My Biblical support for Christ in the Eucharist

[goldenchild17]

Let me know what you think. It is EXTREMELY long. Like 6 1/2 winword document pages long. So if you don't feel like reading the whole thing I understand. I just wanted ya'll to know it's done and that(don't want to make my head big) but I think I did a decent job on this one.
__________________________________________________

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity in what appear to be bread and wine. This is called the Holy Eucharist. This page will examine a little deeper the Biblical support for such a teaching.

The first thing that we want to do is go back to the Old Testament. The Old Testament gives a few different examples that lead us into understanding the doctrine of the Eucharist. First, in the very beginning of Scripture we see the tree of life, Genesis 2:9 “Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle” Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. However, when they disobeyed God, this privilege was taken from them and they were separated from the tree of life, Genesis 3:24 “When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.” Man could no longer eat from the fruit of the tree of life. Man could no longer live forever, man would eventually die.

Now let’s jump ahead a little ways. Regarding the Passover, Exodus 12:5-8 says “The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb. That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”

At Passover, the Israelites in Egypt had to take a lamb, a lamb without blemish. This lamb had to be killed. This lamb’s blood must be applied to the doorposts. This lamb had to be eaten. Every single one of these things had to take place if the Israelites wanted the angel of death to pass over their houses, thereby saving all the firstborn sons from death.

Later, we find the Israelites out of Egypt and in the desert. They are angry with Moses because they had no food to eat. The Lord then said that He would give them what they needed, Exodus 16:12 “‘I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them: In the evening twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread, so that you may know that I, the LORD, am your God.’” The Israelites called this bread “manna” and lived on it, as well as the meat, for forty years(Exodus 16:35).

Also, in Genesis 14:18 it says “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High . . .”. The bread and wine used by Melchizedek prefigures, symbolizes, the bread and wine that Christ will later use at the Last Supper to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Christ Himself is “. . . high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20).

Remember all of this as they will connect once we get to the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 5:7 it says “Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.” Jesus Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed for us. Constantly Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” or as a “Lamb”(see John 1:29, John 1:36, 1 Peter 1:19). Jesus, the Lamb of God, was without blemish, 1 Peter 1:19 “but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.” just as the lamb of the Old Testament Passover. Jesus, the Lamb of God, had to be killed and was, brutally on the Cross. And finally Jesus, the Lamb of God, has to be eaten or else we cannot have eternal life, John 6:53 “Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.’” All of these have to happen to Jesus, our Lamb of God, if we want to live forever. This is just as it was with the paschal lamb at the time of the Passover. And interestingly enough, the sacrifice and eating of the Paschal Lamb of God took place at the exact same time as the Passover feast, Luke 22:7-8 “When the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb, he sent out Peter and John, instructing them, ‘Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.’” This is our first serious encounter with the Biblical context for the doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is our unblemished Paschal Lamb. Christ had to be killed in order for us to be saved. Christ’s Blood had to be shed. Christ’s Flesh and Blood has to be EATEN. All of this has to take place if we want to have eternal life.

When Christ, our Paschal Lamb, was sacrificed upon the cross, we were again given access to the Tree of Life. This Tree of Life was Christ, upon the Cross. We are directed to eat from it, just as Adam and Eve ate from their tree of life.

In John 6 we see that Jesus first performs two miracles. John 6: 11-13 says “Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, ‘Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted.’ So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat.”

Here Jesus takes a little bit of fish and a little bread, and multiplies this into enough food to feed thousands of people! And there were twelve baskets full left over! Here Christ is giving a us a preview of sorts, of what is to come, when He takes just a little bread and changes it into His Body and Blood for all His followers to eat from. There will be plenty left over. Enough for all believers of all time to partake of it.

The second miracle that Jesus performs occurs in John 6:19 “When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid.”

He shows that even though He is indeed fully human just as we are, He is not bound by the limitations of the flesh. He does this to show us how important it is to have faith, no matter how impossible something seems. Because He knew that what He was to teach would be very difficult for His followers to accept.

What was He going to say that would be so hard to believe? Hadn’t Christ done so much already, so many miracles and impossible things? Surely nothing would shock His disciples now.

John 6:32 says “So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” What is the true bread from heaven? Verse 33 answers this question, “For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Who is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world? Jesus Christ, our Tree of Life, our Paschal Lamb, Himself of course! His audience of course, is intrigued by such bread, bread that would give them eternal life, so they ask for it, “So they said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’”(John 6:34). Jesus tells them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”(John 6:35). Jesus is claiming to be the bread of life. His audience is starting to get the picture and are a little disturbed, “The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’”(John 6:41).

Here is Jesus’ first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was “the bread of life”. This is His chance to correct them. What does He do. John 6:43, “Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.” He tells them to stop it. No correction, he tells them to be quiet. Very interesting if He indeed meant something other than what they understood.

And then in verse 48 He reaffirms His earlier statements saying clearly “I am the bread of life.” Next He even reaffirms that He is better than the manna that the Israelites received in the desert, “Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.”(verses 49-50). Then Christ says “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”(John 6:51). Jesus takes it a step further this time. He again says that he is the living bread from heaven. But this time He tells them that they must EAT THIS BREAD. He tells them that this bread is HIS FLESH. How insane this must have sounded! Imagine a guy walking around telling us that we need to eat him if we want to go to heaven! Yet, Jesus is not just some guy. He is our God. Check out the response of His audience, in verse 52, “The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?’”

