Needing Help Explaining the Sacraments

[TKA_TN]

I’ve recently been speaking to someone who is into the Evangelical world. We got into a debate about the sacraments. I’m not the most eloquent when trying to explain things and while I believe in the importance of the sacraments, can someone help me flush out, from a Confessional Lutheran perspective, why the Sacraments are so important? This person I’ve been speaking with is more of a “music is great” and the “preaching for 30 minutes” is what’s important.

I’m not downplaying the importance of preaching, but this person said they’ve been to Lutheran services and just don’t get anything out of it.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That's a great but challenging question, but the first thing I would ask is - how much time does the person have? Because this is a subject that can be very tricky for people to grasp if they hold to Memorialism, and needs a lot of foundational work.

To give a short answer, I would say:

God's Word, Baptism, Eucharist, (and we can even include Confession and Absolution) are not things that we do for God, but things God does for us. This is the fundamental thing that separates the right from the wrong understanding of the Sacraments.

To give a concrete example of this - when a person is baptised, that is not his pledge to God, but God's pledge to the person. The natural follow-up objection for many would then be: "But not everyone who is baptised is saved, and besides, only Jesus saves, not water."

The answer to this question is: No, not everyone who is baptised is saved, but only those who believe in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ - Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins. The water is regular water, but it is connected with God's promise of salvation. It's not a salvation apart from Christ, but a salvation IN Christ, as all who are baptised die and raise together with Christ and receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Sacraments are simply speaking the one and the same Gospel, only in tangible form for our comfort. They're not a new kind of Law or a way that supersede Christ, but truly God's means of grace, by virtue of His own promise. We trust in God's promise.

Beyond this simple explanation, there is so much more that can be said about it from Scriptures itself (which is authoritative, and the only source of authority on the subject) - about the purpose, context, and grammar - as well as how the early Church understood it (which is not authoritative, but very interesting in that it more or less universally supports the true Sacramental view). It's also very valuable to understand how the Sacraments were discussed at the Reformation, for that shows the questionable origins of Memorialism.

I'm happy to elaborate on any of these things, but hopefully this helps.

Blessings +

 

[TKA_TN]

@Daniel9v9 you’re one of the posters I wanted to hear from. Thank you. Very informative. I was speaking with this person and they said “they feel God” at your typical non-denom service with the lights turned down and music blasting your eardrums. I said well, you can come and taste Jesus at mine. The music may not give you chills, and the preaching may sometimes leave a little to be desired (not always) but you can have a real, tangible experience with our Lord in the Supper.

I tried explaining John 6 and they balked saying Jesus was speaking figuratively. I said go look at the Greek and see what the Church taught for 1500 years. I also mentioned that if Jesus says if we don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood He says we have no life in us; I think I’d want to take that seriously. Hope I explained that in a good way to this person? Anyways, thank you again for your response.

 

[LizaMarie]

Interesting I was just having this same conversation with someone who is a sincere Christian friend of mine who does not understand why we have closed communion. Also what is distinct about Lutheranism. I tried to explain about the Sacraments and the early church understood from the beginning that the Bread and Wine become the True Body and Blood if Christ

 

[Daniel9v9]

@Daniel9v9 you’re one of the posters I wanted to hear from. Thank you. Very informative. I was speaking with this person and they said “they feel God” at your typical non-denom service with the lights turned down and music blasting your eardrums. I said well, you can come and taste Jesus at mine. The music may not give you chills, and the preaching may sometimes leave a little to be desired (not always) but you can have a real, tangible experience with our Lord in the Supper.

I tried explaining John 6 and they balked saying Jesus was speaking figuratively. I said go look at the Greek and see what the Church taught for 1500 years. I also mentioned that if Jesus says if we don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood He says we have no life in us; I think I’d want to take that seriously. Hope I explained that in a good way to this person? Anyways, thank you again for your response.

Oh, thank you for that! I'm glad I can be of some service.

I can relate to everything here as I used to hold to Memorialism myself. I was, to my own shame, very hostile towards and dismissive of the Sacraments. I did not understand them as God's grace at all, but as mere empty religious rites that were counter to a living Spirit-led faith, and only reluctantly observed them as a duty. With this regrettably common understanding of the Sacraments, which is part of a larger theological framework suffering rationalistic tendencies, it's difficult to make sense of the true value and comfort of God's grace through His Word and Sacraments. But what a comfort and a joy they are!

