Tuesday, July 31, 2018

The Lord's Supper Is To Be Understood Symbolically

"That the bread 'is' his body means that it 'represents' it; we should interpret his words here no more literally than the disciples would have taken the normal words of the Passover liturgy, related to Deuteronomy 16:3 (cf. Stauffer 1960:117): ‘This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt.’ (By no stretch of the imagination did anyone suppose that they were re-eating the very bread the Israelites had eaten in the wilderness.) Those who ate of this bread participated by commemoration in Jesus’ affliction in the same manner that those who ate the Passover commemorated in the deliverance of their ancestors....M. Pesah. 10:6 uses the Passover wine as a metaphor for the blood of the covenant in Ex. 24:8." 

Dr. Craig S. Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew, p. 631, n. 27, Cited by Jason Engwer of Triablogue 


  1. Jordan,

    Sorry for the delayed response, but I just noticed that you made a reply to this citation of mine on your blog (your article apparently does not at this point in time have a comments section). There is nothing wrong with my quotation. Citation of a source does not necessarily imply endorsement of an author's beliefs. Your "rebuttal" is adding a different idea with a different citation.

    You are essentially claiming that I misunderstood the excerpt from Dr. Craig S. Keener and that he actually supported Roman Catholic ideology. But that is not what the citation says. The excerpt plainly tells us that transubstantiation did not take place during the Lord's Supper.

    Nevertheless, you are WRONG to suggest that the Lord's Supper is us participating in Christ's death, etc. Jesus Christ Himself only said it was a remembrance, not a participation. You are simply a pig-headed troll looking for blog articles to attack. It would be wise for you to put the scholarly commentaries down for awhile and start reading the Bible for what it says.

  2. Jordan,

    Nice try with your efforts to publicly shame me. I can tell by reading your latest "rejoinder" that my first response obviously hit you where it hurts.

    The real problem here is that you are pugnacious. You seem to have a difficult time with paying attention to what other people have to say.

    The point of me citing this excerpt is to illustrate the absurdity of Roman Catholic transubstantiation being inferred from the words uttered by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. I wanted to emphasize a particular point regarding the Passover meal. That is all which has been taking place here.

    Therefore, your entire argument against me is nonsense. It is much more emotional in nature than it is rational. You repeatedly attempted to embarrass and humiliate me with statements such as this:

    "Jesse’s closing paragraph is highly unfortunate and ironic, considering the nature of many of his blogposts too which are simply statements others had said. So perhaps do what you preach, before you tell others what to do."

    ...as if I ever said or believed that it was wrong to quote book excerpts. Where did you come up with this idea? It is also not inappropriate for one to cite from authors of works who have different viewpoints.

    Moreover, I do not have the same objectives in mind as you do. Recognizing Scripture as the final court of authority for establishing doctrine is not tantamount to saying what statements that you have put in my mouth.

    I do not know what your problem is, honestly. Perhaps you just need to grow up some. Whatever the case, you seriously need to take a biblical approach to your academics. It is rather inconsiderate and even unscholarly to misrepresent somebody. That is where the real "irony" and "misfortune" lies.