The "Non-Literal Language" Argument for Transubstantiation

One of the worst arguments for transubstantiation is the argument promoted by certain Roman Catholic apologists that because Jesus uses an allegedly vivid Greek verb (τρώγω, trogo) to describe eating his flesh in John 6, that this must be taken literally and cannot be understood figuratively or metaphorically.

It is true that Jesus uses the verb trogo four times in John 6:54-58.  It's also true that the word may have originally meant (in Classical Greek, hundreds of years before the New Testament was written and when applied to animals) a particular kind of chewing of food (i.e., to "gnaw" or the like).  

However, the word trogo came to mean just "eat."  Thus, the modern Greek term for "I eat" is τρώω, which is derived directly from τρώγω (see here for example).  The idea that trogo is some kind of special and unique vocabulary is just fantasy.

That's why the Liddel, Scott, Jones Lexicon (link to LSJ Lexicon entry) just says that when this verb refers to humans, it means "to eat," without requiring any connotation of a specific kind of chewing or the like.  That's why most English translations of the vss. 6:54-58 simply translate the verb by "eat," "feed," "consume," or the like, without any conveying anything more vivid as to the manner of chewing.

 

(source)

The image above is from an 1882 (8th) edition of the Liddel-Scott Lexicon.   The LSJ Lexicon has come to include more data (as can be seen at the link above) and includes the line: "Com. metaph., “γνώμας τ. Πανδελετείους” Ar.Nu.924 (anap.)"

What does this refer to?  It refers to Aristophanes, Clouds, line 924.  The relevant section is this:

Δίκαιος Λόγος

σὺ δέ γ᾽ εὖ πράττεις.

καίτοι πρότερόν γ᾽ ἐπτώχευες,

Τήλεφος εἶναι Μυσὸς φάσκων,

ἐκ πηριδίου

γνώμας τρώγων Πανδελετείους.

Which means:

Just Argument: [One of two speakers in Aristophanes' dialog, the other being "Unjust Argument"]

“But you are doing well—

although formerly you were poor,

claiming to be Telephus the Mysian,

gnawing, from a little pouch,

at the maxims of Pandeletus.”

Alternative translation (from here)

JUST DISCOURSE

And you, you prosper. Yet you were poor when you said, "I am the Mysian Telephus," and used to stuff your wallet with maxims of Pandeletus to nibble at.

Another Alternative translation (from here)

Just And you are prosperous. And yet formerly you were a beggar saying that you were the Mysian Telephus, and gnawing the maxims of Pandeletus out of your little wallet.

Notice how Aristophanes (450 B.C. to 388 B.C.), writing hundreds of years before the New Testament, uses the word vividly, but still uses it metaphorically.  

However, by the time of Christ, the Greek language had shifted.  The word trogo could simply be used to refer to people eating, which is exactly how it is used in John 6.  Like any other word for eating, the word can be used figuratively or metaphorically.  In fact, of course, this is simply the nature of language, that words with a literal meaning can be used figuratively or metaphorically, even if they are extremely vivid.  To take an example, "sarcasm" comes from the idea of stripping off flesh (link to etymology) like wild dogs do.

Ultimately, while this Roman Catholic argument has glimmers of truth in it, it's riddled with flaws from beginning to end, and it cannot support a Roman Catholic argument for transubstiation.  There is no special vocabulary that guarantees a given word is to be taken literally rather than figuratively.  Instead, it is the context that governs.  In the case of John 6, the relevant context includes these clues:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

With these clues, we can discern whether Jesus meant the word trogo figuratively or literally, and we can conclude that the "eating his flesh" he has in mind in this text is believing on Him for everlasting life.

Responsibility, the Etymological Fallacy, and Soteriology 101

One of the most under-informed tropes of the Soteriology 101 channel has been the line that "Responsible means 'able to respond'."  While it may be a handy mnemonic for an argument, it is quite definitely not the usual meaning of the word. 

Soteriology is not the first to make this error.  I came across an interesting thread at alt.usage.english from 17 years ago, which raises the issue in the context of having heard "new age" groups using this idea (link to thread).  In that thread, Dominic Bojarski provides a cogent and reasonably succinct answer:

The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into English at least three different times in the history of the language. Between each of the borrowings, the meaning of the Latin word evolved, so the meaning of the English words derived from it are not exactly the same.

