What is your take on this?

[LuxPerpetua]

I'm reading a Christian apology by Justin Martyr (a canonized saint who was martyred c. 167/168 for refusing to recant his faith in Christ), and I wanted to see what you all thought about these passages on the Eucharist. I am reading an English translation, but it seems here that Justin denies the Real Presence. I may be wrong, which is why I am seeking other opinions on these passages.

Passage 1:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."

Now, that passage is a little obscure, but it's the phrasing "in remembrance of His being made flesh" that sticks out to me. Why not just say, "His flesh given in remembrance"? :scratch:

Passage 2:

"Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind . . ."

Again, no mention of Christ's presence in the Eucharist but only that the bread and wine cause Christians to remember His sacrifice. :scratch:

What are your interpretations of these passages? I'm a little concerned because Justin Martyr has been canonized and he is a great early Christian apologist. :help:

[Carrye]

Passage 1:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."

Now, that passage is a little obscure, but it's the phrasing "in remembrance of His being made flesh" that sticks out to me. Why not just say, "His flesh given in remembrance"? :scratch: This language comes directly from Scripture:

"and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’" 1 Cor 11:24-25

Here's another quote from St. Justin Martyr on the Eucharist:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." -- First Apology

[KagomeShuko]

I'm reading a Christian apology by Justin Martyr (a canonized saint who was martyred c. 167/168 for refusing to recant his faith in Christ), and I wanted to see what you all thought about these passages on the Eucharist. I am reading an English translation, but it seems here that Justin denies the Real Presence. I may be wrong, which is why I am seeking other opinions on these passages.

Passage 1:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."

Now, that passage is a little obscure, but it's the phrasing "in remembrance of His being made flesh" that sticks out to me. Why not just say, "His flesh given in remembrance"? :scratch:

Passage 2:

"Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind . . ."

Again, no mention of Christ's presence in the Eucharist but only that the bread and wine cause Christians to remember His sacrifice. :scratch:

What are your interpretations of these passages? I'm a little concerned because Justin Martyr has been canonized and he is a great early Christian apologist. :help:
Doesn't seem like he's denying the real presence to me. Sounds exactly like the Eucharist prayer/preface which comes directly from scripture. He doesn't say he denies it, but he's saying things the way they are written in scripture with the whole "in remembrance" thing. Perhaps he is just making sure that people realize he is not advocating the idea of transsubstantiation and realizes that they are bread and wine, but do embody the "real presence" of Jesus.

It seems that way to me.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Carrye]

Perhaps he is just making sure that people realize he is not advocating the idea of transsubstantiation and realizes that they are bread and wine, but do embody the "real presence" of Jesus.I don't believe transubstantiation was even on the horizon at this point. It wasn't until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 that transubstantiation was defined. It was subsequently reinforced by Trent in the 1500s.

Justin Martyr was alive in the early Church - the 200s AD. Early Christians believed in the Real Presence, but didn't find it necessary to define how the bread and wine became the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Justin came too early in history to be able to support the claim you have made.

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks, CKSkinner, for providing that additional quote by Justin--that really helped clear things up. I knew he was quoting from Scripture but it was the emphasis that he seemed to place upon "in remembrance" and "brought to mind" in these passages that just struck me oddly. The quote that you mentioned helps clear up things quite a bit, and now I'm very much relieved. :)

[Carrye]

Thanks, CKSkinner, for providing that additional quote by Justin--that really helped clear things up. I knew he was quoting from Scripture but it was the emphasis that he seemed to place upon "in remembrance" and "brought to mind" in these passages that just struck me oddly. The quote that you mentioned helps clear up things quite a bit, and now I'm very much relieved. :)
I'm glad it helped. I could see your problem in the OP. It's hard when we find what seem to be inconsistencies in the early Church. I have a difficult time with the "in rememberance" language even within my own tradition, though I know it's completely scriptural. That language has been so misconstrued, and there are even Catholics who don't know that Jesus is really there after consecration.

I can't help but wonder who these people are who don't believe in the Real Presence. Anyone who studies the early Church can see that belief quite clearly. Why the need to use scripture to "refute" what was so commonly believed? I was thinking about this the other day actually ...

For those who don't believe in the RP ... they could argue that just because it has always been believed, that doesn't make it true. And that's fair enough. But if we look at how God has done things throughout the history of Israel, and into the fulfillment of the covenant, things have needed to change, but He's never said, "yeah, about that (x,y,z), I was just kidding." He changed the emphasis from the Law to Christ, but He didn't abolish the Law, He fulfilled it. And just as we know that, I can't imagine that He would come now and say, "for more than 1500 years you all thought you were eating my body and drinking my blood, but you weren't. You were misinterpreting what I said all along. When you thought my Holy Spirit was with you during ecumenical councils, I wasn't. When you died to protect the Blessed Sacrament, you died in vain." I mean, come on! God doesn't work that way.

/end rant :)

[LuxPerpetua]

I do understand where you're coming from clskinner. I was raised Baptist, and I had never heard of the Real Presence until I started studying medieval history in college. If you said the words "sacrament" or "real presence" to a layperson in the Baptist church they would look at you like you have three heads or something. There just isn't the foundation there because Baptists do not teach church history at all and they have always been taught to understand Christ's teachings on communion as memorial acts. I don't blame the layfolk but rather the theologians. Still, it is very frustrating when you do understand what a beautiful gift it is and then to see other Christians refusing to acknowledge that gift :( On the upside, at least they do celebrate the Lord's Supper even if they're understanding is off--and the Lutheran belief is that so long as the correct verba are used, then the sacrament is still present even if those partaking of it are not aware that grace is being given to them by Christ himself.

