The Lack of "Is"

May I have a moment of personal privilege? The above image accurately describes my feelings every time I hear one of my brethren in Christ, in an attempt to quote Jesus words of institution at the Lord’s Supper, say “Take, eat; this represents My body” and “This cup represents the new covenant in My blood.” What I really want to do is retort loudly and emphatically, “No, He did not. He said this is, not this represents.”

Some are going to wonder what my problem is, since the majority of American evangelicalism believes that our Lord was speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper. Words have meaning. If we are quoting someone, it is incumbent that we be accurate in relating what was said: this goes more so for Scripture. While the person who is quoting what he or she believes the passage intends, it is not our place to communicate interpretation as inspired Holy Writ. Quote scripture, not opinion.

As to whether or not Jesus intended to speak figuratively in the Upper Room. Ulrich Zwingli (v Martin Luther) at Marburg and Theodore Beza (v Jakob Andreae) at Montbéliard attempted to reason that Jesus did not intend a literal uniting of His body and blood with the bread and wine. Both men were roundly dispatched. If you wish to cling to a representative view, you are free to be wrong. Just don’t dish it up and expect me to chow down.