Proverbs 8:22 – Wisdom interpreted as Jesus Christ in Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea (his post-Nicene Creed thought)

On December 30, 2015 I published a post that delved into the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers (link). Eight of those nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers applied the passage to the pre-existent Jesus Christ. Almost two years later (December 5, 2020) I provided germane quotes from another pre-Nicene Church Father who taught that the wisdom referenced in Proverbs 8:22 was the pre-existent Jesus Christ (link).

In this post, I advance forward from the pre-Nicene Fathers to the post-Nicene Fathers. The period between the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) was one of theological instability due to the Arian crisis. Representative of this instability was the emergence of two new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22 that deviated from the ten pre-Nicene Fathers previously cited--i.e the pro-Arians who affirmed the verse taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father; and a few pro-Nicenes who taught the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only. With that said, it should be kept in mind that apart from Irenaeus who believed that wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 was the Holy Spirit, representatives of the three other interpretations all maintained that this wisdom was Jesus Christ.

The rest of this post will focus on Athanasius' and Eusebius of Caesarea's post-Nicene understanding of wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-31.

The most extensive analysis of Proverbs 8:22-31 that is found in the extant writings of the Church Fathers is provided by Athanasius in his apologetic work, Against the Arians (Discourse II). This analysis is contained within pages 357-393 of John Henry Newman’s English translation—as revised by Archibald Robertson—in the fourth volume of The Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Series II). [This translation will be the source for all the following quotes from Athanasius - online PDF here.]

Two important observations should be kept in mind when reading Athanasius’ treatment of Proverbs 8:22-31. First, Athanasius does not challenge LXX translation of the Hebrew word qanah/kanah as ἔκτισέν (created). Second, Wisdom as portrayed in Proverbs 8:22-31 for Athanasius is first and foremost God’s Word and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Athanasius begins his examination of Proverbs 8:22-31 with the following from verse 22:

Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;’ although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. (Page 357)

And:

Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature ; (Page 359)

He then adds:

And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made ; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father’s works which He Himself worketh, to be ‘in the Father and the Father in Him,’ and ‘He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father,’ because the Son’s Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essences, and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? (Page 360)

Athansius' main focus in his overall apologia against Arianism is that God's Word/Son "is no work", but rather an offspring from His divine essence/nature. [See the following two posts here at AF for quotes that are germane to this view: first, second. 

In chapter XVIII of Discourse II (pp. 364-372), Athanasius provides even greater support for his view that God’s Son/Wisdom/Word cannot be a creature as the Arians teach.

Chapter XIX is devoted to Athanasius’ understanding of verse 22, which is translated by Newman as: ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works’. Note the following:

For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own [i.e. the Arians] to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ as if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh?, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood) ; so, if it is said in the Proverbs ‘He created,’ we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. (Page 374 - bold emphasis mine)

It is the above interpretation of verse 22 where Athanasius departs from ten pre-Nicene Church Fathers that I cited in my previous posts. Those CFs maintained that ἔκτισέν (created) can also be understood as ‘begotten’, and rejected the notion that the Son/Word/Wisdom was created from nothing. As such, they saw no need to attribute verse 22 to the body Jesus Christ assumed via the incarnation.

Unlike Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea retained the pre-Nicene patristic interpretation of verse 22; rather than singling out verse 22 from the rest of Proverbs 8:22-31 and applying this sole verse to Jesus Christ's human body, Eusebius maintained that all of Proverbs 8:22-31 spoke to the pre-existent Jesus Christ as God's Only-begotten Son, His Word and Wisdom.

