the Lord's supper in the gospels

[stranger]

Here is a new OP to focus on the Lord's supper as it is found in the gospels, starting with Matthew. Please follow the forum rules in respecting others.

Matt 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

As I like to work from first principles (non denominational) - how far are folks of differing persuasions prepared to go in their interpretation before reaching that proverbial fork in the road? In other words how much common ground can be found amongst those who profess to be brothers and sisters in Christ?

blessings

 

[faithtransforms]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

 

[MMarc]

The Lord's supper is also the first marriage supper of the Lamb.... We drink the cup of the covenant the wedding cup like a wedding anniversary.

And we remember our first love...

Thank you Jesus

 

[stranger]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Hi faithtransforms,

Since there are a handful of different interpretations about what Jesus' words mean -- I am trying to find a point where the interpretations first start to differ from one another.

There is no problem with the word 'remembrance ' because it is found twice in the context of the Lord's supper (Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24,25)

You used the word 'symbolic' - my question is where did the word 'symbolic' come from?

blessings sister

 

[Nick]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I agree

where did the word 'symbolic' come from?

The Lord's supper itself was not the New Covenant, but was a representation of it. It therefore has to be symbolic.

 

[stranger]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I agree

where did the word 'symbolic' come from?

The Lord's supper itself was not the New Covenant, but was a representation of it. It therefore has to be symbolic.

Hi Nick,

That does not answer the question. To clarify this -- I can trace the word remembrance to two NT texts dealing with the Lord's Supper. I can trace the word 'covenant' likewise to the text. But I still cannot trace either 'symbolic or represents' to any text dealing with the Lord's Supper. There must have been a point in time where these words were first employed.

The Lord's supper itself was not the New Covenant, but was a representation of it.

But let me respond by saying that the covenant is made BEFORE, but only comes into force AFTER, the death of the person (Jesus Christ) making it. So would you agree that the new covenant had to be made before the death of Christ on the cross?

blessings brother:

 

[francisdesales]

The Lord's supper itself was not the New Covenant, but was a representation of it. It therefore has to be symbolic.

So when Moses sprinkled the blood onto the people at Mount Sinai, did they think they were only witnessing a "symbolic representation" and that these Jews were not "really" part of the Covenant???

In your lingo, it appears that "symbolic" means "not real".

Are we part of the Covenant or not? Are we only "symbolically" drawn into Christ? Do we only "symbolically" abide in the Lord? Do we only share "symbolic" communion with each other and God - but in reality, we do our own thing, completely separate from one another?

Regards

 

[stranger]

The Lord's supper itself was not the New Covenant, but was a representation of it. It therefore has to be symbolic.

So when Moses sprinkled the blood onto the people at Mount Sinai, did they think they were only witnessing a "symbolic representation" and that these Jews were not "really" part of the Covenant???

In your lingo, it appears that "symbolic" means "not real".

Are we part of the Covenant or not? Are we only "symbolically" drawn into Christ? Do we only "symbolically" abide in the Lord? Do we only share "symbolic" communion with each other and God - but in reality, we do our own thing, completely separate from one another?

Regards

hi francis,

How are you? I am quite open about the line of enquiry in the OP. Would you begrudge a brother in Christ a 'symbol' if no other gesture was forthcoming?

blessings brother:

 

[francisdesales]

hi francis,

How are you? I am quite open about the line of enquiry in the OP. Would you begrudge a brother in Christ a 'symbol' if no other gesture was forthcoming?

blessings brother:

Stranger,

Happy Easter Octave...

My intent is to clarify to others that "symbol" does not necessarily imply that something is "pretend". I believe some posters are implying that meaning from the word. A symbol is the ONLY means by which we can make ANY contact with a Transcedant and Immutable God. Thus, symbols are powerful and REAL means by which we carry on our relationship with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Too many see "symbol" and think "not real".

It is THROUGH the symbol that we are drawn to Christ. And in the case of the Eucharist, the Bible seems to make it clear that the "symbol" of bread is indeed a reality - "THIS IS MY BODY"...and earlier "UNLESS YOU EAT MY FLESH..."

