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

[TriuneUnity]

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.

For what it is worth, Non, I don’t plan on addressing John 6 because I do not believe John 6 is a Eucharistic passage

Our Confessions state it this way: So there is a twofold eating of Christ’s flesh. First, there is a spiritual kind of eating, which Christ treats above all in John 6:35-58]. This occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith in the proclamation of and meditation on the gospel, as well as in the Supper. It is in and of itself useful, salutary, and necessary for all Christians at all times for their salvation. Without this spiritual reception even the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary but also harmful and damning. This spiritual eating, however, is nothing other than faith – namely, hearkening to, accepting with faith, and applying to ourselves God’s Word, which presents Christ to us as true God and a true human being along with all his benefits (God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life). These he won for us with his flesh, which he gave into death for us, and with his blood, which he poured out for us. Moreover, this faith means relying firmly upon this comfort (that we have a gracious God and eternal salvation for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ) with unshakable assurance and trust, holding on to this assurance in every difficulty and tribulation. The other kind of eating of Christ’s body is oral or sacramental, when all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper receive and partake of the true, essential body and blood of Christ orally. Believers receive it as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are truly forgiven and that Christ dwells in them with his power. Unbelievers receive it, too, but in their case as judgment and condemnation. (Solid Declaration VII:61-63, p. 604)

 

[Non_Serviam]

For what it is worth, Non, I don’t plan on addressing John 6 because I do not believe John 6 is a Eucharistic passage

Our Confessions state it this way: So there is a twofold eating of Christ’s flesh. First, there is a spiritual kind of eating, which Christ treats above all in John 6:35-58]. This occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith in the proclamation of and meditation on the gospel, as well as in the Supper. It is in and of itself useful, salutary, and necessary for all Christians at all times for their salvation. Without this spiritual reception even the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary but also harmful and damning. This spiritual eating, however, is nothing other than faith – namely, hearkening to, accepting with faith, and applying to ourselves God’s Word, which presents Christ to us as true God and a true human being along with all his benefits (God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life). These he won for us with his flesh, which he gave into death for us, and with his blood, which he poured out for us. Moreover, this faith means relying firmly upon this comfort (that we have a gracious God and eternal salvation for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ) with unshakable assurance and trust, holding on to this assurance in every difficulty and tribulation. The other kind of eating of Christ’s body is oral or sacramental, when all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper receive and partake of the true, essential body and blood of Christ orally. Believers receive it as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are truly forgiven and that Christ dwells in them with his power. Unbelievers receive it, too, but in their case as judgment and condemnation. (Solid Declaration VII:61-63, p. 604)

I would say we a substantially in agreement about John 6 (pun intended) Quoting two things I posted some time ago on other threads:
"Non Serviam:

This is not as cut and dried as some might think, regardless of one’s view on the Real Presence. There was no chalice nor paten there when Jesus spoke those words, so Jesus could not have meant that when speaking to these people. They couldn’t say “Oh, he means the plate and cup next to Him” as the could during the Last Supper.

The only Body of Christ the people could see was the one that was standing, sweating breathing and speaking in front of them. Since no one, not even the disciples that stayed with Him grabbed an arm or leg, they knew He meant something else on that day besides literally eating His flesh.

So it’s not as clear as it might seem when you read back into the narrative.

I’d like to toss my :twocents: into the ring on this question. I believe many Catholics look at this passage anachronistically when they comment on the reaction of the crowd. (not pointing out anyone specifically).

Put yourself in the sandals of one of these people for a moment. Jesus has just said they have to consume his body and blood. There is no Catholic church on the corner for them. No one is suggesting that actual bread may become his body and that they will be eating that. Jesus also doesn’t open the floor for questions.

Based on that, I see them as having three options:

1. Decide Jesus is a nutjob,since God doesn’t endorse cannibalism.
2. Accept what Jesus said, then grab an arm and start gnawing, because they accept LITERALLY what he said.
3. Accept what Jesus said, but hold off on the arm gnawing to see if there will be some future clarification, even though one might be classified as a nutjob by association.

If you had been there that day, which option would you have picked?

I’m guessing that more than a few of those who “believe literally” today might have been reluctant to identify themselves as such back then.

The story of Abraham and Isaac can shed a great deal of light on this passage. Abraham knew God wasn’t a fan of human sacrifice, but nonetheless accepted what God had told him. Note that he didn’t immediately grab and sacrifice Isaac, but gave God time to clarify things.

