A Foundational Understanding of the Eucharist

An apology for the validity of Lutheran doctrine in scripture and the early church with refutations of both the Roman and Reformed doctrines.

While many different Christian sects have their own teachings about the Eucharist, the Lutheran doctrine is the doctrine that is found in the Church Fathers and in the New Testament. The problem with most sects argumentation for their preferred doctrine is that they read the historical teachings of different church figures and even scripture through the philosophical or theological lenses which they’ve been taught. However, with the right understanding of the Lutheran doctrine and tactful word for word reading of the New Testament and the early church fathers, it becomes quite clear that the Lutheran doctrine presents the most historically correct doctrine of the eucharist available within Christian groups today.

In the Bible the Eucharist (thanksgiving) or Lord’s Supper, is the ritual coming together to partake of bread and wine. Many different Christian traditions hold to different doctrines in regard to the eucharist, some believing it is merely a symbolic ordinance, other’s claiming it is a means of grace(i.e. has some divine function) wherein the bread and wine disappear. These are the two most commonly held and well known doctrines in modern Christianity. The Former being known as memorialism and the latter being transubstantation. However, I contend that these doctrines are not the biblical or historical doctrine of the eucharist. In Lutheran theology, the idea is quite different, Luther’s Small Catechism defines the Eucharist: “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?  It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Where is this written? The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me”. “After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me”. What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? That is shown us in these words: “Given”, “and shed for you”, “for the remission of sins”; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: “Given”, “and shed for you”, “for the remission of sins”. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.”

In order to understand why the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist is different from the other doctrines and why it is the most biblical and historical belief we must rewind to the first and second centuries. The Didache, an ancient writing(likely from the first or second century) of early church practices also known as “the Teaching of the Apostles” which is an ancient equivalent to Luther’s Small Catechism, states: “And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist Thus 2. First concerning the Cup, ‘We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory for ever.’ 3. And concerning the broken bread : “We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child. To thee be glory for ever. 4. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.’” As an instruction to church leadership on how to lead the Eucharistic service the Didache is important for us to gather an accurate historic view of church order, but if one pays attention they will note a few things with it’s language. Starting with the reference to Christ as, “the Holy Vine of David thy child” This is of note because it’s referring to the messianic prophecy and rule of the “branch of David” however, it specifically makes use of the word ‘vine’ instead of branch to specify that Christ, who is also called “the Vine”(in quotation of John 15:5) is present in the eucharistic element of wine, this use of language to communicate two things is interesting, especially because while making references to Christ as the fruit of David’s vine, the context also specifies that the wine or “fruit of the vine” is it’s own thing. The element of the bread likewise is “brought together and become one” with Christ, this is a reference to not just the feeding of the 5000, but also the scattering of the disciples at Calvary and again through clever use of words alludes to a union not just of the person of Christ with the bread(notably none replacing the other), but of Christ with the church and the church with each other. These linguistic distinctions and types of union are only made by the Lutheran tradition which distinguishes them as 3 important types of union; Unio Fidei Formalis, Unio Sacramentalis, and Unio Mystica. Which are respectively; and initial Union with Christ through faith, Union of Christ with the Sacrament and Union of the Church with God. The doctrines of union are a specifically Lutheran articulation of doctrine that is relatively modern when compared to the Didache, yet they’re repeated all throughout the early church, However, if one was yet in doubt the of the meaning of the Didache’s teaching on the Eucharist, the text continues, “1.But after you are satisfied with food, thus give thanks: 2.‘We give thanks to thee, O Holy Father, for thy Holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever. 3. Thou, Lord Almighty, didst create all things for thy Name’s sake, and didst give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee, but us hast thou blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal light through thy Child…’” The word ‘Food’ used in this translation is not actually present in the Greek (“Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε”) instead the word “it” is there. What is particularly interesting about the word food actually being ‘It’ in the first sentence is that it denotes that this food is not just food, which is reinforced and explained in lines 2 and 3 that this food which one can assume to be the eucharist is perceived as both physical and spiritual at the same time “through Christ”, yet at the same time the satisfaction of lines 1 and 3 do both relate to the substance of food, meaning that the sacrament itself is both really food and really Christ.