Their response is nothing out of the ordinary. Who wouldn’t react strongly to such a statement? Their reaction gives Jesus a second chance to clarify to them what He means by all of this. What does He do? In verses 53-58 He responds with this, “Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’”

Wow! This is absolutely amazing. The Jewish audience of Jesus here must have been shell-shocked. What could they possibly think about such an idea? John 6:60 says “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’” They are obviously having a very difficult time with this one. Jesus asks them, “Does this shock you?”(verse 61). He says in verse 62, “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” Here he equates this teaching with His ascension. Something we must ask ourselves is this, is the ascension something that is literal or just symbolic? Clearly it is not symbolic, it really happened. And so to, did Christ really tell us that His flesh is the bread from heaven and that we must eat from it if we want a part in His heavenly kingdom. This is the last straw for some of Jesus’ disciples, “As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”(John 6:66). This is the ONLY place in Scripture that disciples are recorded leaving Jesus because of one of His teachings. Surely they must have made some sort of terrible mistake in their understanding of what Jesus was trying to tell them. Right? Well, it sure didn’t seem this way to Jesus, as verse 67 says, “Jesus then said to the Twelve, “‘Do you also want to leave?’”. Instead of trying to convince His disciples to stay, instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong in what they are taking away from this lesson, He asks His apostles if they also wish to leave.

Jesus is given three opportunities to clear the air about His teaching here. Three times, and each time He instead reaffirms what they had thought. If Jesus really meant something other than what they understood then He should’ve, and would’ve, corrected them. Take John 8:31-34 as an example, “Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, ‘If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say, ‘'You will become free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.’” In this passage the Jews believed that Jesus was speaking about a literal enslavement. Jesus corrects them telling them that He is speaking about enslavement to sin. Another good example is John 4:32:34 “But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know.’ So the disciples said to one another, ‘Could someone have brought him something to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.’” Here the disciples thought Jesus was speaking of real, physical food. Jesus corrects them saying that it is not physical food that He is talking about, but to do the will of His Father. I could share multiple examples of such misunderstandings being cleared up by Jesus. But the point is made that it is not characteristic of Jesus to let His audience go away confused about His teachings.

Despite all of this, many people still believe that Jesus is only speaking figuratively when He tells us that we are to eat His flesh if we want to inherit eternal life. Besides the obvious contradiction to this, shown in all the above, there is another serious problem to deal with. In Hebrew, which is very closely related to Aramaic the language of Jesus, “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” already has a direct figurative meaning. Check out some of these passages and see if you know what I’m talking about.

Psalms 27:2, “When evildoers come at me to devour my flesh, These my enemies and foes themselves stumble and fall.”

Isaiah 9:18-20, “At the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land quakes, and the people are like fuel for fire; No man spares his brother, each devours the flesh of his neighbor. Though they hack on the right, they are hungry; though they eat on the left, they are not filled. Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh; together they turn on Judah. For all this, his wrath is not turned back, his hand is still outstretched!”

Isaiah 49:26, “will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with the juice of the grape. All mankind shall know that I, the LORD, am your savior, your redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Micah 3:3, “They eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from them, and break their bones. They chop them in pieces like flesh in a kettle, and like meat in a caldron.”

2 Samuel 23:15-17, “Now David had a strong craving and said, ‘Oh, that someone would give me a drink of water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem!’ So the Three warriors broke through the Philistine camp and drew water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem. But when they brought it to David he refused to drink it, and instead poured it out to the LORD, saying: ‘The LORD forbid that I do this! Can I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?’ So he refused to drink it.”

Revelation 17:6 “I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. When I saw her I was greatly amazed.”

Revelation 17:16 “The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire.”

In each and every one of these passages we see this idea of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”. In every passage it’s used figuratively, because in the context of each passage never is someone’s flesh actually being eaten or the blood actually being drunk. This figurative language “eat the flesh and drink the blood” actually means to persecute, assault and destroy the person. Now, in light of this meaning, we go back to Jesus speaking about us eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. If Jesus is really and truly speaking figuratively, then what He is really saying is “persecute me, assault me, and destroy me, and I will give you eternal life . . . Amen, amen I say to you whosoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will live forever”. Is it just me or does this sound completely crazy? If Jesus were truly speaking figuratively, than I think we all would have a little thinking to do about whether or not we should be following this guy. Truly anyone can see that this is ridiculous. So, I think it should be obvious that Jesus must not have spoken figuratively.

One last thing to point out in regards to John 6 is that Christ uses the phrase "to chew" which is trogein(John 6:54, 56, 58) when talking about eating His flesh. This is in addition to the phrase "to eat", phagein(John 6:51, 53). To chew something is a very physical, very graphic example of literal eating.

Okay, now let’s read the accounts recording when Christ turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Matthew 26:26-28 “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mark 14:22-24 “While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.’”

Luke 22:19-20 “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”

These are the three gospel accounts of this monumental occasion. What does He say in each of them? “This(referring to the bread) is my body. Take it and eat.” And “This(referring to the wine) is my blood. Take it and drink from it.” All He is doing is repeating exactly what He said He was going to do in John 6. He promised, in John 6, that He would give His Flesh and Blood for us to eat and drink and that we must eat it(and drink it).

