An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TriuneUnity

Guest
After training my exegetical and historical guns on Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the last few weeks. I’m taking a breather from it. Inspired by much of the dialogue between mikeledes and Radical on John 6… I thought I would harass Protestants for a while (all is fair in love and theology). I hope to, in a series of postings, examine the “institution” passages of Scripture (and maybe others) from an exegetical standpoint in order to refute the Reformed and memorialist views of the sacrament. I will be relying heavily on the Greek words used in these texts, but I do not mean it as an air of superiority, but only in a sincere effort to examine the language used by the gospel authors. First, in summary, the Protestant doctrine of the Supper generally follows this line of belief: Christ’s body and blood are not present in the Lord’s Supper, but as far removed from it as is heaven from earth. There is general agreement also in their ultimate proof for the absence of Christ’s body, namely, that Christ’s body can at all times possess only a local and visible presence, that is, a presence not extending beyond the stature of man. All therefore agree in this, too, that the words of institution cannot be taken literally, but must be understood figuratively. I hope this is a fair summation. I will begin with Matthew’s account and then progress to the other three noting differences as I go.

Matthew 26:26-28: esthiontôn de autôn labôn o iêsous tsb=ton arton kai b=eucharistêsas ats=eulogêsas eklasen kai a=dous tsb=edidou tois mathêtais tsb=kai eipen labete phagete touto estin to sôma mou kai labôn tsb=to potêrion kai eucharistêsas edôken autois legôn piete ex autou pantes touto gar estin to aima mou tsb=to tês tsb=kainês diathêkês to peri pollôn a=ekchunnomenon tsb=ekchunomenon eis aphesin amartiôn
(While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.)

Verse 26: esthiontôn de autôn labôn o iêsous tsb=ton arton kai b=eucharistêsas ats=eulogêsas eklasen kai a=dous tsb=edidou tois mathêtais tsb=kai eipen labete phagete touto estin to sôma mou

esthiontôn: Genitive Absolute. The present tense stresses ongoing action: “While they were eating…” The Lord’s Supper was instituted near the end of the last Passover meal. The Passover meal was a regimented affair. A change in the routine would be quickly noticed by the disciples as important.

labôn: Aorist participle stresses that the action really happened. This is a circumstantial participle with a preliminary idea. A preliminary participle indicates what took place before the main verb. Jesus took the bread before he broke it.

arton: Masculine singular. “bread.” The Passover meal used unleavened bread.

eulogêsas: Aorist Participle. Circumstantial temporal (preliminary) – “after blessing…” This word can mean to thank/praise someone for the gift at hand or it can mean to call down God’s power on something. Both meanings would fit here (although with the latter we would need to supply an object from the context) but perhaps the former is better because Luke and Paul use the word eucharistêsas at this point in their accounts.

eklasen: Aorist indicative (stresses that it really happened). “to break” This probably would have been necessary because the unleavened bread came in large pieces.

labete: Aorist Imperative. The basic idea of the aorist imperative is a command in which the action is viewed as a whole, without regard for the internal make-up of the action. In other words, Jesus simply wanted them to take the bread.

In exegetical work of the verba (a short way of referring to the words of institution) the words “Take and eat” are sometimes given scant attention. These words are incredibly important because they tell us that we are actually taking and eating Jesus’ body and blood. It’s difficult to eat a symbol. Pieper comments: “With the words ‘Take, eat’ Christ calls upon us to eat with the mouth, and asserts that what He puts into our mouth and we receive orally is His body and blood. The contention of the Reformed that Christ’s body and blood are present not for the mouth, but only for our faith, robs the verb’s eat and drink of the thing Christ connected with them.”

phagete: Aorist Imperative.

touto: Neuter. The neuter is used when the antecedent is the whole idea or concept that precedes.

(continued)
 
We might paraphrase, “This that I am giving you…” Along those lines Professor Hoenecke maintained that “This” referred to the bread and body together in the sacramental union. He wrote: “It is certain that “this” refers to bread and wine, because the Lord says, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ ‘This’ is what they are to take and eat, the bread. But ‘this’ does not refer merely to bread and wine. We see that from the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16. He does not use touto, “this,” as the subject. He makes bread and wine the subjects. But now he does not say, “The bread is the body.” He says, “Is not the bread that we break the communion of the body of Christ?” From this we see that it makes a big difference whether it says “this is” or “this bread is.” In the former case, it goes on to say “my body,” and in the latter, “the communion of my body.” Thus Paul teaches us that the bread is not the body. It bears the body and has it bound to itself in such a way that whoever partakes of the bread also partakes of the body, or has partaking communion with the body. Thus when the Lord says, “This is my body,” “this” is bread and body together in sacramental union. But why does the Lord himself not say, “This bread? Answer: the disciples see that it is bread. It was a Passover ordinance that the Lord distribute it to them. The new feature instituted by Christ is that he, at the same time, imparts his body in a mysterious way. This imparting of the body is what really matters to the Lord, the high and important part of the whole action. Therefore he does not mention everything included under “this,” both the less important and the supremely important. He doesn’t say, “This is bread and my body,” but bases his expression on the higher things that he gives and says, “This [which I give to you] is my body.”… A corresponding comparison would be a bottle of medicine. I say, “This is belladonna,” although it is only a few drops of belladonna diluted with water. Strictly speaking I would have to say, “This is water and belladonna.” In any case, we may not say, “This water is belladonna,” but “In and under the water is belladonna” or “This water contains belladonna.” Christ’s manner of speaking is therefore perfectly normal.”

One could argue that the disciples wouldn’t have been able to understand what Jesus meant. Yet much of what Jesus said did not become clear to the disciples until after Pentecost. In many cases understanding came rather late to the disciples.

estin: Present Indicative. “is” Obviously this simple word became a point of contention between Luther and Zwingli. Zwingli argued that Jesus meant “represents.” He offered any number of passages in support of his position. They fall into three categories. The first category contains metaphorical expressions. Zwingli failed to see that the figure of speech is in the predicate, not in the copula. For example, when Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9). He was not saying that He represented a door; He is the door to heaven. Jesus actually is the door (way) to heaven. The second group contains parables. A parable does not say that some earthly process signifies the kingdom of God, but that the kingdom of God ‘is like’ or in some phases corresponds to an earthly process. The third group is Exodus 12:11: This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover. To what does “it” (It is the Lord’s Passover) refer? It refers to the whole occasion, not just the Passover lamb. Even if it did refer to the Passover lamb “is” still does not mean “signifies.” Zwingli received a Master of Arts degree before he became a priest. He was a Thomist who was schooled in the via antiqua. His professors taught him that revelation never contradicted reason. Zwingli was also influenced by Erasmus and his idealistic separation of matter and mind. These influences undoubtedly led him to his “spiritualistic” understanding of the Lord’s Supper. The contrast between Zwingli and Luther is easy to make. Luther put his trust in the revealed Word of God—even when it seemed to contradict “dame reason.” In a word, then, when the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pronoun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage applies to substantives, adjectives, and participles indifferently. The word “is” equates the subject and predicate. To correspond to something else in certain significant features—‘to correspond to, to stand for, to be a figure of, to represent. This seems to call into question language itself. Pieper quotes Walther to make this point: “In Holy Writ certain things or persons are frequently given names which in their original meaning do not fit them. To people who are ignorant of the rules of language it seems at first sight, therefore, that the little word is very often is used for signifies. And sad to say, since the days of Zwingli even many scholars who know the rules of language well have deceitfully taken advantage of the ignorance of people and as proof for a figurative meaning of is have adduced such passages as: I am the Vine, I am the Door, the Rock was Christ, John is Elias, etc. They have said: Everyone knows, of course, that Christ is not really a vine, not really a door, not really a rock, and that John the Baptist was not really the old prophet Elias; they were this only figuratively; therefore in all these, and similar, passages is must stand for signifies. But this deduction is a paralogism. The words vine, door, rock, Elias, and such, have two meanings, namely, their literal meaning and a figurative or tropical meaning.” Some argue that if “is” can mean “signifies” then we would have an impossible time making sense of the Bible or of any other written material.
 
Everything written above about estin falls in line with the traditional position. Perhaps we spend too much time arguing that “is always means is.” The argument is useful but is not our most powerful argument for the real presence. In fact, others might be able to challenge us that “is” does not always mean “is.” Someone could say, “In the context of a parable or verbal picture (waving a pencil in the air and saying “This is an airplane”) the word “is” has much the same meaning as “represents.” If I point at a map and say, “This is Milwaukee” or “This represents Milwaukee,” I am saying the same thing. In response we would say, “Those are parables and pictures. It’s clear that there is a figure of speech involved. The words (airplane, Milwaukee) are used in a different way; it’s clear to everyone that the pencil is not a literal airplane.”

This pencil is an airplane. If we are using parabolic or picture language it’s like we are drawing a box around the words. Inside the box the word “is” still means “is.” If we are “outside the box” looking in we might say in popular English that the pencil represents an airplane. To say that inside the picture (inside the box) the word “is” means “represents” makes little sense.

This pencil represents an airplane. Then when we are “outside the box” we have to say, “This pencil represents a representative airplane.” We are doubling up on the picture. Language doesn’t seem to allow us to do that. That, I believe, is the main point of Luther, Chemnitz and Pieper when they argue that “is always means is.” We are quick to say, “Show me an example where “is” means “represents.” This argument is valuable to our understanding of how language works but it might be an argument drawn more from linguistics and philology rather than from the Bible. Putting all our boxes, diagrams and explanations aside there doesn’t seem to be any difference between saying “This pencil is an airplane” and “This pencil represents an airplane.” Could the former simply be a shorter way of saying the latter? If so, what is stopping someone from saying that Jesus was using the shorter version of the sentence “This bread represents my body”? Who is to say that Greek (and a host of other languages) can’t use the word “is” in this way (after all, the word “is” becomes a workhorse in most languages). Someone could argue that Jesus Himself used “is” in this way in Matthew 13:38. In explaining the parable of the weeds Jesus says, The field is (estin) the world, and the good seed stands for (estin) the son of the kingdom. Note that Jesus is explaining the parable at this point. He is speaking outside the box of the parable. What is stopping us from saying that the field represents the world? Indeed, it does represent the world. Jesus is explaining the parabolic language He had just used.

Much the same thing could be said about Galatians 4:24-25: These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent (estin) two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for (estin) Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to (sustoixei) the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. Paul seems to use estin and sustoixei interchangeably. Perhaps someone could challenge the last few statements. Maybe the explanation to a parable is still speaking inside the “parabolic box”. Maybe “is” always means “is” … but maybe it doesn’t. The whole argument is taking us into linguistic waters rather than Biblical waters. Our footing is far less certain when we are arguing about linguistics. The ironic thing is that the whole “is always means is” argument does us very little good anyway. If it is true that “is always means is” we still need to deal with the Reformed church’s argument that the figure of speech is in the predicate nominative. We respond by saying that there is no figure of speech. Jesus is speaking literally in the words of institution. We point to the fact that the natural use of language must hold sway unless there is a clear picture involved. The Reformed have to look for a picture because their faulty Christology doesn’t allow them to read the words of institution in the natural way. We point to the fact that Jesus said that the body was given for us; a symbol was not given for us. We point to 1 Corinthians 10:16 (there is a fellowship, a sharing, between the bread and body, the wine and the blood); that passage absolutely prohibits saying that “is” means “represents” in this case or that there is a symbol in the predicate. If someone argues that here in the words of institution the word “is” means “represents” we should make the same powerful arguments (natural understanding of the words holds sway; no picture involved; body—not a symbol—given for us; 1 Corinthians 10:16 telling us how to understand “is”). To say “Is always means is” simply involves us in a linguistic debate where we are on unsure footing. In fact, the more we depend on the argument “is always means is” the weaker our position can become. If people can poke holes in that linguistic argument (which I believe they can) it can throw the Biblical doctrine of the real presence into question (unnecessarily so because we have far stronger Biblical arguments). Whether “is” always means “is” is immaterial. That “is” could mean something else in another context contributes nothing to the discussion of what it means in the words of institution. The text itself needs to answer that question.
 
After all this…what does estin mean? In the verba, for the many reasons stated above, estin absolutely must mean “is.” The Bible leaves us no other options.

to sôma mou: is definite because of mou. This word simply means Jesus’ body. See Mk 15:43, Mt 27:43, Lk 23:55, 24:3, Jn 19:31 for examples.

Calvin takes my body to mean symbol of my body or represents my body. We need to ask if this is an accurate portrayal of Calvin’s actual teaching. Calvin taught that the body and blood of Christ are truly received in the Lord’s Supper. Yet he didn’t teach that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Lord’s Supper. According to Calvin the body and blood of Christ are locally present in heaven. What is Calvin left with here on earth? Mere symbols!

“If with our eyes and souls we are carried to heaven, that we might seek Christ there in the glory of His kingdom, just as the symbols invite us [to come] to Him in His entirety, so under the symbol of bread we are nourished with His body and under the symbol of wine we are clearly made to drink of His blood (given His blood to drink), so that at last we may enjoy Him wholly.” (Institutes, IV, 17,18-19)

Calvin is still driven to paraphrase Jesus this way: “This is [the symbol] of my body.” Three things must be said about Calvin’s understanding. First of all, in Luke and 1 Corinthians we see that Jesus said, “body given for you.” A symbol of Jesus was not given for us; Jesus was given for us. Second, we recall the rule about the subject and predicate being interchangeable. For the sake of argument we could say, “This bread is a symbol of my body.” To say “This symbol of my body is this bread” borders on nonsense. Third, 1 Corinthians 10:16 makes it clear that the bread shares in Christ’s body. To impose on this passage a Spirit-led metaphysical trip to heaven does violence to the simple meaning of the passage.

Breather. That was just verse 26 🙂 Thoughts?
 
Four posts by the same guy. Sheesh, is this a soliloquy? 😃
 
If and when you get to John 6 we may have some interesting discussion. 🙂
 
Triunity…thanks for the excellent thread…the John 6 one has deteriorated a bit (IMHO), so I expect this will fill the gap nicely. Will respond shortly to show you the error of your Lutheran ways. 😉

Cheers and God Bless.
 
Verse 27: kai labôn tsb to potêrion kai eucharistêsas edôken autois legôn piete ex autou pantes
(Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.)

labôn: Aorist participle. Jesus took the cup. We might mention the fact that the Reformed would have attacked the Lutheran position here no matter what word came next. If Jesus would have used “wine” they might have said, “See, there is a figure of speech! Jesus couldn’t have grabbed the wine (can’t grab a liquid); He took the cup in His hand.

potêrion: This word has sparked much debate. Many say, “The Lutherans allow a figure of speech at this point in the verba; why not elsewhere?” potêrion has in its vocable meaning not only vessel but also the contents of that vessel. In that sense it really is not a figure of speech at all. If we really wanted to, we could say that this is metonymy—the cup stands for what it contains. Then we would also be quick to add that Jesus Himself demands that we employ this figure of speech when He tells the disciples to drink; it is difficult to drink a cup. (See also Luke 22:20)

pantes: Obviously Jesus intended that people drink the wine as well as eat the bread.

Verse 28: touto gar estin to aima mou tsb to tês tsb kainês diathêkês to peri pollôn a ekchunnomenon tsb ekchunomenon eis aphesin amartiôn
(This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.)