In Lutheranism the aforementioned doctrines of union are key to proper Soteriology, Sacramentology and Christology, and by consequence proper Christianity, for the readers sake I will repeat the 3 Lutheran doctrines that I focus on here, namely, Unio Fidei Formalis, Unio Sacramentalis, and Unio Mystica. In scripture, union is known by the Greek word koinonia which means a kind of metaphysical union and is used in a way to describe a unity of two things. In 1^st Corinthians 10, St. Paul explains the doctrine of the eucharist using this very term. Paul states “¹⁶ 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? ¹⁷ For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. ¹⁸ Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” as we can see the similar themes of unity of the body of Christ with the bread, and the church the spiritual body, both of which are done out of, and through previously formed faith and the blessing of faith, the rhetorical questioning itself is meant to get the recipients of the epistle to affirm the question by questioning their initially formed faith and beliefs. It’s important to notice that this union of the elements with Christ and the union of Christ with the church parallel each other (to believe that communion means transubstantiation would mean that verse 17, is talking about us literally exchanging essences with bread and the body and even Christ according to verses 16 and 18.) Lutheran translator Lenski explains the union of 1 Cor. 10 in depth, “"The cup" is a natural grammatical (not rhetorical) figure which names the vessel when its contents are referred to, here the sacramental wine. To "the cup" the genitive "of the blessing which we bless" is attached, while to "the bread" just the relative clause "which we break" is added; but the force is the same: both the cup and the bread were blessed and received by the communicants. The expression: "the cup of the blessing" is an allusion to the third cup of the Passover, which originally bore that name: kom habberakah, because a blessing was pronounced over it. The sacramental cup was, however, not merely called "the cup of the blessing" like that third Passover cup, a consecratory blessing was and had to be pronounced over the sacramental cup. The present tense εύλογούμεν denotes the action that necessarily took place, i. e., whenever the Sacrament was celebrated, Paul writes the cup "which we bless" and uses the plural and thereby indicates that the Sacrament belongs to the congregation; all that the pastor does when he is administering it is really done by the congregation through the instrumentality of the pastor. If the cup (and the bread) is not blessed by consecration, no sacrament is received.…. The consecrated cup must, of course, also be received by the communicants in order that there may be a sacrament. But not merely a blessing of some kind suffices to make the cup thus received "a communion of the blood of Christ," it must be a specific sacramental blessing, i. e., one that certainly connects the cup with Christ and his original and efficacious institution of the Sacrament. Paul cannot write "the communion" of the blood of Christ (A. V.), for such a statement might leave the impression that this is "the only" communion. John 6:53 shows that faith alone partakes spiritually of Christ's blood although this is not a sacramental communion. So Paul writes "a communion" when he is speaking of the blood and when he is speaking of the body, namely one that is sacramental. "Communion," κοινωνία, with the genitive of the object denotes actual and real participation, here an actual and a real participation in the blood of Christ, i. e., the blood shed on the cross for the remission of our sins. If either the wine of the cup or the blood of Christ is unreal, then a "communion" between them is also unreal, i. e., none exists. The cup, i. e., its contents, which is received by drinking, mediates this "communion" and not our faith or any other means or act.  As for έστί, this is the copula, and it can never mean "represents." The fact that a true and a real communion between the cup and the blood is predicated is evidenced also by the purpose for which Paul uses this statement, namely to warn the Corinthians against the table and the cup of devils because partaking of this table and of this cup would be a communion with devils, not a mere symbolical or figurative but a real communion with devils……. Faulty as the translations offered in our versions are, the R. V. obscures the sense when in its margin it translates άρτος "loaf": "we are one loaf." This idea is rather fantastic. It is not clarified by the marginal translation: "seeing that there is one bread," i. e., loaf, for the bread is not "one" merely as bread. At each celebration in each congregation a different supply of bread was used. If loaves of bread were used in Corinth, a number of loaves would be required, and this number would be determined by the number of communicants. The matter becomes clear when we care-fully consider Paul's statement. He is speaking about all of the bread that is used in all of the communion celebrations in all of Christendom, and all of this bread he calls είς άρτος. All of it is made "one" by the consecratory blessing which is followed by the distribution and the eating. More than this, all of it is made "one" by the one body of Christ of which it is the "communion" for all who partake. This "one bread," thus made one sacramentally, makes all of the communicants in Christendom έν σώμα, "one body." The argument is from the cause ("one bread" as the "communion of Christ's sacrificed body") to the effect ("the many" communicants made "one body"). If this bread were only a symbol of Christ's body it could make all of the communicants only a symbolic body and not a spiritual body.…. What Paul tells the Corinthians is that all of us who partake of the one sacramental bread are thereby made one spiritual body. And we may add that Paul is not speaking in symbolism; as the cause of this oneness is objective and a reality…. Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not they who eat the sacrifices communicants of the sacrificial altar? You Corinthians certainly know that they are. The imperative that bids the Corinthians look at Israel lends a touch of vivacity. Paul is speaking about Israel "after the flesh," which as a nation gathers about the great altar of burnt sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem just as all Christendom now gathers about the sacramental altar of Christ. The question which Paul again asks invites the sensible judgment of the Corinthians. This time Paul mentions the eating: "are not they who eat," etc.? From the consecration of the cup he advances to the distribution of the bread and now to the eating because the Christian Sacrament is not complete until the communicants eat and drink, and the consecration as well as the distribution have the eating and the drinking as their purpose. So the analogy is between the eating of the Israelites and the eating of the Christians, each at their altar. An Israelite who refused to eat of the sacrifices would thereby dissociate himself from the altar of Israel and from everything that was embodied in that altar. Every Israelite who did eat by that eating shared in everything for which the altar stood and which that altar intended to communicate to him.  Paul uses the significant adjective κοινωνοί in order to match the noun κοινωνία which was used with reference to the Christian sacrament in v. 16. Lacking the corresponding adjective in English, we are compelled to use the noun instead: are they not "communicants" of the sacrificial altar? They certainly are no less. To eat is to share in the communion of the altar. To eat is far more than ordinary eating that merely fills the stomach with meat. To eat is to have a part in all of the benefits of the altar and of the sacrifices laid upon it, i. e., to have the forgiveness which this altar mediates, the standing among God's people which it bestows, and thus the holiness with which it enfolds and surrounds. No, it was no small thing, no mere in-different, meaningless act to eat of Israel's sacrifices that were brought on the altar of burnt offering.” Importantly, this idea and concept of union through the sacrament rather than through magisterial authority is precisely the Lutheran understanding of the church, the Augsburg Confession states; “¹ Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. ² And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and ³ the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.”

We can clearly see that the doctrine expressed by the Lutheran sources was originally expressed in both the scripture and in the earliest source available, the Didache, especially in regards to the union of the church, otherwise another interpretation would create unorthodox theology. All 3 aforementioned forms of union appear, the elements of the sacrament being united physically and spiritually, the unification with Christ, and the unification of the church. These 3 forms of union that occur in the earliest church teachings and were recognized by Lutherans are the reason that Lutherans call a eucharistic service, the “Divine Service” because for a Lutheran the heavenly is coming to earth to unite with things on the earth and serve them. The Lutheran “Divine Service” is viewed as an experience of being in the presence of God not just because Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist but because the Eucharist brings the individual into full union with God.

            But why focus on the Lutheran doctrine? There are many other teachings on the Eucharist available the most popular being the doctrine of Transubstantiation that Roman Catholics hold to. Transubstantiation is the teaching that the Aristotelian Material and Accidental causes(for those unfamiliar please look up ‘the four causes’) of the bread do not change but that essence of the bread totally changes or is replaced by the essence of Christ. This Doctrine does not have any of the types of union present in it’s teachings. Without engaging this doctrine of transubstantiation on a scriptural level, if one merely grants that the idea is scriptural and engages the Thomist philosophy on the subject it can be easily seen that the logic is inconsistent and impossible. Let’s look at the basic premises and rules of Aristotlean philosophy that Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae Tertia Pars Q73-79(and specifically in 75.7-8) acknowledges as presenting an issue that cannot be answered by transubstantiation. The premises Aquinas mentions are these:

Premise 1: A thing cannot change substance without a material change (ie the material of the bread must turn into the flesh in order for there to be the essence of Christ[This is called Capernaitic eating in Lutheranism and has been condemned by church fathers throughout history])

Premise 2: If the material changes so must its accident

Conclusion: One must literally eat Christ’s physical flesh.

The conclusion is not what is taught in Roman Catholicism though it is a popular understanding amongst the laity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1376(Quoting the Council of Trent DS.1642) states “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.".

