“It may be concluded that there was no clearly formulated doctrine of a real presence of Christ in the eucharist during the early centuries.”

Cornelius Jaenen recognizes the eucharist, usually known as “emblems” in the 2×2 Fellowship (at least in my region in the United States), as the central act of worship and thanksgiving in the early church, and he provides selective quotes from various post-apostolic writers including Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexander in his efforts to bolster his narrative. As a child sitting in meeting I remember how that little quarter-slice of white Wonder Bread and cup of grape juice were indeed treated with reverence as a symbolic remembrance. Because the 2×2 Fellowship has claimed apostolic origin, or at the very least a restoration of the New Testament church beliefs, Jaenen’s claim needs to be examined.

He further asserts, “none of the second and third century writers had affirmed specifically that the presence of Christ in the eucharist was more than symbolic.” This assertion is demonstrably false. Even taking into account his evasive qualifying statements like “clearly formulated” and “specifically”, there are many ways to demonstrate that belief in the Real Presence existed at the beginning - in scripture itself, from respected Protestant historians, and the very same early church writers in their own words. I will challenge his assertion and, to borrow a military term, defeat in detail his treatment of individual early church writers he cites.

The first place to start is in the New Testament. Immediately after miraculously feeding 5,000 people by multiplying loaves of bread Jesus gave his Bread of Life Discourse, recorded in John’s Gospel chapter 6. In it he reminded the disciples that the Israelites wandering through the desert in Exodus 16 were fed by the miraculous, life-sustaining manna that came down from heaven. This miraculous bread was so mysterious that the Israelites didn’t even know what to call it - indeed manna or "man hu" (מן הוא) in Hebrew literally translates as “what is it?”. When Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven” (Jn 6:41) the disciples were astonished and began to murmur. Instead of clarifying their supposed misunderstanding Jesus starts to use words that even more graphically describe eating. Instead of the general verb “to eat” phago (φαγεῖν/φάγω in Greek), he begins to use the verb τρώγω (trógō) which in Greek has a literal meaning of “chew” or “gnaw”. Jesus could not have been more explicit in saying that “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:55). This was shocking to the disciples and many of them left Jesus because of this one teaching. Instead of calling after them to explain that they must have misunderstood him, Jesus simply turns to the rest and asks, “Do you also want to leave?” (Jn 6:67). His meaning is made even more clear because the Jewish symbolic meaning of “eat my flesh”, as written in the Old Testament, refers instead on malicious violence or severe economic exploitation or self-destructive laziness:

Psalms 27:2 “The wicked . . . came upon me to eat up my flesh . . .”

Micah 3:1-3 “. . . Ye princes of the house of Israel . . . who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck . . . their flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them . . .”

Ecclesiastes 4:5 “The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.”

The remaining disciples and those who followed in the decades later, as Paul puts it, realized that Jesus was the new paschal lamb who would be sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7). The traditional Jewish Passover meal includes a lamb, an unblemished one. The key feature here is that the Passover meal is not finished until the lamb is eaten. It must be consumed completely. The Jewish disciples began to see that they were not failing to understand and said "“this teaching is hard, who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60). At the Last Supper Jesus took the bread and wine in his hands and said “do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19). The traditional Jewish understanding of this word “memory” is anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις in Greek) which carries rich meaning. It is not just “hey, I remember that guy Jesus”. Rather, it refers to a sacred liturgical remembrance in which the saving events of Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice (Heb 10:10) on the cross are made sacramentally and truly present, just as in the Jewish Passover meal Israel did not just “recall” their exodus as a distant historical event. Instead, this liturgical memorial allowed them to actually participate in God’s saving act. Indeed, on the road to Emmaus the disciples didn’t recognize Jesus until the breaking of the bread (Lk 24:32).

This was the understanding of the first Christians, as outlined in sacred scripture. I now present three prestigious Protestant scholars, who had no motivation to promote a Catholic agenda, who verify that this was the understanding of the post-apostolic Christians as well. For example, the renowned Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly, in his classic book Early Christian Doctrines which is a comprehensive mapping of Christian thought and theology during the first five centuries, puts it unequivocally:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.”

Philip Schaff was a prolific Swiss-born German Protestant historian who founded The American Society of Church History in 1888 and was on the faculty of Union Theological Seminary in New York. Encyclopedia Britannica says Schaff “helped set standards in the United States for scholarship in church history”. He was best known for his monumental 8-volume History of the Christian Church, in which he wrote:

“In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim”

Still another distinguished Protestant historian was Jaraslov Pelikan, who was a distinguished professor of history at Yale University. Writing as a Lutheran in his classic book The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition he said;

“the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist…did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century…It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile.”

“Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic”

The respective conclusions of Kelly, Schaff and Pelikan carry particular academic significance given their unquestioned expertise in patristics and historical theology. To put it kindly, Kelly and Schaff and Pelikan occupy a significantly more prominent place within patristic scholarship than Cornelius Jaenen does. Their conclusions should have even more weight because, although I write from the Catholic perspective, these celebrated Protestant historians had no reason to promote or defend Catholic teaching.

