The Lord's Supper

[kurtmanteufel]

Oct 19, 2010 11:05:32 GMT -5 Mike Miller said:

Question 2: "On the literal interpretation of the Word- Are there any teachings of Jesus that you believe to be non-literal (i.e. metaphorical)- the Lord's Supper for example? How does the reader's deciding of which parts of the bible ARE meant to be accepted as literal and which are NOT to be accepted as literal affect the authority of the bible?"

Yes, Jesus and the human authors of Scripture used all kinds of rhetorical and literary devices, such as metaphor, simile, hyperbole, analogy, and idiom. Jesus frequently used parables, the prophets used vivid symbolism, and apocalyptic literature is also highly symbolic. The use of these devices, however, does not negate a literal interpretation. Literal interpretation does not mean interpreting words literally, but interpreting meaning literally. The task of interpretation, then, is to determine the meaning of the text in its context. Context determines whether something is metaphorical, hyperbolic, etc., or not. In case this seems complicated, it's really not. Let me illustrate:

This morning, I read an article on espn.com about Texas Rangers pitcher Cliff Lee (he's pretty amazing--13 strikeouts last night against the Yankees!). Anyway, the article called him an "equal opportunity assassin." Now, when I read that, I didn't think, "Oh my word! Cliff Lee is a hired killer? Why doesn't somebody do something?" No, I understood that the literal meaning was that he can get just about any batter out. It wasn't even difficult to understand, because the context was clear.

Therefore, in biblical interpretation, we really need to understand context, which means that we need to understand what's going on in a given situation. For the most part, this is not difficult, such as when Jesus says, "I am the door." We know Jesus isn't a piece of wood that hangs on hinges, though now we have to look at the context to see exactly what He meant by that. In other words, now we need to determine the literal meaning of His statement.

The question at hand, however, relates more to certain stories in the Bible, such as the creation account. Are we to take those at face value, or do we see them as parables? As I said in response to question 1, unless context demands otherwise, as with any other kind of speech or literature, we should go with the plain sense meaning. So, if my mind had not been tainted with a scientific theory that is now being debunked on a regular basis, how would I have read Genesis 1? I would see it as the account of God creating everything out of nothing in 6 days. That, then, is how it should be interpreted.

How does this affect the authority of the Bible? If anything, it only lends credibility. We can see that God communicated through human language in common sense ways that we could understand. The Bible isn't some bizarre document that doesn't make sense, nor is it written in some wooden fashion that doesn't reflect God's creative character. It is exactly as we would expect.

I dragged this over because I think this needs its own thread.

When I was a newborn-again Christian, at the age of 14, I went through a Lutheran catechism class. A key belief of the Lutherans is that the wine IS the blood of Christ, and the bread IS the body of Christ. Admittedly, this is hard for me to understand, as it is for many Lurtherans. It was explained to me that this is so "because that is what Christ said, and it is a mystery how he accomplishes this."

If I am not mistaken, please correct me if I am, Baptists do not believe Jesus meant the bread and wine was literally his flesh and blood, but that he meant that part metaphorically. He does however want us to continue the sacrament in rememberance of his payment for our sins. Is that correct?

As you pointed out above, it should be pretty straight forward how we interpret Christ's meaning. In this case, it would seem that He is very serious while teaching the sacrament. However, at the same time, the wine still tastes like wine and the wafer still gets stuck in your teeth. What risk is there really in how you interpret the words, as long as you do it in rememberence of Christ's death and resurrection and the attonement of our sins? Isn't there a verse that it is a sin to take part of the sacrament if you don't understand it's meaning? I forgot that one too.

Also, what is all this stuff about not taking communion with a church if you are not in 100% agreement with its doctrine? Where is the biblical support for this?

[Mike Miller]

I'm not familiar with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Catholic doctrine, however, teaches "transubstantiation"--that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus while retaining the physical properties of bread and wine. The problem with this belief in the Catholic church is two-fold. First, they teach that the priest has a supernatural power to make this happen, and this to me is one of the many ways that Catholic priests are exalted to unbiblical standards. Not only that, but the New Testament mentions nothing of a new priesthood. Second, it teaches that Christ Himself is on the altar every time the elements are blessed and the transformation happens. While Catholics deny that Jesus is crucified again, they do teach that the altar is sacrificial. The Council of Trent says that the mass is "the sacrifice of his body and blood, soul and divinity." This is highly problematic in that it denies the sufficiency of the death of Christ on the cross. Instead of Christ offering one final sacrifice for all time (Hebrews 10:10-14), the sacrifice in the Catholic church is perpetuated. Whether Lutherans also believe like this, I don't know, but if they hold to transubstantiation, then I think they have some of the same issues.

