Lords supper is symbolic

[Ken Rank]

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.

Of course and I know you are not trying to be mean... neither am I.

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

anamnēsis (G364)
Thayer Definition:
1) a remembering, recollection

Not, "do this because it is me," but "do this in order to remember me." That is the word you are looking for. When you factor in that his body had not been beaten and his blood not been shared... when he sat in the flesh saying "this is my body" and "this is my blood" then we have symbols, not the literal thing. His body WOULD BE broken and his blood WOULD BE shed... so when he said it, it was clearly a symbol and not the literal thing. We do it to remember the literal thing, but the thing we do simply POINTS to the literal thing. The wine causes us to remember his blood, the bread to remind us of his body... just symbols that point to and remind us of the real thing.

 

[Ken Rank]

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

Respectfully, not at all. When I said "early church" you thought of a time period much later than I am speaking of. The "early church" was Jewish.... the message went first to Judea and Acts 21:20 tells us that "many thousands" (actually the word "murias" which means 10,000 and it is in plural form) of Jews believed Yeshua was messiah AND remained zealous for God's law. Therefore, with clear commandments in the OT and the NT (the Acts 15 letter for one)... there is no way they would have taken part in or encouraged as a practice something that was very pagan to them. Those who took it literally came later... 100 years later.... but prior to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132AD) and certainly before the destruction of the Temple (70AD) there is no historical evidence at all suggesting the body of Christ accepted his words as being literally his body and blood.

 

[Phil 1:21]

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.

I understand what you’re asking, but please understand Jesus often spoke metaphorically.

John 21:17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”

Do you believe Jesus told Peter to look after a herd of four-legged fluffy critters? Of course not.

And you’re right; transubstantiation it is a matter of individual interpretation. If you are looking for a Bible verse where Jesus says, “This bread only represents my body” I think you already know you’ll not find one. For that matter, you won’t find one where Jesus tells Peter, “And by ‘feed my sheep’ I mean look after my followers and spread the Word,” and yet, there’s really no confusion over the verse’s meaning.

 

[Ken Rank]

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.

You (and @DaveW-Ohev ) can claim I am seeing this with a western mind. But when we have a commandment in the Torah that states not to drink blood, and we have the Acts 15 letter that says to avoid blood (and that written after the ascension by at least a decade or so) then their view was no blood ingested. If the cup is literally his blood, then the Acts 15 letter, inspired by God by the way, stands opposed to Yeshua's will. We do this "to remember him" not "because it is him."

Of course, if you see it otherwise, that is fine.

 

[Ken Rank]

Acts 15 is a council of men, at best, giving advice on following the Noachide law.

The Noachide law is a rabbinic creation found in the Talmud that was written over a period of time, starting in the 6th century. It is not biblical, in fact, #7 isn't found anywhere near the Noach story in the bible.

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.

And I respect your right to obey in the manner in which you understand. I just don't agree, that's all. His body had not been broken and his blood not shed when he said, "this IS my .... ." Because of that AND his comment to do this to remember him not because it is him... I take a different view. But again, do as you are convicted, you don't answer to me. Heck, I see this whole thing done at the Passover meal anyway... not weekly.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Albion]

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?

That seems like a fair question, but it is a mistake to say ''Protestants say it is (only) a symbol.'' While some Protestants say that, they are a definite minority.

 

[FireDragon76]

You (and @DaveW-Ohev ) can claim I am seeing this with a western mind. But when we have a commandment in the Torah that states not to drink blood, and we have the Acts 15 letter that says to avoid blood (and that written after the ascension by at least a decade or so) then their view was no blood ingested. If the cup is literally his blood, then the Acts 15 letter, inspired by God by the way, stands opposed to Yeshua's will.

Jesus' own words have priority over anything else, hermeneutically. It would be foolish to pit the Torah against its author. "Divine inspiration" is something that in my mind can be misleading as it sometimes implies that every word of the Scriptures carries equal weight. We have degrees of authority present in the Scriptures. The Council of Jerusalem simply is not the hermeneutical grid over which we understand Jesus' words. Jesus' own words must be the norm for our faith.

Acts 15 is talking about eating blood in a pagan context, not within a sacrament instituted by Christ himself. That is how I would understand it, anyways.

 

[1213]

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?

Disciples of Jesus didn’t eat the physical body of Jesus. That is why I think it is symbolical, or means something else than his physical body. That something else I think is his words and his spirit that is transmitted through his words.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

 

[FireDragon76]

And I respect your right to obey in the manner in which you understand. I just don't agree, that's all. His body had not been broken and his blood not shed when he said, "this IS my .... ." Because of that AND his comment to do this to remember him not because it is him... I take a different view. But again, do as you are convicted, you don't answer to me. Heck, I see this whole thing done at the Passover meal anyway... not weekly.

I think you are looking at this with a very western sensibility in understanding time. When Jesus is proclaiming the elements are his broken body and shed blood, he is speaking of an eternal moment, something that in Greek was termed chairos. He is revealing his entire ministry as one of sacrifice and giving of himself, of his own body and blood. (This is why he rebukes Peter so fiercely when Peter rebukes him concerning his Passion. Even though Peter does not understand it, it is an insult to Jesus very being). And in instituting this sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he gives the Church the heart of its liturgical identity, as a people that come together and remember God's deeds in Jesus and eat and drink his body and blood. This is the way he has ordained to be present with us until the end of the world.

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus' own words have priority over anything else, hermeneutically. It would be foolish to pit the Torah against its author. "Divine inspiration" is something that in my mind can be misleading as it sometimes implies that every word of the Scriptures carries equal weight. We have degrees of authority present in the Scriptures. The Council of Jerusalem simply is not the hermeneutical grid over which we understand Jesus' words. Jesus' own words must be the norm for our faith.