            In Aristotelian philosophy, the essence(also known as substance) of something defines what something is, in a sort of platonic or spiritual sense, the material of the thing is the material, and the accident defines what makes the thing do what it does. While attempting to use Aristotelean logic, Transubstantiation totally fails in a few ways, the first being that to change and replace a substance there must necessarily be a change in material. A man who is made of flesh and blood is called a man, while a cyborg, is materially made of metal, and is not truly a man accidentally, because he’s not got the same physical causes as the man, he uses robotics to function instead biologicals. We can apply this to everything, and the analogy works especially well with objects that are as far from each other as Christ is from bread. A tree that is in essence a television, must necessarily cease to be a tree materially in order to be a television, otherwise it is not a television. There is no possibility for the accident to remain in this situation if either the substance or material change, let alone both. If the substance(essence) of Joe ceases to be Joe and becomes Bill then by necessity Bill is a different being, meaning that he has different biological material(material cause) and doing the things he(Bill) does differently(accidental cause), Bill is not a perfect clone of Joe, and even if he was a perfect clone of Joe the material would still be a different material. Now let’s further apply this analogy to the example of Transubstantiation; one day Joe suddenly ceases to be Joe and becomes Bill an entirely different person, this Bill, exists inside Joe’s body and operates it according to Joe’s functions and will, though Joe no longer exists, this would be transubstantiation. In this way a paradox has occurred where neither Bill nor Joe really exist, Bill, having no material, has no cause for his essence existing in the present spot(I.e. I cannot be somewhere where my body is not physically/materially there and doing things.). Bill as an essence cannot even do that which Bill is intended to do, or wants to do because he has no accident or material to do that. Bill really, is just a concept and does not exist in actuality because none of the causes required for an actual existence or presence are there. In the same way if transubstantiation between Joe and Bill is true, then Joe ceases to be because the thing that defines what makes up Joe are there but Joe who defines the things that define him and organizes them into that which they are has disappeared, so likewise the materials that make up Joe are no longer Joe, they’re now sludge just as the flesh that makes up you without the essence(soul) of you is just meaningless meat, you go from being to unbeing, from alive to dead, from person to corpse, in this way there is a paradox of unexistence occurring.

            Yet there still exists two more flaws in Transubstantiation, the second in this group of three critical flaws is that the accident of bread does not make Christ do what he does. Regardless of the logical flaws used so far let’s hypothetically grant that there was no flaw and that the accident of bread remains in the Eucharist. An accident is the efficient cause or the thing that makes the thing do what it does, which though it can be used semi-improperly as “the thing that makes the thing appear as it is”, is used incredibly inappropriately in transubstantiation. A chair properly speaking does what it does because it appears as a chair, not because of the wood that makes it up or the chair-ness(a non-physical thing) of the chair, or the reason why the chair was built, the chair if functional as a chair because of it’s accidental appearance of it as it is, so it can be sat in, a broken chair for instance has all of the same material, essential and final causes however, it’s accidental cause is different, it cannot be sat in. So in this case, if the accident of the bread remains, while the essence is Christ, then the bread makes Christ forgive sins. This idea is a rather crazy idea; that Christ was crucified, died and rose again because of the existence of bread. One could say that Christ was crucified, died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins which is mediated through the means of grace, i.e. the bread. But this example operates completely differently than the accident of bread remaining while there is also the substance of Christ, instead that example would be part of the telos or final cause, of Christ.

            Speaking of, the telos is the last issue that transubstantiation cannot address. Regardless of the Roman and Protestant distinctions in the priesthood doctrine and authority(a Roman priest in Persona Cristi would theoretically have the ability to change the telos, however that assumes that the Roman has the correct sacramentology to begin with which just begins a chain of circular epistemology, “my sacaraments can never be wrong because I said so, and my saying so can never be wrong because I said so”.) no words can change the telos of something, it cannot logically happen. Once again returning to the basic premises of Aristotle the logic goes something like:

P1: the telos cannot be changed without a change in one of the initial 3 causes. (ex. The bread cannot go from bread that’s goal is being eaten to bread that’s goal is to forgive sins unless the material, substance or accidents are changed, most specifically accident and substance together)

P2: As we’ve established, if one changes one of the causes, all the causes must be changed.

P3: A declaration of change, that does not change all 3 causes does not change the telos.

P4: A declaration of a new or different telos does not change the telos. (ex. I can say that the goal of object A is to do Y thing, that does not mean that I have changed the actual goal of object A which naturally aims to do Z thing, this is akin to saying the goal of a dog is to become an astronaut when in reality the goal of the dog is to perpetuate it’s dog-ness, the first declaration has not actually changed the real telos)

C: The Telos of the bread cannot be changed by words without the bread disappearing

Solution: Another Telos can be present if another object is present in/with all 4 causes.

For the reasons covered so far it is clear that Transubstantiation is illogical in general and fails to follow even its own logic. However, the problems presented with Transubstantiation are solved in Lutheran theology where the body and the bread are united, neither replacing each other or occupying space by such a means that the other ceases to exist (this is known as the Unio Sacramentalis). In this way the telos of the body of Christ coexists in union with the telos of the bread just as every other cause does. It is for this reason that though Lutherans believe the words of institution are necessary and important, it is still believed that the words themselves nor the pastor himself does not change the elements or cause something to happen in them.

A great analogy to describe Sacramental Union compared to Transubstantiation is the analogy of bricks and houses. A House is made up of Brick(s), when the House is built the Brick does not cease to exist and become House, instead the Brick exist as Brick and the House exists as House each existing separately but united together. The material of Brick is clay or rock, while the material of the House is varied and different it may include such things as wood, and plaster and diverse materials. The essence of the Brick and the House still remain Brick and House just as a lone brick is not a House and a House not a lone Brick. The Accidents of each remain separate as one cannot live in a Brick, and the Telos of the Brick remains to be used in construction while the Telos of the House remains to be lived in. In this way the two objects do not suddenly have a metaphysical paradox wherein their existence collapses. When we bring the logic of the Brick and House analogy into Lutheran theology we can articulate it as the material of bread existing, while the material of Christ (sometimes known as Materia Coelestis) is united to it in a hyperphysical way(the heuristic I use to describe this material unity is; a 4^th+ dimensional object existing in the same space as a 3^rd dimensional object and operating in unity with it.), the substance of Christ and the substance of the bread are not intermingling with one another, or replacing each other but are entirely separate, their accidents likewise remaining unique to their essences and materials and culminate in the tandem independent unity of their Telos’, the Bread’s highest level of actualization is to be eaten, Christ’s goal is to fulfill the Father’s will, in this case, unite people to God through the forgiveness of sins. Hence the words of 1 Cor. 11 are explained, “²³ For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: ²⁴ And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.²⁵ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.²⁶ For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.²⁷ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

