Transubstantiation? - a case study in "plain and simple" hermeneutics

[shernren]

I raised an example of how "plain and simple" can often be deceptively simple in the form of the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the mostly Catholic doctrine that during the Holy Communion the actual substance of Jesus' body and Jesus' blood are present in the elements. The proof text used by proponents of this doctrine is John 6:25-66, the crucial part being vv 53-59:

Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Now I was curious just how the support for this doctrine went so I googled it and one of the more prominent sites was this: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

The parallels between this article and the usual YEC defense were blinding. For example:

The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the real presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason. The words of Jesus seem plain enough. ... Our Lord’s words are not interpreted non-literally because that is the obvious way to interpret them, but because a literal interpretation seems to be repugnant to reason. ... Then there is the grave situation of those Catholics who think transubstantiation is against reason. Common sense and science, they believe, demand its rejection.

(emphasis added)

I may have practiced selective quoting, but honestly, replace "the Catholic doctrine of the real presence" with "the doctrine of YECism" and "the words of Jesus" with "the words of Genesis", and the passage wouldn't feel out of place on an AiG feature.

I wonder if anybody is interested in discussing this. Why are YECs so enthusiastically "plain and simple" interpreters of Scripture when it comes to Genesis ... and yet not in other "plain and simple" passages like this?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

everytime i hear the words "this is my body" in reference to the RC principle of transubstantiation i think of hocus-pocus

Meaningless talk or activity designed to distract attention.

The word is nowadays applied to anything, speech or action, that’s designed to stop you seeing what the politician or salesman is really up to or what’s actually happening. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Dorothy ...

It is known that the word appeared in the seventeenth century as a mock-Latin formula or incantation used by conjurors. What that formula was and where it came from is less certain.

Thomas Ady wrote in his book of 1655, A Candle in the Dark; or, a Treatise Concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft: “I will speak of one man ... that went about in King James his time ... who called himself, The Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery”.

Many people today believe that the phrase originated in a corrupted form of the words of the consecration of the host in the old Latin mass: hoc est (enim) corpus (meum), “this is my body”, an idea that was first aired by John Tillotson, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1691 and 1694. But as this was part of an anti-Catholic sermon, it may be taken with a fair-sized pinch of salt. Another possibility, suggested in current Oxford dictionaries, is the nonsense Latin phrase “hax pax max Deus adimax”.

Whatever the source, hocus-pocus was at first a general name for jugglers and conjurers and then—later in the seventeenth century—it became a term for a trick or deception. It’s also the source of another common English word, since at the end of the following century it was contracted to make hoax.

from: http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hoc1.htm

as it turns out the common explanation is probably wrong and is a result of anti-Catholic writing which worked it's way into our language.

so again, to paraphrase an excellent line first seen here.

any simple answer, to a complex question is likely to be simply wrong.

"this is my body" is a simple answer to a complex question-what is the meaning of the Eucharist, and transubstantiation is simply wrong, but the example is excellent for most YECists are Protestant, the RC has embraced a limited evolutionary view. thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Critias]

Show in the Greek how when Jesus says "This is my body" He didn't mean that.

There are 8-9 different words that could be substituted for "is" to give a symbolic meaning. They are not used, why?

 

[Remus]

I wonder if anybody is interested in discussing this. Why are YECs so enthusiastically "plain and simple" interpreters of Scripture when it comes to Genesis ... and yet not in other "plain and simple" passages like this?

I don’t think the word “enthusiastically” describes me, but I’ll respond anyway. The difference, as I see it, is that there is no Scripture that supports that we literally eat the body or drink the blood of Christ. In fact, the example that we have is the last supper where it is clear that Jesus is using symbolism. Compare this to the creation account where we have several other places in Scripture to support that it is literal.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In fact, the example that we have is the last supper where it is clear that Jesus is using symbolism.

obviously it is not clear if 1/2 to 1/3 of Christianity=RC believe it to be literal "this is my body" and the rest are divided among at least 3 major theories. the division within the church means NOT CLEAR.

but that misses the OP's power, the RC's are being far more literal than the general protestant evangelical community which is the supporters of this "clear, simple, literal hermeneutic" especially as applied to the days of creation in Gen 1. it is a case of pick and choose when and how to interpret verses, not a general literal when possible hermeneutic.

 

[Remus]

obviously it is not clear if 1/2 to 1/3 of Christianity=RC believe it to be literal "this is my body" and the rest are divided among at least 3 major theories. the division within the church means NOT CLEAR.