I don't pit one side against the other... I think that is what dispensationalism does when it all but depicts the God of the OT as God of law... and the NT God as a God of grace and love. That is the disconnect... He has always been a God of love and peace and grace and is still a God of law... or He changed. Yeshua's words don't trump the Torah, they reveal the Torah. He won't institute something new that contradicts something else God called everlasting, nor does the thing called everlasting override his ability to reveal the spirit behind the letter. Balance and harmony from all 66 books is what I seek.

Acts 15 is talking about eating blood in a pagan context, not within a sacrament instituted by Christ himself. That is how I would understand it, anyways.

Blood is blood brother... if drinking blood is pagan, then it is pagan. But... like I said, I respect your right to draw your own conclusion and it is possible I am wrong. I am not insecure about that.... God told us through Jeremiah that He would correct us ALL in due course. We all have error... if not, we would be God!

Blessings.
Ken

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

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"

is Jesus literally a door and a piece of manna?

 

[Ken Rank]

I think you are looking at this with a very western sensibility in understanding time. When Jesus is proclaiming the elements are his broken body and shed blood, he is speaking of an eternal moment, something that in Greek was termed chairos. He is revealing his entire ministry as one of sacrifice and giving of himself, of his own body and blood. (This is why he rebukes Peter so fiercely when Peter rebukes him concerning his Passion. Even though Peter does not understand it, it is an insult to Jesus very being). And in instituting this sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he gives the Church the heart of its liturgical identity, as a people that come together and remember God's deeds in Jesus and eat and drink his body and blood. This is the way he has ordained to be present with us until the end of the world.

Yes, you and Dave keep saying this and it is starting to get under my skin. We run a school that teaches first century culture, mindset, exegetical tools, and so forth. Me saying, "he was sitting there saying this is his body before a mark was placed on his body" is not being western... it is reading the text.

You believe that God supernaturally transforms grape juice into his blood (because it came out of a Welch's bottle) and I don't... I think it is simply a symbol that points to a GREAT literal thing... but it is only a symbol.

 

[chaz491]

wha

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 guess it will always be a matter of interpretation. What makes you believe your interpretation is correct over anyone else's?

 

[Ken Rank]

is Jesus literally a door and a piece of mana?

That is my exact point... thank you. He is not literally a door, not literally manna... his blood is not literally in that cup and that broken piece of unleavened bread is not literally his body. This are symbols and abstract pictures pointing to literal things.

 

[chaz491]

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.

I guess it will always be a matter of interpretation. What makes you believe your interpretation is correct over anyone else's?

 

[Ken Rank]

wha

I guess it will always be a matter of interpretation. What makes you believe your interpretation is correct over anyone else's?

As I said to others... believe as you are convicted, you don't answer to me. I might even be wrong... not a problem. God will correct us all in due course... as He said He would through Jeremiah.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, you and Dave keep saying this and it is starting to get under my skin. We run a school that teaches first century culture, mindset, exegetical tools, and so forth. Me saying, "he was sitting there saying this is his body before a mark was placed on his body" is not being western... it is reading the text.

That's a notion that is very western in itself, the idea of restoring a primitive Christianity through scholarship. Other people might say that you cannot stand in the same river twice and that ultimately you are just looking down a deep well, seeing exactly what reflects your own preferences. In many ways, this is no different than liberal Protestantism that has long since abandoned the idea of the Christian faith as being a shared tradition, in favor of reducing religion to princicples or propositions. I am decidedly post-liberal on this point, and I recognize a role for the embodied experience of Christians throughout time, informing my own faith.

You believe that God supernaturally transforms grape juice into his blood (because it came out of a Welch's bottle) and I don't... I think it is simply a symbol that points to a GREAT literal thing... but it is only a symbol.

I honestly don't know whether the bread itself changes (a point of contention with Roman Catholicism perhaps), but I do know Christ is present in the sacrament. The "thing it points to" is given in the sacrament.

 

[Ken Rank]

Recognizing metaphors and other abstract phrases and words are not always easy, especially when they cross cultures and a great deal of time. It is easy to understand that "God is a rock" doesn't mean we can go outside into my rock driveway and pick up God. Understanding that this word is meant figuratively to depict the strength of God's resolve is not difficult. Similarly, "God is a fortress" is one that doesn't cause us to want to run to Ft. Knox to visit God. We know that word is used to depict strength and stability. But other metaphors and abstract words and phrases are not as obvious to us today. Even with something as simple as the word name, we miss the point. Walking in God's name has nothing to do at all with the collection of letters used to point to Him... walking in His name means walking in His authority, in His character, in a manner that adds to His reputation.

 

[Ken Rank]

That's a notion that is very western in itself, the idea of restoring a primitive Christianity through scholarship.

[SIGH] I said nothing about restoring primitive Christianity however I would think that phrase almost demeans messiah. Why? Because he walked the faith perfectly and stands as the example to follow. Since obviously time and culture have impacted the face of the faith today, to think how he walked is "primitive" almost sounds insulting. That said...

Paul used in his writings a few of the 7 Rules of Hillel over 30 times. These rules are DESIGNED to effect context and in today's Christian world of "just give me the facts - discipleship" we are not even taught these rules exist... let alone have the ability to recognize and apply them. So if it is "western" for not accepting the current notion that "context" is the verse before and after but instead is factoring in ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that has an influence on the text... then I will gladly remain western.

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 ESV (24) and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (25) In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

A remembrance is not the actual thing or event, but remembering the event or thing, thus celebrating the Lord's Supper is a symbol, not an actual sacrifice. Moreover, the Apostles did not actually eat Jesus' body and blood at the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room, soon it is a false doctrine to teach that we are eating the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.