# For the benefit of Catholic lurkers... Body and blood.



## PuritanCovenanter (May 7, 2008)

While we are considering the Catholic Mass and idolatry in another thread in this section of the Puritanboard.com, I would like to get some good exegesis on the passage that Luther was banging his hand on the table for Pronouncing.... THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BODY. This was done while Luther and Zwingli were discussing the Lord's supper.

I sense that this needs to be addressed for those lurkers who are screaming the same thing. 



> (Mat 26:26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
> 
> (Mat 26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
> 
> (Mat 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.





And this section needs to be addressed for it also. 




> (Joh 6:48) I am that bread of life.
> 
> (Joh 6:49) Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
> 
> ...



Thanks guys....


----------



## InevitablyReformed (May 7, 2008)

I don't know if this helps your question/post but before I left the LCMS I had lengthy discussions with my pastor regarding the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation). He mentioned that Zwingli et. al. used John 6:63 to show that Christ's words were to not be understood sacramentally. He said that Luther did not touch the John 6 passage because of 6:63. Hope that helps and again this is tertiary knowledge speaking here.

God's Blessings,
Daniel


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 7, 2008)

> (Joh 6:59) These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
> 
> (Joh 6:60) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
> 
> ...



Yeppers.....


----------



## staythecourse (May 7, 2008)

Brothers, is it correct exegesis to say that since Christ said "this is my body...blood" while he was standing there it proves it was symbolic.

It reminds me of Christ later blowing on the apostles saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" and it wasn't the air from his lungs but later a manifestation that included wind and fire with something supernatural inside them, the Holy Spirit working in them.

Any words from you all on this?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 7, 2008)

I could agree with that Bryan.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (May 7, 2008)

Bryan,

Could you expand what you mean by your post? Not quite sure I'm following.


----------



## staythecourse (May 7, 2008)

Sure Daniel,

I don't believe in Transubstantiation biblically because I go into logic-mode. Since Jesus was standing in front of the disciples, the bread and wine could not literally be his body and blood because they were separate at that very moment.

If Jesus said "This will become my body and blood" I would believe in transubstantiation.

Now it is spiritual in its effect in me _where it counts_ in my spirit when I consider what my Lord did for me. Namely, I take in for myself his broken body for my spiritual food which gives eternal life. The act of eating communion represents what really happened, I took Jesus' sacrifice for eternal life. The blood is less clear to me though I know I take in to my innermost being the blood of the new covenant which banishes the law for grace and appeases God as compared to the animal sacrifices.

The giving of the Spirit is similar. Jesus blows on them ( the air was nothing in and of itself) and it was symbolic of the coming of the Spirit later (the real thing)


----------



## InevitablyReformed (May 7, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Sure Daniel,
> 
> I don't believe in Transubstantiation biblically because I go into logic-mode. Since Jesus was standing in front of the disciples, the bread and wine could not literally be his body and blood because they were separate at that very moment.
> 
> ...



Got it. I see exactly what you are saying. In my first post I didn't mean to give the impression that I do not think along the same lines as what you are saying here. 
Frankly, coming from a Lutheran background, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the Lord's Supper and how it should be thought of/practiced. I like the way you put it though.

Thanks,
Daniel


----------



## Staphlobob (May 8, 2008)

John 6 has always been a battleground between Reformed, papists, and Lutherans. For example ...

*v.56* - "eats my flesh" is literally "much/gnaw/chew on my meat" (trogon mou sarkos). Papists make much of this though the Reformed (rightly in my opinion) understand this to be a reference to faith.

*v.63* - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing." Whose flesh profits nothing ... Christ's? Then we're going to have real serious trouble holding to this line and believing in *John 1:14.*

As an ex-Lutheran (who always hated the notion of "consubstantiation" because, like "transubstantiation", it depends upon Aristotelian categories) I have found *John 16:7* to be a guide in understanding the notion of Christ's real presence in Holy Communion.


----------

