Yes, it is quite a stretch to imagine that Jesus was speaking hyper-literally in that context, but only metaphorically in other contexts where, for example, He claimed to be a shepherd or a door or a vine.It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!
?? The Eucharist is never mentioned, and neither is communion, yet the reference is obvious??I disagree with the premise of your question. To me, the Eucharistic reference in 2 Peter is entirely obvious.
You aren't dealing with the strong language of Jn 6:55-56, 53-54, 51.It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross.
Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.
So yes, there is a real presence being displayed *figuratively,* so that in our personal experience we experience these things in reality. But what we experience in terms of eating the bread and drinking the wine is not in themselves the transformation. Rather, it is what they represent by our choosing to do this ritual that signifies we accept his presence in our lives on behalf of our redemption. And we are exhorted to take our commitment to this ritual and to what it represents very seriously.
By "strong language" what you really mean is "language that is to be taken literally?" I would say, contrariwise, that Jesus very, very strongly indicated, by the obvious context, that his words were to be taken "figuratively!"You aren't dealing with the strong language of Jn 6:55-56, 53-54, 51.
I believe that Jewish language customarily made use of literary figures, designed to express both a purely "human" point of view, along with a "divine perspective," as well. That caused the use of terms that had a kind of "double meaning," referring not just to utilitarian ethics but to divine ethics, as well.Jesus' body is the living bread given on the cross for the eternal life of the world, which life as one's sustenance is appropriated (eaten) only through faith in that atoning sacrifice. Unless you appropriate Jesus' sacrifice through faith as the sustenance of eternal life, you will have no eternal life in you.
Yes, but that doesn't come by participating in the Eucharist, which is purely a sacramental ceremony, or ritual. Rather, it is by believing what it, as a memorial, represents. We have to remember that we have *already done that,* just as when Jesus' Disciples 1st did that Jesus had not yet died! Nobody is participating in Jesus' flesh when they indulge the Eucharist. No, they are only memorializing the fact that they have done so already *by faith!*To eat Jesus' flesh and to drink his blood means to appropriate (eat, not just taste) his atoning sacrifice, through faith, as the sustenance of eternal life.
It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!
Memorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.
Most Christians are like kittens; warm, fuzzy, cute and appealing... and that is before they have their eyes opened. LOLMemorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.
There are hundreds of different figures of speech (FOS) in the English language and each have a name....which one is it? When you stated our Lord's words are a simple literary figure....what is it's name if it so simple to understand? Should all figures of speech to be taken non literally? Hardly. And all who believe all FOS are to be taken non-literally are manifesting ignorance.
Some FOS or literary devices are purely ornamental which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-LITERALNESS of a statement. Examples would be parallelism, repetition, redundancy, alliteration, etc. Ornamentation also could be rhyming words, words with similar sound but difference sense. These are structural FOS in order for the listener to understand the emphasis of the reader. In no way, shape or form, do these figures of speech change meaning into something non-literal.
Other FOS expand meaning of a word...some examples would be metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc.
In order to properly identity the name a FOS in a sentence, it is essential to understand the grammatical construction of the sentence. The simple sentence "This is my body" is called a copula. A copula construction has the verb "to be" separating the subject from the predicate nominative or predicate adjective.
By far the most abused FOS which Memorialist use is the metaphor. They say our Lord's words, "This is my body" is a METAPHOR and should be taken non-literally or figuratively. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Metaphors within a copula construction are easy to identify....it is always, always, always found in the predication nominative.
Metaphors EXPAND meaning in language. When Jesus said, "I am the door" our human reasoning understand this...and our creativity takes over and intuitively expands the meaning of the door as millions and millions and millions of sermons have illustrated.
- The seed is the Word.
- I am the door.
- The Lord is my shephard.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field.
- You are the salt of the earth.
- I am the vine and you are the branches.
- Herod is a fox.
"This is my body" can not be a metaphor, for what does the expanded meaning of the body intuitively mean? It is nonsensical.
"This is my body" is a figure of speech. But what kind of figure of speech is it? The correct figure of speech Jesus is using is a synecdoche (substituting a part of the whole). The bread which is a part, is substituted for the whole body of Christ. When Jesus said, “This is my body” he is using a copula-predicate nominative construction. The “body” renames the personal pronoun “this” for bread. However, this is not a metaphor as Jesus is not trying to expand the meaning of the word “body.’
A synecdoche is the correct literary device here, for it preserves within the copula construction the literalness of Jesus' words.
If a person truely wanted to change the meaning of "This is my body" it is simple. Change the verb! Substitute "represents" for "is." Of course this is adding to Scripture, but that doesn't bother Rick Warren. At Saddleback church....he always says during Holy Communion...this REPRESENTS MY BODY.
The Greek word in anamnesis. I think 'memorial' is an ordinary (very ordinary) translation of this word, which belongs in the context of the Passover, which ended with the words 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. It is not so much about casting our minds back in history as it is about bringing living breathing history into the present.It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!
