I had
an email conversation recently with Paul Pavao (Shammah) about baptism which led to this conversation about the Eucharist:
Jennie,
The Lord's Supper is a lot harder than baptism because there are less Scriptures on it. Not only that, but I'm firmly convinced that the Scriptures that do mention the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion are often at least partially symbolic.
My argument would be that in John 6, when Jesus says to eat his body and drink his blood, he is talking in the present tense, not in the future. They were already supposed to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Since that didn't mean biting him, it's obviously symbolic.
In fact, Jesus sort of says so in Jn. 6:35: "I am the Bread of Life; he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes in me will never thirst."
Does this not strongly suggest that coming to him is eating of him and believing in him is drinking of him?
It's just a chapter later when he says, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of belly rivers of living water will flow" (7:37-38).
Now, keep in mind that I am aware that Ignatius, a man chosen by the apostle John to lead the church in Antioch, says that communion is "the medicine of immortality, the antidote which prevents us from dying, and a cleansing remedy driving away evil so that we should live in God through Jesus Christ."
He adds that the gnostics don't eat the Eucharist because they don't agree that it's the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
The fact is, none of us like the priestly hocus pocus [hoc est corpus] that goes on in the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that if the Catholic Church were the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and if its Eucharist were the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, then there ought to be a lot of sick and dead Catholics (1 Cor. 11:30). The fact is, though, that the Catholic Church has awful fruit, it is not the church, its communion is not the body of Christ, and its priestly hocus pocus is as false as it seems to be.
But ...
I've never met a free Christian that didn't love the idea that the bread of communion is "the medicine of immortality."
Think about it. If communion can make an unworthy partaker ill or dead, shouldn't it be able to communicate grace to the worthy partaker?
Like baptism, there's no indication that anyone considered the Lord's Supper to be purely symbolic until at least the Reformation. Zwingli did not believe it to be the actual body of Christ, but I don't think he considered it purely symbolic, either.
However, there's so much more to be said on the subject of the Lord's Supper that it makes me tired to think about it.
For example, the word "communion" is a silly word. The Greek word it comes from is koinonia, the word for fellowship. If we want to speak English, then we ought to translate 1 Cor 10:16 should be translated, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"
I don't believe this is referring to physical eating. I believe it is referring to the fellowship of the church. The blood of Christ not only forgives sin and cleanses us from our weaknesses, but it also gives us fellowship with one another (1 Jn. 1:7-9).
Paul also entirely puts the context of the Lord's Supper into the fellowship of the church. We have discern the Lord's body, he says. What was he rebuking them for? He was rebuking them for not taking care of each other. Some went hungry, others were drunk. This is what it means to not discern the Lord's body. That intense self-examination people go through is not what God is after. He wants us to eat and drink as participants in the fellowship of the body of Christ, joined to one another by the body and blood of Christ.
So I don't think the Eucharist is purely symbolic, but I believe the effect of it is spiritual. There's no physical transformation. That's ridiculous, and it could be tested by science, anyway.
I believe all of God's "symbols" are not mere symbols. They convey power.
Baptism does something because it is, as you say, an act of obedience to the Word of God. It is our response to the Gospel, the answer to God from a good conscience or the appeal to God for a good conscience. Either way, it was meant to be our "sinner's prayer" or our initial act of obedience.
The Eucharist, too, is both an act of fellowship for the body and a meal that brings grace from heaven, the product of our faith and worship, not the product of the bread and wine itself. The bread and wine is to remember him, but in remembering him, he responds. God inhabits the praises of his people.
The early churches universally took those things seriously. Speaking for them, it was important to them. It was so important that if a person was sick when the Lord's Supper was served, the deacons brought some to the sick person's home after the meeting.
Of course, back then it was a meal, not a tiny cracker. So it's possible that they delivered it to the sick person as food, a meal they needed, not just as a ceremony.
I've been forced to ramble a bit because that's all I know to do on this subject. It's so wide, and there's areas that seem to me to be free for interpretation. I can say that the early church clearly did not see the meal as symbolic, and I can say the Catholic Church has gone too far and gotten silly and powerless, but where in between we should land? Now that's a question, and I've only thrown out some bits of evidence to help decide.
Shammah
My response (so far):
Paul (Shammah),
Your answer is very helpful, even though you thought it was rambling. I have a thought about the Eucharist being partly symbolic. Could it be that the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit? In other words, the believers fellowship together in faith by obeying Jesus' command to 'do this in remembrance of Me' and God in turn is with us and gives us His grace and goodness in a special way in return. But are we missing out on this by not understanding the nature of the Supper? Are we missing out on the benefits of it by thinking it's symbolic, and also by not really being in full fellowship as we are meant to?
Thanks for taking the time to address my question.
In Christ,
Jennie
UPDATE: Paul's response:
I found a neat quote on this just today from the Anabaptists:
"Those who believe receive remission of sins, not by but in baptism. ... They trust in the merits of the blood of Christ. Then they receive the sign of obedience, water baptism, as proof before God and his church that they firmly believe in the remission of sins through Jesus Christ as it was preached and taught to them from the Word of God. When all this takes place, they receive remission of their sins in baptism."
That's from Menno Symons. If I'm translating the Dutch title correctly, it's Explanation of the Christian Baptism.
That's to say, I agree wholeheartedly with your "the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit."
In addition, I assure you that you are correct and modern believers are missing out on lots of things because of unbelief. We have grown used to a powerless Christianity. I have been learning to walk in faith for 25 years, but America is bathed in unbelief, and I have a long ways to go to be the kind of faith-filled believer that Stephen and others were in the early church.
Paul/Shammah