In doing so he made the decision to sacrifice his son and gave him to God. God accepted the sacrifice without insisting that the actual killing take place and provided a substitute for his son’s actual flesh and blood.

What was important was Abraham’s decision and the action that proceeded from it.

Likewise, the disciples accepted what Jesus said, gave him time to clarify and found themselves sharing a meal during Passover, rather than gnawing an arm in the desert. Whatever one chooses to believe about that meal (I believe in the Real Presence, but not in transubstantiation) it is important to see that their decision and action were honoured by God.

I think keeping the original context of the event in mind when doing apologetics with those who have difficulty may make it easier to be patient and understand their point of view.

We do appear to have a bit of a difference in regard to I Corinthians though-but I think we can find common ground on it as well.

 

[dcana]

Just a thought. I know no Greek nor do I have the time or inclination right now to learn it. For that matter, it is unnecessary. Isn’t Scripture supposed to be perspicuous? If so, why do I need to learn biblical Greek?

From Theopedia: The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the “perspicuity of Scripture”) teaches that “the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will.” “The witness of the Church throughout the ages is that ordinary people, who approach it in faith and humility, will be able to understand what the Bible is getting at, even if they meet with particular points of difficulty here and there.” Is it that the Bible is only perspicuous when you agree with what it says or when it fits into your personal theology?

I do know this, however. Jesus’ words are clear. As clear as day. Any verbal or mental gymnastics that people may do are simply because they do not believe. They are lacking faith. Granted, it takes much faith to believe such a radical thing. And faith is a gift from God. Unless a person’s eyes and hearts are opened to the gift of faith, no amount of argumentation or study of the intricacies of Greek verbal construction will make them believe.

 

[dcana]

Sorry, I just saw that my quote was from Theopedia, “An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity.” I didn’t know that such a thing existed.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I believe many Catholics look at this passage anachronistically when they comment on the reaction of the crowd. (not pointing out anyone specifically).

I would agree with that. I believe that Catholics, rightly, are zealous in defending the real presence and so, they are privy to reading it anachronistically in order to defend their view against non-sacramental Protestants. It’s entirely understandable. Unfortunately, it divorces the passage from the overall context of John, which is life in Christ by faith in Him. Also, it’s clear that the 12 did understand what Jesus was talking about, when Peter answers for them, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” We cannot eisegete the Bible to defend our presuppositions, even if the conclusion of the text is not the conclusion we want to draw.

Be that as it may, what did you find agreeable/objectionable about the exegesis of Matthew 26:26-28?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Just a thought. I know no Greek nor do I have the time or inclination right now to learn it. For that matter, it is unnecessary. Isn’t Scripture supposed to be perspicuous? If so, why do I need to learn biblical Greek?

You don’t. However, it must be present in a serious exegesis because what we believe about those articles of the faith comes from the text, which was written and originally preached in Greek. When the early church, especially her gifted theologians, in the personage of the fathers, interpreted those texts, they worked from the Greek manuscripts (mostly).

The English rendering is faithful to the Greek, though, so yes, I agree that it is clear. When we are arguing about those plain meanings in English, though, it helps to be able to reinforce it from the Greek.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Be that as it may, what did you find agreeable/objectionable about the exegesis of Matthew 26:26-28?

I’m neutral-I don’t believe the text of the passage provides a conclusive answer to the debate one way or the other-the “is” is open to interpretation. That said, taken in conjunction with other passages, and looking at the unambiguous (as opposed to unanimous) witness of the ANF’s the Real Presence is a clear part of the belief of the early church.

That said, the ANF’s didn’t carry a copy of Aristotle around with them and didn’t teach Transubstantiation. Which is good because the view of accidents and substance that we find in Aquinas has been shown to be incorrect in the light of modern physics.

What is also unfortunate is how that belief has led to activities such as Eucharistic Adoration, the mistaken idea that when Jesus said “take and eat” he was really saying “sit and stare”. The Israelites ate the lamb together as a family, the didn’t take turns spending time with it.

 

[KathleenGee]

On the sidelines here…we Catholics believe in the Word Made Flesh…

OK, I am back out now.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m neutral-I don’t believe the text of the passage provides a conclusive answer to the debate one way or the other-the “is” is open to interpretation. That said, taken in conjunction with other passages, and looking at the unambiguous (as opposed to unanimous) witness of the ANF’s the Real Presence is a clear part of the belief of the early church.

