First I will refer everyone to Martin Chemnitz’s “The Lord’s Supper.” Most of what everyone has said requires more response time than I can afford in a simple post. Surprisingly enough, when you collectively raise 5,000 objections to the Words of Institution, that Christ could not have meant what he said, I can’t answer all of them. However, I will do what I can:

If Christ was simply using a simile, why do those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgement to themselves? How is the bread the partaking of the body of Christ if we are dealing with a mere metaphor? Why does the entire ancient church confess the Sacrament of the Lord’s body & blood to be a holy mystery instead of a curious symbol? Why do people who literally knew and spoke with and were taught by the Apostles such as Irenaeus not understand those words to be metaphorical? Were the apostles and their disciples all deceived, and required Ulrich Zwingli to explain to them where they erred?

Yes, Jesus literaly gave Peter (and the apostles) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. These keys are real keys, but not of the sort made of steel or brass. They are spiritual keys—the power to forgive or retain sin.

Jesus says “I am the bread of life.” He does not represent the bread of life. The metaphor consists not in the copula is, but in “bread,” which we are to understand not as being bread made of wheat, but true spiritual sustenance. But when he says “This is my body,” he is holding forth literal bread, and his body is also a literal thing. I also believe that Jesus is the true light of the world, not that he merely represents it or is a symbol of it. Does anyone doubt that the faithful are truly Christ’s brothers? Or do we simply symbolize Christ’s brothers? Is the relationship Christ has with us through faith not one of kinship?

Besides, we don’t have Alex or Judson saying “This is my body.” We have the Son of God saying it, through whom all things were created. There is no compelling reason to believe that when he instituted his last will and testament, he was speaking in dark, unclear, metaphorical language. I don’t doubt that he is able to do this, because he is God. This is not a parable; it is the last will and testament of the Son of God on the night when he was to be betrayed. It is not simply a bizarre metaphor—it is a ritual to be enacted in the church until he returns. When he says “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” I believe him, because when I read the Old Testament, I see that ratification of the covenant and the application of blood go hand in hand. Am I supposed to believe that God has now provided a new and strange covenant of bloodless ratification?

What’s the point of agreeing on what is “at the heart of rightly receiving the supper” if we don’t agree on what is received in the Supper? One person says we receive nothing, and another says we receive the body and blood of Christ. How can I apprehend something by faith if it isn’t there? Unlike John Calvin, I’m unable to ascend into the heavenlies with my soul. The way I see it, if Christ can’t be present in the Lord’s Supper, then he can’t be present anywhere. And if he can’t be present anywhere, then it’s certainly absurd to believe that he dwells in me or along with me or anything like that. Then I have no reason to believe that any of the divine grace in him is mine. Then the substance of Christianity must consist primarily in intellectual concepts and propositions rather than any kind of real participation in something holy and divine.

In fact, if Christ can’t be present in the Lord’s Supper, then I daresay that it makes sense to practice it quarterly and have the church service revolve around a 45-minute lecture on theology.

Michael, the Last Supper took place prior to I Corinthians. So I’m going to wager that the Words of Institution predate Paul. Chemnitz did an excellent study on them, but who’s listening?

Judson: Lutherans are fond of calling anyone who’s not Roman Catholic or Lutheran “Reformed.” So Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Presbyterians are all “Reformed.” Who woulda thunk?

I really don’t get how the Lutheran doctrine (the bread is the body of Christ, take and eat) and the Reformed (the bread is just bread, the body of Christ you will obtain as the Holy Spirit carries your soul up into heaven) can both be true, but then, I’m pretty closed-minded and not big on diversity.

I don’t really have a big problem with transubstantiation other than its sophistry.