Passover Seder or Eucharistic Celebration? (Part 2 of 4)

In my last article, I began responding to an article written by Lee Miller of House of David Fellowship. We looked at the story of Polycarp and Anicetus and discovered that contrary to Mr. Miller’s claim, there was nothing to conclusively support the idea that Polycarp observed the Jewish Passover. Towards the end of the story, we read that Polycarp celebrated “the Eucharist” while in Rome.

Eucharist is a Greek word that means “Thanksgiving”, and it has been used since the early days of the Church to refer to the ritual that many Christians now call “Communion” or more Biblically, “the Lord’s Supper”.

Some Torah Observant teachers have claimed that “the Lord’s Supper” which is mentioned in Matthew 26:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, is not actually something new at all, but is merely the yearly Passover Seder. If this is true, then the story of Polycarp and Anicetus is positive evidence for Mr. Miller’s argument. However, if we look at what some contemporary Christian documents say about the Eucharist, it will become abundantly clear that this theory seriously misses the mark, and this small detail disproves the idea that Polycarp kept a “Torah Observant” Passover.

To demonstrate that this is the case, let’s first turn to some writings by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The Eucharistic Theology of St. Ignatius

St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch in the early 2nd century, and was martyred by the Romans sometime between 108 AD and 140 AD. He, like Polycarp, was a disciple of the Apostle John (See St. Jerome’s Chronicon, Paragraph A100). In fact, based on the contents of his Letter to Polycarp, he and Polycarp seem to have been good friends.

There are seven letters attributed to St. Ignatius which scholars recognize to be genuine, and several others which are most likely medieval forgeries. The genuine letters include:

• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
• The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp

While all of these letters contain information that I believe proves that Torah Observance is NOT illustrative of early Christianity, the two letters that are relevant at the moment are the last two: The Letter to the Smyrnaeans, and the Letter to Polycarp.

Let’s first look at the Letter to the Smyrnaeans. In the first few paragraphs, Ignatius commends the Church in Smyrna for being “filled with faith and love… deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness”. He then starts to warn them about a certain heresy known as Docetism.

This was the belief that Jesus was a purely spiritual being, and that his body was merely an illusion and didn’t actually exist. Ignatius condemns this idea in no uncertain terms. Here’s what he says in paragraph 5 (emphasis mine).

Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.

St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, (Paragraph 5)

In paragraph 6, Ignatius continues his stinging rebuke of the Docetists by unequivocally stating that they “if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation”.

And that brings us to paragraph 7. This is the paragraph which is the most relevant to our present discussion, and it is worth quoting in full (emphasis mine).

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, (Paragraph 7)

Now, this quote is very enlightening, given the modern Christian debates on the true nature of the Eucharist. There are two main groups: those who believe in some form of a “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and to a lesser degree Anglicans and Lutherans) and those who believe it to be merely a symbol (for instance most Baptists). This quote by Ignatius seems to place his view decisively within the “Real Presence” camp.

Without getting into a complicated discussion of whether Ignatius favors the Catholic view of “transubstantiation” or something else, at any rate, Ignatius believes this: the Eucharist is “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”.

I would challenge anyone reading this to seriously consider what this means. St. Ignatius was a direct disciple of the Apostle John, and he held a belief about the Eucharist that most modern Protestants (and by extension, Torah Observants) would consider to be abject heresy. There is a good chance that this man interacted personally with the twelve men to whom Christ entrusted His Church. Shouldn’t we take this man seriously? Shouldn’t we at least consider where he may have gotten this belief?

While you’re considering those questions, let’s examine the rest of Ignatius’ Eucharistic theology, in Paragraph 8 of the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: (emphasis mine)

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, (Paragraph 8)

So now we can add two more pieces of information to what Ignatius believed. Firstly, Ignatius believes that “a proper Eucharist” must be overseen and approved of by a bishop. Secondly, the church Ignatius is a part of is called the “Catholic Church”. Now, once again, I’m not going to try to turn this into an argument for the historicity of the modern Roman Catholic Church. There are several churches, including the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox, who could make a case for being a part of Ignatius’ “Catholic Church”. All I’m trying to demonstrate here is that these beliefs do not line up with modern Torah Observant theology.

Disagree? Let’s run through each of the things we’ve learned about Ignatius’ theology, and I want you to honestly ask yourself whether you affirm this.

1. The Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
2. A proper Eucharist is administered by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
3. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
4. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast (i.e. the Eucharist).

Do you agree with any of this? If you consider yourself Torah Observant, my guess is that you don’t.

The Eucharistic Theology of The Didache

But I’m not quite done yet. There is one more early Church document that I want to look at. This one, called The Didache, is even earlier than Ignatius, and is usually dated to around 90 AD. It is a compilation of the basic Christian beliefs and practices of the time. Here’s what it says about the Eucharist in Paragraph 9 and then Paragraph 14 (emphasis mine)

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

The Didache (Paragraph 9)

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

The Didache (Paragraph 14)

So now we can add three more pieces of information to the Eucharistic theology of the early Church:

1. Only baptized persons were allowed to partake of it.
2. The Eucharist was celebrated every Lord’s Day (i.e. Sunday)
3. The Eucharist was believed to be the sacrifice foretold by Malachi 1:11

So let’s take what we’ve learned about the early Church’s beliefs about the Eucharist, and look at the implications this has for the story of Polycarp and Anicetus.

Polycarp Agrees?

Firstly, it is fair to assume that Polycarp believed the same things about the Eucharist as Ignatius. The reasons for this are fourfold:

1. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostle John.
2. Ignatius’ letter in which he details his Eucharistic theology was written to the Church of which Polycarp was the bishop (i.e. it was written to the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna). In this letter, Ignatius does not write as if he’s trying to convince the Smyrnaeans of his beliefs; he simply assumes they agree, and exhorts them to beware of heretics.
3. Ignatius also wrote a letter to Polycarp himself. In this letter, he commends Polycarp for his faith, implying they share common ground on their beliefs.
4. In the only extant writing we have from Polycarp, his Letter to the Philippians, Paragraph 9, he refers to “the blessed Ignatius”. Seemingly, he wouldn’t say this if he had fundamental disputes with Ignatius in regards to theology.

Therefore, to take this back to the story of Polycarp and Anicetus, let’s look again at what Irenaeus told us (emphasis mine):

[T]hey communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.

Eusebius, Church History (Book V, Chapter XXIV, Paragraph 17

Since we just looked at the beliefs of the early Church specifically in regards to the eucharist, it should now be clearer what this means, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Passover Seder.

In the next installment of this series, we will go forward in time beyond the story of Polycarp, and find out how the Quartodeciman controversy continued.