Is the Roman Catholic Eucharist A Divine Mystery To Be Embraced By Christians?

• Discussion:

           -This article aims to deal with a few exegetical and philosophical issues centering around the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. It is an attempt to reveal metaphysical problems with this teaching as well as a lack of biblical foundation to support it. The excerpts cited in this article were originally taken from here and here.

          "Jesus explained the parables to His disciples. That is the norm. In this case [John 6:51-56], Jesus let even His disciples go without explanation of the purported parable. Therefore, this is not a parable. This is the literal truth."

          The negligence of clarifying does not inherently suggest a lack of metaphor. That is an entirely made up argument for which there is no contextual or exegetical necessity. Further, Jesus often spoke in parables—not just to mystify, but to invite deeper reflection. Did He mean to imply that we were all to become cannibals in a literal sense? Could a scientist not conduct tests to confirm that the elements are still bread and wine after consecration?

          "You see, we put Jesus in a category all by himself. We believe he is God and man. And since we believe he is God, when he says, “My flesh is real food (John 6:55)”, we believe it."

          That does not even begin to translate into a robust defense of transubstantiation. Rest assured, early listeners were not pulling out their forks and knives at the sound of “This is my body.” They were likely thinking, “Wow, did he just compare himself to bread?” Honestly, who would not appreciate a good metaphor over an actual feast of human flesh?

          "...Jesus Christ is our Passover sacrifice. The reason He is called the Lamb of God is because we must eat His flesh just as the Passover lamb had to be consumed to fulfill the Passover requirement...I said there are metaphorical elements. And some literal. Both are true."

           The foundation of this argument rests heavily on the astonishing claim that Jesus spoke literally about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is intriguing that people see this as straightforward, considering the historical context. The gospels, especially John, are rich with symbolism, much like a good piece of modern art is open to interpretation. For instance, when Jesus says, “I am the vine,” does a person immediately rush out to find the nearest grapevine, thinking he is literally going to become part of a fruit salad? Surely, such a literal approach leads to unnecessary confusion. Christ is called the Lamb of God because He died to save us from our sins, not that we must eat His flesh or drink His blood. This is a horrible abuse of typology.

          "You may indeed say by faith alone in this case. It is by faith alone that we discern the body of Christ in the holy eucharist.”

          There is that beloved concept of “mystery.” It is ironic how it is used both as an explanation and as an evasion. If God is fundamentally rational and desires a relationship with mankind, would it not stand to reason that He would leave some breadcrumbs of clarity along the way? Mysteries are indeed a part of faith, but allowing unexamined doctrines to reign supreme does a disservice to the intellectual pursuit of theology. After all, is not faith about grappling with understanding, not blindly accepting?

          "This is another Protestant teaching which disagrees with scripture. Scripture tells us to follow the faith of those who went before us…scripture does not tell us to make it up as we go along."

           It is asserted that "Protestant teaching" is comprised of “made up doctrines." However, it is realized that all interpretations of Scripture, including Roman Catholic ones, stem from human understanding. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Protestants may seek to engage with the text differently, but that diversity of thought and interpretation is what fosters a rich theological landscape rather than a stifling dogma.

          "In John 6, he [Jesus] did not set the disciples down and say that he was speaking metaphorically (i.e. in parables). He repeated what he said, forcefully. Each time emphasizing more that which he had previously said."

          The claim that the “forceful” repetition of Jesus' words necessitates a literal understanding of them is a reductionist approach. Language, especially in a spiritual context, thrives on nuance. Jesus Christ was a master of layering meaning. It is ridiculous to insist that Jesus actually wanted people to eat His flesh and to drink His blood. That is actually a pagan concept, known as theophagy. Given the emphasis among the Jews at this time on purity in the worship of God, and Jesus Himself being a Jew, it is not likely that He would integrate a syncretistic message here.

          The culture of Jesus' audience was well-versed in the symbolism of bread and sacrifice. The use of bread as a life-sustaining symbol is nothing groundbreaking. In fact, it goes back to the Passover and the Manna in the desert. It would be more appropriate to argue that His words represent sustenance, the nourishing of the human soul, as opposed to some contrived interpretation that tries to both force a hyper-literal reading of the text and allows for symbolic elements. That approach only further obscures the teaching of Jesus rather than helping or clarifying matters.

          "It is Protestants who have an either/or mentality. They, as you, seem to think that it must be one way or the other but not both. I don’t know what you do with the fact that Jesus is both God and man."

          This is a false analogy. The doctrine of the hypostatic union is not illogical, even though it is something that we do not fully understand. It does not violate scientific laws, laws of logic, or rules of inference, as does transubstantiation. This is also a red herring in that it leads readers away from the original arguments being made.

          "It makes quite a bit of sense to us and it has made sense since the time of the apostles. First, Christ says it is his blood. Second, he is making a literal, not metaphorical connection, between his blood in the cup and the blood he shed on the cross.”

           Jesus’ Last Supper is framed as a Passover meal, rich with tradition and symbolism, where the bread and wine hark back to significant historical events. Are we really to believe that He was fundamentally altering the course of that symbolically deep tradition simply to serve up some heavenly body and blood?

           "Wait, you’re a Protestant, perhaps you don’t believe those things which you can’t explain. You folks aren’t comfortable in the mystical range. But we are."

           Oh, absolutely. Nothing says "mystical" more than rejecting centuries of scientific progress.

           "It is the same offering. What’s that word again? Oh, yeah, “mystery”. It’s a mystery. I know, you don’t like mysteries. But, c’est la vie. Christ offered himself once for all on the cross. And that same offering, he offers continually in the heavenly liturgy and on the earthly altars in the earthly liturgy. Once for all."

            If something is “once for all,” how can it also be “re-presented” in an ongoing cycle? It creates a contradiction that muddles the clarity of the dual nature of Christ and the finality of His death on the cross. Offering something again is in conflict with the original claim of His atonement being a singular act.

           "Communion means sharing or participation in. And therefore, we are participating in the blood of Christ and in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). Not mere symbols thereof."

           That does evoke the specter of cannibalism in its most visceral form. This Catholic practice borders on the bizarre by most standards. In the Old Testament, sacrifices often involved bread and wine (e.g., the offerings in Leviticus), which represent communion with God rather than a physical consumption of divine essence. This establishes a precedent for understanding similar symbols in the New Testament.

           "In the same way, my heart goes out to you. You have been fooled by the reformers. They make up doctrines in contradiction of the word of God and of each other. And they multiply these errors continually. God is not the author of confusion. But the reformers continue to be so."

           The bold claims regarding the worldview of Protestants as lacking in appreciating mystery is as curious as the conviction that dismissing complex theological concepts means one does not have a lively faith. The Protestant Reformation was born out of a desire to question authority and to slice through layers of dogma. Just because one might prioritize personal faith over institutional tradition does not render all exploration of theology fruitless. The heartbeat of reformed thought beats in its skepticism toward an inherited set of beliefs—not so much a denial of mystery as it is an invitation to explore its myriad dimensions.

Commentary On Psalm 119:17-18

We are here taught, 1. That we owe our lives to God's mercy. David prays, Deal bountifully with me, that I may live. It was God's bounty that gave us life, that gave us this life; and the same bounty that gave it continues it, and gives all the supports and comforts of it; if these be withheld, we die, or, which is equivalent, our lives are embittered and we become weary of them. If God deals in strict justice with us, we die, we perish, we all perish; if these forfeited lives be preserved and prolonged, it is because God deals bountifully with us, according to his mercy, not according to our deserts. The continuance of the most useful life is owing to God's bounty, and on that we must have a continual dependence. 2. That therefore we ought to spend our lives in God's service. Life is therefore a choice mercy, because it is an opportunity of obeying God in this world, where there are so few that do glorify him; and this David had in his eye: "Not that I may live and grow rich, live and be merry, but that I may live and keep thy word, may observe it myself and transmit it to those that shall come after, which the longer I live the better I shall do."

