Suppose I show you a picture of Abraham Lincoln from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, then I say, "This is Abraham Lincoln, President of the USA." How would you react?
Most
would understand that I meant this is a statue of Abraham Lincoln that serves
as a memorial that reminds us of him. But suppose someone responds, "You
said, 'This is Abraham Lincoln.' You mean Abraham Lincoln is a statue? How can
you say our president is made of stone?"
That illustrates the issue in this study.
This
study considers whether or not the elements of communion literally and
physically become Jesus' body and blood.
1. What is the Holy Eucharist? The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament in which Jesus Christ is really and physically present under the appearances of bread and wine...
5. Did the bread and wine change their appearance? No, the appearances of the bread and wine (taste, smell, color, size, shape, weight) did not change, even though the bread and wine were actually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus. This change is called transubstantiation...
10. When does the priest change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus? At Mass, when he says, "This is My Body. This is My Blood."...
1. What is the Mass? The sacrifice of the cross, the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered in an unbloody manner...
9. Who offered the first Mass? Jesus offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He changed bread and wine into His Body and Blood...
11. Is the sacrifice of the Mass the same as the sacrifice of the cross? Yes they are the same in that the victim and the priest are the same, Jesus Christ.
12. What is the difference between the two sacrifices? The difference is that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a bloody sacrifice, while the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody one..."
- A Catechism for Adults, 1975, pp. 69-75
So
according to Catholic teaching, when the priest says, "This is my Body.
This is My Blood," a miracle occurs and the bread and cup turn into the
literal, physical, actual flesh and blood of Jesus that people eat and drink in
communion. However, to the physical senses the elements still seem in every way
to be bread and fruit of the vine exactly as before. This is called
"transubstantiation."
So the
mass is the same sacrifice that occurred when Jesus died on the cross, except
that it is unbloody. This sacrifice was first performed by Jesus on the night
when He instituted the communion. He then passed on the power to perform this
miracle to the apostles who in turn passed it on to priests through the years
to today. (Only Catholic priests are empowered to accomplish this miracle. So
you need a priest to properly partake of communion.)
What does the Bible teach?
I. Objections to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A. The
Sacrifice of Jesus Can Not Be Repeated.
=============================
Hebrews
7:26,27; 9:24-28 - Old Testament priests offered sacrifices repeatedly, but
Jesus does not need to offer daily sacrifices. He offered Himself once for all.
Hebrews
10:1-4,9,10,12,18 - Animal sacrifices had to be repeated because they could not
really take away sins. If they could take away sins, they would have ceased to
be offered. Jesus finally offered the one sacrifice that can take away sins, so
it ceased to be offered.
The
doctrine of transubstantiation, however, has Jesus being sacrificed repeatedly.
This flatly contradicts the Bible. It also implies that Jesus' sacrifice was
not adequate to take away sins. The reason animal sacrifices had to be repeated
was that they could not take away sins. If Jesus' sacrifice needs to be
repeated, then it must be because it cannot take away sins. (Catholics do not
accept this conclusion, yet it follows from their doctrine.)
[Some
may respond that the mass is repeated in an unbloody way. If so, then the cup
must not be the real, physical blood of Jesus! If it is His physical blood, how
can it be an unbloody sacrifice?]
[Further,
if it is unbloody, then it is not the same sacrifice. And finally, there is no
value in an unbloody sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood there is no
remission - Heb. 9:22. Where is the Bible authority for us to offer an unbloody
sacrifice of Jesus?]
[Cf.
Heb. 9:11,12; 1 Pet. 3:18]
B.
Jesus Could Not Offer a Sacrifice as Priest on Earth before He Died.
===========================================
Hebrews
8:4 - If He were on earth, Jesus would not be a priest. Yet Catholicism alleges
that Jesus acted as priest on earth.
Hebrews
7:12-14 - Jesus could not be a priest while the Old Law was in effect since He
was of the wrong tribe (He was of Judah, instead of Levi). For Him to be a
priest, the law had to change, but this did not happen until He died (9:15,16;
Col. 2:14; etc.).
