Now that we have seen that Jesus has put the unbelief of his disciples on ‘the flesh’ category, in
which category then does Jesus put his teachings ‘eat my flesh, drink my blood’? We do not need
to guess, the same verse tells us: ‘It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The
words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.’ Not only does the Lord Jesus put all his
sayings of that chapter in the ‘spirit that makes alive’ category but also does St. Peter the apostle
in his now memorable saying, ‘Then Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go?
You have the Words of eternal life’’ (John 6:68).

It is therefore a problem of mistaken category when one puts Jesus sayings in ‘the flesh profits
nothing’ category when the very context puts it in ‘the spirit that makes alive’ category.

3. HOW CAN JESUS GIVE HIS BODY WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE?

One of the most serious objections I have ever met is this one. How can we hold to the belief that
Jesus was giving his own body to his disciples to be eaten on the Passover night before his death,
while he was still alive and not yet delivered to death? Even given the fact that Jesus said it
clearly in Matthew 26.26, ‘Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples,
and said, Take, eat, this is My body’, how could we reconcile the temporal order of events? After
all, the flesh of the Lamb during Passover was eaten only after the lamb was killed. But here,
Jesus who is the Lamb of God gave his body to be eaten before his death.

If this was the only time that we had an inconsistency of time succession of event in the ministry
of Jesus, this argument would have been indeed difficult to overturn. However, I can think of
two other inexplicable events that has this temporal abnormality in the ministry of Jesus. And
they are all linked to the cross of Jesus. By normal succession, they should all have been done
after his historic death, and yet we read of them before the cross.

22
TEMPORAL ABNORMALITY #1: JESUS HEALS THE SICK
There is nothing abnormal for the sick to be healed by the power of God. What is unusual in this
particular story is how Matthew interprets what caused those sick people to be healed.

And evening coming on, they brought to Him many who had been
possessed with demons. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and
healed all who were sick. So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Isaiah the prophet, saying, "He took on Himself our weaknesses and
bore our sicknesses." - Mathew 8:16-17

In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 8, the author attributes the many deliverances and healings
performed by the Lord Jesus to the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. The puzzling part of it is
that the prophecy being referred as being fulfilled is found in the book of Isaiah chapter 53, verse
5. A prophecy related to Christ’ death. If we read this prophecy, we directly see that this
prophecy has all the marks and language of the event which was fulfilled at that wooden cross in
Calvary by Jesus. Nevertheless, long before the cross, we see Jesus exercising his healing
ministry in fulfilment of an event that had not yet happened. It is at the cross that Jesus will be
wounded and bear our sickness in his stripes and yet Matthew pointed out that people were
benefiting of the event of the cross long before that event happened.

It is unmistakable that Isaiah prophecy has many indices that point straight to the event
surrounding the cross.
“Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we
esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was
wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the
chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves
are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one
to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He
was oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He opened not His mouth. He is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is
dumb, so He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from
judgment; and who shall declare His generation? For He was cut off out
of the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was
stricken. And He put His grave with the wicked, and with a rich one in
His death; although He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His
mouth. Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He
should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering. He shall see His seed, He
shall prolong His days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in His
hand.” - Isaiah 53:4-10
See how many times death is mentioned in this prophecy, I count at least 4 times, ‘He is brought
as a lamb to the slaughter’, ‘For He was cut off out of the land of the living’, ‘And He put His
grave with the wicked’ and ‘He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering’. Yet this is the
same passage that is referred by Matthew when he said, ‘So that it might be fulfilled which was

23
spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘He took on Himself our weaknesses and bore our
sicknesses.’”

It is worth noting that this manner of reading Isaiah 53 as a direct reference of the Lord Jesus’
sacrifice on the cross is also acknowledged by St. Peter when he made reference to Isaiah in his
epistle:
“He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that dying to
sin, we might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.” -
1Peter 2:24
Where the King James Version says that he bore our sins in his body on the tree, the
Contemporary English Version amplifies the expression, ‘body on the tree’ to ‘nailed to the
cross’.

‘Christ carried the burden of our sins. He was nailed to the cross, so
that we would stop sinning and start living right. By his cuts and
bruises you are healed.’

This is the exact same temporal enigma found at the Lord’s Supper when the resulting benefit of
the cross of Christ is experienced before the cross of Jesus.

