How do people feel about John chapter 6 verses 26 through to 60 ? Does this mean that we must attend a church and eat the bread and drink the wine which are said to represent the body and the blood of Jesus ? These verses seem to me to imply , quiet strongly , that we must eat and drink the emblems of Christ's body and blood , literally . This doesn't seem like a metaphor to me , it seems quite implicit , what do others think ?
I would like to respond to this. There are many who believe in transubstantiation, the changing of bread and wine into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. I personally believe that taking communion represents Jesus' flesh and blood, not to be taken literal.
I realize that it seems to indicate otherwise in John Chapter 6, and many of the disciples (not the 12), but many others who were following along and listening to Jesus speak did in fact take it literally. They thought He was speaking about cannibalism. In John 6:60-65, we see the perplexity of the disciples. Many of them left because of Jesus' words.
I think that John 6:63 gives us a clear understanding that Jesus was not speaking about His literal blood and literal flesh. He says that it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The word quickeneth means make alive. It is the spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. There is no spiritual benefit in the flesh. So, the words Jesus spoke were not physical. It is spirit. It is not physical life; it is spiritual life. So, He says everything that I just told you about my flesh, and my blood, take that and change it into spiritual metaphors and you'll have what it means.
I will not comment on John 6:60-65. It is obvious there that Jesus speaks figuratively ( although there are other opinions). But does He also speak figuratively when he had the last supper with His disciples and gave them His Blood and Flesh.
Paul says to Corinthians that if someone eats His flesh and drinks His blood having a sin then they get damned. How is it possible that an emblem causes harm? It doesn't seem logical. But if they are indeed His Blood and Flesh then it makes sense Because holy things get inside a sinful body. It is like in the OT when a priest was to enter the Holy of Holies being uncleaned. He was in danger of falling dead. I don't believe in transubstantiation but the bread and wine become Flesh and Blood of Jesus "by faith".
I need to correct an error I made in my reply to you. Where I wrote "I do come to that conclusion," I meant to write I (do not) come to that conclusion.
Brother Giannis. If I may humbly interject here, your last sentence, "I don't believe in transubstantiation but the bread and wine become Flesh and Blood of Jesus "by faith", confused me; I probably had the same reaction to it as some of Jesus' disciples to His words, "this is a hard saying; who can hear it"?
The way I understand it, is that those who believe in transubstantiation (the conversion (materially) of the bread & wine into the Body & Blood of Jesus at consecration) also need to do so IN faith. Why? Because if they are honest with themselves, they still physically see & taste the wafer & the wine and not as their natural senses would if tasting actual flesh & blood. And this then requires them to express faith that through consecration, the elements turn into the actual (presence of Christ). For Faith "is the evidence of things not seen".
So this fine line between what the RCC believes & what you have shared as your belief, is very intriguing to me - my finite mind can't discern the difference between the two understandings. If you care to brother, could you give some more detail on how I should understand your position better?
So there was no way that one couldn't underastand what was going on and ate them as common bread and wine. In verse 18 it says "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it." and in verse 21 "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." and in v 22 "...church of God, and shame them that have not?". So those were few of their sins, like getting drunk during the meal, not thinking of those who were poor or having divisions. Those were their sins and not eating the bread and wine as common bread and wine. Well this is my opinion. Blessings to both brothers in Christ.
You mentioned that the early Christians participated in communion by sitting in tables eating like Jesus and the apostles did at the last supper. You have probably seen paintings of The Last Supper as most of us have. If you notice in the painting, they are all sitting on one side of the table looking towards the artist.
That's the vision we get when we think of The Last Supper. But it looked nothing like that. They did not have chairs so the were not sitting. What they did was they reclined at the table. This table had no legs, just a large piece of wood that sat on the floor. But they were not all on the same side of the table. The way they would do it is that they would have the guest of honor (In this case, Jesus), and then it would go from oldest to youngest, the oldest to the right (behind Jesus), and then it would go around the table in order all the way to the youngest which would have been John, directly in front of Jesus.
What they would do is they would put their right arm up on the table and they would actually be reclining. They would actually be laying down with their feet in the back and they would be reaching over and eating with one hand. That's why some find it strange that the one whom Jesus loves is resting on His chest. But that is because he is leaning back onto Jesus, and there is a conversation going on between Jesus and John about what's happening around the table.
One last thing that I find interesting is in Luke 22:15, it is not "the" Passover but "this" Passover. It will be the last Passover. The Messianic Jews to this day hold that Passover meals, now each year, is only a remembrance that this Passover meal is the last Passover meal until Christ comes, very interesting!
Sorry for being long winded. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. And may the Lord continue to give you a hunger for His word. God Bless!!!
Thanks brother Jesse for sharing that. I found it very fascinating indeed about the stripes & holes in the unleavened matzo bread - something I'd never heard about or considered. I did look it up to try & get some photos, and as you wrote, there were stripes, at least the appearance of stripes from the baking process in the oven & certainly holes, which I understand were poked into the dough, for the air to be released during the bake. Of course, when the time of the Passover meal was to be eaten, and Jesus' application to that matzo bread & the cup made, then the relevance & reality of His upcoming crucifixion was all the more real. Will leave it up to others here to discern whether this last meal was entirely symbolic of what would come ahead & before their eyes, or whether Jesus' flesh & Blood was actually transmitted & transmuted into their meal. For me, it seems convincingly clear. That was great - many thanks.
No worries. I understand that we get busy and cannot respond quickly. Thank you for sharing your opinion on this topic. We do have a different view on this and that's okay. I spent some time reading through the accounts given in Matthew Chapter 26, Mark Chapter 14, and Luke Chapter 22. There are few things I find interesting that I would like to share.
In Mark 14:22-26, we see communion being instituted. The last supper was also the last Passover meal. Jewish people, ever since Moses, when they celebrated the Passover meal together, they had no idea what each of the elements meant. They knew some of them like the bitter herbs. They had three pieces of matzo bread. They broke the second piece and wrapped it a napkin. Interesting!
They had no idea why. But we know what that represents. Also, the matzo bread, when it was cooked in the oven, it had to have stripes on it. And it had to have holes in it. You probably can already imagine what all this represents.
But the Jews believed that when Messiah comes, He was going to explain to them what this all means because they were just doing it. But they didn't know what it all meant.
At the last Passover meal (Last Supper), Jesus took this bread that had to have stripes on it and said this is my body. The stripes on the bread would represent the stripes He would later receive from being whipped. He then took the cup and gave it to them to drink and said this is my blood which is shed for many. When He said this, His blood had not yet been shed so this could only represent the blood that would later be shed from the hole in His body when He was pierced. So, that explains the stripes on the Passover bread and the holes in the bread. The Jews had no idea!
I want to compare Passover to Jesus' Last Supper, as they are distinct events with significant meanings. Passover, as outlined in Exodus 12, involves the Israelites roasting whole lambs, and eating them with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They were instructed to eat in haste, ready to leave Egypt, establishing a lasting ordinance for future generations.
Matzah, or unleavened bread, symbolizes the swift departure from Egypt, while bitter herbs represent the bitterness of slavery. Passover lambs were sacrificed on the 14th and eaten on the night of the 15th. This is why the disciples were at the temple sacrificing lambs instead of being present at the cross when Jesus died.
In Luke 22:15, it is made clear that the Last Supper, the Lord's Supper, was not a Passover meal. Jesus mentioned He would not eat the Passover with His disciples, and the Last Supper occurred on the 14th before the sacrificial lambs were killed. Jesus was crucified later that day; the Passover meal is eaten on the 15th Jesus was in the tomb when the Passover meal was eaten.