In his last major theological work—the post-Nicene On Ecclesiastical Theology—he clearly applies all of Proverbs 8:22-31 to the pre-existent, pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. After quoting Proverbs 8:12-31 in the first chapter of Book 3, he writes:

Chapter 2

(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of necessity, having shown that the one who says these is one person, since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the passage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says, “I live with prudence”; yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.” But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning was the Word” was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word was with God,” and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that no one might think that he is spoken of as something that exists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God, but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds, “and the Word was God,” and did not say, (2) “the Word was of God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God, the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason, she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previously cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this: “Happy are those who find Wisdom,” and, “God by Wisdom founded the earth,” and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,” and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend you,” (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,” and, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,” and all the other statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book. In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom without qualification, so that we might not think it is some accidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowledge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom, the very same as the (4) Son of God. (Eusebius, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 135 - Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, trans. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl and Markus Vinzent, Book 3, Chapter 2, pp. 276-277 –bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Eusebius distances himself the Arian interpretation of verse 22. Note the following:

...if you suppose that these remarks apply to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will read well, since no impious thought provides an impediment, given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wisdom of God.” [1 Cor. 1:24] (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works” has also been said by him.

If he says, however, that he himself was created, he did not say this as if he had come into being from what is not, nor as if he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come into being from nothing, as some have supposed incorrectly, but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and preexisted the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been appointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father. (Ibid. p. 278 – bold emphasis mine.)

In addition to clearly rejecting the defining Arian doctrine that God’s Son/Wisdom was created “from what was not”, Eusebius is now beginning to distance himself from the LXX translation of verse 22. He then writes:

Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” the verb he created was used for he established or he appointed me to rule...

And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex meaning, and still others that are predicated univocally of different things, concerning which it would be no small task to pursue at the present time.

Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason, [Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me,” but added, “as the beginning of his ways for his works.”

The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if someone should investigate the true meaning of the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason none of the remaining translators made use of this wording. For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his way,” and the translation seems reasonable. (Ibid. pp. 280-281)

Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were second century A.D. translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Their translations were included in Origen's Hexapla. Utilizing these non-LXX translations, Eusebius then writes the following:

“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” or, “The Lord acquired me,” according to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisition of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the Father’s more honored than the Son. (Ibid. p. 282 bold emphasis mine.)

He then adds:

Now kana [kanah or qanah] is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),” for which the Hebrew has kana, the same term used in the Hebrew and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” For given that the verb kana is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was rejected by the Hebrews, which is not found in the Scripture that lies before [us].

There would be a very great difference between “he created” and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being, while “acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that already pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].

Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” at one and the same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me,” through all of which statements his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos, and guided it in accordance with its needs. (Ibid. pp. 282-283 – bold emphasis mine.)

Shall end here for now…

 

Grace and peace,

David

Whitewashing the Darkness of Islam – A critique of Pope Francis’ stance on Islam

Over the past few days, I have been rereading the second edition of Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr’s., The Great Façade [LINK]. It has been almost a decade since my first reading. Some significant events have transpired within the Catholic paradigm since that first reading; as such, this reading has been proceeding at a much slower rate due to my delving into a substantial number of the references provided in the copious footnotes.

For reasons I do not fully understand, I felt compelled to share the following extract from the book that I had read earlier this morning.

Whitewashing the Darkness of Islam

Respecting Islam, EG had nothing but the usual post-Vatican II praise, which Francis managed to bring to a new level. EG presents Mohammed’s invention as pleasing to God and a suitable vehicle for the salvation of Muslims (along with pagan religions and their Holy Ghost–inspired rituals).[36] For starters, citing only the patently false factual contention of Nostra Aetate, EG declares that Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God....” Going further than Vatican II, however, EG also refers to “[t]he sacred writings of Islam,” which “have retained some Christian teachings....” And what of the plenitude of Mohammed’s errors, beginning with his denial of Christ’s very divinity? According to EG, “interreligious dialogue” with Muslims requires “suitable training . . . for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs.” EG thus represents a definitive abandonment of the traditional teaching of the Church as reflected in the traditional Good Friday intercessions for the salvation of non-Christians and the prayer composed by Leo XIII which Pius XI, a mere 37 years before Vatican II, instructed the entire Church to pray on the Feast of Christ the King: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God.”[37]

Worse, if that were possible, was Francis’s assumption of the role of Koranic exegete in order to exculpate Mohammed’s cult from its historic connection to the conquest and brutal persecution of Christians: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”[38] Disconcerting episodes? The bloody persecution of Christians by various Islamic entities was endemic in the Middle East and was posing an ever-greater threat to the heart of Europe itself. This development, predicted nearly eighty years ago by Hilaire Belloc,[39] was a bit more than “disconcerting.”