When we read 1 Cor. 11 you will notice that both bread and body are mentioned interchangeably throughout the partaking of the eucharist, meaning the substance of the bread still remains. The Book of Concord, Formula of Concord-Solid Declaration, Article VII more simply states the Lutheran doctrine explaining; “⁷⁷ Luther also [writes concerning this very subject in the same manner], Tom. VI, Jena, Fol. 99: This His command and institution have this power and effect that we administer and receive not mere bread and wine, but His body and blood, as His words declare: “This is My body,” etc.; “This is My blood,” etc., so that it is not our work or speaking, but the command and ordination of Christ that makes the bread the body, and the wine the blood, from the beginning of the first Supper even to the end of the world, and that through our service and office they are daily distributed.⁷⁸ Also, Tom. III, Jena, Fol. 446: Thus here also, even though I should pronounce over all bread the words: This is Christ’s body, nothing, of course, would result therefrom; but when in the Supper we say, according to His institution and command: “This is My body,” it is His body, not on account of our speaking or word uttered [because these words, when uttered, have this efficacy], but because of His command-that He has commanded us thus to speak and to do, and has united His command and act with our speaking.” In such a way Lutherans believe teach and confess that Christ is uniting Himself (without movement or descent) to the elements just as a person has control over the totality of their own anima, without the necessitating cause of a priest, because Christ is the priest. It is important to note that while still allowing and permitting for mystery, the Lutheran doctrine does not use the attribute of omnipotence and the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy at all to explain away other logical fallacies and unanswerable questions like Transubstantiation does, instead the Lutheran doctrine uses logic to apophatically prove what the sacrament is, even in a mysterious sense according to the scriptures.

Furthermore, the application of the preceding logic regarding transubstantiation to the personhood of Christ results in the condemned Christological error of Monophysitism in the Unio Personalis which was condemned at the Council of Ephesus(431 AD) and again at the excommunication Eutyches in 448 AD. Diophysitism is the belief that Christ has two essences (often referred to as natures), one human and one divine. Monophystism is a rejection of Diophystism, which believes Christ only has one nature/essence(ousia). According to orthodox Christology the ousia cannot replace one another but through the Communicatio Idiomatum the divine impresses upon the human nature Verses like John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”, Col. 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”, 2 Cor 5:19 “God was in Christ” are demonstrations of the fact that logically the two natures of the divine and human are united without replacing one another. The replacing of the essence in the sacrament by virtue of its conclusions draws into question the Christological position of those who believe in Transubstantiation. The Lutheran doctrine teaches the exact solution to these errors in the in the Book of Concord, Formula of Concord-Solid Declaration, Article VII “Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ’s testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression). 39 For thus Justin[Martyr] says: This we receive not as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Savior, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 40 Likewise Dr. Luther also in his Large and especially in his last Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper with great earnestness and zeal defends the very form of expression which Christ used at the first Supper.” Keep in mind here the idea of “in with and under” does not mean the material and essence of Christ are in the bread in a local manner as my body is locally present within my clothes but rather that it is united to the bread, which once again is how the Didache and 1 Cor. 10 describe the elements of the eucharist, specifically using the term communion(κοινωνία) to denote this special union.

In regard to the body and bread as it relates to Christology, the communication of attributes(Communicatio Idiomatum) is the historic teaching of the church that was validated at the council of Chalcedon, and articulated as “Cum communicatione alterius”(In communication with the other), which doctrine was defended by Lutheran, Martin Chemnitz who collated and summarized other examples such as “St. Nicephorus who in Bk. 18, ch. 52, of Contra Severum, writes thus: “The Catholic Church professes our Lord Jesus Christ, that the substance consists of two natures, of Deity, I say, and of humanity, in such a way that each of these natures, after the union, preserves its own properties intact; and that the union of these two natures admits no mixture or confusion, no mutation or alteration. Eutyches has imagined that the two natures, after the union, have undergone a mixture, so that the divinity suffered the things which were of the humanity, and vice versa." Evagrius [Scholasticus], Bk. 2, ch. 4 of his history, reveals the same understanding: "By no means do we remove the distinction between the natures on account of the union. Rather, the property of each nature is preserved intact, having come together into one person, etc." This is where the customary form of speaking comes from: "With the property of each nature intact and preserved." Therefore, we must firmly maintain that the divine nature neither becomes, nor is said to be, the human nature on account of the union, or vice versa. For the natures both are, and remain, distinct.” And yet another historical example of both Unio Personalis and Unio Sacramentalis is in Clement of Alexandria’s teachings on the Eucharist:  “The natural, temperate, and necessary beverage, therefore, for the thirsty is water. This was the simple drink of sobriety, which, flowing from the smitten rock, was supplied by the Lord to the ancient Hebrews. Exodus 17; Numbers 20 It was most requisite that in their wanderings they should be temperate. Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape — that is, the Word — desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both — of the water and of the Word — is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” The word translated as ‘mingled’ and ‘mixed’ in this quote from Clement is “κρᾶσις”(crasis) which is synonymous with union, and is used philosophically to denote two distinct and separate substances uniting to present something new; it is used Neo-Platonically as a means to communicate things like temperature where the substance of Hot and the substance of Cold unite to make Temperate, though neither are naturally Temperate it is the unified presentation. Not only does Clement refer to the Body and Blood and the elements of bread and wine interchangeably but he also relates this relationship of the sacrament and the elements to the person of Christ himself, with both his divine nature and human nature in one person and then relates that to the relationship of the individual with Christ. In one swoop he affirms, the orthodox understanding of the Unio Personalis, and affirms three of the types of union in Lutheran teaching that we’ve talked about so far; the Unio Fidei Formalis, Unio Sacramentalis, and Unio Mystica. Clearly, scripturally, historically and logically the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is not the correct understanding of apostolic church teaching.