During the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples were reclining, not standing with staffs. After their meal, Jesus instituted the new covenant, which commemorates His death for us, rather than being a Passover observance.
Jesus Christ fulfills the Passover, with every instruction pointing to Him and the New Covenant. Just as the Israelites were protected by the blood on their doorposts, we receive life through Jesus' blood. The lamb without blemish symbolizes His perfect, sinless life. The 14th of Nisan, the day of Jesus' crucifixion, is also when the Passover lambs were sacrificed, illustrating the completeness of His sacrifice.
The wine and bread symbolize His body and blood, sacrificed for us, as Jesus fulfills Passover, becoming the final sacrifice that leads us from death to eternal life.
I hope this makes sense, just my understanding. Thank you, brother, for continuing your work,
Thank you for your message. I know this is a late response, but I have been away from here for a couple of days focusing on my Ephesian study. We do agree in part but not on everything. We agree that the bread and cup were symbolic of Jesus' body and blood, not His literal body and blood. What we differ on is whether or not the Last Supper was a Passover meal. This is one of those topics that has been debated for a long time. There are multiple views. From my studies, I hold that it was a Passover meal, but I am not claiming to be right or wrong on this one my brother.
Obviously Joseph wouldn't be able to BUY fine line if the day of Jesus' crucifiction was on Passover. So the Passover was after it got dark on Friday which was Sabbath for the Jews.
So it seems that the story of the first trhee was a rough, not so accurate in details, story, so John corrected it. John writes a very different gospels than the rest, because he has nothing to add to their gospels, apart from what he wants to correct. Like Jesus didn't actually initially call Peter, John and James in that incident with the boats, but He called them after His baptism while they were John's disciples. John 1:29-40.
Now about what you have, and others, shared about the bread and wine being emblems, nobody seems to answer the question of how is it possible the participation in a symbolic ceremony carries the heaviest penalty of all, that is death, if taken unworthily. Think about it. Thanks brother, I like the way you write, although we differ in a number of beliefs. GBU
Brother Giannis. I know your comment was directed to bro. Ronald, but you did ask generally about the heavy penalty for such an unworthy participation if done only in a symbolic ceremony.
The way I understand 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 concerning the strong language Paul uses, with the judgements associated with partaking at the Lord's Table unworthily, is that the partaker is very careless (whether in unconfessed sin, unbelief, for appearance sake, irreverence (as spoken of here), etc.) at the Table. This bread & wine represents our Savior's agonizing death for our full salvation - how can anyone treat this act in such a way that brings shame to Christ's Sacrifice & greatly diminish the powerful memory that should be present in each partaker?
If I use the other ordinance that we have been given, viz. water baptism, we note that it isn't administered with a warning to participants; probably because only the genuine repenter would be prepared to declare publicly his turning to Jesus & to face the consequences. Unfortunately, both the ordinances we practise today in the Church are far removed from their original design. But if we take the way water baptism was performed, in all biblical examples given to us, we see that as soon as the Gospel was given, those who believed, repenting, discarding their old religion & sins, were baptized - no further examination - no penalty. Today however, we require those wanting baptism to attend baptismal classes & be observed for a changed life, before immersion into the water. Why? Because the one leading a lost soul to the Lord had disobeyed Christ's command to baptize, by neglecting to do so immediately. And so we put the act of obedience to the Lord in baptism, to the baptizee instead of the baptizer. Onto Page 2.
I realize I have diverted from your point, but to show that both ordinances given to us are simple: the water baptism is done only once to immediately show one's identification with the One Who gave His Life for him. The Lord's Table is a continual reminder of the Cross & thankful to God for His Gift. Both the water & the bread/wine are the means used for our declaration, with no merit in those acts that are added to the participant.
The Corinthian Church gorged themselves on the food that was set aside for 'proclaiming the Lord's Death till He come'; and Paul refers to that in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22,33,34. In this act, they sinned against the Lord Who bought them & had done despite to the Sacrifice of such great value. So Paul warned them of their sin of mistreatment of the Lord's Table, & hence there was apparently sickness, even death, amongst them. I wouldn't dare point the finger at anyone suffering in the Church today, but it must have been abundantly clear to the apostle of the reason for their sufferings. Or, maybe today, with such a small portion given at the Lord's Table, no one could even imagine that that would satisfy hunger, rather, the act of participation in such a solemn act must be done in a manner befitting the serious but thankful child of God.
Just as the water in water baptism remains only water & doesn't convert into a medium of transmitting grace or blessing, so to the bread & wine at the Lord's Table receives no change, whether by faith or no faith, and as well as not transmitting anything to the partaker; but simply a vivid symbol of Christ's loving Act for them. OUTSIDE the Church, the water baptized believer would soon be judged by the world, likely resulting in persecution; however, INSIDE the Church, the believer sinfully partaking at the Lord's Table will be judged by Christ. GBU.
Thanks brother Chris. But I don't think I agree. I think that also the writtings of the first christians show towards the litteral meaning of those elements. That is why the most ancient churches like the Eastern Orthodox church as well as the Roman Catholic Church consider them litterally. But to be honest I haven't made any research myself. Again thanks and may God bless you.
It seems from what I have read that the early church believed the account and words of Jesus at the Last Supper literally along with what Jesus said in John 6 concerning eating his body, the bread that came down from heaven, co paring His body to the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites. This was the prevailing view in church history until early in the 1500's.
An interesting story is that of Luther debating Zwingli in his usual polemic and strong debating style on this topic. Zwingli was promoting the memorial view, which was a novel view at the time, and Luther was holding to the real presence of Jesus in with and under the bread and wine (the bread and wine did not change) but Jesus did come in an unexplainable way to be actually Present in the partaking of the bread and wine in the service. While debating with Zwingli, Luther carved early in the the words "This IS MY body" in the table before them (or similar words, but in Latin) to emphasize how literally and concretely he believed the Lord's Presence is in the communion rite. This gives us the strength of this viewpoint in the history of the church. From Zwingli, the teaching of communion being a commemoration entered the view of Christian churches and believers from that time on.
Can any of us truly know what Jesus meant by His words or by instituting this rite? We can try to interpret the best we are able to do and look all the way back to people such as Ignatius of Antioch, who was born in 110 A.D. to see that the supper was considered to be partaking of Jesus' body and blood. For me, I admit to God that I do not fully understand what all He does and intends in His children partaking of communion, yet I avow to Him that I believe that I will receive in communion the benefits He places in the taking of it for and to me. I do think we are told to do it as a memorial, as Jesus' words say, but He also identified the bread and wine as His body and blood.
Thanks for the information GiGi. For me it is important to believe that the Bread and Wine are litterally the Body and Blood of Christ. There are no symbolic ceremonies in Christianity. There is no reason for that. Symbols and emblems were the norm in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't have to establish a symbolic ceremony to get us to remember His sacrifice, this is always in His children's minds and hearts. And it will be for ever. Even in eternity we will be seeing the scars in His Hands and Feet so we will always know the reason we will be there with Him. Not because we deserve something more than the rest, but because of the infinite love and grace of our Lord who became sin for us so that we become Justice to God through Him. Even water baptism is very significant. Because avoiding doing so will keep one out of salvation. God's command is very clear, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.", Mark 16:16. It couldn't be clearer than that. Every command of God is very important. Not obeing a command is a sin. And an unrepentant sin, when one is aware of it, will keep one away from His Kingdom, no matter if one is born again. It is also very important to have repented about any sin we know we have when partaking in His Body and Blood. In my church we have this ceremony every Sunday. And it is a very practical way to repend and not keep a sin for a longer time. GBU
Thank you for your kind response. I do lean towards your belief concerning partaking of Jesus' body and blood. I just can't say that I truly understand how this come about when we celebrate communion.
