                   |
When we partake of Holy Communion, are we actually eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood? We have already examined the
question posed from John 6:1-71,
"What
did Jesus mean when He talked about eating His flesh and drinking
His blood?"
We answered that question by concluding that Jesus was not talking
about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Rather, from
the context, we concluded that Jesus was talking about the necessity of
faith in Him and His future sacrifice of Himself at Calvary. Unless
people place their confidence in Jesus, they will not have eternal life
(John 6:35-40).
We now come to the second part of our study of what Catholics call "the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ on the altar" or "The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament" or "the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar." (See here for the "Litany of The Most Blessed Sacrament." Many of us Protestants prefer to call this ordinance which Jesus Christ authorized "Communion," or "The Lord's Table" or "The Lord's Supper." We do not use the word "Sacrament" because we do not believe that observing any outward ceremony confers "grace" upon those who observe it. (See the Catholic understanding of Sacrament.) In other words, grace, by definition, cannot be earned. Grace is freely given without regard to merit. We can earn grace by observing an ordinance or ceremony or "sacrament." No statement in the NT states or implies that. I do not mean to imply that we are not blessed when we obey. That is always true, whether the blessing can be observed or not. But no grace is conferred upon us by virtue of our observing a ceremony. Those who assert otherwise do so on the basis of church tradition, but not on the basis of Scripture. If we were to use strictly Biblical terminology, we would refer to "eating the bread and/or drinking the cup of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:26, 27, 28). Elsewhere, Paul used the terminology, "the cup of blessing" and "the bread which we break" (1 Cor. 10:16). The Gospel accounts of Jesus' observance of that which we call the Lord's Table, or Eucharist, are rich in symbolism. For example, in Matthew 26:1-29, we read that Jesus was actually teaching a new interpretation of the OT Passover. Four times in this passage reference is made to Christ's observance, along with His disciples, of the Old Testament ceremony of Passover (páscha, 3957) (Matt. 26:2, 17, 18, 19). In the parallel passage in Mark 14:1-16, the term "Passover" (páscha, 3957) appears five times (Mark 14:1, 12, 12, 14, 16). In Luke 22:1-23 the term appears initially in Luke 2:41, and six more times (Luke 22:1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15). John refers to the Passover ten times in nine verses (John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55, 55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14). In John 13:1-20, the term "Passover" appears only once (John 13:1). Interestingly enough, though John gives more detail of what we call Jesus' "Upper Room Discourse" than any other gospel writer (John 13:1-16:33), and concluded with His "High Priestly Prayer" (John 17:1-26), John did not describe Jesus' reinterpretation of the OT Passover, that which we call the "Lord's Table", or "Eucharist." In the book of Acts, the historian Luke refers to the Passover only once (Acts 12:4). Paul spoke of "Christ our Passover" (1 Cor. 5:7), and the writer of Hebrews refers to Moses' observance of the original institution of the Passover (Heb. 11:28). My point, thus far, is that we cannot really understand the "Lord's Table" or "Eucharist" unless we first understand the Passover. And we cannot understand the Passover until we examine its roots in Israeli history in Egypt (Ex. 12:1-51). The Old Testament Background to
the Lord's Table, or Eucharist as seen in Exodus 12:1-51.
To understand the genesis of this Christian ordinance (Catholic = Sacrament), of the Lord's Table, or the Eucharist, we must go to the Old Testament and examine the original Passover. Israelis were slaves to the Egyptians (Exod. 1:1-22). God called Moses, assisted by his brother Levi, to petition the Egyptian king (pharaoh) to release the sons of Israel (Exod. 2:1-4:31). Pharaoh, of course, refused. By the hand of Moses, God hurled nine plagues at Egypt, but Pharaoh still would not permit the people to leave (Exod. 5:1-10:29). God had a final plague for Pharaoh and the Egyptians, the death of all Egyptian firstborn (Exod. 11:1-10). All the firstborn of Israel, however, would be exempted from this terrible plague (Exod. 12:1-51). This would be true on one condition. Each household would need to sacrifice a lamb (either a sheep or a goat) and apply some of its blood on the doorposts and lintels of their homes (Exod. 12:5-7). This lamb had to be an unblemished male, and a year old. They were to roast the lamb and eat its flesh along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8-10). When Yahweh came to strike dead all the firstborn of Egypt, He would see the blood on the doorposts and lintels of the homes of the Israelis, and He would pass (pâsách, 6452) over ('al, 5921) their homes, not killing any Israeli firstborn (Exod. 12:12-13). In honor of this event, Israel was to implement the yearly Feast of Unleavened Bread, punctuated by the Passover Feast at the end (Exod. 12:14-28). In God's arena of justice, He purchased Israel out of slavery to the Egyptians at the cost of the firstborn of all of Egypt. In God's thinking, Israel was His firstborn, and Pharaoh was to allow Israel, God's firstborn, to depart out of Egypt. Pharaoh's failure to do so would cost him his firstborn, along with all the other firstborn in Egypt (Exod. 4:22-23). This would even include the firstborn of all the Egyptian cattle (Exod. 11:5; 12:12, 29). In deference to this momentous event, God required Israelis to set apart for His use and ownership every firstborn among the sons of Israel (Exod. 13:1-2). The New Testament Understanding of the Passover The theological and symbolic significance of this event, of course, is that God would ultimately sacrifice His own "firstborn" Son for the sins, not only of the sons of Israel, but the sins of the entire world. Indeed, John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). Paul the Apostle