Catholic Answers just posted a video, "Using Greek to Defend the Eucharist" featuring Catholic Apologist, Harold Burke-Sivers:
Burke-Sivers make a number of mistakes in this presentation. Fortunately, in a recent email exchange with a Roman Catholic, I addressed all these arguments, as well as the (false) claim that the earliest Christians held to the same view Roman Catholicism dogmatically teaches since 1215. I present this as a contrast between "pop" Catholic apologists and their abuse of Greek and meaningful exegesis of both the Bible and patristic literature:
Burke-Sivers make a number of mistakes in this presentation. Fortunately, in a recent email exchange with a Roman Catholic, I addressed all these arguments, as well as the (false) claim that the earliest Christians held to the same view Roman Catholicism dogmatically teaches since 1215. I present this as a contrast between "pop" Catholic apologists and their abuse of Greek and meaningful exegesis of both the Bible and patristic literature:
When one reads the earliest (post-New Testament) texts, one finds that the conversion theory of the Eucharist (that the bread and wine were substantially converted into the body and blood of Jesus, a la Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation theories held by Catholicism and Lutheranism) were absent; instead, the "spiritual presence" view was the view held by the earliest liturgies and writings. Consider the following:
The Didache is a very early Christian document, variously dated between AD 50-100; some scholars, such as Milavec, date it between 50-70 [see his book, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E] contemporary with the inscripturation of much of the New Testament. It is also a document that gives much insight into the practices and theology of the early Christians.
On the topic of the Eucharist, we read:
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptised into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)
There are a number of important things one finds in the above text.
Firstly, the Eucharist is never understood to be a propitiatory sacrifice wherein Christ is substantially present (Transubstantiation); instead, the Didache understand's the Lord's Supper to be a "Thanksgiving" (Greek: ευχαριστια); indeed, one translation of the Apostolic Fathers renders verse 1 as "the eucharistic thanksgiving" (J.B. Flightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers [1891]). Indeed, the author of the Didache understood the function of the Eucharist was not to propitiate the wrath of God by re-presenting the sacrifice at Calvary, but instead, to serve as an instrumental means to bring about unity of faith ("even as [ωσπερ] this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one [εγενετο εν], so [ουτω] let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom").
This understanding of the Eucharist is found elsewhere in the Didache, such as 10:3, " . . . thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy son." To quote on scholar on the Didache:
The congregation thanked God not only for material food and drink, but also for spiritual food and drink: knowledge, faith, immortality, and eternal life. It is not stated in these prayers of thanks that the bread and wine stand for Christ’s body and blood. The Didache therefore did not interpret them as representations of his body and blood, and consequently it does not see the meal as a way of becoming one with Christ. It does, however, regard eating and drinking them as an anticipated, proleptic participation in a future salvation, namely the coming kingdom of God. According to 9:2 the wine represents the vine of king David, God’s servant; according to 9:3 the bread symbolizes the unity of the church gathered into God’s kingdom” (Henk Jan de Jonge, The Community Supper according to Paul and the Didache: Their Affinity and Historical Development, eds. Jan Krans, L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, Arie W. Zwiep, Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology, [BRILL, 2013], p. 34).
There is no hint whatsoever of (1) the concept of transubstantiation and (2) the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice in the Didache.
