THE MYSTICAL MEANING OF THE EUCHARIST

8 Copyright 2018, John H. Davidson M.A. (Cantab)

John H. Davidson M.A. (Cantab)

Adapted from The Gospel of Jesus – In Search of His Original Teachings,

John Davidson, 2004.

Available from:
http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en–176–0.htm

Is the eucharist, as practised in Christianity, a misunderstanding and

externalization of ancient Middle-Eastern metaphors expressing mystic truth?
There is ample evidence in early Christian writings to demonstrate that Jesus
never began this ritual. His real meaning seems to have been entirely
different. What, for instance, did he really mean by eating his flesh and
drinking his blood? He can’t have meant it literally!

Lacking understanding of the sheer inwardness of a natural spirituality which is devoid of any
hint of external ritual, ceremony or dogma, the human mind has a tendency to externalize and
literalize spiritual truths and descriptions of mystic experience, converting them into outward
practices and beliefs. This becomes evident when we examine the origins of the eucharist or
holy communion.

The eucharist is partially founded upon Mark’s account of Jesus’ last supper with his
disciples. His story reads:

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. Verily I say unto you, I will
drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the
kingdom of God.” And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount
of Olives (Mark 14:22–26).

Matthew’s version is essentially a verbatim copy of Mark, while Luke, who has a penchant
for paraphrase, has Jesus bless the “cup” and have it passed around before the meal. This is
followed by Jesus’ blessing of the bread, to which he adds the words which have come into
the Christian sacrament, “do this in remembrance of me”. After supper, Jesus again passes
around the cup, telling them, “this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for
you”.

The authenticity of this story and the accuracy with which Jesus’ words were recorded rests
entirely with Mark who was not an eye-witness, but was writing some thirty to forty-five
years later. In fact, at face value, it is not at all clear what is meant by Jesus’ words, if indeed
he actually said them.

Turning to John’s gospel for elucidation, we are surprised to find that John records absolutely
nothing concerning any conversation which Jesus may have had at his last supper with the
disciples (John 13:1–2). As in so many instances, the compiler of John’s gospel – who must
have been aware of the contents of the other gospels – relates a different story.

1 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist

It is from an earlier part of John’s gospel, however, that we get more than a hint of the origins
and meaning of the last supper ‘conversation’, as recorded in Mark. It has often been pointed
out by scholars that John’s gospel is an extended discourse on the Word or Logos. This Word
is not a written word, but a metaphor for the primal, creative outpouring from God which –
say the mystics – has created the creation and continually sustains it in dynamic activity.
There were a great many metaphors for this creative Power. In John’s gospel alone, it is called
the Living Water, the True Vine, the Only-begotten Son, the Holy Ghost – and the Bread of
Life or the Living Bread.

Now a true Master or Saviour – as Jesus is depicted as having been – is an incarnation or

personification of the Logos. Hence, Jesus says (John 6:35):

I am the Bread of Life:

he that cometh to me shall never hunger;
and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And again (John 6:51):

I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven:

if any man eat of this Bread,
he shall live for ever.

It is clear enough that the “Living Bread” or the “Bread of Life” are metaphors for the
Creative Word which sustains and nourishes all life, the source of all being and existence in
the creation. Moreover, John’s story has nothing to do with the last supper, or with any meal
at all. The meaning is entirely metaphorical. But Jesus then continues (John 6:51,53–58):

The Bread that I will give is my flesh,

which I will give for the life of the world....
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 eateth my flesh, and drinketh 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 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me,
and I live by the Father:
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that Bread which came down from heaven:...
he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.

Though the metaphor is a very strange one – eating the flesh and drinking the blood of
another – the meaning again seems clear. What gives substance and life – flesh and blood – to
a Master, the “Son of man”, is the Word. A Master, therefore, is the “Bread which came down
from heaven”; he is the “Word made flesh”. And one who drinks that blood and eats that flesh
is one who comes into contact with such a Master and through him is enabled to experience
inner communion with the real essence of a Master – the Word, the “Living Bread”.

