An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[dcana]

Then I congratulate you sir (or ma’am) for being unique among Catholics-take a few moments to review the threads on “no salvation outside the Catholic church” or the fate of a Catholic who leaves the church, or the church’s views on freedom of religion and see numerous catholics quoting the Magesterial pronouncements (in some cases the exact same document) to “prove” conclusions that are the exact opposite of each other.

The Catholic solution isn’t a solution at all-it simply replaces the personal responsibility for proper interpretation of inspired Scripture for the personal responsibility for proper interpretation of uninspired canons and encyclicals. Not a good trade, really.

Sir, thank you. Nope. 1. Jesus’ “solution” is good. 2. The canons and encyclicals are inspired.

Once again, “I will send the Holy Spirit who will guide you into ALL truth” Has His promise failed? Certainly, the Mormons believe so. I don’t.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Didn’t Jesus promise to send us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth? He did. Whether or not you think that one can make the logical leap to a need for an infallible interpreter of Scripture, Jesus gave us one, “His Church”, which is “the pillar and bullwark of truth” who we are supposed to take our disputes to.

It just makes plain sense. What does not make sense is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God giving us a book of “God-breathed” Scriptures and not giving us a way to know for certain, what He wants us to know, so that nobody really knows what it means. That almost seems cruel. It certainly does not make any logical sense. People have been arguing this particular part of the God-breathed Scriptures quite literally since the moment He breathed them, for the last 2000 years, most especially for the last 500 years. The disciples believed, the Jews went away. They certainly didn’t understand, but they believed, because they trusted the Master’s words.

First off, you have no infallible list of which Catholic teachings have been infallibly declared and yet you claim that this infallibility is useful in some practical way. When Catholics can’t even agree what has been taught infallibly, and yet have to believe that this unknown set of teachings is the basis for their unity, that is cruel.

It’s funny to hear Catholics attack Protestants about believing the Bible while not having a certainty about which books are in it when Catholics are perfectly comfortable accepting infallibility without knowing which statements were an exercise of it.

Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into truth-that implies we aren’t there yet, that we all have greater underrstanding to be led into. I am able to be open to that guiding and move in that direction, rather than claiming I’ve always been right, that I’m the only one that’s guaranteed to be right and everyone has to agree with me-that doesn’t sound like openness to being guided, does it?

 

[dcana]

I was just looking that up for you. Here they are:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

These are the dogmas of our faith. As it says on the page, “If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of the sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.” These are the things that must believed if you hold the Catholic faith. Here are some of the relevant dogmas regarding the Eucharist:

1. 
   *]The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.
   *]Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
   *]The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
   *]The Body and Blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity and therefore, the whole Christ, are truly present in the Eucharist.
   
   As it says it the Catechism, paragraph 88, “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ** to the fullest extent** when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith.” That implies that Magesterium can exercise its Authority, but not in the fullest extent, and it does so when it proposes doctrines. If people are squabbling, they are doing so regarding doctrines. If they are squabbling over dogmas, then someone is holding the beliefs of a heretic.
   Every line of text in any papal document is not infallible. However, we listen because the successor of Peter is speaking. I am sure you are aware of the conditions necessary for the Pope to speak infallibly and that it has happened only two times in the 2000-year history of the Church, in 1854 in and 1950. However, we are to believe all that the Church proposes to her children, but only what she has said are infallible teachings are, in fact, infallible teachings. If you don’t see a practical purpose for knowing beyond any shadow of a doubt, the nature of God, or the nature of grace and salvation, for example, then I’m not sure what to tell you.
   
   Here is a link to what the Church proposes for her children to believe:
   
   vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm%between%

 

[TriuneUnity]

That would depend greatly on the symbol, right? Let’s say the symbol for Christ was an Ark or a Rock…such symbols would be hard to eat. On the other hand, let’s say the symbol for the true Bread of Life (aka Jesus) was manna, now isn’t that symbol not only easy to eat, but actually intended for consumption?

Such symbols would be hard to eat, but of course, none of those symbols were commanded to be eaten. So I am not sure of the relevance of that. As for the Bread of Life discourse in John, the context is entirely different than that of the Last Supper. One can adduce Christ’s meaning by His referents to faith in the verses preceding the discourse. In the institution passages, however, there is actually something physical present that is consumed, which is then connected with Christ’s body being eaten with the bread. The burden of proof lies with anyone who wants to deviate from the plain and obvious meaning.