I quite like your argument that you can taste the Lord in the Eucharist. That is actually a genius statement and great profession of faith, because it touches on something very profound - namely that the person and works of Christ, God's grace, is an objective reality, not a subjective experience inside of us. In other words, we hear the Gospel from outside of us - we receive it. It's external. Faith comes by hearing. And we can see, touch, and eat God's gift of bread and wine, which is His true body and blood, by virtue of His own power and promise. Although the elements are felt through the senses, it's still an external and objective thing. It's a very different thing from looking inwards to our own feelings.

In a modern church, if you were to remove the contemporary music, the lighting, the fog machine, the elaborate screen displays, the front row people who shout things like "Wow! That's so good!"; if the preacher didn't have emotional background music while preaching, and if he didn't shout, if he didn't stir up the crowd to clap and cheer, if he didn't say things like "Turn to your neighbour and say X!", or "Everybody say Y!"; if he didn't tell lengthy anecdotes, and refrained from his stand-up comedy routines. If only the Word was preached and hymns were sung - would you still feel the Holy Spirit? My suspicion is that many, if honest, would say no. I know this from personal experience, and I think we can reasonably conclude this because this is essentially what a liturgical service is: God's Word preached, sung, and received, which is often rejected as "unspiritual". But if we reject God's Word as "unspiritual", the great irony is that we're rejecting the very thing that truly IS spiritual. Holy Scriptures are the very words of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit is felt through the Word, not through elaborate displays.

John 6 - This is a big discussion in and of itself, but to put it briefly: There are, even within the Lutheran tradition, two primary views on this. On one hand, we have orthodox Lutherans saying John 6 can and should be used to explain the Eucharist, but we also have other orthodox Lutherans saying John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Or, to put it a bit differently, in the Lutheran understanding, it's a discussion whether we can read the Eucharist in John 6 directly or indirectly. My personal view is that John 6 talks about the Eucharist indirectly, alludes to it - but ultimately, it amounts to the same thing given the close nature of salvation and the Sacraments. So I'd very comfortable using John 6 in support of the Sacraments, provided people bear in mind the fuller nature and broader context of it. I only mention these views as it can be good to appreciate when debating others.

If you're interested though, I would gladly put together a list or summary of items that I believe strongly support the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments. I like to do it from the perspective of the Eucharist because that's perhaps the most contentious one - this is arguably where the Church is the most divided, which is very interesting if you think about it.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Interesting I was just having this same conversation with someone who is a sincere Christian friend of mine who does not understand why we have closed communion. Also what is distinct about Lutheranism. I tried to explain about the Sacraments and the early church understood from the beginning that the Bread and Wine become the True Body and Blood if Christ

The question of closed communion can be very difficult to discuss. Perhaps one way we can approach it is by expressing that closed communion is, contrary to popular belief, the only good and loving thing to do. That is, anyone who rejects or does not believe in God's promise given in the Eucharist, should not participate in it, lest they eat judgment upon themselves.

The Eucharist delivers exactly what God says it delivers, namely, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, so it's very precious and not to be taken lightly.

 

[TKA_TN]

If you're interested though, I would gladly put together a list or summary of items that I believe strongly support the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments. I like to do it from the perspective of the Eucharist because that's perhaps the most contentious one - this is arguably where the Church is the most divided, which is very interesting if you think about it.

Yes, I would. If you would rather DM me, that'd be fine. Thank you.

 

[LizaMarie]

Yes, I would. If you would rather DM me, that'd be fine. Thank you.

I'd be interested in seeing those, too.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Yes, I would. If you would rather DM me, that'd be fine. Thank you.

I'd be interested in seeing those, too.

Sure, no problem! All of the below can be expanded upon, but here's a basic outline:

Means
God often works through means. Consider for example how Namaan's leprosy was cleansed in a river, or Christ spitting on the sand to create mud used for healing a blind man. It's not that the river or the mud has any special power, but it's the ordinary element in connection with God's Word that constitutes its power. It's an ordinary thing with a divine promise, and this is apprehended through faith.

God is the Almighty Creator who creates things ex nihilo, out of nothing, so He doesn't use means because He needs to, but because He chooses to. In other words, God's use of means is not for His own benefit, but for ours.


Old Testament
The more divorced we are from the Old Testament as a foundation to the New Testament (and, by the same token, fail to read the OT in light of the NT), the easier it is to think of the Eucharist as a simple memorial meal, void of God's grace. Let's look at a few important foundational things in the OT:

Sacramental eating
Throughout the Bible, there exists a concept of sacramental eating; a mysterious union of spiritual and bodily eating, which is closely connected with life and salvation. We can see this in the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life, and in the Passover meal. This concept has existed from the very beginning, from before the fall, and after the fall, where the meal takes on a sacrificial character.