 ^“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Contrary to Transubstantiation, the other popular eucharistic theologies in the church today are those of Memorialism, and Spiritual Presence, both are similar in that they believe the elements symbolize Christ. Starting off historically, these doctrines are not found in the church fathers and for that reason, it simply cannot be the doctrine of the church. The arguments for memorialism and spiritual presence are usually presented because of a misunderstanding of the church fathers and the language they use. These two reformed doctrines are primarily linguistic misinterpretation of the scripture and church fathers rather than philosophical issues like Transubstantiation. The church fathers often are making multiple points about the eucharist at once and when they mention the idea that the elements(bread and wine) are a symbol it is usually when they are just starting to illustrate a point about the eucharist or are using the word to align with concepts from ancient philosophy that do not mean that the subject is just a symbol. Rather, the use of the words like “symbolic” or other synonyms in the church fathers, are to illustrate a sacramentology that is most like the Lutheran sacramentology. Patristic scholar John Norman Davidson Kelly has noted this and states; “Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body" and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks of the bread by which He represents (representat) His very body'. Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb ‘representare’, in Tertullian's vocabulary, retained its original significance of "to make present'. All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of ‘figura’, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical tact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. Similarly, when Cyprian states that ‘in the wine Christ's blood is shown’ (in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi), we should recall that in the context he is arguing against heretics who willfully use water instead of wine at the eucharist. In choosing the term 'is shown', therefore, he is not hinting that the wine merely symbolizes the sacred blood. His point is simply that wine is an essential ingredient of the eucharist, since numerous Old Testament texts point to it as a type of the precious blood. It is significant that only a few lines above he had spoken of "drinking the Lord's blood'. A different situation confronts us when we turn to the Alexandrian fathers, for, while they verbally reproduce the conventional realism, their bias to allegory and their Platonizing absorption in the spiritual world behind phenomena alter their perspective. Clement frequently writes in terms of the equivalence of the elements with Christ's body and blood, in one passage representing Him as identifying them with Himself.” Here Kelly gives examples of multiple fathers using the language of symbolism in order to illustrate the idea that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, the elements symbolizing this presence while also containing it. In these articulations the elements do not “disappear” or “transform”, which is the Roman Catholic position known as transubstantiation that we just covered. This usage of language, though confusing, is precise in that it’s designed to refute both the error of transubstantiation and the error of memorialism at the same time. A great example of the word “symbol” being used to do just this is in Origen’s Sacramentology: “Now, if everything that enters into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought, Matthew 15:17 even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolic body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, John 1:14 and true meat of which he that eats shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that every one who eats of this bread shall live forever. John 6:51” Origen teaches that both the typical and symbolic elements of the Eucharist are still in the sacrament using Matthew 15:17, that it is not objectively effective except for the faithful who eat spiritually, that though it is bread it is a consecrated element that has been sacramentally united to the Lord through the word, which denies both the Roman and Reformed positions while still affirming the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. The “typical body” in this teaching being the physical, the symbolical being the doctrinal both of which are trumped by the Spiritual “true meat” which is Christ the Word in the word and the element(the typical body) this is the correct interpretation of the passage because Origen wraps up the passage summarizing that Christ is flesh(typical), Word(symbolic, spiritual) and living bread(typical, spiritual, symbolic, real) All of which are recognized by Lutherans. So while reformed might cite Origen as a source for a denial of the Manducatio Impiorum (eating of the unworthy) he affirms the real presence of the Word, as for him the eating requires a partaker to be united to the Lord really, not spiritually or in symbol, an unfaithful person being unable to partake of the real presence, though they do partake of the spiritual/symbolic presence and the typical presence. Origen holds the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist so highly that He believes that no one unworthy can partake, which is rather the opposite of the reformed position.

A Similar distinction to that noticed by Norman Davidson Kelley is explicitly laid out by Augustine. Augustine's concept of 'Figura' Is not simply a symbol but a subject that can be multiple things whilst representing another, some examples from Augustine that prove this: "We heard when the Holy Gospel was being read of the great vision on the mount, in which Jesus showed Himself to the three disciples, Peter, James, and John. His face did shine as the sun: this is a figure of the shining of the Gospel. His raiment was white as the snow: this is a figure of the purity of the Church," -Sermon 29 on the New Testament Here we see Augustine commenting on the Mount of Transfiguration, using the word figura to describe the events occurring and their interpretation(or doctrine). in this usage of the word figure the word figure both means the thing signified and the thing itself. The figure of Christ's face shining as the sun, is the same as the shining of the gospel, these two things are the same to Augustine, and the figura links them, he repeats this again in the following sentence, stating that Christ's raiment is the figure of the purity of the church because the church is pure. Here is another example from Augustine in which he demonstrates his logic: "Now this name of Peter(Cephas) was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ." -Sermon 26 on the New testament So let's use the logic of Augustine and switch the example of Simon being called Peter(petra) with body being called bread. "Therefor bread is so called(reminder that once again so called means to have it's name or title in this case 'body') from the Body; not the Body from the bread, as body is not called body from the bread but the body from the body." or if we reword this into a logical equation using Bf as the Thing figured, which can be considered B+ because it is the higher object. "A is called B because it takes it's form from Bf, not Bf taking it's form from B. Just as Bf is not called B from the A, but the A from Bf" This logic of figura is a clear affirmation of the real presence, A is called B because it takes part in Bf. The Bread is called the Body because it takes part in the substantial Body. It is of note that if Bf were taking it's form from B that would be Spiritual Presence, and Transubstantiation doesn’t calculate in this system and would be an impossibility because A’s essence doesn’t disappear and according to Augustine’s system of signs the closest you can come is to say that A never really existed in the first place, which is not transubstantiation. (it is of note when I use the word ‘form’ here I speak colloquially not philosophically seeing as form[essence] is not involved here)

