The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

RandyPNW said:

It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!

Click to expand...

Yes, it is quite a stretch to imagine that Jesus was speaking hyper-literally in that context, but only metaphorically in other contexts where, for example, He claimed to be a shepherd or a door or a vine.

The Liturgist said:

I disagree with the premise of your question. To me, the Eucharistic reference in 2 Peter is entirely obvious.

Click to expand...

?? The Eucharist is never mentioned, and neither is communion, yet the reference is obvious??

From a literary stance, that makes no sense whatsoever. How can something that is not there be obvious?

From a proper exegetical stance it is incorrect

RandyPNW said:

It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross.

Click to expand...

You aren't dealing with the strong language of Jn 6:55-56, 53-54, 51.

Jesus' body is the living bread given on the cross for the eternal life of the world, which life as one's sustenance is appropriated (eaten) only through faith in that atoning sacrifice. Unless you appropriate Jesus' sacrifice through faith as the sustenance of eternal life, you will have no eternal life in you.
To eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood means to appropriate (eat, not just taste) his atoning sacrifice, through faith, as the sustenance of eternal life.

RandyPNW said:

Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

So yes, there is a real presence being displayed *figuratively,* so that in our personal experience we experience these things in reality. But what we experience in terms of eating the bread and drinking the wine is not in themselves the transformation. Rather, it is what they represent by our choosing to do this ritual that signifies we accept his presence in our lives on behalf of our redemption. And we are exhorted to take our commitment to this ritual and to what it represents very seriously.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

You aren't dealing with the strong language of Jn 6:55-56, 53-54, 51.

Click to expand...

By "strong language" what you really mean is "language that is to be taken literally?" I would say, contrariwise, that Jesus very, very strongly indicated, by the obvious context, that his words were to be taken "figuratively!" So, you see the use of superlatives, etc. don't really get the job done as far as proving one's point?

Clare73 said:

Jesus' body is the living bread given on the cross for the eternal life of the world, which life as one's sustenance is appropriated (eaten) only through faith in that atoning sacrifice. Unless you appropriate Jesus' sacrifice through faith as the sustenance of eternal life, you will have no eternal life in you.

Click to expand...

I believe that Jewish language customarily made use of literary figures, designed to express both a purely "human" point of view, along with a "divine perspective," as well. That caused the use of terms that had a kind of "double meaning," referring not just to utilitarian ethics but to divine ethics, as well.

For example, when we are told in the Scriptures to "love one another" it is automatically assumed that in carrying out this command that it is coming from heaven, by God's decree. In loving others we are actually loving God, as well. I know you know this.

So when Jesus says things like "my flesh is bread indeed," he assumes the listener by faith sees that he is talking about incorporating his physical activities through our own flesh, by the Spirit.

Notice several things in the passage below. One, Jesus is speaking to his disciples who had faith, and not to unbelievers who would mis-read what he was saying symbolically. Just like the parables, unbelievers would be unable to see the underlying spiritual values, that Jesus wanted to impart something spiritual from him to others--something that could only come from him and was different from flawed human beings.

Second, Jesus is talking about how to receive Eternal Life, which is not by man's own works alone. So this spiritual lesson has to do with transferring virtue from Christ to men, giving to them something that imperfect men cannot attain to due to the curse against any sin.

Third, Jesus is saying that his flesh is bread to eat, not in the carnal, dining, cannibalistic sense, but rather, in the sense that what he does we can do by devouring his word of life. It is compared to eating manna, which came by the word of God, instead of eating inappropriately, such as when Israel gathered it on the Sabbath Day.

Finally, notice that Jesus constantly makes reference that the kind of "bread" that he is is bread that "came down from heaven." This means that his origin being from God makes the quality of his spiritual life like God's life in heaven. As such, we can partake of God's word just like Israel ate bread in the wilderness that had originated from God in heaven.

John 6.43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

None of what Jesus said here has a thing to do with a need to eat Christ and drink Christ at Communion. The Eucharist is purely a memorial for and symbolic of our need to partake of Christ spiritually for Eternal Life.

Clare73 said:

To eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood means to appropriate (eat, not just taste) his atoning sacrifice, through faith, as the sustenance of eternal life.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that doesn't come by participating in the Eucharist, which is purely a sacramental ceremony, or ritual. Rather, it is by believing what it, as a memorial, represents. We have to remember that we have *already done that,* just as when Jesus' Disciples 1st did that Jesus had not yet died! Nobody is participating in Jesus' flesh when they indulge the Eucharist. No, they are only memorializing the fact that they have done so already *by faith!*

RandyPNW said:

It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!