Moreover, Francis did not seem to notice that it was not a few “fundamentalists” who were not “true followers of Islam” but rather the government of Pakistan that had sentenced Asia Bibi to death for “insulting the Prophet.” (Francis has to date done nothing to save her, although Benedict publicly called for her pardon by the President of Pakistan[40] as part of an international movement to stop her execution.) Nor was it a few fundamentalists but rather the government of Sudan that had sentenced Meriam Ibrahim to death for converting to Christianity and jailed her to await her execution, to take place after she gave birth to her unborn child in prison. She was freed only after a storm of international protest to which Francis contributed nothing (although he did pose with her for photos in the Vatican after her release). It is Saudi Arabia, not a few fundamentalists, that routinely beheads people for “blasphemy” and “apostasy” from Islam.[41] And what of Kuwait, where “blasphemy” against the Sunni version of Islam is also punishable by death?[42] What, for that matter, of the Islamic world in general, in which flogging, imprisonment and death are commonly imposed for offenses ranging from insulting the Islamic religion or “the Prophet” to adultery. As for adultery, in Islamic nations no one heeds Our Lord’s counsel that he who is without sin should cast the first stone; rather, the legal barbarism that preceded the Gospel, including that which Our Lord condemned among the Pharisees, persists to this day in Islamic legal systems.

Was Francis prepared to tell the rulers of Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere that they are not “true followers of Islam” and that their reading of the Koran is not “authentic”? Perhaps the Muslims who control these governments and their Muslim clerics know better than Francis what “authentic” Islam is. Perhaps they have demonstrated what authentic Islam is by the laws and institutions they have erected to enforce the dictates of that man-made religion. That “authentic Islam” is not, and never has been, a “religion of peace” but rather quite the opposite is why Our Lady appeared at Fatima, named after a Muslim princess who became a Catholic following the reconquest of the Muslim-dominated regions of Portugal by Christian forces in the 12th century. In fact, Princess Fatima married the very knight who had captured her, taking the Christian name Oreana, for which the nearby Portuguese town of Ourém is named.

Francis’s willful blindness to the nature of Islam would account for his consistent refusal to issue anything beyond a few generic protests against terrorist violence as Christians are being butchered or driven from their homes throughout the Middle East and Africa by The Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. Instead, he would pray in the Blue Mosque of Istanbul with an Imam and stage a Prayer for Peace event in the Vatican gardens at which an Imam sang: “grant us victory over the heathen/disbelieving/infidel” (reading from Sura 2: 286) to the embarrassment of those who understood Arabic and of Vatican Radio, which censored those words from the broadcast.43 The planting of an olive tree by Francis, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on that occasion was so ludicrous it was parodied by a popular non-traditionalist Catholic website: “Peace Breaks Out In Israel Moments After Magic Olive Tree Planted.” In fact, only days after the event the worst violence in decades erupted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and elsewhere in the Middle East, prompting this parodic report: “But less than one day after receiving news that every single Middle East conflict had been resolved, the magic Olive Tree that Francis, Peres, and Abbas had shoddily planted into the ground toppled over with a gust of wind, instantaneously causing a chain reaction of violent outbreaks all across the Middle East.”[44]

In stark contrast to Francis’s absurd whitewash of Islam was Benedict’s realistic assessment in the famous Regensburg address, which had resulted in a storm of denunciations in the media and even fears for his life: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[45] But then Benedict was not much concerned with his standing before world opinion, which had held him in contempt throughout his short reign. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Great Façade - The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution, Second Edition 2015, pp. 389-391.)

