Communion: Body and Blood or rememberance?

[food4thought]

This is a very interesting discussion. If I could, I'd like to redirect this from a discussion analogies and church teachings back to Scripture references. I would be very interested in any references where wine and blood, or body and bread, are mentioned together. Any Scripture types that can be indentified with communion would also be helpful.

God bless!

 

[HereIStand]

Not too long ago, I put together a brief comparison of Lutheran and Reformed views of the Lord's Supper or Communion. I certainly can't claim exhaustive research, but here is part of the conclusion that I arrived at:

1) The question of whether it is (or was) possible for Christ to be literally physically present in the Lord’s Supper or whether it is the will of God for Christ’s body to take on the limitations of human form and locality at one place can be answered this way: both are true.

2) However, while it remains a possibility for Christ to be literally physically present both in Heaven and in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, it remains only a possibility.

3) The fact that Christ ascended into Heaven is a certainty from Scripture.

4) Hence, because Christ’s Ascension into Heaven is a certainty from Scripture and the fact that He can be bodily present both in Heaven and in the Lord‘s Supper is only a possibility, it seems that the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper are best understood from Scripture in a spiritual sense with Christ made literally spiritually present by the power of the Holy Spirit but not in a literal physical sense because the physical body of Christ is in Heaven.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm not here to add yea or nay, but I add these two pieces of scripture:

"Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." -Lev. 7:26-27

And these:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." -Lev. 17:10-14

And these:

"Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water." -Deut. 12:16

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." -Deut. 12:23

 

[prodromos]

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." -Deut. 12:23

The very reason we were not to eat the flesh of animals with the blood in it is precisely why we must partake of Christ's flesh and blood.

John

 

[Melethiel]

Not too long ago, I put together a brief comparison of Lutheran and Reformed views of the Lord's Supper or Communion. I certainly can't claim exhaustive research, but here is part of the conclusion that I arrived at:

1) The question of whether it is (or was) possible for Christ to be literally physically present in the Lord’s Supper or whether it is the will of God for Christ’s body to take on the limitations of human form and locality at one place can be answered this way: both are true.

2) However, while it remains a possibility for Christ to be literally physically present both in Heaven and in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, it remains only a possibility.

3) The fact that Christ ascended into Heaven is a certainty from Scripture.

4) Hence, because Christ’s Ascension into Heaven is a certainty from Scripture and the fact that He can be bodily present both in Heaven and in the Lord‘s Supper is only a possibility, it seems that the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper are best understood from Scripture in a spiritual sense with Christ made literally spiritually present by the power of the Holy Spirit but not in a literal physical sense because the physical body of Christ is in Heaven.

That's Reformed, but not Lutheran.

 

[HereIStand]

Melethiel,

Yes, in my reading of Scripture, the Reformed understanding of Communion has more support, however, it is not as if a case can't be made for the Lutheran understanding of Communion from Scripture, as well.

God Bless

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

2Cr 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;

Forgive me.....

 

[DeaconDean]

The very reason we were not to eat the flesh of animals with the blood in it is precisely why we must partake of Christ's flesh and blood.

John

A very good observation friend. And from a Baptist standpoint, one reason why we believe it is ceremonial (remembrance) in nature rather than real presence. If you believe in Transubstantiation (real presence), then God bless you. If you believe in Consubstantiation (spiritual presence), then God bless you. I will not dispute with you over your beliefs. From a Protestant perspective, I think that since God warned not to partake of the blood for several reasons, Jesus wouldn't have disobeyed the Father and led His disciples to do it. It was ceremonial then, (looking forward to) and we do it now looking back at what was done.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -Lk. 22:19

 

[prodromos]

A very good observation friend. And from a Baptist standpoint, one reason why we believe it is ceremonial (remembrance) in nature rather than real presence.

[bible]1 Corinthians 11:27-30[/bible]
When one understands that it is truly Christ's flesh and blood that we partake of, then the above passage makes perfect sense. When one partakes of that which is Holy in an unworthy manner it can literally kill you. Consider what happened to Oza when he touched the Ark! Or what happened to the Philistines when they had captured the Ark.
Can anyone explain how participating unworthily in a remembrance ceremony can possibly cause illness and even death, as witnessed by the above passage from 1 Corinthians?

John

 

[Splayd]

[bible]1 Corinthians 11:27-30[/bible]
When one understands that it is truly Christ's flesh and blood that we partake of, then the above passage makes perfect sense. When one partakes of that which is Holy in an unworthy manner it can literally kill you. Consider what happened to Oza when he touched the Ark! Or what happened to the Philistines when they had captured the Ark.
Can anyone explain how participating unworthily in a remembrance ceremony can possibly cause illness and even death, as witnessed by the above passage from 1 Corinthians?