Click to expand...

Go to blueletterbible.com and do a word search for "memorial". Pay close attention to its use in Leviticus.

But anyway, Paul spoke so sternly on the Eucharist that it could even cause death to person who took it in an unworthy manner. Those are not the words of a man who thought it was merely a some-odd something that we do. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you". Paul stated that it could cause death when taken in an unworthy manner and that it was the sharing of the body and blood of Christ. The Church Fathers are unanimous in their description of the bread and wine becoming the flesh and blood of Christ. Again, you can hold whatever opinions you want to hold, but please don't insist that your opinions represent the teachings of Christianity.

RandyPNW said:

It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

Click to expand...

Memorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.

There are hundreds of different figures of speech (FOS) in the English language and each have a name....which one is it? When you stated our Lord's words are a simple literary figure....what is it's name if it so simple to understand? Should all figures of speech to be taken non literally? Hardly. And all who believe all FOS are to be taken non-literally are manifesting ignorance.

Some FOS or literary devices are purely ornamental which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-LITERALNESS of a statement. Examples would be parallelism, repetition, redundancy, alliteration, etc. Ornamentation also could be rhyming words, words with similar sound but difference sense. These are structural FOS in order for the listener to understand the emphasis of the reader. In no way, shape or form, do these figures of speech change meaning into something non-literal.

Other FOS expand meaning of a word...some examples would be metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc.

In order to properly identity the name a FOS in a sentence, it is essential to understand the grammatical construction of the sentence. The simple sentence "This is my body" is called a copula. A copula construction has the verb "to be" separating the subject from the predicate nominative or predicate adjective.

By far the most abused FOS which Memorialist use is the metaphor. They say our Lord's words, "This is my body" is a METAPHOR and should be taken non-literally or figuratively. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Metaphors within a copula construction are easy to identify....it is always, always, always found in the predication nominative.

• The seed is the Word.
• I am the door.
• The Lord is my shephard.
• The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field.
• You are the salt of the earth.
• I am the vine and you are the branches.
• Herod is a fox.

Metaphors EXPAND meaning in language. When Jesus said, "I am the door" our human reasoning understand this...and our creativity takes over and intuitively expands the meaning of the door as millions and millions and millions of sermons have illustrated.

"This is my body" can not be a metaphor, for what does the expanded meaning of the body intuitively mean? It is nonsensical.

"This is my body" is a figure of speech. But what kind of figure of speech is it? The correct figure of speech Jesus is using is a synecdoche (substituting a part of the whole). The bread which is a part, is substituted for the whole body of Christ. When Jesus said, “This is my body” he is using a copula-predicate nominative construction. The “body” renames the personal pronoun “this” for bread. However, this is not a metaphor as Jesus is not trying to expand the meaning of the word “body.’

A synecdoche is the correct literary device here, for it preserves within the copula construction the literalness of Jesus' words.

If a person truely wanted to change the meaning of "This is my body" it is simple. Change the verb! Substitute "represents" for "is." Of course this is adding to Scripture, but that doesn't bother RandyPNW or Rick Warren. At Saddleback church....Warren always says during Holy Communion...this REPRESENTS MY BODY.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Memorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.

There are hundreds of different figures of speech (FOS) in the English language and each have a name....which one is it? When you stated our Lord's words are a simple literary figure....what is it's name if it so simple to understand? Should all figures of speech to be taken non literally? Hardly. And all who believe all FOS are to be taken non-literally are manifesting ignorance.

Some FOS or literary devices are purely ornamental which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-LITERALNESS of a statement. Examples would be parallelism, repetition, redundancy, alliteration, etc. Ornamentation also could be rhyming words, words with similar sound but difference sense. These are structural FOS in order for the listener to understand the emphasis of the reader. In no way, shape or form, do these figures of speech change meaning into something non-literal.

Other FOS expand meaning of a word...some examples would be metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc.

In order to properly identity the name a FOS in a sentence, it is essential to understand the grammatical construction of the sentence. The simple sentence "This is my body" is called a copula. A copula construction has the verb "to be" separating the subject from the predicate nominative or predicate adjective.

By far the most abused FOS which Memorialist use is the metaphor. They say our Lord's words, "This is my body" is a METAPHOR and should be taken non-literally or figuratively. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Metaphors within a copula construction are easy to identify....it is always, always, always found in the predication nominative.

• The seed is the Word.
• I am the door.
• The Lord is my shephard.
• The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field.
• You are the salt of the earth.
• I am the vine and you are the branches.
• Herod is a fox.

