Quick Thought On Transubstantiation

> my question has only to do with those who hold to
> a Real Presence in body and blood (i.e. not a
> spiritual Real Presence).

This question seems to have embedded assumption that there is something distinctive between a “Real Presence” and “spiritual Real Presence”.) This is almost (but not quite) an implication that something spiritual is not real.

My question to your question is this: Why does it matter?

Michael,

St. Augustine said, “How this [‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when referring to His own Body, He said: ‘This is My Body’. For He carried that Body in His hands.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

It should be Psalm 34:1.

One Question, one comment. 1) Does anyone know if any of the church fathers (or anyone else for that matter questioned the doctrine of “real prescience” until the reformation? 2) any one examining this question should also consider the Reformed position that Christ is “spiritually” but not physically present and the that holy communion is one of the “ordinary means of Grace” and at least as important baptism and preaching as instruments of Gods grace.

God Bless

Steve in Toronto

> consider the Reformed position that Christ
> is “spiritually” but not physically present

Can anyone show me from Scripture a reason why I should believe that something spiritual is not physical or real?

Dennis, “why does it matter?” Interesting question that essentially begs the purpose of discussing theology at all! I will have to leave that for another time!

Dennis, no one is trying to say that “spiritual” is not real. In the context that we are discussing this right now, “real” has the connotation of “physical.” It is a kind in substance, not existence. Hope that helps us to move beyond this nuance to the questions I posed.

Can’t we say that the bread is literally his body, with out us saying that it is literally his “physical” body. Do we believe, as Protestants, that we are literally the body of Christ? Was Saul literally persecuting Christ when he persecuted to the Church? In Acts 9 Jesus seems to think so. The question becomes what does ‘literal’ mean?

Historically speaking, it seems as if the Church fathers have always held something close to transubstantiation/ consubstatiation. If you read Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical lectures he even teaches people how to hold the bread. He states that one should hold there hands in a way that resembles a throne, because it is Christ who sits on it. To him the bread was not just bread but the presence of Christ.

In the end, as Protestants we probably should not believe in transubstantiation. But why do we feel compelled to believe the exact opposite of it?

Bryan, I don’t see how this would answer the questions in any way.

Michael,

If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper?

Yes, just as St. Augustine said.

If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon?

No. It is fully compatible with Chalcedon.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

Brian, can you answer those questions in your own words? I am not finding Augustine’s comments helpful.

I believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally, and not just Christ’s words but all of Scripture. (2Tim 3:16)

> “real” has the connotation of “physical.” It is a
> kind in substance, not existence. Hope that helps
> us to move beyond this nuance to the questions
> I posed.

I’d like to participate in the discussion, and I’m not trying to nuance anything. I have to understand the language and categories being used before I can participate. I’m not a theologian. My degree is in physics, and I’m a computer guy. I haven’t even taken all of “The Theology Program” courses, so I apologize for my slowness on the uptake of the deep theology.

I have a lot of interest in this matter, and I’m just seeking to understand.

Justin wrote:
> Can’t we say that the bread is literally his
> body, with out us saying that it is literally
> his “physical” body.

That’s where my thinking was headed, but I was told this was a “nuance.”

I have no idea what “derridian linguistic deconstruction” is, but it looks like I hit a hot button in the related Facebook discussion. I’m genuinely trying to understand this topic, but I guess it is over my head with all these big words and deep theological terms.

The best teachers are those who can talk in plain language. The physicality of reality and how that relates to Biblical concepts is interesting to me because my only formal education is in the natural sciences. It seemed like this topic is the perfect test case for thinking through those issues, but I’m not feeling very welcome here.

Justin writes:
> The question becomes what does ‘literal’ mean?

I asked that exact same question in Facebook and then Brad, Dwight, and Michael jumped all over me about “derridian linguistic deconstruction.”

Even Michael wrote this in Facebook:
> Jesus did say, “I am the gate.” What does
> “am” mean. What does “gate” mean?

Question 2 of the original 4 in your post, Michael, is about the tense of the verb “is”. Last time I checked “is” and “am” are both the same verb. Why am I the nuancer when you’re doing the same thing? LOL.

Dennis, I am good with that. My question would be then was it his body when he gave it to his disciples? If so, in what sense? Was it actually and physically his body at that point?

If so, don’t we just deny Chalcedian Christology at that point? If not, please explain.

I would really like someone who believes in the real physical presence to answer, but it is certianly open for other discussion.

Interesting…

Dennis said,

I believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally, and not just Christ’s words but all of Scripture. (2Tim 3:16)

My first thought was to ask what that means for “I am the door”.