Well, it's clear to me. I can't help it if others want to read more into it than is there.

but that misses the OP's power, the RC's are being far more literal than the general protestant evangelical community which is the supporters of this "clear, simple, literal hermeneutic" especially as applied to the days of creation in Gen 1. it is a case of pick and choose when and how to interpret verses, not a general literal when possible hermeneutic.

Actually, it's a case where it's literal if Scriptural support indicates that it is literal and not literal if Scriptural support indicates that it isn't. You talk as if I want everything to be literal or that I start with the assumption that it is. This is far from the truth. Back on the subject, do you disagree that the Creation account has more support for being literal than transubstantiation?

 

[shernren]

Show in the Greek how when Jesus says "This is my body" He didn't mean that.

There are 8-9 different words that could be substituted for "is" to give a symbolic meaning. They are not used, why?

So you do believe in transubstantiation?

Actually, it's a case where it's literal if Scriptural support indicates that it is literal and not literal if Scriptural support indicates that it isn't. You talk as if I want everything to be literal or that I start with the assumption that it is. This is far from the truth. Back on the subject, do you disagree that the Creation account has more support for being literal than transubstantiation?

Actually it depends a lot on how you interpret the rest of Scripture. It would be easy to argue that Jesus literally endorsed transubstantiation by quoting the Last Supper passages e.g.:

Luke 22: 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

and say that Jesus quite literally meant that it was His body and it was His blood, the transubstantiation having already occured and leaving the elements with the substance of His body and His blood. They would also argue that "if Jesus had not meant that His body and His blood were literally there couldn't He have used other words? such as 'This represents my body', etc. Surely the disciples wouldn't have had problems understanding representation..."

They would then go on to quote Paul's account of Jesus' words in 1 Corinthians 11: 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." and say that Paul endorses the literal transubstantiation that Jesus talked of. If the Holy Spirit had given any further revelation about it wouldn't Paul have emended those words?

The only thing missing is for RC scholars to show that the Torah Law foreshadowed the doctrine of transubstantiation in the form and method of their sacrifices. Then the parallelism would be complete:

Transubstantiation:
-foreshadowed in OT Law
-Jesus spoke of it
-Paul spoke of it

YECism:
-foundation of OT Law
-Jesus spoke of it
-Paul spoke of it

And I am not reading anything into Scripture that is not there. Or which part of "This is my body" do you not understand? The more I think about it the more obvious the parallels between this and YECism are becoming. So my questions still stand:

1. Is transubstantiation the most obvious doctrine from a literal, "plain and simple" reading of the Last Supper? If no, how not?

2. If it is the most "plain and simple" reading of the Last Supper then what basis do you have for not applying this same "plain and simple" reading and thus supporting the doctrine of transubstantiation?

 

[BBAS 64]

So you do believe in transubstantiation?



Actually it depends a lot on how you interpret the rest of Scripture. It would be easy to argue that Jesus literally endorsed transubstantiation by quoting the Last Supper passages e.g.:

Luke 22: 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

and say that Jesus quite literally meant that it was His body and it was His blood, the transubstantiation having already occured and leaving the elements with the substance of His body and His blood. They would also argue that "if Jesus had not meant that His body and His blood were literally there couldn't He have used other words? such as 'This represents my body', etc. Surely the disciples wouldn't have had problems understanding representation..."

They would then go on to quote Paul's account of Jesus' words in 1 Corinthians 11: 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." and say that Paul endorses the literal transubstantiation that Jesus talked of. If the Holy Spirit had given any further revelation about it wouldn't Paul have emended those words?

The only thing missing is for RC scholars to show that the Torah Law foreshadowed the doctrine of transubstantiation in the form and method of their sacrifices. Then the parallelism would be complete:

Transubstantiation:
-foreshadowed in OT Law
-Jesus spoke of it
-Paul spoke of it

YECism:
-foundation of OT Law
-Jesus spoke of it
-Paul spoke of it

And I am not reading anything into Scripture that is not there. Or which part of "This is my body" do you not understand? The more I think about it the more obvious the parallels between this and YECism are becoming. So my questions still stand:

1. Is transubstantiation the most obvious doctrine from a literal, "plain and simple" reading of the Last Supper? If no, how not?

2. If it is the most "plain and simple" reading of the Last Supper then what basis do you have for not applying this same "plain and simple" reading and thus supporting the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Good Day, shernren

How does one go from "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

To this cup of wine has been changed to my blood?

What was the "This cup"? What did it mean in the context of the sadder as compared to the other cups?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Critias]

So you do believe in transubstantiation?

