Peter D. Williams is a very intelligent Catholic apologist in London. Apart from doing admirably work with the pro-life movement, he has debated James White on the topic of Mariology and Indulgences. On the topic, he debated (and defeated) Cecil Andrews:
Recently, the Catholic Herald published an article Williams wrote:
Catholic
teaching, the Eucharist and the words of Our Lord
As Williams
repeats arguments Catholic apologists tend to use in their works and debates, I
think it would be apropos to interact with such. Williams' words will be in blue, followed by my responses in black. Do note that I have written a great deal already on the topic of the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation in light of the Bible and patristic literature. For a full listing of articles, see:
Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)
When we talk of the
Real Presence, we mean that Our Lord himself is really, truly, present in the
Blessed Sacrament – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The repose of the most holy
Eucharist in the tabernacles of Catholic churches is what makes them different
from any other space – they are places where the Lord himself is “really
present”.
This may be
lost on some who are not informed about Catholic theology on the Eucharist, but
in Catholic dogmatic theology, when the words of consecration are said by the
priest, the bread does not become transformed (“transubstantiated”) into the
body (as well as soul and divinity) of Jesus but also the blood of Jesus, too (and the wine becomes not just the
blood [and soul and divinity] of Jesus, but also His body). That is why
Catholic speak of the totality of
Christ under one species, a doctrine called “concomitance.” It was proclaimed a
dogma in June 1415 during the Council of Constance.
As Williams
did not focus on “proving” Concomitance, I will not discuss it here, but for
those wishing for discussions thereof, see, for e.g.:
Answering
a technical argument for Concomitance (cf. Ian Christopher Levy
on Defenders of Concomitance vs. Patristic Authors and Ancient Traditions and Nathan Mitchell on
the Debate as to when Consecration Took Place and the Development of
Concomitance)
Commenting
on Luke 22:19, Williams argues in favour of Catholic Eucharistic theology
thusly:
In Greek, pronouns
(“I”, “she”, “this”, etc) have genders – masculine, feminine, or neuter –
corresponding to the nouns to which they refer. The word here for “this”, touto, is a neuter
pronoun. That means it should be referring to a neuter noun. The word for
“bread”, however – artos – is
masculine. That means that “this” is unlikely to be the “bread” Our Lord
was holding in his hands (as the symbolic interpretation would demand), since
their genders don’t correspond. Rather, he is referring to the only other noun
in the phrase – soma (“body”) –
which is, like touto, neuter. More
literally, “this is my body” means “this 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).
Further supporting this “interpretive
ειμι”
understanding, do consider the following section under ειμι in entry ειμι in
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.):
c. in explanations:
α. to show how someth. is to be
understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; εἰμί here, too, serves as copula; we
usually translate mean, so in the formula τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν this or that means, that is to
say (Epict., Ench. 33, 10; Arrian, Tact. 29, 3; SIG 880, 50; PFlor
157, 4; PSI 298, 9; PMert 91, 9; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 16; ApcMos 19; Just., D. 56,
23; 78, 3 al.) Mk 7:2; Ac 19:4; Ro 7:18; 9:8; 10:6, 8; Phlm
12; Hb 7:5 al.; in the sense that is (when
translated) (Polyaenus 8, 14, 1 Μάξιμος ἀνηγορεύθη· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἄν εἴη Μέγιστον) Mt 27:46; Ac
1:19. So also w. relative pron.: ὅ ἐστιν Mk 3:17; 7:11, 34; Hb
7:2. After verbs of asking, recognizing, knowing and not knowing
(Antiphanes Com. 231, 1f τὸ ζῆν τί ἐστι;) μάθετε τί ἐστιν learn what (this) means Mt 9:13. εἰ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν 12:7; cp. Mk 1:27; 9:10; Lk
20:17; J 16:17f; Eph 4:9. W. an indir.