The next thing we should note is that Jesus says His Body and Blood in the Eucharist is the same Body and Blood that was sacrificed on the Cross! Opponents of this teaching of the Eucharist run into a bit of a problem here. They say that Jesus is only speaking symbolically when He says that the bread and wine are His body and blood. However, here Jesus is saying that this bread and wine(the appearance of them anyways) are the same as the Flesh and Blood that was sacrificed for us on the Cross! If one wants to say that the bread and wine are only symbolically His Body and Blood, then that’s fine but they would also have to admit that the Body and Blood that was sacrificed for us was only symbolic, that Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the Cross was only symbolic. And frankly, to me that sounds like it’s pushing the limits of heresy.

Finally, there is yet another witness to the institution of the Eucharist. St. Paul. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:16 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”. He’s telling us that when we receive the cup and break the bread, that we are really and truly participating in the Body and Blood of Christ. And in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 Paul relates the important events of the Last Supper, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”

Paul comments on this, saying, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 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. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”(1 Corinthians 11:26-28)

He says that we will “have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” During Paul’s time this meant that a person is guilty of murder. Amazingly strong language if this bread and wine is only that, bread and wine. How can one “answer for the body and blood” (i.e. murder) if the body and blood AREN’T THERE? Can one murder a symbolic representation of someone? Could I be convicted of murder if I went out and destroyed a statue of an important person? No. I may be required to pay for the damage done to the statue. But if the Body and Blood are not present then one cannot “murder” them. If Jesus truly meant for the bread and wine to be a symbolic representation of the Body and Blood then St. Paul’s words would be incredibly insensible.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Dec 29 2004, 06:21 AM'] Here is Jesus’ first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking [b][i]literally[/i][/b] when He said that He was “the bread of life”. This is His chance to correct them. [/quote]
don't you mean "symbolically" instead of "literally" here? this would be Jesus' chance to tell them that he wasn't speaking [i][b]symbolically[/b][/i]

also, i have read that Jesus was indeed speaking symbolically at first, but then he moved to a stronger, literal meaning, possibly to FORCE the jews to have complete and total faith in him. it wasn't enough that they believe that he is "the bread from heaven" (belief being a symbolic taking in of Jesus). they also had to consume him (a literal taking in).

in with your short treatment of the Greek, you may also wish to discuss the word used for "is" in Jesus' words "this is my body" and "this is my blood." from what i recall, the word used here leaves no room to interpret Jesus as saying, "this [i]represents[/i]."

furthermore, i like to point out that there is nothing wrong w/ saying that the eucharist represents something. it represents many things, most notably his passion, death, and resurrection. but, it is also literal. so, the task of the protestant is to prove not that the eucharist "represents," but why it truly not "is"

also, why is it important to note that Jesus is a priest after the order of melchizedek? the answer may be obvious, but it is worth stating.

other then that, everything else looks good. you do need some type of a closing paragraph tho. something to tie it all together. as is, ur paper ends out of nowhere.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[franciscanheart]

i know i wasnt very good at it but you might take a look at the practice debate between aligui(?) and i. it has the greek thing that phatcatholic was talking about and some other things that he mentioned. Just a thought.


love in Christ,
laura thomas

[Guest Aluigi]

oops, i got confused.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Aluigi

[goldenchild17]

[quote]don't you mean "symbolically" instead of "literally" here? this would be Jesus' chance to tell them that he wasn't speaking [i][b]symbolically[/b][/i][/quote]

hehe. Yeah I meant literally, I slipped.


[quote]also, i have read that Jesus was indeed speaking symbolically at first, but then he moved to a stronger, literal meaning, possibly to FORCE the jews to have complete and total faith in him. it wasn't enough that they believe that he is "the bread from heaven" (belief being a symbolic taking in of Jesus). they also had to consume him (a literal taking in).[/quote]

Okay, that makes sense. I'll work that in somehow.

[quote]in with your short treatment of the Greek, you may also wish to discuss the word used for "is" in Jesus' words "this is my body" and "this is my blood." from what i recall, the word used here leaves no room to interpret Jesus as saying, "this [i]represents[/i]."[/quote]
Good point. I was too tired to throw in the whole Greek stuff last night. I was planning on doing that soon. I'll make sure to include this.

[quote]furthermore, i like to point out that there is nothing wrong w/ saying that the eucharist represents something. it represents many things, most notably his passion, death, and resurrection. but, it is also literal. so, the task of the protestant is to prove not that the eucharist "represents," but why it truly not "is"[/quote]
Yeah, where did I say otherwise so I know where to fix it?


[quote]also, why is it important to note that Jesus is a priest after the order of melchizedek? the answer may be obvious, but it is worth stating.[/quote]
Yeah, I don't understand this connection and how it works completely so I didn't go too far into that yet. I know that Melchizedek was a Priest, and so Jesus is also a Priest. And Jesus used bread and wine in His unbloody sacrifice just as Melchizedek did. Is there something I'm missing?

[quote]other then that, everything else looks good. you do need some type of a closing paragraph tho. something to tie it all together. as is, ur paper ends out of nowhere.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic[/quote]

I noticed that too. I'll throw something together at the end there. And yeah this helps a lot. Thanks very much.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 29 2004, 07:53 AM'] don't you mean "symbolically" instead of "literally" here? this would be Jesus' chance to tell them that he wasn't speaking [i][b]symbolically[/b][/i] [/quote]
I looked again and actually I did mean to say "literal". I was trying to point out that if Jesus wanted them to believe that he was not speaking literally then He would've taken this opportunity to do so. But He doesn't. I guess I didn't word that correctly. Do you have any suggestions on how I could re-word this?