Passover
This is only a condensed overview, but in the OT, we find that the Passover is:

- From God, not from man.

- An unmerited gift, and the difference between life and death. In this respect, it's not a symbolic thing, but very real. People's lives depend on it.

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- Exclusive to God’s chosen people. One must be circumcised to eat and enjoy its benefits. Circumcision here does not imply only an outward thing, but being one of God's people in the fullest sense of the word.

- Very central to the OT. It not only marks who God's chosen people is, but its neglect or abuse results in judgment.

- Foreshadowing a greater sacrifice and redemption.

So, in a word, it is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come.


New Testament
The Eucharist is a holy mystery, but we can know its purpose if we consider who it was instituted by and in what context it was celebrated and given. We should never lose sight of that all of Scripture culminates in Christ. That is to say, the OT isn't thrown aside at the arrival of Christ, but Christ fulfills it and is the full and true reality of it. This Christological understanding is foundational to a right view of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist - The context of the institution
- From God, not from man. (Or more accurately, from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man)

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- It was celebrated on the Passover, the night when He was betrayed, just before His death. This is highly significant, because it ties the salvation of the world directly to this meal as a new covenant or a new testament.

The Eucharist - A new covenant / testament
The word "diatheke" in the words of institution (Matthew 26:28) can be taken to mean either "covenant" or "testament". Both translations are good, but perhaps we can understand them a little differently. "Covenant" has the idea of a new beginning. "Testament", that is, a last will before dying, carries the idea of an end as well as a new beginning, or an inheritance; a gift, not a duty. This is why in the Lutheran tradition, we prefer to use the term "testament", because it holds more meaning.

The Eucharist - The true Passover meal
Given the context of the Eucharist and its parallels with the Passover, we can see that the Passover culminates in Christ's death on the cross. Christ is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and His body and blood are given to the Church, as the true Passover meal; the former was limited and a type, but the Eucharist is universal and the unveiled form (in the sense that God's grace and righteousness have been unveiled through Christ).

Only those who are circumcised of heart, who believe, have been baptised and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, can enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist and receive it with thanksgiving ("eucharistia" means "thanksgiving"). And with the great promise attached to this meal comes a strong warning against its abuse - that whoever participates in this unworthily (whoever disbelieves in God's promise of it, rejects it, and shows contempt for it), become guilty of the very body and blood of the Lord, because that's precisely what they show contempt for.

So, the Eucharist is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come - but this time, to judge the nations. The Eucharist, then, serves as a comfort for the Church. It is the Gospel in a tangible form, and God's continual pledge to us, that whoever receives the Lamb of God will have life.

The Eucharist - The grammar
Grammatically, the sentence "This is my body" cannot be "This represents my body". I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it's worth noting that at the Reformation, even the radical reformers championed by Zwingli admitted that grammatically speaking, it cannot be a symbol. Many different ideas were proposed, but in the end, they concluded that even if they cannot make it fit grammatically, they still opposed the orthodox understanding of the Real Presence. This is why no (at least to my knowledge) Bible translation translates "is" to "represents" or "symbolises".

The argument that "This is my body" is comparable to "I Am the Door" etc, is false. The first reason for this is the grammatical reason mentioned above, and the other reason is that "I Am the Door", is not an expression either, but literal. Christ is not saying that He is like a door, but that He truly IS the Way (that is, not "like the way"). So, in other words, they have different grammatical forms, and neither statements are symbolic.


The Early Church
The Church Fathers are not authoritative; they add nothing to Scriptures. However, it can still be very helpful to appreciate how they understood and talked about the Sacraments. What's interesting is that they pretty universally understood the words of institution to be literal, affirming the position of the Real Presence. And I think, although early Church writings can be a little loose and undogmatic, wherever they are in agreement should cause us to pause and reflect on what the Bible says extra carefully.

I just did a quick google search on "the apostolic fathers on the eucharist" and found this: Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist


This is a lengthy post, but hopefully, this all gives you some deeper appreciation for the blessed gift of our Lord's body and blood.

The peace of Christ to you +

 

[TKA_TN]

Sure, no problem! All of the below can be expanded upon, but here's a basic outline:

Means
God often works through means. Consider for example how Namaan's leprosy was cleansed in a river, or Christ spitting on the sand to create mud used for healing a blind man. It's not that the river or the mud has any special power, but it's the ordinary element in connection with God's Word that constitutes its power. It's an ordinary thing with a divine promise, and this is apprehended through faith.

