"This is My Body"

[Rick Otto]

Did Jesus say it was? No.

Did Jesus say that that which he was holding was his body? Yes.

Since he was holding what appeared to be bread, what do we conclude? That he had changed it in some way? possibly. Or did he mean that it represented his body? That's also a possibility. However, he didn't say anything about it being a representation of his body or a symbol of his body.

To conclude, therefore--and on the basis of his words here--that this last one must be the answer seems questionable to me.

Typically, one does not interrupt one's own speech, with an announcement that the next phrase to be spoken will be a figure of speech.
Therefore, it not being figurative seems to be a psychotic break with reality to me.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Typically, one does not interrupt one's own speech, with an announcement that the next phrase to be spoken will be a figure of speech.

This what I have said a few times now. No one talks that way. No one says, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse - figuratively.

In fact, it's just the opposite. If someone were to say something so odd, extreme, or out of character, that they know you would take it figuratively, but that mean it literally, they tell you it should be taken literally. They would say, I am so hungry that I literally would eat a rat.

 

[Albion]

Healthy debate can serve a purpose. Fighting doesn't, so thank you for forcing me to look closer at the topic. I have moved further toward a fully symbolic understanding of the bread and cup. I don't tow the Reformed line on this one, after careful examination.

Jesus tells us in His own words what communion is. It is a visual of the gospel.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Nothing of real presence here.

Are you planning to have the same discussion with same posts running on two different threads simultaneously? That would cause confusion, at the least.

 

[Albion]

Typically, one does not interrupt one's own speech, with an announcement that the next phrase to be spoken will be a figure of speech.
Therefore, it not being figurative seems to be a psychotic break with reality to me.

I don't see any interruption of speech in what Jesus said there. While there are several different ideas expressed, he seems to move as logically from one to another as if he'd said, "I'm now going to give you a new ritual. Be sure to practice it faithfully hereafter. You'll be reminded of me every time you do."

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Are you planning to have the same discussion with same posts running on two different threads simultaneously?

Yes.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't see any interruption of speech in what Jesus said there.

I think that you've missed his point, but I'll let Rick confirm that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Some helpful words from John Piper:

Four Reasons Why "This Is My Body" Does Not Mean Jesus' Physical Body Materializes in the Bread
First, I give four reasons why "This is my body" (v. 24) does not mean: the physical body of the incarnate Christ materializes in or under the bread through priestly consecration. Then I will give three positive meanings of "This is my body" and "This is my blood." First, then, why doesn't, "This is my body" mean, this bread has become the physical, material, incarnate body of Jesus?

1. The Natural Understanding: Representation

The most natural way to understand someone who picks up a thing and says that it is a person's body, is that he means it represents their body, not that it has turned into their body. For example, we show someone a picture of our family and say, "This is my family." They know we don't mean that this picture has mystically or physically turned into my family. Or we point to an actor on the stage of a Civil War reenactment and say, "That's Abraham Lincoln." Or we read the Chronicles of Narnia and point to Aslan and say, "That's Jesus Christ."

This is the most natural way to understand the words, "This is my body." This represents my body. It's very telling that in the modern Catholic Catechism the word "represents" is used but it is regularly hyphenated: re-presents. The implication seems to be: there is a real physical re-presenting of Christ. His physical body is presented again. I think that is an unnatural way of reading these words.

2. The Parallelism Between Bread/Body and Cup/New Covenant

If the words, "This [bread] is my body" was intended to mean, "This [bread] has turned into my physical body," then we would expect the same meaning to hold for the statement about the cup. In verse 25 he says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Here the words "This cup is the new covenant" are not forced to mean: The cup has turned into a covenant. Everyone agrees that the cup stands for its contents, and the blood secures or purchases or guarantees the blessings of the covenant. So if we are willing to let "This cup is the new covenant" mean something more natural than "This cup has turned into the new covenant," we should be willing to let "This bread is my body" mean something more natural than "This bread has turned into my body."

3. Jesus Explains That He Is Speaking Figuratively (John 6:63)

John 6:63 points away from seeing Christ's physical body in the bread of the Lord's Supper. Those who believe that Christ's physical body is there materially in the form of bread often base this on John 6:48-63. There Jesus foreshadows the meaning of the Lord's Supper and says publicly in the synagogue (v. 48), "I am the bread of life." Then he talks about eating this bread. He says in verse 51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." This sounds shocking and the Jews question how he might give them his flesh to eat (v. 52). Jesus responds (v. 53), "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Then he realizes that his own disciples were confused about what he was saying (v. 60): "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'" So Jesus says to them the key interpreting word in verse 63 to help them avoid the very mistake that the synagogue was making: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." I take this to mean: Don't get hung up on my references to my flesh being eaten and my blood being drunk. I am speaking figuratively. I am referring to a spiritual action, not a physical one. So verse 63 protects the disciples from the very misunderstanding that I am warning against this morning.

4. Jesus Says That Eating and Drinking Are Spiritual Acts (John 6:35)

Finally, John 6:35 points us to the positive meaning of eating and drinking Christ. Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Here he gives himself to us to be received by eating and drinking. Hunger and thirst will be quenched by this Christ. And what is this eating and drinking? It is coming and believing. "Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." In other words, the eating and drinking refer to spiritual acts of the soul drawing near to Christ, and receiving him, and trusting him, and having the hunger and thirst of our souls be satisfied.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't see any interruption of speech in what Jesus said there. While there are several different ideas expressed, he seems to move as logically from one to another as if he'd said, "I'm now going to give you a new ritual. Be sure to practice it faithfully hereafter. You'll be reminded of me every time you do."

You bewilder me.