So
Catholicism claims Jesus acted as priest to offer the first sacrifice of the
mass when He instituted the Lord's Supper. But He could not have been priest
then because He was on earth under the Old Law.
C. The
Doctrine of the Mass Contradicts the Nature of True Miracles.
==========================================
For
Jesus to have changed the bread and cup into His physical body and blood, even
as His body physically sat in their presence, would have required Him to do a
miracle (which is what the Catholics say He did). Likewise for priests today to
change literal bread and wine into literal flesh and blood would take a
miracle. However, consider the characteristics of true miracles.
True
miracles required obvious physical evidence that the miraculous event really
had occurred.
*****************************************************
People
were never asked to believe that a miracle had occurred contrary to the
evidence of their physical senses. On the contrary, any true miracle required
that people be able, by their physical senses, to observe that an event
impossible by natural law had really occurred. This was essential in order to
accomplish the purpose of miracles.
For
example, in John 2:1-11 Jesus turned water into wine (this is one of the
closest Bible examples of a miracle like transubstantiation). But the wine that
resulted had all the physical characteristics of wine. It no longer had the
characteristics of water. In this way people could observe that a miracle had
occurred. The same principle applies to all Bible miracles. (Compare also
Moses' turning water to blood.)
Yet in
the mass we are asked to believe that bread and fruit of the vine have
literally become flesh and blood, despite the fact that in every way they
admittedly appear to still be bread and fruit of the vine. This contradicts the
nature and purpose of true miracles.
When
the Bible was completed, miracles had fulfilled their purpose and ceased.
*****************************************************
Before
the Bible had been completed, the Holy Spirit directly guided inspired men to
reveal the message that was then recorded in Scripture. Miracles occurred to
confirm the truth being revealed through these prophets (Mark 16:20; Acts 14:3;
Heb. 2:3,4; John 20:30f; etc.). When the message had been fully revealed and
the Scriptures had all been written, the miraculous powers ceased because they
were no longer needed (1 Cor. 13:8-13). This happened in the lifetime of the
original apostles (John 16:13; 14:26; Jude 3; James 1:25).
So the
Catholic concept of the mass requires miracles to exist throughout history till
today, but the Bible says that miracles long ago ceased.
D.
Eating Jesus' Literal Flesh and Blood Would Constitute Blood Drinking and
Cannibalism.
============================================
If
Jesus had performed the miracle of the mass, then His disciples would have been
drinking His literal blood while the Old Testament was still in effect.
Leviticus
17:6-14 - But under that law, the blood of sacrifices had to be poured out.
People were absolutely forbidden to drink blood. Had the apostles any idea that
they were drinking literal blood, they would surely have objected.
Acts 15:29 - Drinking literal blood still violates God's law, so
it is still forbidden today.
Likewise,
eating Jesus' literal flesh would be cannibalism. It fact, it would require
people to eat their own God! Who can imagine a God that can be eaten and still
be God? Even heathen do not defend such a practice.
E.
There Is No Special Priesthood to Offer Such a Sacrifice Today.
========================================
To
offer a sacrifice one must be a priest. Catholicism claims that the apostles
passed on to their priests the power to offer the sacrifice of the mass today.
But the Bible teaches there is no such special priesthood today.
1 Peter
2:5,9; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:15 - All Christians are priests, who offer
spiritual sacrifices.
1
Timothy 2:5 - There is only one mediator between God and man, and that mediator
is Jesus. No mere human stands as priest through whom we must worship God
today.
The
apostles handed down authority in only two ways:
(1)
Acts 8:14-24 - They gave people miraculous powers by laying hands on them. But
those who received these powers could not in turn pass them on to others. Since
there are no apostles today (Acts 1:21,22), this power has ceased.
(2) 2
Tim. 3:16,17 - The apostles revealed God's word handed down to us in the
Scriptures. This authority continues today, but it requires no special
priesthood, since all can read and obey it (Acts 17:11).
So the
doctrine of transubstantiation requires the existence of a special priesthood
today, but the Bible teaches that no such special priesthood exists.
F.
Jesus Himself Identified the Cup to Be "Fruit of the Vine" After He
Said It Was His Blood.