Augustine also makes the distinction between two types of signs, The Natural Sign(Signa Naturalia) and Conventional Signs(Signa Data) a "Natural sign" is something that signifies another thing naturally and without desire to communicate a higher thing, a logically consistent memorialist would believe that the sacrament is a natural sign because the bread itself does not communicate anything, it is just bread, any and all communication exists because of something else. Augustine defines the Natural sign so; "2. Now some signs are natural, others conventional. Natural signs are those which, apart from any intention or desire of using them as signs, do yet lead to the knowledge of something else, as, for example, smoke when it indicates fire. For it is not from any intention of making it a sign that it is so, but through attention to experience we come to know that fire is beneath, even when nothing but smoke can be seen. And the footprint of an animal passing by belongs to this class of signs. And the countenance of an angry or sorrowful man indicates the feeling in his mind, independently of his will: and in the same way every other emotion of the mind is betrayed by the tell-tale countenance, even though we do nothing with the intention of making it known. This class of signs, however, it is no part of my design to discuss at present. But as it comes under this division of the subject, I could not altogether pass it over. It will be enough to have noticed it thus far." -De Doctrina Christiana II.I.1-2 However, this is the lowest type of sign that Augustine lays out and is not considered the type of sign that God lays out in scripture. It can be said that the sacrament at it's base is this level of sign however that ignores the next level of sign a 'Conventional sign" (Signa Data) "Conventional signs, on the other hand, are those which living beings mutually exchange for the purpose of showing, as well as they can, the feelings of their minds, or their perceptions, or their thoughts. Nor is there any reason for giving a sign except the desire of drawing forth and conveying into another's mind what the giver of the sign has in his own mind. We wish, then, to consider and discuss this class of signs so far as men are concerned with it, because even the signs which have been given us of God, and which are contained in the Holy Scriptures, were made known to us through men — those, namely, who wrote the Scriptures. The beasts, too, have certain signs among themselves by which they make known the desires in their mind. For when the poultry-cock has discovered food, he signals with his voice for the hen to run to him, and the dove by cooing calls his mate, or is called by her in turn; and many signs of the same kind are matters of common observation. Now whether these signs, like the expression or the cry of a man in grief, follow the movement of the mind instinctively and apart from any purpose, or whether they are really used with the purpose of signification, is another question, and does not pertain to the matter in hand. And this part of the subject I exclude from the scope of this work as not necessary to my present object." -De Doctrina Christiana II.II.3 This second level of sign is the linguistic and physical communication that uses the sign to communicate not just the thing(object or experience) in and of itself but also all contextually relevant things pertaining to the thing through use of the sign. It is on this level that the words of institution exist. "This is my body, this is my blood" Are words that conventionally signify the essence of the bread as also being Body, as Augustine states “Our Lord, it is true, gave a sign through the odor of the ointment which was poured out upon His feet; and in the sacrament of His body and blood He signified His will through the sense of taste; and when by touching the hem of His garment the woman was made whole, the act was not wanting in significance. Matthew 9:20 But the countless multitude of the signs through which men express their thoughts consist of words. For I have been able to put into words all those signs, the various classes of which I have briefly touched upon, but I could by no effort express words in terms of those signs.”-De Doctrina Christiana II.III.4  This obliterates the Zwinglian and Oecolampadian interpretation of Augustine and the scriptures because for them the signifier signifies a separate object and experience, not the object and experience signified like Augustine states. For Augustine, the thing signified is intrinsic to the sign though the sign itself is not in all linguistic use the thing signified. In this way Reformed theology is extrinsic because signs are only valuable for the thing that they signify contrary to Augustine’s view of Conventional Signs (signa data) having value intrinsically because of concepts and ideas of the thing signified working through the sign though not necessarily inherent to the sign. There are two other types of Signs of which Augustine holds in high regard stating that they are divinely placed to humble prideful men who put their intellect above scripture; the two being, Ambiguous Signs and Unknown Signs of which the sacrament is the former. "15. Now there are two causes which prevent what is written from being understood: its being vailed either under unknown, or under ambiguous signs. Signs are either proper or figurative. They are called proper when they are used to point out the objects they were designed to point out, as we say bos when we mean an ox, because all men who with us use the Latin tongue call it by this name. Signs are figurative when the things themselves which we indicate by the proper names are used to signify something else, as we say bos, and understand by that syllable the ox, which is ordinarily called by that name; but then further by that ox understand a preacher of the gospel, as Scripture signifies, according to the apostle's explanation, when it says: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain." -De Doctrina Christiana II.X.15 With this we can see that in Augustine’s system the Eucharist is a Figurative, Ambiguous, Conventional Sign, it is figuratively referred to as Christ’s Body, because though the statement “this is my Body” is in reference to that which appears as bread, it is bread but also more importantly Body, which makes it Ambiguous, seeing as it is known but the miraculous and mystery is not specified, and it is Conventional, the bread does not signal something else but the intrinsic properties(or rather, presence) of Christ substantially. Once again using the logic from the quote we just read we can see Augustine understands the bread as the signifying figure of Christ's body and that by 'figure' Augustine means 'also really is', just as the ox is both an ox and a preacher. Having now established just what Augustine means by 'Sign' and ‘Figure’ we can see the culmination of Augustine’s understanding in Augustine's Epistle 98  "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: We are buried with Christ by baptism into death. Romans 6:4 He does not say, We have signified our being buried with Him, but We have been buried with Him. He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself." Clearly, Augustine states "For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble." or to rephrase with modern terms "Because the sacraments really are the things of which they are sacraments of, they are sacraments, because the sacraments resemble the things they are of, they are given the signifier of that which they are of" to take this quote to mean otherwise using the Reformed interpretation, would mean that Augustine's use of faith in Epistle 98 is only symbolic, ie faith is not real and living and there is no intrinsic property to it, it is merely a symbol for something else. Are you dear reader beginning to see how absolutely vain and meaningless the Zwinglian and Reformed philosophy is? It reduces all discussion and all subjects into merely dead things that can only have meaning insofar as any subjective individual can take away naturally. Any and all words in a system like this, can be twisted and made to mean nearly anything at any given moment. Likewise, Augustine acknowledges this "7. But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty. For why is it, I ask, that if any one says that there are holy and just men whose life and conversation the Church of Christ uses as a means of redeeming those who come to it from all kinds of superstitions, and making them through their imitation of good men members of its own body; men who, as good and true servants of God, have come to the baptismal font laying down the burdens of the world, and who rising thence do, through the implanting of the Holy Spirit, yield the fruit of a two-fold love, a love, that is, of God and their neighbor — how is it, I say, that if a man says this, he does not please his hearer so much as when he draws the same meaning from that passage in Canticles, where it is said of the Church, when it is being praised under the figure of a beautiful woman, Your teeth are like a flock of sheep that are shorn which came up from the washing, whereof every one bears twins, and none is barren among them? Song of Songs 4:2 Does the hearer learn anything more than when he listens to the same thought expressed in the plainest language, without the help of this figure? And yet, I don't know why, I feel greater pleasure in contemplating holy men, when I view them as the teeth of the Church, tearing men away from their errors, and bringing them into the Church's body, with all their harshness softened down, just as if they had been torn off and masticated by the teeth. It is with the greatest pleasure, too, that I recognize them under the figure of sheep that have been shorn, laying down the burthens of the world like fleeces, and coming up from the washing, i.e., from baptism, and all bearing twins, i.e., the twin commandments of love, and none among them barren in that holy fruit. 8. But why I view them with greater delight under that aspect than if no such figure were drawn from the sacred books, though the fact would remain the same and the knowledge the same, is another question, and one very difficult to answer. Nobody, however, has any doubt about the facts, both that it is pleasanter in some cases to have knowledge communicated through figures, and that what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the finding.— For those who seek but do not find suffer from hunger. Those, again, who do not seek at all because they have what they require just beside them often grow languid from satiety. Now weakness from either of these causes is to be avoided. Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere." Hoc Est Corpus Meum, This is my body, or as Augustine himself says it; “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His body and blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins… take in the bread that which hung on the tree, take in the cup that which was poured out from Christ's side” -Sermon 227, Ad Neophytum