I think that should be: “With the words ‘Take, eat’ Christ calls upon us to eat with the mouth, and asserts that what He puts into our mouth and we receive orally the symbol of His body.”

Except that the words of Christ to take and eat His body contains nothing to indicate that the eating is a symbolic action.

I thought Christ connected the bread to “eat” and the cup to “drink”. Perhaps, the contention of the Catholics (and Lutheran’s?) that Christ’s body is really present for the mouth, robs the verbs eat and drink of the things Christ connected with them, namely the bread and wine."

Only if one were to argue that the bread and wine are not present. I am not arguing for transubstantiation. It is not a doctrine I hold to in any sense.

To be very candid, the “Is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that manner? So let me simply respond at this time by asking this question (which I have asked here before):

Which is why I spent the time that I did on focusing the argument away from the is always means is defense. We should debate the text and not only philology.

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” literally and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

The non-literal elements in phrases such as these are, respectively “brother, sister, mother”, not “is.” Jesus is not claiming they represent His mother, sister, or brother. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “is” but what He meant by “mother, brother, sister”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words, as you argue, regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word “is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word “is”.

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? There are no Scriptural answers to these questions if the word “body” is non-literal.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Are you laughing because you agree or disagree?

Because it sounded funny Though, in seriousness, yes, Jesus did not command adoration of the elements. So we shouldn’t.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I was just looking that up for you. Here they are:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

These are the dogmas of our faith. As it says on the page, “If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of the sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.” These are the things that must believed if you hold the Catholic faith. Here are some of the relevant dogmas regarding the Eucharist:

1. 
   *]The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist.
   *]Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
   *]The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
   *]The Body and Blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity and therefore, the whole Christ, are truly present in the Eucharist.
   
   As it says it the Catechism, paragraph 88, “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ** to the fullest extent** when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith.” That implies that Magesterium can exercise its Authority, but not in the fullest extent, and it does so when it proposes doctrines. If people are squabbling, they are doing so regarding doctrines. If they are squabbling over dogmas, then someone is holding the beliefs of a heretic.
   Every line of text in any papal document is not infallible. However, we listen because the successor of Peter is speaking. I am sure you are aware of the conditions necessary for the Pope to speak infallibly and that it has happened only two times in the 2000-year history of the Church, in 1854 in and 1950. However, we are to believe all that the Church proposes to her children, but only what she has said are infallible teachings are, in fact, infallible teachings. If you don’t see a practical purpose for knowing beyond any shadow of a doubt, the nature of God, or the nature of grace and salvation, for example, then I’m not sure what to tell you.
   
   Here is a link to what the Church proposes for her children to believe:
   
   vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm%between%

1. 
   I’ve read Ott, under what circumstances do you attribute infallibility to him? He produced a list of what he believes to be all the Catholic dogmas, yet you can look at Denzinger’s list and see that they disagree in some aspects. You’ve put your trust in a fallible list of infallible dogmas.
   
   How can you be sure Ott didn’t miss a dogma and you are now displeasing God by not believing it?
   
   Likewise, not everyone agrees with your opinion that there have been only two infallible statements-Tim Staples has said he believes there have been at least four. Which Catholic do I believe? You or Tim Staples?
   
   Finally, was the Catechism the guide for Catholics in the first edition? or the revised edition 3 years later? Does the Catechism have a list of dogmas and infallible statements in it? Why tell people the Magisterium defines dogmas if it doesn’t tell them what the list of dogmas contains?
   
   What about all of the Papal documents some Traditional Catholics have presented that say the complete opposite of passages in the Catechism? They say that an infallible statement by a Pope (they have more on their list than you or Tim Staples) trumps a fallible Catechism. Is this true?
   
   I’m sorry if this seems harsh, but Catholics always seem ready to critique Protestants for the “uncertainty” and “lack of unity” in their beliefs while glossing over the glaring differences in their own. I’m simply trying to show that the theory of Catholic doctrinal unity never seems to make it into actual practice among Catholics.
   
   And for some reason, the Magisterium doesn’t step in to fix this with a couple of simple pronouncements that would define dogma and let everyone know what had been infallibly defined. Why would they let this confusion persist if the church has been led into all truth? I can see a benefit to this, but it hasn’t happened. So that leaves you with the question of why hasn’t it happened, since you believe it is supposed to be the norm for the church.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Because it sounded funny Though, in seriousness, yes, Jesus did not command adoration of the elements. So we shouldn’t.