Wasn't Jesus being very serious when He talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6:48-59? Yep. But in verse 35, He said He is the bread of life and that anyone who comes to him will not be hungry or thirsty. It's like in John 4 and 7 when He said that He is the water of life and that anyone who drinks of Him will never be thirsty. So, if He means that we are literally to eat His flesh and drink His blood, then contextually He must also mean that we will never get hungry or thirsty if we do. Let's be consistent.

And as for Him saying at the last supper, "This is my body . . . this is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28), He also said that He is the light of the world (John 9:5) and the door of the sheep (John 10:7-9). The latter are clearly metaphorical, so I don't know why we wouldn't take the former as metaphorical as well.

As for us Baptists, yes we see the Lord's Supper as symbolic and a time of remembrance. And we don't require people to agree with 100% of our doctrine to partake with us. We simply ask that people only participate who have trusted Christ for their salvation.

[kurtmanteufel]

Can't sleep...

I'm not familiar with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Catholic doctrine

From Luther's translated catechism:

www.bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php#para13

13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.


I don't believe this is transubstantiation. It's just simply taking Christ literally. But then again, the sacrament rely's on the words which were spoken by Jesus when he taught it in order to make the wine/bread his blood/body. Is the mechanism from Christ? From the words themselves? Or just because Jesus said so... (Those last few were rhetorical =)) You see why this confused me so much when worshiping with the Lutherans? I admit, interpreting the Lord's supper as a metaphor makes infinitely more sense in my punish little brain of mine. But then there's this:

Isn't there a verse that it is a sin to take part of the sacrament if you don't understand it's meaning?

Found something that might be what was used in my catechism class...

1 Corinthians Ch. 11:28 (NIV)

28] A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.  29] For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Actually, reading this now, I see the context of Paul's writing (starting in verse 17) looks like there was a problem with this church pigging out on the bread and getting drunk on the wine and ignoring the meaning behind the sacrament. It clearly does not say "without recognizing that the body of the lord IS the bread". Still, its an important chapter to read before taking communion. I'll keep looking.

[Mike Miller]

Ok. I've done a little looking into it, and though some Lutherans shy away from the term, it seems that their doctrine is what we call "consubstantiation." What this means is that they do not believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, but that the physical body of Christ is present in the sacrament. One example used is that of a sponge. Christ's body is present in the elements as water is present in a sponge. The water is not the sponge, but it is present throughout the sponge. The most logical and consistent way to interpret the Scripture still seems to me to say that Jesus is using physical objects to teach of a spiritual reality.

And you are correct in your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. Folks were showing up early, eating all the bread and drinking all the wine, without even considering the significance of the Lord's Supper. This is why we always take some time to examine ourselves before the Lord's Supper at our church. We want to make sure that our hearts and motives are right. We devote a few moments to confess our sins and to prepare ourselves to honor God in the observance of the ordinance. As with most Protestants not of the Lutheran stream, we see the elements as symbolic, but we also believe that Christ is spiritually present in a special way. He gives much significance to the Lord's Supper and provides some serious warnings about the attitude with which we do it.

By the way, we typically observe the Lord's Supper quarterly at our church, and we will do so this coming Sunday.

[kurtmanteufel]

28] A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29] For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Mike, can you please explain to me the Greek word for "recognizing"/"discerning" used in 1 cor 11:29? What is the word and what does it mean if read in this context. What could it mean in other contexts?

Thanks again,

Kurt

[Mike Miller]

The Greek word is diakrino, which literally means "to evaluate carefully" or "to make a distinction," and it carries the idea of discerning or judging rightly. But what exactly does that mean in 1 Corinthians 11:29? I like what the ESV Study Bible says at this point:

Without discerning the body is usually understood in one of two ways. Some hold that it means “not understanding that the bread represents the body of Christ that was sacrificed for us,” with the result that such people do not act in a Christlike, self-sacrificial way. Others note that Paul does not mention the blood, and because of this they conclude that Paul has moved beyond the meaning of the bread to the idea of the church as a gathering of the body of Christ (see 12:12–27; cf. 10:16–17). According to this second view, “without discerning the body” would mean “not understanding that Christians, since they are the body of Christ, should act like Christ when they assemble.” On either view, these people do not recognize the spiritual reality of what is happening at the Lord's Supper, and therefore they are acting in a way that dishonors Christ.

You can see the word used in other contexts in Matthew 16:13; Acts 11:12; 15:9; 1 Corinthians 4:7; 6:5; 14:29. In the passive voice, it can carry the idea of doubting, wavering, or hesitating (Matthew 21:21; Acts 10:20; Romans 4:20; James 1:6).