The Latin word "spondeo" originally meant to make a public declaration of a religious nature, to pray in a formalized way in a public ceremony. It is from this use that the words "respond" and "response" come from. They were originally used in reference to antiphonal prayer. The chief priest said the first part of the formula, and the other priests or the public answered with the second part of the formula. The English word "answer" originally meant "to swear back", where "swear" meant something like "spondeo" in this sense. "Correspond" also comes from this meaning.

Later, "spondeo" came to mean to make a particular type of public religious statement, namely an oath or vow. It is from this sense that the words "responsible" and "sponsor" came from, meaning "able to swear that you give someone money to pay back a loan or support themselves if they cant do so themselves" or "able to swear that you will perform an act that someone else has promised to do if they are unable to do so". The English word "answerable" is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent.

The word "despondent" also comes from this meaning. "Despondeo" originally meant to swear that you will NOT do something, especially in the sense that you will deny yourself pleasures as part of a religious vow, for example, fasting or abstinence. "Despondent" therefore means "acting like someone who has denied himself pleasure."

Even later, "spondeo" became even more specific and came to mean "to public swear that you will marry someone". "Sponsus/sponsa" first meant "fiance/fiancee", and, later still, "husband/wife". This is where the English word "spouse" came from, and ultimately "espouse" as well.

Because "respond" and "responsible" came onto the English language at different stages in the evolution of the Latin word, it would be misleading to say that "responsible" means "able to respond".

The thread doesn't fully antedate Leighton, but it is older than his YouTube channel and was obviously not a response (pun noticed after) to him.

Let me offer a harsher criticism.  Leighton Flowers' misuse of English on this point is equivalent to suggesting that "accountable" means "able to account" and that therefore children reach the age of accountability when they are able to pass the CPA exam (or the equivalent accountancy test in other countries). In fact, "responsible" is synonymous (in the context of moral responsibility) with "accountable." 

Moreover, we can go further than Dominic went in terms of explaining the underlying problem with the catchy error.

The idea of being "responsible" can (in English) take on different senses.  For example, when someone says, "Bubonic Plague was responsible for the deaths of over twenty-five million Europeans" they don't mean, or imply (or connote), that the "Bubonic Plague" could - in any way - "respond" to the pleas of its victims.  Instead, what they mean is that the "Bubonic Plague" was the immediate cause of the deaths.

Thankfully, when we speak of moral responsibility, we mean something more than that.  But before we get to moral responsibility, consider the case of legal responsibility.

Exodus 21:28-29 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Notice that in this case, if a bull gores an adult to death, the bull is to be killed and not eaten.  However, if the bull was known to be aggressive, and the owner let him wander freely, then both the owner and the bull are to be executed.  

In this case, the bull is obviously the one responsible for the death of the adult, in the sense of being the immediate cause. We could debate the nature of a bovine will, but the issue for the bull is not whether it had moral agency or freedom of will, or whether it could have resisted the temptation of goring the passing adult, but whether it was the immediate cause of the person's death.  

Likewise, even if we could say that a passing adult was a tempting target for the aggressive bull, there is no similar temptation for the owner.  After all, this is not a trained attack bull being ordered to gore, it's simply an unruly beast.  Nevertheless, the owner is liable, either to the extent of not being able to use the bull for food (the main value of a dead bull) or even to the extent of being executed.

Legal liability to a criminal offense in the Mosaic law implies moral responsibility.  It cannot be doubted that capital punishment is one of the most significant forms of legal liability.  So, what is the theory of moral responsibility leading to legal liability? 

In this example, the theory of moral responsibility is that the owner had a duty that was triggered by ownership of a potentially lethal beast.  The duty is relatively small in the case of a bull that normally behaved well but suddenly acted out of character.  The duty grew in the case of a bull that was a particular threat to the community.  Failure of the moral duty and actual injury connected to that failure leads to liability.  

With no obvious "response" in this discussion, one might wonder how "responsibility" comes into play.

The answer is less obvious than one might think.  First, the idea of a "response" as a synonym to "answer" or "reply" dates from around 1300 (source).  Second, consider that to be brought before a judge is being called to give an answer.  We see an example of this in Acts 26:2:

Acts 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:

Similarly:

Luke 12:11  And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

The Greek word behind the English phrase is the word from which we get our word apologetics.  But the point here is the English usage of "giving an answer." A similar sense is given by "give an account" in the context of a trial.  