Observe here, 1. That there are wondrous things in God's law, which we are all concerned, and should covet, to behold, not only strange things, which are very surprising and unexpected, but excellent things, which are to be highly esteemed and valued, and things which were long hidden from the wise and prudent, but are now revealed unto babes. If there were wonders in the law, much more in the gospel, where Christ is all in all, whose name is Wonderful. Well may we, who are so nearly interested, desire to behold these wondrous things, when the angels themselves reach to look into them, 1 Pt. 1:12. Those that would see the wondrous things of God's law and gospel must beg of him to open their eyes and to give them an understanding. We are by nature blind to the things of God, till his grace cause the scales to fall from our eyes; and even those in whose hearts God has said, Let there be light, have yet need to be further enlightened, and must still pray to God to open their eyes yet more and more, that those who at first saw men as trees walking may come to see all things clearly; and the more God opens our eyes the more wonders we see in the word of God, which we saw not before.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

Thy Work Alone, O Christ

Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers, and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ, can ease this weight of sin
Thy blood alone O Lamb of God, can give me peace within.
Thy love to me O God, not mine, 

O Lord, to Thee can rid me of this dark unrest, and set my spirit free!

Thy grace alone, O God, to me can pardon speak;
Thy power alone O Son of God, can this sore bondage break.
No other work, save Thine, no other blood will do,
No strength save that, which is divine, can bear me safely through.

I bless the Christ of God; I rest on love divine;
And with unfaltering lip and heart, I call this Savior mine.
His cross dispels each doubt, I bury in His tomb
My unbelief, and all my fear, each lingering shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace, I trust His truth and might
He calls me His, I call Him mine, My God, my joy, my light
Tis He Who saveth me, and freely pardon gives
I love because He loveth me, I live because He lives!

Not What My Hands Have Done, Horatius Bonar

Theological Contradictions Within The Logic Of Transubstantiation

        "I am the bread of life...But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:48; 50-51)

        If Jesus Christ is the bread of life who descended from heaven, then this raises complex implications about His presence in relation to the physical substance of bread. Specifically, if we accept the premise that Christ is truly present wherever the Eucharistic bread exists, we must confront a theological dilemma: the assertion of Christ’s real presence suggests an omnipresence that conflicts with the understanding of singular, historical events in salvation history. By equating Christ with bread, we risk diluting the uniqueness of His incarnation and sacrificial crucifixion, implying that His presence could be as readily accessible as bread on the altar.

        Moreover, the fundamental doctrine of transubstantiation posits that the bread's substance is wholly transformed into the body of Christ. If the bread ceases to exist as bread, it follows logically that the presence of Christ, who is identified with that bread, would also cease to exist in the way traditionally understood. This outcome raises profound existential concerns: What does it mean for the faithful if the very basis of their ritualistic communion vanishes? Therein lies a contradiction: if transubstantiation is to be believed, the bread's identity is entirely replaced, thus eliminating its ability to serve as a reliable and meaningful sign of Christ’s presence.

          The dilemma extends further when we consider that if Christ's body is made present in our tangible world only through the consumption of the transformed bread, it raises questions surrounding the nature of that miracle. If we posit that the Mass is a perpetual miracle, how can something that we can touch, taste, and see (the bread) turn into something infinite and transcendent (Christ’s body)? This inquiry delves into the metaphysical realm and challenges our understanding of existence and reality within Catholic theology. It navigates the complexities of substance and essence, prompting questions about how a finite element can encapsulate the infinite nature of divinity and still maintain its physicality.

          Additionally, the notion of an ongoing miracle implies that the original act of Christ's sacrifice is being perpetually replayed, leading to potential theological implications that could undermine the historical significance of the crucifixion. If one considers the Mass to be an unceasing re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, then how do we reconcile that with the singular, unique moment of salvation offered through His death and resurrection? Should we not, therefore, be able to analyze this sacrificial act with scrutiny like we would any other event of significant historical consequence? This raises the concern that the continuity of the Eucharistic celebration may inadvertently lead to a depersonalization of Christ's sacrifice, reducing it to mere ritual devoid of historical importance.

