Sunday, May 01, 2011

Three Mighty Men and Transubstantiation

There are probably a thousand great arguments against transubstantiation already. Here's one more for your repertoire. Sometimes folks in the Roman (or even in the Lutheran) communion make the argument that Jesus didn't say "this stands for my body," but rather "this is my body." It is true, of course, that he said one and not the other. Nevertheless, we have to allow him the use of metaphor. We can show his use of metaphor in the gospels, but here's another instance that's perhaps not so obvious.

2 Samuel 23:13-17
And three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam: and the troop of the Philistines pitched in the valley of Rephaim. And David was then in an hold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, "Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?" therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.

Will our Roman and Lutheran friends allow David this metaphor? Or will they insist that David thought that the water from the well at Bethlehem had been transubstantiated (or consubstantiated) into the blood of the three mighty men? Surely, they will allow David his metaphor. So why won't they allow the Son of David His metaphor?

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

- TurretinFan


Anonymous said...

TurrentinFan asks:

"... So why won't they allow the Son of David His metaphor?"

Probably as a child being catechized in the RCC faith grows he forms his own opinion, as we see in a disgressive comment about your debate with Mr. Marcum on purgatory, he won't allow the Son of David His metaphor because it would undermine the whole house, one stone at a time, but a grain of sand; their stones but grains of sand and then the other stones would be easier to expose and then undermined as well.

The problem with this "house" is time. And, ironically, allow me my own metaphor of the sands of the hour glass. It needs to be turned over time and time again utilizing the sand of the seashore so that the records are kept intact and the appointed times met!

God, Our God, of course is the inventor and purveyor of time and He uses His Hand to kill and make alive in time and then allows for those most affected, by His Power, to mount another curious defense, which always replaces the inventors and purveyors of rebellion against Him. In this case, your use of David's metaphor comes with understanding that David's Son came, as the prophets have foretold and used metaphors as His Father, too, to defend His Honor and Name! :)

This teaching of yours from Scripture indeed is a real timely problem for them. Undoubtedly some are just blind to it's import while others, certainly over time, have come to understand and know the majestic charade they keep to their own folly and destruction!

I continue to encourage you, by my prayers and comments in here, as I have been taught:

Psa 149:5 Let the godly exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their beds.
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!


Act 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
Act 1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me;
Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Act 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

And, what folly! For they have to dig up the bones of their Popes for beautification and sainthood! What a hoot!!

Our Savior is the Resurrection and the Life!!!

PeaceByJesus said...

Yes, David must have been speaking about transubstantiation. Likewise Joshua in exhorting the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9)

But David, who also spoke of enemies eating up his flesh, (Ps. 27:2) is a good example, among many others which evidence that the Lord was speaking metaphorically. I used it myself in an early work refuting Rome ('s_Supper.html#Exegesis)

And if Jn. 6:53 means what is often asserted, then the Lord's supper would have been the means by which souls were born again.

But in Jn. 6:57 the Lord states that,

"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

But Jesus lived by every word that come forth from God, (Mt. 4:4) and showed what He meant by referencing Scripture, and in Jn. 3:34 He states that to do the Father's will His "bread."

Jason Landless said...

I remember reading a study conducted by the American Roman Catholic bishops on the average belief of the average Roman Catholic, only a few years back.

One of the things they were horrified to learn was that around 30% of parishioners do not believe in Transubstantiation. I have come to the conclusion over time that this is one of the ways that Romanism works: if their beliefs are sufficiently complex and nebulous, then you can keep people in the fold. For some of those people, it might be a "chalice too far" to know what Rome REALLY teaches about such things as Transubstantiation.

The other thing that helps is that in my experience - hence it is anecdotal - of interacting with Rome's apologists and defenders, that many of them simply do not have a very good understanding of the scriptures at all. They do not therefore recognise themes, see connections, and automatically put scriptural passages side-by-side to check whether their views are in accordance with ALL of scripture.

Add this to the fact that many of them believe the Church Fathers all taught this stuff, and you end up with a doctrine that derives much of its strength from ignorance.

In any case (as I have blogged recently) modern Romanism and historical Romanism are gradually drifting apart, so new interpretations are always emerging. I remember when I studied Roman Catholic theology at college that one up-and-coming theologian was describing Christ as the "cosmic Saviour" etc. That's where Rome seems to be moving, and maybe Transubstantiation will move there too?

PeaceByJesus said...

Jason, views on the host can vary depending on how the ? is worded, and even among lay apologists there can be disputations about "actual" body..

Many comparative stats here.

As for the comment about the Didache, lots of things are said from such sources, and the claimed and required "unanimous consent of the Fathers" is much the myth, and all must bow before the only objective source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by God.

Nor does being the instrument and or steward of Holy Writ confer assured infallibility, (Mk. 7:6-13) though that is what Rome infallibly confers upon itself.

Lvka said...

Angels are called sons of God in Scripture. The righteous are called sons of God in Scripture. Christ is called the son of God in Scripture.

The problem is not how Scripture `can` be interpreted, but which interpretation is correct. Not `possible` or `probable`, but true and correct.