Thus, we have the phrases "accountable" and "answerable," which are less widely used today, as well as the more widely ujsed "responsible."  In each case, the implication (as it pertains to moral or legal responsibility) is passive, not active.  It is the ability to be required to give an answer, to given an account, or to give a response for what has occurred.  

The answer/account/response could be a full defense (it wasn't me), a justification (he attacked me first), or an excuse (the axe head slipped off the handle).  

Human beings can be called by God to give an answer for everything that they think (Genesis 6:5), say (Proverbs 10:19), or do (Romans 2:6).  That's the sense in which "responsible" is connected to "able to respond."  We are able to be called to give a response for our thoughts, words, and deeds.

(see this thread for further context)

Rhinoceros in Biblical and Cognate Languages

The evidence that the Hebrew word, Re'em, refers to the Aurochs is overwhelming.  Nevertheless, there are some who maintain the view that seems to have first originated with the second century translator of the Old Testament, known as Aquila of Sinope.  Apparently Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism, and a disciple of Rabbi Akiba.

As a side note, I found this fascinating detail regarding Masoretic vowel tradition in the Jewish Encylopedia entry on Aquila:

It is interesting to note that Aquila does not agree with the Masoretic punctuation in pointing the names of heathen gods (e.g.,  and , Amos v. 26) with the vowels of  ("abomination").

(source)

If this accurate, it confirms that the pointing of the Tetragrammaton with the vowels for "Lord" is similarly a way of highlighting the truly divine, rather than being the actual vowels.

Returning to our question, there is a Greek word for rhinoceros, it's ρινόκερως (rinokeros).  That's the word Aquila used, although the Septuagint did not.  Our English word is directly taken from Latin rhinoceros, which got it from the Greek.

The modern Hebrew word for rhinoceros is "קַרנַף" (kar'NUF).  However, the word karnuf was invented in the 20th century by Joseph Klausner, using the Hebrew words keren (horn) and af (nose).

Turning to other related languages, I found two main branches: one from the Sanskrit, the other from the Ge'ez. 

Ge'ez

• Ge'ez ሐሪሥ, ሐሪስ (ḥäriś, ḥäris, “rhinoceros”) 
• Arabic حَرِيش‎ (ḥarīš, “rhinoceros”) (apparently derived from Ge'ez)
• Other languages related closely to Ge'ez have similar words.

Sanskrit

On the other hand, Persian has the word کرگدن (karkadan), apparently from Middle Persian (klg /karg/, “rhinoceros; horn”) + (-dʾn' /-dān/, “bearer, holder”), ultimately from Sanskrit खड्ग (khaḍga, “rhinoceros; literally sword bearer”).

This word is similarly found in other languages:

• Arabic كَرْكَدَّن‎ (karkaddan, “rhinoceros”)
• Classical Syriac ܟܪܟܕܢܐ‎ (karkǝḏānā, “rhinoceros”)
• Sanskrit खड्गधेनु (khaḍgadhenu, “a female rhinoceros”)
•  Avar: гаргадан (gargadan)
• Middle Armenian: քարկարտան (kʿarkartan), քարկանտան (kʿarkantan)
• Turkish: gergedan
• Uyghur: كەركىدان‎ (kerkidan)
• Uzbek: karkidon

Looking through the Semitic Etymology dictionary, I only found three entries related to the rhinoceros:

Number: 2648

Proto-Semitic: *yaʕal- ~ ʕawāl- (?)

Afroasiatic etymology: Afroasiatic etymology

Meaning: 'mythological bull' 1, 'rhinoceros' 2, 'young of the elephant' 3

Akkadian: alû (elû) 1 'bull (as a mythological being)' Bogh, SB, Akkadogr. in Hitt. CAD a1, 377

Syrian Aramaic: yaʕlā 2 'unicornus, rhinoceros' Br 305

Tigre: ʕǝwal 3 'young of the elephant' ("in der Poesie auch von anderen jungen Tieren gebraucht") [LH, 477], ʔäwal [ibid., apud Munz.] (hardly connected with *ʕVwVl- 'young of an animal' which is attested in Tgr as ʕǝlu 'young of the donkey' [LH 450]; <*ʔawāl- with a variant form in ʕ- through contamination with ʕǝlu) ?

