I think Christ speaks literally about many things, yet when Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep" in John 10:7, or "you are my flock, the sheep of my pasture" in Ezekiel 34:31, are we to take that literally? I doubt anyone believes he turned into a literal door or we turn into literal sheep. No doubt Jesus spoke literally at times, but not at all times.
It's the same way, Christ spoke in parables and word pictures, and used common objects in an agricultural context to illustrate a heavenly principle. No one thinks Jesus actually became a grape vine with leaves on his arms. No doubt, even Catholics understand this was symbolism. Do any Catholic Bishops or priests teach or believe that Jesus transformed into a lamb with wool that talked and chewed grass? I don't think so.
So how do we know that the communion elements were not Jesus' literal flesh and literal blood? How can we know it was symbolic? Because Jesus didn't ask them to eat part of his arm, or drink blood from a wound he inflicted on himself. What did he give to eat? They were eating the Passover - the ultimate symbol - a perfect spotless lamb - unleavened bread -Matzo - because leaven is a picture of sin.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
The entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and has elements that point to Jesus, so they are all metaphors themselves. Jesus at the Last Supper was formally identifying what was about to happen to him with the Jewish sacrificial system and regulations concerning Passover.
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------
Protestant Minister's Response to Newsletter #422
As to your question, I am no great theologian, but here's my unscholarly take. By the way, my mom's side of the family is very Catholic so i have been exposed quite a bit to the Catholic faith. So what happened to me? In middle college, I had an encounter with Jesus. It was then i realized Jesus was into relationship and not religion. I had always struggled with the rituals and felt that many thought just hitting their marks well and "being a good Catholic" is what made them right before God. I know not all feel that way but that has been my experience. People seem to trust in their religion instead of wanting to have a personal relationship with the living God.
My Comments
"Jesus was into relationship and not religion." I really hate that. First of all, "he realized" that? In other words, he is basing this statement on a subjective experience as opposed to what he read in the Scriptures. Because, nowhere does the Bible say such a thing. Where does the Bible disparage religion and/or put it in opposition to relationship? What does the Bible, the New Testament in particular, say about religion? 1 Tim 3:16, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Jesus is the great mystery of our religion.
Then, in 2 Tim 3:5 it says that there are those who are "holding the form of religion but denying the power of it," and we are explicitly told to avoid such people. It seems this minister might be guilty of that. He surely seems to be denying the power of religion. But, the point is, if Jesus wasn't into religion, He apparently didn't get that message to Paul. That little phrase about relationship not religion, which is quite popular among Protestants, is essentially a way of justifying being able to do whatever you want to do when it comes to "religion," as long as you have a "relationship" with Christ. As long as you have accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, then who is to tell you what you should or shouldn't do when it comes to worshipping God and practicing your "religion"?
The other thing that bothers me about what he says here, is that he is, essentially, judging people's hearts based on outward appearances. He "felt that many thought just hitting their marks well and 'being a good Catholic' is what made them right before God. I know not all feel that way but that has been my experience." He may be right, but it is not his place to judge. Jesus says, "I am He who searches mind and heart," not that pastor or anyone else. "Judge not lest ye be judged," eh? Who does he think he is to judge people in such a manner?
And, one last point on this, tell me who it is that has a more personal and intimate relationship with Jesus than a Catholic when they receive Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in the Eucharist? When you become a "partaker of the divine nature" by receiving the Eucharist, is that not having a "relationship" with Jesus Christ? Is becoming one with Christ in and through the Eucharist not having a relationship with Him? So, is it not relationship and religion, as opposed to relationship or religion as this pastor frames it? In fact, is not the power of religion, when properly done, the fact that it brings us into unity...into an intimate relationship...with Jesus Christ?
Protestant Minister
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------
Protestant Minister's Response to Newsletter #422
As to your question, I am no great theologian, but here's my unscholarly take. By the way, my mom's side of the family is very Catholic so i have been exposed quite a bit to the Catholic faith. So what happened to me? In middle college, I had an encounter with Jesus. It was then i realized Jesus was into relationship and not religion. I had always struggled with the rituals and felt that many thought just hitting their marks well and "being a good Catholic" is what made them right before God. I know not all feel that way but that has been my experience. People seem to trust in their religion instead of wanting to have a personal relationship with the living God.
