From Seventh Day Adventistism to Calvary Chapelism, finally I am at rest for the last 28 years in a small Lutheran congregation where I am grateful to receive the true body and blood of our Lord, to which He graciously invites me to partake.
@@ChericeGraham Hi Cherice, Yep, 4th gen myself.. dad was an SDA Minister, Grandfather was a died in the wool Adventist surgeon at Loma Linda. The first time I attended a Lutheran liturgical worship service, I thought I was going to be given the mark of the beast right there! As soon as I heard that very first sermon however, my bell was rung.. I came to understand that it was the difference of separating law from gospel. At the beginning, I didn't understand the Lord's supper, but through the years I came to trust that the Lord was actually giving me what He promises.. life, forgiveness of sins and salvation.. in real time! That I can taste! It's not 'christian magic' but a real, tangible promise of the new testament in His blood. My eating and drinking of His supper has created faith in me which gives me comfort and assurance that He intends to include me at that great feast! No more looking inward to wonder if I have properly accepted Jesus... Receiving the Lord's body and blood has calmed my worried soul that ensures me that in Christ, God has graciously accepted me to His family in Christ.
Thank you for this…the future of the church is one that is united in Christ. In his body. And I’m praying in a sacredness and reverence brought back to communion.
Thank you for your thoughts and scriptures on the Lord’s Supper. It give me lot to think about. We used to go to a little Episcopal church where there was a common cup ,wiped and turned for every person and then a wafer from the rector. We always took it very seriously and it meant a lot to me. I’m not certain what I believed then, i was grieving from he loss of my mom. Unfortunately, we had to leave because the Episcopal church accepted homosexuality and began to move to ordaining clergy. Very sad. We love Martin Luther and would love to find a little Lutheran church to attend, but we know of none like that. I will be thinking on what you said, it’s deep. Thank you !
Not too sure I really agree with you on this one. I think it IS symbolic in the understanding that you identify and accept the body and blood of Jesus as His offer of salvation for us. Jesus even said to do this as a way to remember His sacrifice for sin. If I am wrong, it doesn't really matter in the long run, as I know that I am in Jesus and He is in me, guiding, directing, and leading me on to eternal life with God forever.
Thank you so much for this. I have believed this from the very beginning , thanks to God and my faithful parents! But hearing this in your eloquent words and the connection to the OT just makes me more thankful that every Sunday we partake of the Lord's Supper.
Hi Chad , the Lord Supper is all about seeing & partaking the Resurrection Life of Christ . Symbolically, what we are doing here is in essence breaking bread not by physical elements similar to Paul’s metaphor of Circumcision of the heart not by hands or physical form . Luke 24 shortly after Luke 22 institution is a significant chapter that links the resurrection to the Lord's Supper. Here are some key points: - Luke 24:13-35: The road to Emmaus story, where Jesus appears to two disciples, breaks bread, and opens their eyes to understand the Scriptures. - Luke 24:30: Jesus "took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and began to give it to them." - Luke 24:31: "Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him..." - Luke 24:35: The disciples describe Jesus' appearance, saying, "He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread." In this chapter, the resurrected Jesus: - Breaks bread with the disciples, echoing the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20) - Opens their eyes to understand the Scriptures, symbolizing spiritual insight and recognition - Reveals Himself in the breaking of bread, connecting the Lord's Supper to His resurrection and presence Luke 24 beautifully illustrates the connection between the resurrection, the Lord's Supper, and the disciples' recognition of Jesus. The breaking of bread becomes a moment of revelation, underscoring the significance of Communion in remembering and encountering the risen Christ. Here's how John 6 and the Eutychus passage (Acts 20:7-12) link: 1. *Breaking bread*: In John 6, Jesus says, "I am the bread of life" (v. 35) and "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" (v. 53-56). In Acts 20:7, the disciples "broke bread" together, symbolizing their union with Christ. 2. *Resurrection connection*: In John 6, Jesus promises to "raise them up at the last day" (v. 54). In Acts 20:9-10, Eutychus is raised from the dead after falling asleep during Paul's sermon, symbolizing the resurrection power of Christ. 3. *Fellowship and community*: In John 6, Jesus emphasizes the importance of eating His flesh and drinking His blood together (v. 53-56). In Acts 20:7, the disciples gather to break bread and share a meal, demonstrating their fellowship and community. 4. *Spiritual nourishment*: In John 6, Jesus provides spiritual nourishment as the "bread of life" (v. 35). In Acts 20:7, the disciples receive spiritual nourishment through the breaking of bread and sharing a meal together. 5. *Paul's sermon*: In Acts 20:7-12, Paul preaches a long sermon, and Eutychus falls asleep. This parallels Jesus' teaching in John 6, where He delivers a lengthy discourse on being the bread of life. The connections between John 6 and the Eutychus passage highlight the importance of: - Breaking bread and sharing a meal together as a symbol of union with Christ - Resurrection power and eternal life - Fellowship and community among believers - Spiritual nourishment through Christ and communal sharing - Preaching and teaching about Christ's resurrection and power These links emphasize the significance of Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a celebration of Christ's resurrection, union with Him, and spiritual nourishment.
I am of the symbolic belief, but because of my respect for you, as I follow you for your great insight and deep discussion of the text, as well as your clear heart's passion for the flock, I wanted to hear, with an open ear to hear, your reasoning behind the literal belief. No one has ever communicated this to me before, so I appreciate the explanation. After hearing it, I do see how you arrived at this belief. It's clear to me your path to this conclusion. However, even so, I'm not convinced personally that it's what's meant. I believe it to be symbolic, as Jesus holds up the bread and wine, calling them Him, to pass on, not literally Himself, but the remembrance of Him, for all future generations, because HE won't be remaining here, as He must send His Spirit out. Just like when He says that we must do for the poor, because they will always be here, but He will not. He's not literally IN them, but says that when we do to/for them, we're doing it to/for Him. Scripture interprets Scripture. Also, another major theme taught in the Bible is substitution. Jesus, Himself, being the greatest substitution example of all. The animal skins in place of the leaves in Genesis, the ram in place of Abraham's son, the lamb of Passover in place of the 1st born, animal options in sacrifices depending on financial ability in the OT, to name a few. This is why I believe symbolically, not literally, in regards to the Last Supper. Thank you, though, for your explanation for a literal belief. I do see your reasoning. When we're all together in perfection, we'll know then who was right...lol. Grace and Peace to you.
I'm not a Lutheran but neither am i a Zwingli. As someone from the classical reformed tradition, i do agree with Lutherans that at the very least when we partake the Lord's supper by faith, we receive the true body and blood of Christ. This is in the Anglican 39 article and 1662, Dutch Reformed Belgic and Heidelberg catechism, and Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. While there are difreences with Lutheranism, i think Calvinist view of sacraments is closer to Lutherans than to Zwinglians. Both Calvinist and Lutherans can agree that the sacraments are means of grace, and not just merely symbols, visible signs and seals. I think Classical Reformed theologians and scholars should team up with Lutherans to promote public awareness among Christians to have a higher sacramental view of the sacraments.
I really enjoyed this presentation. I am not convinced but I loved learning another viewpoint. I can't see this as an either or issue. It can and should be expressed in a more nuanced way.
Pastor Chad, thank you for this explanation of the true meaning of partaking The Lord’s Supper! I have a different perspective now! Do we partake of communion for the healing of our bodies when there is sickness? Is healing part of the atonement or is it just for the forgiveness of sin?
The body and blood of Jesus are explicitly said to be for the forgiveness of our sins. That forgiveness, however, can also have physical benefits to us. I will leave that up to God as to how he might use the Eucharist to give us bodily healing in this life. But certainly the body and blood of Jesus are going to work ultimate healing upon our bodies in the resurrection on the last day.
"To give a simple illustration of what takes place in this eating it is as if a wolf devoured a sheep and the sheep were so powerful a food that it transformed the wolf and turned him into a sheep. So, when we eat Christ's flesh physically and spiritually, the food is so powerful that it transforms us into itself and out of fleshly, sinful, mortal men makes us spiritual, holy, living men. This we are already, though in a hidden manner in faith and hope, the fact is not yet manifest, but we shall experience it on the Last Day” Martin Luther
My pathway to this understanding was a bit different, so I will add it here. Mine was based on the concept of One Flesh and the comparison to the intimacy of the Trinity. Just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One God - so all those in Christ are united with God as One Body. This intimate union is referred to many times in Scripture but most notably in John 17 where Jesus prays for all believers - that they would be one with God in the same manner that the three persons of the Trinity are One God. The addition of the examples of spiritual blessings as food adds even more confirmation of this truth. Thank you for sharing it.
Chad... I am curious... what do you make of the following "spiritual" not "physical" reference to the Eucharist/Communion from Irenaeus of Lyons in his Against Heresies (175-185ad) XXXVII. Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of' the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, "from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;" as John also declares in the Apocalypse: "The incense is the prayers of the saints." Then again, Paul exhorts us "to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." And again, "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God "in spirit and in truth." And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom. Thank you for your ministry... marc
I am grateful for my brothers and sister in the Roman Catholic tradition. What I have taught here is not in conformity with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist (in other words, this is not transubstantiation), but I am grateful that we do indeed share in common the confession that what is put into our mouths is actually the body and blood of Jesus. Peace to you.