Dennis, where’s there’s discussion on Facebook? I don’t see a discussion section of the RMM page. Michael, do you have a personal page?

Yes, it runs through my personal feed. You can get to it by clicking on the icon on the right.

Do we always have to take figures of speech, metaphors and symbolism literally?

I remember reading this passage prior to any knowledge of the controversy and it never occurred to me to think Christ meant that the Bread had turned into actual flesh and we (and the original disciples) were supposed part of his arm, leg or whatever. It seemed to be a clear symbolic ritual (like many others in the Bible) to do in remembrance of him. It seems to fit all the other symbolic, metaphorical language in the bible (I don’t see rivers of living water running around willy nilly either)

I’m thinking if Christ meant it literally to be flesh and blood then it would taste and smell, literally like blood. It seems like major double speak. “It is really changed to flesh and blood, but it looks, tastes, feels like bread, and if chemically tested it would be bread…but its really part of a gastrocnemius muscle”

lets add stumbling blocks to the gospel…..

Jesus also told Peter three times to feed His ‘sheep’. Peter obviously didn’t take that literally either, since he started what we now know as the Catholic church.

Greeting!

I’ve been doing some reading on the subject of the Eucharist and would like to highly recommend “The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper”, by Dr. Gary Macy: John Nobili, S.J. Professor of Theology, Santa Clara University.

Highly readable. Dr. Macy does a great job simplifying a complex subject. He’s a Roman Catholic, and I’m reformed, but I thought his treatment was irenic, balanced, and eye opening from both the Catholic and Reformed points of view.

Peace,

Damian

Damian, did he deal with this particular issue in the book? If so, what is the sum of what he said?

Michael, I love you blog and consider it a privilege to post here as this is my first.
I have wrestled with these particular doctrines for quite sometime. It was communion that drove me away from the evangelical “once a month communion is a pain in the deacon’s hind quarters” churches. It always seemed wrong to me that Jesus commanded we remember him with the bread and the wine but most evangelicals reduce it to once a month and Welch’s grape juice. God Forbid if the worship leader who sings the same chorus over and over again sing it a few less times so there could be time for communion. Or maybe the Pastor could tell one less joke or promote one less conference so we could partake of the Lord’s Supper…
I digress…
Regarding transubstantiation, your question is thought provoking. However, when I think about communion I like to consider Mathew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” If Jesus can pull this mystery off the mystery of communion is not a stretch for me. I think the Romans tried way too hard to come up with a systematic and ritualistic approach to the mystery of communion. I also get upset when our brothers in Rome and Grecce withhold the cup from folks who haven’t jumped though the proper hoops within the system.
I figure none of us are worthy…
But that’s a whole other discussion.
But these issues alone don’t disqualify us from thinking about the Christ being present in the elements.

I do have another question for those of Rome…Last time I was at mass I noticed that maybe only 20% of the folks drink the cup but all take the bread. It seems very odd to me. For folks with such a high regard for the Eucharist doesn’t that smack in the face of transubstantiation?

Just some thoughts and thank all of you for helping me understand an issue I have struggled with for a long time.

God Bless you all.

Michael Patton asks:
> was it his body when he gave it to his disciples?

Yes, this is what Jesus said. I don’t think anyone can argue with this b/c it is the plain reading of the text.

> If so, in what sense?

Hence the debate.

> Was it actually and physically his body at that point?

This is the nuance problem. I guess we can talk about it now?

> If so, don’t we just deny Chalcedian Christology at that point?

I’m lost at this point. Neither “derridian linguistic deconstruction” or “Chalcedian Christology” are in my Bible, so I cannot hang with you big word people. Once you start introducing extra-biblical systematic theologies and ideas, things get complicated quickly. Why can’t we keep this focused on what the Word says?

> If not, please explain.

If you could point me to the chapter & verse in Scripture that contains the “Chalcedian Christology” relevant to this topic, I’d be better equipped to answer. I don’t have a seminary degree. I’m just a simple Bible guy.

Chad asks:
> Do we always have to take figures of speech,
> metaphors and symbolism literally?

I can only answer for myself, but I think wooden-headed literalism is rarely a problem for the people I see discussing topics in these forums. Why read the bible differently than you do other important documents? The text itself usually has many clues as to the intent of the author. I don’t need a seminary degree to use a common sense literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic.

Michael,

Summary of a 200 page book would be difficult for me. He does deal with most of these issues in their historic context. He deals with the concepts of “real” and “presence”, and how those words hold different meanings at different times. For example, Radbertus would have a different concept of “real” than Aquinas (and from us in the 21st century). The entire idea of a “real”, physical realm vrs. a spiritual one would have been foreign to theologians prior to the enlightenment (with the possible exception of Berenger). That’s seems to be the outcome of the persistent Protestant/Catholic arguments that arise from the enlightenment thinking.