That was my point. The transition from literal to figurative is logical. Not to accept it as figurative is illogical.

 

[Albion]

You bewildered me.

That was my point. The transition from literal to figurative is logical. Not to accept it as figurative is illogical.

All you're telling me there is that Christ couldn't, wouldn't, have made any miracles happen. I'm not convinced by that, especially in view of all the others the Bible records him as having performed.

Put another way, no one disputes the meaning of Christ's words spoken after the "This is my body" part. We all agree that any part of this--the meal, the gathering together, etc.--could become a memorial and, also, a matter of fellowship for these men and for us who come later.

It's only the "This is my body" that is in dispute, and I see no reason to think that Christ couldn't have done what he said MERELY BECAUSE he then described future reenactaments of it as memorials to him.

Remember also that the church--from the earliest days forward--believed in SOME version of the doctrine of the Real Presence. It was only during the beginnings of a more science-oriented, rationalistic, era 1500 years later on, that the idea that this was all merely symbolism made its appearance.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

All you're telling me there is that Christ couldn't, wouldn't, have made any miracles happen. I'm not convinced by that, especially in view of all the others the Bible records him as having performed.

Put another way, no one disputes the meaning of Christ's words spoken after the "This is my body" part. We all agree that any part of this--the meal, the gathering together, etc.--could become a memorial and, also, a matter of fellowship for these men and for us who come later.

It's only the "This is my body" that is in dispute, and I see no reason to think that Christ couldn't have done what he said MERELY BECAUSE he then described future reenactaments of it as memorials to him.

Remember also that the church--from the earliest days forward--believed in SOME version of the doctrine of the Real Presence. It was only during the beginnings of a more science-oriented, rationalistic, era 1500 years later on, that the idea that this was all merely symbolism made its appearance.

Jesus didn't perform silent miracles. We are always told a miracle was about to be preformed, given commentary on it and then told people's reactions to it. We see none of that here. None.

 

[Albion]

Jesus didn't perform silent miracles.

"This is my body" was not silent. He no more whispered it into his armpit than the words that followed. You're also wrong about that idea that we are always given advanced notice of any miracle. The public ministry of Jesus doesn't at all show this to be the case.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"This is my body" was not silent. He no more whispered it into his armpit than the words that followed. You're also wrong about that idea that we are always given advanced notice of any miracle. The public ministry of Jesus doesn't at all show this to be the case.

Which are you referring to? I can't think of any. It's always spelled out for us.

Back to the subject at hand, there is no talk of a miracle taking place, AND Jesus did not say, I'm turning the bread into my flesh; however, we are told that He transformed water into wine. He didn't simply say, this is wine referring to the water. He changed one thing into another. There is NO talk of that with the bread and wine. If you can't even admit that, I'm afraid I can't spend any more time on this with you, as I only have scripture as my guide. I can't argue like a Roman Catholic does.

 

[Rick Otto]

All you're telling me there is that Christ couldn't, wouldn't, have made any miracles happen. I'm not convinced by that, especially in view of all the others the Bible records him as having performed.

Put another way, no one disputes the meaning of Christ's words spoken after the "This is my body" part. We all agree that any part of this--the meal, the gathering together, etc.--could become a memorial and, also, a matter of fellowship for these men and for us who come later.

It's only the "This is my body" that is in dispute, and I see no reason to think that Christ couldn't have done what he said MERELY BECAUSE he then described future reenactaments of it as memorials to him.

Remember also that the church--from the earliest days forward--believed in SOME version of the doctrine of the Real Presence. It was only during the beginnings of a more science-oriented, rationalistic, era 1500 years later on, that the idea that this was all merely symbolism made its appearance.

You're going to have to find a phrase to replace "merely symbolism".
I KNEW it was miracle hunger driving this irrationality.

 

[Albion]

You're going to have to find a phrase to replace "merely symbolism".
I KNEW it was miracle hunger driving this irrationality.

In the case of Transubstantiation, that might be correct to say. But, once more, I'm going to point out that you're referring to Transubstantiation, not Real Presence. (And once again, no one is going to take notice. )

 

[Albion]

Back to the subject at hand, there is no talk of a miracle taking place

You can say that, but I'm reading a lot of posts that are working overtime to deal with the idea of a miracle having taken place. See post 133, for example.

 

[Rick Otto]

In the case of Transubstantiation, that might be correct to say. But, once more, I'm going to point out that you're referring to Transubstantiation, not Real Presence. (And once again, no one is going to take notice. )

Well,...
then to address it too,...
consider the intent behind the adjective "real" and admit the insecurity about the reality of spirit its redundancy reveals. Along with the demotion of symbols as less "real".

"Spiritual Presence" would be a more honest label than Real Presence, as far as I can tell.

 

[Rick Otto]

You can say that, but I'm reading a lot of posts that are working overtime to deal with the idea of a miracle having taken place. See post 133, for example.

Quantity trumps quality?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The focus was to be on the gospel, not bread and wine. The "miracle", if you can't live without one, is that Christ came to save sinners by His life and death. The bread and wine never let us forget that, just as the Passover seder never let the Jews forget the death angel passing over.

 

[Rick Otto]

The focus was to be on the gospel, not bread and wine. The "miracle", if you can't live without one, is that Christ came to save sinners by His life and death. The bread and wine never let us forget that, just as the Passover seder never let the Jews forget the death angel passing over.

Well put.

 

[Albion]

The focus was to be on the gospel, not bread and wine.

That's one theory, but hardly any church body of any size agrees with it.

While there are many disagreements over the exact meaning of Christ's words there, it's almost certain that he was giving a new meaning or significance to this meal and to the elements (b&w).