Chad , I love to learn from you . This time I do have my reserve on this . Whenever Jesus spoke about things of above , parisees interpreted him from the flesh. 1.- the temple to be raised in 3 days , they said the physical temple was impossible to rexonstruct in 3 days. 2.- Nicodemus : How can a grown man be born again - above . They chose the physical meaning. 3 .- When Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The pharisees intérpreted as physical. I undesrstand Jesus is the bread who came from above: he is talking wide poetic language ( lehem ha panim in John 1.2 the logos is in front of the father - overriding the 12 breads) My Point : if you are right on the flesh and blood in the bread and wine then John 6.51 would be interpreted as a necessity ( to physically eat and drink) for ensuring the eternal life ... Which isn' t by the clarification verses as John. 6.40 explaining the will of the Father. Peace brothers in Christ.
It seems like a lot of these parallels between foods as means of grace also work if communion is bread and wine that symbolizes Christ's body and blood. We all recognize that types and anti-types don't have to be one for one, so I've just never found many of these compelling. Add to that that when the new testament writers actually draw out the types of Christ they never draw this conclusion for us that we are actually consuming body and blood, and I find the case very weak. For example, the author of Hebrews as well as other NT authors make the comparison of Jesus to the passover lamb, but they never go the one extra step to say we eat his body and blood. I agree with you that this is an obvious question the comparison between Christ and the lamb raises, but if it's so obvious to draw this comparison and so central to the faith that we do so, why do none of the new testament authors do so when they speak of Christ being the passover lamb? I've found this to be very surprising if your view is true. Another interesting note that maybe you could clarify for me if I'm wrong: the author of Hebrews also compares Jesus to animals burned outside the camp, but aren't these animals burned up completely and their flesh not eaten? If this is true, it would be a case in which the type would be more one for one if we did not consume Jesus actual body and blood. As far as the "participation" that we experience at the Lord's Supper, must this be achieved by a physical eating of the body and blood? I think the strongest case for a negative answer to this is that in that very passage, as you mention, the Israelites are said to be participants in the altar, and pagans are said to be participants with demons by partaking of their cultic meals. In neither of these cases does it seem warranted that either groups participation required the literal eating of the altar or a literal eating of the demon, so neither do we need to draw that conclusion for the Lord's Supper. I am very open to changing my mind, at least I think and hope I am, and would love to hear any challenges to what I've said. I appreciate your content!
I believe it's symbolic, but I'm learning something new about this perspective through your explanation. Thank you for your input. I was just reading 1 Corinthians 10 today, but Paul's comment about "participation" struck me as symbolic. I'm trying to understand how this works from the Lutheran POV, but it just isn't making sense to me. FYI I come from a Baptist leaning but do not have the same scholarly credentials as you do, so please regard my comment as one born of humble confusion, not indignation towards your position.
Read Romans 6 and think of participation again...Baptism does the same thing...we participate, we are untied with Jesus in His death and resurrection through Baptism.
@@divineparadox2507 Same thing there though, I'm reading it as symbolic and/or spiritual. It doesn't seem to indicate that baptism incurs literal bodily death, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection. It seems like a transcendent, spiritual and sometimes symbolic resurrection and freedom from sin (not to be confused with the resurrection in the last day, if I understand correctly). That doesn't diminish the significance of it, but I'm not reading anything literal or tangible about it.
The problem with what you are doing is you are taking the word “participation” to mean what participation means when Paul says it, but you are not taking the word “is” to mean what it means when Jesus says it.
@@jrhatcher1 Do you mean to say Paul had a different understanding of Christ than he was supposed to? When reading John, Jesus calls himself the bread of life and the source of living water, but if someone walked up to him and tried biting him, I'm not so sure that would have gone over well. Or when he says at the last supper, "this is my blood" and "this is my body," it's not so clear (to me) that he means "this bread and wine becomes my body and blood whenever my followers get together," especially when he says "do this in remembrance of me." Not trying to sound indignant, again, just really trying to figure out where these ideas that I don't understand come from.
We can also argue that the 1 Corinthians 10 passage partaking of Christ is not just symbolic, because it parallels with v1-4 that the Israelites spiritually partake of Christ through the physical eating of manna and physical drinking the water from the rock. V1-4 is clearly not symbolic and Zwinglian for the Jews, so why should it be for the lord's supper? Secondly, if it's merely symbolic, then how could it be a means of judgment for the Corinthians church when they abused the Lord's supper? If it could bring judgment, certainly it could be a means of grace too. Thirdly, the theme manna in 1 Corinthians v1-4 points to the Lord's supper, parallels with John 6 theme of manna pointing to eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. This manna thematic connection in 1 Corinthians and John 6 thus shows us that the Lord's supper is not just merely symbolic.
Within the biblical context God gave kosher laws. Foods people should or shouldn’t eat. If you delve into the ‘why?’, one reason is the attributes contained or symbolised in kosher animals which Jewish people were commanded to eat, i.e. you become what you eat. In a similar way, the Lord’s Supper is a way to share in his life force and imbibe His attributes. However, I often feel that modern communion which does not look anything like the full meal of the early church is a very meagre representation of the Supper. I have taken communion for many years but the only time I actually experienced the schekhinah was after a whole evening of sharing deeply about Jesus and eating a full meal of bread and wine in an atmosphere of love and togetherness. I still take wafers or tiny bits of bread in church but I’m aware that this is an under representation of early church communion. We are starving when there’s plenty more to be had.
Like R. Bruce says in “The mistery of the Lord’s Supper», we take the body and blood of our Lord with the physical mouth and the spiritual mouth, which is the faith. The bread and wine feed our body; the body and blood feed our soul.
Yes, this expressed the viewpoint of Calvin, which differs from that of Luther (and, I would argue, the Bible). What is put into our mouths IS the body and blood of Jesus. This does not exclude "spiritual eating," which we would simply call faith in the promise that what Christ says is true.
Yes, but not in a gross and cannibalistic way, as some might construe this. In his own mysterious way, he gives us his body and blood to eat and to drink.
Hey brother Chad I enjoy your teachings. I also listen to Chris Rosenberg teachings, I go to a Church of God we don't hold that view we look at it as symbolic but I want to be open-minded, is the Lutheran teaching on communion the same as the Catholics teach? Cuz I've heard that the way the Catholics teach communion is to basically crucified Christ over and over each time they have communion or am I wrong about that. Thanks. Hope that made sense lol
Thanks, brother! I appreciate you openness to other traditions. And Chris is a fantastic teacher! Lutherans and Catholics agree that the bread is the body of Jesus and the wine is his blood. Where we differ is, first, that Catholics describe the Eucharist as a sacrifice. As their Catechism says, "The sacrifice of Christ [on the cross] and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are *one single sacrifice*" (1367). They speak of the Supper as an "unbloody" sacrifice. Lutherans do not. We certainly believe that the fruits of Christ's ONE sacrifice on the cross are given to us in the Supper, but we do not teach that the Supper is a sacrifice. A second difference is that Catholics have explained that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Catechism, 1376). Lutherans do not believe the substance of the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and blood. The bread remains bread while also being mysteriously his body. The wine remains wine while mysteriously being his blood. So we let the mystery remain a mystery, not resorting to philosophically based explanations such as transubstantiation. Hope that helps!
Is it a material presence though? Could there be a real presence without it being a material presence? And if we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, don't we already have the fullness of Christ? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I truly have been trying to have a better understanding of what the elements truly mean/are.
How would this affect the non-believer (or the truly unsaved) when they partake? Are they consuming Christ? Does it make them a Christian? Or is it only the real body and blood for a real believer?
In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul issues this warning: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." Simply consuming this does not make them a Christian. Do they consume the body and blood of Jesus? Yes. It is Christ's Word, not our faith, that puts his body in the bread and his wine in the blood. How would this affect unbelievers? That is up to the Lord.
Luther's Small Catechism VI. The Sacrament of the Altar As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household. What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Where is this written? The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins. Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily? Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts. Be encouraged as the Lord gives of Himself to you. Happy Lord's Day.
When you say it is true, because Jesus says it is true you assume your interpretation into the text. Therefore it’s not a question about what Jesus says, but it’s a question about your theology that you’re reading into the text.
The principle that the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant is key here. When Moses said, "this is the blood of the covenant," he was talking about real (albeit animal) blood. When Jesus said the very same words in that upper room, He was talking about real (His own!) blood, not fake blood (mere wine). This IS the New Covenant!
My understanding of the Catholic Church is that they are actually sacrificing Christ again. As if His one sacrifice wasn’t sufficient??? That I have a problem with. And what constitutes a true lords supper? If the pastor doesn’t see it as the true body and blood and only symbolic is it then somehow the body and blood anyway ?? So confused. 😫
My question to those who believe communion is the actual body and blood of Christ. Why has not one single communion in all of human history tasted like flesh and blood? And where are these churches finding Jesus’ body? If you claiming the wonder bread you bring into your church supernaturally turns in Jesus’ body that’s pretty ridiculous The point is to remember that Christ had his body tortured and destroyed in the most brutal way so that the wrongful sins you’ve committed before God would be forgiven. Let’s remember what the bible is actually about.