As far as I’m concerned, I like Calvin’s concept of us being raised “up” to Christ in the Eucharist rather than Christ being brought down from the “Heavenly realm”. I think that there is great value the Eucharist. I would not go to the memorialist view as I think that leads into gnostic dualism where nothing of “physical” reality can have “spiritual” value. Nor would I go into an over definition of the presence where the Eucharist is then worshiped in adoration as this defeats the purpose of the sacrament itself, which is to be eaten (a physical act).

Did I avoid the question?

Peace,

Damian

> The entire idea of a “real”, physical realm vrs. a spiritual
> one would have been foreign to theologians prior to
> the enlightenment

Exactly! Projecting our post-enlightenment proclivities and biases into Scripture is the problem I was hinting at. I had to become un-enlightened from my natural sciences biases before some of the Bible began making sense to me. Reading the Book with a literal, historical perspective helped me a lot.

Thanks for making this point, Damian.

I think you oversimplified the understanding of the Eucharist.

I think you should deal with the best arguments from Roman Catholicism and not from cherry picked arguments.

When I read this it looks like an argument from somebody who doesn’t understand the “whys” of the issue and is only looking at the “hows” of how you can understand it from the starting point of your doctrines.

Also, it seems to take a solo (yes i said solo) scripturist attitude and an exaltation of Church Councils.

And, don’t make the argument of “That’s what they do” if your not going to allow it’s use for the proof of the doctrine.

I would like to see a good understanding and argument for the doctrine before a rebuttal. I think the concept of transubstantion is very reasonable, logical, historical, and biblical. It is also completely necessary for salvation!

Now, having said all this I still disagree with it. How? I start by understanding and articulating the belief accurately and irenically.

Then I know what I’m disagreeing with.

Dennis, this might help: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/do-catholics-deny-chalcedon-in-their-view-of-mass/

It is related and will explain Chalcedon.

Damian, no, I was not wanting a summary of the whole book, just about this particular question here. It focuses on what seems to be a dilema. Say yes and deny Chalcedon. Say no and admit that one is not really taking it literally, but symbolically as Protestants (at least at this point).

Sam, I am lost.

I am not making an argument against the doctrine. I am posing this question because I find it confusing. Now, if the two options that I have in mind are the only alternatives, it does end up being a very strong argument against it.

Still waiting for an reasonable answer. I am sure there is one out there. I just really don’t know how those who believe in transubstantiation would respond.

Good to see you Shawn. Read the post on Chalcedon and you might see where I am coming from. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

As a quick moderating aside:

Please keep on topic.

The topic is not the validity of transubstantiation in general, but specifically how do those who hold to transubstantiation understand Christ’s words at the Lord’s supper in relation to his then current pre-resurrected body and how do they reconcile it with Chalcedon (if he was physically in the first Lord’s supper).

Let’s look at the practical implications of transubstantiation. One thing that is important to note is that in Roman Catholic theology the Eucharist is in itself a sacrifice. In fact it is considered the same sacrifice that Christ accomplished on the cross. Because the bread and the wine were actually Christ’s body and blood, the Lord’s Supper was actually the first true sacrifice, not the cross. So essentially, each time Roman Catholics partake of the Eucharist they are putting Christ back on the cross as a sacrifice. That is why transubstantiation matters.

From what I understand:

Yes, Roman Catholics take the words “This is my body” literally.

Yes, they believed it was His body at the time of the Last Supper because this was the first real sacrifice.

And finally, yes, it appears they have a problem with Chalcedon…

Michael Patton asks:
> was it his body when he gave it to his disciples?

Yes, this is what Jesus said. I don’t think anyone can argue with this b/c it is the plain reading of the text.
[…]
I can only answer for myself, but I think wooden-headed literalism is rarely a problem for the people I see discussing topics in these forums.

Dennis,

No one can argue, sure… In the same sense that no one can argue Jesus is really the door.

Are you saying that “I am the door” is wooden literalism, but “this is my body” is not?

Michael,

Alright, a direct answer to the question…

If a person holds to the extra calvinisticum then yes, transubstantiation is going to have problems with Chalcedon. This would also apply to the Lutherans I would assume.

I think the way out of it is to go with a eastern orthodox understanding. They believe in the “reality” of Christ’s presence (the same presence and flesh born of Mary) but they don’t try to understand it as the Thomasists do. This is why I called transubstantiation “overly defined”. If you’re going to define the how, when, who can, etc, of the “change” then you’d better be prepared to answer the questions posed with the same level of precision and not shuffle them off as “mysteries”.