Jaenen then begins his efforts to try to hijack the early Christian writings by pointing out that Justin Martyr “referred to a ‘recollection’ of Christ ‘being made flesh for the sake of those who believe in him” (300) in his Dialogue with Trypho, written around 155 AD. In reality Justin Martyr was merely reminding his Jewish counterpart of the fact that the eucharist was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 33:19, in which “your eyes will see a king in his splendor”. How do you see a king in his splendor if it is just symbolic? Ironically, Justin Martyr writing around 155 AD actually provides some of the earliest historical evidence for belief in the doctrine of the real presence when, writing to the pagans in Rome, he links the eucharistic elements to the flesh and blood Incarnation of Christ:

“And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.’' (First Apology, 66)

Tertullian was an early Christian from Africa who wrote prolifically about the early church from around 155-220 AD. Jaenen claims that Tertullian “said the eucharistic bread was a ‘figure’ of the body of Christ” (300). He does not provide the specific citation, but this was written against the heretic Marcion who died that Jesus had a real body. In that same writing Tertullian says:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…” (Against Marcion, Book IV, xl)

Tertullian's argument is that Marcion's doctrine of a merely apparent or "phantom" body is consistent with interpreting Christ's words over the bread as a symbolic pretense, since Marcion denied the reality of Christ's physical body altogether. By contrast, Tertullian maintains that Christ truly "made it His own body" when He declared, "This is my body." For Tertullian, the Eucharistic transformation does not negate the symbolic significance of the bread and wine; rather, it presupposes and fulfills that symbolism, grounding it in the reality to which the signs point. For unknown reasons Jaenen neglects to inform the reader that Tertullian also said:

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead , 8).

Origen was a brilliant scholar from Alexandria in north Africa who lived from 185-254 AD. Jaenen says that Origen “wrote about ‘bread and the chalices as the images’ of Christ’s flesh and blood” (300). Although he was well-known for emphasizing that scripture can have literal, moral and mystical levels of meaning, Origen also believed that, in Catholic theology, the sacraments are visible signs that both symbolize and effect the invisible grace they signify. They both signify and inwardly communicate the spiritual realities they represent:

“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Clement of Alexandria was a theologian who lived from 150-215 AD in the same region as Origen who actually was one of his students. With no elaboration, Jaenen says that Clement of Alexandria “thought of the words of institution [of the eucharist] as an allegory.” (300). Allegories exist on two planes - both literal and symbolic, and when Jaenen makes these statements he ignores the fact that both conditions can exist at the same time. In his Bread of Life discourse in John chapter 6 Jesus simply did not say “this is a symbol of my body”. No, as Clement continues by quoting John 6:55, “‘For my blood,’ says the Lord, ‘is true drink.’" The early church writers, while taking Jesus at his word, also were discussing the additional layer of symbolism involved with the sacrament. In this way Clement describes the Eucharist as a dual reality: it is both a symbol and a true presence of Jesus's flesh and blood, operating to refresh and build up the Church. In his Paedagogus (Book I), Clement spends a great amount of time weaving together the symbols of flesh, meat, food, bread, blood and milk as the consumable “properties of faith and the promise by means of which the Church…is refreshed and grows”. However, he states succinctly, also, “Christ Himself is food” (chapter VI). Obviously, he did not consider these things mutually exclusive, in fact saying further that they were “welded together and compacted of both”, his body “heavenly flesh sanctified”. As Clement puts it rhetorically, “For if the infancy which is characterized by the milk is the beginning of faith in Christ, then it is disparaged as childish and imperfect”. Therefore, there are weaknesses inherent in limiting this imagery to simply symbolic.

Ambrose of Milan was a Roman governor who became the Bishop of Milan. He lived from 339-397 AD. Jaenen quotes him as saying, “Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (De Sacramentum, Book IV, V). Again, although Ambrose mentions the symbolism, or “figure” of the eucharist here, elsewhere he clearly believes in the real presence:

“"Before the Blessing with the heavenly words, the object is called by its proper name; after the consecration, it is body that is meant. This is my Body.Before the consecration another thing is talked about, after the consecration it is called blood. This is my Blood. And you say Amen, in other words, it is true". (De Mysteriis, IX)

All that Jaenen has shown so far is that when the early Christians spoke about symbolism, they were not juxtaposing the symbols against divine reality. They were harmonizing the literal and spiritual nature of the eucharist, while also confirming that the bread and wine retain their essence as bread and wine. Next, he inexplicably enlists the following quote by Irenaeus of Lyon in his Adversus haeraeses (Book IV, xviii):

“For as the bread produced from the rather, when it has received the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, consisting of two realities, an earthly and a heavenly”.

This decision to quote Irenaeus here is inexplicable indeed because it is unambiguous, from a plain reading of the text, that he believed that the bread was “no longer common bread but eucharist” - instead the bread expressed two realities existing simultaneously. This is clearly apparent when one takes the time to consider Irenaeus’ writings in total, such as when he wrote, “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Adversus haeraeses IV, xxxii) and again “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Adversus haeraeses V, ii)

For likely obvious reasons Jaenen never mentions or Ignatius of Antioch, writing even earlier in 110 AD, not much later than John’s Gospel and letters which scholars believe were written between 90 and 110 AD. Ignatius says to the church at Smyrnaea:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3), and again, “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1)

and to the church in Rome:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

The evidence presented here demonstrates that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was not a late Catholic “invention” but a doctrine deeply rooted in the earliest days of Christianity. The teachings in the New Testament, the consistent witness of the early church writers, and the assessments of prominent Protestant scholars all indicate that the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist as more than a symbolic memorial. This raises a significant question for Jaenen's thesis. If, as he argues, the 2x2 Fellowship most closely resembles the Church of the New Testament and represents the fullest continuation of primitive Christianity, why do they reject a belief that appears to have been universally affirmed by the earliest Christian communities? If continuity with the apostolic Church is the standard by which authenticity is to be measured, the absence of belief in the Real Presence constitutes a contradiction that cannot be easily dismissed.

Jaenan, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003. p. 300.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early christian doctrines, revised edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 1978, p. 440.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, revised 5th edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, reprinted in 1974, originally 1910, pp. 500, 507

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 166-168, 170.