Growing up I attended Catholic Mass at times with my friends who were Catholic. The Mass includes many wonderfully reverent and praiseworthy prayers and responses from the congregation.
One that I am reminded of concerning this topic is the response to the invitation to come to receive communion. "Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but speak but the Word and I will be healed". I love this humble and true response to being invited to receive Jesus in the taking of the bread and wine. It was one thing I still remember from those times I shared with my friends. I do not know if the Greek Orthodox service includes a prayer similar to this one. This response to the invitation of communion is one that could be adapted with an ending that fits ones situation better such as: "But speak but the Word and I shall be made clean (from confession of sins)" or "Speak but the Word and I shall receive You".
Thanks for participating in this conversation. I, too, believe that the OT was the time for "types" that represent or memorialize God's work, but the commanded ordinances of Jesus in the NT are the "anti-type" (the reality) and we should acknowledge by faith that we receive what the Scriptures say we receive from baptism and from the Lord's Table.
Thanks GiGi for your comments & adding further to this thread. I understand that this belief has different interpretations, but also those views were present from the earliest known writings. You referred to Zwingli & Luther and then to Ignatius of Antioch.
A major part of the writings by the early Church fathers on this matter stemmed from the prevailing Gnostic (Docetic) heresies rife within the Church. So when we read from Ignatius or Irenaeus for example, we must bear in mind that that was what was primarily in their minds: to refute the Docetic heresy that Jesus did not possess a real physical body of flesh & blood (even as the Apostle John warned against such in 2 John 1:7). So when Jesus spoke speaking of the bread & wine, "this is My Bodythis is My Blood of the New Testament", these fathers would show & confirm with the Church that from the very Mouth of Jesus, He affirmed His physical presence & not some phantom-like appearance as declared by the heretics.
So, it was not only to combat heresy alone, but also to affirm their beliefs in the symbolic nature of the elements, did those fathers also declare; as Tertullian did, "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, 'This is My body', that is, the SYMBOL of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He (Jesus) likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (Against Marcion, 4.40). Though I'm sure there were also others of the faith who espoused the actual substance change in the elements.
Anyway, this has been a good discussion, as we share how we understand God's Word, and of course, in all our readings, we must be open to the Spirit's enlightening Work in us. Blessings.
We all must submit to the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit that inspired the authors to write as they did. Thanks for the quote from Tertullian. He lived in the 200's, I believe. and Irenaeus lived a bit later than Tertullian. Ignatius lived shortly after John the apostle died at the end of the first century. I do not know if the same gnostic influences were present during the lives of each of these believers. The reason I mentioned Ignatius is because of how close in time he lived to the apostolic time-frame. I think that his thoughts would closely align with that of the apostles and the early church because of the closeness in time of the two groups.
For me, when I consider the two ordinances Jesus initiated I think there is most likely much that these rites do for believers that we just do not know about. They are hidden in the counsel of the Godhead. I don't think I can correctly extract such from God that He has not revealed. But I do approach the ordinance in faith in God to do all that He wills to do in us when we obey the Scriptures in which He instructs us to partake of these rites. Therefore, I can be satisfied with not knowing the depths of these things because I know that it is God who wills and works in me according to His good pleasure and perfect will. I just trust Him and what He wishes to do in me and through me.f
Have a great weekend. We will be getting snow over the next day or two, the first of this winter. I love snow as long as it isn't a "snowmagedon" type of event that causes all sorts of problems. My birthday was Thursday and it has been common over the years for the Pacific Northwest to get snow on or around my birthday. I always hope for a bit of snow, at least enough for the kids to get a chance to play in it as I did when I was young and for us old folks to marvel at the quietness of snow falling and the beauty of everything being blanketed in fresh snowfall. I love how it glistens in the moonlight.
Hi GiGi. Firstly, warm(!) Christian greetings & belated wishes on the occasion of your recent birthday. Trust it was a good one, even to have a little welcome snow around you to help brighten your special day. Where I am in Aust, we get no snow at all, but we certainly enjoyed the snow very much when visiting friends in Colorado several years ago.
Actually, until this discussion on the Lord's Body & Blood and its relation to the Bread & Wine, I always believed that if you belonged to the RC Church then transubstantiation was understood & accepted without question; and if not part of that Church, then those elements were simply emblematic. So, it has been great reading & of interest to me, to read that even amongst the non RC, there can be views that are somewhere in-between (as also evidenced by some of the early Church fathers). So I will bear these things in mind & see what further help I can gain, if any, from the Lord's Spirit. Thanks for your input - with blessings & sincere wishes once again.
Mark 14:12, "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?:
Matthew 26:17 agrres to that. Similarly Luke 22:7, "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat."
So the meaning of Luke 22:15 is that Jesus actually ate the passover meal with his disciples.
Now we know from Exodus 12:1-11, that the lambs were sacrificed in the evening of the 14th of Nisan and immediately after when it got dark and the 15th of Nisan started, according to how the Israelites were considering their days and nights, they ate the passover meal. Exodus 12:11, "And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover."
But John disagrees to them. He places the Passover one day later. John 18:28, "Then led they (the Pharisses) Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."
Having in mind that John wrote his gospel last of all, actually as the tradition says many decades after the first three evangelists, when he was in his 80's or 90's, and knew what they had written in their gospels, his story seems to be the right one. So it seems that Jesus ate the passover meal with His apostles one day earlier, probably because He knew that he would be in the tomb the day of the passover. If we see some details in the gospels of the first three, we get the same conclusion. Example: Mark 12:45, "And he BOUGHT fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre."
As we see in Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:10, they say when they kill the Passover (lamb). Luke 22:7 also says when the Passover must be killed. This is on Passover day, the 14th when they killed the lambs. The 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, is the Sabbath, not the 14th. The 14th is a preparation day, just like a Friday is for the weekly Saturday.
There are no restrictions on the 14th, Passover Day, the day Jesus was crucified, Joesph could buy or prepare whatever he wanted, before sunset that day. That is why we see they wanted to get Jesus in the tomb before sunset because the next day is the first day of Unleavened Bread is a holy convocation/Sabbath day
In Luke 22:15 Jesus is telling them He desired to eat this Passover, but in the next verse, He says He will not eat it anymore. He said this because He knew He would be crucified that same day, the 14th Passover Day. He would be dead and placed in the tomb before they ate the Passover the next night.
On the 14th, the Lord's Supper, the garden, the arrest, the high priest, Pilate, was crucified, and He died at 3 PM, about 3-4 hours before sunset. The Passover Lambs were killed at even, which would be the afternoon when the sun was going down. Jesus was placed in the tomb before sunset and after sunset, it was the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, this is when they ate the Passover meal.
Only the priests could catch the blood of the Passover lambs and put it on the altar and the Levites would clean the lambs. In the morning after the Last Supper, the priests took Jesus to Pilate they would not go in, John 18:28 they would be defiled and could not catch the blood of the lambs that would be killed later that day the same day Jesus was crucified, the 14th Passover day.
On the Lord's Supper, this is the only thing Jesus said to do in remembrance of Him. The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. Some churches I have gone to use wine and some use grape juice this is debatable.
My understanding is the language used to describe the Lord's Supper in Scripture is symbolic. It is a memorial that keeps us in memory of what Jesus did for us the bread and wine symbolize our spiritual unity with Jesus' body and blood that He gave for us and by doing this we honor Jesus.
In Corinthians, these people were used to pagan feasts eating meat sacrificed to idols and getting drunk. I feel this is why Paul was so harsh because of the meaning of the Lord's table, and they cannot do both. Jesus died to save us from sin if we memorialize His death in the Lord's Supper, we must know the importance of doing away with sin in our lives.
