The Lord's Supper

[gray wolf]

For many years I believed that the elements of the Lord's Supper were symbolic.  After joining the RCC, I decided to search the Scriptures and try to determine their nature.  Reading John chapter 6 (bread of life discourse) and the narratives of the Last Supper (this IS my Body) and the penalties for taking it unworthily (for not discerning the Lord's Body) I concluded that there is a Real Presence in the elements.  I am asking for your view and Scripture to back it up.  Thanks!

[Guest shiloh357]

For many years I believed that the elements of the Lord's Supper were symbolic.  After joining the RCC, I decided to search the Scriptures and try to determine their nature.  Reading John chapter 6 (bread of life discourse) and the narratives of the Last Supper (this IS my Body) and the penalties for taking it unworthily (for not discerning the Lord's Body) I concluded that there is a Real Presence in the elements.  I am asking for your view and Scripture to back it up.  Thanks!

 

The Bread of LIfe discourse had nothing to do with communion.  Jesus was juxtaposing his body and blood with the Jewish myth of the act of Torah study being the "food" of the Torah observant Jew.   The study of Torah was likened to the fruit of the tree of life and living water, both viewed as imparting eternal life.

 

Over and agaisnt that, Jesus said that to partake of His flesh and blood, to eat and drink him was the way to eternal life.   Jesus was, of course, being metaphorical as any competent exegete knows.   Jesus was saying that eternal life came from Him and not from the written Scriptures.   In saying that He was establishing not only that He was greater than the law, greater than Moses but was the the giver of eternal life and thus declaring Himself to be God.   Jesus was not in any way creating a theology about communion.

 

Jesus used the bread at the last supper as symbolic of his body about to be sacrificed for the world.  Same with the wine.  There is just no basis for claiming that Jesus actual, biological flesh and blood is in the elements.  That is a RCC doctrine that was developed hundreds of years later and has been intperpreted retroactively into the Bible.  It is read into the Bible and is not the product of competent exegesis.

 

The penalties for not taking it worthily have nothing to do with the elements of the communion.  It has to do with the motives of the heart in taking them.   To take them unworthily means to partake in a manner that doesn't recognize the price that was paid for sin.

[gray wolf]

For many years I believed that the elements of the Lord's Supper were symbolic.  After joining the RCC, I decided to search the Scriptures and try to determine their nature.  Reading John chapter 6 (bread of life discourse) and the narratives of the Last Supper (this IS my Body) and the penalties for taking it unworthily (for not discerning the Lord's Body) I concluded that there is a Real Presence in the elements.  I am asking for your view and Scripture to back it up.  Thanks!

 

The Bread of LIfe discourse had nothing to do with communion.  Jesus was juxtaposing his body and blood with the Jewish myth of the act of Torah study being the "food" of the Torah observant Jew.   The study of Torah was likened to the fruit of the tree of life and living water, both viewed as imparting eternal life.

 

Over and agaisnt that, Jesus said that to partake of His flesh and blood, to eat and drink him was the way to eternal life.   Jesus was, of course, being metaphorical as any competent exegete knows.   Jesus was saying that eternal life came from Him and not from the written Scriptures.   In saying that He was establishing not only that He was greater than the law, greater than Moses but was the the giver of eternal life and thus declaring Himself to be God.   Jesus was not in any way creating a theology about communion.

 

Jesus used the bread at the last supper as symbolic of his body about to be sacrificed for the world.  Same with the wine.  There is just no basis for claiming that Jesus actual, biological flesh and blood is in the elements.  That is a RCC doctrine that was developed hundreds of years later and has been intperpreted retroactively into the Bible.  It is read into the Bible and is not the product of competent exegesis.

 

The penalties for not taking it worthily have nothing to do with the elements of the communion.  It has to do with the motives of the heart in taking them.   To take them unworthily means to partake in a manner that doesn't recognize the price that was paid for sin.

Why did not Christ then say this symbolizes my body and blood instead of this is?  And this verse: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  Why would a symbol do that?  Also, the Church believed in the real presence from its earliest days.

*** Removed RCC link ***

Edited December 9, 2013 by OneLight

[ayin jade]

The Lord is big in pictures and symbols. You can see that throughout the bible. In the same way as the passover lamb is a symbol of our Passover Lamb (Christ) without Jesus being a real lamb, so is the elements of communion wine and bread without them being the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus.

