by Douglas R. Johnson
October 7, 2000

Presence of Jesus refers specifically to the concept that during the communion service the elements actually become the body and blood of Jesus rather than just symbols to get us to think about Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross. Specific items to be covered consist of:

• In Remembrance of Me
• This is My Body
• Early Church Documents
• Fathers of the Church

Catholics do consider communion to be exactly a bringing the one time sacrifice of Jesus on the cross across the boundary of time to make the presence of Jesus present for the participants here and now.

"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." [1 Cor. 11:17-34]

When Catholics were burning Protestants at the stake, the slogan the Protestants used to solidify their followers and give them courage to face death was "In remembrance of Me." I only recently found out about this phrase being used this way.

For over 50 years of being a Protestant, I never heard any explanation of why "In remembrance of Me" is carved on the communion table in every protestant Church. What I do remember about the various communion services I participated in was that they all were conducted in a very reverent manner. This reverence was magnified by reference to Paul's admonition that "For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." [1 Cor 11:29]

According to the Roman Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), a sacrament is something physical that bestows some tangible spiritual benefit. While the Reformation originally held that Communion retained its status as a sacrament, the meaning of the word was changed to mean something physical that signifies something spiritual rather than bestows something spiritual. In fact while the Calvinist wing of Protestantism uses the word (with its adjusted meaning) the Baptist wing uses the word "ordinance" where that word means something physical done in obedience with no associated spiritual benefit.

Communion thus boils down to: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." [1 Cor. 11:26] Protestant practice interprets that verse to say: "The only reason to eat this bread, and drink this cup, is to show the Lord's death till he come." There has never been any discussion whatsoever in my 50 years of Protestant church attendance of any positive benefit to Communion other than having a good conscience towards God.

While there is therefore no positive "up side" to taking communion (according to the above Protestant teaching), there is still that big negative "down side" of taking it the wrong way ("unworthily"). In fact there is a down right curse on you if you do it wrong as specified: "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [are dead]." [1 Cor. 11:30] Perhaps this is the reason that many Protestant churches have gone from celebrating Communion once a month to now only once a quarter.

Paul quotes Jesus saying: "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." [1 Cor 11:24b] This is a clear fulfillment of Jesus' words:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever." [John 6:53-58]

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." [John 6:51]

Protestants interpret that verse to mean that "all you need to do is to believe on Jesus and you have everlasting life." We will deal in greater depth on the subject of Salvation in a future Article. We will just relate what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Read the whole context, read the whole book of John, read the whole New Testament, read the whole Bible. You cannot get around it. Jesus did say "Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." [John 6:54]

Let's look at the other three Gospels:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." [Matthew 26:26-28]

"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." [Mark 14:22-24]

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." [Luke 22:19-20]

Cannot Jesus, who turned water into wine and multiplied the loaves of bread, also turn wine into blood and bread into flesh?

The Roman Catholic Church says He can. In fact, they say he did do it in those Scripture verses quoted above. They further say that He continues to do it every time Communion is celebrated.

I thought that it was obviously not the body and blood of Jesus because, if it were, the texture and taste change would be extremely easy to identify. Little did I know that my twentieth century question was answered hundreds of years previous.

"1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.'[204]" [CCC]

All of the Evangelical churches I have been associated with over the years have one thing in common, namely, none ever discussed anything that occurred or was written during the first 1500 years. That means that I have no knowledge of the early church from any source. This lack of knowledge led me, by implication, that there was no trustworthy information available concerning the early church other than what was included in the Bible.

What I have now learned is that there are extensive documents in existence from the first few hundred years that clearly indicate that the "real presence" was universally believed by the entire body of Christians. One has to deliberately mis-represent clear evidence to come to any other conclusion. The quotation above from the CCC that "it has always been the conviction of the Church of God" can be conclusively demonstrated.

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2]

So who are the Fathers of the Church? The definition would include the Apostles including Paul and also Timothy except they have a special place in Scripture that they actual authors of Scripture. Those that these men did also mentor as Tim. 2:2 specifies are considered "Church Fathers".

The procedure specified by Scripture is not a "learn by the book" system even if that book is the infallible Holy Bible. It is widely acknowledged that the writings of these early Church Fathers are not considered to be at the same level of Divine Inspiration as those documents selected to go into the official "canon" know as the New Testament. Even so, their writings are very useful to understand just what they have been taught by their proteges.

I for one would be very skeptical about any doctrine based on teachings of the Church Fathers which would not be supported by Scripture. We do not have the luxury, however, to discount the Church Fathers when they confirm this specific church doctrine that is so firmly based on the very words of Jesus as recorded in multiple books of the Bible.

My daughter Faith has been very concerned that my motivation for these Articles be first and foremost love rather than any spirit of division. I have found two things about telling someone that they are wrong. First is that it is very damaging to the person you say it to as it make them feel so bad. Second it also very satisfying in that the person saying feels so good. I guess that make it a paradox of some sort. If I tell people that they are wrong with love, it still does the same damage.

My message in these Articles is not that you are wrong but rather that I have been wrong for more than 40 years. I look in the mirror and see someone in the heresy of "schism". I am not a Catholic telling Protestants they are wrong. I am have been a Protestant from the day as very small child kneeling down with my mother for bed time prayer asked Jesus to "come into my heart".

I find it very strange indeed that the early church is what every Evangelical Protestant Church I have been associated with wanted to emulate and yet these "seeking" churches failed to figure out that the Presence of Jesus in the Communion Elements was a cornerstone doctrine of that early church.