I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."The Greek word in anamnesis. I think 'memorial' is an ordinary (very ordinary) translation of this word, which belongs in the context of the Passover, which ended with the words 'tonight we have come out of Egypt'. It is not so much about casting our minds back in history as it is about bringing living breathing history into the present.
As I said, Hebrew literary figures can add to idiomatic expressions a dualism representing the association of the divine with the human, the heavenly with the earthly. To say that "God's word" is "bread" is like that.Memorialists, Baptists and American Evangelicals always FAIL at identifying what the specific name of the Figure of Speech (FOS) is employed for our Lord's words to be taken figuratively.
There are hundreds of different figures of speech (FOS) in the English language and each have a name....which one is it? When you stated our Lord's words are a simple literary figure....what is it's name if it so simple to understand? Should all figures of speech to be taken non literally? Hardly. And all who believe all FOS are to be taken non-literally are manifesting ignorance.
Some FOS or literary devices are purely ornamental which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-LITERALNESS of a statement. Examples would be parallelism, repetition, redundancy, alliteration, etc. Ornamentation also could be rhyming words, words with similar sound but difference sense. These are structural FOS in order for the listener to understand the emphasis of the reader. In no way, shape or form, do these figures of speech change meaning into something non-literal.
Other FOS expand meaning of a word...some examples would be metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc.
In order to properly identity the name a FOS in a sentence, it is essential to understand the grammatical construction of the sentence. The simple sentence "This is my body" is called a copula. A copula construction has the verb "to be" separating the subject from the predicate nominative or predicate adjective.
By far the most abused FOS which Memorialist use is the metaphor. They say our Lord's words, "This is my body" is a METAPHOR and should be taken non-literally or figuratively. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Metaphors within a copula construction are easy to identify....it is always, always, always found in the predication nominative.
Metaphors EXPAND meaning in language. When Jesus said, "I am the door" our human reasoning understand this...and our creativity takes over and intuitively expands the meaning of the door as millions and millions and millions of sermons have illustrated.
- The seed is the Word.
- I am the door.
- The Lord is my shephard.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a field.
- You are the salt of the earth.
- I am the vine and you are the branches.
- Herod is a fox.
"This is my body" can not be a metaphor, for what does the expanded meaning of the body intuitively mean? It is nonsensical.
I didn't say that the Eucharist's use as a symbol and as a memorial means it can be taken lightly. If we do it as like a vow, committing ourselves wholly to Christ and to live by his indwelling presence, then it is certainly something to be taken seriously. One should always take his commitment to Christ seriously as a life-long commitment, a "marriage" if you will.Go to blueletterbible.com and do a word search for "memorial". Pay close attention to its use in Leviticus.
But anyway, Paul spoke so sternly on the Eucharist that it could even cause death to person who took it in an unworthy manner. Those are not the words of a man who thought it was merely a some-odd something that we do.
This sort of analogy can become theologically complex as, for example, when Isaiah prophesied that one of the titles of Messiah would be "everlasting father". Although we all agree that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, I doubt that any of us here at CF would conflate Jesus Christ with the first person of the Trinity, the Father. All three are one God, but three distinct persons.As I said, Hebrew literary figures can add to idiomatic expressions a dualism representing the association of the divine with the human, the heavenly with the earthly. To say that "God's word" is "bread" is like that.
Matt 4.4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
To say "He's a rock" would be a metaphor, because he is not actually a literal rock, but only has rock-like characteristics, such as strength, courage, etc. But for Jesus to say, "I'm the rock of ages" would be saying not just that Jesus is like a rock, but he's also THE Rock. The rock, as such, had prophetic inferences to Messiah in the life of David, or at the very least, to God.
So then the only thing Jesus means to say is essentially in the Lord's supper is.... "THINK ABOUT ME WHEN I AM GONE?" Very simplistic.I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."
Chapter and verse where Jesus could not do this as the God/Man? This is unbridled human reasoning not subjected to the text. Most bizarre but typical of American Evangelicalism.Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!
Possibly, but not much more bizarre than believing that one is dining on human flesh and human blood, when, in truth, it is only bread and only wine (the famed Aristotelian "accidents")..
Chapter and verse where Jesus could this as the God/Man? This is unbridled human reasoning not subjected to the text. Most bizarre.
Really? Aristotle accidents applied to the Lord's Supper IS BY DEFINITION UNBRIDLED REASON not based on Scripture.Possibly, but not much more bizarre than believing that one is dining on human flesh and human blood, when, in truth, it is only bread and only wine (the famed Aristotelian "accidents").
So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood?Really? Aristotle accidents applied to the Lord's Supper IS BY DEFINITION UNBRIDLED REASON not based on Scripture.
The grammar of "This is my body" is not rocket science. The subject of the sentence is a personal pronoun, the verb is "TO BE" and the body is a predicate nominative.
- Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively,
Tone it down!So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood?
So specifically out of all the figures of speech in language, what figure of speech is Jesus employing here. If it is a "simple literary figure" it should not be hard to identify due to its simplicity.It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?