[Steve_S]

For many years I believed that the elements of the Lord's Supper were symbolic.  After joining the RCC, I decided to search the Scriptures and try to determine their nature.  Reading John chapter 6 (bread of life discourse) and the narratives of the Last Supper (this IS my Body) and the penalties for taking it unworthily (for not discerning the Lord's Body) I concluded that there is a Real Presence in the elements.  I am asking for your view and Scripture to back it up.  Thanks!

 

The Bread of LIfe discourse had nothing to do with communion.  Jesus was juxtaposing his body and blood with the Jewish myth of the act of Torah study being the "food" of the Torah observant Jew.   The study of Torah was likened to the fruit of the tree of life and living water, both viewed as imparting eternal life.

 

Over and agaisnt that, Jesus said that to partake of His flesh and blood, to eat and drink him was the way to eternal life.   Jesus was, of course, being metaphorical as any competent exegete knows.   Jesus was saying that eternal life came from Him and not from the written Scriptures.   In saying that He was establishing not only that He was greater than the law, greater than Moses but was the the giver of eternal life and thus declaring Himself to be God.   Jesus was not in any way creating a theology about communion.

 

Jesus used the bread at the last supper as symbolic of his body about to be sacrificed for the world.  Same with the wine.  There is just no basis for claiming that Jesus actual, biological flesh and blood is in the elements.  That is a RCC doctrine that was developed hundreds of years later and has been intperpreted retroactively into the Bible.  It is read into the Bible and is not the product of competent exegesis.

 

The penalties for not taking it worthily have nothing to do with the elements of the communion.  It has to do with the motives of the heart in taking them.   To take them unworthily means to partake in a manner that doesn't recognize the price that was paid for sin.

Why did not Christ then say this symbolizes my body and blood instead of this is?  And this verse: ]For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  Why would a symbol do that?  Also, the Church believed in the real presence from its earliest days.

 

I will answer your question with a question (the answer is in the scriptures as well, pretty clearly).

 

Joh 2:13  Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 

Joh 2:14  And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 

Joh 2:15  When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 

Joh 2:16  And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"

 

Jesus walked into the temple in Jerusalem and found people trading in livestock and found money changers. Basically, God walked into His temple (His second temple actually, as the first had been destroyed) and found that it had been reduced to a livestock bazaar and a currency exchange, probably with interspersed high interest rate lending.

 

He, literally, made a whip and started driving the livestock traders and the money changers out, poured out the changers' money, and turned over the tables. So, basically, Jesus was standing INSIDE His own temple. While standing there the jews asked him a question, basically querying as to why He had any right to be angry about the activities that had been going on:

 

Joh 2:18  So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?" 

 

Jesus gave them an answer:

 

Joh 2:19  Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 

 

He was standing in the temple at the time and the people around Him obviously took it as Him talking about the literal temple, as is evidenced by their response:

 

Joh 2:20  Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 

 

So, here's my question:

 

In light of this, was Jesus literally speaking of the temple or was He speaking metaphorically about something else?

[Guest shiloh357]

For many years I believed that the elements of the Lord's Supper were symbolic.  After joining the RCC, I decided to search the Scriptures and try to determine their nature.  Reading John chapter 6 (bread of life discourse) and the narratives of the Last Supper (this IS my Body) and the penalties for taking it unworthily (for not discerning the Lord's Body) I concluded that there is a Real Presence in the elements.  I am asking for your view and Scripture to back it up.  Thanks!

 

The Bread of LIfe discourse had nothing to do with communion.  Jesus was juxtaposing his body and blood with the Jewish myth of the act of Torah study being the "food" of the Torah observant Jew.   The study of Torah was likened to the fruit of the tree of life and living water, both viewed as imparting eternal life.

 

Over and agaisnt that, Jesus said that to partake of His flesh and blood, to eat and drink him was the way to eternal life.   Jesus was, of course, being metaphorical as any competent exegete knows.   Jesus was saying that eternal life came from Him and not from the written Scriptures.   In saying that He was establishing not only that He was greater than the law, greater than Moses but was the the giver of eternal life and thus declaring Himself to be God.   Jesus was not in any way creating a theology about communion.

