Is Breaking of the Bread literal or merely a symbol?

[amg0364730]

REASON FOR DISCUSSION
I had noticed that a lot of people especially had different views on this matter. My goal is not to push people in a hard debate, but rather begin an open forum for religious differences. This is to provide other Christian denomination a voice, to aired their side regarding this matter. I repeat this should be done in a gentle way possible. Sharing your faith to other people is a charity and love.

SCRIPTURAL BASIS
Matthew 26:26-27
"While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it gave it to the disciples and said, Take eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup and after giving thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." NRSV-CE

Other: Mark 14:22-24
Luke 22:19-20

In my belief, Jesus is saying those words literally. I also believe that Christians should renew their covenant with God regularly, not every year, nor every month, but every day.

SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR LITERAL SENSE
In John 6:51-57 we read:
" I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh, The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat? So 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. Those who eat my flesh & drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood id true drink. Those who eat my flesh & drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."NRSV-CE

In here, Jesus NEVER explained that his body is merely a symbol of faith. Then why other Christian says that is was just a symbol? Is repetition of this act, produce a only a routine, which might fall as a wasted tradition?

If then this is a new covenant, then we should re-new it daily. Not just a mere sign of faith, but the real essence of our faith, Jesus Christ it self...

 

[Nick]

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think you need to do it daily. You can if you want, but as often as you feell would be fine.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Does Jesus want us to drink a cup of blood from his body?

 

[handy]

I was thinking along the same lines, Dave. The bread and the cup must be symbolic. If Jesus was speaking literal, He was pushing cannibalism.

 

[Dave Slayer]

I was thinking along the same lines, Dave. The bread and the cup must be symbolic. If Jesus was speaking literal, He was pushing cannibalism.

Pretty much. If Jesus wants us all to eat his body and drink his blood, where do we go to get it? Is the body of Jesus even large enough to feed every Christian every day?

 

[francisdesales]

Pretty much. If Jesus wants us all to eat his body and drink his blood, where do we go to get it? Is the body of Jesus even large enough to feed every Christian every day?

No doubt the witnesses of the miraculous feeding of the thousands mentioned in the same John 6 chapter asked the same questions about how Jesus was able to feed all those people...

Some went away fed, others went away doubting. And still do...

 

[Adullam]

It was real bread...the kind you eat literally. Of course man shall not live by bread alone...

 

[Benoni]

It is not merely symbolic... God hides HIS deepness in symblism.

1 Corin 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come. example

Example: NT:5178 a : Strong’s: tupikos (toop-ee-kos'); an adverb related to NT:5179; found only in 1 Cor 10:11: as a warning, by way of example, typologically (i.e. figuratively, as a prophetic type, a typological interpretation of Scripture)


Pro. 25: 2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter


God hides His deepness in spiritual symbolism, parables, types, examples as well as mysteries; the word mystery was used 27 times in the NT and means sacred secret. Many of the threads written so far here show us naturally point or physical examples of deep spiritual truths. A pearl is used quite often in scripture as one of the many hidden examples

1 Corin 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come. example

Example: NT:5178 a : Strong’s: tupikos (toop-ee-kos'); an adverb related to NT:5179; found only in 1 Cor 10:11: as a warning, by way of example, typologically (i.e. figuratively, as a prophetic type, a typological interpretation of Scripture)


There are many signs and symbols hidden in GOD’S Word example Jesus is a Lamb of God; this does not mean Jesus was a bab sheep and ate grass; but where the answer to this example is both in the natural ream and then should be interpreted thought god’s spirit with in you.

There is a simple order that God has established relative to the progression of Truth and to the creation itself, and it is this: "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor. 15:46). This principle is evident everywhere in the Scriptures. First the old creation, then the New. First darkness, then light. First a garden in Eden and the tree of life, then the Garden of God and the real Tree of Life. First Adam, then the Last Adam. First the Passover, then the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. First Law, and then Grace. First the typical Feast of Tabernacles, then the unveiled glory of God in the spiritual Feast of Tabernacles. And the wonder of it all is this, that the end of the Old is the beginning of the New; and out of that which is destined to pass away there cometh forth that which is destined to remain.
And so it was that God called light out of darkness. It came to pass also that from the first Adam there came Christ, destined not only to become the Last Adam (the last of Adam, the last of the old race), but the Second Man (the beginning of the second creation). Likewise, the Last Passover was the occasion of the true Passover that was sacrificed for us. And when Christ died on the Cross, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain--that was the end of the Law, but it was also the beginning of Grace. God always "taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." (Heb. 10:9).
It is important, therefore, that we should always observe that which is first, and natural, and from the natural learn to discern in what way it typifies the spiritual. If we read of the natural Passover, God intends that from the various circumstances and rituals connected with the natural we should hear what He would say to us concerning the spiritual Passover, even Christ. If it is the Feast of Weeks, then in this God would teach us concerning the true Feast of Weeks, even Pentecost. If it is the Day of Atonement, then let us learn to discern the pattern of the true Atonement. And so likewise, if the Feast of Tabernacles is being observed, it is for the purpose that we might learn great and mighty spiritual truths from the natural circumstances and events transpiring at the Feast.


Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

 

[amg0364730]

I was thinking along the same lines, Dave. The bread and the cup must be symbolic. If Jesus was speaking literal, He was pushing cannibalism.

This kind of reply is what I awaited for; Is He (Jesus Christ) is pushing for canibalism? I don't think so, remember He is the Bread coming from Heaven. Christ never explained it plainly and simple, like the other parable, and example to this is the parable of the sower, here he re-stated the facts, behind the parable. But in John 6:51-57, Christ repeatedly saying it 'Eat my flesh and drink my Blood', and there is no other explanation after that.

Christ said "New Covenant", like circumcision where it was the covenant given in the Old days. Now, it is His own blood.

 

[amg0364730]

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think you need to do it daily. You can if you want, but as often as you feell would be fine.

Well, I usually struggling to do it daily. It was a big step for me. Now, If every Christian, would do it as dictated only by himself, as we called it "FELT DOING IT", then our love to Christ is just like a wind. It will only passes but never leave any mark.

If we can do it daily with care and true charity, plus love and enveloped with Faith, I think it will leave a mark on us. A indellible mark, kept by good works and renewed everyday.

For me, a covenant is not like a contract, were there is an exchange of property, for me; a covenant is an exchange of person.

I hope every one could practice it. It was like a beacon of light, that draws every Chrisitian towards understanding and love.

 

[Dave Slayer]

I was thinking along the same lines, Dave. The bread and the cup must be symbolic. If Jesus was speaking literal, He was pushing cannibalism.

This kind of reply is what I awaited for; Is He (Jesus Christ) is pushing for canibalism? I don't think so, remember He is the Bread coming from Heaven. Christ never explained it plainly and simple, like the other parable, and example to this is the parable of the sower, here he re-stated the facts, behind the parable. But in John 6:51-57, Christ repeatedly saying it 'Eat my flesh and drink my Blood', and there is no other explanation after that.

Christ said "New Covenant", like circumcision where it was the covenant given in the Old days. Now, it is His own blood.

Well I don't know about others, but if we literally eat the flesh of Jesus's body, it would only be enough to feed maybe 20 people. The disciples ate bread, they didn't grab a knife and cut parts from Jesus's body and eat it. They also didn't poke surrenges it into Jesus's veins, then drink it.

 

[Sparkey]

Benoni[/color]]It is not merely symbolic... God hides HIS deepness in symblism.

It came to pass also that from the first Adam there came Christ,

• The Promise of God was first made to the seed of the woman.

• ~Sparrow [/*:m:3n1dtdc6]

Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

Pardon, Benoni, but did your mother not caution you about the words, "Always" and "Never"??
You have stated, "God always "taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." (Heb. 10:9)." Are you certain you have grasped the full meaning sufficient to teach it this way?
I'm looking at the Scripture you've quoted to back up your claim now. My bible is open and I cut-n-paste here to expand the reference: < Was it your intent to quote this as a 'proof' ? >

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
[emphasis mine]

~Sparrowhawke

Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear; Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.
(Job 39:13-17)

 

[handy]

I was thinking along the same lines, Dave. The bread and the cup must be symbolic. If Jesus was speaking literal, He was pushing cannibalism.

This kind of reply is what I awaited for; Is He (Jesus Christ) is pushing for canibalism? I don't think so, remember He is the Bread coming from Heaven. Christ never explained it plainly and simple, like the other parable, and example to this is the parable of the sower, here he re-stated the facts, behind the parable. But in John 6:51-57, Christ repeatedly saying it 'Eat my flesh and drink my Blood', and there is no other explanation after that.

Christ said "New Covenant", like circumcision where it was the covenant given in the Old days. Now, it is His own blood.

