He didn't mean it yet they still do it?

[martino]

Jesus tells the disciples “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:53-54)

Protestants vehemently assert that Jesus only means this in a figurative sense, that eating flesh is figurative for believing in Him.

Now consider Jesus’ words at the Last Supper; "26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:26-28)

Protestants again make the claim that Jesus is only speaking symbolically; that the bread is a mere symbol of Him.

Jesus gathered the apostles together on this most important feast day (Passover) which also happens to be (as only He knows) His very last opportunity to spend time with the apostles before He is put to death. Why would Jesus pick this momentous occasion to tell the apostles that bread is symbolic for Him? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A symbol that has no actual power is what Jesus leaves to His Church? Does this also mean that every time a Christian eats a sandwich they are to think of it as Christ? That sounds silly but I am actually being quite serious, because if that is how we are to interpret Jesus’ words at the Last Supper then by that reasoning any plain bread represents Jesus. Which leads me to my last question. If the Last Supper had only symbolic value and if “eat my flesh/drink my blood” in John 6 is only figurative for believing in Jesus, why do most Protestants celebrate Communion in thier churches? After all, if He didn’t really mean for us to literally eat/drink anything and if “this IS my body” only symbolizes Him; why are Protestants still passing around wonder bread and grape juice? Didn’t they get the memo? He didn’t really mean it, you can put down the bread and juice now!

 

[Christy_Beth]

They prefer to call it symbolic because it is a break from what the catholic church believes. But I doubt that they would see it as such. As far as seeing all bread to be Jesus, it is just the Host that is. This is because during the consecration, it is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I grew up protestant. And communion, when it was taken, was a memorial feast. As Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Like I said, they don’t see it as literal. Nor do all churches do it at every service. I can’t begin to tell you the difference it has made to me when I found out exactly what the Eucharist is.

 

[martino]

In what way do they think bread symbolizes Jesus? Since Protestants dont actually have a consecration then all bread is equally symbolic of Him, or so it would seem!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I understand your concern, but would like to put your mind at ease: If you want consistency, do not consult Protestant theology.

 

[seeker63]

Martino—You made me laugh out loud with that sandwich line!

Even when I was a kid growing up in the Methodist Church I wondered why, if Communion was as big a deal as it sounded to be in the Communion liturgy, then why did we only have it the first Sunday of every month? And even at that age I thought it ridiculous we had grape juice instead of wine. You can really carry temperance only so far!

I once went to a Presbyterian service and the ushers brought Communion to you at your seats. It was sort of like being in a restaurant with a really limited menu. The unusual thing was that the brass thing (I don’t know if you’d call it a dish or a tray or what) that the mini shot glasses came in had two tiers—one for grape juice if that was your thing, and the other for wine. I remember there were two pre-adolescent boys sitting in front of me and they dared each other to grab the wine.

 

[Ellen]

I’ve never thought of this in terms of communion before, but it makes sense. It’s along the same lines as the Evangelical/Fundamentalists who insist that Baptism does nothing, that’s it’s just something you do after you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” and has no effect on salvation. When asked why they do it then, I’m always told “because Jesus said to do it.” I respond w/ why would Jesus make you do something meaningless (especially if you’re not saved by “works”)? The only answer they can think of is to “show obedience.” It’s circular reasoning, and it makes no sense. Jesus meant what He said, never lied, and wasn’t into empty rituals. But, when you insist on “sola fida”, you have to justify your beliefs in any bizarre fashion available when they go against Scripture (especially if you insist you believe in “sola scriptura”).