But why did Jesus choose such a grisly metaphor? Few suggestions have been proffered on
this point, perhaps because its later use in Christian ritual has been so crucial to Christian
practice and belief. But the most probable answer would seem to be that it is associated with
John’s metaphor of the Lamb of God being given as a sacrifice for sins.
2 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist
Judaic and pagan custom in the time of Jesus involved the ritual slaughter of lambs, sheep,
oxen and other animals for the supposed purpose of appeasing God or some deity, for
invoking forgiveness of sin or for seeking blessings upon some undertaking. The flesh of
these animals was then eaten and, in some rituals, the blood was even drunk by the priests.
Though to a modern mind, the practice may seem abhorrent, such sacrifices were an essential
aspect of many religions of those times. During special festivities, the precincts of the Jewish
Temple and other ‘holy’ temples must have run with the blood of slaughtered animals. It
would have also been a considerable source of revenue.

Naturally, mystics are against such practices, for how can God be worshipped and His
forgiveness obtained by the killing of His creatures – causing them untold fear and suffering –
and then feasting upon their dead remains? Rather, such things coarsen the mind, turning it far
away from God, generating a heavy burden of sin and karma. Hence Jesus, Paul and many
others spoke out against the sacrificial killing of animals. And as a part of his exhortation to
abandon ritual slaughtering and feasting, Jesus observed that the only sacrifice which
genuinely resulted in the atonement of sin was the sacrifice of the Son of man, the Lamb of
God, a Master, by his coming to this world and taking on the sins of his disciples. Similarly,
the only consumption of flesh and blood which appeased or pleased the Lord, leading to His
true love and worship was to eat the “flesh” and drink the “blood” of this “Son of man”, the
“Word made flesh” – not that of innocent animals.

Jesus Blesses Bread

This, then, gives us an understanding of the words in St John. But what of the origins of the
last supper as narrated in St Mark? Is that an entirely fictitious fabrication, designed and
written at a later date to justify the eucharistic meal which so very rapidly became a ritual
amongst the early Christians – or is there an element of truth in it?

Tradition has to arise from something. Consequently, it often includes an indication of its
origin, however muddled and confused it may have become. In this case, it is possible that the
scene of the last supper – and the resulting celebration of the eucharist – draws together two
strands of tradition. Firstly, there is the “flesh and blood” metaphor of John relating to
communion of the soul with the Creative Word and secondly there is Jesus’ blessing of bread
and water in Mark.

The blessing or consecration of food and drink by priests is a common ritual in practically all
religions. The practice is very similar to that of a general grace or blessing at the start of a
meal. Though usually performed in a perfunctory manner, such a blessing – if it comes from a
sincere heart – is not without its effect. Everything a person does is coloured in a subtle way
by the mind, mood and motivation they bring to bear. The mood of a cook, for instance,
affects the character as well as the flavour of a meal. Putting one’s love and attention into
some thing or some person has an effect, according to the content of one’s own mind.
Moreover, the associations in our minds surrounding things also have an influence. A gift
from someone we love is cherished, however simple it may be, because of the association,
while more costly items from other sources may have very little value in our minds.

Mystics of the East and Middle East have generally made use of these mental strings of
association by blessing food for the benefit of their disciples. But this is not a matter of ritual.
It is a question of love and association, faith also being involved on the part of the recipient
for the full benefit of such a blessing to take effect.

Given the universal prevalence of such a practice, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus, too,
would have followed the same custom. Simply by his breaking bread and giving it to his
disciples they would have felt that his blessing had been imparted, whether he said anything
or not, and likewise with the cup.
3 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist
Mark’s version of the last supper, then, seems to combine this blessing of food by Jesus –
which he probably did whenever he sat down to eat with his disciples – with metaphors from
John concerning the Word as the Living Bread, the Living Water and the divine wine of love.

There is, however, another source from which the external aspects of the eucharist could have
been derived. Cult meals were common to a number of sects and religions in early and
pre-Christian times. The Roman religion of Mithraism was one of these, taking the ancient
Persian-Aryan god Mithras as their deity, and a number of modern scholars, as well as early
Christian fathers, have observed that their rituals had a great many similarities to those of
Christianity, including baptism for the forgiveness of sins through a rite very similar to the
eucharist.

So close in character were these rituals – which pre-dated Christianity – that the early
Christian father, Tertullian, was even moved to write that the Devil had plagiarized (by
anticipation) the later Christian rite:

It is his (the Devil’s) character to pervert the truth, mimicking the exact
circumstances of the divine sacraments (ie. the eucharist) in the mysteries of idols
(On the ‘Prescription’ of Heretics).

Likewise, the mid-second century, Justin Martyr, wrote of the eucharistic sacrament of the
body and the cup

which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the
same things to be done (First Apology).

The more historical assumption is that the ritualistic details of the Christian eucharist were at
least partially introduced by Roman converts familiar with the older Mithraic ritual. This is in
keeping with the way in which religious customs come into existence. Beliefs and practices of
extant religions are incorporated, with or without modification, into the new, though they too
may have a lost or hidden esoteric meaning.

Water or Wine?

It is significant that although Mark’s gospel, followed by Matthew and Luke, has Jesus speak
of the “fruit of the vine”, it is not stated whether this was wine or grape juice, while the
discourse in St John identifies no particular drink as symbolic of the ‘blood of the Son of
man’. Even in Paul’s mention of the eucharist, only the “cup” is mentioned – not wine (1
Corinthians 11:23). The significance lies in the alcoholic content of wine and the fact that
John the Baptist and many early Christian, Judaic and Greek esoteric groups abstained from
alcohol. Abstention from intoxicants has always been a part of mystic teachings. So if Jesus
was the mystic that the teachings attributed to him suggest he was, then it is certain that he
would have done so, too.

There is insufficient space to go into details here, but there is evidence that many of the early
Christians, although they practised the ritual, did so with bread and water – not wine. Groups
such as the Ebionites (Judaic Christians) who lasted into the fifth century and represented the
descendants of some of Jesus’ direct disciples in Palestine, are well-known to have abstained
from ‘strong drink’. Similarly, the mid-second century Christian gnostic teacher, Marcion,
who believed that much of the gospel material he knew had been corrupted, also used bread
and water only. In fact, many of the gnostic teachers would not have performed the ritual at
all, knowing that it was an externalization of something to be experienced within.

Likewise, in the apocryphal Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of
Thomas and other early apocryphal literature, it is almost always bread and water that is
4 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist
offered by the apostles as blessed food and drink. Indeed, while an earlier manuscript of the
Acts of Thomas has only bread and water, later versions have been edited to make it bread and
wine.

Living Bread, Living Water, Living Wine

There are many places in the literature of Jesus’ era which demonstrate that the bread, water
and wine were intended as symbols for the “Living Bread”, the “Living Water” or the “Living
Wine” – these beings metaphors for the Creative Word. This is the spiritual food and drink of
mystics and their disciples, intoxicating with the bliss of its sweetness. In Joseph and Aseneth,
for example, an allegorical romance from early Christian times, in a symbolic reference to
baptism, Aseneth is told:

From today you will be made new,

and refashioned, and given new life;
And you shall eat the Bread of Life
and drink the Cup of Immortality,
and be anointed with the Unction of Incorruption.

There is no hint in this story of any external rite. The “Bread of Life”, the “Cup of
Immortality” and the “Unction of Incorruption” are all metaphors for the Word through which
a disciple is “made new” or “born again” when they come into conscious contact with it. Then
they are given an impulse of “new life”; they are “refashioned” and enabled to repent, to
change their way of being, inwardly, and begin the journey homewards. The meaning is
entirely mystic and inward, as it is in John’s gospel.

Similarly, in the Acts of Thomas, the “Living Bread” or “Immortal Food”, the “Wine that
giveth... neither thirst nor desire”, the “Living Spirit”, the “Truth” and “Wisdom” are all
equated when Judas Thomas speaks of the “Father of all” as:

(He) whose proud light they have received,

and are enlightened by the sight of their Lord;
(He) whose Immortal Food they have received,
that hath no failing,
and have drunk of the Wine
that giveth them neither thirst nor desire.
And they have glorified and praised,
with the Living Spirit,
the Father of Truth and the Mother of Wisdom.

Again, in an early Christian hymn of the late fourth-century Syrian, Cyrillonas, a pointedly
mystical interpretation is given of Jesus’ last supper:

This is the Vine that giveth to drink

to mankind so that they obtain their lives.
This is the Vine that through its drink
comforteth the souls of the mourners.
This is the Vine that through its Wine
purifieth creation from iniquity.

It is the cluster that pressed itself out

at eventide in the upper chamber,
and gave itself in the cup to his disciples
as the testament of Truth.
O Vine, how strong thou art,
thou whose riches are never lacking.

5 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist

The only “Vine” which fits this description is the Word, being the same as Jesus’ “True
Vine”. The “Wine” from this “Vine” “purifieth creation from iniquity” – undoubtedly a
reference to the Word, for no worldly wine, even in the hands of a priest, could be expected to
perform such a function.

It is also that which was drunk “at eventide in the upper chamber and “gave itself in the cup to
his disciples”. This is an interesting allusion to the last supper, for the “upper chamber” in
which Jesus is supposed to have eaten the last supper with his disciples is here given a
mystical meaning, too. It refers to the upper regions or heavens where this “cup” is to be truly
found and drunk.

It is also the “testament of Truth” – the covenant of Truth and the means of knowing the
Truth. Again, this refers to the Word, explaining Jesus’ otherwise mysterious words in Mark
14:24:

This is my blood of the new testament,

which is shed for many.

The Word is the ever-new “testament” or covenant, the eternal ‘agreement’ or bond between
God and man. It is “shed for many” in the sense that a Master’s life, as a personification of
the Word, is given as a sacrifice for his disciples.

The writers of the Manichaean-Christian psalms (dating from the time of the third-century
Iranian mystic, Mani) were also fond of these metaphors and they are encountered in a
number of places, devoid of any eucharistic setting, as in:

He gave the Bread of Life to the hungry;

the clothing he brought to the naked.

Here, the “hungry” are the people of this world – since we are all spiritually hungry. We are
also “naked” of the true garment of radiance that is the soul’s natural inheritance. Likewise,
Jesus, is described as the “Living Wine, the child of the True Vine”:

Thou art the Living Wine,

the child of the True Vine.
Give us to drink a Living Wine from thy Vine.

In another place, there is an allusion to the eucharist when the psalmist says that the Holy
Spirit has “brought the cup of Water” – meaning the Living Water of the Word:

The Holy Spirit has come unto us....

He has brought the cup of Water,
he has given it to his church also.

Again, the “Son of the Living God, the Physician of souls” is likened to the “sweet spring of
Water” and the “True Vine” that springs from the “Living Wine”:

The Son of the Living God,

the Physician of souls,
come, sing to him, the Saviour of spirits....

The holy Bread of Life

that is come from the skies (inner realms).
The sweet spring of Water that leaps unto life.
The True Vine, that of the Living Wine.

And in a reference to Jesus’ saying concerning new wine in new bottles, we read:

6 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist

 Lo, Wisdom is flourishing:
where is there an ear to hear it?
Lo, the New Wine we have found:
we would have new bottles for it.

The ever-new and eternally fresh wine of the Word or Wisdom (a common Judaic and Greek
term for the Creative Power) can only find a place in a freshly-cleaned and renewed human
heart. It can never come to dwell in old “bottles”, full with the sins of a innumerable past lives
and the engrained habits of ritualistic and ceremonial worship. This saying of Jesus, then, is
another instance in which he uses the metaphor of wine with a mystic meaning. Similarly, in a
passage which echoes lines from both Proverbs and the Song of Songs:

Wisdom invites you,

that you may eat with your spirit.
Lo, the New Wine has been broached:
Lo, the cups have been brought in.
Drink what you shall drink,
gladness surrounding you.
Eat that you may eat,
being glad in your spirit.

In all these contexts, the eating and drinking refer to the spiritual nature of man, the soul
taking its nourishment and sustenance from its intoxicating contact with the Word within.

The slow externalization and literalization which increasingly surrounds mystic teachings as
time passes is so clearly observed when studying the origins of Christian dogma and ritual.
The miracles of Jesus come into the same category. There is even significant evidence that the
turning of water into wine at the marriage party in Cana was intended allegorically, like much
else in John’s gospel. The insipid water of worldliness and external ritual becomes the wine of
divine love at the mystic marriage of the soul with God. But there is no space to elaborate
further on these themes, here. It may only be observed that there are so many passages in the
gospels and in Christian teachings which are illuminated when studied within the context of
the other mystic literature of Jesus’ times.

7 Mystical Meaning of the Eucharist