I may be wrong, but I feel they did this as part of the gospel and feel the Lord's Supper is a time to be thankful and remember how Jesus suffered and sacrificed for us, a time for forgiveness, and a time for eagerly waiting for His return.
Thanks, sorry for the delay brother, I hope this is what you were looking for.
But in Jesus time those killings were done on the 14th, obviously due to the huge number of killings to be done by the priests in the Temple (and not in their houses as initially). Flavius Josephus in his Jewish wars, Book IV, chapter 9, par 6 writes, "So these High-priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour (3pm) till the eleventh (5pm)..."
There were also many other changes through time since the exit of the Israelites from Egypt. God commaned that they eat the meal in a rush, not sitting, but later they sat on tables and many other.
But said before John in his gospel disagrees and places the passover meal that Jesus had a day earlier, on the 13th, which actually must be the right date.
Anyway, all that just for information. So we disagree whether that supper was a pasover meal or not, but we agree on the date. We also disagree whether in the Lord's supper the bread and the wine were litterally or symbolic meant to be. But grape fruit instead of wine? No thanks, I will not take that. Those are churches who believe that christians must not drink alcohol at all so they use other liquids than wine, some use coca cola.
My opinion is that it is clear that Jesus ate the passover meal with His disciples (a day earlier as John writes in his gospel). This is what I get from the scrippure. Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:13-17, Luke 22:1-13.
The strange thing is that all three call it the first day of the unleaved bread. Luke 22:7, Mark 26:17, Matthew 26:17.
Lets read Matthew 26:17, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" and Mark adds " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover..."
We know that the lambs were killed on the 14th of Nissan and the next day, the 15th, was the first day of the feast of the unleaved bread. So it seems that the evangelists got it wrong? The most probable explanation that I have read is that during Jesus' time that feast became an 8 day feast instead of a seven day feast (as God commanded to Israelites in Egypt) and the 14th of Nissan was also included in the feast. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who wtote about the Jewish revolution against Romans in 70AD and who lived in Jerusalem during all those events writes in his history "Whence it is, that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for EIGHT days; which is called the feast of Unleavened-bread", Antiquities of Jews, Book II, chapter 15, paragraph 1. So it seems that during Jesus' time the 14th of Nissan was included in the feast so it became an 8 day feast.
Another change that was made untill Jesus time is that although God commanded that the lambs must be killed after the sunset (so on the 15th of Nissan) as Deuteronomy 16:6 says, "But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun (15th of Nissan), at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." that was changed later on.
Thank you brother Giannis for taking the trouble to explain further in this matter. I really have to admit, that I still struggle to grapple with yours (& your Fellowship's) understanding on the Bread & Wine. I know you don't believe that those 'things' physically change in constitution or appearance, but you state that "they are Body and Blood by faith".
The only way I can understand that statement is that 'by expressing faith, those 'things' (represent?) the Body and Blood of our Lord'. I'm sorry, I can't see it another way - maybe my limited comprehension. The Bread & Wine are either materially (even mystically) so, or not so changed (even with faith expressed) - I can't fathom as to how an understanding can be somewhere in-between. I would however, agree to: that 'by faith, those things represent (i.e. emblematic) of the Body & Blood'; but I'm sorry, my limited mind can't grasp an in-between possibility. Anyway, thanks again - we may not want to pursue this any longer. Blessings.
Sorry for my delayed answer. I was a bit beasy the last couple of days.
Chris. The difference between transubstantiation and my church's belief is that we don't believe that the bread and wine are changed in substance and become Body and Blood, but they are Body and Bood by faith. We believe that they become so not because there is any change in substance, they are still bread and wine, but by faith we accept them as Body and Blood of Christ. Accepting the belief of them being emblems finds a serious obstacle which is why do we get punished if we eat them unworthily? They are emblems. So what is the sin? Sins are very specific. What is the sin when I eat something that is a symbol of something else? It says "... unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" and "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.". Not descerning the Lord's Body. In verse 32 it says, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.". Why are we judged? Because we sin and the Lord wants to make us repend and clean ourselves and "not be condemned with the world". So there is a sin/sins similar to those that the unbelievers do. And this can not be because we eat symbols but because we do specific sins like the world. Verse 28 says "But let a man examine himself". Examine about what? About eating an emblem? So what is the sin when I eat it as bread and not as a symbol of flesh? This can not be a sin. It is nothing really. And assuming it is a sin definitely it can not draw the damnation of death.
Jesse. Let's see how the first christians participated in the Communion. They were sitting in tables eating like Jesus and the apostles did in the Last Supper and during or at the end of that meal the pastor stood, prayed and blessed the bread and wine into Body and Blood of Jesus. Then they deacons offered them to the believers.
Other sects teach that communion is a memorial of Jesus' sacrifice for us, reminding us of His death and resurrection and the new covenant He made symbolically at the Last Supper and in reality on the cross where He shed His blood and gave His body for salvation. These teach that the bread and wine represent Jesus' body and blood, and symbolize His sacrifice as He explained the new covenant at the Last Supper.
I think it is a good thing for each believer to read the Scripture account of the communion of the Last Supper where Jesus instituted this new covenant, the John 6 section, and the various teachings of different sects and their explanation of why they believe the way they do so that one can prayerfully by faith embrace what they understand and can believe.
Communion is a holy action regardless of what position one sides with and that we should certainly partake of it with reverence, peace, and faith that Jesus has given Himself for us in His death and resurrection and we are partakers of His promise and Presence as believers. Those who hold to a "real Presence" in the taking in of the bread and wine or those who hold that the practice is a memorial of remembrance of Jesus' work on the behalf of every believer can find Scriptural support for the view they hold. Therefore, I do not think we should judge one another on this matter but instead practice and encourage others to do what our Lord and Paul instructed the church to do in regards to the Lord's Supper, being sure to be at peace with other believers, to not be drunk or gluttonous when partaking of it, or to not leave food for others in the body when the meal occurs, and then, when communion is served being sure to discern the Lord's body in the way they understand this to mean from Scripture. The Scriptures do say that it is possible to partake of communion sinfully, and we should desire to partake properly.
We should honor Christ every time we partake communion together as believers.
Thank you GiGi for the explanation of the beliefs of others in this respect of the Communion Table. When I referred particularly to the RC Church, I ensured that I learned their beliefs from their own website. And not to say, that there could even be small differences within that Church itself, but on the whole, the following in their Catechism summarizes this teaching:
"In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by . . . genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration. (CCC, 1378)". Other comments on this also show that in their Mass, they do not sacrifice the Lord again, but that simply the elements, through consecration are changed, becoming the Lord's Body.
Then we have John Calvin's word on this: "While there is no change of substance in the sacrament, Jesus Christ is nonetheless present in a real way by means of his Holy Spirit. In observing the Lord's Supper, Christ does not come down to the faithful in his body and blood; instead, the faithful are lifted up to him in spirit by the Holy Spirit."
And then we have the more independent Churches, who generally believe that the emblems remain the same, but taken in a solemn, meaningful manner, in remembrance of all that Jesus has done for them at the Cross & in His resurrection and ascension. So yes, we do have greatly divergent beliefs, as we do on many other doctrines, and of course this is nothing new, as since the days of the apostles, there have been teachers (both gnostic & others) ready to sway believers towards their form of doctrine. It should be little wonder that the Church is so diverse, some in great error, given the passing of two millenia. But the Lord knows who are His; we must but teach the Word & then allow the Spirit to make it real & relevant to us. Thank you again dear GiGi.