"If Jesus did indeed mean for His words to be understood in a figurative way, then this is His first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was “the bread of life”. This is His chance to correct them. What does He do? John 6:43, “Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.” He tells them to stop it. No correction, he tells them to be quiet. Very interesting if He indeed meant something other than what they understood."

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Dec 29 2004, 04:21 PM'] I looked again and actually I did mean to say "literal".  I was trying to point out that if Jesus wanted them to believe that he was not speaking literally then He would've taken this opportunity to do so.  But He doesn't.  I guess I didn't word that correctly.  Do you have any suggestions on how I could re-word this?

"If Jesus did indeed mean for His words to be understood in a figurative way, then this is His first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was “the bread of life”.  This is His chance to correct them.  What does He do?  John 6:43, “Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.”  He tells them to stop it.  No correction, he tells them to be quiet.  Very interesting if He indeed meant something other than what they understood." [/quote]
i understand what you were trying to say now. that is fine. you may wish for something a little more succint, like:

--If Jesus did indeed mean for His words to be understood in a figurative way, then this would have been His first opportunity to correct them. But, what does he do? John 6:43, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Stop murmuring among yourselves.'” This isn't a correction. This is a "be quiet and accept it." Very interesting indeed if He meant something other than what they understood

i changed the wording slightly to make it a little easier to follow.

as for what the eucharist represents, i don't recall you ever saying otherwise. i was just saying you could throw that commentary in after you talk about the greek for "is" and how the meaning implies that it truly "is" instead of merely representing.

regarding the parallel between Jesus and Mel (for short ), i suggest the following articles:
--[url="http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm"]The Meal of Melchizedek[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc4.htm"]The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek[/url]
--[url="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html"]Eucharist: Holy Meal[/url]

i want you to learn for yourself what the significance is

i think that covers everything. good work on this

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited December 29, 2004 by phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

[quote]i understand what you were trying to say now. that is fine. you may wish for something a little more succint, like:

--If Jesus did indeed mean for His words to be understood in a figurative way, then this would have been His first opportunity to correct them. But, what does he do? John 6:43, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Stop murmuring among yourselves.'” This isn't a correction. This is a "be quiet and accept it." Very interesting indeed if He meant something other than what they understood

i changed the wording slightly to make it a little easier to follow.[/quote]
Okay, that does look a little easier to read I put that in there.


[quote]as for what the eucharist represents, i don't recall you ever saying otherwise. i was just saying you could throw that commentary in after you talk about the greek for "is" and how the meaning implies that it truly "is" instead of merely representing.[/quote]
Okay.

[quote]regarding the parallel between Jesus and Mel (for short ), i suggest the following articles:
--[url="http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm"]The Meal of Melchizedek[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc4.htm"]The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek[/url]
--[url="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html"]Eucharist: Holy Meal[/url]

i want you to learn for yourself what the significance is 

i think that covers everything. good work on this

pax christi,
phatcatholic[/quote]

Alright I'm going through them right now. Where do you think would be a good place for me to include the stuff on Melchizedek? After the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper maybe, or...?

[goldenchild17]

Wow, something in one of the articles really hit me hard(in a good way of course

[quote]In the book of Revelation, we discover that the Lamb is the one enthroned (Revelation 5). The Lamb — who is the firstborn Son of the Passover — is the priest who ministers in the heavenly sanctuary. He is ministering in the true tabernacle, which is set up not by man but by the Lord. Yet every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Hence it is necessary for this priest to have something to offer.

I read this passage a hundred times before the obvious meaning hit me. Jesus Christ is a priest in heaven, ministering now in the sanctuary; and, as our High priest, he’s continually offering. What, though, is he offering? He’s not bleeding and dying and suffering any more. He’s not killing any animals—but he’s continually offering the once and for all sacrifice which is himself. It’s a continual sacrifice, a perpetual offering. This mystery is exactly what the Catholic Church has always taught about the meaning of the Mass[/quote]

This is something I've had a hard time understanding and reconciling with, the idea that Christ died once for all and he only had to make one sacrifice. I had a hard time understanding how the sacrifice of the Mass is not more than one sacrifice. But the passage above from [url="http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm"]http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm[/url]
was really good.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Dec 29 2004, 06:25 PM'] Wow, something in one of the articles really hit me hard(in a good way of course



This is something I've had a hard time understanding and reconciling with, the idea that Christ died once for all and he only had to make one sacrifice.  I had a hard time understanding how the sacrifice of the Mass is not more than one sacrifice.  But the passage above from [url="http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm"]http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_9.htm[/url]
was really good. [/quote]
yes. as long as their are people in need of salvation there will be an offering made to the Lord on their behalf......but m ake sure you stay on topic

Edited December 30, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

btw, i added this to the "tracts by phatmassers" entry

[musturde]

You rox gold.

[goldenchild17]

I'm still studying the Melchizedek connection. I'm having a hard time with this one though...

