Where In The Bible Does It Say That The Eucharist Is Only Symbolically Christ?

Question

I know that some denominations believe that the Eucharist is a symbol. Others say that it really is Jesus (either spiritually or actually transformed into him). Looking at the Bible, it seems to me that the latter of the two groups has the most support. No where have I seen a verse in which Jesus says "This is My metaphorical Body... this is My symbolic Blood."

Concerning the first response... Jesus is God after all (at least as far as the Bible is concerned). I think that simultaneously being present in the bread & wine and at the table would be one of God's lesser miracle in the grand scheme of things, don't you?

Answer 1

I found one of Spiritroaming's answers helpful on this question. He explained that when Jesus was speaking figuratively (as he often did) and someone interpreted him literally, he immediately corrected them.

For example, in John 3: Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

This is not the pattern in John 6. Jesus reiterated his claim about his body being real food and his blood real drink time and again. But he also explained that he wasn't talking about cannibalism: He said he was the BREAD of life:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Many disciples left Jesus, then as now, because they are unwilling to accept Jesus' teaching that the bread offered by Jesus' agents, without changing its chemical or physical properties, becomes his body, to be eaten for eternal life.

This carries an important implication for which church is his Church. Only the two branches of the original Church--Catholic and Orthodox--have the authority to call upon God to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

If we are to have the life of Christ, we need to associate with his true Church, for he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

The whole world believed exactly as you do, until the protestant reformers invented their own version of Christianity, in the 15th century.

Now, we have a parallel system of Christianity.

Catholics and most Orthodox enjoy the real presence of Jesus Christ in the authentic Holy Eucharist, since only they derive their power and authority to do so from the original apostles, on whom it was conferred by Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, through a process known as apostolic succession.

Meanwhile, since our protestant brethren did their thing without any divine authority whatsoever, and one cannot simply grab power from God in order to consecrate the authentic Eucharist, the protestants are stuck with only a purely symbolic form of communion, where bread remains bread, and wine remains wine.

Unfortunately, they either don't know the difference, or they won't admit the truth of the matter.

Answer 3

Two things people seem to overlook.

John the Baptist, when Jesus appeared at the river to be baptized, said to the crowd "behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world".

At the Passover meal, a lamb was consumed. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at Passover for a reason.

The reason for the reformers and their heirs reducing Holy Communion from the most important sacrament to an occasional "ordinance" (which, like baptism, is done because the Bible said to do it but no meaningful significance is accorded to either one beyond that) can be traced not to an enlightened interpretation of Scripture previously unseen for many centuries, but to their essential rejection of apostolic authority. In fact, objection to every Catholic doctrine which derives from that authority has this at its root -- and is behind every "it's not in the Bible" assertion.

Simply put, they do not believe that Christ gave the apostles authority to do many things, the transsubstantiation at Mass among them (forgiving sins "in persona Christi" is another), nor that this authority was passed down in succession.

Answer 4

The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation states that on the time you devour the wafer and drink the wine you're literally eating the flesh and ingesting the blood of Christ. an decision view, observed as Consubstantiation, held that the transformation changed into symbolic no longer literal, this view changed into condemned by the Church as heretical, so communion remained an act of formality cannibalism.

Answer 5

Jesus said: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). In Matthew 26:26 Jesus tells them how: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
After the resurection, when he was at the table with the travelers to Emmaus, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him. (Luke 24)

When a Catholic priests speaks Christs words over the bread and wine, the bread and wine become the Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Christ, but the "accidents" (appearance) of bread and wine remain. The theological term for this is TRANSUBSTANTIATION ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3 ).

..more info:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Answer 6

Because almost everything Jesus said was symbolic.

That..and...if you open someone up after taking the eucharist, you'll find that it is not literal flesh.

So...logically...Christ was either composed of Un-leavened bread and wine, OR

He was speaking in symbols.

Its important to remember that at the time, they were participating in the Passover seder. That ceremony is full of symbolism and it makes sense that Jesus was taking the symbols to a new level.

Just as bitter herbs dipped in salt were called "The tears of Israel", so were the bread and wine called "Body of Christ"

Answer 7

The answer you seek is in the Old Testament. During the Last Supper, Christ told the apostles that this is my body when he broke the bread and this is my blood when he gave them wine.

Answer 8

He was setting there telling them that it was His body and His blood. Did it become an extended version of His flesh and blood and actually transform into the cellular structure of His flesh and blood. I would guess, from the actual ritual that took place that it was metaphorical. It really doesn't matter if you do it in remembrance of the event, as in your minds eye, you will be thinking about the actual blood and the actual body. It is to be a reminder to you. It is just as real either way to me.

Answer 9

You are correct. It was a hard saying by Jesus which made many leave Him. Jesus did not call them back to say something like hey, I really meant it this way. Instead, He repeated Himself without watering down anything.

Answer 10

You are correct. Nowhere does it say that the Eucharist is symbolic. As a matter of fact in the Aramaic language, to speak symbolicly of eating someone's flesh means to attack them. So if Jesus is speaking symbolicly He is saying that unless we attack Him we will not have life within us.