Hello so are you saying that we drink the wine and eat the bread for remembernce of Jesus sacrafice? Not that we see it as hes body or blood? not sure Im confused
Hi Ltrchlasl. Thank you for your question. I would refer you to Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24,25 (you can hover your mouse pointer over these references to read them fully, or touch them on your phone to read them). So yes, the Lord's Supper (Communion) is observed purely in remembrance of what our Lord Jesus did for us by coming to Earth, laying down His Life in our stead, & rising up from the dead & entering Heaven to be with His Father.
And if you have been following this thread, discussion has come up as to whether the bread & wine we see on the Communion Table only remain as physically bread & wine, or do they, in a mystical way, transform into the actual Body & Blood of our Lord. My understanding of the Scriptures associated with this solemn, yet joyful ceremony, is that what we see on the table before us, do not change at all in their material composition, hence only remain as emblems (or, symbols, tokens) of what Jesus did for us at Calvary. Please read these Gospel & the apostle Paul's accounts more fully to understand for yourself, with the Spirit's Help, to what Jesus intended for His disciples and us to understand from this act of fellowship with Him.
Thanks for your addition to this topic of discussion. If you have ever been to a Catholic Mass your will note in the missal (order of service) Communion is called the "Sacrifice " of the Mass and those I know who are Catholic do see it as that of a non-bloody sacrifice.
Those like the RCC, Lutheran, and others who believe that Jesus is present in the bread and wine and that we do partake of his body and blood believe so because they take literally what Jesus said in the Last Supper Institution of the new covenant meal and in John 6. Others who believe in an actual spiritual presence of Jesus in the bread and wine see His words as more spiritually actualized to those who partake. And those who believe that the bread and wine are a memorial meal see His words as being symbolic. This last way of seeing communion as a memorial is reflective of more recent Protestant teaching after the lives of Luther, Calvin, and Anglicanism.
I would like to respond to this. There are many who believe in transubstantiation, the changing of bread and wine into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. I personally believe that taking communion represents Jesus' flesh and blood, not to be taken literal.
I realize that it seems to indicate otherwise in John Chapter 6, and many of the disciples (not the 12), but many others who were following along and listening to Jesus speak did in fact take it literally. They thought He was speaking about cannibalism. In John 6:60-65, we see the perplexity of the disciples. Many of them left because of Jesus' words.
I think that John 6:63 gives us a clear understanding that Jesus was not speaking about His literal blood and literal flesh. He says that it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The word quickeneth means make alive. It is the spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. There is no spiritual benefit in the flesh. So, the words Jesus spoke were not physical. It is spirit. It is not physical life; it is spiritual life. So, He says everything that I just told you about my flesh, and my blood, take that and change it into spiritual metaphors and you'll have what it means.
This is my understanding of this subject.
Blessings to you!
I will not comment on John 6:60-65. It is obvious there that Jesus speaks figuratively ( although there are other opinions). But does He also speak figuratively when he had the last supper with His disciples and gave them His Blood and Flesh.
Paul says to Corinthians that if someone eats His flesh and drinks His blood having a sin then they get damned. How is it possible that an emblem causes harm? It doesn't seem logical. But if they are indeed His Blood and Flesh then it makes sense Because holy things get inside a sinful body. It is like in the OT when a priest was to enter the Holy of Holies being uncleaned. He was in danger of falling dead. I don't believe in transubstantiation but the bread and wine become Flesh and Blood of Jesus "by faith".
I need to correct an error I made in my reply to you. Where I wrote "I do come to that conclusion," I meant to write I (do not) come to that conclusion.
The way I understand it, is that those who believe in transubstantiation (the conversion (materially) of the bread & wine into the Body & Blood of Jesus at consecration) also need to do so IN faith. Why? Because if they are honest with themselves, they still physically see & taste the wafer & the wine and not as their natural senses would if tasting actual flesh & blood. And this then requires them to express faith that through consecration, the elements turn into the actual (presence of Christ). For Faith "is the evidence of things not seen".
So this fine line between what the RCC believes & what you have shared as your belief, is very intriguing to me - my finite mind can't discern the difference between the two understandings. If you care to brother, could you give some more detail on how I should understand your position better?
So there was no way that one couldn't underastand what was going on and ate them as common bread and wine. In verse 18 it says "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it." and in verse 21 "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." and in v 22 "...church of God, and shame them that have not?". So those were few of their sins, like getting drunk during the meal, not thinking of those who were poor or having divisions. Those were their sins and not eating the bread and wine as common bread and wine. Well this is my opinion. Blessings to both brothers in Christ.
(Part 2):
You mentioned that the early Christians participated in communion by sitting in tables eating like Jesus and the apostles did at the last supper. You have probably seen paintings of The Last Supper as most of us have. If you notice in the painting, they are all sitting on one side of the table looking towards the artist.
That's the vision we get when we think of The Last Supper. But it looked nothing like that. They did not have chairs so the were not sitting. What they did was they reclined at the table. This table had no legs, just a large piece of wood that sat on the floor. But they were not all on the same side of the table. The way they would do it is that they would have the guest of honor (In this case, Jesus), and then it would go from oldest to youngest, the oldest to the right (behind Jesus), and then it would go around the table in order all the way to the youngest which would have been John, directly in front of Jesus.
What they would do is they would put their right arm up on the table and they would actually be reclining. They would actually be laying down with their feet in the back and they would be reaching over and eating with one hand. That's why some find it strange that the one whom Jesus loves is resting on His chest. But that is because he is leaning back onto Jesus, and there is a conversation going on between Jesus and John about what's happening around the table.
One last thing that I find interesting is in Luke 22:15, it is not "the" Passover but "this" Passover. It will be the last Passover. The Messianic Jews to this day hold that Passover meals, now each year, is only a remembrance that this Passover meal is the last Passover meal until Christ comes, very interesting!
Sorry for being long winded. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. And may the Lord continue to give you a hunger for His word. God Bless!!!
Thanks again for your kind and encouraging words. Amen!
(Part 1):
No worries. I understand that we get busy and cannot respond quickly. Thank you for sharing your opinion on this topic. We do have a different view on this and that's okay. I spent some time reading through the accounts given in Matthew Chapter 26, Mark Chapter 14, and Luke Chapter 22. There are few things I find interesting that I would like to share.
In Mark 14:22-26, we see communion being instituted. The last supper was also the last Passover meal. Jewish people, ever since Moses, when they celebrated the Passover meal together, they had no idea what each of the elements meant. They knew some of them like the bitter herbs. They had three pieces of matzo bread. They broke the second piece and wrapped it a napkin. Interesting!
They had no idea why. But we know what that represents. Also, the matzo bread, when it was cooked in the oven, it had to have stripes on it. And it had to have holes in it. You probably can already imagine what all this represents.
But the Jews believed that when Messiah comes, He was going to explain to them what this all means because they were just doing it. But they didn't know what it all meant.
At the last Passover meal (Last Supper), Jesus took this bread that had to have stripes on it and said this is my body. The stripes on the bread would represent the stripes He would later receive from being whipped. He then took the cup and gave it to them to drink and said this is my blood which is shed for many. When He said this, His blood had not yet been shed so this could only represent the blood that would later be shed from the hole in His body when He was pierced. So, that explains the stripes on the Passover bread and the holes in the bread. The Jews had no idea!
Please see Part 2...
I want to compare Passover to Jesus' Last Supper, as they are distinct events with significant meanings. Passover, as outlined in Exodus 12, involves the Israelites roasting whole lambs, and eating them with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They were instructed to eat in haste, ready to leave Egypt, establishing a lasting ordinance for future generations.
Matzah, or unleavened bread, symbolizes the swift departure from Egypt, while bitter herbs represent the bitterness of slavery. Passover lambs were sacrificed on the 14th and eaten on the night of the 15th. This is why the disciples were at the temple sacrificing lambs instead of being present at the cross when Jesus died.
In Luke 22:15, it is made clear that the Last Supper, the Lord's Supper, was not a Passover meal. Jesus mentioned He would not eat the Passover with His disciples, and the Last Supper occurred on the 14th before the sacrificial lambs were killed. Jesus was crucified later that day; the Passover meal is eaten on the 15th Jesus was in the tomb when the Passover meal was eaten.
During the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples were reclining, not standing with staffs. After their meal, Jesus instituted the new covenant, which commemorates His death for us, rather than being a Passover observance.
Jesus Christ fulfills the Passover, with every instruction pointing to Him and the New Covenant. Just as the Israelites were protected by the blood on their doorposts, we receive life through Jesus' blood. The lamb without blemish symbolizes His perfect, sinless life. The 14th of Nisan, the day of Jesus' crucifixion, is also when the Passover lambs were sacrificed, illustrating the completeness of His sacrifice.
The wine and bread symbolize His body and blood, sacrificed for us, as Jesus fulfills Passover, becoming the final sacrifice that leads us from death to eternal life.
I hope this makes sense, just my understanding. Thank you, brother, for continuing your work,
God bless,
RLW
Thank you for your message. I know this is a late response, but I have been away from here for a couple of days focusing on my Ephesian study. We do agree in part but not on everything. We agree that the bread and cup were symbolic of Jesus' body and blood, not His literal body and blood. What we differ on is whether or not the Last Supper was a Passover meal. This is one of those topics that has been debated for a long time. There are multiple views. From my studies, I hold that it was a Passover meal, but I am not claiming to be right or wrong on this one my brother.
Again, thank you for the things you have shared.
God Bless!!!
Obviously Joseph wouldn't be able to BUY fine line if the day of Jesus' crucifiction was on Passover. So the Passover was after it got dark on Friday which was Sabbath for the Jews.
So it seems that the story of the first trhee was a rough, not so accurate in details, story, so John corrected it. John writes a very different gospels than the rest, because he has nothing to add to their gospels, apart from what he wants to correct. Like Jesus didn't actually initially call Peter, John and James in that incident with the boats, but He called them after His baptism while they were John's disciples. John 1:29-40.
Now about what you have, and others, shared about the bread and wine being emblems, nobody seems to answer the question of how is it possible the participation in a symbolic ceremony carries the heaviest penalty of all, that is death, if taken unworthily. Think about it. Thanks brother, I like the way you write, although we differ in a number of beliefs. GBU
Brother Giannis. I know your comment was directed to bro. Ronald, but you did ask generally about the heavy penalty for such an unworthy participation if done only in a symbolic ceremony.
The way I understand 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 concerning the strong language Paul uses, with the judgements associated with partaking at the Lord's Table unworthily, is that the partaker is very careless (whether in unconfessed sin, unbelief, for appearance sake, irreverence (as spoken of here), etc.) at the Table. This bread & wine represents our Savior's agonizing death for our full salvation - how can anyone treat this act in such a way that brings shame to Christ's Sacrifice & greatly diminish the powerful memory that should be present in each partaker?
If I use the other ordinance that we have been given, viz. water baptism, we note that it isn't administered with a warning to participants; probably because only the genuine repenter would be prepared to declare publicly his turning to Jesus & to face the consequences. Unfortunately, both the ordinances we practise today in the Church are far removed from their original design. But if we take the way water baptism was performed, in all biblical examples given to us, we see that as soon as the Gospel was given, those who believed, repenting, discarding their old religion & sins, were baptized - no further examination - no penalty. Today however, we require those wanting baptism to attend baptismal classes & be observed for a changed life, before immersion into the water. Why? Because the one leading a lost soul to the Lord had disobeyed Christ's command to baptize, by neglecting to do so immediately. And so we put the act of obedience to the Lord in baptism, to the baptizee instead of the baptizer. Onto Page 2.
I realize I have diverted from your point, but to show that both ordinances given to us are simple: the water baptism is done only once to immediately show one's identification with the One Who gave His Life for him. The Lord's Table is a continual reminder of the Cross & thankful to God for His Gift. Both the water & the bread/wine are the means used for our declaration, with no merit in those acts that are added to the participant.
The Corinthian Church gorged themselves on the food that was set aside for 'proclaiming the Lord's Death till He come'; and Paul refers to that in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22,33,34. In this act, they sinned against the Lord Who bought them & had done despite to the Sacrifice of such great value. So Paul warned them of their sin of mistreatment of the Lord's Table, & hence there was apparently sickness, even death, amongst them. I wouldn't dare point the finger at anyone suffering in the Church today, but it must have been abundantly clear to the apostle of the reason for their sufferings. Or, maybe today, with such a small portion given at the Lord's Table, no one could even imagine that that would satisfy hunger, rather, the act of participation in such a solemn act must be done in a manner befitting the serious but thankful child of God.
Just as the water in water baptism remains only water & doesn't convert into a medium of transmitting grace or blessing, so to the bread & wine at the Lord's Table receives no change, whether by faith or no faith, and as well as not transmitting anything to the partaker; but simply a vivid symbol of Christ's loving Act for them. OUTSIDE the Church, the water baptized believer would soon be judged by the world, likely resulting in persecution; however, INSIDE the Church, the believer sinfully partaking at the Lord's Table will be judged by Christ. GBU.
It seems from what I have read that the early church believed the account and words of Jesus at the Last Supper literally along with what Jesus said in John 6 concerning eating his body, the bread that came down from heaven, co paring His body to the manna in the wilderness that sustained the Israelites. This was the prevailing view in church history until early in the 1500's.
An interesting story is that of Luther debating Zwingli in his usual polemic and strong debating style on this topic. Zwingli was promoting the memorial view, which was a novel view at the time, and Luther was holding to the real presence of Jesus in with and under the bread and wine (the bread and wine did not change) but Jesus did come in an unexplainable way to be actually Present in the partaking of the bread and wine in the service. While debating with Zwingli, Luther carved early in the the words "This IS MY body" in the table before them (or similar words, but in Latin) to emphasize how literally and concretely he believed the Lord's Presence is in the communion rite. This gives us the strength of this viewpoint in the history of the church. From Zwingli, the teaching of communion being a commemoration entered the view of Christian churches and believers from that time on.
Can any of us truly know what Jesus meant by His words or by instituting this rite? We can try to interpret the best we are able to do and look all the way back to people such as Ignatius of Antioch, who was born in 110 A.D. to see that the supper was considered to be partaking of Jesus' body and blood. For me, I admit to God that I do not fully understand what all He does and intends in His children partaking of communion, yet I avow to Him that I believe that I will receive in communion the benefits He places in the taking of it for and to me. I do think we are told to do it as a memorial, as Jesus' words say, but He also identified the bread and wine as His body and blood.
Thank you for your kind response. I do lean towards your belief concerning partaking of Jesus' body and blood. I just can't say that I truly understand how this come about when we celebrate communion.
Growing up I attended Catholic Mass at times with my friends who were Catholic. The Mass includes many wonderfully reverent and praiseworthy prayers and responses from the congregation.
One that I am reminded of concerning this topic is the response to the invitation to come to receive communion. "Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but speak but the Word and I will be healed". I love this humble and true response to being invited to receive Jesus in the taking of the bread and wine. It was one thing I still remember from those times I shared with my friends. I do not know if the Greek Orthodox service includes a prayer similar to this one. This response to the invitation of communion is one that could be adapted with an ending that fits ones situation better such as: "But speak but the Word and I shall be made clean (from confession of sins)" or "Speak but the Word and I shall receive You".