Thus, as to the OP, the "symbol" of bread is something more than a "representation" that is not real.

Take care

 

[glorydaz]

My intent is to clarify to others that "symbol" does not necessarily imply that something is "pretend". I believe some posters are implying that meaning from the word. A symbol is the ONLY means by which we can make ANY contact with a Transcedant and Immutable God. Thus, symbols are powerful and REAL means by which we carry on our relationship with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Too many see "symbol" and think "not real".

It is THROUGH the symbol that we are drawn to Christ. And in the case of the Eucharist, the Bible seems to make it clear that the "symbol" of bread is indeed a reality - "THIS IS MY BODY"...and earlier "UNLESS YOU EAT MY FLESH..."

Thus, as to the OP, the "symbol" of bread is something more than a "representation" that is not real.

Take care

I have to disagree, brother.

Jesus said, I am the bread of life. The bread represented the body of Christ, in the same way the door and the rock represented Him. We're to break bread in remembrance...as a memorial to His sinless sacrifice for our sins.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

 

[francisdesales]

My intent is to clarify to others that "symbol" does not necessarily imply that something is "pretend". I believe some posters are implying that meaning from the word. A symbol is the ONLY means by which we can make ANY contact with a Transcedant and Immutable God. Thus, symbols are powerful and REAL means by which we carry on our relationship with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Too many see "symbol" and think "not real".

It is THROUGH the symbol that we are drawn to Christ. And in the case of the Eucharist, the Bible seems to make it clear that the "symbol" of bread is indeed a reality - "THIS IS MY BODY"...and earlier "UNLESS YOU EAT MY FLESH..."

Thus, as to the OP, the "symbol" of bread is something more than a "representation" that is not real.

Take care

I have to disagree, brother.

Jesus said, I am the bread of life. The bread represented the body of Christ, in the same way the door and the rock represented Him. We're to break bread in remembrance...as a memorial to His sinless sacrifice for our sins.

The verse that you continue to ignore is John 6:51. Yes, Jesus's FLESH is the Bread that He will give us. John 6:51. Don't ignore it, it is PART of the Word of God. It says "FLESH". Flesh in the form of Bread, according to the Last Supper. You are not reading the Scriptures as they are, but bringing your interpretation to the table now.

[

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

You are making the mistake that I have already warned about - to equate spiritual with pretend realities, a playing over in the mind of some event from long ago that you are not really connected with. The first Christians REALLY BELIEVED IN A REAL COMMUNION with Jesus Christ - not just "pretend" or "symbolized".

Jesus said He is "the" door, not "THIS" door. He NEVER pointed to a PARTICULAR door and said "THIS DOOR IS MY BODY". Clearly, the Scriptures have a different way of speaking about the piece of bread in Jesus' hands as He said "THIS IS MY BODY" - and Christians for 2000 years have understood it that way.

Spiritual does NOT mean "pretend", or "represents". God is spiritual and is not "pretend" or "represents" as if God was some thought or philosophy in our minds. God is independent of us, He really is present, physically so in the Eucharistic bread and wine.

Regards

 

[Nick]

We mustn't forget that Jesus not only spiritually sacrificed himself for us, but also physically, whith His flesh and blood. I agree that His sacrifice was a real and physical thing. I believe as Christians, that is undisputable. I believe that sacrifice is the start of the New Covenant, not the Lord's Supper. What did the Lord's Supper actually do? It is simply a rememberence act for the New Covenant.
When Jesus says that his bread IS His flesh and that the wine IS His blood this is a metaphor. It is meaning something physical yes, but they didn't actually eat His flesh and blood, and to take this bit with no symbolism in mind then are we to eat flesh and drink blood? I do not think this is what Jesus was saying. Jesus wants us to eat and drink in rememberence of HIs blood and flesh shed and sacrificed for us. One way this can be done is through a symbolic meal, like the Last Supper.