John

Sure - Because it's a Holy ceremony. Jesus instituted it and is in it. The bread and wine don't need to be physically transformed for Christ to be present in the ceremony. When we approach communion with the wrong attitude, we disrespect God and the Holy Spirit that resides in us, just as Ananias did when he lied to Peter. It was that that killed him too. Even before Jesus explained the significance of the bread and the wine, Passover was treated with reverance and only those who were circumcised were to partake. Why? Was it a physical aspect of the meal that was Holy or their observance of it?

 

[Asinner]

Sure - Because it's a Holy ceremony. Jesus instituted it and is in it. The bread and wine don't need to be physically transformed for Christ to be present in the ceremony. When we approach communion with the wrong attitude, we disrespect God and the Holy Spirit that resides in us, just as Ananias did when he lied to Peter. It was that that killed him too. Even before Jesus explained the significance of the bread and the wine, Passover was treated with reverance and only those who were circumcised were to partake. Why? Was it a physical aspect of the meal that was Holy or their observance of it?

If I was a protestant, could I partake of the Lord's Supper with my husband in my home on Sunday instead of receiving it at church?

God Bless

 

[Iosias]

I was recently moved to seek out a more complete understanding of communion; most specifically the idea of whether bread and wine/grape juice is to be viewed as actually being the body and blood of Jesus or symbols that cause us to remember His sacrifice.

I must admit that Hebrews 9-10 causes me to lean towards the idea of rememberance... but I would like to invite others to offer scriptural reasons for taking this more literally. Obviously, I am familiar with John 6, so other references besides this chapter would be very helpful.
Thanks

I would suggest you read the Black Rubric and Thomas Cranmer upon the Lord's supper

 

[Iosias]

HEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

 

[a_ntv]

WHEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, ..... For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; .... and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

food4thought asked for scriptural reasons....

You answer with Mr Kramer Black Rubric (why black? it is not a color of the Lord. I dont like the black)

Do you think that the Black Rubric is as authoritative as the scripture?

 

[FullyMT]

The Roman church does re-sacrifice him, would you say you do not agree with this?

From a Catholic Catechism

262. Q. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass.

263. Q. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

264. Q. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.


Baltimore Catechism

I'm not staying in this thread, but I saw this and thought this needed clarification...
The Church believes that during the Eucharistic Liturgy, we become PRESENT at the Sacrifice of Calvary. We are not resacrificing Jesus, instead, we become present at the Eternal Event that has allowed us to enter into Salvation.
In Heaven, Jesus is constantly there as a "lamb, as if slain" (Rev 5:6). The Sacrifice has never ended, instead, we become present to it. In this way, we may bring to Jesus all that we have.
It is said that the Mass (or Divine Liturgy depending on Rite) does not change, but the people.

Sorry if that sounds confusing...I'm trying to explain something not completely comprehendable. So if it needs clarifying, let me know.

 

[Iosias]

food4thought asked for scriptural reasons....

But surely we need to be taught? Scripture without Tradition can lead to confusion!

 

[a_ntv]

But surely we need to be taught? Scripture without Tradition can lead to confusion!

Mr Kramer is not Tradition.

Find this sentence of him is a Fathers of the Church: it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

This sentence shows simply a deep lack of faith in Christ as True God. Everythig is possible to God !!!

 

[HereIStand]

19th Century Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle wrote the following in The Real Presence: What Is It?

'My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or in the consecrated bread and wine, is simply this: there is no such presence taught anywhere in Holy Scripture. It is a presence that can never be honestly and fairly got out of the Bible. Let the three accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially, and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My body; “and also took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of this: this is My blood.” But there is nothing in the simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows that the disciples thought their Master’s body and blood were really present in the bread and wine which they received. There is not a word in the epistles to show that after our Lord’s ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His body and blood were present in an ordinance celebrated on earth, or that the bread in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration, was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and literally wine.'

 

[OldHighChurchman]

I would say that it is a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice once-for-all and yet Christ is really present spiritually.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

19th Century Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle wrote the following in The Real Presence: What Is It?

'My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or in the consecrated bread and wine, is simply this: there is no such presence taught anywhere in Holy Scripture. It is a presence that can never be honestly and fairly got out of the Bible. Let the three accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially, and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My body; “and also took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of this: this is My blood.” But there is nothing in the simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows that the disciples thought their Master’s body and blood were really present in the bread and wine which they received. There is not a word in the epistles to show that after our Lord’s ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His body and blood were present in an ordinance celebrated on earth, or that the bread in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration, was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and literally wine.'

Just goes to show how wrong "a person" can be.

Forgive me.....