This is my body. Well, not really, but sort of...

We often have all the pieces to a new insight but don't achieve it until a couple of those pieces are brought closer together.

I just became aware of a connection between the story of Jesus on the road to Emmaus (which every Baptist of my tradition knows well), and the Eucharist.

(Very briefly, Jesus has a conversation after his resurrection with a couple followers and they don't recognize him until he breaks bread. The account is at the bottom of this post.[1])

If you believe that the body of Christ is literally present in communion bread and wine, this event is especially poignant.

If you don't, the connection is unremarkable; in fact, not once that I recall in my Baptist background when this story was retold was there ever a connection made with the Last Supper. (That's not to say it no one ever did, only that I don't recall it.)

The doctrine that Christ is physically present in communion bread and wine (or matzo and grape juice) is called transubstantiation. This is one of the (few) truly irreconcilable differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Even if the Emmaus story only highlights a metaphor, the implications are powerful; but in my opinion the connection is so strong it crosses over from metaphor into doctrine:

Four times in John, Jesus speaks of eating his flesh[2]. He doesn't say "Oh by the way, I'm speaking metaphorically"; and he uses visceral words that mean to chew or gnaw. This is so troubling to some listeners, who understand Jesus literally, they stop following him. In Luke, a few days after the Last Supper, two disciples who know Jesus don't recognize him until he breaks bread; Luke connects the breaking of bread with the real presence of Jesus.[3]

Granted, the insight is fresh and exciting to me. Perhaps it's old news to you. The light goes on for different folks at different times.

How we layer our preferred interpretations over biblical stories is a different conversation. What the stories say and how the early church understood them has to be accounted for. At some point, a good Baptist may say "Jesus was using hyperbole, and the early church was wrong." I confess, I'm not comfortable saying that.[4]

c0

[1]
13The same day two of the disciples were going to a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14They were discussing with each other everything that happened. 15As they talked things over and wondered what they meant, Jesus joined them and walked together with them. 16But their eyes were held back from recognizing him. 17“What are you talking about, arguing to and fro, as you walk along?” he asked them. They stopped in their tracks, faces gloomy. 18One of them, called Cleopas, answered, “Are you just a visitor to Jerusalem? You must be the only person not to know what’s happened there lately.” 19“What’s happened?” Jesus asked them. “It’s all about Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied, “He was a prophet who spoke and acted for God before all the people. 20Our high priests and leaders betrayed him and had him condemned to death, and they crucified him. 21But we were hoping he was the one who was going to rescue Israel. But it’s now three days since all this happened.” 22“On top of that, some of the women in our group surprised us. 23They went at dawn to the tomb and didn’t find his body there. The came back saying they’d also seen angels, who’d appeared to them and told them he’s alive. 24Some of those with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women said, but they didn’t see him. 25“How dull you are, and how slow to trust in all that the prophets said!” he told them. 26“Wasn’t it necessary for the Messiah to suffer, and only then to enter into his glory?” 27And starting with Moses and all the prophets, he carefully explained to them everything in scripture about himself. 28As they approached the village they were going to, he acted as if he was going further. 29But they urged him, “Please stay with us, because it’s evening and the day is almost over.” He went in to stay with them. 30When he sat down to eat with them, he took the bread and blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them. 31Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. Then he vanished. (Luke 24:13-31, Wikisource)

[2]
Jn 6:53
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Jn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
Jn 6:55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

[3]
John and Luke have different authors, themes, and were written at different times, but they both are speaking about the same Jesus and give insight into the theology evolving around him. Just as witnesses to a traffic accident will often offer conflicting accounts, so we should expect perspectives of Jesus' ministry to be different. Indeed, if they were too much alike, we'd rightly be suspicious. Recollections so long after Jesus lived and by people that never met him can't help but be different.

[4]
When I was a boy, I remember Pastor Kenneth L Andrus of Bethel Baptist Church making the point a few times that when Christ spoke in parables, he indicated this was the case, and if he didn't, we may assume the story was a real event. Christ's language regarding his body and bread is not a parable, that is true, but it would be a singular exception to his ministry (that I'm aware of) if on this occasion he said something plainly, was understood literally, and allowed this misunderstanding to persist without comment.

c0

Started: 2012-12-19