          If the bread's identity is entirely obliterated in its transubstantiation, what does that mean for the relationship between the tangible and the spiritual? This transition could suggest a profound disconnect between the material world and the divine, potentially eroding the foundational basis of faith that relies on the relational aspect of the human experience. The identity of bread as a symbol is not only essential for sacramental meaning but also for its ability to act as a conduit for divine grace. If the substance is wholly transformed, the sign becomes paradoxically mute, leaving the faithful without an essential point of reflection and encounter with the divine.

Christ Is The Radiance Of God's Glory

BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY. Heb. i. 3. "God, the great Spirit, dwelleth in light which no man can approach unto. His habitation is dark with excessive brightness. But Christ is God come down to be a Brother, to set Himself before us in a form on which we can look without fear. The eye that dares to look at the sun aches and is distressed. But our eyes can bear that milder light which beams from the sun. It is refreshing and sweet and pleasant. So we cannot see God; He is veiled in terrible brightness. But we are made acquainted with God by means of Him who is the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY—His Softened Radiance. For Christ says, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also.’ All the glory of the divine character is seen in the Lord Jesus, and we can gaze on His countenance and His form. His dread does not fall upon us; His excellency does not make us afraid.

The Holy of Holies was a most sacred place. No footsteps ever trod its unpolluted floor save those of the high priest. But even he could not go in without incense because of the blaze of the Divine Glory which shone forth from the ark of the testimony. But when the cloud of incense arose and moderated the dazzling lustre, then he could enter without being destroyed by it. And Jesus Christ is like that incense. He is the medium through which the rays of the Godhead come to us in a way in which we can bear them. So we view the insupportable glory of God shining through the veil of our own nature. The Lord Jesus was found in fashion as a Man and humbled Himself that we might become familiar with Him. He was lowly and meek and self-denying. And yet, what lustre was there in His wisdom and knowledge! What glory beamed from Him when He cast out devils. What bright proofs of His Deity betrayed themselves from time to time to the confusion of His enemies. Ascended now into heaven, the brightness of His glorified Person none can conceive of. He fills all heaven with light, for the city has no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God lightens it, and the LAMB is the LIGHT thereof!

Oh, the delights, the heavenly joys, the glories of the place, where Jesus sheds the brightest beams of His overflowing grace!

How bright is the fierce lightning which plays around the dark cloud in the summer night! And how bright is the sun at noonday! But what is the brightness of the lightning or the sun compared with that celestial Light which beamed on Saul of Tarsus and struck him to the ground? It was a brightness above that of the midday sun—the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY—which appeared to him. And Saul, unused to such distressing brightness, became blind for many days. Our eyes could not bear this glory of Christ now. When we shall see Him as He is, our eyes and our minds will be fitted for the dazzling vision. But those who are enlightened by the Spirit already see a little of His spiritual glory here on earth, and the sight of it rejoices the heart.

We connect brightness with gladness; it excites the mind and fills the heart with joy. How refreshing is the morning hour! How cheering are the bright beams of the sun after darkness! They awaken you and invite you to walk abroad in the meadows and wander beside the streams. And how lovely everything looks bathed in the glory of the sunbeams! The fields seem to laugh, and the little hills leap for very joy. The sparkling brook dances and exults in the sun’s bright ray. There is life and joy spread through all nature. Even the inanimate things—the little murmuring rills and the rustling trees—seem almost endued with voices wherewith to utter their delight. The little hills break forth before you into singing. The valleys shout for joy, and all the trees of the field clap their hands. What a contrast is all this to the dismal gloom which hung over everything during the absence of the sun! And so, when the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY penetrates the darkness of our minds and shines into our hearts, what unspeakable delight fills our expanded souls! How do we exclaim, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord; my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.’ The light is felt to be marvelous light, and we glory in Him who is GOD with us—God come down out of heaven to take part of our flesh and blood and thus to become our BROTHER.

James Large, Concise Names of Christ, p. 54-55

Punching Holes In King James Only Conspiracy Narratives

        One assertion that we regularly hear from King James Version only advocates is that the Roman Catholic Church has been an influential force behind the production of numerous corrupt Bible translations. They are alleged to be part of an effort to discredit that particular archaic translation. It has been claimed that modern translations of the Bible are part of a broader conspiracy by Rome to gradually manipulate innocent and unsuspecting people into conversion.

