Lords supper is symbolic

[chaz491]

Guys:

Can anyone cite the Bible verse that says that the Eucharist in the Lords supper is symbolic? Catholics believe it is literally Christ's body and blood. Protestants say it is a symbol. Can anyone show where the Bible says it is a symbol?

 

[Ken Rank]

Guys:

Can anyone cite the Bible verse that says that the Eucharist in the Lords supper is symbolic? Catholics believe it is literally Christ's body and blood. Protestants say it is a symbol. Can anyone show where the Bible says it is a symbol?

He broke a piece of matzah, and while sitting there with his disciples said, "this is my body." The point being there... he was sitting there with them... he was handing them the piece of unleavened bread and so the bread wasn't his body, it was being handed to the disciples from his body. Therefore, it is a symbol for what he would do... and for us... what he did.

PS... same with the blood. It is against God's commandments, NT and OT, to drink blood. While he sat there, before blood was shed, he held up WINE and said, "this is my blood." It was wine, he said so and he hadn't shed any blood yet. Therefore, like the unleavened bread.... it was a symbol of what he would do at that time... and for us looking back, what he did.

 

[FireDragon76]

Lutherans do not believe it is a symbol. In fact the memorialist interpretation being widespread among Protestants is relatively recent. Even the Reformed understanding of the sacrament, which sees no change in the elements, does not believe they are empty symbols, but that they communicate something real to those who have faith.

 

[Ken Rank]

Lutherans do not believe it is a symbol. In fact the memorialist interpretation being widespread among Protestants is relatively recent. Even the Reformed understanding of the sacrament, which sees no change in the elements, does not believe they are empty symbols, but that they communicate something real to those who have faith.

Perhaps among Protestants... but the early church, which in the first century was predominately Jewish, would have viewed drinking blood and eating the flesh of another as being pagan to the core and against God's commandments. Even if you are anomian (against/without law) you still accept the Acts 15 letter which says to refrain from blood. How can God inspire a people to repeat an OT command to refrain from blood AFTER messiah said to drink his blood? God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Dave-W]

Can anyone cite the Bible verse that says that the Eucharist in the Lords supper is symbolic? Catholics believe it is literally Christ's body and blood. Protestants say it is a symbol. Can anyone show where the Bible says it is a symbol?

Both positions are correct. And incorrect.

The answer lies in the Exodus of the Seder liturgy - the story and its implication and explanation. Everyone is to approach the Passover seder as if HE HIMSELF was in Egypt on that day and was freed from a lifetime of slavery. Symbolic? Yes; but spiritually much more than that.

Did we come out of Egypt? Yes. We were in our ancestors' loins when they left, just like Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham's loins. (Heb 7.9)

So it is symbolic, but it is actually much more than that. The idea of limiting to one or the other is a product of the Greek western mindset that likes to look at things in isolation and in the abstract. I submit that is the WRONG mindset to approach bibilcal understanding.

 

[Ken Rank]

Both positions are correct. And incorrect.

The answer lies in the Exodus of the Seder liturgy - the story and its implication and explanation. Everyone is to approach the Passover seder as if HE HIMSELF was in Egypt on that day and was freed from a lifetime of slavery. Symbolic? Yes; but spiritually much more than that.

I certainly don't disagree with you but the question is.. is it his literal blood and body. If this is symbolic but spiritually much more than that... we are still not in a place where the bread and wine literally are his body.... at least, not on earth. We have "do not drink blood" in the OT and NT... it can't be physically literal without God forcing us to sin. IMHO

 

[Dave-W]

We have "do not drink blood" in the OT and NT... it can't be physically literal without God forcing us to sin. IMHO

As I said, the answer is in the liturgy. The 4 cups of wine represent the blood on the door posts. The Matzoh represents the unleavened cakes that had no time to rise. The Charoset represents the mortar for the bricks; and the Maror represents the years of bitterness thru hard labor.

While these are all representative and symbolic; the command is to place yourself back in that situation which makes it more literal.

 

[Ken Rank]

As I said, the answer is in the liturgy. The 4 cups of wine represent the blood on the door posts. The Matzoh represents the unleavened cakes that had no time to rise. The Charoset represents the mortar for the bricks; and the Maror represents the years of bitterness thru hard labor.

While these are all representative and symbolic; the command is to place yourself back in that situation which makes it more literal.

I understand that Dave... but like you said, they "represent," they aren't the actual blood, bricks, mortar or tears. We literally take part but those elements only represent something else. The point of the Catholics, Lutherans, and a few others is that the wine is literally his blood... the bread is literally his body. That, in my view, is outside the scope of Scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lutherans do not believe it is a symbol. In fact the memorialist interpretation being widespread among Protestants is relatively recent. Even the Reformed understanding of the sacrament, which sees no change in the elements, does not believe they are empty symbols, but that they communicate something real to those who have faith.

Ultra conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans take no stand on the symbolism. They profess that "Jesus blood and body are present under the bread and wine"during communion and, in writing, refuse to argue how it can be so.

• The Sacrament of the Altar > .PDF file

 

[Dave-W]

I understand that Dave... but like you said, they "represent," they aren't the actual blood, bricks, mortar or tears.

You are looking at it from too much of a western viewpoint. You are dividing the physical from the spiritual rather than integrating them together.

 

[Dave-W]

• The Sacrament of the Altar > .PDF file

The url is looking at a file on your own C: drive which is not available to the rest of us.