============================================
In
Matthew 26:28 Jesus said "This is my blood." Catholicism says this
means the fruit of the vine immediately became His literal blood. But afterward
v29 calls it "this fruit of the vine." This contradicts
transubstantiation which says it is no longer fruit of the vine but Jesus'
blood.
Similarly
in 1 Corinthians 11, after saying the bread and cup had been blessed (vv
23-25), Paul repeatedly referred to them as "bread and cup" (vv
26-28). So what we eat is still "bread."
So in
contradiction to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Bible clearly
identified the elements to be fruit of the vine and bread even after Jesus
said, "This is my body, this is my blood." The only explanation must
be that Jesus' statement "This is my body. This is my blood" was not
meant to be taken literally.
G. The
Communion with Jesus' Body and Blood Is Spiritual in Nature.
==========================================
1
Corinthians 10:16 says that in the bread and cup we commune with Jesus' body
and blood. But the context describes parallel acts showing that this communion
is spiritual, not physical.
V18
compares this to Israel eating sacrifices under the Old Testament. This is
called partaking of ("communion with" - ASV) the altar. But this
"communion" did not involve eating the literal altar. Literally they
ate animals, but this was spiritual communion with the altar.
V20
says people who ate meat offered to idols had fellowship ("communion"
- ASV) with demons. But were they literally eating the demons? No. Physically
they ate meat, but spiritually they communed with the demons (idols).
Since
these are parallel examples to the Lord's Supper, it follows that v16 must mean
that, in the Lord's Supper, we eat literal bread and fruit of the vine; but in
so doing we spiritually commune with Jesus' body and blood (more on this
later). We are not literally eating Jesus' body and blood, just as in the other
examples people were not literally eating the altar or the demons.
II. Evidence for the Real Significance of the Elements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We have
proved that the bread and fruit of the vine do not literally become Jesus' body
and blood. So what is the real meaning of the elements? They are memorials that
spiritually remind us of His body and blood.
A. Examples of Spiritual Symbols
====================
In many
Bible expressions one thing is said to "be" another thing. These are
not meant to be taken literally, but are expressions in which the one thing is
symbolic of another.
Genesis
41:26,27 - In explaining Pharaoh's dreams, Joseph said the seven good cows and
the seven good ears of grain "are" seven years of plenty, and the
seven thin cows and the seven blighted ears of grain "are" seven
years of famine. Was this literally true? No, these were symbols signifying or
representing years.
John
15:1,5; 10:7,9 - Jesus said, "I am the vine," "My Father is the
vinedresser," and "you [disciples] are the branches." Again,
"I am the door of the sheep." Are these statements literal? No, but
these physical items serve as symbols that have the spiritual meaning Jesus
described. The lessons He taught are true, but the meaning is spiritual, not
physical.
All
these Bible statements are similar to Jesus' statements in instituting the
Lord's Supper, but the meaning in each case is spiritual, not literal.
B. Examples of Bible Memorials
===================
The
kind of language we are studying is common in memorials, especially in the
institution of memorials, both in the Bible and outside it.
The Passover
***********
Exodus
12:11-14 - Speaking of the lamb that was slain and eaten in the feast, Moses
said, "It is the Lord's Passover." But was this literal? No, the
literal Passover was God's act of passing over the firstborn of the Israelites,
not slaying then when He slew the firstborn of the Egyptians. The eating of the
lamb was an annual feast to remember God's act of passing over the firstborn.
But Moses said of the lamb, "It is the Passover."
This
language is typical in memorials and is exactly what Jesus did in the Lord's
Supper. This example is especially useful, because Jesus instituted the Lord's
Supper when He and His disciples were keeping the Passover. The disciples were
familiar with the language of the Passover. So when Jesus said, "This is
my body. This is my blood," they understood that it was not literally His
body and blood - they saw Him literally sitting in front of them. He was
instituting a memorial of His body and blood.
Circumcision
**********
Genesis
17:9-11 - When God instituted the act of circumcision, He said to Abraham,
"This is my covenant." Was circumcision the literal covenant? No, the
covenant itself was God's promise to bless Abraham's descendants as described
in vv 1-8. Circumcision was the sign (token - ASV) of the covenant - v11; but
v10 said of it, "This is my covenant."