Thanks for participating in this conversation. I, too, believe that the OT was the time for "types" that represent or memorialize God's work, but the commanded ordinances of Jesus in the NT are the "anti-type" (the reality) and we should acknowledge by faith that we receive what the Scriptures say we receive from baptism and from the Lord's Table.
[Comment Removed]
[Comment Removed]
A major part of the writings by the early Church fathers on this matter stemmed from the prevailing Gnostic (Docetic) heresies rife within the Church. So when we read from Ignatius or Irenaeus for example, we must bear in mind that that was what was primarily in their minds: to refute the Docetic heresy that Jesus did not possess a real physical body of flesh & blood (even as the Apostle John warned against such in 2 John 1:7). So when Jesus spoke speaking of the bread & wine, "this is My Bodythis is My Blood of the New Testament", these fathers would show & confirm with the Church that from the very Mouth of Jesus, He affirmed His physical presence & not some phantom-like appearance as declared by the heretics.
So, it was not only to combat heresy alone, but also to affirm their beliefs in the symbolic nature of the elements, did those fathers also declare; as Tertullian did, "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, 'This is My body', that is, the SYMBOL of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He (Jesus) likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh" (Against Marcion, 4.40). Though I'm sure there were also others of the faith who espoused the actual substance change in the elements.
Anyway, this has been a good discussion, as we share how we understand God's Word, and of course, in all our readings, we must be open to the Spirit's enlightening Work in us. Blessings.
We all must submit to the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit that inspired the authors to write as they did. Thanks for the quote from Tertullian. He lived in the 200's, I believe. and Irenaeus lived a bit later than Tertullian. Ignatius lived shortly after John the apostle died at the end of the first century. I do not know if the same gnostic influences were present during the lives of each of these believers. The reason I mentioned Ignatius is because of how close in time he lived to the apostolic time-frame. I think that his thoughts would closely align with that of the apostles and the early church because of the closeness in time of the two groups.
For me, when I consider the two ordinances Jesus initiated I think there is most likely much that these rites do for believers that we just do not know about. They are hidden in the counsel of the Godhead. I don't think I can correctly extract such from God that He has not revealed. But I do approach the ordinance in faith in God to do all that He wills to do in us when we obey the Scriptures in which He instructs us to partake of these rites. Therefore, I can be satisfied with not knowing the depths of these things because I know that it is God who wills and works in me according to His good pleasure and perfect will. I just trust Him and what He wishes to do in me and through me.f
Have a great weekend. We will be getting snow over the next day or two, the first of this winter. I love snow as long as it isn't a "snowmagedon" type of event that causes all sorts of problems. My birthday was Thursday and it has been common over the years for the Pacific Northwest to get snow on or around my birthday. I always hope for a bit of snow, at least enough for the kids to get a chance to play in it as I did when I was young and for us old folks to marvel at the quietness of snow falling and the beauty of everything being blanketed in fresh snowfall. I love how it glistens in the moonlight.
Actually, until this discussion on the Lord's Body & Blood and its relation to the Bread & Wine, I always believed that if you belonged to the RC Church then transubstantiation was understood & accepted without question; and if not part of that Church, then those elements were simply emblematic. So, it has been great reading & of interest to me, to read that even amongst the non RC, there can be views that are somewhere in-between (as also evidenced by some of the early Church fathers). So I will bear these things in mind & see what further help I can gain, if any, from the Lord's Spirit. Thanks for your input - with blessings & sincere wishes once again.
[Comment Removed]
May I share my thoughts on what you posted?
Mark 14:12, "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?:
Matthew 26:17 agrres to that. Similarly Luke 22:7, "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat."
So the meaning of Luke 22:15 is that Jesus actually ate the passover meal with his disciples.
Now we know from Exodus 12:1-11, that the lambs were sacrificed in the evening of the 14th of Nisan and immediately after when it got dark and the 15th of Nisan started, according to how the Israelites were considering their days and nights, they ate the passover meal. Exodus 12:11, "And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover."
But John disagrees to them. He places the Passover one day later. John 18:28, "Then led they (the Pharisses) Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."
Having in mind that John wrote his gospel last of all, actually as the tradition says many decades after the first three evangelists, when he was in his 80's or 90's, and knew what they had written in their gospels, his story seems to be the right one. So it seems that Jesus ate the passover meal with His apostles one day earlier, probably because He knew that he would be in the tomb the day of the passover. If we see some details in the gospels of the first three, we get the same conclusion. Example: Mark 12:45, "And he BOUGHT fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre."
Part 1
As we see in Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:10, they say when they kill the Passover (lamb). Luke 22:7 also says when the Passover must be killed. This is on Passover day, the 14th when they killed the lambs. The 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, is the Sabbath, not the 14th. The 14th is a preparation day, just like a Friday is for the weekly Saturday.
There are no restrictions on the 14th, Passover Day, the day Jesus was crucified, Joesph could buy or prepare whatever he wanted, before sunset that day. That is why we see they wanted to get Jesus in the tomb before sunset because the next day is the first day of Unleavened Bread is a holy convocation/Sabbath day
In Luke 22:15 Jesus is telling them He desired to eat this Passover, but in the next verse, He says He will not eat it anymore. He said this because He knew He would be crucified that same day, the 14th Passover Day. He would be dead and placed in the tomb before they ate the Passover the next night.
On the 14th, the Lord's Supper, the garden, the arrest, the high priest, Pilate, was crucified, and He died at 3 PM, about 3-4 hours before sunset. The Passover Lambs were killed at even, which would be the afternoon when the sun was going down. Jesus was placed in the tomb before sunset and after sunset, it was the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, this is when they ate the Passover meal.
Only the priests could catch the blood of the Passover lambs and put it on the altar and the Levites would clean the lambs. In the morning after the Last Supper, the priests took Jesus to Pilate they would not go in, John 18:28 they would be defiled and could not catch the blood of the lambs that would be killed later that day the same day Jesus was crucified, the 14th Passover day.
I hope this makes sense and not too repetitive.
See part 2
Part 2,
On the Lord's Supper, this is the only thing Jesus said to do in remembrance of Him. The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. Some churches I have gone to use wine and some use grape juice this is debatable.
My understanding is the language used to describe the Lord's Supper in Scripture is symbolic. It is a memorial that keeps us in memory of what Jesus did for us the bread and wine symbolize our spiritual unity with Jesus' body and blood that He gave for us and by doing this we honor Jesus.
In Corinthians, these people were used to pagan feasts eating meat sacrificed to idols and getting drunk. I feel this is why Paul was so harsh because of the meaning of the Lord's table, and they cannot do both. Jesus died to save us from sin if we memorialize His death in the Lord's Supper, we must know the importance of doing away with sin in our lives.
I may be wrong, but I feel they did this as part of the gospel and feel the Lord's Supper is a time to be thankful and remember how Jesus suffered and sacrificed for us, a time for forgiveness, and a time for eagerly waiting for His return.
Thanks, sorry for the delay brother, I hope this is what you were looking for.
God bless,
RLW
But in Jesus time those killings were done on the 14th, obviously due to the huge number of killings to be done by the priests in the Temple (and not in their houses as initially). Flavius Josephus in his Jewish wars, Book IV, chapter 9, par 6 writes, "So these High-priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour (3pm) till the eleventh (5pm)..."
There were also many other changes through time since the exit of the Israelites from Egypt. God commaned that they eat the meal in a rush, not sitting, but later they sat on tables and many other.