Damian

Nobody believes that the Eucharist is putting Christ back on the cross. What is believed is that it is a part of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross.

Michael: I don’t think tradition has anything specific to say about your question (other than the Augustine quote already mentioned). The “this is my body” verse is only partly the biblical justification. The other parts is the seriousness with which Paul took the Eucharist (people getting sick and dying by partaking and not recognizing the body of the Lord etc). And also John 6. And of course, Tradition itself. Tradition doesn’t have to provide a yes or no answer to your query in order to assert its truthfulness.

Damian,

The normal answer to the general Chalcedonian/Transubstantiation conflict is to say that after the resurrection there is the communication of attributes, but not before.

That is why this is a substantial question and different from the general objection since it is before Christ’s death and resurrection.

CMP:

If Jesus had meant to say “this loaf/bread is my body” (or if the Gospel writers and Paul had wanted to convey this about what he said), wouldn’t he (or they) have more likely used the masculine near demonstrative pronoun houtos (ουτος) – to agree gender-wise with artos (αρτος) – than the neuter touto (τουτο), which is in fact what he used/said?

τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων (1 Cor 11:24)

I.e., “This thing/feast/Passover/meal/gathering/event/act is my body.”

It is very possible; I have not heard this argument before.

CMP:

I had overlooked it in the hundreds of times I’d read the “words of institution,” but the discussion in my Baker Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians (David Garland) mentions it with reference to another scholar, though noting that it’s not necessarily conclusive, IIRC.

I think it’s something to consider, though, esp. since at the Passover meal the matzah didn’t “become” the bread the Israelites took out of Egypt, nor did the wine “become” the blood of the lamb into which the hyssop had been dipped that first Passover.

Michael,
I would refer you to Fr. Stephen Freeman’s blog Glory to God for All Things. Last month he had a post that I think would be relevant to your questions.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/take-eat/

Here is an excerpt from that post:

First, the commandment is simple – an action described in two words. It is also an action that can (and is) taken even by very young children. In Orthodoxy we commune children as soon as they are Baptized and Chrismated (from about 40 days old or so). It is not only a simple commandment but reverses the oldest of prohibitions in man’s story with God. We refused to keep the proper fast in the Garden, eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when we had been told it was the only tree from which we were not to eat.

Left untouched was the Tree of Life. To guard that tree, and to prevent man from becoming an everlasting, unrepentant demon, we were cast out of the Garden and an angel with a flaming sword was set to guard the tree’s approach. Of course, we now understand that the Cross is itself the Tree of Life, and Christ Himself is the Life that hangs from that Tree.

It is the fruit of the Tree of Life that is brought forth in the Cup in the Holy Eucharist. The doors of the iconostasis are opened (like the very gates of paradise) and the Deacon comes forth chanting, “In the fear of God, with faith and love draw near.” The Banquet of Life begins.

“wouldn’t he (or they) have more likely used the masculine near demonstrative pronoun houtos”

No he wouldn’t. Do you say “my body, it hurts”, or do you say “my body, he hurts” ?

I’m not RCC so I doubt I can answer for them, but I was thinking that there was a way to keep it literal, and present then, without having to violate Chalcedon…just not sure it can be proven with any theological force.

D.Williams on 12 May 2009 at 8:28 am #

“wouldn’t he (or they) have more likely used the masculine near demonstrative pronoun houtos”

No he wouldn’t. Do you say “my body, it hurts”, or do you say “my body, he hurts” ?

D. Williams:

I do not understand your point. English is not Greek. The “gender” of a noun in Greek has nothing to do with its sex or whether it’s animate or inanimate.

As to your question, while in Greek I’d say, “My body, it hurts” (because soma is “neuter”), I’d also say, “My head, she is hot” (because kephalê is “feminine”), and “The world, he is good” (because kosmos is “masculine”).

Adjectives and pronouns in Greek normally agree in gender, number and case with the nouns they refer to or are modifying.

CMP:

The Orthodox believe, like the Catholics, that the bread and the wine actually and substantially become the body and blood of Christ. They just don’t fill in the “how” details as much as Catholics, leaving it more a mystery. So technically, they don’t call it Transubstantiation.

I think that’s technically true for most Orthodox. However, a rose by any other name….

From The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (see the words I bolded):

Priest (in a low voice): Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was betrayed, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying:

Priest: Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Priest: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.

Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.

People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.

Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

Priest: And make (poiêson – ποιησον) this (touton – τουτον) Bread (Arton – Αρτον)* the precious Body of Your Christ.