Metaphors EXPAND meaning in language. When Jesus said, "I am the door" our human reasoning understand this...and our creativity takes over and intuitively expands the meaning of the door as millions and millions and millions of sermons have illustrated.

"This is my body" can not be a metaphor, for what does the expanded meaning of the body intuitively mean? It is nonsensical.

"This is my body" is a figure of speech. But what kind of figure of speech is it? The correct figure of speech Jesus is using is a synecdoche (substituting a part of the whole). The bread which is a part, is substituted for the whole body of Christ. When Jesus said, “This is my body” he is using a copula-predicate nominative construction. The “body” renames the personal pronoun “this” for bread. However, this is not a metaphor as Jesus is not trying to expand the meaning of the word “body.’

A synecdoche is the correct literary device here, for it preserves within the copula construction the literalness of Jesus' words.

If a person truely wanted to change the meaning of "This is my body" it is simple. Change the verb! Substitute "represents" for "is." Of course this is adding to Scripture, but that doesn't bother Rick Warren. At Saddleback church....he always says during Holy Communion...this REPRESENTS MY BODY.

Click to expand...

Most Christians are like kittens; warm, fuzzy, cute and appealing... and that is before they have their eyes opened. LOL

RandyPNW said:

It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!

Click to expand...

The Greek word in anamnesis. I think 'memorial' is an ordinary (very ordinary) translation of this word, which belongs in the context of the Passover, which ended with the words 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. It is not so much about casting our minds back in history as it is about bringing living breathing history into the present.

Philip_B said:

The Greek word in anamnesis. I think 'memorial' is an ordinary (very ordinary) translation of this word, which belongs in the context of the Passover, which ended with the words 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. It is not so much about casting our minds back in history as it is about bringing living breathing history into the present.

Click to expand...

I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."

Luke 22.19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

How do we remember him? We remember that he died to give us the benefit of his life and blood. We also remember that in giving himself up for us he also gave himself *to us.*

Ellicot's Commentary: This do in remembrance of me.—Literally, as My memorial, or, as your memorial of Me. The words are common to St. Luke and St. Paul, but are not found in the other two reports. The word for “remembrance” occurs, in the New Testament, only here and in Hebrews 10:3. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it is applied to the shew-bread (Leviticus 24:7), to the blowing of trumpets (Numbers 10:10), in the titles of Psalm 38:1 (“to bring to remembrance,”) and Psalm 70:1. The word had thus acquired the associations connected with a religious memorial, and might be applied to a sacrifice as commemorative, though it did not in itself involve the idea of sacrificing. CLICK

I agree that this memorial is not about looking back at ancient sacramental history as looking back at the death of Christ after he had died.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Memorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.

There are hundreds of different figures of speech (FOS) in the English language and each have a name....which one is it? When you stated our Lord's words are a simple literary figure....what is it's name if it so simple to understand? Should all figures of speech to be taken non literally? Hardly. And all who believe all FOS are to be taken non-literally are manifesting ignorance.

Some FOS or literary devices are purely ornamental which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-LITERALNESS of a statement. Examples would be parallelism, repetition, redundancy, alliteration, etc. Ornamentation also could be rhyming words, words with similar sound but difference sense. These are structural FOS in order for the listener to understand the emphasis of the reader. In no way, shape or form, do these figures of speech change meaning into something non-literal.

Other FOS expand meaning of a word...some examples would be metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc.

In order to properly identity the name a FOS in a sentence, it is essential to understand the grammatical construction of the sentence. The simple sentence "This is my body" is called a copula. A copula construction has the verb "to be" separating the subject from the predicate nominative or predicate adjective.

By far the most abused FOS which Memorialist use is the metaphor. They say our Lord's words, "This is my body" is a METAPHOR and should be taken non-literally or figuratively. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Metaphors within a copula construction are easy to identify....it is always, always, always found in the predication nominative.

• The seed is the Word.
• I am the door.
• The Lord is my shephard.
• The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field.
• You are the salt of the earth.
• I am the vine and you are the branches.
• Herod is a fox.

Metaphors EXPAND meaning in language. When Jesus said, "I am the door" our human reasoning understand this...and our creativity takes over and intuitively expands the meaning of the door as millions and millions and millions of sermons have illustrated.

"This is my body" can not be a metaphor, for what does the expanded meaning of the body intuitively mean? It is nonsensical.

Click to expand...