Thanks for the pushback. Your opening comment presents the very modern assumption of scientism, namely, that the only means whereby we can determine any truth is based upon scientifically verifiable means. Can science prove (or disprove) that God exists? No. Science is not the arbiter of theology. As I told another commenter who also took this approach: As if theology is determined by laboratories! If possible, should we have tested the bread and fish in the Feeding of the 5000 to see if this food was capable of multiplying itself? Should we have tested the waters of the Sea of Galilee to see if they were capable of sustaining the weight of a grown man to walk upon them? Should we have conducted experiments on the body of Lazarus to see if he was capable of being resurrected? What Jesus does with this bread, in making it his body, and what he does with the wine, in making it his blood, is mystery not science.
@@chadbird1517 fair point, but then we just assume that communion is magically Jesus’ body even though it contains the exact same properties as the bread you bought at the store. Your stance is arguing that communion is a miracle. It’s not a miracle if the bread sitting on my kitchen table turns into….. the same bread. It means nothing. The water into wine at the wedding was a miracle because the people had no wine, they wanted wine and multiple eyewitnesses saw Jesus turn regular water into that wine. If communion in your theology is a miracle it’s not really a miracle because nothing happens. It’s the same as charismatic “prophecies” they can’t be tested. All the miracles of the bible can be tested. The Red Sea parted. Well a body of water isn’t suppose to do that. A dead man came back to life, etc. if this was a miracle of significance then we would see the wine turn into blood every communion time.
Thanks for your response. There are, however, serious errors in your reasoning, especially when you say, "All the miracles in the bible can be tested." Tested how? Scientifically? Shall we scientifically test the human nature of Jesus to see if it is capable of disappearing after his resurrection, or scientifically capable of being also divine? Shall we scientifically test the manna from heaven? Miracles, BY DEFINITION, surprise science by acting in ways that are not in usual conformity with scientific observations. So is Communion a miracle? Yes! Absolutely. Every celebration of the Supper is a miracle where ordinary bread becomes the means by which Jesus feeds us his body, and ordinary wine becomes the means whereby Jesus gives us his blood. This is not magic (!); magic is manipulation of powers to make them do what we want. No, divine miracles are not magic. They are miracles, pure and simple, wrought by the powerful Word of God.
Is wine his blood, or grape juice? Is there leaven in the bread you use? Is it made with gmo wheat? If you say “It doesn’t matter,” then it’s symbolic. Why do we need more blood? Is God continually creating new flesh for Jesus’ body? Why did Jesus say to His disciples “Handle me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bone as I do.” Why didn’t He say flesh and blood? Did He shed it all? Is there more blood being continually created? I’m not being flippant, Im really asking. Why do we need more blood, more forgiveness if Jesus’ blood and forgiveness was “once for all?”
Jesus told us to do to remember what he did for us, not to relive his sacrifice, or participate in it, it is finished, its a sin and idolatry to continue mysterious sacrifices (sacraments/sacrifices)after the new covenant in his blood, 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” 17then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. The Full Assurance of Faith 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; 38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.
The animals in the Tanach were not really redeeming the sins. Our LORD Yeshua redeemed us once for all on the tree. We don't need to crucify Him once again in the LORD’S supper.
God is great. He never expects us to be perfect. One person takes communion as the real body of Christ and another as symbolic. If they both have faith, they're good with God. An evil person doesn't do it at all. Faith is what makes it right. Faith that God is good.
I appreciate this focus on the importance of faith. But let's take this same approach further. Suppose one says, "One person believes Jesus is God and another believes him to be merely a creature. If they both have faith, they're good with God." Or another example, "One person believes that God is one in three persons while another believes that there are actually three Gods. If they both have faith, they're good with God(s)." In other words, this logic which implies "Doctrine does not really matter" is dangerous. I am not, by any means, condemning those who disagree with me on the Lord's Supper. But I am saying that God does expect us to teach that which is conformity with his Word. He is not OK with nor pleased with doctrinal differences.
Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the garden except one, not that they could only eat from the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life has symbolically been described as wisdom in Proverbs 3:18 and is compared to the fruit of righteousness in Proverbs 11:30 and a desire fulfilled in Proverbs 13:12. It is seen as a means and symbol of eternal life. It is never described as the sole source of sustenance for Adam and Eve. If that were so they would have died in the body upon being tossed out of the garden and cut off from their only sustenance. There is no sacrifice in the Bible where God sanctions the drinking of blood. In fact, he forbids it in Genesis 9:2-4. Although it is possible (Colossians 2:16), I'm not convinced the prohibition against drinking blood was abrogated in the New Testament (Acts 15:29) since the reason for it never changes and the command was first issued prior to the law being given to men at Sinai, but which confirmed the prohibition against drinking blood. Leviticus 17:10-16. The Lord's Supper can be understood in many ways. Nevertheless, however Christians interpret The Lord's Supper does not impact their salvation nor make anyone of us a heretic.
Thank you. Regarding your first point, it is a simple misunderstanding (or miscommunication from me). I did not mean to imply that the Tree of Life was the SOLE source of sustenance. Of course, they could eat from many trees. Rather, the Tree of Life was special in that it had the promise of life from God attached to it. That set it apart. Thus, this special tree is the first instance of God linking special gifts with what is consumed. Second, it does not matter if the law was abrogated or not regarding the consumption of blood. That does not alter one's understanding of the Supper. No one believes (Lutheran, Orthodox, or Roman Catholics) that drinking the blood of Jesus is the same as drinking the blood of a sacrificial goat. We all acknowledge that this is a mystery but nonetheless real. How God does it is his business. That he does it is confirmed by his words in black and white, "This is my body...this is my blood." I take him at his word.
oh i wish you had the ability that only comes from the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit so you too could see the truth! Praying for you brother, seek him, ask him, knock, please see the light, It is finished, don't try to add to it, tell all your followers that the truth is we need to not doubt the finished work of Christ! Preaching the law to bind people in sins grip, leads to death, doing works bind you to the law, be free and trust in that finished work of Christ! its over, its done ,believe it! Don't live under the law, the law in the new covenant is written on all men's hearts, no longer a need for the law, it did its work, no one can claim to not know, God is just!
Oh dear, the opening argument, especially symbolic substitutionary sacrifice, proves the opposing view. In none of the OT examples do the symbols physically turn into what they represent (the sacrificial animal cannot physically become the non physical concept of sin). Do you believe that the God who created all was physically contained in the tabernacle?
Thanks for the pushback. The OT examples were not used to argue that "symbols physically turn into what they represent." Indeed, even my teaching on the Supper is NOT that. You are likely confusing what I have taught with the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, namely, that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Catechism, 1376). Lutherans do not believe the substance of the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and blood. The bread remains bread while also mysteriously being Christ's body. The wine remains wine while also mysteriously being Christ's blood.
@@chadbird1517that is not the way I have had Lutherans explain it to me. Not being a Lutheran myself I can’t claim to understand the actual Lutheran teaching.
When you say it is true, because Jesus says it is true you assume your interpretation into the text. Therefore it’s not a question about what Jesus says, but it’s a question about your theology that you’re reading into the text. Live fruit on the tree that is not used symbolically is not the same as process processed bread and aged wine As an old testament scholar, I would love to see where in the Old Testament. They all believed that they were eating Jesus. Again, reading into the text. I don’t see where Mana is mentioned as ripping off chunks of God and eating it Do people actually think that Jesus in the upper room was literally peeling off his skin and tapping into his veins. Obviously not.
While I do not think I follow much of your argument, I thank you for the comment. Regarding your last sentence, which insinuates cannibalism, I fully agree with you. In fact, early Christians were charged with engaging in cannibalism by their pagan opponents precisely because Christians taught what I have taught in this video, namely, that we eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, as he said. But the cannibalistic accusation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supper is, as if it’s a gross and inhuman chewing up of a human corpse. No, we take his living body and living (life-giving!) blood into us in a mysterious way they defies human understanding.
@@chadbird1517 You state "I believe whole heartly without a single bit of reservation that when I consume the bread in the lord's supper that I consume the body of Jesus and when i drink the wine I also drink the blood of Jesus". 1. Was Jesus a human, isn't his blood real human blood? If it is real and literal blood then you would be a cannibal or you don't think he has real physical blood then you seem to claim Jesus isn't resurrected in the flesh. or that you don't need to understand Jesus and just say it's a mystery. If it's a mystery just say I don't know and end the video. 2. At the last supper, Did Jesus peal off his flesh and tap his veins? if no, then it was symbolic. Please don't make videos that claim "mysterious way they defies human understanding". You assume your conclusion to justify your theological eisegesis. It's not that we can't understand what Jesus said, it's that you are trying to justify a theological belief but can't so. Anyone, including many cults, can make these claims. It saying "I'm right without proof or understanding, just follow me" . that's not following scripture or Christ.