My Comments
"Jesus was into relationship and not religion." I really hate that. First of all, "he realized" that? In other words, he is basing this statement on a subjective experience as opposed to what he read in the Scriptures. Because, nowhere does the Bible say such a thing. Where does the Bible disparage religion and/or put it in opposition to relationship? What does the Bible, the New Testament in particular, say about religion? 1 Tim 3:16, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Jesus is the great mystery of our religion.
Then, in 2 Tim 3:5 it says that there are those who are "holding the form of religion but denying the power of it," and we are explicitly told to avoid such people. It seems this minister might be guilty of that. He surely seems to be denying the power of religion. But, the point is, if Jesus wasn't into religion, He apparently didn't get that message to Paul. That little phrase about relationship not religion, which is quite popular among Protestants, is essentially a way of justifying being able to do whatever you want to do when it comes to "religion," as long as you have a "relationship" with Christ. As long as you have accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, then who is to tell you what you should or shouldn't do when it comes to worshipping God and practicing your "religion"?
The other thing that bothers me about what he says here, is that he is, essentially, judging people's hearts based on outward appearances. He "felt that many thought just hitting their marks well and 'being a good Catholic' is what made them right before God. I know not all feel that way but that has been my experience." He may be right, but it is not his place to judge. Jesus says, "I am He who searches mind and heart," not that pastor or anyone else. "Judge not lest ye be judged," eh? Who does he think he is to judge people in such a manner?
And, one last point on this, tell me who it is that has a more personal and intimate relationship with Jesus than a Catholic when they receive Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in the Eucharist? When you become a "partaker of the divine nature" by receiving the Eucharist, is that not having a "relationship" with Jesus Christ? Is becoming one with Christ in and through the Eucharist not having a relationship with Him? So, is it not relationship and religion, as opposed to relationship or religion as this pastor frames it? In fact, is not the power of religion, when properly done, the fact that it brings us into unity...into an intimate relationship...with Jesus Christ?
Protestant Minister
Now, to the question...
I think Christ speaks literally about many things, yet when Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep" in John 10:7, or "you are my flock, the sheep of my pasture" in Ezekiel 34:31, are we to take that literally? I doubt anyone believes he turned into a literal door or we turn into literal sheep. No doubt Jesus spoke literally at times, but not at all times.
It's the same way, Christ spoke in parables and word pictures, and used common objects in an agricultural context to illustrate a heavenly principle. No one thinks Jesus actually became a grape vine with leaves on his arms. No doubt, even Catholics understand this was symbolism. Do any Catholic Bishops or priests teach or believe that Jesus transformed into a lamb with wool that talked and chewed grass? I don't think so.
My Comments
This is a fairly weak argument. For example, he cites John 10:7 as an example of Jesus speaking figuratively and asks, "Are we to take that literally?" That's a ridiculous question. To try and compare that to what Jesus said in John 6 about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, is like comparing apples and oranges. Well, actually, it's more like comparing apples and watermelons. First of all, do you see anywhere in John 10 where His disciples say, "How can this man be a door?" Uhh...nope. Any objection from anyone to Jesus calling Himself a door in John 10, as if they didn't know he was speaking figuratively? No. Secondly, and even more pertinent to the argument, is that in John 10:6, just one verse earlier, we are told - directly - that Jesus was indeed speaking figuratively. Do we find any such language in John 6:51-58? Nope, it's not there. His comparison fails, thus his argument fails. Oh, and don't let someone try to tell you that when Jesus said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life," (John 6:63), that that means He was speaking figuratively in John 6:51-58. To try and make the word "spirit" mean "figurative" or "symbolic" is quite a stretch. Is it the Father, Son, and Holy Symbolic?
