Tim Staples' Goofy Claims About 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to address and answer a few claims made by Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples regarding 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and transubstantiation. He describes his proof-text as possibly the "plainest of all." Below are excerpts from the author in bold, followed by counterarguments:

          "According to St. Paul, a constitutive element involved in a Christian’s preparation to receive the Eucharist is “discerning the body.” What body is St. Paul talking about that must be “discerned” you ask? It’s really not very hard to tell. He just said, in verse 27, “Whoever . . . eats . . . in an unworthy matter will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Any questions?"

           Paul is talking about unity amongst brethren and correcting abuses of the Lord's Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10, he uses the analogy of a body in describing what the church is supposed to be. The church at Corinth was divided amongst classes of wealth (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). This passage does not speak to the nature of the communion wafer.

          "St. Paul uses unequivocal language in describing the nature of the Eucharist by using the language of homicide when he describes the sin of those who do not recognize Christ’s body in this sacrament and therefore receive him unworthily. He says they are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” According to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6, Rev. 18:24, 19:2, and elsewhere in Scripture, to be “guilty of blood” means you are guilty of shedding innocent blood in murder. This is not the language of pure symbolism. This is the language of real presence. Think about it: If someone were to put a bullet through a picture of a real person, I am sure the person represented in the photo would not be thrilled about it, but the perpetrator would not be “guilty of blood.” But if this same perpetrator were to put a bullet through the actual person you better believe he would be “guilty of blood.”

          Tim Staples asserts that what the Apostle Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "is not the language of pure symbolism." At the same time, ironically, he makes a connection in the exact symbolic sense that he argues against. The Corinthians who partook of communion with a guilty conscience did not literally murder Jesus Christ. The definition of "symbolic" used here appears to have been redefined and designed to advance a certain theological agenda.

          "It does not come as a surprise to Catholics that St. Paul would refer to the Eucharist as “bread” and “wine.” We do it commonly in the Church. This is so for at least two key reasons. First, Jesus is “the true bread come down from heaven” and “true drink” according to John 6:32 and verse 55. It is entirely proper to refer to the Eucharist as such because the Eucharist is Jesus. Second, in human discourse we tend to refer to things as they appear. This is called “phenomenological” language. We say “the sun will rise at 5:45 am tomorrow.” Does this mean we are all geocentrists who believe the sun rotates around the earth? I hope not!"

           First, the use of phenomenological language, while common, does not necessarily validate a literal interpretation of religious metaphors. Just as we say that the sun rises without implying geocentrism, describing the eucharist as bread and wine does not mandate a literal belief. Furthermore, the symbolic language used by Jesus in other contexts suggests a figurative understanding. The water used in baptism does not become the Holy Spirit that it illustrates. The water represents the Spirit and His regenerating work, just as the bread and wine used in the Last Supper represents the finished atonement of Jesus Christ.