God is the Almighty Creator who creates things ex nihilo, out of nothing, so He doesn't use means because He needs to, but because He chooses to. In other words, God's use of means is not for His own benefit, but for ours.


Old Testament
The more divorced we are from the Old Testament as a foundation to the New Testament (and, by the same token, fail to read the OT in light of the NT), the easier it is to think of the Eucharist as a simple memorial meal, void of God's grace. Let's look at a few important foundational things in the OT:

Sacramental eating
Throughout the Bible, there exists a concept of sacramental eating; a mysterious union of spiritual and bodily eating, which is closely connected with life and salvation. We can see this in the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life, and in the Passover meal. This concept has existed from the very beginning, from before the fall, and after the fall, where the meal takes on a sacrificial character.

Passover
This is only a condensed overview, but in the OT, we find that the Passover is:

- From God, not from man.

- An unmerited gift, and the difference between life and death. In this respect, it's not a symbolic thing, but very real. People's lives depend on it.

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- Exclusive to God’s chosen people. One must be circumcised to eat and enjoy its benefits. Circumcision here does not imply only an outward thing, but being one of God's people in the fullest sense of the word.

- Very central to the OT. It not only marks who God's chosen people is, but its neglect or abuse results in judgment.

- Foreshadowing a greater sacrifice and redemption.

So, in a word, it is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come.


New Testament
The Eucharist is a holy mystery, but we can know its purpose if we consider who it was instituted by and in what context it was celebrated and given. We should never lose sight of that all of Scripture culminates in Christ. That is to say, the OT isn't thrown aside at the arrival of Christ, but Christ fulfills it and is the full and true reality of it. This Christological understanding is foundational to a right view of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist - The context of the institution
- From God, not from man. (Or more accurately, from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man)

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- It was celebrated on the Passover, the night when He was betrayed, just before His death. This is highly significant, because it ties the salvation of the world directly to this meal as a new covenant or a new testament.

The Eucharist - A new covenant / testament
The word "diatheke" in the words of institution (Matthew 26:28) can be taken to mean either "covenant" or "testament". Both translations are good, but perhaps we can understand them a little differently. "Covenant" has the idea of a new beginning. "Testament", that is, a last will before dying, carries the idea of an end as well as a new beginning, or an inheritance; a gift, not a duty. This is why in the Lutheran tradition, we prefer to use the term "testament", because it holds more meaning.

The Eucharist - The true Passover meal
Given the context of the Eucharist and its parallels with the Passover, we can see that the Passover culminates in Christ's death on the cross. Christ is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and His body and blood are given to the Church, as the true Passover meal; the former was limited and a type, but the Eucharist is universal and the unveiled form (in the sense that God's grace and righteousness have been unveiled through Christ).

Only those who are circumcised of heart, who believe, have been baptised and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, can enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist and receive it with thanksgiving ("eucharistia" means "thanksgiving"). And with the great promise attached to this meal comes a strong warning against its abuse - that whoever participates in this unworthily (whoever disbelieves in God's promise of it, rejects it, and shows contempt for it), become guilty of the very body and blood of the Lord, because that's precisely what they show contempt for.

So, the Eucharist is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come - but this time, to judge the nations. The Eucharist, then, serves as a comfort for the Church. It is the Gospel in a tangible form, and God's continual pledge to us, that whoever receives the Lamb of God will have life.

The Eucharist - The grammar
Grammatically, the sentence "This is my body" cannot be "This represents my body". I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it's worth noting that at the Reformation, even the radical reformers championed by Zwingli admitted that grammatically speaking, it cannot be a symbol. Many different ideas were proposed, but in the end, they concluded that even if they cannot make it fit grammatically, they still opposed the orthodox understanding of the Real Presence. This is why no (at least to my knowledge) Bible translation translates "is" to "represents" or "symbolises".

The argument that "This is my body" is comparable to "I Am the Door" etc, is false. The first reason for this is the grammatical reason mentioned above, and the other reason is that "I Am the Door", is not an expression either, but literal. Christ is not saying that He is like a door, but that He truly IS the Way (that is, not "like the way"). So, in other words, they have different grammatical forms, and neither statements are symbolic.