Just wanted to check-I’ve had both sorts of laughter from other posters over time.

I’m calling it a night, perhaps you can give a clearer explanation why we non-Catholics don’t feel lost and adrift without an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Apparently those reading me are unable to understand what I’ve actually meant in my last few posts. Perhaps you can interpret.

Good night

 

[TriuneUnity]

Just wanted to check-I’ve had both sorts of laughter from other posters over time.

I’m calling it a night, perhaps you can give a clearer explanation why we non-Catholics don’t feel lost and adrift without an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Apparently those reading me are unable to understand what I’ve actually meant in my last few posts. Perhaps you can interpret.

Good night

I won’t be able to, because I’m not infallible.

Even if I was, there is no one else infallible that can tell you whether I’ve made an infallible statement

 

[TriuneUnity]

I will also be interested to see what is said when you get to Luke where the cup is the new covenant.

My apologies if I skipped this one. I addressed this in the Matthean text in post #10. It would suffice for the comment in Luke as well.

 

[Radical]

Such symbols would be hard to eat, but of course, none of those symbols were commanded to be eaten. So I am not sure of the relevance of that.

It seemed odd for someone to declare that a symbol is difficult to eat…given that any speaker can make a symbol out of an edible thing.

In the institution passages, however, there is actually something physical present that is consumed, which is then connected with Christ’s body being eaten with the bread.

This there is something actually present that is being consumed and it is bread…and it is connected to the thing that it symbolizes. From over here that is the plain and obvious meaning.

The burden of proof lies with anyone who wants to deviate from the plain and obvious meaning.

As indicated in the John 6 thread, I think that both “plain” and “obvious” leave the room as soon as a second body is supposed to coexist (in a manner unknown and unfathomed before that time) in the hands of the first body.

Except that the words of Christ to take and eat His body contains nothing to indicate that the eating is a symbolic action.

The “eating” is actually the eating of bread. By taking and eating one accepts what Christ offered. For the disciples that night, they accepted bread and wine. We do the same and in the process remember the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood that we have accepted for our benefit. I don’t know that the eating is symbolic…I’d call it purposeful.

Only if one were to argue that the bread and wine are not present. I am not arguing for transubstantiation. It is not a doctrine I hold to in any sense.

Is it your position that what Christ said amounted to: “Take and eat; this is (both bread and) my body”

Which is why I spent the time that I did on focusing the argument away from the is always means is defense. We should debate the text and not only philology.

excellent

The non-literal elements in phrases such as these are, respectively “brother, sister, mother”, not “is.” Jesus is not claiming they represent His mother, sister, or brother. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “is” but what He meant by “mother, brother, sister”.
So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words, as you argue, regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word “is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word “is”.
Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? There are no Scriptural answers to these questions if the word “body” is non-literal.

Now I grasp the distinction in figures of speech that you seek to make. Like Larkin in the other thread, I look at the figure of speech as a whole and wouldn’t suggest making rules for various styles of figures of speech based on which components within it are literal. It is either literal as a whole or a figure of speech as a whole. With “this is my body” I would suggest that what is meant is: “This bread is representative of my body”. It doesn’t seem to me that “is” is either “literal” or “non-literal”…it merely denotes a state of being and doesn’t designate the manner of that state of being…which could be mysteriously, figuratively etc. It is the unstated “how” that makes the phrase figurative or literal. Again, unless one wants to fudge “literal” I don’t know how one specific thing (the bread in hand) could “literally” be another very different thing (the body of the holder). So, just as both “plain” and “obvious” leave the room as soon as a second body is supposed to coexist (in a manner unknown and unfathomed before that time) in the hands of the first body, “literal” also takes a hike in that instance. I suppose that if one wanted to argue the meaning of “is” and distinguish other figures of speech based on whether the “is” is “literal” or “non-literal”, then one could also distinguish every other use of the word “is” from the alleged transubstantial, consubstantianial, Real Presential usage of “is”…such is definitely a once and only usage of “is”. As such, that sort of connection between bread and body made by the “RP is” could not be supported by reference to any other “is” .

Good night.

 

[dcana]

Just wanted to check-I’ve had both sorts of laughter from other posters over time.

