Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -Transubstantiation is the belief that, during the Mass, the elements (i.e. bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They are to be literally consumed by believing attendees of the worship service. There is said to be a change in the substance, but not in the appearance, of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs at the elevation of the elements by a priest. The center of the Mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-presentation" of Christ's death. 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 the elements to literally be changed into the body and blood of Christ. Nor are the consecrated elements ever worshiped as God in Scripture. Jesus presented bread and wine to his disciples, stating that they were His body and blood. Yet, He sat there with them, whole and unblemished. Obviously, Christ's words were metaphorical, emphasizing a symbolic act rather than a literal transformation.

• After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:

          -Jesus Christ 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 still refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). They never clarified that the teaching was to be understood literally.

           *If Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "bread and wine" are a synecdoche, then that at least opens the door to more symbolic Protestant interpretations of that meal being valid. Even the literalist view of communion admits a degree of symbolism. Further, it would make the Catholic interpretation of these passages seem less based on "common sense" or "obvious" than has been claimed.

• The Mass Violates Old Testament 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), so Christ's teaching during the bread of life discourse and Last Supper had to be understood figuratively.
           *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 would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law. He would not be able to atone for our sins, defeating the purpose for which He came into this world.

• There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):

          -Christ's atonement is propitiation for our sins. His blood was shed on the cross. That is what is required in order for the wrath of God to be turned away from us. While the context of Hebrews relates to the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant, the point remains that eucharistic sacrifices are unbloody. They therefore are not valid before God. The context of Hebrews 9:22 allows for no new economy of sacrifices for sin like that of the Levitical system.

• Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All:

          -The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all during these last days (Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-18). His act was done a single time for eternity. That means His work is not ongoing or continuing to be offered. There is no "re-presenting" His work on a weekly basis as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

• The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, But Godly Living:

          -Rome teaches that the eucharist is the means by which Christians maintain spiritual life. It is viewed as the summit of communion with God. The Apostle Paul, however, says that the kingdom of God does not comprise of food and drink (Romans 14:17). The blessings that He provides are a result of His grace. If Paul believed that the repeated consumption of Christ's body as the eucharist was a requirement for salvation, then this would have been a place for him to affirm such rather than categorically rejecting matters of food and drink as relating to the kingdom of God.

• Exegetical Comments On Eating Christ's Flesh And Drinking His Blood:

          -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. Jesus often used physical metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths.

          -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.

          -The use of future tense ("The bread which I shall give") refers to the forthcoming crucifixion and the spiritual nourishment that comes from Jesus' sacrificial act. This act is foundational for belief in Jesus and the salvation that He offers. When the Jews murmur about Jesus' statement of coming down from heaven, the focus remains on belief rather than literal consumption. The continuation of metaphorical language in this context would suggest that the introduction of “flesh” and “blood” as elements to be "eaten" and "drunk" are intended to deepen the metaphor, not pivot to a literal sacramental understanding.
          -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).

          -The teachings about faith surrounding the discourse on eating Christ's flesh suggest a continuous theme: that spiritual nourishment and eternal life come from believing in Jesus and accepting His sacrifice. The "eating" and "drinking" metaphorically describe the depth of this spiritual communion and dependence on Christ. Just as the food and drink that we consume becomes a part of our being, so we become one with Christ as we abide in Him by faith.

          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols by Jesus 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 themselves.

• Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus Christ During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because He Taught They Literally Had To Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:

          -No, the audience left Jesus 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. They were thinking only in material terms, whereas He pointed them to greater realities. The Jews were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual, but carnal.
          -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). His speech was not to be understood in a physical sense. Christ said that it would take an act of God to open the human heart to the salvific truths He had just taught to the people. 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 do so (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64). 

          -Jesus often taught difficult and seemingly paradoxical truths (e.g. "the first shall be last," "lose your life to find it"). The difficulty that the disciples faced was about grasping the profound spiritual truth and the need for faith, not a literal directive to eat His flesh. Further, the Jews had erroneous ideas as to what the Messiah would be like. Therefore, Christ did not meet their expectations. His focus was on the kingdom of God, whilst theirs were political aspirations of an earthly kingdom.

• Does Christ's Use Of Graphic Language Prove His Teaching To Be Literal?:

          -The shift from a generic term for eating in John 6 to a more graphic term in Greek (i.e. phageîn) would be the intensification of a metaphor. Emphasizing the graphic nature of eating would be a rhetorical device to drive home the importance of fully internalizing and believing in Jesus' sacrifice and teachings, rather than indicating a literal command.

• Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To be Literal?:

          -Repetition can be a method to ensure a consistent message throughout different lectures. It does not necessarily prove literalness, but serves to reinforce a particular teaching or theme. In many cultures, especially in ancient times, repetition was a common rhetorical device used to emphasize important points. This does not signify a literal interpretation of a text, but rather the emphasis placed on the concept. For instance, Ezekiel repeatedly laid on his side for long periods to symbolize the siege and suffering of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-8). The prophet's use of vivid imagery and repetition helped to emphasize his messages and make them memorable to his audience. Further, Ezekiel frequently repeated phrases such as "Thus says the Lord God" to emphasize the divine authority behind his prophecies. Ezekiel often reiterated themes of judgment and restoration. Another example of this sort of repetition would be that of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, which is known for its repetitive phrases and themes (e.g. "vanity of vanities" in 1:2, "a time for" in 3:1-3, the theme of the pursuit of knowledge, and themes of toil and labor). This piece of wisdom literature emphasizes the transient nature of life and recounts man's quest of finding joy and meaning. It uses repetition to drive home its philosophical messages. Repetition helps in memorization and emphasis, which are important in oral traditions.

• Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -The use of vivid language can often be attributed to the author's literary style rather than a call for literal interpretation. Authors, especially in religious texts, use powerful imagery to convey deeper meanings and evoke emotional responses. The vivid language in religious texts often served to captivate and persuade the audience. For example, the Book of Revelation, authored by John himself, used incredibly vivid and powerful imagery to convey his eschatological visions (6:1-8; 13:1-10). This persuasive technique was meant to leave a lasting impression, not ensure a literal interpretation of said teachings.

• Does Genesis 14:18 Foreshadow The Roman Catholic Eucharist?:

          -The bread and wine Abraham offered to Melchizedek was in celebration of victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies. It has nothing to do with some alleged change in the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ during the Last Supper. Bread and wine were actually commonly used in the days of Abraham. Further, even if the bread and wine in Genesis 14:18 did somehow foreshadow the bread and wine used during the Lord's Supper, they could just as well serve as a memorial of His passion. This is not a matter of literally eating the Jewish Messiah's flesh and drinking His blood for eternal life.

          -The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek can be seen as a symbolic act. In this context, they symbolize God's provision and blessing through Melchizedek. If bread and wine are symbolic in the Old Testament, they can be seen similarly in the New Testament. The communion elements, then, are a memorial of Christ's sacrifice. They symbolize His body and blood rather than a literal transformation. The use of bread and wine as symbols can show a continuity of God's message through different covenants. In this view, the elements in the Lord's Supper serve as symbols that remind believers of Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant established through His death.

• 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)