Footnotes:

36. EG, nn. 252, 253. [EG = Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium; link to Vatican’s official English translation HERE]

37. From Leo XIII’s Act of Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart, promulgated along with the encyclical Annum Sacrum (1899); cf. Chapter 13.

38. EG, n. 253.a

39. Cf. Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (1938), Chapter 4: “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.”

40. “APPEAL OF THE HOLY FATHER: In these days the international community is following with deep concern the difficult situation of Christians in Pakistan who are often victims of violence or discrimination. Today I express my spiritual closeness to Ms Asia Bibi and her relatives

in particular, while I ask that full freedom be restored to her as soon as possible. I also pray for all those in similar situations, so that their human dignity and fundamental rights may be fully respected.” General Audience, November 17, 2010, @ w2.vatican.va (with video).

41. See, e.g., “Saudi court gives death penalty to man who renounced his Muslim faith,” Reuters, February 24, 2015, @ reuters.com.

42. See, e.g., “Kuwait: New Death Penalty for Blasphemy,” Gatestone Institute Report, June 14, 2012, @ gatestoneinstitute.org.

43. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “What Did the Imam Really Say?”, July 20, 2014, @ wdtprs.com.

44. June 9, 2014, @ eyeofthetiber.org.

45. Address at University of Regensburg, September 12, 2006 @ w2.vatican.va (quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in his dialogue with a Persian follower of Mohammed).

An interesting time we are living in...

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - the four principal interpretations and historical continuity

In the second through the fourth centuries, four divergent interpretations concerning the Christian doctrine of God made their appearance—strict Unitarianism (Ebionites, adoptionists), modalism (Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius), Arianism (Arius, Aetius, Eunomius), and Trinitarianism (Athanasius, Hilary, Cappadocians). It took two Ecumenical Councils, copious apologetic writings from a number of bishops, and some imperial support for Trinitarianism to emerge—in the last two decades of the fourth century—as the predominant view. In the seventh century, a new religion founded by Muhammad—Islam—became the only substantial threat to the Trinitarian view until the sixteenth century.

The Protestant reformation/revolt created the environment for the reemergence of Unitarianism, various forms of Arianism, and eventually, even modalism. It also allowed for the first time four distinct, opposing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper: Zwinglian (memorial only), Lutheran (consubstantiation), Calvinist (spiritual presence) and Catholic/Council of Trent (transubstantiation).

Now, with that said, one important question that needs to be asked is this: which of the four views has the most continuity with the preceding centuries of Christian thought?

A few years ago (2010), Tim Troutman identified three types/categories of statements found in the writings of the Church Fathers that are quite useful for a detailed analysis of the historical continuity of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. First, ‘Affirmation of Change During the Consecration’; second, 'Simple Identification of Consecrated Species as the Body and Blood’; and third, ‘Demand of Extraordinary Reverence’. [Link to Tim’s informative treatment HERE.]

Tim provides numerous germane quotations from the Church Fathers for each type/category, along with some brief commentary. At the end, there is an appendix that addresses some objections and a short list of additional reading resources.

Tim’s contribution is a must read for folk who have an interest in our topic at hand. Shall end this post with Tim's 'Introduction':

The claim that the Church fathers believed in Transubstantiation is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent. Any given Church father could no sooner express this doctrine precisely in its developed form than could any given ante-Nicene father express the Niceno-Constantinoplitan doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this does not mean either that they did not believe it, or even that it existed in mere “seed form.” The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can be detected not only in the early Christian writings and in the New Testament, it is an unavoidable development. That is, anything other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. Likewise, the affirmations that the fathers made about the Eucharist were not only compatible with Transubstantiation, they were incompatible with anything less.

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – is it just a sign/symbol?