I agree with you about “is,” which I tried to bring out in the exegesis. It is…I mean, represents…ahem, a sidetrack into language that is not needed. The “is” has to take the rest of the passage into consideration to be effective.

That said, the ANF’s didn’t carry a copy of Aristotle around with them and didn’t teach Transubstantiation. Which is good because the view of accidents and substance that we find in Aquinas has been shown to be incorrect in the light of modern physics.

True. In no way does it hint at Aristotelian philosophy.

What is also unfortunate is how that belief has led to activities such as Eucharistic Adoration, the mistaken idea that when Jesus said “take and eat” he was really saying “sit and stare”. The Israelites ate the lamb together as a family, the didn’t take turns spending time with it.

Sorry, but

 

[Non_Serviam]

Sorry, but

Are you laughing because you agree or disagree? For me it’s another example of how the infallibility model gets in the way. Rather than being able to say "Aristotle’s model was a good explanation for things in its day, but it’s been shown to be lacking, so we’re going back to focusing more on the “what” and “why” of the Real Presence rather than the “how”. It was (as far as I can tell) the only time the the Catholic church dogmatized something that was objectively verifiable and as a result they’re now stuck redefining accidents and substance every so often.

Adoration is the result of carrying the Aristotelian theories to their logical conclusion and misplacing the meaning of the Eucharist in the philosophical details.

 

[dcana]

Yes, I agree. Of course, serious exegesis must involve the original languages. But Luther’s theory of perspicuity means that for the ordinary layman, such technical analysis of the Scriptures is unnecessary because the basic meaning of the text is clear, does it not? Hence, the clear sense of Scripture is that “this is my body” means that “this is my body,” and so it is. It seems to me that if one thinks that is *necessary *to learn Greek and/or Hebrew and to study all the points and methods of scriptural analysis, etc, for a true understanding of Scripture then that person does not believe in its perspicuity. That would seem to violate the very definition of the perspicuity of Scripture that I posted earlier. I would agree that the Bible is, by and large, but certainly not totally, perspicuous. After all, God is revealing Himself to us and of course He wants to be clear in doing so. His intention is not to make it hard, in general. However, who would argue that the Book of Revelation, to take the most obvious example, is easy to understand? Nobody who has read it, I’m sure. Actually, it may be fairly easy to understand on the face of it, but interpreting it is another matter. This (interpreting, that is) is just another way of saying that its meaning is hard to understand and conveying meaning is the purpose of language. So if the meaning, or interpretation, isn’t clear, then it isn’t perspicuous. No wonder he wanted to remove it from the Bible! Moreover, Scripture says regarding itself (at least of Paul), “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” That’s precisely why we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture, and Jesus gave us one.

 

[dcana]

I’m neutral-I don’t believe the text of the passage provides a conclusive answer to the debate one way or the other-the “is” is open to interpretation. That said, taken in conjunction with other passages, and looking at the unambiguous (as opposed to unanimous) witness of the ANF’s the Real Presence is a clear part of the belief of the early church.

That said, the ANF’s didn’t carry a copy of Aristotle around with them and didn’t teach Transubstantiation. Which is good because the view of accidents and substance that we find in Aquinas has been shown to be incorrect in the light of modern physics.

What is also unfortunate is how that belief has led to activities such as Eucharistic Adoration, the mistaken idea that when Jesus said “take and eat” he was really saying “sit and stare”. The Israelites ate the lamb together as a family, the didn’t take turns spending time with it.

Please take no offense, Non Serviam, but you illustrate my point perfectly. Jesus is perfectly clear.

 

[dcana]

Do I also need to study philosophy and modern physics to understand Scripture?

“This is my body.” Seems clear to me.

Jesus said that we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God. A child believes his Father because His Father has authority over him and has no reason no obfuscate the truth. How much more so with us and our heavenly Father? Did not Jesus proclaim to his little children all that the Father told Him to? Is it the Word’s desire to make things confusing to us, so that “the text of the passage [does not provide] a conclusive answer to the debate one way or the other?” Jesus came to reveal the secrets of the Kingdom to little ones. He did not come either to confuse His little ones or to reveal the secrets of the Kingdom to exegetes, philosophers, and modern physicists.

 

[Radical]

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.

That would depend greatly on the symbol, right? Let’s say the symbol for Christ was an Ark or a Rock…such symbols would be hard to eat. On the other hand, let’s say the symbol for the true Bread of Life (aka Jesus) was manna, now isn’t that symbol not only easy to eat, but actually intended for consumption?