And then the pastor mentions how Jesus often spoke in parables. Well, yeah, and it was very plainly stated that He was indeed speaking in parables. Does John 6 say anything along the lines of, "And Jesus told them this parable: You must eat My flesh and drink My blood in order to have life within you?" Not there. So, again, his comparison/argument fails. In John 15, Jesus says, "I am the true vine." Did anyone ask, "How can this man be a vine? Does He grow grapes on His arms?" Or any kind of objection, whatsoever? Again, no. And, in John 16, verse 25, Jesus Himself tells us that He has been speaking to the Apostles "in figures" (i.e., figuratively). So, again, nothing like what we see in John 6 where Jesus repeats Himself, like He does nowhere else in the gospels, in order to tell us we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. His comparison/argument fails.
One last thing to note in regard to this particular argument: What Jesus says at the Last Supper, and the manner in which He said it, is different than any of those times where Protestants point out He was speaking symbolically or metaphorically or figuratively or in parables because...at the Last Supper, Jesus was holding something in His hands (bread/wine) and He said, "This IS..." So, at the Last Supper, He didn't say, "I am bread," or "I am wine," He held the bread and then the wine and said, "This IS My body...This IS the cup of My blood." When He said, "I am the vine," He wasn't holding a vine and He didn't say, "This vine is My body..." When He said, "I am the gate," He wasn't holding a gate and He didn't say, "This gate is My body..." What He said at the Last Supper is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to Jesus metaphorically calling Himself a gate, or a vine, or anything else. Because, again, in none of those instances did He hold something up and say, "This IS My body," or "This IS My blood."
Protestant Minister
So how do we know that the communion elements were not Jesus' literal flesh and literal blood? How can we know it was symbolic? Because Jesus didn't ask them to eat part of his arm, or drink blood from a wound he inflicted on himself. What did he give to eat? They were eating the Passover - the ultimate symbol - a perfect spotless lamb - unleavened bread -Matzo - because leaven is a picture of sin.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
My Comments
This is an even weaker argument than the preceding one. We know it wasn't Jesus' real flesh and real blood at the Last Supper because He didn't snap off an arm and pass it around for everyone to munch on? Really?! And because He didn't slit His wrist and have the blood pour into the cup that He then passed around to everyone to drink? Really?! Gosh, I guess Catholics are really, really stupid because they didn't realize Jesus didn't have the Apostles eating His various body parts at the Last Supper. How could we have missed that for all these centuries?! How could Catholics, for 2000 years, have missed that the gospel accounts say "bread" and "wine"? Uhmm...pastor, methinks you need to really look into what Catholics teach in regard to the Eucharist and the Last Supper.
So, here's my counter-argument to this: Is there a way for us to know that this wasn't symbolism and that the Eucharist Jesus gave to His Apostles at the Last Supper was truly His body and His blood? Absolutely!!! We can know this because "the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine" and did the same. One thing the pastor left out, though...the part where Jesus says, "This is My body...This is the cup of My blood..." I wonder why he left that part out. So, we can know it truly is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ because Jesus said it is. And we all know that God doesn't lie. And we also know that when God says something IS, then, by golly, it IS. And, remember, the Gospels are historical accounts.
The Bible, an historical document, records Christ as saying, "This IS My body." The Protestant pastor inteprets the historical document as saying, "This is symbolic of My body."
Protestant Minister
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
My Comments
I will leave you to think about how you would respond to this particular argument of the pastor. I will treat with this argument, and the others we still haven't gotten to, in the next issue of this newsletter.
My Comments
This is a fairly weak argument. For example, he cites John 10:7 as an example of Jesus speaking figuratively and asks, "Are we to take that literally?" That's a ridiculous question. To try and compare that to what Jesus said in John 6 about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, is like comparing apples and oranges. Well, actually, it's more like comparing apples and watermelons. First of all, do you see anywhere in John 10 where His disciples say, "How can this man be a door?" Uhh...nope. Any objection from anyone to Jesus calling Himself a door in John 10, as if they didn't know he was speaking figuratively? No. Secondly, and even more pertinent to the argument, is that in John 10:6, just one verse earlier, we are told - directly - that Jesus was indeed speaking figuratively. Do we find any such language in John 6:51-58? Nope, it's not there. His comparison fails, thus his argument fails. Oh, and don't let someone try to tell you that when Jesus said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life," (John 6:63), that that means He was speaking figuratively in John 6:51-58. To try and make the word "spirit" mean "figurative" or "symbolic" is quite a stretch. Is it the Father, Son, and Holy Symbolic?