Some Catholic apologists[1] focus on the use of the Greek term for "sacrifice" (θυσια) in 14:1-3, the same term used of Christ's sacrifice in Heb 5:1; 9:23-24 in the context of discussing the Lord's Supper:
But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after havign confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice (θυσια) may be pure. But let no one that it is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice (θυσια) may not be profaned. For this is what which was spoken by the Lord [in Malachi 1:11]: In very place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice (θυσια); for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
From the context, there is clear that the "sacrifice" is the spiritual sacrifice believers are offering up, not a propitiatory sacrifice. The fact that prayers, alms, and even the Eucharist is described as a "sacrifice" is not the equivalent of the Catholic Mass. Furthermore, what undermines the Roman Catholic claim is that Mal 1:11 is quoted in Didache 14:3, a prophecy of the then-future sacrifices of the New Covenant. That such a sacrifice is a spiritual, not propitiatory sacrifice is evidenced on two fronts; firstly, with respect to the New Testament text's interpretation thereof, Christians are said to offer “spiritual sacrifices” to God. In 1 Pet 2:5, we read:
Ye also, as lively stones are built upon a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
In this text, believers are said to “offer up” (αναφερω; a sacrificial term in both the LXX and NT and used of Jesus “offering” of himself [e.g. 1 Pet 2:24]) themselves as “spiritual sacrifices" (πνευματικὰς θυσίας). This is echoed in Paul’s epistle to the Romans:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1)
The dedication of one’s body to God is said to be a sacrifice (θυσια) to God the Father, notwithstanding it not being a literal (in the sense of propitiatory/expiatory) sacrifice for sin. Such “spiritual sacrifices” can be prayers, petitions, and other godly actions for our fellow man (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4) as well as the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit (cf. Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:2).
Secondly, with respect to other early Christian literature, this interpretation of Mal 1:11 is accepted. In an early Christian text, attributed to Irenaeus of Lyons (it is debated if this is genuine or pseudepigraphical, though it is early, regardless of its providence) that does not hold that the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice is prophesied by Mal 1:11, but instead, the prayers and other “spiritual sacrifices” of New Covenant believers, one of which is the Eucharist (the author clearly did not believe prayers of New Covenant saints to be a sacrifice that propitiates the wrath of God!)
Section 37 of this writing reads as follows (taken from this Webpage, though one can find it in print in vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers by Schaff):
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For,
from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense isMalachi 1:11 as Johoffered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;
The incense is the prayers of the saints.Then again, Paul exhorts us
to pres
Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians
in spirit and in truth.John 4:24 And theref
There is no sound exegetical basis to argue that, simply due to the use of θυσια in Didache 14:1-3 is support for the Catholic dogmas of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation.
In his book, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Queenship, 2000), Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis, on p.283, cited Origen’s (185-254) Homilies on Exodus to support the claim that early Christianity held the same view of the Eucharist and the veneration thereof that is part of modern Catholic dogmatic theology:
“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the Divine Mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the Consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. (Sungenis gets this quote from vol. 1 section 490 of William Jurgens, ed. Faith of the Early Fathers [3 vols.])
Firstly, it should be noted that Roman Catholic historians admit that the early Christians did not view the Eucharist to be a propitiatory sacrifice, nor did they venerate the consecrated bread and wine in any way, let alone giving them latria as the Council of Trent commanded. For scholarly discussions of this, see Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology and Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origin and Development (2 vols).
Secondly, Origen was a Platonist; to read into his words a materialism that requires acceptance of Aristotelian understandings of “accidents” and “substance,” something antithetical to Platonism, would be putting the theological horse before the cart, so to speak, and to engage in eisegesis of Origen’s writings.
Thirdly, when one examines the context of this homily, we see that it is set within a discussion of the Old Testament tabernacle, and how Origen wishes to be a part thereof, symbolically representing his wanting to be a true Christian, as well as other instances of symbolism and metaphor. To read into this passage the concept of Transubstantiation, especially in light of Origen’s acceptance of Platonism requires one to jettison any form of meaningful hermeneutic:
Lord Jesus, grant that I may deserve to have some memorial in your tabernacle. I would choose, if it be possible, that mine be something in that gold from which the mercy seat is made or from which the ark is covered or from which the candlestick and the lamps are made. Or if I do not have gold, I pray that I be found to offer some silver at least which may be useful in the columns or in their bases. Or may I certainly deserve to have some bronze in the tabernacle from which the hoops and other things are made which the word of God describes. Would that, moreover, it be possible for me to be one of the princes and to offer precious stones for the adornment of the cape and breastplate of the high priest. But because these things are beyond me, might I certainly deserve to have goats' hair in God's tabernacle, lest I be found barren and unfruitful in all things.