In the Old Testament they are told NOT to eat blood and not to eat human flesh. Also in the Jubilee s. I'm sorry but I don't Biblically agree with you. Still love you though 😊
They are told not to eat human flesh and drink blood because the life is in the blood. Now think of Jesus (who is not merely human) and communion...His life is in the blood...we take His life into us in the Lord's Supper...the life of God.
OK, it's a simple test. Bless the wine and bread, then have it analyzed in a laboratory to see if it's human blood and body tissue. Would you be willing to do that? I bet you won't. This is why we're losing credibility as Christians.
I hope this comment is only made in jest. As if theology is determined by laboratories! If possible, should we have tested the bread and fish in the Feeding of the 5000 to see if this food was capable of multiplying itself? Should we have tested the waters of the Sea of Galilee to see if they were capable of sustaining the weight of a grown man to walk upon them? Should we have conducted experiments on the body of Lazarus to see if he was capable of being resurrected? What Jesus does with this bread, in making it his body, and what he does with the wine, in making it his blood, is mystery not science.
But the scripture doesn’t say that the wine becomes his blood, and the bread becomes his body. The scripture says the wine is his blood, and the bread is his body. So it can’t become the blood and body of Jesus, it would have to be the body and blood of Jesus at the moment of consuming it. do you see how ridiculous this is? We are not cannibals! For anyone not familiar with literary devices, this is called a metaphor. The Bible is replete with metaphor, and maybe we should go back to learning some basic hermeneutics before plastering this nonsense all over the Internet!
I do hope that, as vociferously as you disagree, that you are throwing under the bus the worldwide teaching of the church for the first 1500 years :-) Basically saying, "I know better than all those hermeneutically-challenged exegetical church fathers!" So, as I remarked on another of your comments, metaphor here is a grammatical impossibility. You must come up with better argument before you disdain what the vast majority of Christians have believed and taught for 2000 years, huge numbers of which dwarf our intelligence and biblical insight. Humility goes a long way, both in exegesis and YT comments.
@@chadbird1517 historically, the church has been wrong about many things. And no, metaphor is not any kind of impossibility here. As I said before, if you are actually looking at scripture, and not just the teachings of men, you will see that Jesus says his bread is his body, not that it becomes his body once you eat it. For Jesus to say that the bread is his body is by definition a metaphor. In fact, your stance becomes a literal impossibility and a contradiction of what the scripture actually says because you are claiming it becomes his body not that it is his body.
This makes me kind of sad, Chad. I used to somewhat respect you, but this has obliterated any amount of respect that I could’ve possibly had for you. This is the kind of nonsense we can get into when we failed to realize the simplest of literary terms such as a metaphor. is Jesus literally a lamb and not a man? Does God literally have wings which would necessitate him also having feathers? Wow. Very sad.
I always appreciate honesty. Now, putting aside the personal, let's address a fundamental factual error you have committed: you have misapplied metaphor. You are correct that lamb, dove, gate, etc. are metaphors. Of course, Jesus does not have wool, wings, or hinges. I think everyone agrees on that. Nor is there a lamb, dove, or gate present. Jesus is saying that he shares some characteristic common to these things: he is lamb-like sacrifice, the true opening, etc. When Jesus says, "This [bread] is my body," however, metaphor is factually impossible. He is literally holding a piece of bread in his hand. The bread is actual, literal, physical. Compare that to lamb, gate, or dove. There is NO literal lamb standing there. But there is a literal piece of bread in the hands of Jesus. Therefore, metaphor, by definition, is impossible. This cannot be a metaphor. Jesus is saying, "I share some characteristics with bread." That is just silly. As with the bread, same with the body of Jesus. Jesus has a literal body, a physical body, just as literal and physical as the bread is. So the body also cannot, by definition, be a metaphor. What then are we left with? Jesus says, "This [bread] is my body." This literal bread, in my hand, is my literal body. This cannot be more UNmetaphorical. Now, perhaps you disagree. Fine. But you have to come up with a better argument than the metaphorical one. That argument is a boat full of holes (metaphor intended). Now, back to the personal. Here's is something my father taught me: we can disagree with someone, even vehemently, and still respect them. We respect them for their courage or integrity or hard word or whatever. But simply to disagree and therefore disrespect, no. That is not the man I ever wish to be.
@@chadbird1517 maybe I should explain more clearly. The Bible speaks of the law, having shadows of the things that were to come, but that Jesus was the reality or the substance belonging to those shadows. Jesus also said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. in the Lord’s supper, which was actually a Passover meal, what we see is Jesus telling the disciples that the symbols or shadows of the Passover meal were fulfilled in the reality of Jesus himself. The bread, just like a lamb, was a literal thing. Yes, they literally had lambs that they would sacrifice. I don’t know where you get the idea that there’s not a literal lamb, because there is! But he was still using that lamb as a symbol or metaphor, or if you don’t like that word, it was a shadow! In the same way, the bread was also a shadow, and Jesus is telling them that he was the fulfillment. that’s the whole point of theLord’s supper. He was bringing redemption, which is the 3rd cup that is drunk during the Passover meal, and his body was the sinless unleavened bread that was being offered up for us. I also don’t understand how you cannot see any similarities between Jesus and bread. Jesus gives life, just as bread gives life. Jesus, satisfies, just as bread satisfies. Jesus gives strength, just as bread gives strength. The matza was also pierced so that it would not rise at all, and it did not have leavening in it, which was a common symbol for sin in the scripture. So we can see that Jesus was pierced, and Jesus was sinless, in the same way that the bread was pierced and had no leavening. Do we agree on any of this? I surely hope so! Another question that must arise for any sensible person is, did Jesus then eat his own flesh and drink his own blood? and the problem still exists that the word does not say the bread will become his body, but that it is his body.
Whether it’s wicked or not, what I have taught is not transubstantiation. That is a philosophical explanation used by Roman Catholic theology to explain their teaching of the Eucharist. Lutherans do not teach transubstantiation.
Transubstantiation is the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood and CEASE to be bread and wine any longer...Chad is not teaching that.
@@chadbird1517I was born and raised Roman Catholic. But it wasn’t until after I had my Born Again Experience and God led me back to the Catholic Church that i learned about Transubstantiation. I was humbled by the knowledge of the reality of the Actual Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I’ve learned so much from you. I’d love to hear your teaching or understanding of the difference between your confession and transubstantiation. Thank you in advance my Lutheran Brother 😉 😇 ❤
@chadbird1517 You said that you were eating and drinking the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. NO....you are not. As a born from above son of God, with the Spirit of God and Christ dwelling in the temple of my body, I can assure you.....without any doubt whatsoever, if I were to partake in that sacrement with that belief....I would be stricken by the LORD. Eating His body is "consuming His Word." Drinking His blood is the suffering every born from above son of God experiences in the Spirit battling the condemned sinful flesh. I could provide all the scriptures to support what I'm teaching. Hebrews 12:2-4 KJV Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. [4]👉 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.👈
@my1creation If you're born from above, and the Spirit of God and Christ dwells in the temple of your body....you would NOT be needing to believe you need to literally "eat and drink" Him.....who already purchased you and lives inside of you.
I would rather LIVE by doing what Jesus told us to day, "Take, eat, this is MY BODY....Drink of it, all of you, this is MY BLOOD." Judging from your reaction, by "literal" you mean in a cannibalistic way. The Lord's Supper is not that. In fact, early Christians were charged with engaging in cannibalism by their pagan opponents precisely because Christians taught what I have taught in this video, namely, that we eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, as he said. But the cannibalistic accusation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supper is, as if it’s a gross and inhuman chewing up of a human corpse. No, we take his living body and living (life-giving!) blood into us in a MYSTERIOUS way they defies human understanding.
I thank God for you, Chad.
From Seventh Day Adventistism to Calvary Chapelism, finally I am at rest for the last 28 years in a small Lutheran congregation where I am grateful to receive the true body and blood of our Lord, to which He graciously invites me to partake.
Thanks be to God!
Sounds similar to my journey: 4th generation SDA, then various evangelical churches, attending Lutheran churches for several years now
@@ChericeGraham Hi Cherice, Yep, 4th gen myself.. dad was an SDA Minister, Grandfather was a died in the wool Adventist surgeon at Loma Linda. The first time I attended a Lutheran liturgical worship service, I thought I was going to be given the mark of the beast right there! As soon as I heard that very first sermon however, my bell was rung.. I came to understand that it was the difference of separating law from gospel. At the beginning, I didn't understand the Lord's supper, but through the years I came to trust that the Lord was actually giving me what He promises.. life, forgiveness of sins and salvation.. in real time! That I can taste! It's not 'christian magic' but a real, tangible promise of the new testament in His blood. My eating and drinking of His supper has created faith in me which gives me comfort and assurance that He intends to include me at that great feast! No more looking inward to wonder if I have properly accepted Jesus... Receiving the Lord's body and blood has calmed my worried soul that ensures me that in Christ, God has graciously accepted me to His family in Christ.