God Himself has seen fit to make the words of institution one of the most plain passages of scripture. Christ does not speak to the disciples in the same manner that He speaks to the multitudes and when He speaks to parables He makes it exceedingly clear that the language is figurative such as the exchange with Nicodemus in John 3, when speaking of the Holy Spirit in John 4, in John 6 when teaching the remission of sins and in Matthew 16 when teaching how to flee false doctrine, in each case Christ uses parabolic language that He makes sure is understood as a parable or metaphor, we see no such language in regards to the words of institution, which is a declaration rather than a parable. Likewise scripture always adds elucidating language to those things which can be taken metaphorically, in John 1 Christ is made sure to not only be called the “God through whom all things were made” but is also made sure to be identified as “the true light” lest one think Christ is God in the same manner Moses was the “god” of Aaron or that the judges are the “gods” of the people and unless perhaps anyone interprets the word as the light as anything other than “that true light”. Christ Himself uses this manner of clarification and speaking when teaching on the prophecy of Elijah who should come before the Messiah “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”-Matthew 11 and again when speaking of the leaven of the Pharisees in Luke 12 “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” Likewise when speaking spiritually about the church all of scripture declares that it the Church which is spoken of, not Christ, an example from Colossians 1 “And he is the head of the body, the church… for his body's sake, which is the church” the mystical body explicitly being made contrary to and explained as other than Christ’s physical body as Paul in the same epistle clarifies “In the body of his flesh” in each case you will notice the clarifying words for the verses listed are ‘which, is, in’ and ‘whom’ which are all used as pronouns not adjectives, meaning that the interpretation of the subjects discussed hangs upon these pronouns either as that which they are or that which they are metaphorically. When we pay attention to the words of institution these pronouns are not used to describe metaphors but are literal. When Luke mentions the body in the words of institution(the English here being an accurate translation of the Greek) he records it as “This is my body which(τὸ) is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”. Which body is given for you? Christ’s body is given for you. For it to be symbolic means one would have issues with the atonement. Matthew records the the institution of the wine as “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Christ’s blood is the blood of the new testament, the testament being written/fulfilled and applied through His blood; so when the wine is referred to as such it must literally be the blood of the new testament not in some spiritual manner for no spiritual or non-present blood is the blood which was shed for the remission of sins thus the true blood of Christ is substantially present in the sacrament otherwise it could not be referred to as it is with the words that are used to refer to it. To demean these pronouns is to consequentially deny that Christ physically died on the cross and was the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”. In order for the bread and the cup to be of the new testament, the new testament must be applied through them and the application of the new testament is that of the Christ’s atonement on the cross, forgiveness of sins and of salvation, which likewise is stated by Matthew “which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Had the Holy Spirit intended that the sacrament was to be understood as either a mere symbol or mental partaking He would have clarified in scripture that the mode of presence is not physical or non-existent and only symbolic. However, the wording of scripture and of Christ is clear, the sacraments can only be that which they are because Christ’s physical atonement is substantially present.

As Cyril of Alexandria puts it “For since the life-giving Word of God indwelt in the Flesh, He transformed it into His Own proper good, that is life, and by the unspeakable character of this union, coming wholly together with It, rendered It life-giving, as Himself is by Nature. Wherefore the Body of Christ giveth life to all who partake of It. For it expels death, when It cometh to be in dying men, and removeth corruption, full in Itself perfectly of the Word which abolisheth corruption… And since the Flesh of the Saviour hath become life-giving as being united to That which is by Nature Life, the Word from God, when we taste It, then have we life in ourselves, we too united to It, as It to the indwelling Word. For this cause also, when He raised the dead, the Saviour is found to have operated, not by word only, or God-befitting commands, but He laid a stress on employing His Holy Flesh as a sort of co-operator unto this, that He might shew that It had the power to give life, and was already made one with Him…. Yea and when He went into the city called Nain, and one was being carried out dead, the only son of his mother, again He touched the bier, saying, Young man, to thee I say, Arise. And not only to His Word gives He power to give life to the dead, but that He might shew that His Own Body was life-giving (as I have said already), He touches the dead, thereby also infusing life into those already decayed. And if by the touch alone of His Holy Flesh, He giveth life to that which is decayed, how shall we not profit yet more richly by the life-giving Blessing when we also taste It? For It will surely transform into Its own good, i. e., immortality, those who partake of It”-Commentary on John Book 4.II and again in The Meditation on the Mystical Supper “O sublime condescension! The Creator gives himself to his creatures for their delight. Life bestows itself on mortals as food and drink. “Come, eat my body,” he exhorts us, “and drink the wine I have mingled for you. I have prepared myself as food. I have mingled myself for those who desire me. Of my own will I became flesh and have become a partaker of your flesh and blood…. Eat of me as I am life, and live, for this is what I desire” and in elsewhere in his commentary on John, “For the flesh of the Savior, joined with the Word of God, which is by nature life, has become life giving. When we eat it, we have life in ourselves, for we have been joined to that which has become life, so that those members which are flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of bones, may thus be put to death more and more, that we may be made members of Christ, of His flesh and His bones, as the scripture says, when, as shoots grafted into the substance of Him, we draw life from Him, like branches from a vine.”