It is most important to remember though, that Christ's blood was shed and His body was broken once and ONLY once.
But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. Heb 10:12
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. vs:14

True, in John 6:51-57, Jesus repeatedly used the phraseology of "eat My flesh and drink My blood". These words were so disturbing that many of His disciples ceased following Him. Jesus then asked the 12 if they were going to leave Him as well and Peter, soaring again to heights (I like Peter, whether crashing down or soaring high, he was always so open about things) stated that famous confession of faith "Lord to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life."

You said, "Christ repeatedly saying it 'Eat my flesh and drink my Blood', and there is no other explanation after that."


But there is. Peter and the others had to take what Jesus said in John 6 on faith, but once the Last Supper came about, Jesus clarified what He meant when He offered the bread and the wine as symbolic elements to be taken "in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)

 

[stranger]

The symbolic OT type and the literal NT reality

The interpretive principle I learned in the Reformed faith for understanding scripture was that in OT we have the type and in the NT the reality. There were no instances that I recall where this was knowingly reversed. So we have:

the OT type is the manna that fell in the wilderness.
the NT reality is the body of Christ.

If we are to be consistent in interpreting the type and the reality then the OT symbol should be the manna(that fell in the wilderness) and the NT reality should be the body of Christ (bread of heaven). So why speak about eating the body of Christ (unto eternal life) as symbolic? Does anyone see the discrepancy?

John 6 NASB
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
53So Jesus said to them, "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 yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

blessing

 

[francisdesales]

The symbolic OT type and the literal NT reality

The interpretive principle I learned in the Reformed faith for understanding scripture was that in OT we have the type and in the NT the reality. There were no instances that I recall where this was knowingly reversed. So we have:

the OT type is the manna that fell in the wilderness.
the NT reality is the body of Christ.

If we are to be consistent in interpreting the type and the reality then the OT symbol should be the manna(that fell in the wilderness) and the NT reality should be the body of Christ (bread of heaven). So why speak about eating the body of Christ (unto eternal life) as symbolic? Does anyone see the discrepancy?

True. And to add...

To the Jew, what does blood possess? Why did God prohibit its eating?

Now, in the NT, God is giving us what this blood possesses. Life. And not only life, but God's LIFE, eternal life. Note Jesus says that he who drinks my blood shall have eternal life. He abides in us and we in Him. Christ's life is now in us by drinking of what was prohibited before.

The fleshy mind only sees the "cannibal" aspect. The spiritual goes beyond that undersanding of the Eucharist. Thus, we don't speak about eating Jesus' skin - God can take any form and call it His flesh (for example, becoming a human...) but receiving His offered life, found in the sacramentally consecrated wine, which JESUS HIMSELF calls "my blood" (Luke).

Now, He ABIDES in me and I in Him. Quite literally. Just as Christ's death was not just symbolic (much to the chagrin of the New Age Gnostics), Christ's flesh is really eaten and His Life is really within us.

Regards

 

[amg0364730]

Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ offered his body once and only once. But did he also tell us "Do this in remembrance of me"? Did also Paul, cautioned people in doing the Lord's supper? That they should be clean, meaning no guilt feeling while doing this?

Then it only means, that the early church had done this repetitively. Now, is it more beautiful, if we live by this principle in our church. We remember every day, His passion, and the gift of global brotherhood or Family.

Yes, in deed he speak in parables, but just after saying it (parables), he explained it with his disciples. IF I FOLLOW THE REFORMED CHURCH THOUGHT IT WOULD BE LIKE THIS:
1. The Bread is Just symbol of His body, and the Wine is Just a symbol of his Covenant? Is that it? Did Christ mentioned "remember this is just a symbol".
2. I thought the reformed church follows through the letter? Then were is the word "SYMBOL"?
3. Then what next? Christ is just a symbol of the unseen God?

Sorry, for that, but those things, I kept asking with my former pastor. I told him, if we were just remembering this, then we are committing the grave sin! Just imagine, we do this just to remember a symbol? That is too high to accept then?

I kept this in mind when I entered the seminary (Lutheran). I kept this thought even after finishing. I said to my theology professor, that if the bread is just a symbol, then truly Christ is not with us!

Anyway, I really thank you guys.

FROM A.K.A. Lutheran52381

 

[amg0364730]

THAT IS FORMER lutheran52381 !!!!!

