Q: In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus tells the disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. Is this literal or figurative? The question has divided Christians since the Reformation. If God inspired the Bible, shouldnt he have made its interpretation clearer?
A: I think this was clear to the disciples at the time: Jesus was sitting there with them, at the table. His body was not disintegrating into their hands and into their mouths; nor was His blood leaking into the cup. A brief contemplation of this point -- particularly when one considers its affinities with the traditional Passover-pronouncements -- should evoke the conclusion that Jesus did not mean that the bread and wine was physically His flesh and His blood.
At the same time, though, the communion-meal figuratively represents the New Passover, as it were, at which a lamb dedicated to God is killed and eaten, and its blood is displayed so that the people will be protected and prepared for the journey to the Promised Land. The question is, does this actually occur every time the Passover-meal is observed, or did it occur once, with all subsequent observances being commemorations of that one occurrence? I think Hebrews 7:27 answers the question: our High Priest does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the peoples, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. And Hebrews 10:12 offers further reinforcement: This Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. And a couple of verses before that: We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
All that implies, to me, that the Lords Supper is a commemorative re-enactment, not a resacrifice of Christ. It is, however, also a reminder that Christ is present with those who gather in His name. For this reason the elements should be received with reverence, as a sort of weekly Passover-meal and a nourishment for the kingdom of priests that is Gods church, and as reminders that by being born again and receiving a new nature, we have, so to speak, partaken of Christs body and blood; by His death our grisly sin is at once exposed and paid for.
I suppose one could still ask, But why isnt the Bible clearer about this?, but I think the misinterpretations which this passage has been subject to are evidence of human ineptitude, not of any fault in the text (and possibly the doctrine of transubstantiation may have some foundations in some pagan philosophies/religions that were current in the first century). The journey to clarity is a two-step journey; it involves not only neatly-written letters, but properly focused vision.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: I think this was clear to the disciples at the time: Jesus was sitting there with them, at the table. His body was not disintegrating into their hands and into their mouths; nor was His blood leaking into the cup. A brief contemplation of this point -- particularly when one considers its affinities with the traditional Passover-pronouncements -- should evoke the conclusion that Jesus did not mean that the bread and wine was physically His flesh and His blood.
At the same time, though, the communion-meal figuratively represents the New Passover, as it were, at which a lamb dedicated to God is killed and eaten, and its blood is displayed so that the people will be protected and prepared for the journey to the Promised Land. The question is, does this actually occur every time the Passover-meal is observed, or did it occur once, with all subsequent observances being commemorations of that one occurrence? I think Hebrews 7:27 answers the question: our High Priest does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the peoples, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. And Hebrews 10:12 offers further reinforcement: This Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. And a couple of verses before that: We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
All that implies, to me, that the Lords Supper is a commemorative re-enactment, not a resacrifice of Christ. It is, however, also a reminder that Christ is present with those who gather in His name. For this reason the elements should be received with reverence, as a sort of weekly Passover-meal and a nourishment for the kingdom of priests that is Gods church, and as reminders that by being born again and receiving a new nature, we have, so to speak, partaken of Christs body and blood; by His death our grisly sin is at once exposed and paid for.
I suppose one could still ask, But why isnt the Bible clearer about this?, but I think the misinterpretations which this passage has been subject to are evidence of human ineptitude, not of any fault in the text (and possibly the doctrine of transubstantiation may have some foundations in some pagan philosophies/religions that were current in the first century). The journey to clarity is a two-step journey; it involves not only neatly-written letters, but properly focused vision.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