YES! Thank you. I believe this as well. God be praised 🙌🏼
Brother, you are spot on
Thank you for this…the future of the church is one that is united in Christ. In his body. And I’m praying in a sacredness and reverence brought back to communion.
Great explanation. I am convinced. Glory and praise to Jesus
Thank you for your thoughts and scriptures on the Lord’s Supper. It give me lot to think about. We used to go to a little Episcopal church where there was a common cup ,wiped and turned for every person and then a wafer from the rector. We always took it very seriously and it meant a lot to me. I’m not certain what I believed then, i was grieving from he loss of my mom. Unfortunately, we had to leave because the Episcopal church accepted homosexuality and began to move to ordaining clergy. Very sad. We love Martin Luther and would love to find a little Lutheran church to attend, but we know of none like that. I will be thinking on what you said, it’s deep. Thank you !
Very powerful. Thank you Chad.
Not too sure I really agree with you on this one. I think it IS symbolic in the understanding that you identify and accept the body and blood of Jesus as His offer of salvation for us. Jesus even said to do this as a way to remember His sacrifice for sin. If I am wrong, it doesn't really matter in the long run, as I know that I am in Jesus and He is in me, guiding, directing, and leading me on to eternal life with God forever.
And yet, it does matter because Jesus teaches truth...if you have it wrong, you should pursue truth.
@@divineparadox2507IMO, this is one of many dividing points in Christianity. Love God and love each other.
Pelagian heresy
Thank you so much for this. I have believed this from the very beginning , thanks to God and my faithful parents! But hearing this in your eloquent words and the connection to the OT just makes me more thankful that every Sunday we partake of the Lord's Supper.
You are so welcome!
Hi Chad , the Lord Supper is all about seeing & partaking the Resurrection Life of Christ .
Symbolically, what we are doing here is in essence breaking bread not by physical elements similar to Paul’s metaphor of Circumcision of the heart not by hands or physical form .
Luke 24 shortly after Luke 22 institution is a significant chapter that links the resurrection to the Lord's Supper. Here are some key points:
- Luke 24:13-35: The road to Emmaus story, where Jesus appears to two disciples, breaks bread, and opens their eyes to understand the Scriptures.
- Luke 24:30: Jesus "took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and began to give it to them."
- Luke 24:31: "Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him..."
- Luke 24:35: The disciples describe Jesus' appearance, saying, "He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread."
In this chapter, the resurrected Jesus:
- Breaks bread with the disciples, echoing the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20)
- Opens their eyes to understand the Scriptures, symbolizing spiritual insight and recognition
- Reveals Himself in the breaking of bread, connecting the Lord's Supper to His resurrection and presence
Luke 24 beautifully illustrates the connection between the resurrection, the Lord's Supper, and the disciples' recognition of Jesus. The breaking of bread becomes a moment of revelation, underscoring the significance of Communion in remembering and encountering the risen Christ.
Here's how John 6 and the Eutychus passage (Acts 20:7-12) link:
1. *Breaking bread*: In John 6, Jesus says, "I am the bread of life" (v. 35) and "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" (v. 53-56). In Acts 20:7, the disciples "broke bread" together, symbolizing their union with Christ.
2. *Resurrection connection*: In John 6, Jesus promises to "raise them up at the last day" (v. 54). In Acts 20:9-10, Eutychus is raised from the dead after falling asleep during Paul's sermon, symbolizing the resurrection power of Christ.
3. *Fellowship and community*: In John 6, Jesus emphasizes the importance of eating His flesh and drinking His blood together (v. 53-56). In Acts 20:7, the disciples gather to break bread and share a meal, demonstrating their fellowship and community.
4. *Spiritual nourishment*: In John 6, Jesus provides spiritual nourishment as the "bread of life" (v. 35). In Acts 20:7, the disciples receive spiritual nourishment through the breaking of bread and sharing a meal together.
5. *Paul's sermon*: In Acts 20:7-12, Paul preaches a long sermon, and Eutychus falls asleep. This parallels Jesus' teaching in John 6, where He delivers a lengthy discourse on being the bread of life.
The connections between John 6 and the Eutychus passage highlight the importance of:
- Breaking bread and sharing a meal together as a symbol of union with Christ
- Resurrection power and eternal life
- Fellowship and community among believers
- Spiritual nourishment through Christ and communal sharing
- Preaching and teaching about Christ's resurrection and power
These links emphasize the significance of Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a celebration of Christ's resurrection, union with Him, and spiritual nourishment.
I am of the symbolic belief, but because of my respect for you, as I follow you for your great insight and deep discussion of the text, as well as your clear heart's passion for the flock, I wanted to hear, with an open ear to hear, your reasoning behind the literal belief. No one has ever communicated this to me before, so I appreciate the explanation. After hearing it, I do see how you arrived at this belief. It's clear to me your path to this conclusion. However, even so, I'm not convinced personally that it's what's meant.
I believe it to be symbolic, as Jesus holds up the bread and wine, calling them Him, to pass on, not literally Himself, but the remembrance of Him, for all future generations, because HE won't be remaining here, as He must send His Spirit out. Just like when He says that we must do for the poor, because they will always be here, but He will not. He's not literally IN them, but says that when we do to/for them, we're doing it to/for Him. Scripture interprets Scripture.
Also, another major theme taught in the Bible is substitution. Jesus, Himself, being the greatest substitution example of all. The animal skins in place of the leaves in Genesis, the ram in place of Abraham's son, the lamb of Passover in place of the 1st born, animal options in sacrifices depending on financial ability in the OT, to name a few.
This is why I believe symbolically, not literally, in regards to the Last Supper. Thank you, though, for your explanation for a literal belief. I do see your reasoning. When we're all together in perfection, we'll know then who was right...lol. Grace and Peace to you.
Thank you for your teaching it resonate with me.🙏🏻🇸🇪 bless you
I'm not a Lutheran but neither am i a Zwingli. As someone from the classical reformed tradition, i do agree with Lutherans that at the very least when we partake the Lord's supper by faith, we receive the true body and blood of Christ. This is in the Anglican 39 article and 1662, Dutch Reformed Belgic and Heidelberg catechism, and Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. While there are difreences with Lutheranism, i think Calvinist view of sacraments is closer to Lutherans than to Zwinglians. Both Calvinist and Lutherans can agree that the sacraments are means of grace, and not just merely symbols, visible signs and seals. I think Classical Reformed theologians and scholars should team up with Lutherans to promote public awareness among Christians to have a higher sacramental view of the sacraments.
Thank you. Yes, what you have voiced is certainly MUCH closer to what Lutherans teach than what is taught in purely symbolic terms.
Amen!
This is so good. Thanks so much. This sounds like reading patristics.
The bread and wine IS the body and blood. Yes.
I really enjoyed this presentation. I am not convinced but I loved learning another viewpoint.
I can't see this as an either or issue. It can and should be expressed in a more nuanced way.
If you read the Apostolic Fathers, and Ante-Nicene Fathers, and their explanation, they will convince you.
Ahhhhhh. Truth "tastes" good. Thanks, brother.
Pastor Chad, thank you for this explanation of the true meaning of partaking The Lord’s Supper! I have a different perspective now! Do we partake of communion for the healing of our bodies when there is sickness? Is healing part of the atonement or is it just for the forgiveness of sin?
The body and blood of Jesus are explicitly said to be for the forgiveness of our sins. That forgiveness, however, can also have physical benefits to us. I will leave that up to God as to how he might use the Eucharist to give us bodily healing in this life. But certainly the body and blood of Jesus are going to work ultimate healing upon our bodies in the resurrection on the last day.
"To give a simple illustration of what takes place in this eating it is as if a wolf devoured a sheep and the sheep were so powerful a food that it transformed the wolf and turned him into a sheep. So, when we eat Christ's flesh physically and spiritually, the food is so powerful that it transforms us into itself and out of fleshly, sinful, mortal men makes us spiritual, holy, living men.
This we are already, though in a hidden manner in faith and hope, the fact is not yet manifest, but we shall experience it on the Last Day” Martin Luther
Such a great quote!
Amen! This is the way in which we are sanctified, not through the multitudinous moralistic methods popular in evangelicalism.
My pathway to this understanding was a bit different, so I will add it here. Mine was based on the concept of One Flesh and the comparison to the intimacy of the Trinity. Just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One God - so all those in Christ are united with God as One Body. This intimate union is referred to many times in Scripture but most notably in John 17 where Jesus prays for all believers - that they would be one with God in the same manner that the three persons of the Trinity are One God.
The addition of the examples of spiritual blessings as food adds even more confirmation of this truth. Thank you for sharing it.
WOW
Chad... I am curious... what do you make of the following "spiritual" not "physical" reference to the Eucharist/Communion from Irenaeus of Lyons in his Against Heresies (175-185ad) XXXVII.
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of' the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, "from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;" as John also declares in the Apocalypse: "The incense is the prayers of the saints." Then again, Paul exhorts us "to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." And again, "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God "in spirit and in truth." And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.
Thank you for your ministry... marc
The purpose of the LORD’S supper is to remember Yeshua till his coming again.