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.

I think that should be: “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 the symbol of His body.”

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."

I thought Christ connected the bread to “eat” and the cup to “drink”. Perhaps, the contention of the Catholics (and Lutheran’s?) that Christ’s body is really present for the mouth, robs the verbs eat and drink of the things Christ connected with them, namely the bread and wine."

With all due respect, it seems that you spent a lot of words in your first post to essentially demonstrate that modern english translations are pretty good…am I missing something?

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.

I would suggest that the new feature instituted by Christ is that he will give his body and pour out his blood for us on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins. We are to look to that sacrifice as it is what really matters to the Lord, the high and important part of the new covenant.

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. …

To be very candid, the “Is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that manner? So let me simply respond at this time by asking this question (which I have asked here before):

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” literally and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body…surely can’t be b/c God wouldn’t have the ability to make such a thing happen. I will also be interested to see what is said when you get to Luke where the cup is the new covenant.

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.

I am still having a real hard time understanding why I don’t have other options…

.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Please take no offense, Non Serviam, but you illustrate my point perfectly. Jesus is perfectly clear.

None taken, to be perfectly honest, I had the same thought about you when reading your previous post.

Just because some parts of Scripture require more effort to understand than others doesn’t justify an immediate mental leap to the need for an infallible interpreter, any more than a person finding calculus takes more effort to understand than addition proves the need for an infallible math teacher.

 

[Radical]

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.

This last phrase is awkward, but hardly bordering on nonsense…What puzzles me about all of these linguistic gymnastics is that the words of institution are stated in four different ways in the four places that they are recorded in the scriptures. As such, if the authors of scripture haven’t gone to the bother of recording Christ’s exact words (probably in Aramaic) and haven’t troubled themselves to agree on a precise wording for their translations of his words, then why should we think that we can build a Eucharistic theology on the precise grammatical nuances of such inexact efforts?

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.

as I have pointed out elsewhere, that passage reads:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become** sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake** of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in is not required. Paul then states that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required.

I guess that is it for now, God Bless You.

 

[dcana]

Yea or nay?

Yay, my 100th post!

 

[dcana]

None taken, to be perfectly honest, I had the same thought about you when reading your previous post.

Just because some parts of Scripture require more effort to understand than others doesn’t justify an immediate mental leap to the need for an infallible interpreter, any more than a person finding calculus takes more effort to understand than addition proves the need for an infallible math teacher.

Your analogy would work except for the fact that we are talking about the self-Revelation of God to man. God desires to reveal Himself totally to us, and He has the power to do so. So, I see that two different exegetes on this thread have two different interpretations of the same passage. What am I, the poor layman, to believe? I know exactly what to believe. See how simple?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Your analogy would work except for the fact that we are talking about the self-Revelation of God to man. God desires to reveal Himself totally to us, and He has the power to do so. So, I see that two different exegetes on this thread have two different interpretations of the same passage. What am I, the poor layman, to believe? I know exactly what to believe. See how simple?

Then I congratulate you sir (or ma’am) for being unique among Catholics-take a few moments to review the threads on “no salvation outside the Catholic church” or the fate of a Catholic who leaves the church, or the church’s views on freedom of religion and see numerous catholics quoting the Magesterial pronouncements (in some cases the exact same document) to “prove” conclusions that are the exact opposite of each other.

The Catholic solution isn’t a solution at all-it simply replaces the personal responsibility for proper interpretation of inspired Scripture for the personal responsibility for proper interpretation of uninspired canons and encyclicals. Not a good trade, really.

 

[dcana]

Didn’t Jesus promise to send us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth? He did. Whether or not you think that one can make the logical leap to a need for an infallible interpreter of Scripture, Jesus gave us one, “His Church”, which is “the pillar and bullwark of truth” who we are supposed to take our disputes to.

It just makes plain sense. What does not make sense is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God giving us a book of “God-breathed” Scriptures and not giving us a way to know for certain, what He wants us to know, so that nobody really knows what it means. That almost seems cruel. It certainly does not make any logical sense. People have been arguing this particular part of the God-breathed Scriptures quite literally since the moment He breathed them, for the last 2000 years, most especially for the last 500 years. The disciples believed, the Jews went away. They certainly didn’t understand, but they believed, because they trusted the Master’s words.