Question on the Eucharist...

[Carl Emerson]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

Can we please refrain from debating the doctrine of the real presence on this thread and focus on the question I have raised thanks.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

I think this may be of the same order a question as that asked about Jesus' parables, when they did not perfectly align, chronologically, with the events they represented. The reality is that the symbols of Christ, existing under the Old Covenant, were not meant to replicate, exactly, a chronology of Christ's life.

But I think you do have a point inasmuch as it is *after his resurrection and ascension* that we partake of Christ's "flesh." After all, Jesus offered this meal in symbolic fashion while still in the OT era, before Jesus had died.

As such, the Communion did not indicate Jesus' actual flesh or his then-present body, but rather, was representing his resurrection life which we can all now partake of. That's a good point.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

Good questions.

John 6 is not at the last Supper - it is before that.

John 6 does not say "some day in the future you must eat the flesh and drink the blood" - rather He says that at that point on that day it was already that time.

John 6 Jesus says he is the bread that came down out of heaven -- already - even at his birth.

If even a few people had literally started to bite Christ -- that would make the cross event future to that day - impossible.

Matt 16 - Jesus explains the symbol of bread and leaven -- as "teaching"
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

John 6 - Jesus says eating literal flesh is worthless in terms of eternal life - salvation.
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”...
...
60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

In John 1 and John 6 - the lesson of "manna" is repeated
1. The Word became flesh -- John 1
2. Jesus is the living bread that came down out of heaven - John 6
3. Jesus challenged to rain manna from heaven -- John 6

Deut 8: the Lesson of Manna
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

Matt 4: 3 “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’”

 

[RoBo1988]

1 Corinthians 5:7

When reading of Jesus and the disciples celebrating the passover, there is no mention of a lamb, unless I've missed it in my readings.

In many churches, the elements represent the body and blood. I grew up Lutheran, and by faith, they are His body and blood. Although I've been full Gospel/ holiness for many years, I still believe that way.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Good questions.

John 6 is not at the last Supper - it is before that.

John 6 does not say "some day in the future you must eat the flesh and drink the blood" - rather He says that at that point on that day it was already that time.

John 6 Jesus says he is the bread that came down out of heaven -- already - even at his birth.

If even a few people had literally started to bite Christ -- that would make the cross event future to that day - impossible.

Matt 16 - Jesus explains the symbol of bread and leaven -- as "teaching"
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

John 6 - Jesus says eating literal flesh is worthless in terms of eternal life - salvation.
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”...
...
60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

In John 1 and John 6 - the lesson of "manna" is repeated
1. The Word became flesh -- John 1
2. Jesus is the living bread that came down out of heaven - John 6
3. Jesus challenged to rain manna from heaven -- John 6

Deut 8: the Lesson of Manna
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

Matt 4: 3 “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’”

Yes - good comments.

However my question remains, would you like to comment on the matter I raised ?

 

[The Liturgist]

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

This is a very good question. In general, the body and blood that we partake of is generally agreed to be of His risen body, and in partaking of it, owing to the principle of communicatio idiomatum, we partake of both that which is attributable to the risen Human Nature and the Divine Nature, which is why St. Peter refers to us as partakers of the divine nature in 2 Peter 1:3-4

 

[The Liturgist]

Good questions.

John 6 is not at the last Supper - it is before that.

John 6 does not say "some day in the future you must eat the flesh and drink the blood" - rather He says that at that point on that day it was already that time.

John 6 Jesus says he is the bread that came down out of heaven -- already - even at his birth.

If even a few people had literally started to bite Christ -- that would make the cross event future to that day - impossible.

Matt 16 - Jesus explains the symbol of bread and leaven -- as "teaching"
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

John 6 - Jesus says eating literal flesh is worthless in terms of eternal life - salvation.
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”...
...
60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

In John 1 and John 6 - the lesson of "manna" is repeated
1. The Word became flesh -- John 1
2. Jesus is the living bread that came down out of heaven - John 6
3. Jesus challenged to rain manna from heaven -- John 6

Deut 8: the Lesson of Manna
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.

Matt 4: 3 “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’”

John 6, contrary to what you argue as is universally agreed by all Church Fathers and all traditional churches including the Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, the latter three of which have never had anything to do with the Roman Catholics.