Welcome to the very heart of Catholicism brother! 🙂❤️🙏
I am grateful for my brothers and sister in the Roman Catholic tradition. What I have taught here is not in conformity with the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist (in other words, this is not transubstantiation), but I am grateful that we do indeed share in common the confession that what is put into our mouths is actually the body and blood of Jesus. Peace to you.
@@chadbird1517 and I am very grateful for you too! Really enjoy your channel. 😊
Chad , I love to learn from you . This time I do have my reserve on this .
Whenever Jesus spoke about things of above , parisees interpreted him from the flesh.
1.- the temple to be raised in 3 days , they said the physical temple was impossible to rexonstruct in 3 days.
2.- Nicodemus : How can a grown man be born again - above . They chose the physical meaning.
3 .- When Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The pharisees intérpreted as physical.
I undesrstand Jesus is the bread who came from above: he is talking wide poetic language ( lehem ha panim in John 1.2 the logos is in front of the father - overriding the 12 breads)
My Point : if you are right on the flesh and blood in the bread and wine then John 6.51 would be interpreted as a necessity ( to physically eat and drink) for ensuring the eternal life ... Which isn' t by the clarification verses as John. 6.40 explaining the will of the Father.
Peace brothers in Christ.
It seems like a lot of these parallels between foods as means of grace also work if communion is bread and wine that symbolizes Christ's body and blood. We all recognize that types and anti-types don't have to be one for one, so I've just never found many of these compelling. Add to that that when the new testament writers actually draw out the types of Christ they never draw this conclusion for us that we are actually consuming body and blood, and I find the case very weak. For example, the author of Hebrews as well as other NT authors make the comparison of Jesus to the passover lamb, but they never go the one extra step to say we eat his body and blood. I agree with you that this is an obvious question the comparison between Christ and the lamb raises, but if it's so obvious to draw this comparison and so central to the faith that we do so, why do none of the new testament authors do so when they speak of Christ being the passover lamb? I've found this to be very surprising if your view is true.
Another interesting note that maybe you could clarify for me if I'm wrong: the author of Hebrews also compares Jesus to animals burned outside the camp, but aren't these animals burned up completely and their flesh not eaten? If this is true, it would be a case in which the type would be more one for one if we did not consume Jesus actual body and blood.
As far as the "participation" that we experience at the Lord's Supper, must this be achieved by a physical eating of the body and blood? I think the strongest case for a negative answer to this is that in that very passage, as you mention, the Israelites are said to be participants in the altar, and pagans are said to be participants with demons by partaking of their cultic meals. In neither of these cases does it seem warranted that either groups participation required the literal eating of the altar or a literal eating of the demon, so neither do we need to draw that conclusion for the Lord's Supper.
I am very open to changing my mind, at least I think and hope I am, and would love to hear any challenges to what I've said. I appreciate your content!
I believe it's symbolic, but I'm learning something new about this perspective through your explanation. Thank you for your input.
I was just reading 1 Corinthians 10 today, but Paul's comment about "participation" struck me as symbolic. I'm trying to understand how this works from the Lutheran POV, but it just isn't making sense to me. FYI I come from a Baptist leaning but do not have the same scholarly credentials as you do, so please regard my comment as one born of humble confusion, not indignation towards your position.
Read Romans 6 and think of participation again...Baptism does the same thing...we participate, we are untied with Jesus in His death and resurrection through Baptism.
@@divineparadox2507 Same thing there though, I'm reading it as symbolic and/or spiritual. It doesn't seem to indicate that baptism incurs literal bodily death, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection. It seems like a transcendent, spiritual and sometimes symbolic resurrection and freedom from sin (not to be confused with the resurrection in the last day, if I understand correctly). That doesn't diminish the significance of it, but I'm not reading anything literal or tangible about it.
The problem with what you are doing is you are taking the word “participation” to mean what participation means when Paul says it, but you are not taking the word “is” to mean what it means when Jesus says it.
@@jrhatcher1 Do you mean to say Paul had a different understanding of Christ than he was supposed to? When reading John, Jesus calls himself the bread of life and the source of living water, but if someone walked up to him and tried biting him, I'm not so sure that would have gone over well. Or when he says at the last supper, "this is my blood" and "this is my body," it's not so clear (to me) that he means "this bread and wine becomes my body and blood whenever my followers get together," especially when he says "do this in remembrance of me."
Not trying to sound indignant, again, just really trying to figure out where these ideas that I don't understand come from.
@@jty1999 i'm thinking like you
We can also argue that the 1 Corinthians 10 passage partaking of Christ is not just symbolic, because it parallels with v1-4 that the Israelites spiritually partake of Christ through the physical eating of manna and physical drinking the water from the rock. V1-4 is clearly not symbolic and Zwinglian for the Jews, so why should it be for the lord's supper? Secondly, if it's merely symbolic, then how could it be a means of judgment for the Corinthians church when they abused the Lord's supper? If it could bring judgment, certainly it could be a means of grace too. Thirdly, the theme manna in 1 Corinthians v1-4 points to the Lord's supper, parallels with John 6 theme of manna pointing to eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. This manna thematic connection in 1 Corinthians and John 6 thus shows us that the Lord's supper is not just merely symbolic.
Within the biblical context God gave kosher laws. Foods people should or shouldn’t eat. If you delve into the ‘why?’, one reason is the attributes contained or symbolised in kosher animals which Jewish people were commanded to eat, i.e. you become what you eat.
In a similar way, the Lord’s Supper is a way to share in his life force and imbibe His attributes. However, I often feel that modern communion which does not look anything like the full meal of the early church is a very meagre representation of the Supper. I have taken communion for many years but the only time I actually experienced the schekhinah was after a whole evening of sharing deeply about Jesus and eating a full meal of bread and wine in an atmosphere of love and togetherness.
I still take wafers or tiny bits of bread in church but I’m aware that this is an under representation of early church communion. We are starving when there’s plenty more to be had.
Like R. Bruce says in “The mistery of the Lord’s Supper», we take the body and blood of our Lord with the physical mouth and the spiritual mouth, which is the faith. The bread and wine feed our body; the body and blood feed our soul.
Yes, this expressed the viewpoint of Calvin, which differs from that of Luther (and, I would argue, the Bible). What is put into our mouths IS the body and blood of Jesus. This does not exclude "spiritual eating," which we would simply call faith in the promise that what Christ says is true.
When Jesus said the “this is my body/blood” words - were the apostles really eating his flesh and drinking his blood?
Yes, but not in a gross and cannibalistic way, as some might construe this. In his own mysterious way, he gives us his body and blood to eat and to drink.
Hey brother Chad I enjoy your teachings. I also listen to Chris Rosenberg teachings, I go to a Church of God we don't hold that view we look at it as symbolic but I want to be open-minded, is the Lutheran teaching on communion the same as the Catholics teach? Cuz I've heard that the way the Catholics teach communion is to basically crucified Christ over and over each time they have communion or am I wrong about that. Thanks. Hope that made sense lol
Thanks, brother! I appreciate you openness to other traditions. And Chris is a fantastic teacher!
Lutherans and Catholics agree that the bread is the body of Jesus and the wine is his blood. Where we differ is, first, that Catholics describe the Eucharist as a sacrifice. As their Catechism says, "The sacrifice of Christ [on the cross] and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are *one single sacrifice*" (1367). They speak of the Supper as an "unbloody" sacrifice. Lutherans do not. We certainly believe that the fruits of Christ's ONE sacrifice on the cross are given to us in the Supper, but we do not teach that the Supper is a sacrifice.
A second difference is that Catholics have explained that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Catechism, 1376). Lutherans do not believe the substance of the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and blood. The bread remains bread while also being mysteriously his body. The wine remains wine while mysteriously being his blood. So we let the mystery remain a mystery, not resorting to philosophically based explanations such as transubstantiation.
Hope that helps!
Is it a material presence though? Could there be a real presence without it being a material presence? And if we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, don't we already have the fullness of Christ? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I truly have been trying to have a better understanding of what the elements truly mean/are.
How would this affect the non-believer (or the truly unsaved) when they partake? Are they consuming Christ? Does it make them a Christian? Or is it only the real body and blood for a real believer?
In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul issues this warning: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." Simply consuming this does not make them a Christian. Do they consume the body and blood of Jesus? Yes. It is Christ's Word, not our faith, that puts his body in the bread and his wine in the blood.
How would this affect unbelievers? That is up to the Lord.
Luther's Small Catechism
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household. What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Where is this written? The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins. Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily? Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.
Be encouraged as the Lord gives of Himself to you. Happy Lord's Day.
Yeshua is the Word of God. He is my heavenly bread when I read His Word.
But Jesus said, "Do this". he did not say "read this"
Do this is to keep the LORD supper until He comes. to remember Him.@roddumlauf9241
When you say it is true, because Jesus says it is true you assume your interpretation into the text. Therefore it’s not a question about what Jesus says, but it’s a question about your theology that you’re reading into the text.
What does the church say ??
