Thursday, February 16, 2017

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

  • Defining The Issues:
          -Transubstantiation is the belief that during the Lord's Supper the elements (bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (to be consumed by the attendees of the worship services). 
          -There is a change in the substance but not in the appearance of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs during the Mass at the elevation of the elements by a priest. 
          -The center of the Mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-representation" of Christ. 
          -The most common biblical references cited to substantiate Roman Catholic eucharistic theology are the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse.
  • There Is No Evidence That Christ Intended His Words To Be Understood In A Woodenly Literal Sense:
          -There are no implications in the biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper that the apostles believed that the elements were "changed" into the body and blood of Christ. The communion elements were never worshiped as God in Scripture.
  • After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:
          -Jesus spoke figuratively of His blood as being the "fruit of the vine," even after transubstantiation was supposed to occur (Matthew 26:28-29).
          -The Apostle Paul mentions the Lord's Supper and refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28).
  • The Mass Violates Biblical Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:
          -The Levitical Law condemned the practice of drinking blood (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 3:17; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:23).
           *The New Covenant was not established until Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross (Luke 22:10; Hebrews 9:15-16). Thus, taking Christ's words literally (especially during the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse) would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law.
  • There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):
          -The eucharistic sacrifice is invalid because it is unbloody.
  • Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All:
          -The New Testament emphasizes that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all (Hebrews 7:23-28; 9:24-28; 10:10-18). That means His work is not ongoing or continuing to be offered. There is no "re-presenting" His work on a weekly basis, as is done in the Roman Catholic Mass.
  • Exegetical Comments On John 6:51-58:
          -Jesus oftentimes spoke to the crowds using parables (Matthew 13:10-11; 34; Mark 4:11; 34). Notice that the Gospel of John itself records many symbolic statements made by Jesus. Examples would include "born again," "living water," "meat that ye know not of," and "destroy this temple." Moreover, Christ made several "I am" statements throughout John's gospel (John 15:5; 8:12; 10:7; 10:11). Out of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus. Thus, we have good reason to believe that He was speaking metaphorically in John chapter 6.
          -In the Old Testament, eating bread was considered the equivalent of obedience to God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). This kind of reasoning in regard to the Book of the Law is echoed in the Jewish apocrypha (Sirach 24:20-22). Ben Sira also spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5). The Jewish Philosopher Philo spoke in terms of consuming divine wisdom.
          -Just as God had provided manna to the Israelites in the desert as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Jesus Christ into this world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from eternal condemnation. That is the meaning of Christ being "bread from heaven."
          -Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.
          -It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).
          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols for the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).
          -The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary (not to themselves).
  • Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because They Had To Literally Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:
          -No, the audience left Jesus Christ because it did not believe the claims that He had established concerning His divine messiahship (John 6:52). Unbelievers, who were in this case the Jews, had hardened their hearts against God. They only remained around Christ temporarily because they were physically hungry. The Jewish people were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual but carnal. The Jews were not right with God.
          -After the departure of the 5,000, Jesus told the twelve remaining disciples that the words of His lecture were not literal but spiritual (John 6:63). In other words, His speech was not to be understood in a physical or materialistic sense. We must come to Jesus Christ and place our trust in Him for salvation. He is life to us, and we partake of Him by faith.
          -Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching, nor was He obligated to (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64).
  • Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To be Literal?:
          -Jesus is called the Lamb of God or the Lamb thirty times in the New Testament. If repetition proves literalness, then Jesus must be a literal lamb. But this is obviously figurative language. Repetition, whether it be closely spaced or spread far apart, does not prove "literalness."
  • Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:
          -As for the vivid language found in John 6:51-58, the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Psalms also occupies quite vivid language or undeniably symbolic material. Furthermore, the Book of Revelation was also written by the Apostle John. "Vivid" simply does not translate into "literalness." The context determines the literalness of any text.
  • Does Malachi 1:11 Prove That The Lord's Supper Is A Sacrifice?:
          -The "incense" is a reference to prayers (Psalm 141:2; Revelation 8:3-4).
          -The "pure offering" is a metaphorical reference to believers offering their praise and good deeds as sacrifices which satisfy God (Hebrews 13:15-16; Philippians 4:18).
          -The theme of spiritual sacrifice or offering is found throughout Scripture (Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 66:20; 1 Peter 2:5).
  • Does Hebrews 9:23 Support The Repetitive Sacrifices Of The Catholic Mass?:
          -"sacrifices--The plural is used in expressing the general proposition, though strictly referring to the one sacrifice of Christ once for all. Paul implies that His one sacrifice, by its matchless excellency, is equivalent to the Levitical many sacrifices. It, though but one, is manifold in its effects and applicability to many." (Excerpt taken from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible)

    No comments: