Counter-voices?
Minority symbolic emphases exist but integrate with realism. Origen (Contra Celsum 8.33, ca. 248) uses “symbol” (symbolon) but means typological sign effecting reality (cf. his homilies on Leviticus). Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem 4.40, ca. 207) calls elements “figures” yet affirms consumption of Christ’s Body. Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1, ca. 320) symbolises but in the context of anti-idolatry polemic. Protestant historians like Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, Hendrickson, 1996) and J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperOne, 1978) confirms overwhelming realism by the 2nd century, with symbolism as pedagogical, not alternative. Western Fathers like Ambrose (De Mysteriis 9.50–58) similar to Eastern realism, prefigured transubstantiation.
5. Typology and OT Models: Literal Fulfillment in Somatic Participation
Typology is analogical yet demands superior fulfillment (Heb 8:5), where OT shadows yield NT realities. Passover’s literal lamb-consumption (Exod 12:46) fulfills in Christ’s unbroken bones (John 19:36) and eucharistic eating (1 Cor 5:7–8). Manna (Exod 16) as “bread from heaven” typifies John’s “true bread” (6:32), somatic for sustenance.
Malachi 1:11’s “pure offering” (minchah tahorah)—incense and sacrifice globally—fulfills in the Eucharist’s unbloody re-presentation, as Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 4.17.5) and Didache (14.1–3) attest.
Literal fulfillment is required because types prefigure antitypes ontologically (Col 2:17): non-physical participation reduces to gnostic spiritualism, contra incarnation. Orthodox (Schmemann) and Catholic (CCC 1374) see somatic realism enabling spiritual union.