👍
The principle that the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant is key here. When Moses said, "this is the blood of the covenant," he was talking about real (albeit animal) blood. When Jesus said the very same words in that upper room, He was talking about real (His own!) blood, not fake blood (mere wine). This IS the New Covenant!
My understanding of the Catholic Church is that they are actually sacrificing Christ again. As if His one sacrifice wasn’t sufficient??? That I have a problem with. And what constitutes a true lords supper? If the pastor doesn’t see it as the true body and blood and only symbolic is it then somehow the body and blood anyway ?? So confused. 😫
My question to those who believe communion is the actual body and blood of Christ. Why has not one single communion in all of human history tasted like flesh and blood?
And where are these churches finding Jesus’ body? If you claiming the wonder bread you bring into your church supernaturally turns in Jesus’ body that’s pretty ridiculous
The point is to remember that Christ had his body tortured and destroyed in the most brutal way so that the wrongful sins you’ve committed before God would be forgiven.
Let’s remember what the bible is actually about.
Thanks for the pushback. Your opening comment presents the very modern assumption of scientism, namely, that the only means whereby we can determine any truth is based upon scientifically verifiable means. Can science prove (or disprove) that God exists? No. Science is not the arbiter of theology. As I told another commenter who also took this approach:
As if theology is determined by laboratories! If possible, should we have tested the bread and fish in the Feeding of the 5000 to see if this food was capable of multiplying itself? Should we have tested the waters of the Sea of Galilee to see if they were capable of sustaining the weight of a grown man to walk upon them? Should we have conducted experiments on the body of Lazarus to see if he was capable of being resurrected? What Jesus does with this bread, in making it his body, and what he does with the wine, in making it his blood, is mystery not science.
@@chadbird1517 fair point, but then we just assume that communion is magically Jesus’ body even though it contains the exact same properties as the bread you bought at the store. Your stance is arguing that communion is a miracle. It’s not a miracle if the bread sitting on my kitchen table turns into….. the same bread. It means nothing. The water into wine at the wedding was a miracle because the people had no wine, they wanted wine and multiple eyewitnesses saw Jesus turn regular water into that wine.
If communion in your theology is a miracle it’s not really a miracle because nothing happens. It’s the same as charismatic “prophecies” they can’t be tested.
All the miracles of the bible can be tested. The Red Sea parted. Well a body of water isn’t suppose to do that. A dead man came back to life, etc. if this was a miracle of significance then we would see the wine turn into blood every communion time.
Thanks for your response. There are, however, serious errors in your reasoning, especially when you say, "All the miracles in the bible can be tested." Tested how? Scientifically? Shall we scientifically test the human nature of Jesus to see if it is capable of disappearing after his resurrection, or scientifically capable of being also divine? Shall we scientifically test the manna from heaven? Miracles, BY DEFINITION, surprise science by acting in ways that are not in usual conformity with scientific observations.
So is Communion a miracle? Yes! Absolutely. Every celebration of the Supper is a miracle where ordinary bread becomes the means by which Jesus feeds us his body, and ordinary wine becomes the means whereby Jesus gives us his blood. This is not magic (!); magic is manipulation of powers to make them do what we want. No, divine miracles are not magic. They are miracles, pure and simple, wrought by the powerful Word of God.
Is wine his blood, or grape juice? Is there leaven in the bread you use? Is it made with gmo wheat? If you say “It doesn’t matter,” then it’s symbolic. Why do we need more blood? Is God continually creating new flesh for Jesus’ body? Why did Jesus say to His disciples “Handle me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bone as I do.” Why didn’t He say flesh and blood? Did He shed it all? Is there more blood being continually created? I’m not being flippant, Im really asking. Why do we need more blood, more forgiveness if Jesus’ blood and forgiveness was “once for all?”
When do you doing the Lord's supper ?
We celebrate it every Sunday.
Jesus told us to do to remember what he did for us, not to relive his sacrifice, or participate in it, it is finished, its a sin and idolatry to continue mysterious sacrifices (sacraments/sacrifices)after the new covenant in his blood, 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
The Full Assurance of Faith
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For,
“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”
39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.
The animals in the Tanach were not really redeeming the sins. Our LORD Yeshua redeemed us once for all on the tree. We don't need to crucify Him once again in the LORD’S supper.
God is great. He never expects us to be perfect. One person takes communion as the real body of Christ and another as symbolic. If they both have faith, they're good with God. An evil person doesn't do it at all. Faith is what makes it right. Faith that God is good.
I appreciate this focus on the importance of faith. But let's take this same approach further. Suppose one says, "One person believes Jesus is God and another believes him to be merely a creature. If they both have faith, they're good with God." Or another example, "One person believes that God is one in three persons while another believes that there are actually three Gods. If they both have faith, they're good with God(s)."
In other words, this logic which implies "Doctrine does not really matter" is dangerous.
I am not, by any means, condemning those who disagree with me on the Lord's Supper. But I am saying that God does expect us to teach that which is conformity with his Word. He is not OK with nor pleased with doctrinal differences.
The scripture calls the church, the body of Christ. So are we supposed to eat one another’s flesh as well?
Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the garden except one, not that they could only eat from the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life has symbolically been described as wisdom in Proverbs 3:18 and is compared to the fruit of righteousness in Proverbs 11:30 and a desire fulfilled in Proverbs 13:12. It is seen as a means and symbol of eternal life. It is never described as the sole source of sustenance for Adam and Eve. If that were so they would have died in the body upon being tossed out of the garden and cut off from their only sustenance. There is no sacrifice in the Bible where God sanctions the drinking of blood. In fact, he forbids it in Genesis 9:2-4. Although it is possible (Colossians 2:16), I'm not convinced the prohibition against drinking blood was abrogated in the New Testament (Acts 15:29) since the reason for it never changes and the command was first issued prior to the law being given to men at Sinai, but which confirmed the prohibition against drinking blood. Leviticus 17:10-16. The Lord's Supper can be understood in many ways. Nevertheless, however Christians interpret The Lord's Supper does not impact their salvation nor make anyone of us a heretic.
Thank you. Regarding your first point, it is a simple misunderstanding (or miscommunication from me). I did not mean to imply that the Tree of Life was the SOLE source of sustenance. Of course, they could eat from many trees. Rather, the Tree of Life was special in that it had the promise of life from God attached to it. That set it apart. Thus, this special tree is the first instance of God linking special gifts with what is consumed.
Second, it does not matter if the law was abrogated or not regarding the consumption of blood. That does not alter one's understanding of the Supper. No one believes (Lutheran, Orthodox, or Roman Catholics) that drinking the blood of Jesus is the same as drinking the blood of a sacrificial goat. We all acknowledge that this is a mystery but nonetheless real. How God does it is his business. That he does it is confirmed by his words in black and white, "This is my body...this is my blood." I take him at his word.
oh i wish you had the ability that only comes from the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit so you too could see the truth! Praying for you brother, seek him, ask him, knock, please see the light, It is finished, don't try to add to it, tell all your followers that the truth is we need to not doubt the finished work of Christ! Preaching the law to bind people in sins grip, leads to death, doing works bind you to the law, be free and trust in that finished work of Christ! its over, its done ,believe it! Don't live under the law, the law in the new covenant is written on all men's hearts, no longer a need for the law, it did its work, no one can claim to not know, God is just!
Oh dear, the opening argument, especially symbolic substitutionary sacrifice, proves the opposing view.
In none of the OT examples do the symbols physically turn into what they represent (the sacrificial animal cannot physically become the non physical concept of sin).
Do you believe that the God who created all was physically contained in the tabernacle?
Thanks for the pushback. The OT examples were not used to argue that "symbols physically turn into what they represent." Indeed, even my teaching on the Supper is NOT that. You are likely confusing what I have taught with the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, namely, that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Catechism, 1376). Lutherans do not believe the substance of the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and blood. The bread remains bread while also mysteriously being Christ's body. The wine remains wine while also mysteriously being Christ's blood.
@@chadbird1517that is not the way I have had Lutherans explain it to me. Not being a Lutheran myself I can’t claim to understand the actual Lutheran teaching.
When you say it is true, because Jesus says it is true you assume your interpretation into the text. Therefore it’s not a question about what Jesus says, but it’s a question about your theology that you’re reading into the text.
Live fruit on the tree that is not used symbolically is not the same as process processed bread and aged wine
As an old testament scholar, I would love to see where in the Old Testament. They all believed that they were eating Jesus. Again, reading into the text.
I don’t see where Mana is mentioned as ripping off chunks of God and eating it
Do people actually think that Jesus in the upper room was literally peeling off his skin and tapping into his veins. Obviously not.
While I do not think I follow much of your argument, I thank you for the comment. Regarding your last sentence, which insinuates cannibalism, I fully agree with you. In fact, early Christians were charged with engaging in cannibalism by their pagan opponents precisely because Christians taught what I have taught in this video, namely, that we eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, as he said. But the cannibalistic accusation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supper is, as if it’s a gross and inhuman chewing up of a human corpse. No, we take his living body and living (life-giving!) blood into us in a mysterious way they defies human understanding.