In addition to all the suggestions you made, I want to explore something else a little more too. I think at the end of one of the gospels Jesus walks w/two men. They don't know who he is and they tell Him all about the Passion. Christ then breaks the bread with them(i.e. celebrated the Eucharist) and it is only at this point that they recognize who He is. I think that is important to point out. But I can't seem to find where this is, or if it is in the Bible at all. And is there any other occurrence like this?

[phatcatholic]

[b]Luke 24:13-35[/b]
[b]13 [/b]That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
[b]14 [/b]and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
[b]15 [/b]While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.
[b]16 [/b]But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
[b]17 [/b]And he said to them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad.
[b]18 [/b]Then one of them, named Cle'opas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?"
[b]19 [/b]And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
[b]20 [/b]and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
[b]21 [/b]But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.
[b]22 [/b]Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
[b]23 [/b]and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
[b]24 [/b]Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see."
[b]25 [/b]And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
[b]26 [/b]Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
[b]27 [/b]And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
[b]28 [/b]So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,
[b]29 [/b]but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them.
[b]30 [/b]When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
[b]31 [/b][color=red][b]And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.[/b][/color]
[b]32 [/b][color=red][b]They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"[/b][/color]
[b]33 [/b]And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
[b]34 [/b]who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[b]35 [/b]Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Edited January 8, 2005 by phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

Yup that's it. Thanks.

[phatcatholic]

in many ways, the excerpt in question points to the Mass. in both instances we have the liturgy of the word and then the breaking of the bread, the culmination of everything that has come before

[Benedict]

Very revealing.

[thessalonian]

One note of caution with regard to Jesus speaking figuratively and/or metaphorically in John 6. Augustine speaks of Jesus actually speaking figuratively in speaking of eating his flesh. For in the sense that our Eucharist is not a fleshy substance but is made palatable in the form of bread and wine, the bread and wine are figurative. They are also symbolic. Symbolic of the many grains and grapes being crushed and molded in to one bread (representing us being molded in to the body of Christ) and the grapes being crushed in to one wine. I prefer not to deny the symbolic for I think it is more proper to say that the symbolic aspects are not contradictory to the literal. In fact in the early Church you will find that Augustine, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria understood that symbolic was not contradictory to literal.

[phatcatholic]

my point exactly

[goldenchild17]

Alright is this any better? I added a bunch of stuff. If anyone has time to help me with any grammatical problems I might've had that would be really cool, too. Thanks.
__________________________________________________________________

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity in what appear to be bread and wine. This is called the Holy Eucharist. This page will examine a little deeper the Biblical support for such a teaching.

The first thing that we want to do is go back to the Old Testament. The Old Testament gives a few different examples that lead us into understanding the doctrine of the Eucharist. First, in the very beginning of Scripture we see the tree of life, Genesis 2:9 [color=blue]“Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle”[/color] Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. However, when they disobeyed God, this privilege was taken from them and they were separated from the tree of life, Genesis 3:24 [color=blue]“When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.”[/color] Man could no longer eat from the fruit of the tree of life. Man could no longer live forever, man would eventually die.

Now let’s jump ahead a little ways. Regarding the Passover, Exodus 12:5-8 says [color=blue]“The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb. That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”[/color]

At Passover, the Israelites in Egypt had to take a lamb, a lamb without blemish. This lamb had to be killed. This lamb’s blood must be applied to the doorposts. This lamb had to be eaten. Every single one of these things had to take place if the Israelites wanted the angel of death to pass over their houses, thereby saving all the firstborn sons from death.

Later, we find the Israelites out of Egypt and in the desert. They are angry with Moses because they have no food to eat. The Lord then said that He would give them what they needed, Exodus 16:12 [color=blue]“‘I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them: In the evening twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread, so that you may know that I, the LORD, am your God.’” The Israelites called this bread “manna” and lived on it, as well as the meat, for forty years(Exodus 16:35)."[/color]

Also, in Genesis 14:18 it says [color=blue]“Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High . . .”[/color]. The bread and wine used by Melchizedek prefigures, symbolizes, the bread and wine that Christ will later use at the Last Supper to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Christ Himself is [color=blue]“. . . high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”[/color] (Hebrews 6:20).

Remember all of this as they will connect once we get to the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 5:7 it says “[color=blue]Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.”[/color] Jesus Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed for us. Constantly Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” or as a “Lamb”(see John 1:29, John 1:36, 1 Peter 1:19). Jesus, the Lamb of God, was without blemish, 1 Peter 1:19 [color=blue]“but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.”[/color] just as the lamb of the Old Testament Passover. Jesus, the Lamb of God, had to be killed and was, brutally on the Cross. And finally Jesus, the Lamb of God, has to be eaten or else we cannot have eternal life, John 6:53 [color=blue]“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.’”[/color] All of these have to happen to Jesus, our Lamb of God, if we want to live forever. This is just as it was with the paschal lamb at the time of the Passover. And interestingly enough, the sacrifice and eating of the Paschal Lamb of God took place at the exact same time as the Passover feast, Luke 22:7-8 [color=blue]“When the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb, he sent out Peter and John, instructing them, ‘Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.’”[/color] This is our first serious encounter with the Biblical context for the doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is our unblemished Paschal Lamb. Christ had to be killed in order for us to be saved. Christ’s Blood had to be shed. Christ’s Flesh and Blood has to be EATEN. All of this has to take place if we want to have eternal life.