stated, "Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5:7). Each one of us is under an eternal death penalty. If we place our faith in Jesus, our Passover Lamb of God, God will see that we have (in a figurative, but real sense) taken Jesus blood and applied it to our own lives. In turn, God will pass over us, not judging us eternally, but instead forgiving us our sins and granting us eternal life (John 3:16-18). No mere wine or fruit of the vine can turn aside God's wrath. Only the blood of Christ can. When Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples and gave Passover a New Covenant meaning, He did not mean that the wine would be literally changed into His blood, nor that the bread would literally be changed into His body. He merely meant that the wine was symbolic of His blood and the unleavened bread symbolized His flesh. The Significance of the Term Covenant in the Gospel Accounts There is another important word employed in connection with the Lord's Table, or Eucharist. It is the term "covenant" (diathékę, 1242). Of the contents of the cup, Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant (diathékę, 1242), which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:27-28). As Mark recorded it, after they had all drunk from the cup, Jesus said, "This is my blood of the covenant (diathékę, 1242), which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24). In Luke 22:20, Jesus added an important detail. "This cup which is poured out for you is the new (kainós, 2537) covenant (diathékę, 1242) in My blood." Paul again referred to the "new covenant" in this context (1 Cor. 11:25). So Jesus understood this ceremony as serving as a symbol of His coming ratification of the New Covenant by means of the blood which He shed on the cross at Calvary.
Summary Points
(1) The original OT Passover (pésach, 6453) involved the shedding of actual animal blood. It was real blood (dâm, 1818), not metaphorical blood, that was applied to the doorposts and lintels of the Israeli homes (Exod. 12:7, 13, 22, 23). Nothing would be effective but the blood of the prescribed Passover lamb (sheep) or kid (goat) (Ex. 12:5). References to the Passover in this book of Moses appear in Exod. 12:11, 21, 27, 43, 48; 34:25). (2) Israel's ratification of the Old Covenant necessitated real animal blood sprinkled on the altar and upon the people (Ex. 24:1-8; Heb. 9:18-22). There is no way that Jesus meant that the wine He was giving His disciples was literally blood that was ratifying the New Covenant (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23-24; Luke 22:20). The only blood that was valuable enough to ratify the New Covenant was Jesus' blood (John 19:34; Acts 5:28; 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:29; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:12, 14; 1 Pet. 1:2, 18-19; 1 John 1:7; 5:6-8; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11). Wine can never substitute for blood. It is clear that in Jesus' reinterpretation of the Passover, He was saying that the wine was symbolic of His blood, and that the unleavened bread was symbolic of His body. (3) In John 6, it was the disciples (learners) who did not really believe in Jesus who took offense at Jesus' statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. They took offense at Him precisely because they were taking his metaphorical statements literally. (4) By the same token, those who take Jesus' statements about the bread and the wine in the Lord's Table (Eucharist) literally, also get into trouble. By insisting that wine, by the priest's pronouncement and waving of a censer of incense somehow magically turns into Christ's blood, and that the wafer, by the same means becomes His flesh end up attributing to wine and bread what they cannot do. No amount of bread, however blessed, can be expiatory. Only Jesus' broken body in His death for sins can be expiatory. No amount of wine, no matter however blessed, can be propitiatory. Only Jesus blood, shed on the cross is sufficient to pay for human sins. (5) Roman Catholics, despite their denials, repeatedly sacrifice that which is, in their view the body and blood of Christ, over and over again. Jesus' blood was so effective, and His broken body was so effective that it had only to be sacrificed one time. Roman Catholics, by their literal interpretation of that which Jesus meant to be metaphorical, are in fact saying that Jesus' one sacrifice was not sufficient. Jesus' death, alone, cannot pay sufficiently for human sins. Every time a Roman Catholic priest offers up the "sacrament of the Eucharist," he is improving upon Jesus' sacrifice. He is saying, "Yes, you need Jesus' blood and broken body, but you also need my bread and wine (which I have turned into Jesus' body and blood)." Jesus alone cannot fully save you. I am needed to help Him out. As far as I am concerned that is blasphemy against the sufficiency and effectiveness of Jesus' sacrifice. No priest at the Eucharist table can improve on what Jesus has done. (6) The tragic mistake of Roman Catholicism is taking something literal that Christ never meant to be taken literally. He meant His statements about bread and wine to be taken metaphorically, not literally. And when churches make the mistake of taking Jesus statements about the bread and the wine literally, they morph into promoting that which is blasphemy -- that Jesus' sacrifice, in and of itself, is not good enough. It needs to be repeated in the mass again and again and again all around the world for centuries. What a tragedy! (7) When Jesus told His disciples that the unleavened bread they were eating was His body (Matt. 26:26), and that the cup from which they were drinking was the blood of the covenant poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:27-28), He could not possibly have meant that the bread was literally His flesh and the wine was literally His blood. He had not even died yet. They would have had to understand His terms symbolically. And if this ceremony was symbolic for the disciples, it also must be symbolic for us today. (8) There is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that observing the "Lord's Table" or "Holy Communion" or the "Sacrament of the Eucharist" forgives sins. In Matt. 26:26-29, Jesus was giving His disciples the New Covenant application of Passover. He said the bread was His body (Matt. 26:26). He also gave them a cup and