@@chadbird1517 You state "I believe whole heartly without a single bit of reservation that when I consume the bread in the lord's supper that I consume the body of Jesus and when i drink the wine I also drink the blood of Jesus".
1. Was Jesus a human, isn't his blood real human blood?
If it is real and literal blood then you would be a cannibal or you don't think he has real physical blood then you seem to claim Jesus isn't resurrected in the flesh. or that you don't need to understand Jesus and just say it's a mystery. If it's a mystery just say I don't know and end the video.
2. At the last supper, Did Jesus peal off his flesh and tap his veins? if no, then it was symbolic.
Please don't make videos that claim "mysterious way they defies human understanding". You assume your conclusion to justify your theological eisegesis. It's not that we can't understand what Jesus said, it's that you are trying to justify a theological belief but can't so. Anyone, including many cults, can make these claims. It saying "I'm right without proof or understanding, just follow me" . that's not following scripture or Christ.
In the Old Testament they are told NOT to eat blood and not to eat human flesh. Also in the Jubilee s. I'm sorry but I don't Biblically agree with you. Still love you though 😊
They are told not to eat human flesh and drink blood because the life is in the blood. Now think of Jesus (who is not merely human) and communion...His life is in the blood...we take His life into us in the Lord's Supper...the life of God.
The only reason they couldn't eat it was that it wasn't Jesus and couldn't actually save.
Mere symbol... pelagianism
OK, it's a simple test. Bless the wine and bread, then have it analyzed in a laboratory to see if it's human blood and body tissue.
Would you be willing to do that? I bet you won't. This is why we're losing credibility as Christians.
I hope this comment is only made in jest. As if theology is determined by laboratories! If possible, should we have tested the bread and fish in the Feeding of the 5000 to see if this food was capable of multiplying itself? Should we have tested the waters of the Sea of Galilee to see if they were capable of sustaining the weight of a grown man to walk upon them? Should we have conducted experiments on the body of Lazarus to see if he was capable of being resurrected? What Jesus does with this bread, in making it his body, and what he does with the wine, in making it his blood, is mystery not science.
But the scripture doesn’t say that the wine becomes his blood, and the bread becomes his body. The scripture says the wine is his blood, and the bread is his body. So it can’t become the blood and body of Jesus, it would have to be the body and blood of Jesus at the moment of consuming it. do you see how ridiculous this is? We are not cannibals! For anyone not familiar with literary devices, this is called a metaphor. The Bible is replete with metaphor, and maybe we should go back to learning some basic hermeneutics before plastering this nonsense all over the Internet!
I do hope that, as vociferously as you disagree, that you are throwing under the bus the worldwide teaching of the church for the first 1500 years :-) Basically saying, "I know better than all those hermeneutically-challenged exegetical church fathers!"
So, as I remarked on another of your comments, metaphor here is a grammatical impossibility. You must come up with better argument before you disdain what the vast majority of Christians have believed and taught for 2000 years, huge numbers of which dwarf our intelligence and biblical insight.
Humility goes a long way, both in exegesis and YT comments.
@@chadbird1517 historically, the church has been wrong about many things. And no, metaphor is not any kind of impossibility here. As I said before, if you are actually looking at scripture, and not just the teachings of men, you will see that Jesus says his bread is his body, not that it becomes his body once you eat it. For Jesus to say that the bread is his body is by definition a metaphor. In fact, your stance becomes a literal impossibility and a contradiction of what the scripture actually says because you are claiming it becomes his body not that it is his body.
It is NOT symbolic.
This makes me kind of sad, Chad. I used to somewhat respect you, but this has obliterated any amount of respect that I could’ve possibly had for you. This is the kind of nonsense we can get into when we failed to realize the simplest of literary terms such as a metaphor. is Jesus literally a lamb and not a man? Does God literally have wings which would necessitate him also having feathers? Wow. Very sad.
I always appreciate honesty. Now, putting aside the personal, let's address a fundamental factual error you have committed: you have misapplied metaphor.
You are correct that lamb, dove, gate, etc. are metaphors. Of course, Jesus does not have wool, wings, or hinges. I think everyone agrees on that. Nor is there a lamb, dove, or gate present. Jesus is saying that he shares some characteristic common to these things: he is lamb-like sacrifice, the true opening, etc.
When Jesus says, "This [bread] is my body," however, metaphor is factually impossible. He is literally holding a piece of bread in his hand. The bread is actual, literal, physical. Compare that to lamb, gate, or dove. There is NO literal lamb standing there. But there is a literal piece of bread in the hands of Jesus. Therefore, metaphor, by definition, is impossible. This cannot be a metaphor. Jesus is saying, "I share some characteristics with bread." That is just silly.
As with the bread, same with the body of Jesus. Jesus has a literal body, a physical body, just as literal and physical as the bread is. So the body also cannot, by definition, be a metaphor.
What then are we left with? Jesus says, "This [bread] is my body." This literal bread, in my hand, is my literal body. This cannot be more UNmetaphorical.
Now, perhaps you disagree. Fine. But you have to come up with a better argument than the metaphorical one. That argument is a boat full of holes (metaphor intended).
Now, back to the personal. Here's is something my father taught me: we can disagree with someone, even vehemently, and still respect them. We respect them for their courage or integrity or hard word or whatever. But simply to disagree and therefore disrespect, no. That is not the man I ever wish to be.
@@chadbird1517 maybe I should explain more clearly. The Bible speaks of the law, having shadows of the things that were to come, but that Jesus was the reality or the substance belonging to those shadows. Jesus also said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. in the Lord’s supper, which was actually a Passover meal, what we see is Jesus telling the disciples that the symbols or shadows of the Passover meal were fulfilled in the reality of Jesus himself. The bread, just like a lamb, was a literal thing. Yes, they literally had lambs that they would sacrifice. I don’t know where you get the idea that there’s not a literal lamb, because there is! But he was still using that lamb as a symbol or metaphor, or if you don’t like that word, it was a shadow! In the same way, the bread was also a shadow, and Jesus is telling them that he was the fulfillment. that’s the whole point of theLord’s supper. He was bringing redemption, which is the 3rd cup that is drunk during the Passover meal, and his body was the sinless unleavened bread that was being offered up for us. I also don’t understand how you cannot see any similarities between Jesus and bread. Jesus gives life, just as bread gives life. Jesus, satisfies, just as bread satisfies. Jesus gives strength, just as bread gives strength. The matza was also pierced so that it would not rise at all, and it did not have leavening in it, which was a common symbol for sin in the scripture. So we can see that Jesus was pierced, and Jesus was sinless, in the same way that the bread was pierced and had no leavening. Do we agree on any of this? I surely hope so! Another question that must arise for any sensible person is, did Jesus then eat his own flesh and drink his own blood? and the problem still exists that the word does not say the bread will become his body, but that it is his body.
Transubstantiation is.....wicked...plain and simple.
Whether it’s wicked or not, what I have taught is not transubstantiation. That is a philosophical explanation used by Roman Catholic theology to explain their teaching of the Eucharist. Lutherans do not teach transubstantiation.
Transubstantiation is the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood and CEASE to be bread and wine any longer...Chad is not teaching that.
@@chadbird1517I was born and raised Roman Catholic. But it wasn’t until after I had my Born Again Experience and God led me back to the Catholic Church that i learned about Transubstantiation. I was humbled by the knowledge of the reality of the Actual Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I’ve learned so much from you. I’d love to hear your teaching or understanding of the difference between your confession and transubstantiation. Thank you in advance my Lutheran Brother 😉 😇 ❤
@chadbird1517 You said that you were eating and drinking the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.
NO....you are not.
As a born from above son of God, with the Spirit of God and Christ dwelling in the temple of my body, I can assure you.....without any doubt whatsoever, if I were to partake in that sacrement with that belief....I would be stricken by the LORD.
Eating His body is "consuming His Word."
Drinking His blood is the suffering every born from above son of God experiences in the Spirit battling the condemned sinful flesh.
I could provide all the scriptures to support what I'm teaching.
Hebrews 12:2-4 KJV
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. [4]👉 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.👈
@my1creation If you're born from above, and the Spirit of God and Christ dwells in the temple of your body....you would NOT be needing to believe you need to literally "eat and drink" Him.....who already purchased you and lives inside of you.
This is a blow. I would rather die than eat flesh and blood. I just cannot think that it is literal
If you think that it's just symbolic then you participate in bread and wine not Jesus' body and blood like the bible says.
I would rather LIVE by doing what Jesus told us to day, "Take, eat, this is MY BODY....Drink of it, all of you, this is MY BLOOD." Judging from your reaction, by "literal" you mean in a cannibalistic way. The Lord's Supper is not that. In fact, early Christians were charged with engaging in cannibalism by their pagan opponents precisely because Christians taught what I have taught in this video, namely, that we eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, as he said. But the cannibalistic accusation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supper is, as if it’s a gross and inhuman chewing up of a human corpse. No, we take his living body and living (life-giving!) blood into us in a MYSTERIOUS way they defies human understanding.
@@chadbird1517 thanks for the detailed reply. This is a big one
Amen!
The purpose of the LORD’S supper is to remember Yeshua till his coming again.