Amen.

Priest: And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

Amen.

Priest: Changing (Metabalôn – Μεταβαλων) them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen.

* And to the point in my earlier posts #39 & #44: You’ll see in the Greek text of the Liturgy that the “this” in “this bread” is the masculine touton (the singular accusative form of houtos), not the neuter touto – which is why Christ’s use of the neuter to refer to the giving of the bread might mean something.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_chrysostom_greek

This is probably not the best way to argue or take a stand against a position, but what I’ve always wondered is if that particular verse is to be taken literally, i.e. the bread/wine literally becomes His body/blood because He declared “this is my body/blood” on what basis does one argue that He is not literally a door since he says that He is the door and that we knock and He enters. He says He’s the ‘lamb’ of God. No one takes that literally. There’s an awful lot of like scripture that is not taken literally except this one.

I’ve also wondered, and did ask once when someone was trying to convince me that it literally was His blood/body, what do they do with the unused elements.

I have a question, if I may. Is it taught it becomes His body/blood once it enteres the person’s mouth or is it His body/blood before? At what point is it taught that the elements turn into His body/blood? When it enteres the church? When the elements are being made? When the priest does his blessing or when it enters the mouth of the person?

Kalyn:

I believe that for the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine are believed to change when the priest pronounces the words of institution – i.e., “This is my body,” etc.* I.e., the priest has the power/authority to effect the change. (Roman Catholics can correct me here by quoting the CCC, if necessary; I’m just going by what I remember or have read.)

In the Orthodox Church, as you can see in the excerpt from the Liturgy, the change is believed to be effected by the Holy Spirit, not by the priest or by what the priest says or by any power or authority he has, and it is believed to occur during the Epiclêsis – i.e., the “calling upon” the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus – but not at any precise moment. However, it is believed to have changed before the priest and the communicants take from the chalice. In the Orthodox Church, the central section of the leavened loaf of bread, called the “lamb,” is broken into crumbs and placed into the chalice with the wine, from which the communicants receive both the bread and the wine via a gold spoon the priest holds and gives them to drink both from.

In both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church the consecrated bread and wine continue to be the body and blood of Jesus after the change. In the Orthodox Church, the priest drinks what remains in the chalice if there is anything left of the wine and the “lamb,” so there is really nothing left to dispose of. I don’t know how the Roman Catholics handle consecrated hosts or undrunk wine. The Orthodox Church does not know or do anything like the Roman Catholic “Eucharistic Adoration,” so they don’t have consecrated/changed bread lying around or in a monstrance or on an altar for people to worship or adore. It’s changed by the Holy Spirit during the Liturgy, and completely consumed during the service.

* From what I’ve read, it is possibly true that our words “hocus pocus” for “magic words” derive from this, for in the Latin Mass, “This is My Body” is “hoc est corpus meum,” I believe. So people would mock or imitate the priest’s words as “hoc est corp us” or “hocus pocus” when doing their magic tricks and waving their hands and magically “changing” whatever they were doing in their trick.

Jesus said that if you do not eat His flesh or drink His blood you have no life in you (John 6:51-53, . The Eucharist is Christ present with His church, it is an extension of the incarnation, the transfiguration, the crucifixion and the resurrection. How do you know Christ? Foremost by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He is the Word of God. We become partakers of His nature (2 Peter 1:4) We must die (Rom 6:3) and be resurrected(Rom 6:5) with Him in baptism (Gal 3:27, Phl 3:10,). We receive Him in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of our sins (Is 6:7, Col 1:4)

To say that priests have the power to pronounce something…. a material substance, to be the actual flesh of Jesus, is disturbing. There is certainly no argument to be found in scripture for that! RC Sproul says that he would not take communion in the Catholic church because the priest genuflects to the box where the elements are held, which he sees as an act of idolatrous worship.

Jesus says, as Jugulum points out: I am the door, also; I am the vine, I am the good shepherd, I am the root, I am the Alpha and the Omega, and……I am the Bread of Life!

In saying, “I am the bread of life” He is referring to the eternal life which comes through Him. It seems that communion is a symbolic affirmation, a reminder, of how Jesus brought us this life, spiritually,as well as physical, eternal life.

John 6:33 “For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, Sir, give us this bread all the time!” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

This is all very metaphoric language. This bread is ours when we “come” and “believe”, not when we physically eat.

Michael’s question is a GOOD one! It’s entirely illogical to say that Jesus was passing out pieces of his own body for the disciples to eat. Why would that be necessary? We aren’t saved by the eating, but rather we are saved by the recognition of who He is, and what He has accomplished on our behalf…