During the last couple of months, my personal studies have focused on the Eucharist and liturgy. After publishing three posts on the Eucharist, I have been pondering over what my next post should be. Last Wednesday, in the combox of the previous AF thread (link), Ian Miller suggested to me that I, "could look at his [Kauffman’s] claims about the tithe being the sacrifice, or how some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian for instance) use the word 'symbol.'"

There is no question that some of the Church Fathers spoke of the Eucharist as a sign/symbol. This fact has led some anti-Catholic apologists to conclude that the CFs who employed such terminology to describe the Eucharist believed the Eucharist was ONLY a sign/symbol; and as such, did not believe in the real, substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This understanding is an all too common misreading of the CFs by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Last year, this issue was competently addressed by Tim Staples (link to bio) in a contribution published by Catholic Answers (link)—from Tim’s “Is the Eucharist a Symbol, or Is It Real?” we read:

In the introduction to his classic Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon describes well the perennial challenge of the Catholic Church to strike a balance between the manifold and false “either/or” propositions that constitute the great heresies and errors of Church history and what Fr. Hardon called the truth of “the eternal and.” For example, the pantheist says the universe consists of God alone. The material is mere illusion. The materialist says it is all and only matter. The truth is, it’s both. The Protestant says we are saved by “faith alone”; the various Pelagian sects say it is by “works alone.” The truth is, it’s both. The Monophysite says Jesus is God alone; the Arian (or the Jehovah’s Witness today) says he is man alone. The truth is, he’s both. The list could go on and on.

So it is with the Eucharist. For many, there are only two options. Either it is a symbol or it is Jesus. I know this was my thinking when I was Protestant. “When Jesus says, ‘This is my body,’ or ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,’ it is obvious he is speaking symbolically,” I would say. “Bread and wine were to nature what Jesus Christ is to our super-nature. Bread and wine are obviously excellent symbols of Jesus Christ.” In my mind as a Protestant, if I could show communion to be symbolic, I had proved my point. The idea of “both/and” was never even a consideration.

In the rest of his treatment, Tim goes on to prove that the correct reading of the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist is NOT an ‘either or proposition’, but a ‘both/and' one; the Eucharist is a sign/symbol and truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In an older online posting (link), Joe Heschmeyer focuses on Tertullian’s reflections concerning the Eucharist. Before delving into Tertullian’s affirmations of the real presence, Joe writes:

When Protestants talk about Sacraments being symbolic, they typically mean that they’re only symbols. And of course, as Catholics, we think that’s false. But we don’t deny that the Sacraments are symbols.

Joe proceeds to point out that all the sacraments are "efficacious signs of grace", and then writes:

So we can readily affirm that the Eucharist is both a symbol and the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus could have consecrated something else: say, a melon. But He didn’t. He chose bread and wine...

In section "II. Tertullian on the Real Presence", Joe provides selections from Tertullian's corpus that demonstrate he clearly believed in the Real Presence. He summarizes those quotes with the following:

1. Marcion denied that Christ had a true Body of Flesh and Blood. If that were true, then we would have to believe that the Eucharist was just bread, and that Christ on the Cross was just bread.

2. He says that Christ explained exactly what He meant by “Bread” when He described it as His Body. According to Tertullian, the question now is why Christ referred to His Body as “Bread,” rather than something else (like a melon). He answers this by saying that Christ’s Body is referred to throughout Scripture as Bread.

3. He quotes a passage from the Septuagint version of Jeremiah to show that Christ’s Crucified Body is rightly called “Bread.”

4. The Eucharistic Bread and Wine affirm the reality of Christ’s Flesh, since He couldn’t give us His Body or Blood if He didn’t have actual Flesh. Christ’s Flesh, in turn, proves that He had a true Body.

