Sure, no problem! All of the below can be expanded upon, but here's a basic outline:
Means
God often works through means. Consider for example how Namaan's leprosy was cleansed in a river, or Christ spitting on the sand to create mud used for healing a blind man. It's not that the river or the mud has any special power, but it's the ordinary element in connection with God's Word that constitutes its power. It's an ordinary thing with a divine promise, and this is apprehended through faith.
God is the Almighty Creator who creates things
ex nihilo, out of nothing, so He doesn't use means because He needs to, but because He chooses to. In other words, God's use of means is not for His own benefit, but for ours.
Old Testament
The more divorced we are from the Old Testament as a foundation to the New Testament (and, by the same token, fail to read the OT in light of the NT), the easier it is to think of the Eucharist as a simple memorial meal, void of God's grace. Let's look at a few important foundational things in the OT:
Sacramental eating
Throughout the Bible, there exists a concept of sacramental eating; a mysterious union of spiritual and bodily eating, which is closely connected with life and salvation. We can see this in the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life, and in the Passover meal. This concept has existed from the very beginning, from before the fall, and after the fall, where the meal takes on a sacrificial character.
Passover
This is only a condensed overview, but in the OT, we find that the Passover is:
- From God, not from man.
- An unmerited gift, and the difference between life and death. In this respect, it's not a symbolic thing, but very real. People's lives depend on it.
- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.
- Exclusive to God’s chosen people. One must be circumcised to eat and enjoy its benefits. Circumcision here does not imply only an outward thing, but being one of God's people in the fullest sense of the word.
- Very central to the OT. It not only marks who God's chosen people is, but its neglect or abuse results in judgment.
- Foreshadowing a greater sacrifice and redemption.
So, in a word, it is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come.
New Testament
The Eucharist is a holy mystery, but we can know its purpose if we consider who it was instituted by and in what context it was celebrated and given. We should never lose sight of that all of Scripture culminates in Christ. That is to say, the OT isn't thrown aside at the arrival of Christ, but Christ fulfills it and is the full and true reality of it. This Christological understanding is foundational to a right view of the Eucharist.
The Eucharist - The context of the institution
- From God, not from man. (Or more accurately, from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man)
- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.
- It was celebrated on the Passover, the night when He was betrayed, just before His death. This is highly significant, because it ties the salvation of the world directly to this meal as a new covenant or a new testament.
The Eucharist - A new covenant / testament
The word
"diatheke" in the words of institution (Matthew 26:28) can be taken to mean either "covenant" or "testament". Both translations are good, but perhaps we can understand them a little differently. "Covenant" has the idea of a new beginning. "Testament", that is, a last will before dying, carries the idea of an end as well as a new beginning, or an inheritance; a gift, not a duty. This is why in the Lutheran tradition, we prefer to use the term "testament", because it holds more meaning.
The Eucharist - The true Passover meal
Given the context of the Eucharist and its parallels with the Passover, we can see that the Passover culminates in Christ's death on the cross. Christ is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and His body and blood are given to the Church, as the true Passover meal; the former was limited and a type, but the Eucharist is universal and the unveiled form (in the sense that God's grace and righteousness have been unveiled through Christ).
Only those who are circumcised of heart, who believe, have been baptised and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, can enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist and receive it with thanksgiving ("eucharistia" means "thanksgiving"). And with the great promise attached to this meal comes a strong warning against its abuse - that whoever participates in this unworthily (whoever disbelieves in God's promise of it, rejects it, and shows contempt for it), become guilty of the very body and blood of the Lord, because that's precisely what they show contempt for.
So, the Eucharist is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come - but this time, to judge the nations. The Eucharist, then, serves as a comfort for the Church. It is the Gospel in a tangible form, and God's continual pledge to us, that whoever receives the Lamb of God will have life.
The Eucharist - The grammar
Grammatically, the sentence "This is my body" cannot be "This represents my body". I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it's worth noting that at the Reformation, even the radical reformers championed by Zwingli admitted that grammatically speaking, it cannot be a symbol. Many different ideas were proposed, but in the end, they concluded that even if they cannot make it fit grammatically, they still opposed the orthodox understanding of the Real Presence. This is why no (at least to my knowledge) Bible translation translates "is" to "represents" or "symbolises".
The argument that "This is my body" is comparable to "I Am the Door" etc, is false. The first reason for this is the grammatical reason mentioned above, and the other reason is that "I Am the Door", is not an expression either, but literal. Christ is not saying that He is like a door, but that He truly IS the Way (that is, not "like the way"). So, in other words, they have different grammatical forms, and neither statements are symbolic.
The Early Church
The Church Fathers are not authoritative; they add nothing to Scriptures. However, it can still be very helpful to appreciate how they understood and talked about the Sacraments. What's interesting is that they pretty universally understood the words of institution to be literal, affirming the position of the Real Presence. And I think, although early Church writings can be a little loose and undogmatic, wherever they are in agreement should cause us to pause and reflect on what the Bible says extra carefully.
I just did a quick google search on "the apostolic fathers on the eucharist" and found this:
Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
This is a lengthy post, but hopefully, this all gives you some deeper appreciation for the blessed gift of our Lord's body and blood.
The peace of Christ to you +