We also find evidence of the non-symbolic application of the new testament in the sacrament outside of the words of institution in the order of the paschal feast(amongst many other places). The Passover feast as well as the feasts of the old testament were symbols of that which was to come and were not inherently efficacious in the same way the sacrament is, apart from faith in the one to whom you are sacrificing the lamb to the lamb itself had no power to forgive sins. Likewise in the recorded events of the last super we see a difference between the paschal meal and the Last Supper that illuminates the efficaciousness of the Eucharist. We know that the Eucharist was not a paschal meal because the rules for Passover in Exodus 12:11 state “And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.” Meanwhile at the beginning of John 13 we find these verses(4-6) “He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” We first see that a meal had already been eaten, then only the Lord is mentioned as girded, and the disciples had their sandals off meaning that the Passover was no longer being participated in by Christ and His disciples. In John 13:12 we find Jesus rising, to take up normal garments, and sit at the table once more, “So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?” this is followed by the narrative of Peter prodding John to ask the Lord who the traitor is while they sit together at the table(it is of note that the other gospels record this exchange as happening during the institution of the Eucharist, see Matt. 26:23-28, Mark 14:17-24, Luke 22:16-24). The narrative of the discussion between the disciples and Christ ends in John 13:26-28 “Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.” Which tells us another, new meal was being eaten. From Matthew 26 we know for certain that this other meal was the Eucharist “Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake 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 ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”. The final nail in the coffin for a typologically symbolic argument such as the kind Zwingli makes is this paschal difference, in the Old Testament blood cannot be drank Gen 9:4-5 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.” Leviticus 17:11-14 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.” In these verses we see a simple principle laid out, we cannot eat blood because blood contains the life thereof, those who have sinned against man and beast in blood will be held accountable, blood cannot be drank because it is the required atonement for the aforementioned sins. Yet in the words of institution Christ says to drink His blood, how can this be so? Christ gives consolation to the faithful reader in just the next few words, explaining; “this is my blood of the new testament” we can drink of this blood because it is a fulfillment of the Old Testament, it is the atonement for our sins, it has His life in it, for it to be anything else, we celebrants of the Eucharist would be breaking the law, and yet the doctrine of Christ still goes further than this; for, the life of the flesh is in the blood, the life of Christ and the atonement is in this blood, as Christ states “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom” This cup which while being blood still remains the “fruit of the vine” after it’s consecration, and when we go back to the crucifixion narrative in John, immediately after the discussion at the Last Supper Christ’s first words are “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.”-John 15:1-2 Christ clarifies that though there is the fruit of the vine in the sacrament there is also the true vine, the true Blood, which we are mystically grafted into, we are no longer a child of Adam but a brother to Christ and child of God through the manifest and real application of His blood to us. In one swoop Christ’s words have made vain the words of Aquinas, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli, for an atonement has been made, and through the union and presence of this real atonement with the elements of the sacrament, this atonement is applied to us! What a wonderful illumination of the soul! And yet still some would seek to justify themselves before the scriptures and in the face of God, but it is clear, to reject that there is a substantial presence or bodily presence(according to object not mode) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements is to confound the atonement itself. The Zwinglians and Oecolampadians must admit based off of the pronouns and sentence structure we have gone over earlier, the presence of the new testament with the sacrament, and the atonement, that to deny the substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament is to deny either the fulfilling of the law and the New Testament itself or to deny the real atonement of Christ. If one would continue to doubt the meaning of Christ’s words He continues through the rest of John 15 teaching “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.” The Lord teaches to His disciples that though they have received His doctrine and been made clean through the spiritual word, they must live in Him and He in them mystically, that the fruit of good works may be produced, this follows Christ’s statement that He is the vine, meaning that without His presence, not just spiritually by the word but substantially by His body and blood, we our brought further into communion with God who produces fruit and works in us. Christ furthers His teaching to the disciples with the New Commandment explaining, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” We Christians are invited into this new covenant, new life and love through Christ’s atonement, which is truly and substantially present in the elements. Christ could not have made his doctrine more clear to the reader, the wording and context of the Institution and the Crucifixion narrative are so specific and plain that to reject the doctrine of the real presence is to butcher the doctrine of the cross and the Gospel.

And still some hardheaded and contentious Zwinglian may retort “what about the words ‘in remembrance of me!’ Truly we can ignore all the other proof and interpret through these words alone!” Well my dear reader, remembrance in scripture is not always a mere mental exercise or a mystical symbolism. Remembrance in the new testament is a stirring of faith in the soul of a believer, by the Spirit, tied to a means of Grace or fulfillment of prophecy. In 2 Timothy 2 Paul tells Timothy “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:” In John 14 Christ says “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” And at the Sepulchre in Luke “And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.” In each of these passages we find that the word remembrance(μνημονεύω) is used not just as a simple recollection but also as a means by which the God brings the gospel to those who need to hear it to stir up their faith, the word is used in exactly this manner by Paul at the beginning of 2 Timothy 1 “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” In two of these verses we can notice that this remembrance brings a supernatural peace, but it does more than that, it strengthens faith. The opposite of remembering something is forgetting it, likewise in the new testament forgetting is linked to a lack of faith and even apostasy, “For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:”-2 Peter 1 Peter here is speaking from experience “Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.” David also uses forgetfulness in the same way in Psalm 103 and 119 “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;” and “I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word…  I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.” The relationship of remembrance to faith, the gospel and the Holy Spirit, and remembrance being more of a divine activity than a naturally human one once again making the points of the reformed invalid, remembrance is more than just a natural human remembrance, it is the Lord’s stirring of the Spirit.

I must conclude for now before I digress into further theological ramblings, I pray my expositions have been a blessing to the reader and provided evidence that the most biblical, historical, and logical eucharistic doctrine is found in the Lutheran Church and in Confessional Lutheran Christianity. Neither transubstantiation nor spiritual presence nor memorialism are taught in scripture or the church fathers. Instead, the simple belief that Christ’s body and blood are united to the bread and wine is consistently found across all sources, and in regard to philosophy the Lutheran understanding is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn given what the scriptures state. I will elucidate further on most of these doctrines within Lutheranism and Christianity in general in my future writings, this will not be the last of this topic and it is my hope that this has been a good scholarly introduction to the issues at hand, God’ blessing be with you all, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. ⳨

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. - 2 Timothy 1:13

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge” which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you. - 1 Timothy 6:20-21

1.      Alexandria, Cyril of. “Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885). Book 4. Pp. 382-510., 2005, www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_on_john_04_book4.htm#C1.

2.      Augustine, et al. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, 2: Augustin: City of God, Christian Doctrine. Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

3.      Chemnitz, Martin. A Repetition of the Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper. Trans. by Paul A. Rydecki, Repristination Press, 2021.

4.      “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XI).” Edited by Kevin Knight, CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on Matthew, Book XI (Origen), 2023, www.newadvent.org/fathers/101611.htm. Accessed 30 Mar. 2024.

5.      Cooper, Jordan B. “The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Lord’s Supper.” YouTube, 7 Jan. 2023, youtu.be/dgHKo64KzXk?si=mKByydArTC2AS8IH. Accessed 30 Mar. 2024.

6.      Goold, G. P., editor. Apostolic Fathers I. Trans. by Kirsopp Lake, I ed., vol. 24 555, Harvard University Press, 1912.

7.      H., Lenski R C. Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Augsburg Fortress, 1961.

8.      H., Lenski R C. Interpretation of I and II Corinthians. Augsburg Fortress, 1961

9.      Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. Revised 5 ed., Harper & Row, 1978.

10.  King James Bible. Thomas Nelson, 1991.

11.  Lightfoot, J. B., and J. R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. Christian Publishing House, 2020.

12.  Markus, R.A. “St. Augustine on signs.” Phronesis, vol. 2, no. 1, 1957, pp. 60–83, https://doi.org/10.1163/156852857x00148.

13.  McCain, Paul T., Edward A. Engelbrecht, et al., editors. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. Trans. by William H.T. Dau and Gerhard F. Bente, II ed., Concordia Pub. House, 2005.

14.  “Paedagogus (Book II).” Edited by Kevin Knight et al. Trans. by William Wilson, CHURCH FATHERS: The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria), 2023, www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm. Accessed 30 Mar. 2024.

15.  Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. 1970 ed., III, Concordia Publ. House, 1953.

16.  “St. Cyril on the Purpose of the Eucharist — Classical Christianity.” Classical Christianity, 17 May 2011, classicalchristianity.com/2011/05/17/st-cyril-on-the-purpose-of-the-eucharist/.

17.  Stephenson, John R. The Lord’s Supper. XII, Luther Academy, 2003.

18.  Vatican (1992). Catechism of the Catholic Church. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM