Didn't they flip back to 'Christs congregation' after that 1956 wt, then flop back to 'Christ's literal body' again?
FLIP *** w57 4/1 p. 199 “The Lord’s Evening Meal” ***
"It therefore follows that only those who belong to spiritual Israel, or Christ’s body, may properly partake. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.' ”—1 Cor. 10:16, 17"
He broke a loaf of unleavened bread and offered it to them to eat, saying that it represented his perfect human body that was to be sacrificed in behalf of human sinners.
I like the thought that for 36 years (1919 - 1957) the F&DS didn't understand why they were partaking of the loaf, or even better, that for 77 years (since the first mention of the loaf being the congregation in 1880 - 1957) the anointed didn't properly grasp the meaning of such a special institution.
w13 12/15 p. 25 par. 10 'Do This in Remembrance of Me'
At one time, God’s servants felt that... the bread meant "the body of the Christ," the congregation of anointed ones. In time, however, it was appreciated that both reason and Scripture indicate that the bread represents Jesus’ human body.
If "reason and scripture indicate" this, was the wrong teaching, held for 77 years, unreasonable and unscriptural? If so, was it wise or discreet to teach it?