Number: 2654

Proto-Semitic: *ḥar(i)ŝ/ŝx ( ~ *Hawuraris)

Afroasiatic etymology: Afroasiatic etymology

Meaning: 'rhinoceros'

Syrian Aramaic: Cf. ḥarsūmā 'proboscis; labia bovis' Br 257

Arabic: ḥarīš- [BK 1 408]

Geʕez (Ethiopian): ḥariŝ, ḥaris, ḥoras, ʔarwe ḥoras [LGz 244]

Amharic: Cf. ʔawuraris 'rhinocéros' Baet

Number: 2655

Proto-Semitic: *karkadan- ~ *karkand-

Meaning: 'rhinoceros'

Syrian Aramaic: karkǝdonō Brock. 346b

Arabic: karkaddan-, karkadann- [BK 2 888]

Geʕez (Ethiopian): karkand 'unicorn, rhinoceros' LGZ 291

The Assyrian dictionary only offered this:

From my standpoint, the issue here is not just that the words for "rhinoceros" are nothing like Re'em, but that even the one Proto-Semitic word that might refer to a rhinoceros independent of the Ge'ez and Sanskrit streams seems to have mythological connotations.  Arabic stands at a cross-roads between the two major streams and adopts names from both languages, but there seems to be no uniquely Arabic word distinct from the Ge'ez and Sanskrit.  

There are several Biblical Hebrew words with similarity to the "haris" root (Strong's Nos. 2789-2802, for example), but the closest seems to be 2793 "choresh" (חרֶשׁ), which has no obvious connection to rhinoceroses as such. Similarly with the other options.

What's the best explanation for this lack of word for rhinoceros among the Hebrews?  

This is the current range of the Rhinoceros.  Wooly rhinoceros remains have been found in the British isles and Siberia.  The most interesting variety of rhinoceros for the rhinoceros/unicorn identification is the Indian rhinoceros.  According to Brittanica: "The Indian rhinoceros previously occupied an extensive range across northern India and Nepal from Assam state in the east to the Indus River valley in the west." (source) 

The most likely explanation for the lack of a Hebrew word for rhinoceros is the absence of rhinoceroses in Canaan during the time period from the 15th century B.C. onward.  While I doubt some of the dating methods used, this article summarizes the current naturalistic view on the presence of rhinoceroses in Canaan: "Said Prof. Amos Frumkin, director of the Hebrew University’s Cave Research Center: 'Rhinos haven’t been seen in the land of Israel in the last twenty or thirty thousand years...'." (article describing the find of ancient rhinoceros remains in Samaria)

What does Simon mean? and did "Peter" replace "Simon"?

I recently heard a terrible argument arguing that Simon means "grain of sand" and that when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, he was changing this grain of sand into a Rock. Obviously, as you might guess, this argument came from someone who thinks that Peter was the first pope.

There are two significant problems with this argument.

First, "Peter" didn't replace "Simon" it became a sort of surname, essentially replacing "Barjonna" although he continued to be called "Barjonna" even after being called "Peter." We can see this from the following:

Mark 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

Luke 5:8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.

John 6:8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Luke 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 13:6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

John 13:9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

John 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

John 13:36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

Mark 14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

John 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

John 18:25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

In these verses we see that Simon is referred to frequently as "Simon Peter" or by similar labels, such as "Simon, whom he also named Peter" (where "also" implies that this was an additional name) and "Simon he surnamed Peter" (where "surnamed" implies that an additional name was imposed upon Simon). Finally, while we see a large number of verses (not reproduced above) where Simon is simply referred to as "Peter," we never see Simon referred to as "Peter bar-Jona" or "Peter the son of Jona" or the like. Thus, Simon's name wasn't changed: he was given an additional name that essentially took the place of his natural name.

A second significant problem is that "Simon" doesn't mean "grain of sand" - it means "heard." The Greek word that we translate "Simon" is Σίμωνα (Simona). This Greek word is a borrow word from Hebrew. The Hebrew word to which it (as well as the alternative Grecianized form Συμεὼν (Simeon)) corresponds is שׁמעון (Shimon) which is etymologically derived from the word שׁמע (Shama) which is the root word for "to hear." With some words, the etymology is a bit speculative, but not with this one:

Genesis 29:33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.

-TurretinFan

What does it mean to "Propitiate"?

Let's start by reviewing the verses where that English word is used:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:

PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.

Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.

Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.

1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.

I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."

Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.

There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:

The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:

1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.

Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.

If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.

And do you know what is really interesting?

The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.

May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,

-Turretinfan