When Christ, our Paschal Lamb, was sacrificed upon the cross, we were again given access to the Tree of Life. This Tree of Life was Christ, upon the Cross. We are directed to eat from it, just as Adam and Eve ate from their tree of life.

In John 6 we see that Jesus first performs two miracles. John 6: 11-13 says [color=blue]“Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, ‘Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted.’ So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat.”[/color]

Here Jesus takes a little bit of fish and a little bread, and multiplies this into enough food to feed thousands of people! And there were twelve baskets full left over! Here Christ is giving us a preview of sorts, of what is to come, when He takes just a little bread and changes it into His Body and Blood for all His followers to eat from. There will be plenty left over. Enough for all believers of all time to partake of it. An important thing to note is the format that Jesus uses. He “took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed” the bread. This is the same format that He uses at the Last Supper. This miracle foreshadows the greatest miracle of Christ, in which He gives us to eat His own flesh and blood that was sacrificed for our sins.

The second miracle that Jesus performs occurs in John 6:19 [color=blue]“When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid.”[/color]

He shows that even though He is indeed fully human just as we are, He is not bound by the limitations of the flesh. Through the miracles of the multiplication of the fish and bread, and of the calming of the storm Jesus is trying to build up the faith of His followers. Because He knew that what He was about to teach His disciples would be very difficult for them to accept.


What was He going to say that would be so hard to believe? Hadn’t Christ done so much already, so many miracles and impossible things? Surely nothing would shock His disciples now. Right?

Now we go to John 6:32. This event takes place during the Passover(see John 6:4). This is important considering He is the Paschal Lamb who is to be sacrificed for all. The Scripture says [color=blue]“So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”[/color] What is the true bread from heaven? Verse 33 answers this question, [color=blue]“For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”[/color]Who is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world? Jesus Christ, our Tree of Life, our Paschal Lamb, Himself! His audience of course, is intrigued by such bread, bread that would give them eternal life, so they ask for it, [color=blue]“So they said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’”[/color](John 6:34). Jesus tells them, [color=blue]“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”[/color](John 6:35). Jesus is claiming to be the bread of life. Christ is calling His followers to come to Him and believe. He is calling them to a greater faith than they could possibly imagine. His audience is starting to get the picture and are a little disturbed, [color=blue]“The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’”[/color](John 6:41).

Here is Jesus’ first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was “the bread of life”. This is His chance to correct them. What does He do? John 6:43, [color=blue]“Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.”[/color] He tells them to stop it. No correction, he tells them to be quiet. Very interesting if He indeed meant something other than what they understood. Now, it needs to be said that Jesus does mean this in a symbolic way. He is telling them that by coming to Him and believing in Him, they are eating and drinking from the Bread of Life, which He is. With these words Jesus is building up to something even greater.

In verse 48 He reaffirms His earlier statements saying clearly [color=blue]“I am the bread of life.”[/color] Next He even insists that He is better than the manna that the Israelites received in the desert, [color=blue]“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.”[/color](verses 49-50). We are all called to come to Jesus and believe in Him and so eat and drink of the Bread of Life. But the Jews are really struggling with this one. So, then Christ says [color=blue]“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”[/color](John 6:51). Jesus takes it a step further this time. He again says that he is the living bread from heaven. But this time He tells them that they must EAT THIS BREAD. He tells them that this bread is HIS FLESH. The word used for ‘eat’ in Greek is ‘Phago’, which literally means, “to eat, or consume a meal”.([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5315&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]) How insane this must have sounded! Imagine a guy walking around telling us that we need to eat him if we want to go to heaven! Yet, Jesus is not just some guy. He is our God. Check out the response of His audience, in verse 52, [color=blue]“The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?’”[/color]

Their response is nothing out of the ordinary. Who wouldn’t react strongly to such a statement? Their reaction gives Jesus a second chance to clarify to them what He means by all of this. What does He do? In verses 53-58 He responds with this, [color=blue]“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’”[/color] Christ takes things one step further and uses yet a stronger word for ‘eat’. This word is ‘trogo’, which means to “to gnaw, crunch, chew”([url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5176&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]). This word, ‘trogo’ is never used symbolically outside of this verse. The only other places that this word occurs is in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18. Both of these verses refer to a literal eating and drinking. It is also important to see that Jesus is now referring to the bread as His ‘flesh’, not just his body, but his “flesh”. The Greek word used in these instances is ‘sarx’ which refers literally to the skin and muscle covering of a body([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4561&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]).
Then He says that His flesh is meat ‘indeed’ and that His blood is drink ‘indeed’. The greek word used for ‘indeed’ is ‘alethos’ which means ‘truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly’([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=230&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]). Jesus really meant for them to know that His body and blood were to truly become bread and wine which they were to eat.

This is absolutely amazing. The Jewish audience of Jesus here must have been shell-shocked. What could they possibly think about such an idea? John 6:60 says [color=blue]“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’”[/color] They are obviously having a very difficult time with this one. Jesus asks them, “[color=blue]Does this shock you?”[/color](verse 61). He says in verses 62-63, [color=blue]“What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”[/color] Here he equates this teaching with His ascension. Something we must ask ourselves is this, is the ascension something that is literal or just symbolic? Clearly it is not symbolic, it really happened. And so to, did Christ really tell us that His flesh is the bread from heaven and that we must eat from it if we want a part in His heavenly kingdom. Many people think that Jesus is speaking symbolically in all of this because of verse 63, which says [color=blue]“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”[/color] But to this I ask one question, was Jesus’ flesh of no avail? Of course not! It was His very flesh that redeemed us from our sins and made it possible for us to enter through the gates of heaven. Jesus is once again telling his followers that they really need to accept a supernatural faith in order to believe what He is telling them. No ordinary faith, which can be understood through natural means, can bring one to accept what He is now telling them.

