The Gospel Coalition

Brian’s Letter 

Since we found some common ground on liturgy, and since the Eucharist is the high point of the RCC liturgy, let’s tackle the whole symbolic vs. literal thing with regard to communion.

You acknowledged earlier that although you don’t personally believe the Bible teaches it, the “literal” Body and Blood meaning can be gleaned from scripture (once again, so much for sola scriptura).

You go on to make the point that Jesus was speaking symbolically and compared this to Jesus saying he was door or a vine. This actually proves a buttress to my point. For example, a door does indeed symbolize that Jesus is how we pass to eternal life. It makes sense. Or to say he is a vine, one sees that through the sap (his Spirit) we receive nourishment and are part of something larger. Easy symbolism to follow, and again it makes sense. But, if Jesus was trying to get across some symbolic sentiment by comparing bread to his flesh, there’s a disconnect. Where’s the symbolism in that? It doesn’t make sense.

When digesting John 6, it’s important to recall that Jesus prayed in John 17 that the Father would see to it that he lose none of those given to him. With this in mind, after “speaking symbolically” in John 6 as you say, how could Jesus let his disciples leave? (John 6:66) He was morally obligated to clear up their misunderstanding so that he would lose none of them. Like the parables he preached, all he had to do was simply explain it. He always explained the parables when they didn’t get it.

So here, if it was symbolic meaning, all he had to say was… “Hey guys, come back, don’t leave, I’m only speaking symbolically. You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying”. It is profound that he does not explain it that way. As he explains what he means, he doesn’t back off, and indeed he continually takes it up a notch as he tells them in John 6:53-56 that they must eat his flesh (The graphic Greek word used means to gnaw or chew). He allows his disciples to leave, and then not only that, he turns to the 12 and asks, “Will you leave too?”.

You claim a personal disagreement with Baptists who believe in a merely symbolic meaning of communion, yet in light of these verses it seems unlikely you can reconcile your personal belief in an exclusively “spiritual” feeding either.

So, like John 6 says, “It is a hard saying.” If it is a symbolic meaning, one has to ask what’s hard about a symbolic meaning? Who is the last person who you’ve seen leave a church because they couldn’t accept a symbolic meaning in John 6 and even considered it a “hard” saying? Doesn’t happen. I’m trying to keep my explanation simple, but Jesus is so incredibly direct, one has to twist John 6 to get anything but a literal meaning. For example, he says in verse 51, “…and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” – the real, physical flesh he gives up on the cross – and also in verse 55 he says, “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink.” He can’t be any more direct.

In 1 Cor 11:27 we see Paul explain, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” Symbolic? Not hardly, and Paul drives it home further in verse 29 where he admonishes, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” With these two verses in mind, one cannot be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, unto judgment, if it’s not the body and blood of the Lord!

Lastly, it is a major misunderstanding to state, as was previously done, that “the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Christ on the altar.” It is most certainly not a re-sacrificing, but instead is a re-presenting of that once, for all sacrifice which is ever-present before the Father. Refer to my previous liturgy email where I said, “Through liturgy, Christ’s sacrifice becomes a present reality. His sacrifice, once, for all, is mysteriously ever-present before the Father. Liturgy plugs us into that.” So, there is no re-sacrificing going on.

Trevin’s Response

Hi Brian,

I love talking about the Lord’s Supper, so this discussion will be enjoyable. I believe it is a travesty that the Lord’s Supper – the symbol of our unity as believers in Christ around his table, united to his cross – has become such a source of controversy and division. I hope through this discussion, a spirit of love will be evident from both sides.

You said that “Jesus is the Door” or “Jesus is the Vine” is obviously symbolic, while comparing Jesus to bread is a disconnect. There is definite symbolism in Jesus comparing his flesh to bread. Put yourself in the place of the people in John 6.

In the agrarian culture of first-century Jews, having bread was essential to survival. There was no endless supply of bread (in dozens of varieties) available at the local market. Simply put: without bread, there was no life. Even today, almost everything we eat comes from something else that has died. Dead animals provide us with meat. Dead wheat gives us bread. Vegetables come from dead plants.

When we see how other life dies that we may live, Jesus’ words take on a new meaning. “I am the Bread of Life” is another way of saying: “Without My death, you cannot live.” Just as bread is the essential element in the human diet, Jesus says that He Himself is the foundation for spiritual life. Without His death – his body being broken (hence the reference to flesh) no one else can live. Those who come to Him will never again be hungry. Those who believe in Him will never again thirst. Through His death, we live.

Let’s stay in John 6 for a minute. Some have argued (persuasively) that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper at all, but only about trusting in the crucified Jesus for salvation. I tend to agree with most, though, that John 6 is definitely an allusion to the Eucharist, since John does not record the words of Institution.

You say that this passage means that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper becomes the actual, physical body and blood of Christ. You are turning the verse around. Jesus says, “My flesh is real food.” Not “this food is real flesh.” I believe that Jesus’ body – broken for us – is real food, not that it turns into food, but that his death is what gives us life, just like food gives us life.

If the food actually becomes in a physical sense the body of Christ, why don’t the elements change? (I know this simple argument has been brought up again and again, but it bears repeating.) When Jesus was passing out the bread and cup at the Last Supper and he said, “this is my body,” I don’t think any of the disciples said, “wow! This bread is now Jesus’ physical flesh.” I don’t think they even thought that.

You say that it is a major misunderstanding to see the Eucharist as a re-sacrificing of Christ on the altar. I’m glad you agree. The problem is, the Catholic liturgy at this point, is woefully misleading. And perhaps that is why many lay Catholics actually see it wrongly. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to re-present the sacrifice of Christ before the Father. We are called to do this in remembrance of Christ, not as a representing of his sacrifice.

The real problem with the RCC understanding of the Lord’s Supper in my opinion, is not the idea that the bread and wine become the body and blood. The real problem is seeing the Eucharist as action that is primarily ours – an offering before God of Christ’s sacrifice.

This can also be a problem with the evangelical understanding of “ordinance” – something we’re commanded to do. Yes, Jesus tells us to “do” this in his remembrance, but the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper in Scripture is on what God does for us as we approach his table. The Eucharist is not something we do for God, but something that God does for us. As we spiritually feed upon Christ at his table, we are recipients of his strengthening grace. We are reminded and strengthened by what he did for us at Calvary.

Grace to you,
Trevin