I’m calling it a night, perhaps you can give a clearer explanation why we non-Catholics don’t feel lost and adrift without an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Apparently those reading me are unable to understand what I’ve actually meant in my last few posts. Perhaps you can interpret.

Good night

You are correct. I am indeed unable to fully understand why non-Catholics don’t feel lost and adrift as I look across the land of Protestantism. However, I can think of several reasons why. You may not feel so, but many non-Catholics do feel lost and confused. If you don’t feel confused then answer this question:

Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ or is it bread and wine?
Do you think that having a definitive answer to this question is important?

Sleep tight!

 

[Radical]

My apologies if I skipped this one. I addressed this in the Matthean text in post #10. It would suffice for the comment in Luke as well.

Thanks, I had missed that post… will look at it tomorrow.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It seemed odd for someone to declare that a symbol is difficult to eat…given that any speaker can make a symbol out of an edible thing.

Certainly, except that it isn’t the case with the symbolism of Christ that you referenced.

This there is something actually present that is being consumed and it is bread…and it is connected to the thing that it symbolizes. From over here that is the plain and obvious meaning.

How is it connected?

As indicated in the John 6 thread, I think that both “plain” and “obvious” leave the room as soon as a second body is supposed to coexist (in a manner unknown and unfathomed before that time) in the hands of the first body.

When the text states that Jesus walked on water, it simply means that He walked on water, without the necessary step of explaining the metaphysical characteristics of how He was able to do so.

Is it your position that what Christ said amounted to: “Take and eat; this is (both bread and) my body”

We can see that both are present in the text. Therefore, there isn’t a need to explain away the elements, as in transubstantiation, in order to explain how the presence was there. The text doesn’t tell us, so we can’t begin to guess, nor should we. We take it for what it says. Jesus didn’t have to indicate that the bread was present because the disciples could clearly see that it was bread. They couldn’t see that it was His body.

Now I grasp the distinction in figures of speech that you seek to make. Like Larkin in the other thread, I look at the figure of speech as a whole and wouldn’t suggest making rules for various styles of figures of speech based on which components within it are literal. It is either literal as a whole or a figure of speech as a whole. With “this is my body” I would suggest that what is meant is: “This bread is representative of my body”. It doesn’t seem to me that “is” is either “literal” or “non-literal”…it merely denotes a state of being and doesn’t designate the manner of that state of being…which could be mysteriously, figuratively etc. It is the unstated “how” that makes the phrase figurative or literal. Again, unless one wants to fudge “literal” I don’t know how one specific thing (the bread in hand) could “literally” be another very different thing (the body of the holder). So, just as both “plain” and “obvious” leave the room as soon as a second body is supposed to coexist (in a manner unknown and unfathomed before that time) in the hands of the first body, “literal” also takes a hike in that instance. I suppose that if one wanted to argue the meaning of “is” and distinguish other figures of speech based on whether the “is” is “literal” or “non-literal”, then one could also distinguish every other use of the word “is” from the alleged transubstantial, consubstantianial, Real Presential usage of “is”…such is definitely a once and only usage of “is”. As such, that sort of connection between bread and body made by the “RP is” could not be supported by reference to any other “is” .

It isn’t necessary to explain the literal and non-literal elements, nor to debate them. Except that by saying this is my body truly means this represents my body, it shifts the discussion to what way the text is either literal or non-literal because then you have to demonstrate that we should take any portion of the text as non-literal as opposed to what it says.

God bless.

 

[Non_Serviam]

You are correct. I am indeed unable to fully understand why non-Catholics don’t feel lost and adrift as I look across the land of Protestantism. However, I can think of several reasons why. You may not feel so, but many non-Catholics do feel lost and confused. If you don’t feel confused then answer this question:

Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ or is it bread and wine?
Do you think that having a definitive answer to this question is important?

Sleep tight!

We’re in the same boat then-I can’t understand how Catholics take comfort in a theoretical concept of “unity through infallibility” when their actual interactions with each other show it not to be the case. Rather than a million “little Popes” interpreting the Bible, you have a billion “little canonists” trying to interpret centuries of writings in a coordinated fashion or simply ignoring the older “infallible” documents for the “latest and greatest” which hardly seems like the way to show continuity of doctrine back to the Apostles.

As for the Eucharist, the reading of Scripture, in conjunction with the historical record of the early church, shows that the Apostles taught that it was the Body and Blood of Christ. That is all, simple history, and testimony from a wide variety of writers and a wide variety of locations. Their statements can be shown to fall within the bounds of Scripture, using the same methods that the Bereans used to verify Paul’s message to them.