question (Stephan. Byz. s.v. Ἀγύλλα: τὶς ἠρώτα τί ἂν εἴη τὸ ὄνομα) τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα Lk 15:26; τί εἴη τοῦτο 18:36. τίνα θέλει ταῦτα εἶναι what this means Ac 17:20; cp. 2:12, where
the question is not about the mng. of terms but the significance of what is
happening.—Esp. in interpr. of the parables (Artem. 1, 51 p. 48, 26 ἄρουρα οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ γυνή=field means nothing else than
woman) ὁ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος the field means the world Mt 13:38; cp. vss. 19f, 22f; Mk
4:15f, 18, 20; Lk 8:11ff (cp. Gen
41:26f; Ezk 37:11; Ath. 22, 4 [Stoic interpr. of myths]). On τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk
22:19 and its various interpretations, see lit. s.v. εὐχαριστία. Cp. Hipponax (VI BC) 45
Diehl αὕτη γάρ ἐστι συμφορή=this means misfortune.
Appealing to
the Last Supper institution narratives to support Catholic dogma is problematic
for defends of Catholic theology. How so? It would not have been a propitiatory
sacrifice as Christ had not yet died, and in Catholic theology, the Mass is the
re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. As Robert Sungenis
writes:
Protestant E.
Svendsen adds another objection: " . . . what about the Last
Supper, which is upheld by Catholics, as the original Mass? Was that a
're-presenting' of the sacrifice of the cross? How could it have been a
re-presenting of something that had not yet occurred (Christ had not yet been
sacrificed)?" (Evangelical Answers, p. 254, f. 4). The Last Supper
is not a "re-presentation," nor has Catholic theology ever taught
such. Rather, it is a presentation of what was to come, or the prototype of the
re-presentation. Obviously, Jesus first had to institute or originally present
the Eucharist in the Last Supper before His Church could subsequently represent
it in the sacrifice of the Mass. Similarly, in John 20:22, Jesus does the same
with the Apostles in regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, Whom the
Apostles receive on the Old Testament side of the cross prior to their
reception of the Spirit at Pentecost. Likewise, Jesus institutes the sacrament
of baptism on the Old Testament side of the cross (John 3:5-4:2) prior to its
formal inauguration at Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39). All these events depend on the
efficacy of the cross for their institution. In fact, they could not be instituted
unless the cross was anticipated. Hence, Jesus institutes the Last Supper in
the anticipation of the cross, as He makes plain in Lk 22:15, 20-22. (Robert A.
Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for
the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International
Publishing, Inc.: 2009], 102-103 n. 103)
Notice that Sungenis
admits that the Last Supper was not a propitiatory sacrifice.
This shows that the Roman Catholic appeal to the language of the Last Supper (e.g.,
“this is my body”; the use of the participle form of “to shed/pour out” in Matt
26:28, both of which are discussed in the links above) cannot legitimately
be used to support both the concepts of the Eucharist as a propitiatory
sacrifice and Transubstantiation as such was not applicable to the Last Supper
itself! This also contradicts Sungenis' argument later in the book, based on
Matt 26:28 and the use of the participle ἐκχυννόμενον ("being poured
out/shed") that "This would mean that the blood, at the time Jesus is
speaking, is presently being poured out, that is, it is the
blood of Jesus under the appearance of wine" (ibid., 127; emphasis in
original).
Commenting
on John 6:53-56, Williams writes:
Not only does he
use the double expletive “Amen, amen”, which makes clear that he is affirming
(not denying) what they are saying, but he shifts to even more visceral
language: from phagō (“eat”) and soma (“body”) to trōgō (“gnaw”) and sarx (“flesh”).
Moreover, he uses alēthēs (“truly”),
typically used in connection with nouns that are literal and not metaphorical,
such as when validating statements.
Williams in
this article and in his debate with Cecil Andrews, focused a lot on the shift
in verb from φαγω to τρωγω beginning in v. 54, as do many
Catholic apologists. They argue, as does Williams, that (1) τρωγω is never used metaphorically in
Koine Greek and (2) the shift in verb shows us that, while one may argue that “eating”
prior to v. 54 in John 6 may be interpreted metaphorically, the “eating” in v.
54 onwards is literal eating/munching/gnawing on the σαρξ (“flesh”) of Jesus (albeit,
under the Eucharistic species as to avoid cannibalism).