And then the pastor mentions how Jesus often spoke in parables. Well, yeah, and it was very plainly stated that He was indeed speaking in parables. Does John 6 say anything along the lines of, "And Jesus told them this parable: You must eat My flesh and drink My blood in order to have life within you?" Not there. So, again, his comparison/argument fails. In John 15, Jesus says, "I am the true vine." Did anyone ask, "How can this man be a vine? Does He grow grapes on His arms?" Or any kind of objection, whatsoever? Again, no. And, in John 16, verse 25, Jesus Himself tells us that He has been speaking to the Apostles "in figures" (i.e., figuratively). So, again, nothing like what we see in John 6 where Jesus repeats Himself, like He does nowhere else in the gospels, in order to tell us we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. His comparison/argument fails.
One last thing to note in regard to this particular argument: What Jesus says at the Last Supper, and the manner in which He said it, is different than any of those times where Protestants point out He was speaking symbolically or metaphorically or figuratively or in parables because...at the Last Supper, Jesus was holding something in His hands (bread/wine) and He said, "This IS..." So, at the Last Supper, He didn't say, "I am bread," or "I am wine," He held the bread and then the wine and said, "This IS My body...This IS the cup of My blood." When He said, "I am the vine," He wasn't holding a vine and He didn't say, "This vine is My body..." When He said, "I am the gate," He wasn't holding a gate and He didn't say, "This gate is My body..." What He said at the Last Supper is not in any way, shape, or form comparable to Jesus metaphorically calling Himself a gate, or a vine, or anything else. Because, again, in none of those instances did He hold something up and say, "This IS My body," or "This IS My blood."
Protestant Minister
So how do we know that the communion elements were not Jesus' literal flesh and literal blood? How can we know it was symbolic? Because Jesus didn't ask them to eat part of his arm, or drink blood from a wound he inflicted on himself. What did he give to eat? They were eating the Passover - the ultimate symbol - a perfect spotless lamb - unleavened bread -Matzo - because leaven is a picture of sin.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
My Comments
This is an even weaker argument than the preceding one. We know it wasn't Jesus' real flesh and real blood at the Last Supper because He didn't snap off an arm and pass it around for everyone to munch on? Really?! And because He didn't slit His wrist and have the blood pour into the cup that He then passed around to everyone to drink? Really?! Gosh, I guess Catholics are really, really stupid because they didn't realize Jesus didn't have the Apostles eating His various body parts at the Last Supper. How could we have missed that for all these centuries?! How could Catholics, for 2000 years, have missed that the gospel accounts say "bread" and "wine"? Uhmm...pastor, methinks you need to really look into what Catholics teach in regard to the Eucharist and the Last Supper.
So, here's my counter-argument to this: Is there a way for us to know that this wasn't symbolism and that the Eucharist Jesus gave to His Apostles at the Last Supper was truly His body and His blood? Absolutely!!! We can know this because "the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine" and did the same. One thing the pastor left out, though...the part where Jesus says, "This is My body...This is the cup of My blood..." I wonder why he left that part out. So, we can know it truly is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ because Jesus said it is. And we all know that God doesn't lie. And we also know that when God says something IS, then, by golly, it IS. And, remember, the Gospels are historical accounts.
The Bible, an historical document, records Christ as saying, "This IS My body." The Protestant pastor inteprets the historical document as saying, "This is symbolic of My body."
Protestant Minister
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
My Comments
I will leave you to think about how you would respond to this particular argument of the pastor. I will treat with this argument, and the others we still haven't gotten to, in the next issue of this newsletter.
Closing Comments
Again, if you're in the greater Houston area, I hope you will consider coming out to the Fullness of Truth conference at St. Anthony of Padua in The Woodlands on Friday, April 28th and Saturday, April 29th. I'll be speaking in the morning and afternoon of the 29th. For more information and/or to register, see the link above in the "General Comments" section.