I would also note that the traditional interpretation of John 6 is not incompatible with the (nonetheless erroneous) Memorialist interpretation of Baptists, Adventists and many Evangelicals, so I am baffled as to why Adventists insist on a counter-traditional interpretation of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is regarded by everyone except the Assyrians as a heretic, had an unusual opinion on the Eucharist, believing that in the Prothesis, or Liturgy of Preparation before the Synaxis or Liturgy of the Catechumens, also known as the Liturgy of the Word, the bread and wine become the crucified body and blood of our Lord, and then at the Epiclesis, they become the resurrected body and blood of our Lord. I don’t agree, because the prayer in the Epiclesis literally asks the Holy Spirit to make them the Body and Blood of our Lord, but it is interesting, and I can see why he came to that conclusion, even though I think most would agree it is incorrect (indeed if I recall many Lutherans object to the existence of an Epiclesis, which is my only real issue with their Eucharistic theology.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think this may be of the same order a question as that asked about Jesus' parables, when they did not perfectly align, chronologically, with the events they represented. The reality is that the symbols of Christ, existing under the Old Covenant, were not meant to replicate, exactly, a chronology of Christ's life.

But I think you do have a point inasmuch as it is *after his resurrection and ascension* that we partake of Christ's "flesh." After all, Jesus offered this meal in symbolic fashion while still in the OT era, before Jesus had died.

As such, the Communion did not indicate Jesus' actual flesh or his then-present body, but rather, was representing his resurrection life which we can all now partake of. That's a good point.

Nonetheless, it is the case that the early church according to documents from the first and second century, such as the Didache and the Strasbourg Papyrus, which is a fragment of the Divine Liturgy used in Alexandria, did believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[RandyPNW]

Nonetheless, it is the case that the early church according to documents from the first and second century, such as the Didache and the Strasbourg Papyrus, which is a fragment of the Divine Liturgy used in Alexandria, did believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

I think using statements like "the Real Presence" is misleading here. The later controversies over God's spiritual presence anointing the ceremony and converting bread into "Jesus' flesh" does not seem to be the aim? Even if it was I don't think that would be determinative in the later controversies surrounding this.

Before later arguments came into being between what is "real" and what is "symbolic" I should think all agreed that the bread and wine were elements that represented participation of Jesus' *real* life? Who knows how "Real Presence" is being used in earlier times in reference to Jesus' "real flesh" or Jesus" "real life?"

Personally, I believe the elements of bread and wine remain bread and wine, and are not being "spiritually transformed," whatever that means? I do not believe in Transubstantiation or even in Consubstantiation, as I was taught growing up.

These symbols represent, for me, our real participation in Jesus' spiritual essence, or life. Unless we partake of him for real we do not have him or the benefits he brings in terms of righteousness, salvation, and all that means. It is enough for me to know that Jesus wanted us to *remember him* in this ceremony, which represented our real participation in his spiritual life. That conveys to us the legal benefits that comes with his death and resurrection to immortality.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think using statements like "the Real Presence" is misleading here. The later controversies over God's spiritual presence anointing the ceremony and converting bread into "Jesus' flesh" does not seem to be the aim? Even if it was I don't think that would be determinative in the later controversies surrounding this.

Before later arguments came into being between what is "real" and what is "symbolic" I should think all agreed that the bread and wine were elements that represented participation of Jesus' *real* life? Who knows how "Real Presence" is being used in earlier times in reference to Jesus' "real flesh" or Jesus" "real life?"

Personally, I believe the elements of bread and wine remain bread and wine, and are not being "spiritually transformed," whatever that means? I do not believe in Transubstantiation or even in Consubstantiation, as I was taught growing up.

These symbols represent, for me, our real participation in Jesus' spiritual essence, or life. Unless we partake of him for real we do not have him or the benefits he brings in terms of righteousness, salvation, and all that means. It is enough for me to know that Jesus wanted us to *remember him* in this ceremony, which represented our real participation in his spiritual life. That conveys to us the legal benefits that comes with his death and resurrection to immortality.

I have just added a comment to the OP to please focus on the question raised in the OP and not debate the 'real presence' thanks guys.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have just added a comment to the OP to please focus on the question raised in the OP and not debate the 'real presence' thanks guys.

Indeed. Henceforth any post I make will only be in reply to your questions, and I trust others will respect your wishes as well.

Did you have any more questions on my post?

 

[Carl Emerson]

This is a very good question. In general, the body and blood that we partake of is generally agreed to be of His risen body, and in partaking of it, owing to the principle of communicatio idiomatum, we partake of both that which is attributable to the risen Human Nature and the Divine Nature, which is why St. Peter refers to us as partakers of the divine nature in 2 Peter 1:3-4

I guess that as the confession of Christ being risen in the flesh is central to faith, it follows to say we partake of His eternal body and blood.

This was the point that I was wanting to emphasise and begs the question that the pre-Cross supper was confirming a partaking in the eternal elements of Jesus even before they were offerred.

I believe the Cross was a timeless event and pre or post cross is of no issue to God being outside of time.

Hey when a truth is declared prophetically it is already established in the eternal heaven for all time.

I enjoy the sense of mystery that remains even when 'all' is disclosed, and look forward to an eternity of learning more.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I do believe that we only understand even the basics of faith by Grace through revelation.