"Each one," therefore, "as he has understood in his heart" (cf. John 12:31). See if you understand, see if you retain, lest perhaps what is said vanish, and come to nothing. I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any small part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God's word than to have neglected his body?
They are ordered, therefore, to offer the first things, that is, the firstfruits. he who offers what is first by necessity has what is left for himself. See how much we ought to abound in gold and silver and all the other things which are ordered to be offered so that we might both offer to the Lord and have something left over for us. For first of all my mind ought to understand God and offer to him the firstfruits of its understanding so that when it shall have understood God well, it might consequently know the other things. Let speech also do this and all these things which are in us. (Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 380-81 [URL])
While much more could be said, Origen’s comments in his homilies on Exodus cannot be cited as evidence of early Christians in his time period of holding to a form of “Real Presence” that is commensurate with the dogma of Transubstantiation as defined in 1215.
Now, you might ask about the phrase "this is my body" in the New Testament narratives about the institution of the Last Supper.
I hope this adds food for thought. On my blog, I discuss the Eucharist in the New Testament and in early patristic literature a bit, mainly in response to the works of Robert Sungenis (Not by Bread Alone) and Brant Pitre and others. You might enjoy pursuing the following representative articles:
Now, you might ask about the phrase "this is my body" in the New Testament narratives about the institution of the Last Supper.
The phrase, "this is my body" translates the Greek phrase τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου literally, "this is the body of me." A rather technical argument has been made to support transubstantiation by some Catholic writers. The argument is that as the demonstrative "this" τουτο is a demonstrative neuter singular, it cannot refer to the term "bread" αρτος which is masculine, but the noun "body" σωμα which is neuter. As a result of this, and the fact that it is coupled with the verb ειμι "to be," Christ is teaching that the bread becomes the body of Jesus, with an alternative translation being, "this [new entity] is the body of me."
It is correct that the referent for the demonstrative "this" is "body." However, to read "is" in a literalistic way as to argue that Transubstantiation is in view in the narratives is vacuous.
In Greek grammar, there is what is called an "interpretive ειμι," wherein the verb ειμι, often in conjunction with τουτο or τι, has the definition of "meaning" or "[this] means."
Two notable instances of such can be seen in Matthew 27:46 and Luke 18: 36--
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli Eli, lama sabachthani, that is [τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν] to say, My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant [εἴη τοῦτο]. (Luke 18:36)
A symbolic meaning of "this is my body" can still be retained, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. Furthermore, taking "is" in such a literalistic manner that many who hold to the dogma of Transubstantiation, or something similar, such as the Eastern Orthodox view do, results in some inanities if one were to be consistent in their approach to the verb ειμι. For instance, in Luke 22:20, both "cup" (ποτηριον) and the demonstrative are singular neuters. However, in Catholic theology, it is not the cup, but the contents thereof (i.e., the wine) that become transubstantiated into the blood of Christ. Of course, just as "this is my body" is a literary device (the interpretative ειμι) and should not be taken in a literalistic fashion, neither should "this cup" be interpreted as being the [blood of] the new covenant; in reality, it too, is a literary device (synecdoche).
Another related argument is that the use of τρωγω in John 6:54f is "proof" of Transubstantiation; for a refutation, see my post here.
Of course, a close identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is not problematic for LDS theology and Scripture; consider the following from the Book of Mormon (which records the very words of Christ Himself):
And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you . . . And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily when ye shall minister it; for whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore it ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister uto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood. (3 Nephi 18:6-7, 28-30)
I hope this adds food for thought. On my blog, I discuss the Eucharist in the New Testament and in early patristic literature a bit, mainly in response to the works of Robert Sungenis (Not by Bread Alone) and Brant Pitre and others. You might enjoy pursuing the following representative articles:
The Last Supper was not a Propitiatory Sacrifice
Malachi 1:11--A Prophecy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice?
Irenaeus of Lyons vs .Transubstantiation
I hope this provides food for thought.
Robert Boylan
Malachi 1:11--A Prophecy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice?
Irenaeus of Lyons vs .Transubstantiation
I hope this provides food for thought.
Robert Boylan