[CrossWiseMag]

the Lutheran belief is that so long as the correct verba are used, then the sacrament is still present even if those partaking of it are not aware that grace is being given to them by Christ himself.

Hmmm...is this correct? I think the Confessions say that it is not merely the "words," but the meaning behind the words. So in the case of the Lord's Supper, those who deny the real presence don't really have the Supper in its salvific completeness. This is because when they say, "This is my body," they are effectively saying, "This represents my body." So the words are the same, but yet, they are not the same.

This actually turns out to be a good deal for them, because at least they're not taking the Supper to their condemnation, since they don't have the Supper at all. So they're denying God's word, but they're not sinning against Christ's body and blood.

They don't understand baptism, either. But they're not changing any word meanings when they administer it, so their baptism is efficacious, unlike their "remembrance" of the Lord's Supper.

Maybe someone else can help me out here if I'm off.

[Carrye]

There just isn't the foundation there because Baptists do not teach church history at all and they have always been taught to understand Christ's teachings on communion as memorial acts. I don't blame the layfolk but rather the theologians.
Failure to teach history is a problem for any group. A person (or group) can't just say, well today in 2004, I'm just going to interpret the scriptures - that's being dishonest to the scriptures themselves. Also, if we're throwing history out, then why learn anything? Is not our pursuit of (all) knowledge to be used for the glory of God? I didn't learn biology for biology's sake, but to understand God's Creation better.

They would probably argue that biology has no bearing on salvation. But is that true? Does biology not tell us more about the human person? Or psychology? Was not Christ a human person? If he was, then all of these things give us knowledge about Christ. And knowledge about Christ is knowledge of how God works. Knowledge of how God works is knowledge of salvation.

/end rant #2. :)

[LuxPerpetua]

Hi, CrossWiseMag

Hmmm. I've understood from the catechism that the Sacrament is independent of our belief and only dependent upon Christ's word (#292, under the explanation of the Sacrament of the Altar). I've seen lay Lutherans argue both ways on this one, though, depending on how conservatively or non-conservatively they interpret that statement.

[LuxPerpetua]

Failure to teach history is a problem for any group. A person (or group) can't just say, well today in 2004, I'm just going to interpret the scriptures - that's being dishonest to the scriptures themselves. Also, if we're throwing history out, then why learn anything? Is not our pursuit of (all) knowledge to be used for the glory of God? I didn't learn biology for biology's sake, but to understand God's Creation better.

They would probably argue that biology has no bearing on salvation. But is that true? Does biology not tell us more about the human person? Or psychology? Was not Christ a human person? If he was, then all of these things give us knowledge about Christ. And knowledge about Christ is knowledge of how God works. Knowledge of how God works is knowledge of salvation.

/end rant #2. :)

I do understand your frustration. At least these same Christians, though, do hold very strictly to basic Christian beliefs taught Scripture--that's one great footstep in the right direction, and no need to worry about Baptists forgetting about Christ at all or denying the Trinity because that will not happen since the Scriptures make all of this clear (and anyway, Baptists are not as much into individual interpretation as they are sometimes made out to be: from a very early age, Baptists are taught the same beliefs that are in the ancient Christian creeds and thus little Baptist kidlets are taught Scripture through this "filter" rather than the "me, my Bible, and Jesus" approach that so many non-Baptists believe that Baptists teach). I think that most Baptists would agree with you that education is important in that it helps us to understand God's creative power more fully and to be better servants of God. Unfortunately, though, I think Christian history is primarily left out as a reaction against Catholicism. However, reformation history is also ignored, so I am not entirely sure that my hypothesis is correct on this one. At least Lutherans do a much better job at teaching church history. (I thought I'd put this last statement in here before I get accused of propagating Baptist belief in my own forum, :P ) Feel free to rant anytime, clskinner :)

[CrossWiseMag]

Lux,

Question 292 in the new version of the catechism is dealing with those who take the true Lord's Supper. The Lutheran Confessions (I think) would say that it does not, therefore, apply to Baptists and others who change the meaning of the Words of Institution. If a Baptist takes Communion at a Lutheran church, he receives Christ's body and blood. If he takes it at his own church, he does not. I think that's right, and I'll try to check out the Book of Concord on it later for the reference, so see if I'm remembering right.

[ByzantineDixie]

As I understand things...per the confessions...

In a church where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered

A wicked, unbelieving pastor can speak the words of institution and Christ's Body and Blood will be present in the sacrament.
A unbeliever can receive the sacrament and Christ's Body and Blood will be present in the sacrament.
BUT--if the church is not one where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered--then there is no sacrament.

The trick is determining whether the church is one where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly adminstered. I don't think just having "Lutheran" on the sign out front is a case for and I don't necessarily know that not having the word "Lutheran" on the sign out front automatically excludes.

Incidently...the term expression where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered is not found in Scripture...but I believe it may have its origins with Augustine? Anyone know?

Quite honestly...I struggle with this particular exclusion...it applies for the Lord's Supper but not Baptism? :scratch:

Peace

Rose

[Carrye]

Feel free to rant anytime, clskinner :)
Lord forgive them, for they know not what they've done. ;)