Did St Justin write the Church can change bread and wine into Jesus?
In the first apology of St Justin Martyr, we have an early account of the
Eucharist ceremony. After the prayers are said communion is ready to be given
out. The deacons take away what he calls bread and wine for the people who are
absent.
So far, we are told that the Eucharist is bread and wine.
Then we are told, ‘We call this food the Eucharist. . . . Not as ordinary bread
or as ordinary drink do we partake of them, but just as, through the word of
God, our Saviour Jesus Christ became incarnate and took upon Himself flesh and
blood for our salvation, so we have been taught, the food which has been made
the Eucharist by the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood
by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.’
Thomas B. Falls, The Fathers of the Church, Saint Justin Martyr, First Apology
65-66 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1948), pp. 105-06.
Read - "so we have been taught, the food which has been made the Eucharist by
the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation"
For Protestants, the bread and wine remain bread and wine but are sacramentally
(power wise) the body and blood of Jesus. Another way this is put is that faith
is considered the gift of God and the bread and wine are the body and blood of
Jesus to our faith. We do not feed on the body and blood of Jesus as in real
presence but as in by faith in the word. Justin's manner of speaking was used by
the reformers. That is one way to show that his words do not prove that he
agreed with Roman Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine become Jesus.
There is another. Justin says that just as Jesus was made flesh by God’s power
and had flesh and blood so the food and drink are the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Now unless Jesus incarnates himself in the bread and wine but doesn’t physically
change them into his human body and blood there can be no parallel here. Then
Jesus becoming flesh in his mother cannot prove he can turn bread and wine into
his flesh for that is not the same thing. Incarnation is becoming flesh or
something while transubstantiation is turning what makes for example bread bread
into what makes the human body of Jesus the human body of Jesus. The bread then
would be Jesus’ body in the same sense that a fingernail is part of you, and
composes your body.
If Justin said that as Jesus became man so he became food and drink he would
seem to have been speaking literally. But mark this. Jesus becoming man is his
spirit taking over a body and soul. What if Jesus had taken over something else
instead of flesh? What if he used bread for a body? Then the bread would be his
body. It would not mean that the bread was physically changed or physically
different from ordinary bread. It would not mean that there is a body of flesh
and blood and bone present. If Jesus had a body he could use the bread as
another body in the sense described and the wine as blood but not the blood in
his veins. Did Justin mean that the bread and wine are the body and blood of
Christ but without physical transformation? If he did then he rejected
transubstantiation. Perhaps what he believed in was incarnation in the bread and
wine. Justin Martyr cannot be used as proof that the doctrine of
transubstantiation was known in the early Church.
The Catholic Eucharist would be Jesus’ divinity, spirit and soul and body taking
over where there once was bread and wine in Catholic theology. There is a
massive difference with what Justin seems to have believed. This was just as
that as the spirit of Jesus took over the flesh making it his body so it takes
over the bread and wine making them his new body and blood. He is not saying
that the bread and wine become the human body and blood of Christ but that he is
able to possess the bread and wine in the same way he possessed his flesh and
body so that they are both bread and wine and still the body and blood of
Christ. It is like if the demon in the movie The Exorcist did not become Regan O
Neill but took over a mannequin instead. In Justin we do not have
transubstantiation but may have a bizarre kind of incarnation of Christ in
non-living things. If he taught incarnation, this is proof that the early Church
did not subscribe to transubstantiation and if the Bible says the bread and wine
are Jesus’ body and blood the incarnation dogma is what it is most likely to
mean. The likes of Justin would have known a bit better than anybody else
especially when the communion was a central rite.
Some say that when Justin said that the food is the flesh and blood of Jesus
instead of saying it is Jesus which would be more accurate it suggests they are
spiritually the same as the flesh and blood of Jesus or are symbols of them that
give grace and so are as good as the real thing. The language suggests
symbolism. Rome uses that language but that is only because it thinks the Bible
does and sees that tradition does and since it cannot improve them it uses their
style. Symbolism was the original doctrine.
Later Justin wrote, "It is quite evident that this prophecy also alludes to the
bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He
assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and
also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration
of His blood" (Dialogue with Trypho 70).
Early tradition supports the notion that the bread and wine are sacramentally
the body and blood of Christ. What this means is that because a sacrament is a
sign of God’s grace and gift then for all intents and purposes the bread and
wine are Jesus Christ but not literally. The Eucharistic body and blood of Jesus
feeds your soul with power and light from God and gives you the presence of God
and Jesus to help you live a better life and become more like Jesus. Its being
spiritual food is what it is all about. A physical change would deny that. It
would be unnecessary. The Catholic doctrine that the Eucharist is a sacrament
contradicts the doctrine that it physically transmutes into Jesus Christ.
It could be argued that even if Justin did believe in a transformation that he
was unreliable for he never said it was the glorified body and blood of Jesus
that rose from the dead but seems to think of it as the crucified body and
blood. He made lots of mistakes that were unacceptable to later theology. Anyway
when you read Justin you will see that he has Jesus leaving out the statement
that the bread and wine are his body and blood given up for sins so there is no
evidence that he thought the bread and wine were the crucifixion body and blood
though he probably did. Moreover Justin said the bread and wine are consecrated
by the word of prayer and never said that the words about them being the body
and blood of Jesus which Jesus recited at the last supper effect the change into
sacred food and drink.
The principle of taking the simplest interpretation would urge us that if the
Bible teaches that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus it means
the incarnation in bread and wine theory. Transubstantiation is a step further
for it says the bread and wine cease to exist and are replaced by the body and
blood of Christ.
If Jesus incarnated his soul in the bread and wine they would be his body and
blood in a sense. It would not mean that his real body in Heaven is in anyway
involved. If I could get my soul out of my body and into a piece of toast then
the toast would be my body without any visible change.
The incarnation idea of the Eucharist fits the language of John 6 better than
the idea of transubstantiation. In that chapter Jesus says the bread he will
give is his flesh. He says that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you
will not have life and he who does this has life because of him. Life is the
main thought. It is idea of having Jesus living inside you through eating his
flesh and drinking his blood that is important.
In incarnationism, you touch Jesus when you touch communion. In
transubstantiation, you do not. You touch the appearances of bread and wine not
the inner substance which is Jesus. In incarnationism, you eat the body of
Christ literally. This fits the alleged literalism of John 6. With
transubstantiation you do not chew or eat Jesus literally but only the
appearance of bread.