The Early Church
The Church Fathers are not authoritative; they add nothing to Scriptures. However, it can still be very helpful to appreciate how they understood and talked about the Sacraments. What's interesting is that they pretty universally understood the words of institution to be literal, affirming the position of the Real Presence. And I think, although early Church writings can be a little loose and undogmatic, wherever they are in agreement should cause us to pause and reflect on what the Bible says extra carefully.

I just did a quick google search on "the apostolic fathers on the eucharist" and found this: Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist


This is a lengthy post, but hopefully, this all gives you some deeper appreciation for the blessed gift of our Lord's body and blood.

The peace of Christ to you +

Thanks so much for this. Peace to you as well.

 

[Roymond]

I’ve recently been speaking to someone who is into the Evangelical world. We got into a debate about the sacraments. I’m not the most eloquent when trying to explain things and while I believe in the importance of the sacraments, can someone help me flush out, from a Confessional Lutheran perspective, why the Sacraments are so important? This person I’ve been speaking with is more of a “music is great” and the “preaching for 30 minutes” is what’s important.

I’m not downplaying the importance of preaching, but this person said they’ve been to Lutheran services and just don’t get anything out of it.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

I tend to be blunt on this topic: Lutherans believe that Jesus and Paul and Peter meant what they said!

Jesus told us "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood", and said it was "for you for the forgiveness of sins". There's no reason from the scriptures to think He didn't mean those things, and no evidence from history that anyone doubted it until after the scholastics had infected the church with rationalism that forgot the ancient meaning of the word "symbol": the Greek word literally means "cast together", so a symbol was something that cast you together with what it represented -- or as Prof Voelz of the Fort Wayne seminary once put it, a symbol is something that conveys (brings to us) what it portrays. So if the bread is a symbol of Christ's Body, then it actually brings us Christ's Body, and if the wine is a symbol of Christ's Blood, then it actually brings us Christ's Blood, because that's what "symbol" meant!

And when Paul said that we were buried with Christ in baptism, he isn't being figurative he's declaring a heavenly truth; and when Peter said to be baptized "for the remission of sins", he really meant that baptism washes away our sins.

That's really the starting point: we don't wiggle around the words in the scriptures, we take them as meaning just what they say. And so when Jesus promises the forgiveness of sins along with His actual Body and actual Blood, we don't argue with Him. That's what makes it a sacrament: Jesus gives us something physical -- the water in baptism, the elements in the Eucharist -- and sticks a promise to that.

As regards Lutheran preaching, a lot of people don't "get anything out of it" because they are expecting to get emotionally stirred up, and equate that to feeling God's presence; they're expecting words that make them feel good and tell them they're triumphant or some such thing. But proper preaching, biblical preaching, only gets you emotionally stirred up by convicting you of your sinfulness and your need for a Savior (I really love Michael W. Smith's "You Need a Savior" because it applies to all of us) and then telling you what a great Savior you have. It doesn't stir you up by eloquent words (remember Paul said he wasn't called to deliver eloquent words!) but by making clear the truth of Law and of Gospel and thus of just Who Christ Jesus our Lord is! And if it doesn't stir you up at all, so what? Being a Christian isn't about being excited (that's an error almost older than the church), it's about trusting in the One Who died and rose for us. We shouldn't be asking, after church, "Was that exciting?", but "Do I know Jesus better?"

 

[Roymond]

Sure, no problem! All of the below can be expanded upon, but here's a basic outline:

Means
God often works through means. Consider for example how Namaan's leprosy was cleansed in a river, or Christ spitting on the sand to create mud used for healing a blind man. It's not that the river or the mud has any special power, but it's the ordinary element in connection with God's Word that constitutes its power. It's an ordinary thing with a divine promise, and this is apprehended through faith.

God is the Almighty Creator who creates things ex nihilo, out of nothing, so He doesn't use means because He needs to, but because He chooses to. In other words, God's use of means is not for His own benefit, but for ours.


Old Testament
The more divorced we are from the Old Testament as a foundation to the New Testament (and, by the same token, fail to read the OT in light of the NT), the easier it is to think of the Eucharist as a simple memorial meal, void of God's grace. Let's look at a few important foundational things in the OT:

Sacramental eating
Throughout the Bible, there exists a concept of sacramental eating; a mysterious union of spiritual and bodily eating, which is closely connected with life and salvation. We can see this in the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life, and in the Passover meal. This concept has existed from the very beginning, from before the fall, and after the fall, where the meal takes on a sacrificial character.

Passover
This is only a condensed overview, but in the OT, we find that the Passover is:

- From God, not from man.