This is the last straw for some of Jesus’ disciples, [color=blue]“As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”[/color](John 6:66). This is the ONLY place in Scripture that disciples are recorded leaving Jesus because of one of His teachings. Surely they must have made some sort of terrible mistake in their understanding of what Jesus was trying to tell them. Right? Well, it sure didn’t seem this way to Jesus, as verse 67 says, [color=blue]“Jesus then said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’”[/color]. Instead of trying to convince His disciples to stay, instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong in what they are taking away from this lesson, He asks His apostles if they also wish to leave. From Peter he finally receives the type of supernatural faith that he was looking for, [color=blue]“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.’"[/color](verses 68-69).

Jesus is given three opportunities to clear the air about His teaching here. Three times, and each time He instead reaffirms what they had thought. If Jesus really meant something other than what they understood then He should’ve, and would’ve, corrected them. Take John 8:31-34 as an example, [color=blue]“Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, ‘If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say, ‘'You will become free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.’”[/color] In this passage the Jews believed that Jesus was speaking about a literal enslavement. Jesus corrects them telling them that He is speaking about enslavement to sin. Another good example is John 4:32:34 [color=blue]“But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know.’ So the disciples said to one another, ‘Could someone have brought him something to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.’”[/color] Here the disciples thought Jesus was speaking of real, physical food. Jesus corrects them saying that it is not physical food that He is talking about, but to do the will of His Father. I could share multiple examples of such misunderstandings being cleared up by Jesus. But the point is made that it is not characteristic of Jesus to let His audience go away confused about His teachings. What kind of teacher would He be if He just let his disciples leave Him because of a simple misunderstanding? Not a very good one, to say the least.

Despite all of this, many people still believe that Jesus is only speaking figuratively when He tells us that we are to eat His flesh if we want to inherit eternal life. Besides the obvious contradiction to this, shown in all the above, there is another serious problem to deal with. In Hebrew, which is very closely related to Aramaic the language of Jesus, “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” already has a direct figurative meaning. Check out some of these passages and see what I’m talking about.

Psalms 27:2, [color=blue]“When evildoers come at me to devour my flesh, These my enemies and foes themselves stumble and fall.”[/color]

Isaiah 9:18-20, [color=blue]“At the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land quakes, and the people are like fuel for fire; No man spares his brother, each devours the flesh of his neighbor. Though they hack on the right, they are hungry; though they eat on the left, they are not filled. Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh; together they turn on Judah. For all this, his wrath is not turned back, his hand is still outstretched!”[/color]

Isaiah 49:26, [color=blue]“will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with the juice of the grape. All mankind shall know that I, the LORD, am your savior, your redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”[/color]

[color=blue]Micah 3:3, “They eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from them, and break their bones. They chop them in pieces like flesh in a kettle, and like meat in a caldron.”[/color]

2 Samuel 23:15-17, [color=blue]“Now David had a strong craving and said, ‘Oh, that someone would give me a drink of water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem!’ So the Three warriors broke through the Philistine camp and drew water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem. But when they brought it to David he refused to drink it, and instead poured it out to the LORD, saying: ‘The LORD forbid that I do this! Can I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?’ So he refused to drink it.”[/color]

Revelation 17:6 [color=blue]“I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. When I saw her I was greatly amazed.”[/color]

Revelation 17:16 [color=blue]“The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire.”[/color]

In each and every one of these passages we see this idea of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”. In every passage it’s used figuratively, because in the context of each passage never is someone’s flesh actually being eaten or the blood actually being drunk. We see from these passages that this figurative language “eat the flesh and drink the blood” actually means to persecute, assault and destroy the person. Now, in light of this meaning, we go back to Jesus speaking about us eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. If Jesus is really and truly speaking figuratively, then what He is really saying is “persecute me, assault me, and destroy me, and I will give you eternal life . . . Amen, amen I say to you whosoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will live forever”. Is it just me or does this sound a little crazy? If Jesus were truly speaking figuratively, than I think we all would have a little thinking to do about whether or not we should be following this guy. Truly anyone can see that this is ridiculous. So, I think it should be obvious that Jesus could not have been speaking figuratively.

Okay, now let’s read the accounts recording when Christ turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Matthew 26:26-28 [color=blue]“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”[/color]

Mark 14:22-24 [color=blue]“While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.’”[/color]

Luke 22:19-20 [color=blue]“Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”[/color]

These are the three gospel accounts of this monumental occasion. What does He say in each of them? “This(referring to the bread) is my body. Take it and eat.” And “This(referring to the wine) is my blood. Take it and drink from it.” All He is doing is repeating exactly what He said He was going to do in John 6. He promised, in John 6, that He would give His Flesh and Blood for us to eat and drink and that we must eat it(and drink it).

An interesting note is that Jesus never calls the bread "bread", or the wine "wine". He says "This" without specifying what it is, until he refers to it as His body and blood. He never calls it bread or wine, He calls it His body and blood.