Cf.
Luke 22:20 - In the Lord's Supper, Jesus said of the cup, "This is the new
covenant in my blood." Is this literal? No more so than circumcision was
literally the covenant with Abraham. The language means that it was a sign or
symbol. Physically it was still fruit of the vine, but it was a spiritual
memorial of the covenant.
We
often use similar language. In our introduction, I showed you a picture of
Abraham Lincoln's statue and said, "This is Abraham Lincoln." But you
understood that Abraham Lincoln is not literally a statue made of stone. The
statue is a representation - a symbol - that reminds us of Abraham Lincoln. But
everyone understands when I say it is Abraham Lincoln, because we understand
the concept of memorials.
A
memorial is never literally the same thing as that which is being remembered.
If you have the real thing, you do not need a memorial. To confuse the memorial
with the thing itself is to misunderstand the nature of a memorial.
C. A Parallel to Baptism
==============
Proper
understanding of God's commands requires us to distinguish outward acts from
the inner, spiritual meaning of those acts.
Baptism is a physical act with a spiritual meaning
****************************************
Baptism
involves a physical act in a physical element. The physical element is water
(Acts 8:35-39; 10:47,48). The physical act is an immersion in water and a
resurrection from that water (Acts 8:35-39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; etc.).
The
spiritual meaning of this act is that we come into contact with Jesus' death,
so our sins are washed away or forgiven by His blood, we die to sin and are
raised to walk in a new life (Rom. 6:3-11; Col. 2:12; Acts 2:38,47; 22:16; 1
Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16; Gal. 3:27).
Should
we believe that physical immersion in water literally, physically washes away
sins, or that we physically come into contact with Jesus' blood, or that we
physically die and are born again? No, the outer act represents or symbolizes
what is happening spiritually (1 Pet. 3:21).
Does
this belittle the spiritual meaning? If we are not physically washed in Jesus'
literal blood, should we conclude that sin is not washed away at all or that we
do not die to sin or have a new life at all? No, the sin is really washed away
and we really die to sin and have a new life, but that is the spiritual meaning,
which is expressed symbolically by the physical act. The inner meaning is true
and really happens, but it is spiritual, not physical.
John
3:3-6 - To take the spiritual meaning of baptism and make it physical is to
make the mistake Nicodemus made. Jesus said we must be "born again,"
but had to explain that He meant spiritually, not physically. This is the same
mistake Catholicism makes regarding His body and blood in the communion.
Likewise,
the Lord's Supper is a physical act with a spiritual meaning.
*****************************************************
Like
baptism, the Lord's Supper involves physical acts done with physical elements.
The elements are the bread and fruit of the vine, and the acts are eating the
bread and drinking the fruit of the vine.
But
there are spiritual meanings to these acts. They are a memorial to Jesus' body
and blood, a communion with His body and blood, in which we proclaim and
discern His death (1 Cor. 11:23-29; 10:16,17; etc.).
Shall
we conclude that the elements must literally become Jesus' physical body and
blood, and we must physically eat and drink His body and blood? No, that would
be as big a mistake as saying that baptism must be a physical washing in Jesus'
literal blood. The physical acts of eating bread and drinking fruit of the vine
are symbols of the spiritual meaning.
Does
this belittle the spiritual meaning? If we do not literally eat and drink
Jesus' flesh and blood, shall we conclude we have not done it right? No more so
with the parallel in baptism. We are not physically eating flesh and blood in
the Lord's Supper any more than we are physically washing in Jesus' blood in
baptism. But the spiritual meaning is still real. In the Lord's Supper we are
spiritually communing with Jesus' body and blood, just as in baptism we are
spiritually being cleansed by the blood.
Conclusion
======
We must
worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23,24). We must sing and pray with
the spirit and the understanding (1 Cor. 14:15). We must be baptized with a
Scriptural action and the proper spiritual meaning.
(C) Copyright 1991, 2010, David E. Pratte You are free to keep copies of this material on computer and/or in printed form for your own further study. If you have any other requests about the use of this material, please read our copyright guidelines at www.gospelway.com/copyrite.htm.
