Churchwork
12-16-2008, 04:55 AM
Judging from the Lord's own word, however, we see that He lays emphasis neither on transubstantiation nor on representation but on spiritual reality. Behind that which is eaten and drunk is the spiritual reality. Jesus says "this is my body"; He does not say "this represents my body." And after He says "this is my blood of the covenant" the Lord continues with, "I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine"—clearly indicating that the wine has neither been transubstantiated nor is representative of the blood. When the Lord speaks of the bread and of the cup, His whole emphasis is on that reality. In His eyes there is neither representation nor transubstantiation.
Paul articulates the same thing when he declares, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10.16) It is the bread, yet he acknowledges it as the body of Christ. It is the cup, yet he accepts it as the blood of Christ. In Paul's eyes, there is neither representation nor transubstantiation, only spiritual reality. He further explains: "seeing that we being many, are one loaf, one body" (v.17 Darby). How could he say this unless he has touched spiritual reality?
When a person speaks, he utters either a fact or a parable that which is couched in literal or in symbolic language. This is not so with Paul. "We who are many" is literal; "are one loaf" is symbolical. He joins the literal and the symbolic in one sentence because to him both "we being many" and "are one loaf" are facts. The spiritual reality which he has touched is so factual that he is able to unite "we being many" with "are one loaf, one body." He has transcended grammar and rhetoric. Here is one who really knows the Lord. When he takes up the bread he is truly in communion with the body of Christ, for he has forgotten the bread and is now in touch with the spiritual reality. When he takes up the cup he is indeed in communion with the blood of Christ, for he has forgotten the fruit of the vine and has touched the spiritual reality. Having touched spiritual reality, for him word or doctrine presents no problem.
Paul articulates the same thing when he declares, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10.16) It is the bread, yet he acknowledges it as the body of Christ. It is the cup, yet he accepts it as the blood of Christ. In Paul's eyes, there is neither representation nor transubstantiation, only spiritual reality. He further explains: "seeing that we being many, are one loaf, one body" (v.17 Darby). How could he say this unless he has touched spiritual reality?
When a person speaks, he utters either a fact or a parable that which is couched in literal or in symbolic language. This is not so with Paul. "We who are many" is literal; "are one loaf" is symbolical. He joins the literal and the symbolic in one sentence because to him both "we being many" and "are one loaf" are facts. The spiritual reality which he has touched is so factual that he is able to unite "we being many" with "are one loaf, one body." He has transcended grammar and rhetoric. Here is one who really knows the Lord. When he takes up the bread he is truly in communion with the body of Christ, for he has forgotten the bread and is now in touch with the spiritual reality. When he takes up the cup he is indeed in communion with the blood of Christ, for he has forgotten the fruit of the vine and has touched the spiritual reality. Having touched spiritual reality, for him word or doctrine presents no problem.