It is so easy to attribute Truth to self discovery and miss the gems He wants to bring and share with us.

 

[RandyPNW]

I have just added a comment to the OP to please focus on the question raised in the OP and not debate the 'real presence' thanks guys.

I think that if Jesus' Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" during the Passover meal, which was prior to Jesus' death, then we cannot say they were partaking of Jesus' resurrection flesh. They partook of the bread and wine *before* Jesus' death and resurrection.

On the other hand, Jesus gave the ceremony designed primarily as a memorial, looking back to his death and resurrection, and to the benefits that provided for. Though partaking of Christ spiritually began in the OT era, it was meant to be experienced in the NT era and remembered as enhanced or fulfilled by Jesus' death and resurrection.

I know this because Jesus was specifically referring to his "blood," indicating his death. That would mean participating in Christ spiritually is supposed to recall what Jesus' death meant for our redemption. So in my view, the Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" in the OT era, before Jesus' death and resurrection. But it was designed to show that Jesus' disciples are to partake of Jesus' "flesh" in the NT era so that we benefit from his death and resurrection.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think that if Jesus' Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" during the Passover meal, which was prior to Jesus' death, then we cannot say they were partaking of Jesus' resurrection flesh. They partook of the bread and wine *before* Jesus' death and resurrection.

This would be true if the event Cross was not timeless, yet anchored in history.

Our interaction with the Godhead is as with eternal personages made visible to us in time but timeless in essence and not bound to chronology.

So we see the bread and wine way back in the OT and the truths around them already established in heaven.

On the other hand, Jesus gave the ceremony as a ceremony designed primarily as a memorial, looking back to his death and resurrection, and to the benefits that provided for. That is, partaking of Christ spiritually began in the OT era. But the ceremony was designed to take place primarily in the NT era. The OT demonstration was just designed to provide a blueprint for future use in the NT era.

To me the passover shouts of the victory over death so clearly demonstrated in Moses day with a lamb per family.

So the introduction of Jesus as the passover Lamb was just confirming more suscinctly what was already known.

I know this because Jesus was specifically referring to his "blood," indicating his death. That would mean participating in Christ spiritually is supposed to recall what Jesus' death meant for our redemption. So in my view, the Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" in the OT era, before Jesus' death and resurrection. But it was designed to show that Jesus' disciples are to partake of Jesus' "flesh" in the NT era so that we benefit from his death and resurrection.

Believers from both era's benefit from His death and resurrection.

 

[honey badger]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

Can we please refrain from debating the doctrine of the real presence on this thread and focus on the question I have raised thanks.

Jesus was speaking to the perception of his soul ... a feast of tabernacles ...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think that if Jesus' Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" during the Passover meal, which was prior to Jesus' death, then we cannot say they were partaking of Jesus' resurrection flesh. They partook of the bread and wine *before* Jesus' death and resurrection.

On the other hand, Jesus gave the ceremony designed primarily as a memorial, looking back to his death and resurrection, and to the benefits that provided for. Though partaking of Christ spiritually began in the OT era, it was meant to be experienced in the NT era and remembered as enhanced or fulfilled by Jesus' death and resurrection.

I know this because Jesus was specifically referring to his "blood," indicating his death. That would mean participating in Christ spiritually is supposed to recall what Jesus' death meant for our redemption. So in my view, the Disciples partook of Jesus' "flesh" in the OT era, before Jesus' death and resurrection. But it was designed to show that Jesus' disciples are to partake of Jesus' "flesh" in the NT era so that we benefit from his death and resurrection.

I dont think there are 'before' and after' in eternal Truths such as the Cross.

It is finished indicated completion in time what was already established in heaven.

Hey don't we already see the assension in Daniel 7 - spoken prophetically of an event in timeless heaven.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

Can we please refrain from debating the doctrine of the real presence on this thread and focus on the question I have raised thanks.

John 6:53
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."

What is " life"? It is His Holy Spirit. His Spirit regenerates us and gives us everlasting life. The Eucharist is symbolic for His indwelling Spirit in the believer which He sent after His ascension. Blessings

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Hi there,

Just pondering on a matter that is worthy of discussion.

I understand that a lamb offered as a sacrifice for sin, under the Law, was then consumed.

The partaking in the body and blood of Jesus was first shared with Jesus by the disciples before His sacrificial death on the Cross.

Am I right then to conclude then, that this blood and body that the disciples consumed as they partook of the bread and wine, were of His eternal resurrected body and not His pre-resurrection body ?

Or do you consider them one in the same ?

I think there is a gem of faith building revelation to be had as one ponders on this.

Your thoughts most welcome.

John 6:53
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.

Can we please refrain from debating the doctrine of the real presence on this thread and focus on the question I have raised thanks.

Does your question amount to asking if the body and blood of Jesus Christ are ubiquitous?