- An unmerited gift, and the difference between life and death. In this respect, it's not a symbolic thing, but very real. People's lives depend on it.

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- Exclusive to God’s chosen people. One must be circumcised to eat and enjoy its benefits. Circumcision here does not imply only an outward thing, but being one of God's people in the fullest sense of the word.

- Very central to the OT. It not only marks who God's chosen people is, but its neglect or abuse results in judgment.

- Foreshadowing a greater sacrifice and redemption.

So, in a word, it is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come.


New Testament
The Eucharist is a holy mystery, but we can know its purpose if we consider who it was instituted by and in what context it was celebrated and given. We should never lose sight of that all of Scripture culminates in Christ. That is to say, the OT isn't thrown aside at the arrival of Christ, but Christ fulfills it and is the full and true reality of it. This Christological understanding is foundational to a right view of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist - The context of the institution
- From God, not from man. (Or more accurately, from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man)

- Instituted and celebrated before(!) the redemption, and celebrated continuously after, as a continuous participation in and remembrance of God's redemptive work.

- It was celebrated on the Passover, the night when He was betrayed, just before His death. This is highly significant, because it ties the salvation of the world directly to this meal as a new covenant or a new testament.

The Eucharist - A new covenant / testament
The word "diatheke" in the words of institution (Matthew 26:28) can be taken to mean either "covenant" or "testament". Both translations are good, but perhaps we can understand them a little differently. "Covenant" has the idea of a new beginning. "Testament", that is, a last will before dying, carries the idea of an end as well as a new beginning, or an inheritance; a gift, not a duty. This is why in the Lutheran tradition, we prefer to use the term "testament", because it holds more meaning.

The Eucharist - The true Passover meal
Given the context of the Eucharist and its parallels with the Passover, we can see that the Passover culminates in Christ's death on the cross. Christ is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and His body and blood are given to the Church, as the true Passover meal; the former was limited and a type, but the Eucharist is universal and the unveiled form (in the sense that God's grace and righteousness have been unveiled through Christ).

Only those who are circumcised of heart, who believe, have been baptised and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, can enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist and receive it with thanksgiving ("eucharistia" means "thanksgiving"). And with the great promise attached to this meal comes a strong warning against its abuse - that whoever participates in this unworthily (whoever disbelieves in God's promise of it, rejects it, and shows contempt for it), become guilty of the very body and blood of the Lord, because that's precisely what they show contempt for.

So, the Eucharist is God's gift to His chosen people, that they may participate in His redemption, and declare His name to the nations, in the firm hope of a Saviour to come - but this time, to judge the nations. The Eucharist, then, serves as a comfort for the Church. It is the Gospel in a tangible form, and God's continual pledge to us, that whoever receives the Lamb of God will have life.

The Eucharist - The grammar
Grammatically, the sentence "This is my body" cannot be "This represents my body". I'm happy to explain this in more detail, but it's worth noting that at the Reformation, even the radical reformers championed by Zwingli admitted that grammatically speaking, it cannot be a symbol. Many different ideas were proposed, but in the end, they concluded that even if they cannot make it fit grammatically, they still opposed the orthodox understanding of the Real Presence. This is why no (at least to my knowledge) Bible translation translates "is" to "represents" or "symbolises".

The argument that "This is my body" is comparable to "I Am the Door" etc, is false. The first reason for this is the grammatical reason mentioned above, and the other reason is that "I Am the Door", is not an expression either, but literal. Christ is not saying that He is like a door, but that He truly IS the Way (that is, not "like the way"). So, in other words, they have different grammatical forms, and neither statements are symbolic.


The Early Church
The Church Fathers are not authoritative; they add nothing to Scriptures. However, it can still be very helpful to appreciate how they understood and talked about the Sacraments. What's interesting is that they pretty universally understood the words of institution to be literal, affirming the position of the Real Presence. And I think, although early Church writings can be a little loose and undogmatic, wherever they are in agreement should cause us to pause and reflect on what the Bible says extra carefully.

I just did a quick google search on "the apostolic fathers on the eucharist" and found this: Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist


This is a lengthy post, but hopefully, this all gives you some deeper appreciation for the blessed gift of our Lord's body and blood.

The peace of Christ to you +

I like to tell people who say that the Eucharist is a symbol that they're right -- they just need to use the original meaning! The Greek word "symbolon" actually means "cast (throw) together", so of something is a symbol it is throwing us together with the thing it represents, and thus since the Eucharistic elements represent the Body and Blood of Christ they are "throwing us together" with the Body and Blood of Christ.