I am a Lutheran. We don't believe in at as the Roman Catholics do, but yes.

Priests or pastors do not have the power to turn anything into anything. Nor did Jesus give them this power for it is not stated within Scripture. The bread and the wine are the bread and the wine as well as Jesus' body and blood.

Do you know what the Greek verb einai means and where it is derived from?

 

[Critias]

Good Day, shernren

How does one go from "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

To this cup of wine has been changed to my blood?

What was the "This cup"? What did it mean in the context of the sadder as compared to the other cups?

Peace to u,

Bill

Matthew 26:26
"While [size=-1][/size]they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after [size=-1][/size]a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'"

Matthew 26:27-28
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many [size=-1][/size]for forgiveness of sins."

Mark 14:22
"While [size=-1][/size]they were eating, He took some bread, and after [size=-1][/size]a blessing [size=-1][/size]He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body.'"

Mark 14:24
"And He said to them, "This is My blood [size=-1][/size]of the covenant, [size=-1][/size]which is poured out for many."

Luke 22:19-20
"And when He had taken some bread and given [size=-1][/size]thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured [size=-1][/size]out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

And all this is connect in the Old Testament rituals recorded in the Mosaic Laws.

 

[shernren]

I am a Lutheran. We don't believe in at as the Roman Catholics do, but yes.

Priests or pastors do not have the power to turn anything into anything. Nor did Jesus give them this power for it is not stated within Scripture. The bread and the wine are the bread and the wine as well as Jesus' body and blood.

Do you know what the Greek verb einai means and where it is derived from?

Oh. I thought it was something exclusively RC. Well I respect you for your consistency of belief. It only remains to ask why others do not come to agree with that belief.

I would agree that it is not in the power of the priest or pastor or whoever serves Eucharist that brings it significance. It is Jesus' presence that brings significance. Whether through transubstantiation or transignification or anything else it is Jesus who chooses to be present when He is memorialized.

No I'm no Greek scholar. I'll check it out next time I'm at blueletterbible. Thanks for your well-thought replies.

 

[BBAS 64]

Matthew 26:26
"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'"

Matthew 26:27-28
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

Mark 14:22
"While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body.'"

Mark 14:24
"And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

Luke 22:19-20
"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

And all this is connect in the Old Testament rituals recorded in the Mosaic Laws.

Good Day, Critias

The question still remain:

How does one go from "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

To this cup of wine has been changed to my blood?

What was the "This cup"? What did it mean in the context of the sadder as compared to the other cups?

Peace to u,

Bill

Let us first deal with the cup then will will get to the bread, none of these verses answer the question. The main focus is "this cup" why??

Luke 22:19-20
"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

You call to the OT but show no scripture to uphold to your assertion.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[shernren]

The answer is pretty obvious. The cup itself is / represents the covenant. The wine in the cup becomes / represents His blood. This is the most "plain and simple" way to put Critias' passages from the Bible with the Luke one together. right?

 

[BBAS 64]

The answer is pretty obvious. The cup itself is / represents the covenant. The wine in the cup becomes / represents His blood. This is the most "plain and simple" way to put Critias' passages from the Bible with the Luke one together. right?

Good Day, Shernren

With in the 50000 year history of the sader what was "this Cup" how was it viewd. Did the Jews belive that the contents of the cup turned in to some thig it was not. no where does the scripture say the contents of "this Cup" was changed.

When Peter had Sader with his family 3 years before Jesus called him what did the cup mean to him?

Peaceto u,

Bill

 

[shernren]

Is this within Scripture?

Matthew 26:27-28
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

 

[Critias]

I suggest first you read the Old Testament Law about the different Offerings for sin. One of the offerings the priest would sprinkle the blood and burn the fat of their best animal - Sin Offering. See a connection?

If you read those verses I posted, Jesus says this is My blood.

The Greek word einai means "to be" and it is derived from the verb "I am". The verb used in each verses that says "this is My blood; this is My body" uses the verb einai in the conjegation of esti(n), which is the third person sigular of the verb "I am".

Jesus is saying the wine and the bread is in fact His blood and body even while they still remain the wine and bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16 has Paul talking about this as a sharing in Christ's blood and body. Jesus earlier talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The Jews would have understood what this meant that if they partook of Jesus Christ, then they were partaking of the Old Testament offerings that were done for remission of sins. The difference is, is that Jesus was the final offering.

