Relating the Eucharist to the Passover

While listening to a John Piper sermon from his podcast, he mentioned that lambs in Jesus' time had two purposes. They were meant for slaughter or to be eaten. He then went on to say, when the writers of Scripture called Jesus the "Lamb of God", they meant he was to be slaughtered. This was a sacrifice offered to God, much in the same way actual lambs were sacrificed to God for atonement. This sacrifice was the ultimate one for the atonement of all peoples. He didn't take it any further though. For me, this was interesting.

If we are to relate the sacrifice of Jesus to a new passover, meaning he is a new sacrificial lamb, we must look at this situation as a whole. During the Passover of the Old Covenant, the lamb was sacrificed and then eaten by the believers. This was a time to share in the sacrifice together and eat of the lamb. What does this mean for the new Paschal Lamb? Let's look at it in the context of this passage

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

- John 6:53-59

After Jesus says this, some followers leave him because of the difficult teaching. He doesn't ask them to come back, saying "Hey! Hold up. That was just a metaphor." It seems that we must not just let the Lamb be slaughtered, but eat of him as well. This is an interesting point as we look at what the sacrament/practice of communion is.

From all of this, I would argue that communion is not just a symbol. It is far more and must be held with a level of reference. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. This is not to go as far as to say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is believable to me, but it does mean that Jesus is in communion and we must eat of it and know what it is. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

However, when St. Thomas Aquinas developed Transubstantiation, I believe he tried to explain something that cannot be explained. Instead, the mystery of communion will be preserved by God. Perhaps this is confusing to some of you and to others it is very clear, but I'd love to hear thoughts if you have any.