said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:27). But He didn't mean that the wine would forgive their sins. He meant that His blood would forgive their sins. Wine cannot forgive sins. And He couldn't possibly have meant that the bread was at that moment his body or that the wine was at that moment His blood. He hadn't even died yet, so that interpretation descends into the absurd. Merely participating in the ceremony could not forgive sins. And the ceremony can mean no more or less to us today than it meant to the disciples at the pre-cross moment that Jesus initiated the ceremony. The same is true of the account in Mark 14:22-25. The Gospel of Luke gives a fuller account, detailed in Luke 22:14-22. Once again, it is recorded that Jesus said, after He had taken some bread, given thanks, broken it, and given it to them, (Luke 22:19), "This is My body which is given for you." But what He said next is of critical importance. He added, "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). This demonstrates conclusively that Jesus did not mean that the bread was literally becoming His body, nor that the wine was literally becoming His blood. Inarguably, He meant that the ceremony was to be a memorial one. It was to remind them of His broken body and shed blood, which only could forgive sins. Neither bread nor wine can forgive sins. Then He added, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20). If overly-literal Catholics are going to be consistent, they need to say that, at least in Luke, the cup of wine is the New Covenant, not the blood of Christ. But in Luke's context the whole ceremony was merely memorial. There was no magical transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the time the ceremony was inaugurated, nor is there now. And there was no forgiveness of sins associated with merely partaking in the ceremony. That can be demonstrated abundantly clearly from looking at the case of Judas. We are told that Satan entered into Judas, who, for a price conspired to betray Judas to the chief priest and officers (Luke 22:3-6). At the very instant Jesus was, with His apostles (Luke 22:14), celebrating the institution of the Lord's Table or the Eucharist, Judas right there among them. No sooner had Jesus stated that the cup was a memorial of New Covenant in Jesus' blood (Luke 22:20), He stated, "But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. For indeed the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:21-22). So here is the awful truth. Judas partook of the first "Last Supper" or "Holy Communion." Not only was there no forgiveness of sins at the event, but Jesus affirmed it would be impossible for Judas ever to be forgiven! There is no forgiveness of sins inherent in participating in "Holy Communion" or "the Lord's Table." Otherwise, how could Judas not have been forgiven. One final example, later in time, demonstrates that there is no forgiveness inherent in participating in the Eucharist. Just prior to discussing the observance of the Lord's Table with the Corinthians, Paul berated them for their unloving behavior toward one another (1 Cor. 11:17-22). He accused them having having divisions and factions among themselves (1 Cor. 11:18-19). Some ate well while others were hungry (1 Cor. 11:20-21). By their actions they were despising the church of God and shaming those who had nothing (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul then went briefly over the Lord's Supper with them (1 Cor. 11:23-26). He quoted Jesus as saying that His followers were to eat the bread "in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor. 11:24). They were to drink the cup, which stood for the New Covenant in Jesus' blood "in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor. 11:25). Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup proclaims "the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). Clearly, Paul understood the ceremony as a memorial event, not a transubstantiation event, in which the bread and the wine become, literally, the body and the blood of Christ. But of particular note in this discussion is the affirmation of the fact that partaking of this rite does not forgive sins. By their actions, the Corinthians were eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily. Partaking unworthily (I take it Paul was referring to the factions and divisions among themselves, 1 Cor. 11:17-22) means that the participants were earning judgment, not forgiveness. That the Corinthians were partaking unworthily is evident from the fact that many of them were sick, and a number of them had even died (1 Cor. 11:30)! My point here is that the act of partaking in the ceremony of Communion or the Eucharist has no forgiveness whatever attached. In fact in this instance and in the instance of Judas, quite the opposite is true. There is judgment! To say, as the Catholic Church does, that there is forgiveness attached to the ceremony, that the act is propitiatory, or expiatory is flat out wrong. It is wholly unbiblical. Moreover it gives the participants the false assurance that they have done something to earn forgiveness of their sins. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is nothing we can do to earn the grace of forgiveness (Eph. 2:8-10). For this misrepresentation, the Catholic Church is to be berated, not praised. May God have mercy on those who think that by participating in the Eucharist, they can earn forgiveness of their sins! There follows here a partial list of statements that Jesus made that He meant to be taken in a metaphorical sense: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, 7) "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life." (John 4:13-14) "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:35) "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (John 7:37-38) "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life." (John 8:12) "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." (John 9:5). See also John 12:46.) "Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7) "I am the good shepherd." (John 10:11, 14). "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:27) "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser." (John 15:1) "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) Return to The Bible and
Roman Catholicism
See also Comparative Theology: Items Evaluating Roman Catholicism |
|||||
