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

• Discussion:

           -Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples made some odd and amusing claims regarding 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and the dogma of transubstantiation. He describes his proof-text as possibly being the "plainest of all" for Rome's literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper. Below are excerpts from the author in bold, followed by critical commentary:

          "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?"

           In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul warns against partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. This can be understood as a call to self-examination and repentance, highlighting the seriousness of the act. The phrase “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” refers to showing disrespect to Christ’s sacrifice through unworthy participation, not belief in transubstantiation.

          Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 is best understood as a moral and covenantal warning, not a metaphysical statement about the elements becoming Christ’s literal body and blood. The passage stresses how the Corinthians were behaving, not what the elements ontologically were. 

          "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 has been redefined and designed to advance a certain theological agenda.

          Staples argues that because “guilty of blood” elsewhere refers to murder, Paul must be speaking literally. But this is a category mistake. Biblical authors use sacrificial or covenantal language metaphorically to describe moral guilt, not literal killing. For example, Israel is said to “trample the Son of God” (Heb. 10:29) without implying physical violence. The Corinthians did not literally kill Jesus again. Their sin was profaning what the Supper represents, Christ’s once‑for‑all sacrifice.

          His analogy assumes the very point in dispute: that the elements are Jesus Christ’s literal body. But Paul’s warning works perfectly well symbolically: to treat the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice with contempt is to show contempt for Christ Himself.

          "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 bread and wine as Christ does not mandate a literal belief that the communion elements are Christ Himself. Staples' claim of Paul calling the elements “bread” and “wine” merely because of appearances is an assertion without textual support. In Scripture, when God transforms something in essence, the language changes (e.g., water to blood in Exodus). Paul calls the elements bread even after consecration. This is strong evidence against a literal change.