R
RodK
Guest
I have been studying scriptural proofs of the Real Presence doctrine. I have a battery of questions that I was hoping that someone might be able to help me with – but I will try to limit them to one per post. 
The first has to do with John 6, verse 54, 56-58 …
The question of course revolves around Christ’s command that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Protestants apologists will often claim that the reason Our Lord switches from the generic *phago * meaning “to eat” to the more literal *trogo * meaning “to chew” has little to do with the meaning of the words and more to do with tense.
Most New Testament authors use *phago * in the aorist or past tense and *esthio * in the active present tense. While John uses phago, he never uses esthio. In places where he needs an active present tense form of eat, he apparently uses trogo.
For Protestants, this is an easy way to dismiss the fact that in the vernacular of the day, Christ literally said that we must “chew" his flesh. Of course it does not answer the fact that *trogo * at the time had no figurative meaning. Had John wanted a word that could be interpreted figuratively, he could have followed suite with the other Gospel writers and used esthio. This is illustrated in Mathew’s Gospel where the author used both *trogo * and *esthio * thus indicating that tense was not the only consideration in their usage.
I am curious as to what you all think: is there more solid ground for accepting or rejecting the Protestant argument that says John used trogo instead of esthio for purely grammatical reasons?
I apologize if this ground has been covered before – as I’m sure it has been. Thanks in advance and may God bless each and every one of you.
The first has to do with John 6, verse 54, 56-58 …
The question of course revolves around Christ’s command that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Protestants apologists will often claim that the reason Our Lord switches from the generic *phago * meaning “to eat” to the more literal *trogo * meaning “to chew” has little to do with the meaning of the words and more to do with tense.
Most New Testament authors use *phago * in the aorist or past tense and *esthio * in the active present tense. While John uses phago, he never uses esthio. In places where he needs an active present tense form of eat, he apparently uses trogo.
For Protestants, this is an easy way to dismiss the fact that in the vernacular of the day, Christ literally said that we must “chew" his flesh. Of course it does not answer the fact that *trogo * at the time had no figurative meaning. Had John wanted a word that could be interpreted figuratively, he could have followed suite with the other Gospel writers and used esthio. This is illustrated in Mathew’s Gospel where the author used both *trogo * and *esthio * thus indicating that tense was not the only consideration in their usage.
I am curious as to what you all think: is there more solid ground for accepting or rejecting the Protestant argument that says John used trogo instead of esthio for purely grammatical reasons?
I apologize if this ground has been covered before – as I’m sure it has been. Thanks in advance and may God bless each and every one of you.