As I said, Hebrew literary figures can add to idiomatic expressions a dualism representing the association of the divine with the human, the heavenly with the earthly. To say that "God's word" is "bread" is like that.

Matt 4.4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

To say "He's a rock" would be a metaphor, because he is not actually a literal rock, but only has rock-like characteristics, such as strength, courage, etc. But for Jesus to say, "I'm the rock of ages" would be saying not just that Jesus is like a rock, but he's also THE Rock. The rock, as such, had prophetic inferences to Messiah in the life of David, or at the very least, to God.

HTacianas said:

Go to blueletterbible.com and do a word search for "memorial". Pay close attention to its use in Leviticus.

But anyway, Paul spoke so sternly on the Eucharist that it could even cause death to person who took it in an unworthy manner. Those are not the words of a man who thought it was merely a some-odd something that we do.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that the Eucharist's use as a symbol and as a memorial means it can be taken lightly. If we do it as like a vow, committing ourselves wholly to Christ and to live by his indwelling presence, then it is certainly something to be taken seriously. One should always take his commitment to Christ seriously as a life-long commitment, a "marriage" if you will.

Paul certainly didn't want this practice to become so routine that those who were irreligious would turn it into a festival indulgence, with wine and bread. He wanted to safeguard its practice with the utmost concern to keep it in remembrance of Christ, whose death was indeed most serious.

RandyPNW said:

As I said, Hebrew literary figures can add to idiomatic expressions a dualism representing the association of the divine with the human, the heavenly with the earthly. To say that "God's word" is "bread" is like that.

Matt 4.4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

To say "He's a rock" would be a metaphor, because he is not actually a literal rock, but only has rock-like characteristics, such as strength, courage, etc. But for Jesus to say, "I'm the rock of ages" would be saying not just that Jesus is like a rock, but he's also THE Rock. The rock, as such, had prophetic inferences to Messiah in the life of David, or at the very least, to God.

Click to expand...

This sort of analogy can become theologically complex as, for example, when Isaiah prophesied that one of the titles of Messiah would be "everlasting father". Although we all agree that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, I doubt that any of us here at CF would conflate Jesus Christ with the first person of the Trinity, the Father. All three are one God, but three distinct persons.

RandyPNW said:

I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."

Click to expand...

So then the only thing Jesus means to say is essentially in the Lord's supper is.... "THINK ABOUT ME WHEN I AM GONE?" Very simplistic.

I can think about Jesus without the Lord Supper and so can all here at CF.

The Lord Supper is mentioned in five separate passages of Scripture. Remembrance is only mentioned in Luke. You have neglected I Cor 10 and 11. Seems to me you are ramming the totality of the meaning of the Lord's Supper through one verse.

.

RandyPNW said:

Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!

Click to expand...

Chapter and verse where Jesus could not do this as the God/Man? This is unbridled human reasoning not subjected to the text. Most bizarre but typical of American Evangelicalism.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

.

Chapter and verse where Jesus could this as the God/Man? This is unbridled human reasoning not subjected to the text. Most bizarre.

Click to expand...

Possibly, but not much more bizarre than believing that one is dining on human flesh and human blood, when, in truth, it is only bread and only wine (the famed Aristotelian "accidents").

bbbbbbb said:

Possibly, but not much more bizarre than believing that one is dining on human flesh and human blood, when, in truth, it is only bread and only wine (the famed Aristotelian "accidents").

Click to expand...

Really? Aristotle accidents applied to the Lord's Supper IS BY DEFINITION UNBRIDLED REASON not based on Scripture.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Really? Aristotle accidents applied to the Lord's Supper IS BY DEFINITION UNBRIDLED REASON not based on Scripture.

Click to expand...

So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood?

RandyPNW said:

• Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively,

Click to expand...

The grammar of "This is my body" is not rocket science. The subject of the sentence is a personal pronoun, the verb is "TO BE" and the body is a predicate nominative.

When Memorialists state this sentence means "represents" this rips apart the most elemental rules of grammar. When the verb TO BE is replaced with "represents" the predicate structure is destroyed and replace with a direct object. The word body is no longer a predicate nominative but a direct object which takes on other aspects of interpretation.

Different verbs change the meaning in language. This is typical American Evangelicalism. To change the meaning of a statement, they change the verb. And of course, add to Scripture.

bbbbbbb said:

So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood?

Click to expand...

Tone it down!

RandyPNW said:

It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure.

Click to expand...

So specifically out of all the figures of speech in language, what figure of speech is Jesus employing here. If it is a "simple literary figure" it should not be hard to identify due to its simplicity.