Question:  Dear Greg,

            Okay, there has to be something wrong here, but I can’t find it!  HELP!!

            When Jesus spoke to the crowd, telling them that they must eat his body and drink his blood or they could have no life in the, (John 6:53-57) they all began to walk away (John 6:60-61).  After all, did not their religion teach them that cannibalism was a great evil?  Jesus knew what they were thinking and could have easily corrected their impression if he had meant his words in a figurative sense only.  Then instead of explaining his “true” intent to his disciples, he asked if they also wanted to leave him (John 6:67).  Jesus wanted to drive home an important point.  He was speaking very literally and he was demanding that they understand and believe that he was really going to give them his body and blood to eat and drink (John 6:35, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19,20).

The early Christians understood this.  In Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, he goes into detail on the meaning of the new covenant, and the necessity of truly partaking in the blood of the sacrifice.  Make no mistake—the blood of the grape can be no more efficacious than that of goats and bulls.  Some even go so far as to claim that fresh grape juice or even orange juice is a sufficient stand-in for his blood.  These may be sufficient to remind us of his sacrifice, but they have no value in God’s eyes (Hebrews 9:18).  Only the true blood of Christ, eaten and drunk, can save us from our sins (Hebrews 9:20,21).

But even today, there are those who say that this teaching is too hard for them.  They claim that it is only figurative, and that the sharing of his blood would necessitate a continual sacrifice on an infinite number of crosses.  Not so!  That was Paul’s very point to the Hebrews.  The blood of that one sacrifice is sufficient and accessible to all of his children, no matter when in time they happen to have been born (Matthew 26:28).

What if God’s Word is literally true?  What if the bread and wine are truly transformed by God himself when we partake of it in his memory?  What if we really can share in the cup that was poured out for many?  How great a responsibility!  Small wonder some ministers fear to obey this command on a regular basis!

Larry

Answer:  Dear Larry,

The argument that you make, or that you quote someone else as making leads to the doctrine/teaching of the Real Presence, as opposed to the symbolic elements.  This was but one of the Reformation issues.  While a few Protestants have retained the belief that the literal body and blood of Christ is present in the elements, most Protestants favor a symbolic view of the elements of communion/Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, while Catholics and Orthodox favor the Real Presence.

There is much material available that present both interpretations (only one is favored in the material you sent).

PTM does not see this issue as one that Christians should divide over, but one that we are free to differ upon.  We should (but of course it does not happen) be free to come to the Lord’s Table together whether we believe the elements to be literal or symbolic.  Some do, and some do not.

In Christ,

Greg Albrecht