5. Christ consecrates the wine, fulfilling the Old Testament typology.

Tertullian’s understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the official teaching of the RCC; the Eucharist truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Shall conclude this post with links to Joe Heschmeyer’s three compilations of quotes from the CFs on the Eucharist:

Very Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 200 – c. 300 A.D.) - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 300 – 400 A.D.) – LINK

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper and the development of doctrine

...there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth [century]. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 151 – bold emphasis mine)

The dictum that, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated", is masterfully applied by Newman to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Earlier in the book, he wrote:

...the statements of a particular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important character ; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. (Ibid., p. 14)

He then added that it is, “not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and another that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and another that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist), and another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian),” (Ibid. p.15). [I would add to Newman's list that is not enough to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'one God’, for so did the Modalists.]

The developed doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by two Ecumenical Creeds and numerous Church Fathers in the fourth century, was being ‘violated’ in many varying degrees and forms since apostolic times. It is notable the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, “there must be also heresies (αἱρέσεις) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”—1 Cor. 11:19.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity—which was openly attacked and violated since apostolic times—the doctrine of the Eucharist had no serious opponents and violations until the ninth century. It is worth reflecting once again on the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The fact that, “greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species”, was reached after the controversies/violations of the ninth and eleventh centuries, should not lead one to surmise that no development concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist took place in the preceding centuries. History clearly reveals that minor developments began after the passing of the apostles. However, what one will not find are direct, explicit denials of nonnegotiable affirmations found in the fully developed doctrine of the Eucharist—e.g. the Real Presence, substantial conversion of the bread and wine, and the sacrificial aspect.

Unlike the doctrines of God and Christology, one will not find extensive treatments on the Eucharist before the ninth century. Irenaeus and Epiphanius briefly mention a few bizarre eucharistic rites performed by some of the Gnostic sects, but none of those aberrations found any acceptance in the Catholic churches (i.e. churches that could trace their origins via apostolic succession). History forces one to conclude that exhaustive works on the Eucharist were not needed in the centuries that preceded the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth and eleventh centuries. This fact must be kept in mind when one examines the relatively few mentions of the Eucharist as found in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I began this post with Newman's thoughts on the development of doctrine, with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity functioning as the primary model for his thesis. I shall end with some of his assessments on the Eucharist; from his esteemed pen we read:

One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others: —I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist ; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains ; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. "The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration ; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests ; and Priests are made by Ordination ; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe ; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift." Here the question rises in me, "Who told you about that Gift?" I answer, "I have learned it from the Fathers : I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of immortality :' St. Irenaeus says that ' our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being nourished from the Lord's Body and Blood ;' that the Eucharist ' is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly :' perhaps Origen and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 23 – bold emphasis mine)

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – polemical musings by Timothy F. Kauffman

As mentioned in my previous post (link), the postings of two anti-Catholic controversialists concerning the Eucharist were brought to my attention. I shared some thoughts on Brian Culliton, and shall now concentrate on Timothy F. Kauffman.

Tim is an anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist whom I have interacted with in the past here at AF concerning the topic of baptismal regeneration in the early Church Fathers (the germane 4 posts are found under this label). Back on June 27, 2020 (link) Tim began a number of posts under the subject heading of 'EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE'. The June 27, 2020 post was titled: THE APOSTOLIC “AMEN”. From that post we read:

The disagreement over celebrating the Resurrection is easily resolved, as there is no prescriptive mandate from the Scripture on whether the Resurrection should even be celebrated. There is no Scriptural imperative to commemorate it in the first place, much less to do so on a certain date...Regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction. The Gospel writers make no mention of a formal consecration, and Paul simply refers to the cup “which we bless” and the bread “which we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

But when it comes to the matter of the sacrifice, the Apostle Paul has left to us an elegant means by which we may not only establish a unified, biblical, apostolic liturgy but also utterly dispose of the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Once Paul’s Eucharistic liturgy is understood from the Scriptures, we find from the historical evidence that the early Church readily embraced and practiced it for three centuries, until a new liturgy emerged in the late 4th century, paving the way for the abominations and idolatries of Roman Catholicism. The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.” Roman Catholicism places the Eucharist after the Consecration so that Christ’s body and blood is alleged to be offered to God, but the Scriptures place the Eucharist before the Consecration, making the liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood impossible. And Paul’s “Amen” prevents any and all attempts to combine them.

