[Springfield Reformer]

If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said
“This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”

Not true. What jesus said is the normal structure of direct metaphor, A is B.  It is used all the time and in less controversial settings no one is confused by its meaning.  If I point to a map of Texas, and say, "This is Texas," you don't think I really mean the paper is actually a state with real people living on it.  At least I hope you don't.  That's because our brains are wired to spot the comparison of two dissimilar domains for the purpose of getting information by analogy.  It is one of the most basic methods by which we learn, we take a known object, and compare it to a less well known object, so we can learn something about that less well known object.  It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt.  By this new meaning, as Christ gave it, we are to remember what He has done to deliver us from our own slavery to sin.

Peace,

SR

[CA Conservative]

It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt.

Excellent point. It is good to remember that all of the apostles were Jews, and the symbolism of physical things representing the things of God are well established (the laver of water, the incense, the pascal lamb, the scapegoat, the mercy seat, etc.). So having something physical (bread, wine) to represent something spiritual would have been very common to them.

However, the idea that they would eat actual human flesh and drink actual human blood would have horrified the apostles, as cannibalism was portrayed as a the result of a curse from God in the Old Testament.

[af_vet_1981]

>>If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”<<

Not true. What jesus said is the normal structure of direct metaphor, A is B. It is used all the time and in less controversial settings no one is confused by its meaning. If I point to a map of Texas, and say, "This is Texas," you don't think I really mean the paper is actually a state with real people living on it. At least I hope you don't. That's because our brains are wired to spot the comparison of two dissimilar domains for the purpose of getting information by analogy. It is one of the most basic methods by which we learn, we take a known object, and compare it to a less well known object, so we can learn something about that less well known object. It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. By this new meaning, as Christ gave it, we are to remember what He has done to deliver us from our own slavery to sin.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
-John, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses fifty one through fifty nine, as authorized by King James

I see a few issues with equating or subsuming the Lord's Supper in the Passover Seder.
1. Jesus told the Jews they had to eat his body and drink his blood to have life, and that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink.
2. Furthermore many of His disciples stumbled at this teaching, were offended, and left Him. Had this teaching merely been that the Cup of Redemption and the Afikomen (the third cup in the Passover Seder and the matzah hidden as a game for the children, handed down to us today) that was meant to symbolize Him, even if the actual Seder differed, it seems strange to imagine the Jews, including some of his disciples stumbled over obvious symbolism. To the contrary, they interpreted Him literally, as the scriptures indicate, and did not have the faith to believe His words.
3. Tradition testifies against it. We see about two millennia of holy communion unlike the Passover Seder, and unlike the bread and grape juice shared in Evangelical assemblies. Indeed, it is telling that the founding fathers of the Reformation famously split over whether Messiah was present in the elements or it was only a memorial. Notwithstanding the argument that there should be a common tradition to accompany an unbroken chain of the holy catholic apostolic church, none of the churches, denominations, sects, or faith groups have historically used the Passover Seder as the Lord's Supper. Whilst some can try to recreate or reform the Christian faith yet again, this time in a rabbinic Jewish context, and celebrate the Passover and Lord's Supper at the same time, and only once per year, it does not maintain continuity with almost two millennia of Christianity. It is a restoration attempt, without an Apostle, much less twelve genuine Jewish Apostles who lived, learned, and ate with Jesus. There should be a historic visible tradition of the Lord's Supper over the millennia, and there is.
4. I understand someone saying that he does not have the faith to literally believe Jesus' teaching, just as so many did not have the faith to believe in the First Century as recorded by John. The proper response at that point is not to argue against the teaching, as some of them did, but to say, "Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief." Become as a little child with respect to faith, so to speak.