 

[Ken Rank]

You are looking at it from too much of a western viewpoint. You are dividing the physical from the spiritual rather than integrating them together.

I don't think so.... maybe I am.... but if the RCC position (which I am not attacking) says it is literally his blood when we drink it... I am simply asking, "is it?" I say no... I say it "literally represents his blood" just as the salt water on a Seder table "literally represents" the tears of the Israelites but are in fact not their tears... they are literally tap water and salt. I am not being western here, I am addressing a point that the spirit of the RCC position on the wine would mean the cup of salt water used in the Seder is literally... somehow... their tears.

 

[Daniel9v9]

The Eucharist is defined in Scriptures as a participation in the body and blood of Christ: 1 Corinthians 10:16

But the precise nature of the Sacrament is often held to be a Holy Mystery; as held by Lutherans (expressed as Sacramental union), and if I'm not mistaken, also held as a Holy Mystery by Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox (though expressed differently) -- or Transubstantiation (Roman Catholic). However, they all insist on the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which is the Orthodox teaching.

I think whatever our views on the Eucharist are, we ought to trust in its promise and joyfully hold it in high esteem on account of it being instituted and commanded by Christ Jesus himself.

 

[Dave-W]

I am not being western here,

You are, whether you realize it or not.

 

[chaz491]

He broke a piece of matzah, and while sitting there with his disciples said, "this is my body." The point being there... he was sitting there with them... he was handing them the piece of unleavened bread and so the bread wasn't his body, it was being handed to the disciples from his body. Therefore, it is a symbol for what he would do... and for us... what he did.

PS... same with the blood. It is against God's commandments, NT and OT, to drink blood. While he sat there, before blood was shed, he held up WINE and said, "this is my blood." It was wine, he said so and he hadn't shed any blood yet. Therefore, like the unleavened bread.... it was a symbol of what he would do at that time... and for us looking back, what he did.

I'm looking for where it states that it is a symbol. I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is your personal interpretation - which is subject to error.

 

[chaz491]

Perhaps among Protestants... but the early church, which in the first century was predominately Jewish, would have viewed drinking blood and eating the flesh of another as being pagan to the core and against God's commandments. Even if you are anomian (against/without law) you still accept the Acts 15 letter which says to refrain from blood. How can God inspire a people to repeat an OT command to refrain from blood AFTER messiah said to drink his blood? God is not the author of confusion.

The early church believed it was literally His body and blood. There are Protestant pastors that converted to Catholicism from the study of what the early church believed. One of them, Scott Hahn, said that it was only the heretics in the early church that believed it was a symbol

 

[chaz491]

As I said, the answer is in the liturgy. The 4 cups of wine represent the blood on the door posts. The Matzoh represents the unleavened cakes that had no time to rise. The Charoset represents the mortar for the bricks; and the Maror represents the years of bitterness thru hard labor.

While these are all representative and symbolic; the command is to place yourself back in that situation which makes it more literal.

Christ says "This is my body...... this is my blood" He doesn't say "this is a symbol of my body.... this represents my blood"

 

[Dave-W]

Christ says "This is my body...... this is my blood" He doesn't say "this is a symbol of my body.... this represents my blood"

True.

When the Matzoh is elevated the leader says "THIS IS THE BREAD OF AFFLICTION WHICH OUR ANCESTORS ATE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT." Are we really eating unleavened bread that is 3500 years old? No. It is part of the liturgy.

© 2013 David Waggoner Graphic courtesy of Davka Corp.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not being western here, I am addressing a point that the spirit of the RCC position on the wine would mean the cup of salt water used in the Seder is literally... somehow... their tears.

The philosophical assumptions underpinning your argument are all specific to certain western Reformed churches, the denial that physical symbols can participate in what they represent. This is a very old argument and goes back to Zwingli's denial that the finite was capable of the infinite (which is somewhat at odds with the notion of incarnation itself).

When I read Jesus saying "this is my body", I do not believe he is saying "this represents my body". He is speaking a new reality into existence. No longer is the bread merely bread, it is also his sacramental presence that is present in the remembrance or memorial.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps among Protestants... but the early church, which in the first century was predominately Jewish, would have viewed drinking blood and eating the flesh of another as being pagan to the core and against God's commandments. Even if you are anomian (against/without law) you still accept the Acts 15 letter which says to refrain from blood.

That's why so many of Jesus followers reacted with disgust in John 6. Jesus may have been Jewish but he was not incapable of drawing from deeper meanings of what body and blood mean, beyond religious taboos. To say otherwise would be to deny Jesus as a real human being capable of innovation and creativity. As Albion has pointed out, the Lord's Supper is not strictly speaking, a Jewish Seder.

Acts 15 is a council of men, at best, giving advice on following the Noachide law. It doesn't override the sacramental reality of the Lord's Supper. When Jesus says the wine is his blood, I am bound to believe it, even if I do not understand. And when he says to do this is remembrance of him, I am bound to do so.

The Lord's Supper is not a natural eating or drinking of Christ's body and blood. Jesus doesn't lose a pint of blood or a finger or toe during communion. That is a misunderstanding of the doctrine among Catholics and Lutherans. The whole person of Christ is present in the sacrament. Yet, his body and blood do change us, as the old Anglican prayer puts it, that our "sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed with his most precious blood".