On this basis I am confident in accepting the doctrine of Christ’ Body and Bloods in the Eucharist, and at the same time careful not to go beyond the teachings of the Apostles by using phrases such as “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” when neither Scripture nor the ANF’s use them.

That seems to be one of the dilemmas Catholicism finds itself in-confident in its “infallibility” it has proclaimed a number of things beyond the teachings of the Apostles as contained in Scripture, leading to situations such as the need to change the meaning of substance and accidents over time, to “reinterpret” the dogma of outside the church there is no salvation and to add dogmas that would exclude all Christians in the book of Acts from salvation simply because they would have to answer “I don’t know” if asked about them.

Historically the church has made pronouncements about Jews, about democracy, about freedom of religion and about the necessity of rulers to punish heresy that are no longer convenient in the modern world, so it is in the unfortunate place of having to say new and contradictory things on these topics while hoping no one notices the change and if they do, mumbling something about “development of doctrine” while waggling their fingers.

I’m glad I don’t have to square that circle.

 

[larkin31]

…The “eating” is actually the eating of bread. By taking and eating one accepts what Christ offered. For the disciples that night, they accepted bread and wine. We do the same and in the process remember the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood that we have accepted for our benefit. I don’t know that the eating is symbolic…I’d call it purposeful.

John Dominic Crossan calls Jesus’ various teachings around food and living “radical commensality.” I really like the term and the idea. Have you ever read him?

 

[Newbie2]

One could argue that, Newbie. However, in counterpoint to that, if it wasn’t His exact words, we still must allow that the Apostles used the Greek wording to convey what Christ actually said, and thus used language that in Greek would convey that meaning.

Yes, I agree.

However, do we understand the greek meanings as they were intended? Does ancient greek carry the same meaning as modern greek? Is the translation accurate from Jesus’ (assumed) aramaic to the greek?

Don’t get me wrong, biblical scholarship is important, but when it comes down to it, it’s a matter of faith…faith the the interpreters, the redactors and the original authors got it right.

I don’t mean do diss exegesis, but want to point out some potential pitfalls.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes, I agree.

However, do we understand the greek meanings as they were intended? Does ancient greek carry the same meaning as modern greek? Is the translation accurate from Jesus’ (assumed) aramaic to the greek?

Don’t get me wrong, biblical scholarship is important, but when it comes down to it, it’s a matter of faith…faith the the interpreters, the redactors and the original authors got it right.

I don’t mean do diss exegesis, but want to point out some potential pitfalls.

I understand what you’re saying, Newbie. The faith part does come in that they got it right. We don’t have 100% rational surety that they did. However, the evidence does support that they got it right, to whatever degree they possibly could have. Relying solely on Greek exegesis is unbalanced, of course, and so we can also look to other things as being important in determining the meaning of the apostles.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I will quickly run through Mark and Luke here. The main exegesis focuses on Matthew. There are only minor variations in the other synoptics, so I will only note those differences.

Mark 14:22-24: kai esthiontôn autôn labôn tsb o tsb iêsous arton eulogêsas eklasen kai edôken autois kai eipen labete tsb phagete touto estin to sôma mou kai labôn tsb to potêrion eucharistêsas edôken autois kai epion ex autou pantes kai eipen autois touto estin to aima mou tsb to tês tsb kainês diathêkês to a ekchunnomenon a uper tsb peri pollôn tsb ekchunomenon
(While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.)

Mark’s account is virtually the same as Matthew’s. Two differences in wording are:

1. In verse 23 Mark used the aorist indicative of epion instead of Matthew’s imperative. Mark tells us what they did; Matthew tells us what Jesus told them to do.
2. In verse 24 Mark says that the blood of the covenant was shed uper many instead of peri many. uper has the idea of “on behalf of.”