 

[Mysteryman]

The Last supper was the fulfilling of the law of the passover meal. The Church no longer should do the Lord's supper, which "represented" the fulfilling of the law of the passover. The same holds true with water cleansing. John baptized with water, and Jesus was baptized with water to fulfill the law of water cleansing.

For the last 1500 + years, the church has adopted the rituals of the modern day , so called, communion service. This has been around fo such a long time, that the church does not recognize that they are still doing the law.

The Apostle Paul went unto the gentiles in Corinth. and told them specifically, that when they come together into one place, that this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

Just like John's baptism was to fulfill the law of water cleansing. Jesus Christ did a Last supper , with his disciples, to fulfill the law of the passover meal.

Now that all has been fulfilled, there is no logical reasoning whatsoever , to continue to do as the Jews did ! None ! The heresy that came in unto the gentiles in Corinth. were Jews who wanted to keep the gentiles under the bondage of the Law. Of which the gentiles were never a part of in the first place.

It never was the intent from God to put the gentile christians under the law of bondage that he put the Israelites. Never !

And God does not want remembrace ceremonies either ! God wants the church to walk by faith. Praying in the Spirit. Taking care one for another. Walk in righteousness. Pray together, and for one another. Operate the manifestations of the Spirit. And also remember the scriptures, where it states, that God works in you to do his good will and pleasure.

 

[Nick]

The Last supper was the fulfilling of the law of the passover meal. The Church no longer should do the Lord's supper, which "represented" the fulfilling of the law of the passover. The same holds true with water cleansing. John baptized with water, and Jesus was baptized with water to fulfill the law of water cleansing.

For the last 1500 + years, the church has adopted the rituals of the modern day , so called, communion service. This has been around fo such a long time, that the church does not recognize that they are still doing the law.

The Apostle Paul went unto the gentiles in Corinth. and told them specifically, that when they come together into one place, that this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

Just like John's baptism was to fulfill the law of water cleansing. Jesus Christ did a Last supper , with his disciples, to fulfill the law of the passover meal.

Now that all has been fulfilled, there is no logical reasoning whatsoever , to continue to do as the Jews did ! None ! The heresy that came in unto the gentiles in Corinth. were Jews who wanted to keep the gentiles under the bondage of the Law. Of which the gentiles were never a part of in the first place.

It never was the intent from God to put the gentile christians under the law of bondage that he put the Israelites. Never !

And God does not want remembrace ceremonies either ! God wants the church to walk by faith. Praying in the Spirit. Taking care one for another. Walk in righteousness. Pray together, and for one another. Operate the manifestations of the Spirit. And also remember the scriptures, where it states, that God works in you to do his good will and pleasure.

What Paul is saying is that we don't have to do it, and we shouldn't do it to be saved, the same with all of the old Law.
That doesn't mean that it's not a good thing to do.

 

[Mysteryman]

All:

The Lord's Supper is not a communion service. The word "communion" deals with communication, because this is what this word means. The word "commune" in the OT is - "amar" which means - "to say". The word - "a'abar" means - to speak. The word - "dabar" means - to speak. The word - "saphar" means - to count, rehearse. The word "siach" means - to meditate, talk. The word - "communion" is the greek word - "koinonia" which means - The act done in common, which is a result of communication and belief.

When we read in I Corinth. 10:16 - Paul is speaking metaphorically here. Because the word communion here, deals with communication. So when Paul states - "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" < Paul is not talking about literally breaking bread. It is talking about fellowship with one another pertaining to the body of Christ. It is talking about communication with one another in the body of Christ. And faith without works is dead. So words or communication without works is dead also. To say that I love you, means nothing, if I say to you peace be with you, and you go home without your needs being met. Whether or not their needs are spiritual or carnal. This is not love.

To commune with the Holy Spirit is to understand on the same level . Having the same understanding and reasoning.