Two noteworthy passages that have been placed into brackets of modern Bibles would be Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. The claim advanced by King James only theorists leaves us with a nagging question, however. If the Roman Catholic Church was plotting to undermine the authority of the King James Translation, then why does it accept those passages as inspired Scripture, despite them being included in textual brackets?

        Following is a footnote from the New American Bible Revised Edition on the text of Mark 16:9-20:

        "This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent."

        Following is a footnote from the New American Bible Revised Edition on the text of John 7:53-8:11:

        "The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture."

        The New American Bible has been formally sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church for distribution and edification in faith. Moreover, it contains footnotes which plainly indicate to us that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are accepted as inspired Scripture in Roman Catholicism. Yet, King James only proponents refer to these two passages to illustrate how critical scholars want to undermine the credibility of the King James Version.

         It would definitely seem counterproductive for scholars commissioned by the pope to produce new translations of the Bible to outrightly affirm the texts that they are attacking to be divine revelation. A much more fair and reasonable explanation for bracketed texts in modern translations is the reporting of manuscript findings. Rather than the use of critical scholarship resulting in the removal of passages from the New Testament, it has been shown to have grown slightly over the centuries.

         The moral of the story is that we must be responsible when expressing disagreement with other groups of people. There are bonafide conspiracies, as well as elaborate myths. What both have in common is that they merit exposure. The claim that the Roman Catholic Church has produced counterfeit Bible translations for the purpose of diminishing the authority of the King James Version does not hold water.

The Bible Is Not A Safe Guide?

"The Bible was never intended to take the place of the living, infallible teacher, the Church, but was written to explain, or to insist upon, a doctrine already preached. How indeed could a dead and speechless book that cannot be cross-questioned to settle doubts or decide controversies be the exclusive and all-sufficient teacher of God’s revelation? The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught. It is not a simple, clear-as-crystal volume that a little child may understand, although it ought to be so on Protestant principles.”

Bertrand L. Conway, The Question-box Answers: Replies to Questions Received on Missions to Non-Catholics, p. 67

Exploring The Correlation Between The Redeemer In Job 19:25 And The Ransom Concept Of Christ In 1 Timothy 2:5

        The central theme of the Book of Job relates to the suffering of God's people. It grapples with the question of what believers are to do when confronted with bad situations that put their faith to the test. Job was a man of faith par excellence, but that did nothing to negate the numerous temptations and trials that he had to face. God brought him down to the lowest point he could go and raised him back up again. In this world, the righteous have to deal with the unpleasant reality of things such as the loss of family, disease, and the loss of material comfort. That is precisely what Job encountered. It is to be gathered from the narrative that evil manifests itself in the form of personal wrongdoing as well as natural evil.

        How can the existence of evil be squared with the concept of a perfectly good God? Why do the righteous have to suffer? The Book of Job compels us to consider a number of points in the face of these kinds of questions. The first would be that humanity is sinful. Job 5:6-7 speaks of man naturally being inclined to cause of his own afflictions. Job 15:14-15 speaks of the human race and the rest of creation as being corrupted by sin. The second point would be that the world usually does not reflect the justice one would expect from a righteous God (Job 9:22-24). The third point would be the inability of man to fathom the mysteries of God (Job 11:7-9). The Book of Job reveals that all human beings without exception need to trust in God. It has elements that lay the foundation for the gospel.

        Job had three friends who tried to help him make sense of his troubles. They believed that he had suffered as a result of personal sin. Eliphaz made a theological argument that God is just in punishing the wicked, so Job cannot be innocent as he claims. Bildad asserted that the loss of Job's family was proof that he had sinned somehow (Job 18:19). That was commonly taken to be a sign of divine disfavor. Zophar told Job that evildoers will be punished by God and that he should have been punished more severely for his alleged crimes than he was at the time. However, the truth was that his three friends had been utterly mistaken. They did not know that God had used Satan to test Job. 