Tim’s foundational premise concerning the Eucharist was explicitly presented in the following statement:

The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.”

A bit later in the post we read:

Paul describes the liturgical “Amen” as a common expression of the gathered participants immediately following the Eucharist:

“…when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks (εὐχαριστίᾳ, eucharistia), seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Corinthians 14:16)

When I first read the above from Tim's pen I was literally dismayed; I had never heard of, or read, such an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:16. I instinctively knew it was time to consult the commentaries I have in my library on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; note the following:

It is obvious that εὐχαριστία here cannot mean the Eucharist. The minister at that service would not speak in a Tongue. Nor is it probable that in ‘the Amen’ there is indirect reference to the Eucharist. The use of the responsive Amen at the end of the prayers, and especially of the reader’s doxology, had long been common in the synagogues (Neh. v. 13, viii. 6; 1 Chron. xvi. 36; Ps. cvi. 48), and had thence passed into the Christian Church, where it at once became a prominent feature (Justin M. Apol. i. 65; Tertul. De Spectac. 25 ; Cornelius Bishop of Rome in Eus. H.E. vi. xliii. 19; Chrys. ad loc.), especially at the end of the consecration prayer in the Eucharist. So common did it become at the end of every prayer in Christian worship that the Jews, it is said, began to abandon it; Jerome says that it was like thunder...It is evident from this passage that a great deal of the service was extempore, and both the Didache and Justin show that this continued for some time. Apparently the prophets had more freedom in this respect than others. (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1911, p. 313)

To bless and to give thanks are related in thought to pray and to sing (vs. 15); the former also refer to the adoration and the thanksgiving which are implied in the speaking of tongues. The words "to bless" and "to thank" are not used in the same sense as in 10:15. Paul does not speak about Holy Communion in our verse; (F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1953, p. 326)

At thy giving of thanks (epi tēi sēi eucharistiāī). Just the prayer, not the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, as is plain from verse 17. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV - The Epistles of Paul, 1931, p. 183)

The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is one of spontaneity. The early worship services—when the brethren come together— were “extempore,” with demonstrations of a number of varying spiritual gifts by the brethren. Paul is emphasizing that in order for one to give a proper “Amen” to a psalm (ψαλμὸν), doctrine (διδαχὴν), revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν), a tongue (γλῶσσαν), an interpretation (ἑρμηνείαν), one must be able to understand them. Paul is arguing that uninterpreted tongues have no place in congregational settings. Note the following:

Praying or singing in tongues could serve no purpose, and Paul would not do it. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? Ungifted (idiōtēs) is, I believe, better translated in its usual sense of ignorant, unlearned, or unskilled. A person who is ignorant of a language being spoken cannot possibly understand what he hears. In a worship service, for example, he could not know when to say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks. Prayers of songs of thanks could not include anyone else if they were given in unintelligible sounds.

Amen is a Hebrew word of agreement and encouragement, meaning "So let it be," and was commonly used by worshippers in the synagogue. The practice carried over into some early Christian churches and, in fact, is common in many churches today. A person cannot know when to "Amen," however, if he does not know what is being said. (John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary - 1 Corinthians, 1984, p. 377)

It sure seems to me (and the commentators listed above), that the “elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic ‘Amen’ (1 Corinthians 14:16)”, does not exist. The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is clearly not what Tim thinks it is. Borrowing a term from Tim’s playbook, his interpretation is "abominable".