Bless - MM

 

[francisdesales]

We mustn't forget that Jesus not only spiritually sacrificed himself for us, but also physically, whith His flesh and blood. I agree that His sacrifice was a real and physical thing. I believe as Christians, that is undisputable. I believe that sacrifice is the start of the New Covenant, not the Lord's Supper. What did the Lord's Supper actually do? It is simply a rememberence act for the New Covenant.
When Jesus says that his bread IS His flesh and that the wine IS His blood this is a metaphor. It is meaning something physical yes, but they didn't actually eat His flesh and blood,

Why do so many people have a hard time with...

"THIS IS MY BODY" said while holding a piece of bread and telling them to eat it, and again "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT", holding the cup...???

Why do so many people insist that Jesus was speaking in riddles at His last meal with His friends on His way to a painful death??? Where does Jesus explain the meaning of this so-called "metaphor"? When is blood used as a metaphor in Scriptures???

He said the Bread He will give is His flesh. Then, He offers everyone what looks like a piece of bread and calls it "my body".

Either Jesus was really confused, or there was something more to this... It takes something other than the fleshy mind to accept this.

Regards

 

[stranger]

We mustn't forget that Jesus not only spiritually sacrificed himself for us, but also physically, whith His flesh and blood. I agree that His sacrifice was a real and physical thing. I believe as Christians, that is undisputable.

I believe that sacrifice is the start of the New Covenant, not the Lord's Supper.

Then why did Jesus take the cup and call it 'the cup of the new covenant' Luke 22:20? Other texts support this also.

What did the Lord's Supper actually do?

We are establishing what Jesus did and said as distinct from our interpretations of what it meant. This is what I tried to point out in the OP - the folk in the road can be signposted 'interpretation'.


blessings brother

 

[chestertonrules]

Here is a new OP to focus on the Lord's supper as it is found in the gospels, starting with Matthew. Please follow the forum rules in respecting others.

Matt 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

As I like to work from first principles (non denominational) - how far are folks of differing persuasions prepared to go in their interpretation before reaching that proverbial fork in the road? In other words how much common ground can be found amongst those who profess to be brothers and sisters in Christ?

blessings

For traditional Christians, ie. Catholic, Orthodox, High Church Anglican, and perhaps a few others, the symbollic understanding is dangerous and unbiblical.

Martin Luther agreed:


"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.â€

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[westtexas]

Why do so many people insist that Jesus was speaking in riddles at His last meal with His friends on His way to a painful death??? Where does Jesus explain the meaning of this so-called "metaphor"? When is blood used as a metaphor in Scriptures???

Hello Francis or Chesterton, help me to understand something. It seems to me that the Early Fathers had at least some sense of symbolism and metaphors in the Eucharist. This is a quote from Clement of Alexandria--

( Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise--- Clement of Alexandria-Paedagogus Book 1 Ch. 6)

What do y'all feel is the difference between a Catholic who believes in a literal flesh and blood Eucharist and an Evangelical who believes in a symbolic sacrament who is truly drawing closer to our Lord and remembering the sacrifice on Calvary?
Westtexas

 

[chestertonrules]

Why do so many people insist that Jesus was speaking in riddles at His last meal with His friends on His way to a painful death??? Where does Jesus explain the meaning of this so-called "metaphor"? When is blood used as a metaphor in Scriptures???

Hello Francis or Chesterton, help me to understand something. It seems to me that the Early Fathers had at least some sense of symbolism and metaphors in the Eucharist. This is a quote from Clement of Alexandria--

( Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise--- Clement of Alexandria-Paedagogus Book 1 Ch. 6)

What do y'all feel is the difference between a Catholic who believes in a literal flesh and blood Eucharist and an Evangelical who believes in a symbolic sacrament who is truly drawing closer to our Lord and remembering the sacrifice on Calvary?
Westtexas

The Eucharist is symbollic of the sacrifice of Jesus, but it is the literal real presence of his body and blood. Both views are part of Eucharistic doctrine.

The early fathers, as Luther pointed out, are unanimous on this count.

You can read quotes from 27 early fathers of the Church here:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html