Jesus Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek(Hebrews 6:20). In the time of Melchizedek, there were no animal sacrifices. The practice of animal sacrifice was not instituted until the followers of Moses built the golden calf. It was then that God ordered them to sacrifice the very animals that they had been worshipping(Exodus 20). But before this, the ideal sacrifice was bread and wine. The name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness.” Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Psalm 76:2 tells us that Salem would later become Jerusalem, or the City of Peace. Jesus is the true King of righteousness and is the true High Priest who restored the covenant of grace with His people. This covenant of Grace took the place of the law which had been in effect since the time when Moses’ followers had disobeyed God and worshipped a golden calf. Christ is the perfect, blameless High Priest who restored the priesthood to the way that it was before the institution of the law. (Hebrews 17:18-28). So, just as Melchizedek offered bread and wine as a pure and holy sacrifice, also Jesus offers Himself, the Paschal Lamb, the Living Manna, the Tree of Life through the pure and holy offering of bread and wine.

The next thing we should note is that Jesus says His Body and Blood in the Eucharist is the same Body and Blood that was sacrificed on the Cross!(Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Opponents of this teaching of the Eucharist run into a bit of a problem here. Some say that Jesus is only speaking symbolically when He says that the bread and wine are His body and blood. However, here Jesus is saying that this bread and wine(the appearance of them anyways) are the same as the Flesh and Blood that was sacrificed for us on the Cross! If one wants to say that the bread and wine are only symbolically His Body and Blood, then that’s fine but they would also have to admit that the Body and Blood that was sacrificed for us was only symbolic, that Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the Cross was only symbolic. And frankly, to me that sounds like it’s pushing the limits of heresy.

These accounts of the Last Supper take on a special meaning when we see that this is the very last testimony of Jesus Christ. This is the culmination of His gospel, and is certainly no time for confusing symbolic speech. This event of the Last Supper is the very last time that Christ was able to be with His disciples. He knew this, and He had something bigger in mind than just eating the Passover meal with them. With the Passover meal setting the scene, Christ is fulfilling His promise to them, the promise that He made in John 6. Christ is our Paschal Sacrifice who had to die for us, and whom we have to eat from in order to have eternal life. His whole ministry up until this moment pointed to this very event. God came to earth, in the person of Jesus Christ, in order to be our Sacrifice. He died so that we could have eternal life, and so that we could partake of His most precious body and blood in order to receive this salvation.

There is yet another witness to the institution of the Eucharist. St. Paul. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:16 [color=blue]“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”[/color]. He’s telling us that when we receive the cup and break the bread, that we are really and truly participating in the Body and Blood of Christ. And in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 Paul relates the important events of the Last Supper, [color=blue]“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”[/color]

Paul comments on this, saying, [color=blue]“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 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. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”[/color](1 Corinthians 11:26-28)

He says that we will “have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” During Paul’s time this meant that a person is guilty of murder. Amazingly strong language if this bread and wine is only that, bread and wine. How can one “answer for the body and blood” (i.e. murder) if the body and blood AREN’T THERE? Can one murder a symbolic representation of someone? Could I be convicted of murder if I went out and destroyed a statue of an important person? No. I may be required to pay for the damage done to the statue. But if the Body and Blood are not present then one cannot “murder” them. If Jesus truly meant for the bread and wine to be a symbolic representation of the Body and Blood then St. Paul’s words would be incredibly insensible.

After the Resurrection of our Lord, we find two of his disciples walking together on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:13-14 “[color=blue]Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred.”[/color] Then Jesus appeared to them, although they did not know that it was Him, [color=blue]“And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.”[/color](verses 15-16) He walked along with them and talked with them about the events of the Crucifixion(verse 17). They were surprised that He did not know(verse 18-19). Then they tell Him all about what had happened(verses 20-27). Through this whole discussion they never discover that they are talking to the Lord Himself. As they approached Emmaus, they invited Him to stay for dinner(verses 28-29). Christ does so, and at the table He took bread, blessed the bread, broke the bread and gave it to them, just as He did at the Last Supper. At this point, their eyes are opened. They now know who is there with them. Jesus then disappeared, but they knew that it was Him with whom they had eaten. In verse 35 they tell the others what had occurred, [color=blue]“Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”[/color] They knew Jesus in the breaking of the bread. It was Jesus there with them, in person and in the bread. But it was only made known to them at the blessing and breaking of the bread. This is a significant testimony, showing us that they truly knew Jesus and saw him in the bread.

From Genesis to Paul we see Christ in the Eucharist. From the paschal lamb of the Passover to the paschal lamb of our own Passover, we see Christ in the Eucharist. From the manna in the desert to the Bread of Life we see Christ in the Eucharist. The Scripture gives us signs of Christ in the Old Testament and then Christ shows us how He is the fulfillment of these signs. Christ said believing in this teaching of the Eucharist would be a very difficult one for his disciples to accept and that some would not be able to accept it(John 6:64). Which category are we going to fall in, those who didn’t believe because this teaching was too difficult for them to comprehend? Or will we follow Peter and know that Jesus has the words to eternal life, and know that whatever He teaches, no matter how difficult to grasp, is the teaching of a wise and loving Teacher?

[color=blue]“Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal
life. We have come to believe
and are convinced that you are
the Holy One of God."[/color]
John 6:68-69

Edited February 11, 2005 by goldenchild17