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - Introduction

I am currently engaged in an extensive study of the Eucharist and liturgy. I began this study a month ago after a number of comments were posted in two older threads here at AF. [See comments by posted by Noah here; and comments by Ian Miller here]

In their posts, Noah and Ian brought to my attention the polemical efforts by two anti-Catholic gents whose goal is to disprove the material/substantial real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist—i.e. that the Eucharistic bread and wine are in no real sense converted into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Such polemical efforts are not new. The first known attempt to challenge the centuries old interpretation that the Eucharist is materially and substantially the body and blood of Jesus Christ was put forth by the Frankish monk Ratramnus in the ninth century. The controversy raised by Ratramnus was localized and short lived, but reemerged two centuries later via the French theologian Berengar (Latin: Berengarius).

Interestingly enough, prior to Ratramnus and Berenger, teachings by the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist precipitated no controversy. Note the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The controversial efforts of Berengar and his followers were effectively negated by two contemporary Catholic theologians—Lanfranc of Canterbury and Guitmund of Aversa. Controversy over the Eucharist became virtually nonexistent until the 16th century. The Protestant reformation/revolt created discord over a wide range of doctrines, with the Eucharist being no exception. Disputations over the Eucharist emerged quite early. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli each held opposing views, views which created even further fragmentation amongst Protestants as time went on.

The numerous doctrines/variants concerning the Eucharist can be broadly classified under two competing concepts. First, those who maintain that Jesus Christ is materially/substantially present in Eucharistic elements—the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in a real sense—a concept known as the Real Presence. The other concept denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, interpreting the Biblical statements that the Eucharistic bread "is my body", and the cup/wine "is my blood", in a figurative sense only.

The doctrine of the Real Presence can be divided into two categories: those who believe that the Real Presence is 'spiritual' only—i.e. only the divinity of Jesus Christ is present, and those who maintain that the Real Presence includes both the 'spiritual' and material/substantial presence of Jesus Christ—i.e. both of Christ’s two natures are present.

With the above, brief introduction in place, I would now like to move forward to our two 21st century controversialists: Brian Culliton and Timothy F. Kauffman.

Brian Culliton (initially posting under the pseudonym 'onefold') began a series concerning a few early Church Fathers and the "real presence doctrine" back on January 26, 2008. He started with Clement of Alexandria and Origen (link). In February 2008 he added Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius (link). In the late spring of 2008 he combined his January and February posts, adding a "Conclusion" that displays the anti-Catholic, polemical nature of his contributions (link).

Since June of 2008, Brian has made numerous, though minor, modifications to the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post (see this link). Interest in the thread has continued up to February 28, 2024, with the last comment bringing the total to 21,680—an impressive total!

One of the major problems I have with 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it ignores the extremely important issue of doctrinal development. It is a historical fact that doctrine/s develop. If Brian were to examine the doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Church Fathers he references in his 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post, comparing them with the developed doctrines of God and Christology as found in the creeds and confessions of the major historical churches, he would have to conclude that all of those Church Fathers were heretical! But, if one allows for the organic develop of doctrine, one will discover that those Church Fathers provided the 'seeds' for positive growth in what became the orthodox doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Ecumenical Creeds. The same holds true concerning the doctrines of the Eucharist and Real Presence. In later posts I will provide solid evidence that the early Church Fathers provided the core elements for the formulation of the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Another problem that I have with the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it seems to limit its criticisms of the Real Presence doctrine to just the Catholic tradition. Fact is, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Lutherans, and many Anglicans also embrace the doctrine. Interestingly enough, one Anglican apologist has provided some solid critiques of Brian's musings. I highly recommend that interested folk take the time to investigate the following posts:

Early Church Refutes real presence? An introduction

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/early-church-refutes-real-presence-an-introduction/

Early Church evidence refutes real presence?-A reply to Brian Cullition Part 1: Ignatius of Antioch

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-a-reply-to-brian-cullition-part-1-ignatius-of-antioch/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?-Origen’s Exegesis and the Eucharist

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-origens-exegesis-and-the-eucharist/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence: Dialogue with Culliton

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-dialogue-with-culliton/

Shall end here for now. In my next post, the Lord willing, I will begin my examination of our second 21st century controversialist, Timothy F. Kauffman.

 

Grace and peace,

David