to aima: Jesus says that this is His blood. That this is not symbolism is proved by:
  1. Jesus said, “This is my blood.”
  2. This blood brings about the new covenant. A mere symbol could not do that.
  3. This blood was shed for us. Jesus shed real blood, not a symbol.
diathêkês: Much has been written about this word. BAG states that diathêkês means the declaration of one person’s will. This gives us the idea of a declaration of God’s will. The New Testament speaks of two covenants or declarations (Galatians 4:24). The covenant Jesus is talking about takes us back to Jeremiah 31:31-33 (“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.) The new covenant is the forgiveness of sins. diathêkês is a genitive. The idea is “the blood that brings about the covenant.” This is an objective genitive. Jesus’ blood produced the covenant. Ephesians 1:7 states: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace. It could also be a descriptive genitive: “This is my covenant-blood.” Jesus blood is not ordinary blood; it’s a blood that sets up a covenant. Also note that the old covenant was sealed in blood (Hebrews 9:18ff). We can enter the Most Holy Place only by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19). Hebrews 9:22 states, In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

peri pollôn: This blood was shed for the benefit of many. Jesus didn’t die for the few but for the many, for everyone. Luke has the word uper here.

ekchunnomenon: Present passive participle. The present tense denotes ongoing action; Jesus was in the process of shedding His blood; Holy Week had started; He knew He was about to be handed over to His enemies. The participle is an attributive adjectival use. The word modifies “blood” (both neuter, nominative, singular). The participle is passive —Jesus was the agent. He was pouring out/shedding His blood. The vocable meaning of the word is “to pour.” BAG says that when the word is used with blood it means “shed,” “murder” and “poured out” (in a cultic sense). The Old Testament abounds with this usage.

eis aphesin: eis has the idea of purpose. Jesus’ blood was shed for the purpose of forgiving our sins. aphesin has the idea of sending something away; the lack of an article stresses the vocable meaning of the word. Here we see the blessings of the Lord’s Supper. In the Supper we are receiving that which was given to forgive our sins. In the Lord’s Supper we receive the forgiveness of sins in a very real way!
 
Radical said:
Triunity…thanks for the excellent thread…the John 6 one has deteriorated a bit (IMHO), so I expect this will fill the gap nicely. Will respond shortly to show you the error of your Lutheran ways. 😉

Cheers and God Bless.
Click to expand...
LOL thanks Radical!
 
What is THE Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper?

God bless
 
Words cannot express how excited I was to see this at the top of the list when i logged in! 😃
 
Roman_Catholic said:
What is THE Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper?

God bless
Click to expand...
I use that term to mean the rejection of the Real Presence. This is outlined in the first post, as a summation. Lutherans are not “Protestant” on the Lord’s Supper, in the sense that the majority of non-Lutheran Protestant confessions and statements reject the bodily presence.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I use that term to mean the rejection of the Real Presence. This is outlined in the first post, as a summation. Lutherans are not “Protestant” on the Lord’s Supper, in the sense that the majority of non-Lutheran Protestant confessions and statements reject the bodily presence.
Click to expand...
Even still, excludiing Lutherans, there are great differences of beliefs among those who reject the Real Presence. How often, grape juice or wine, open or closed communion, so on and so forth.

Don’t make your “enemy” (for lack of a better term) bigger than it really is. 👍

God bless
 
This is all very interesting, but doesn’t take into consideration that there is the ***possibility ***that these were not the exact words of our Lord, rather the redactors of the Gospels.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
Even still, excludiing Lutherans, there are great differences of beliefs among those who reject the Real Presence. How often, grape juice or wine, open or closed communion, so on and so forth.

Don’t make your “enemy” (for lack of a better term) bigger than it really is. 👍

God bless
Click to expand...
Noted Roman; when I explore the other passages in separate threads, I’ll change it to “Reformed” 🙂
 
Newbie2 said:
This is all very interesting, but doesn’t take into consideration that there is the ***possibility ***that these were not the exact words of our Lord, rather the redactors of the Gospels.
Click to expand...
One could argue that, Newbie. However, in counterpoint to that, if it wasn’t His exact words, we still must allow that the Apostles used the Greek wording to convey what Christ actually said, and thus used language that in Greek would convey that meaning.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I’m not sure if I will. I think that one was hammered into oblivion lol
Click to expand...
That’s why I’d prefer to discuss it with you here-you recognize that hammers are for nails not posts. 🙂

I’ll meet you halfway and join in if you get to Corinthians-things are much clearer there and the Catholic interpretation that much more clearly incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top