 

Jesus used the bread at the last supper as symbolic of his body about to be sacrificed for the world.  Same with the wine.  There is just no basis for claiming that Jesus actual, biological flesh and blood is in the elements.  That is a RCC doctrine that was developed hundreds of years later and has been intperpreted retroactively into the Bible.  It is read into the Bible and is not the product of competent exegesis.

 

The penalties for not taking it worthily have nothing to do with the elements of the communion.  It has to do with the motives of the heart in taking them.   To take them unworthily means to partake in a manner that doesn't recognize the price that was paid for sin.

Why did not Christ then say this symbolizes my body and blood instead of this is?  And this verse: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  Why would a symbol do that?  Also, the Church believed in the real presence from its earliest days. 

 

In the first place, I think symbolism is self-evident in the statement this is my body.   For one thing eating human flesh was forbbiden in the Torah.   So Jesus would not have violated His own inspired law in that way.   Secondly, it is clear that the disciples, Torah observant Jews,  recognized the symbolism in that they did not express any confusion over what Jesus was saying.

 

As I stated eariler, the consequences of eating and drinking unworthily has NOTHING to do with the elements, but with the spiritual condition of the person before God.

[gray wolf]

The passage in John is symbolic; the text tells us so (v. 21).  Where do you draw the line on what is symbolism in the Bible and what is not?  When confronted with a verse you don't like, e.g. the wages of sin is death, what prevents you from saying, oh that is just symbolic? Or build dogma based on the metaphorical interpretation of the passages?  Shouldn't we be able to pick up the Bible and take it at face value except where the text declares something to be a metaphor?

Of course Jesus did not give his literal flesh, yet there was significance in the bread and wine.

So you're saying also that drinking and eating unworthily has nothing to do with the elements?  So if someone is harboring sin in their hearts, it won't hurt them to eat and drink?

[Guest shiloh357]

The passage in John is symbolic; the text tells us so (v. 21).  Where do you draw the line on what is symbolism in the Bible and what is not?  When confronted with a verse you don't like, e.g. the wages of sin is death, what prevents you from saying, oh that is just symbolic? Or build dogma based on the metaphorical interpretation of the passages?  

That, my friend, is why an education in exegesis is so valuable.

 

Shouldn't we be able to pick up the Bible and take it at face value except where the text declares something to be a metaphor?

 

Face value?  So when Jesus says, "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, or if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out,"  do you take that at face-value and assume Jesus is calling for self-mutilation, or do you intuitively recognize the metaphor Jesus is using?

 

When Jesus says, "I am the sheep gate,"  Do you assume at face-value that Jesus is a literal wooden gate with hinges and latch?   I mean, come on...   I would think someone of your educational background can readily tell when symbolism and figurative liteary devices are in play.  In neither place does the Bible give us a parenthetical warning that symbolism is about to be employed, yet we can readily discern it.

 

Of course Jesus did not give his literal flesh, yet there was significance in the bread and wine.

 

The signficance of the bread and wine are found in the work of Jesus on the cross.  His body was broken and he died phsycially to deliver us from the bondage of sin. His blood was shed for the forgiveness of the sins we commit.    The bread and wine are physical points of contact with the work of the cross.  It is more than mere symbolism.  They serve as a memorial of Jesus two-fold redemptve work on the cross.

 

So you're saying also that drinking and eating unworthily has nothing to do with the elements?  So if someone is harboring sin in their hearts, it won't hurt them to eat and drink?

 

The context of what Paul was saying had to do with the riotous party that the Corinthians had allowed communion to descend into.   They were making a mockery of it by getting drunk at the Lord's Supper and they were also encumbered with a lot of dissension and factions within that particular congregation.   They were eating damnation unto themselves, as a result.  They were not discerning the Lord 's body.  They were eating in an unworthy manner by doing so in a careless, indifferent and irreverent way and unwilling to depart from known sins.

[gray wolf]

Thanks for your views.

1 Cor. 13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thanks for your views.

1 Cor. 13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Is that supposed to some kind of snide dig?  To use the Bible that way is really inappropriate, if that is your purpose in using it.  When you handle God's word, you are dealing with forces beyond your ken, and you had better be careful using the Bible to make some kind of dig, that you are not man enough to say on your own.