Firstly,
Catholic apologists who argue that τρωγω is never used metaphorically in Koine Greek
literature are in error. There are instances of the verb being used as a
metaphor. Fr instance, Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, while attempting
to use this argument, traps himself when he appeals to Greek lexical sources
which demonstrate that τρωγω can,
and has been, used in figurative senses in Greek literature:
In
Greek classical literature, trôgô referred to the act of
chewing, gnawing, munching, nibbling or biting and sometimes with the general
meaning of devouring. (Liddell and Scott, Greek English Lexicon,
Oxford University Press, 1871; Walter Bauer, Greek English Lexicon
of the New Testament, University of Chicago Press, 1979). Bauer
mentions the fifth century BC writing of Aristophenes in which the wording “ο
τρωγων μου τον αρτον” (“the one eating my bread”) and the second century BC
writing of Polybius, “δυο τρωγομεν αδελφοι” (“two brothers eat”) are instances
illustrating comradeship. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread
Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d
ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Printing, 2009], 154 n. 163).
Here
is the entry to τρωγω in BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature [3d ed] emphasis added):
469
τρώγω • τρώγω (Hom. et al.; TestJob 12:2; SIG 1171, 9; PGM 7, 177;
Sb 5730, 5. Not found in LXX, EpArist, Philo or Joseph. B-D-F §101 s.v.
ἐσθίειν; 169, 2; Rob. 351; JHaussleiter, Archiv für lat. Lexikographie 9, 1896,
300-302; GKilpatrick in: Studies and Documents 29, ’67, 153) to bite or chew
food, eat (audibly), of animals (Hom. et al. ‘chew, nibble, munch’) B 10:3.—Of
human beings (Hdt. et al. and so in Mod. Gk.) τὶ someth. (Hdt. 1, 71, 3
σῦκα; Aristoph., Equ. 1077) B 7:8. ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον as a symbol
of close comradeship (Polyb. 31, 23, 9 δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί) J 13:18
(s. Ps 40:10 ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, which is the basis for this pass.). W. gen.
(Athen. 8, 334b τῶν σύκων) Hs 5, 3, 7. Abs. B 10:2. W. πίνειν (Demosth. 19,
197; Plut., Mor. 613b; 716e) Mt 24:38. J uses it to offset any tendencies to
‘spiritualize’ the concept so that nothing physical remains in it, in what many
hold to be the language of the Lord’s Supper ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον 6:58. ὁ
τρώγων με vs. 57. ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα (w. πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα) vss. 54, 56.—B.
327. DELG. M-M. TW.
Further, in
Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek
New Testament, the authors, when discussing τρωγω on p. 644, inform us that
"In one of the Klepht ballads edited by Abbott Songs p. 22, the verb is
used to denote security."
Another
consideration that undercuts the Catholic appeal to John 6:54f is the fact that
the text uses the phrase, ο τρωγων,
which is a present active participle. In Catholicism, one partakes,
iteratively, the sacrament of the Eucharist, but it is not an on-going process
in the sense of 24/7, not merely iteratively, which is required by the
grammar of John 6:54.
Indeed, some early
Christian authors had no qualms in interpreting this section of John 6 as being
metaphorical, such as Origen of Alexandria (185-254). On this, see Origen
vs. the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 (cf. Did
Origen teach Transubstantiation? For a
refutation of Robert Sungenis, Not By
Bread Alone and Jurgens, Faith of the
Early Fathers who appealed to Origen’s commentary on Exodus to support the
claim Origen did hold to “Real Presence” commensurate with what would be
dogmatised in 1215).
However, an important
question has to be addressed—why the shift in verb?
As Udo Schnelle
correctly notes, the entire Gospel of John presents a strongly anti-docetic
Christology, and much of the language and themes contained therein was used by
the author to off-set the Docetic Christology that was permeating certain
segments of early Christianity (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). This shift in verb is also
anti-docetic:
The drastic τρωγειν must be
understood in the sense of “gnaw,” and it clearly has an antidocetic accent: it
is not a symbolic “eating” of the bread of heaven or a spirit-filled “eating”
of the Son of man that gives eternal life, but only the real eating and
drinking of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Thus τρωγειν “offset[s] any
Docetic tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept’ (BAGD, 829), in that it
unmistakably emphasizes the reality of incarnation and crucifixion that are
present in the Eucharist. The expression καγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα [and I will
raise him/her up on the last day in v. 54b is like a refrain (cf. vv. 39, 40,
44): it is the work of the evangelist. Here also we may suspect an anti-docetic
tendency: John, with a view to the raising of the dead at the last day protects
the inaccessibility of salvation to human control from the Docetists, who
believed exclusively in the fullness of salvation in the present (see also v.
