A conversation about unity.
- By Hentenza
- General Theology
- 806 Replies
This is a perfect example of the literary sin of presentism. In short presentism is the tendency to interpret past texts in terms of modern concepts. You are using this text to prove transubstantiation which is the literal change of the elements to Christ actual flesh and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. Let’s examine your interpretation.Saint Justin Martyr stated the following:
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
1. The Christians in the second century totally despised the thought of eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood. Justin Martyr writes in chapter 12 of his second apology:
“For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh,[4] could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death?”
Even Tatian, Justin Martyr’s own student, decries the thought of eating human flesh. This is an excerpt from his “Address to the Greeks” chapter 25.
“Why do you hate those who follow the word of God, as if they were the vilest of mankind? It is not we who eat human flesh --they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis.”
2. Justin Marty is not describing an ontological change in the elements but a spiritual change of those receiving it. In “Dialogue with Trypho” chapter 41 Justin states the following.
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
Here Justin describes the celebration of the Eucharist as a remembrance of the suffering which Christ endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul. Here there is no change in elements and the reason is one of remembrance of Jesus suffering.
In chapter 70 of the same book he states:
“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”
Here he plainly states that both the bread and the cup are given in remembrance of His own blood and the bread in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers. There is nothing here about transubstantiation. In fact he is not even talking about real presence. You would think that if Justin was teaching transubstantiation or even real presence that his own student would teach the same.
3. Let’s examine the context of the portion that you posted. You posted chapter 66 but let’s set the scene right before the giving of the Eucharist in chapter 65.
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”
Here the elements are brought out and prayers by all present are given finishing with amen. The elements are bread and wine mixed with water. There is nothing about a consecration of the elements to change ontologically to the real flesh and blood of Christ. Even here the emphasis is on a meal of thanksgiving and praise. The food is said to be bread and wine mixed with water and after the prayers and blessings the meal is said to still be bread and wine mixed with water.
Your conclusion drawn from chapter 66 to show transubstantiation or even real presence is clouded by you assigning today’s beliefs to an antique text. There is zero evidence that Justin Martyr was teaching transubstantiation or even real presence. In fact, his own words proves the opposite.
Upvote
0
