What did the early church teach about communion or as some call it: eucharist (“thanks giving”)? For the purposes of this article, we shall simply call it communion. The Lord instituted communion in Matthew 26 the night before he was crucified:

¹⁷ Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” ¹⁸ And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am keeping the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” ¹⁹ And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.

²⁶ Now while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it. And giving it to the disciples, He said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” ²⁷ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; ²⁸ for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. ²⁹ But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Matthew 26:17-19, 26-29

¹² And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”…²² And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” ²³ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. ²⁴ And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. ²⁵ Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Mark 14:12, 22-25

⁷ Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed….¹⁴ And when the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. ¹⁵ And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; ¹⁶ for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” ¹⁷ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. ¹⁸ For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” ¹⁹ And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” ²⁰ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Luke 22:7, 14-20

John’s gospel is completely silent on the institution of communion, instead focussing on Judas’ betrayal, the washing of feet and the teaching Jesus gave to them at that time. We note from Matthew, Mark and Luke’s account that the communion was a Passover meal. Jesus was called the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). However, John does relate Jesus’ statements in John 6 where Jesus says he is the bread that comes from heaven.

Literalist arguments from the text

1. Repetition makes literal. Jesus makes many seemingly literal statements. Literalists who believe in the “real presence” claim it is because Jesus repeats these statements so often in John 6, it must be literal, that is: in some mystical way the bread and wine become the real blood and body of Christ. They will even cite Paul who warns against those who do not discern the blood and body of the Lord in the eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
2. Unbelievers thought he was being literal. John 6:66 “As a result of this many of His disciples went away and were not walking with Him any more” is used as indisputable proof that Jesus meant literally the bread is his body, and since people opposed cannibalism, they left him. They argue that had Jesus meant it symbolically, they wouldn’t have left him, and consider that proof that it was literal.

Symbolist arguments from context

Jesus had already made clear that it is not what one eats into a man that defiles him, and the converse must also be true – it is not what you eat that makes you holy. What you eat does not come part of you, spiritually speaking.

¹⁰ And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: ¹¹ it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” …¹⁵ But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” ¹⁶ And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? ¹⁷ Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? ¹⁸ But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. ¹⁹ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. ²⁰ These are what defile a person.”

Matthew 15:10-20a

Paul continues the argument in 1 Corinthians:

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

1 Corinthians 8:8

Why did these people leave? The text makes it clear that hose who left thought Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus says they were unenlightened: "And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” As a result of this many of His disciples went away and were not walking with Him anymore." Should we side with those unenliightened people who thought it was literal? ECF such as Tertullian and Augustine (Augustine's City of God: In Book 19) pointed this out that those who left falsely believed Jesus was speaking of his actual body. 

Secondly, Jesus states in this context that these are spiritual words, not literal; “The Spirit is the One who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” Thus we must understand that Jesus words were spirit-led not literal.

Jesus explicitly connects belief and repentance (coming to him) as partaking in his body and blood. “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” Participating in this life-giving bread and drink is obtained by repentance and faith.

Symbolist advocates rebut literalism firstly because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 that it is a remembrance and Jesus also calls it a remembrance in Luke. Paul’s description suggests more a communal meal in remembrance for he says of the eucharist: “²⁰ Therefore when you meet together in the same place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, ²¹ for in your eating each one takes his own supper first, and one is hungry and another is drunk. ²² For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?…So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.” If the sacrament is as literalists argue, Paul would not suggest eating at home first.

1 Corinthians 10:3-4 Paul speaks of the Israelites leaving Egypt: “[they] all ate the same spiritual food; ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.” If the Israelites ate and drank Christ spiritually speaking, is this not what we are doing? Literalism and the “read presence” was not depicted nor required for participation but repentance and belief.

Contradictory ECF statements

Some ECF made contradictory statements which requires an understanding of the context that many ECF gave more apparently literal descriptions. There were heresies that abounded that taught that Jesus did not literally die. In response, the church emphasised the realness of Christ’s death via the Eucharist. So do not be surprised when you see the same ECF write in both a symbolic and in a more literal manner. An emphatic declaration on the realness of Christ’s death does not equate to belief in trans-substantive event.

ECF statements quoted in support of literalism

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “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).

Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).

Irenaeus 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?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).

Origen (182–254): “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’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).

Augustine (354–430): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227).

Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).

Statements in support of symbolism

Tertullian’s apparent support of the literal blood and body of Christ however is immediately understood by his own explanation (Against Marcion, 4.40) that it is a symbol, not literal. The apparent statements in support of literalism, should be understood that many ECF were fighting against heresies that Christ did not have a physical body, only appearing so. This was known as the docetic heresies. The ECF writers made particular point that Christ was speaking about his body, not his apparent body, which was broken, was actually broken, not merely appearing to break, and that the resurrection was real and not an apparition.

Tertullian (160–225): “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

“He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;”. but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.”Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh. We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,”. impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 37).

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “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).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2), and in discussing the Eucharist “blood is figuratively termed wine” (1.6), and “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed.” (1.6) In fact, Clement writes at extreme length about the symbolism of milk, blood and bread. This is just a small select section of quotes.

“And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” John 6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth…But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified..(1.6)…Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices; it serves both for meat and drink. “I,” says the Lord, “have meat to eat that you know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” John 4:32-34 You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk….Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”…Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the apostle, using the voice of the Lord, says mystically, “I have given you milk to drink.” 1 Corinthians 3:2 For if we have been regenerated unto Christ, He who has regenerated us nourishes us with His own milk, the Word; for it is proper that what has procreated should immediately supply nourishment to that which has been procreated. And as the regeneration was conformably spiritual, so also was the nutriment of man spiritual.”

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

“But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” Some disciples of His, about seventy, Septuaginta fermè. It is difficult to know whence this number comes, unless it is that of the Seventy. But they can hardly be supposed identical with these. One might think it a gloss but for the mention of “twelve.” were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt.” (Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, XCIX)

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

Conclusion

It seems to the author that the balance of evidence is that the early church did not believe that the bread and wine changed substance into the real blood and body of Christ. I recognise that Roman Catholics and Orthodox will disagree, shouting “prot! heretic”. However, it is quite apparent that many did not teach a literalist approach, and so this view is well within orthodox views. So how does one explain that many Christian sects do teach the “real presence”? I liken it to the Protoevangelium of James that taught some among other things the “true” story of Mary and her virginity. This was condemned by the catholic church several hundred years later, but not before its stories had already been incorporated into the church belief. In like manner, the strong response to the docetic heresies caused the church to emphasise that Christ had a physical body and actually died, and not merely appeared to be, meant that they symbolic elements were de-emphasised; in time they came to be considered Arian or other heresy, even while it is clear from the quotes above that the ECF clearly did teach a symbolic view rather than a literal view.

While I am happy enough for the Roman Catholics and Orthodox and others to believe that Jesus is really present, I also hold that albeit for different reasons (Matthew 18:20; Colossians 1:17). They have other issues associated such as the concept of the eucharist being a sacrifice again, but this is not dealt with here.