        Job had not done anything to invite calamities upon himself, but they came anyway. That disproves the notion that the root cause of our suffering in life is necessarily due to sinful choices that we make. Nor would it be correct to say that suffering has no value or that God is arbitrary in allowing us to go through pain and misery. If Job had been guilty of anything at all, then it would be that he became self-righteous in the process of defending the integrity of his own ways. That is when God stepped in to remind him of his lack of knowledge and understanding of how He operates. Job needed to be reminded of the finitude of his abilities. One of the key texts being examined is cited as follows:

        "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth." (Job 19:25)

        Job was despaired of life. He accepted that he was going to die the way that he was. His friends could condemn him, but God was a witness to his innocence. That the Lord is his redeemer or vindicator is supported by the context. Job 17:3 contains legal imagery of God Himself providing bail from accusers. Job 19:26 expressly mentions His name. Job expressed utter confidence that God would defend his cause. Further, no one but God Himself could have served as a mediator in Job's case. The word "redeemer" has the meaning of a kinsman redeemer or a relative who would pay off financial expenses out of his own pocket. Job's faith was based on good judgment as to the character of God. His hope for justice in another world was assured.

        The subsequent verse was included here and analyzed to provide further insight:

        "And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God." (Job 19:26)

        Job believed in some concept of a bodily resurrection. As stated before, he was fully expecting his life to expire. Therefore, he was thinking of God's ultimate justice while undergoing pain, distress, and false accusations by people that he thought to be his friends. That his body would be destroyed did not diminish his hope that he would see God. Job expected to see Him while separated from his flesh. The King James Version inserts the word "worms" after "skin," perhaps to convey the idea of physical death and decay. It is absent from the Hebrew text.

        The third verse being examined comes from the New Testament and is cited as follows:

        "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)

        The Apostle Paul, coming from a Jewish background, affirmed the teaching that only one God exists. Jesus Christ is the only one who stands between God and us to plead our case. He enables the guilty to be reconciled to God. He has established the terms by which that can happen. God, in His mercy, extends an offer of salvation to every man (1 Timothy 2:4). Christ died for the sins of us all, but the benefits conferred are appropriated only to those who believe. We are saved and then grow in the knowledge of divine truth. That is the means of preventing people from being deceived by false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3-4). Job himself yearned for a mediator (Job 9:33), which has been answered in the person of Jesus Christ.

        "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:6)

        This text emphasizes the universal scope of God's plan of redemption. Jesus Christ offered Himself up as a sacrifice in order that we might be set free from sin. His atonement has the power to save the entire human race, but only those who receive the gospel by faith are saved. It is correct practice to pray for the conversion of everyone, since Christ died for them. The way of salvation has been provided for us through Him. It is the will of God that the gospel be preached to all men. He took great pains to bring about our redemption. If God were just one amongst many other gods, then He might be concerned only with the salvation of His own followers. But there is only one who exists, so His concern extends to the unbelieving and rebellious world.

        Jesus Christ is our advocate who paid the penalty for our sins. Our debt is not a financial one, but a spiritual one that needed to be settled by Him on the cross. The redeemer figure that Job longed for was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. Job's redeemer represented hope and vindication, yet Christ fills in those roles perfectly. We have greater cause to have hope in light of the gospel. Job's expectation of a redeemer fits with Paul's teaching that Christ voluntarily released us from sin and death. Job's expectation of a redeemer who will "stand at last on the earth" is analogous to the Apostle Paul's saying that Christ's atonement would be "testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:6). Both Job 19:25 and 1 Timothy 2:5 emphasize God's redemptive plan through a mediator. In Job's context, the redeemer is anticipated. In Paul's context, the theme of a redeemer is fulfilled. Jesus Christ is both our ransom and mediator.

What is the Jew?

"The Jew is the symbol of eternity...He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind. A people such as this can never disappear. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity."

Leo Tolstoy, What is the Jew? printed in Jewish World periodical 1908

The Immortal Jew

"The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in the twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"

Mark Twain, Concerning the Jews, Harper’s Magazine, 1899