The Gospel Coalition

Your agrarian defense is left wanting. Sure, as you’ve said, dead wheat gives us bread, and one can see from that a similarity to Jesus’ death giving us life, but if you intend to use it as defense of it being as clear symbolically as the “door” or “vine” stories, I’ve got to disagree. Jesus is the symbolic door through which we enter eternal life (simple), as opposed to Jesus symbolizes a wheat seed, who died and was made into a food stuff (which symbolizes his teachings, his Spirit, etc.), and we feed on that. I reiterate that it doesn’t make much sense symbolically.

If Jesus intended this symbolic meaning, he blew it by not saying, “This represents my body,” and then explaining that wheat, not the bread, is the symbol which is the object of meaning. Also, where’s the blood? This agrarian wheat manipulation ignores half of the equation by not addressing the blood.

Why not accept Jesus’ words at face value when he says, “My flesh is real food?” and “My blood is real drink”? Again, half the equation is left out if the point is made (when reversing his words for effect as you did) that he did not say “This food is real flesh”, for the other half would be “This drink is real blood.” If you think the RCC applies these reversed meanings, folks would remain baffled by the blood references, even from the agrarian standpoint. It just doesn’t make sense.

This is where the patristic writings can come in handy, for we see time and again where Christians are executed for cannibalism, for they claimed to be eating the body and blood of Jesus. The Romans took clear advantage of this belief by carrying out their desire to kill the Christian Jews. Reams of pages of historical writings support this fact. We know for certain from first, second, and third century writings that Christians had a literal understanding of the mystery of Jesus’ institution of communion.

Also, where’s the scripture in rebuttal to the literal understanding? You haven’t supplied any. Let’s review… Scripture points to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover lamb (which had to be eaten). Jesus says, “This is my body… This is my blood” at the Last Supper accounts in the gospels. He says, “My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink” in John 6 (again at Passover time, a year prior to the Last Supper). Paul gives the strongest of warnings in 1 Cor 11 not to eat and drink without recognizing the body and blood of our Lord.

All these I’ve mentioned previous. Let me add another… Malachi 1:11 “‘For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,’ says the Lord of hosts.” We know this was a prophesy, for when written the Lord’s name was not yet great among the Gentile nations. So, let’s see if we can see where this prophesy is fulfilled… What do we have here?… Hmmm… Incense is offered – each and every day – from sun up to sun down around the world – and a perfect offering is made. What is the only perfect offering? Jesus alone of course.

So, we see here an allusion to the Church’s worship in the Mass where we know Jesus himself is the sacrificial offering. (Not a re-sacrificing… more explained in final paragraph.) Mass is offered daily, all around the world, incense is used and Jesus’ ministry as victim becomes present.

You asked why don’t the elements change? Let’s say a scientist had access to one of the cells from Jesus’ body when Jesus was in the womb. Looking at it under a microscope, would he find something different than blood cells and human molecular biology? No, yet Jesus was fully divine. Why weren’t the elements of his physical makeup different than ordinary flesh and blood? Why weren’t they something different? We don’t know because it’s a mystery, and we accept the mystery of bread and wine becoming Jesus even though it appears to be bread and wine. Again, as he says in John 6, “It is a hard saying.”

Lastly, surely as you’ve said, the Eucharist is not something we do for God, but something God does for us. Why would you think Catholics see the Eucharistic action as primarily ours? We know from Hebrews that Jesus holds his priesthood permanently because Jesus continues forever (Heb 7:24). This, of course, is unlike the priests under the Aaronic order who could not continue as priests because of their deaths (Heb 7:23). Under the Old Covenant, the high priest made the sacrifice and entered the most holy place with the blood to complete the sacrifice, yet this was only done once per year. Plus, the priest had to leave lest he die. This is a type to Jesus entering the true holy place (heaven), but he too must offer something, his blood, and he remains in the true holy place, continually offering so that we can enter into the holy places (Heb 10:19-21). Since Jesus never leaves, there is no need to crucify Jesus all over again.

The Mass is a making present of the reality of Jesus’ sacrifice and his continual high priest ministry. The Mass is both a remembrance and a present participation in our Lord’s two fold sacrifice in which he is priest and victim. 1 Cor 10:18 has Paul asking rhetorically, “Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?” Again, Paul does the same with pagan sacrifices in verses 19-20 where he asks, “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.”

So, we see that sacrifices make us participants, and through the mystery of communion (common union) we on earth are in union with the communion of saints and angels in heaven at the celebration of the Eucharist. — I’ve said before, when you get your worship right, everything else is right. God gave us the means of proper worship, and he renews his covenant at each Mass.

Trevin’s Response

Hi Brian,

I’m sorry that you refuse to see the obvious symbolism in the “Jesus is the Bread of Life” statement. The agrarian wheat defense is not a manipulation of the text, but one that seeks to place it in its proper context. The blood is likewise the symbol of life – life is in the blood – as Scripture and science attests. To drink of Jesus’ blood for eternal life is not cannibalism – it means Jesus’ blood must be shed and must be applied to human beings for salvation. In Jesus’ death (his shed blood), we find forgiveness and life. Do not make John 6 say more than it says. That there is an allusion to the Lord’s Supper here is undeniable. But the main focus of the text is not the Lord’s Supper, but the importance of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sin.

I know that Christians were called “cannibals.” This is because the New Testament doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was misunderstood by outsiders. They were also persecuted for “incest,” because of their calling each other “brothers” and “sisters.” Now tell me, do you think this proves that early Christians were committing sexual acts of passion with each other? Just because the early Christians were accused of something does not mean that is actually what they were promoting. It is weak logic indeed to assume that the early Christians believed in transubstantiation because the pagans thought they did.

Jesus is not offered up to God as a sacrifice when we take Communion. Look at Hebrews 9 and 10. And Hebrews 7. Our celebration is a commemoration of his sacrifice, not a representing of Jesus to the Father. We believe that Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper, but not that the elements are to be worshipped and adored and paraded as idolatry. We look through the elements to see Jesus. We do not believe the elements become Jesus’ body and blood in the physical sense. Why does Jesus, after saying “This is my blood,” still refer to the cup as “the fruit of the vine?”

I believe it is wrong to mistake the sign for the thing symbolized. How would I feel if in love, I gave my wife her wedding ring, and she spent all her time worshipping, adoring and kissing the ring because it was my love. No… she wears the ring because it expresses my love. Look past the physical elements to Jesus himself in the sacrament.

A couple questions:
Why does Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 still call the bread “bread” and the cup “the cup” if these had already become literal body and blood?
Jesus says the cup “is the covenant” in his blood. If the blood is not at all symbolic, then what is it? Is it Jesus’ blood? Or is it the covenant? If it’s literal, it can only be one thing, right?

Trevin