TEMPORAL ABNORMALITY #2: JESUS FORGAVE SINS

In the same way that the resulting healings in Matthew 8 which were supposed to be experienced
only as the result of the cross of Jesus, so it is with Jesus forgiving people of their sins. When we
read the Gospel of Mark, we are told that, ‘And seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic,
Child, your sins are forgiven to you.’ - Mark 2:5.

However if we stop to think for a moment and ask, how did the paralytic receive his forgiveness
of sins? Normally, there was the institution of the ‘sin offering’ in order to remove sins.
Forgiveness and remission of sins were only removed through that Levitical transaction, a life
for a life. The New Testament also supports this view, ‘And almost all things are by the law
purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.’ – Hebrews 9:22. Could it be
therefore possible for Jesus to forgive sins without the shedding of his blood at the cross? The
text is clear, ‘without shedding of blood there is no remission’. And yet we see this temporal
distortion happening again. What should have been the result and naturally coming out after the
cross, we see it happening before the cross while drawing its power from the cross of Jesus
which was still a future event.

These three temporal enigmas are really puzzling, (i) the eating of the Passover lamb’s flesh
before the cross happened; (ii) the healing of the sick by Christ wounds before any wound was
inflicted at the cross; and (iii) the forgiveness of sins which is the result of the shedding of blood
before any blood was shed at the cross. All these three divine blessings were initially
experienced before the cross even though their very existence depended on the historical event of
the cross which came after those particular facts.

24
There is a reflection that could account for all these perceivable temporal anomalies but this is
not the place to explore them7. It is only sufficient to point out that the New Testament
recognizes these temporal abnormalities linked to the Cross of Jesus Christ and doesn’t try to
explain them either. I think the wisest approach would be to heed the counsel of Moses who said,
‘The secret things belong to Jehovah our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our
sons forever, so that we may do all the words of this Law.” – (Deuteronomy 29:29). What is
revealed is this truth, ‘Take, eat, this is My body’. However, how does this become his body is
what is hidden from us and belongs to God. Let us not abandon what has been revealed to us
because we can’t figure out yet what has been hidden from us.

4. WHAT DID THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH SAY ABOUT THE LORD’ SUPPER?
I am no patristic scholars but I am reliably informed8 that Christian leaders from the first century
did affirm the same truth as Jesus did at the Passover night, ‘this is my body, eat’ or as St. Paul
did in his epistles to the Corinthians, ‘So that whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of
the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.’ 1Corinthians 11:27.
The testimony of the scriptures as we have discussed throughout this document should be
sufficient by itself to emphasize the literal presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus when the
Bread and the Wine are consecrated. However if one is also interested to learn what the earliest
authoritative Church leaders taught about it, I have made a few selection of early Christians who
were taught either directly by the apostles of Jesus or taught by those who were taught by the
apostles themselves. This transmission of the apostolic teachings is important as it reflects the
mentality of early leaders in the Church such as St. Paul the apostle, who said, ‘And the things
that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men who will
be able to teach others also.’ – 2 Timothy 2:2. Hence, there is a succession of truth and practices
being transferred from one generation to another in an unbroken line of succession. See below9,
some early witnesses about the view and concept of the Lord’s Supper (The Eucharist).

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH – EARLY SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 110]

"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 the Father, in his goodness,
raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Epistle to the
Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1).

JUSTIN MARTYR - MID-SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 148]

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our
Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic

7 I have hinted about this solution on my personal blog.

8
Also see Rod Bennet books, ‘Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words’ and ‘The Apostasy that Wasn’t:
The Extraordinary Story of the Unbreakable Early Church’
9
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-eucharist-is-no-mere-symbol

25
prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the
flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).

IRENAEUS OF LYON – MID-SECOND CENTURY [A.D. 148]

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood
to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he
gives increase unto our bodies … When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the
baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from
these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not
capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life--flesh which is nourished by the body
and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Against Heresies 5:2).

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM – FOURTH CENTURIES [A.D. 350]

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were
simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of
Christ and the wine the blood of Christ"

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the
Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the
other, let faith make you firm. - (Catechetical Discourses, Mystagogic 1, 19:7, 9).

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA – FIFTH CENTURY [A.D. 428]

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my body,' but, 'This is my
body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, '‘This is the symbol of
my blood,' but, 'This is my blood'; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after
their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but
receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought...not regard [the elements]
merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were
transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

26