57: ζησει εις τον αιωνα). (Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology
in the Gospel of John [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990], 204-5)
In a recent scholarly
comment on the Gospel of John, one scholar wrote the following on the
theological importance of pericope:
Jesus’ flesh, both
his life and death, is “true food” and his blood “true drink” in that it
accomplishes the ends of food and drink: it gives life (6:54-55). Those who do
not eat do not have life within them (en hautois, 6:53). This phrasing
echoes earlier statements where Jesus claims that “as the Father has life in
himself, so also he has granted the Son to have life in himself” (en heautō,
5;26). Here is a parallel between Jesus and believers: the living Father has
life in himself, which he grants to the Son, who may in turn give life to
believers (4:14; 7:37). Those who eat the bread of life have taken life into
themselves, but they do not become the source of life for others. (Marianne
Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary [New Testament Library;
Louisville, Ky.:Westminster/John Knox Press, 2015], 155-56)
Do note,
this is not to deny that one rejects there being any Eucharistic theology in
John 6. I have defended there being Eucharistic theology (see Is
there any Eucharistic Teaching in John 6? A Response to Leon Morris).
However, the issue is the theology of
the Eucharistic teachings therein. Note the following from other Latter-day
Saints who have addressed Eucharistic theology and John 6:
John 6:54 uses the verb trogō, “eat” or “chew,” which is often used to describe the way
animals eat but not the way humans eat. It carries with it the symbolism of
consuming completely rather than eating in haste or lightly. Jesus’ flesh was
to be “chewed” or deliberately consumed and digested, thus showing how
important death and resurrection were to Jesus’ mission and the salvation of mankind.
This was at least part of the focus of the Bread of Life discourse that was not
understood by those who wanted to come and make Jesus king. (Richard Neitzel
Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making
Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010], 113-14)
There is real symbolism in the bread and wine used at the last supper to
represent Christ’s body and blood. The heb word for bread is לֶחֶם lechem, which
originally denoted animal flesh, as it still does in heb’s cousin language,
Arabic. So when Jesus offered the bread and said it symbolized his flesh,
etymologically that was true. Significantly, Christ, the “true bread” (John
6:32), was born in a town named Beth-Lehem, meaning “house of bread. (John A.
Tvedtnes, “Gospel of John,” in Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day
Saints vol 1: The Gospels, ed. Kevin L. Barney, p. 526 footnote d.)
For Latter-day Saint
interpreters, there is no issue if Christ was indeed speaking of the
Eucharist/Sacrament which would later be instituted after the discourse at
Capernaum.
The following should not be taken as an attack on Peter D. Williams (as stated previously, the fellow is clearly well-read and very intelligent). Instead, it should be taken as a critique of arguments used to support a theology of the Eucharist which I am convinced, contra Wiliams et al., is not supported by biblical exegesis and the earliest patristic literature. While I understand that Williams et al tend to debate Protestants, they tend to have an "either-or" approach to things (to use an example Williams and I will agree on, "either scripture or tradition" or "either scripture or the church"--see my book-length refutation of Sola Scriptura at Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura). On John 6, for example, Latter-day Saints do not have a "either-or" approach, too: we can affirm Jesus is speaking in some way of the Eucharist and reject that John 6:54f necessitates what would later be labelled "Transubstantiation" and, related to this teaching, that the Eucharist itself is a propitiatory sacrifice (albeit, the one and the same sacrifice of Christ [Roman Catholic theology does not teach that the Mass is a numerically distinct sacrifice, but the same sacrifice, as Calvary]).
If Williams or any other Catholic apologist wishes to debate these issues with me, I am game. I can guarantee that I will be a much more informed opponent than the likes of Cecil Andrews.
Robert S. Boylan
IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom
14 June 2020