 

[Benoni]

Chaff/wheat/bread

“Chaff†are you a city person or are you experience enough with farming you know what chaff is? You see wheat is always hidden under the green chaff; in fact they are not even interchangeable until the wheat has reached maturity. God’s Word is our bread, which is made from wheat; which was part of the chaff in its immaturity. The wheat had to be gathered, winnowed and crushed; then mixed with oil (anointing) and water and then placed in an oven to be baked; later the bread was broken; symbolism.

 

[Benoni]

Then David said, this is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel" (1 Chron. 22:1).

It was the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite, where David had offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings to eliminate the plague that had come upon Israel through David's folly. We do not know how Satan had gained this foothold in David. At any rate the ransom money had not been collected from the people when David took the census, and God had already warned that a plague might fall if this was not done. (See Ex. 30:12-16.) But God in mercy revealed to David his sin, and also the solution. David obeyed and set up an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite which he purchased from Ornan for 600 shekels of gold. Now it was this plot of ground that was to become the site of the exceedingly magnificent Temple of Solomon. David said, "This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering."

It was a proclamation of faith--God had declared this to be His plan, and therefore it was so. It had yet to become manifest. The preparation of the site was extremely important. It was the place of the burnt offering. It is believed to have been the very spot upon which Abraham had offered up Isaac as a burnt offering many centuries earlier.

But now in David's time it had become a threshing floor. The Temple of Solomon was to be erected on a harvest floor. It would also be dedicated on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the nation had gathered in their wines and oils, and had reaped their harvest. The early Church was really the seed Church. True it was inaugurated at Pentecost, which was the Feast of Harvest, but it was really a "firstfruits" harvest. The final harvest would be in the seventh month on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, which was the Feast of Ingathering.

The "glorious Church"--not having spot, or wrinkle, or blemish, or any such thing--is the harvest Church. The great winnowing fan of the Harvester is in the hands of the Husbandman, Who has patiently waited for "the precious fruit of the earth." The fire has been kindled to destroy the chaff of the threshing floor. Remember the fact is that wheat needs the chaff until the time of harvest; the chaff is the outer (flesh) covering. Both the wheat and the chaff are the same, and cannot be separated until the wheat is fully matured; they are both immature and green. Then He will gather the grain into His garner--grain that has come to full maturity and perfection, just like the good seed that was planted in the earth almost 2,000 years ago, when our Lord Jesus was faithful as the "corn of wheat" to "fall into the ground and die."

 

[Cornelius]

Then David said, this is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel" (1 Chron. 22:1).

It was the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite, where David had offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings to eliminate the plague that had come upon Israel through David's folly. We do not know how Satan had gained this foothold in David. At any rate the ransom money had not been collected from the people when David took the census, and God had already warned that a plague might fall if this was not done. (See Ex. 30:12-16.) But God in mercy revealed to David his sin, and also the solution. David obeyed and set up an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite which he purchased from Ornan for 600 shekels of gold. Now it was this plot of ground that was to become the site of the exceedingly magnificent Temple of Solomon. David said, "This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering."

It was a proclamation of faith--God had declared this to be His plan, and therefore it was so. It had yet to become manifest. The preparation of the site was extremely important. It was the place of the burnt offering. It is believed to have been the very spot upon which Abraham had offered up Isaac as a burnt offering many centuries earlier.

But now in David's time it had become a threshing floor. The Temple of Solomon was to be erected on a harvest floor. It would also be dedicated on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the nation had gathered in their wines and oils, and had reaped their harvest. The early Church was really the seed Church. True it was inaugurated at Pentecost, which was the Feast of Harvest, but it was really a "firstfruits" harvest. The final harvest would be in the seventh month on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, which was the Feast of Ingathering.

The "glorious Church"--not having spot, or wrinkle, or blemish, or any such thing--is the harvest Church. The great winnowing fan of the Harvester is in the hands of the Husbandman, Who has patiently waited for "the precious fruit of the earth." The fire has been kindled to destroy the chaff of the threshing floor. Remember the fact is that wheat needs the chaff until the time of harvest; the chaff is the outer (flesh) covering. Both the wheat and the chaff are the same, and cannot be separated until the wheat is fully matured; they are both immature and green. Then He will gather the grain into His garner--grain that has come to full maturity and perfection, just like the good seed that was planted in the earth almost 2,000 years ago, when our Lord Jesus was faithful as the "corn of wheat" to "fall into the ground and die."

What a wonderful post.

I see what you are saying about the "chaff". Oh my, that is a good revelation. Its talking about the cutting off of the flesh, the revelation of the sons of God.