One thing that must be kept in mind, which is the key in understanding Scripture, is how the Jews understood their own culture, holidays, events, rituals, etc. God instituted the Sin Offering, Jesus Christ speaks of Himself as the Sin Offering and He continues the ritual, but in a different fashion.

There are about 7-9, if I remember correctly, different ways that the Greek could have been used to represent symbolism or to say "like" in what Jesus said. One adverb in particular is Hos (os - omega sigma - in Greek) which means like. It is used over a hundred times in Revelation alone to show symbolism. It could have been just as easily used by Jesus, but He didn't.

Those who don't agree, need to show why einai was used and not os. Why didn't Jesus say the bread and wine were like or represents His body and blood? Why did Jesus use such specific language to say it is His body and blood?

If you are to claim it is symbolism, then typical symbolism in the Greek would extend to the talk of the covenant as well as His Sacrifice. Was the covenant symbolic? Was His death symbolic? Or did He really instate a covenant and did He really die for us?

 

[BBAS 64]

Is this within Scripture?

Matthew 26:27-28
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

Good Day, Shernren

It sure is, and the question remains awaiting your answer.

Drink from it, all of you; forthis is My blood of the covenant

What are they drinking from at this point of the Sader??

It does not say that you are drinking "blood'.

That which they are told to drink from is the This in the connected phrase "is my Blood" of the covenant.

What did the third cup represent in the context of the Sader meal. It can not be over looked with out a complete damage to the text and the context of the Sader.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Critias]

Good Day, Shernren

It sure is, and the question remains awaiting your answer.

Drink from it, all of you; forthis is My blood of the covenant

What are they drinking from at this point of the Sader??

It does not say that you are drinking "blood'.

That which they are told to drink from is the This in the connected phrase "is my Blood" of the covenant.

What did the third cup represent in the context of the Sader meal. It can not be over looked with out a complete damage to the text and the context of the Sader.

Peace to u,

Bill

It was the third/fourth cup called the cup of redemption.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, it is not agreed upon whether there was four or three cups total at Jesus' time.

 

[livingproofGM]

I don’t think the word “enthusiastically” describes me, but I’ll respond anyway. The difference, as I see it, is that there is no Scripture that supports that we literally eat the body or drink the blood of Christ. In fact, the example that we have is the last supper where it is clear that Jesus is using symbolism. Compare this to the creation account where we have several other places in Scripture to support that it is literal.

May I ask where symbolism is implied in John 6?

 

[BBAS 64]

I suggest first you read the Old Testament Law about the different Offerings for sin. One of the offerings the priest would sprinkle the blood and burn the fat of their best animal - Sin Offering. See a connection?

If you read those verses I posted, Jesus says this is My blood.

The Greek word einai means "to be" and it is derived from the verb "I am". The verb used in each verses that says "this is My blood; this is My body" uses the verb einai in the conjegation of esti(n), which is the third person sigular of the verb "I am".

Jesus is saying the wine and the bread is in fact His blood and body even while they still remain the wine and bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16 has Paul talking about this as a sharing in Christ's blood and body. Jesus earlier talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The Jews would have understood what this meant that if they partook of Jesus Christ, then they were partaking of the Old Testament offerings that were done for remission of sins. The difference is, is that Jesus was the final offering.

One thing that must be kept in mind, which is the key in understanding Scripture, is how the Jews understood their own culture, holidays, events, rituals, etc. God instituted the Sin Offering, Jesus Christ speaks of Himself as the Sin Offering and He continues the ritual, but in a different fashion.

There are about 7-9, if I remember correctly, different ways that the Greek could have been used to represent symbolism or to say "like" in what Jesus said. One adverb in particular is Hos (os - omega sigma - in Greek) which means like. It is used over a hundred times in Revelation alone to show symbolism. It could have been just as easily used by Jesus, but He didn't.

Those who don't agree, need to show why einai was used and not os. Why didn't Jesus say the bread and wine were like or represents His body and blood? Why did Jesus use such specific language to say it is His body and blood?

If you are to claim it is symbolism, then typical symbolism in the Greek would extend to the talk of the covenant as well as His Sacrifice. Was the covenant symbolic? Was His death symbolic? Or did He really instate a covenant and did He really die for us?

Good Day, Critias

Your apeal to the greek does little to help you as one must first understand what the "this" is with in the historical framework of the sader.

I could say my office is me, and be completly understood that " I" can not be an office.

I could say this paper is white, that does not make paper an astract color.

Your appeal to John 6 holds little value in this discussion from my point of view, because that would be to enjoin a crime as Augustine stated.

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Once again, what was "this cup"??


Peace to u,

Bill