But said before John in his gospel disagrees and places the passover meal that Jesus had a day earlier, on the 13th, which actually must be the right date.
Anyway, all that just for information. So we disagree whether that supper was a pasover meal or not, but we agree on the date. We also disagree whether in the Lord's supper the bread and the wine were litterally or symbolic meant to be. But grape fruit instead of wine? No thanks, I will not take that. Those are churches who believe that christians must not drink alcohol at all so they use other liquids than wine, some use coca cola.
Thanks brother. GBU
My opinion is that it is clear that Jesus ate the passover meal with His disciples (a day earlier as John writes in his gospel). This is what I get from the scrippure. Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:13-17, Luke 22:1-13.
The strange thing is that all three call it the first day of the unleaved bread. Luke 22:7, Mark 26:17, Matthew 26:17.
Lets read Matthew 26:17, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" and Mark adds " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover..."
We know that the lambs were killed on the 14th of Nissan and the next day, the 15th, was the first day of the feast of the unleaved bread. So it seems that the evangelists got it wrong? The most probable explanation that I have read is that during Jesus' time that feast became an 8 day feast instead of a seven day feast (as God commanded to Israelites in Egypt) and the 14th of Nissan was also included in the feast. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who wtote about the Jewish revolution against Romans in 70AD and who lived in Jerusalem during all those events writes in his history "Whence it is, that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for EIGHT days; which is called the feast of Unleavened-bread", Antiquities of Jews, Book II, chapter 15, paragraph 1. So it seems that during Jesus' time the 14th of Nissan was included in the feast so it became an 8 day feast.
Another change that was made untill Jesus time is that although God commanded that the lambs must be killed after the sunset (so on the 15th of Nissan) as Deuteronomy 16:6 says, "But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun (15th of Nissan), at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." that was changed later on.
Love to brother but it will be tomorrow.
God bless,
RLW
The only way I can understand that statement is that 'by expressing faith, those 'things' (represent?) the Body and Blood of our Lord'. I'm sorry, I can't see it another way - maybe my limited comprehension. The Bread & Wine are either materially (even mystically) so, or not so changed (even with faith expressed) - I can't fathom as to how an understanding can be somewhere in-between. I would however, agree to: that 'by faith, those things represent (i.e. emblematic) of the Body & Blood'; but I'm sorry, my limited mind can't grasp an in-between possibility. Anyway, thanks again - we may not want to pursue this any longer. Blessings.
Sorry for my delayed answer. I was a bit beasy the last couple of days.
Chris. The difference between transubstantiation and my church's belief is that we don't believe that the bread and wine are changed in substance and become Body and Blood, but they are Body and Bood by faith. We believe that they become so not because there is any change in substance, they are still bread and wine, but by faith we accept them as Body and Blood of Christ. Accepting the belief of them being emblems finds a serious obstacle which is why do we get punished if we eat them unworthily? They are emblems. So what is the sin? Sins are very specific. What is the sin when I eat something that is a symbol of something else? It says "... unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" and "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.". Not descerning the Lord's Body. In verse 32 it says, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.". Why are we judged? Because we sin and the Lord wants to make us repend and clean ourselves and "not be condemned with the world". So there is a sin/sins similar to those that the unbelievers do. And this can not be because we eat symbols but because we do specific sins like the world. Verse 28 says "But let a man examine himself". Examine about what? About eating an emblem? So what is the sin when I eat it as bread and not as a symbol of flesh? This can not be a sin. It is nothing really. And assuming it is a sin definitely it can not draw the damnation of death.
Jesse. Let's see how the first christians participated in the Communion. They were sitting in tables eating like Jesus and the apostles did in the Last Supper and during or at the end of that meal the pastor stood, prayed and blessed the bread and wine into Body and Blood of Jesus. Then they deacons offered them to the believers.
Other sects teach that communion is a memorial of Jesus' sacrifice for us, reminding us of His death and resurrection and the new covenant He made symbolically at the Last Supper and in reality on the cross where He shed His blood and gave His body for salvation. These teach that the bread and wine represent Jesus' body and blood, and symbolize His sacrifice as He explained the new covenant at the Last Supper.
I think it is a good thing for each believer to read the Scripture account of the communion of the Last Supper where Jesus instituted this new covenant, the John 6 section, and the various teachings of different sects and their explanation of why they believe the way they do so that one can prayerfully by faith embrace what they understand and can believe.
Communion is a holy action regardless of what position one sides with and that we should certainly partake of it with reverence, peace, and faith that Jesus has given Himself for us in His death and resurrection and we are partakers of His promise and Presence as believers. Those who hold to a "real Presence" in the taking in of the bread and wine or those who hold that the practice is a memorial of remembrance of Jesus' work on the behalf of every believer can find Scriptural support for the view they hold. Therefore, I do not think we should judge one another on this matter but instead practice and encourage others to do what our Lord and Paul instructed the church to do in regards to the Lord's Supper, being sure to be at peace with other believers, to not be drunk or gluttonous when partaking of it, or to not leave food for others in the body when the meal occurs, and then, when communion is served being sure to discern the Lord's body in the way they understand this to mean from Scripture. The Scriptures do say that it is possible to partake of communion sinfully, and we should desire to partake properly.
We should honor Christ every time we partake communion together as believers.
"In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by . . . genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration. (CCC, 1378)". Other comments on this also show that in their Mass, they do not sacrifice the Lord again, but that simply the elements, through consecration are changed, becoming the Lord's Body.
Then we have John Calvin's word on this: "While there is no change of substance in the sacrament, Jesus Christ is nonetheless present in a real way by means of his Holy Spirit. In observing the Lord's Supper, Christ does not come down to the faithful in his body and blood; instead, the faithful are lifted up to him in spirit by the Holy Spirit."
And then we have the more independent Churches, who generally believe that the emblems remain the same, but taken in a solemn, meaningful manner, in remembrance of all that Jesus has done for them at the Cross & in His resurrection and ascension. So yes, we do have greatly divergent beliefs, as we do on many other doctrines, and of course this is nothing new, as since the days of the apostles, there have been teachers (both gnostic & others) ready to sway believers towards their form of doctrine. It should be little wonder that the Church is so diverse, some in great error, given the passing of two millenia. But the Lord knows who are His; we must but teach the Word & then allow the Spirit to make it real & relevant to us. Thank you again dear GiGi.
And if you have been following this thread, discussion has come up as to whether the bread & wine we see on the Communion Table only remain as physically bread & wine, or do they, in a mystical way, transform into the actual Body & Blood of our Lord. My understanding of the Scriptures associated with this solemn, yet joyful ceremony, is that what we see on the table before us, do not change at all in their material composition, hence only remain as emblems (or, symbols, tokens) of what Jesus did for us at Calvary. Please read these Gospel & the apostle Paul's accounts more fully to understand for yourself, with the Spirit's Help, to what Jesus intended for His disciples and us to understand from this act of fellowship with Him.
Thanks for your addition to this topic of discussion. If you have ever been to a Catholic Mass your will note in the missal (order of service) Communion is called the "Sacrifice " of the Mass and those I know who are Catholic do see it as that of a non-bloody sacrifice.
Those like the RCC, Lutheran, and others who believe that Jesus is present in the bread and wine and that we do partake of his body and blood believe so because they take literally what Jesus said in the Last Supper Institution of the new covenant meal and in John 6. Others who believe in an actual spiritual presence of Jesus in the bread and wine see His words as more spiritually actualized to those who partake. And those who believe that the bread and wine are a memorial meal see His words as being symbolic. This last way of seeing communion as a memorial is reflective of more recent Protestant teaching after the lives of Luther, Calvin, and Anglicanism.