Lords Supper Resurrected

(ESV)

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

The Dilemma- In what way is the Eucharist or the Lords Supper to be understood? In what way is the sacrament the body and blood of Jesus. This discussion really ties to the topic of transubstantiation. There seems to be many answers among Christendom. Some say no change takes place. Others say a metaphysical change takes place. Still others say a physical change takes place. With all these perspectives can we come to a common ground agreement?

The Truth-

When Jesus said this is my body it is a symbol. The question that really seems to divide is whether or not it is a mere symbol? I think all Christian will agree there is something great in partaking of the Lords Supper. I think we can all agree that it is a symbol. As a protestant I see it as a symbol. But I would never say that it is a mere symbol. I think that works of the Spirit and union with Christ take place or at least can take place when one partakes. A pentecostal might call this the filling of the Spirit. I don’t think that is always the case because there is measure of faith we have all been given. The increase is of the grace of God. I do not believe this can be denied.

We are to partake in remembrance. Regardless of whether you say it is a mere symbol or more we are to partake for the purpose of remembrance. The purpose of us partaking is to commemorate his life, death and resurrection. The Greek word that is sometimes translated remembrance in means commemoration. This also cannot be denied.

“ ἀνάμνησις anámnēsis; gen. anamnḗseōs, fem. noun from anamimnḗskō (363), to remind. Remembrance. A commemoration (). A memorial (; , ), as applied to the Lord’s Supper. “In remembrance of me” means that the participant should remember Christ and the expiatory sacrifice of His death. The memory of the greatness of the sacrifice should cause the believer to abstain from sin. See Sept.: ; .”

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

No matter how we view it, what we partake of is the body and blood. Jesus said this is my body and blood. How it is does not change the fact that it is. I believe all Christians must accept that it is the body and blood of our Lord.

A few arguments-

The text never says the word change. So when we look at the passage in question the discussion as to how it is or if it changes is really beyond what the biblical text actually says. When people refer to it changing in trying to describe a mystery they are going beyond what the text actually tells us. My discussion above is about saying what we can for sure say it is. Beyond that I believe we should have grace. I would categorized these arguments here as non essential but maybe an ecumenical council should convene so that all of Christendom would be united on the matter. That is those who would accept a true modern day Ecumenical Council. Certainly that is another topic. My point here is that the text never says change so why should we go beyond that? I prefer to leave it a mystery. Only God can reveal the mystery. For who knows the mind of God but the Spirit of God. I prefer to leave this topic as a mystery but I will say that speaking of change from is going beyond what the text says.

(ESV)

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

If it is his body via atonement then how could they partake of his atonement prior to Jesus actually dying. So another issue in regards to those who thinks it changes is how it could have been the atonement of Jesus before He actually died. Those who believe it is a symbol point to this as proof that it is a symbol. It can only truly be His atonement after He dies. So trying to point to this passage to prove change seems truly absurd. How can it be the resurrected Christ when He said this before He was resurrected. It could not have been the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in any literal form because He had not literally died and resurrected at that point.

Going Further- The third category

With all that said I will dabble in the mystery. Assuming it changes Christianity does not seem satisfied to say merely physical nor merely metaphysical. What I would say if I was to accept some sort of doctrine of change is that it is not merely physical nor metaphysical. If it indeed the Lamb of God resurrected it would have to be in a category between physical and metaphysical. It would have to be placed in a third category, that of the resurrection.

(ESV)

36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!”

37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.

38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?

39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

43 and he took it and ate before them.

Was Jesus physical, was Jesus metaphysical? The answer to both is a resounding yes. If the Jesus is the Eucharist it must be in neither a mere physical nor metaphysical form but resurrected form. What is that form? We are not given much details in scripture so we are back to the fact that it is a mystery and I am happy to leave it there.

Bringing it all together- what it means for us? I think this is a great thing to discuss but there has never been an Ecumenical council to form and iron out these things. For those who would adhere to a council I think it would be a move towards unity. I would certainly like to be included.