Luke 22:19-20: kai labôn arton eucharistêsas eklasen kai edôken autois legôn touto estin to sôma mou to uper umôn didomenon touto poieite eis tên emên anamnêsin tsb ôsautôs kai to potêrion a ôsautôs meta to deipnêsai legôn touto to potêrion ê kainê diathêkê en tô aimati mou to uper umôn a ekchunnomenon tsb ekchunomenon
(And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”)

Verse 19: kai labôn arton eucharistêsas eklasen kai edôken autois legôn touto estin to sôma mou to uper umôn didomenon touto poieite eis tên emên anamnêsin

didomenon: Luke adds that Jesus’ body was given for us.

touto (b): Luke and Paul add Jesus’ command to continue to celebrate His Supper. We note the familiar touto. It means “that which is at hand,” namely, receiving in the bread Jesus’ body which was given for us.

poieite: Present tense imperative. Jesus told His disciples to continue to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

eis tên emên anamnêsin: anamnêsin is an “active” word. It means to refresh the memory. The Lord’s Supper refreshes our memory of Jesus and what He has done for us. It strengthens our faith. Those who see a spiritual eating in this phrase are exactly right; receiving the Lord’s Supper strengthens our faith because it reminds us of what Jesus has done for us. Yet that does not say that the body and blood of Jesus are not really there. In fact, how better to remember our Lord than to receive His body and blood that were given and shed for us. Matthew and Mark did not add the command to continue to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. When they wrote their books Christians were already celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Reformed theologians typically say that the Lord’s Supper is full of “remembering.” Of course that’s true. They fail to see that it’s so much more as well. What we receive is the reason for our remembering.

Verse 20: tsb ôsautôs kai to potêrion a ôsautôs meta to deipnêsai legôn touto to potêrion ê kainê diathêkê en tô aimati mou to uper umôn a ekchunnomenon tsb ekchunomenon

Luke and Paul record the same thoughts as Matthew and Mark with different words.

touto to potêrion: This phrase sounds much more like a figure of speech (metonymy) than the words of Matthew and Mark. Yet the meaning stays exactly the same.

en tô aimati: This phrasing is much different than Matthew and Mark—yet again the meaning is the same. The new covenant is brought about “in the sphere of” Jesus’ blood shed for us. Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz stated that Matthew and Mark described the covenant itself while Luke and Paul described its effect. He wrote: “And this blood is called the blood of the covenant for two reasons: 1. Because by its shedding the treaty is ratified with God in order to acquire the covenant blessings; 2. Because by the imparting of the same in Holy Communion the treaty is also ratified and sealed with us, in order to confer and seal the covenant blessings.”

 

[Radical]

John Dominic Crossan calls Jesus’ various teachings around food and living “radical commensality.” I really like the term and the idea. Have you ever read him?

Only a little bit…I have the book, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Crossan presents the second view.

 

[Radical]

potêrion: This word has sparked much debate. Many say, “The Lutherans allow a figure of speech at this point in the verba; why not elsewhere?” potêrion has in its vocable meaning not only vessel but also the contents of that vessel. In that sense it really is not a figure of speech at all. If we really wanted to, we could say that this is metonymy—the cup stands for what it contains. Then we would also be quick to add that Jesus Himself demands that we employ this figure of speech when He tells the disciples to drink; it is difficult to drink a cup. (See also Luke 22:20)

Likewise, common sense would assert that Jesus Himself demands that we employ a figure of speech with respect to “This is my body” when he holds up bread and said that it was his body…and all could see that it was still bread.

to aima: Jesus says that this is His blood. That this is not symbolism is proved by:

1. Jesus said, “This is my blood.”
2. This blood brings about the new covenant. A mere symbol could not do that.
3. This blood was shed for us. Jesus shed real blood, not a symbol.

#1 is merely the “is” means “is” argument…which can’t prove anything

#2 I would suggest that the covenant is actually enacted by the sacrifice on the cross…the wine represents that blood which will be shed on the cross to give effect to the New Covenant. We don’t look to a symbol to bring about a new covenant, we look to the cross for that.

#3 The real blood is shed at the cross not at the supper. It seems that your analysis supports these remarks of mine when I read things such as:

… In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

peri pollôn: This blood was shed for the benefit of many. Jesus didn’t die for the few but for the many, for everyone. Luke has the word uper here.

ekchunnomenon: Present passive participle. The present tense denotes ongoing action; Jesus was in the process of shedding His blood; Holy Week had started; He knew He was about to be handed over to His enemies.

eis aphesin: eis has the idea of purpose. Jesus’ blood was shed for the purpose of forgiving our sins. aphesin has the idea of sending something away; the lack of an article stresses the vocable meaning of the word. …

The shedding of blood, Christ’s death and forgiveness all occurred or were achieved at the cross and not at the supper. The supper pointed (and still points) to the cross utilizing mere bread and wine.