Scriptural Mormonism: December 2024

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

Justin Collings on Common Misinterpretations of D&C 130:20-21

First, we might mistakenly think that the ratio of blessings to obedience is 1:1—that the scope of divine blessings corresponds directly with the measure of our obedience. This is to give ourselves too much credit. It suggests that we have somehow earned our blessings and might someday extinguish our debts. King Benjamin warned starkly against any such misimpression [in Mosiah 2:21-22, 24]

What indeed? Blessings are irrevocably predicated upon obedience to law because God will never foist or force HIs blessings upon unwilling recipients. The gift of mortal life itself comes only to those who accept God’s premortal plan and thus “keep their first estate” (Abraham 3:26). The blessings predicated on that premortal obedience continue to flow as a merciful Father “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

. . .

A second potential misreading of Doctrine and Covenants 130:21 might unduly emphasize external, temporal blessings and overlook internal, spiritual blessings—the immediate blessings, mentioned earlier, of a more Christlike character, a deeper union with God Himself, a heightened capacity for enjoyment, and a sweetened receptivity to joy.

. . .

The third potential misreading of Doctrine and Covenants 130:21 has to do with timing. We might expect blessings predicated on obedience to follow obedience in swift chronological succession. That is certainly what happens with the principal blessings associated with obedience—a more Godlike character and a deeper relationship with God Himself. This might be what Benjamin has in mind when he says that God “doth immediately bless you” (Mosiah 2:24; emphasis added), or what Amulek has in mind when he promises that “if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about you” (Alma 34:31; emphasis added). (Justin Collings, Divine Law [Themes in the Doctrine and Covenants; Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book; Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2024], 41-42, 44-45; comments in square brackets added for clarification

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Wilford Woodruff (April 18, 1894): Malachi 4 Having an On-Going Fulfillment

I want to lay before you what there is for us to do at the present time; and in doing this I desire particularly the attention of President Lorenzo Snow, of the Salt Lake Temple; President M.W. Merrill, of the Logan Temple; President J.D.T. McAllister of the Manti Temple, and President D.H. Cannon, of the St. George Temple, and those associated with them. You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than you have done. We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. W have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. (Wilford Woodruff, "The Law of Adoption," April 18, 1894)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Ignace de le Potterie, "'To Be Born Again of Water and the Spirit'–The Baptismal Text of John 3,5"

Nevertheless, there does exist an exegetical tradition which, contrary to the preceding explanations, tends to dissociate the water and the Spirit. This tradition maintains firmly that the water designates Christian baptism; but it refers the expression "to be born of the Spirit" to faith or to the practice of the virtues. This tradition is a very old, going back to the middle of the second century. Its first witness is the Shepherd of Hermas. What it tells us about the conditions necessary for entrance into the kingdom is stated with a precision that is quite surprising, for such a distant period. The entire section of Sim. IX, 12-16, may be taken as a commentary on Jn 3, 5. Here we find cited at least eight times the words of this verse, eiselthein eis tēn basileian tou theou, in a context that is clearly baptismal. But it is, on the other hand, unusual that the first part of the verse ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit") is not found anywhere: the author has replaced it with different imaginative expressions, which describe in another way what is required for entrance into the kingdom. For Hermas, these conditions are baptism and a life according to the Spirit, that is, the practice of the Christian virtues. But these conditions seem to correspond, in his writing, to the two terms of the Johannine verse, water and the Spirit, and to provide us with an explanation: it is not enough to receive baptism, one must also "be born of the Spirit," live and act according to the Spirit.

Justin is another important witness, for Jn 3:5 is about the only Johannine text to be found in his writings.14 In I Apol. 61, he describes in detail Christian initiation in its two essential movements: the catechumens must first believe in the truth of Christian teaching, promise to live according to this doctrine, and pray for the remission of their sins; then they are baptized (61, 2-3), "for Christ has said: 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" (61, 4, citing Jn 3, 5). Baptism is called phōtismos, "because those who learn (manthanontōn) these things are enlightened" (61, 12) by faith. Thus, we understand clearly two passages from the Dialogue with Tryphon; in the first, he calls the race of Christians "that which has been regenerated [anagennēthentos] by him [Christ], by means of water, faith and wood (di' hydatos kai pisteōs kai xylou) which contained the mystery of the cross" (138, 2). Somewhat before this, he had called this same Christian race "that which is born of faith and the Spirit" (ton de ek pisteos kai pneumatos gegennēmenon) (135, 6). These two texts lead us to say that, for Justin, faith and baptism are both necessary for regeneration; but it is above all faith that is linked with the action of the Spirit. (Ignace de le Potterie, "'To Be Born Again of Water and the Spirit'–The Baptismal Text of John 3,5," in The Christian Lives By the Spirit [trans. John Morriss; Staten Island, N.Y.: Society of St. Paul, 1971], 5-7)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Terryl Givens on JST Romans 4:16

In the fourth chapter of Romans (4:16), where the King James Version has Paul saying that the promise of salvation “is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed,” Joseph’s inspired revision has “therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.” The change may appear a simple sleight of hand, nodding toward Protestant grace while inserting “works” in a move toward Arminianism, but a few moments later, Joseph again invokes grace, clearly defining it not as imputed righteousness but as a Christ-begotten power strengthening humanness but as Christ-begotten power strengthening humankind’s capacity to submit to law. “For to will is present with me, but to perform that which the good I find not,” he revises the text to read, echoing Paul, but then adds the crucial caveat: “only in Christ.” Joseph’s translation reaffirms the point moments later, emphasizing that we can only live the full “law . . . of Christ” “through the assistance of Christ.” (Romans 7:18-19, Joseph Smith Translation) (Terryl Givens, Agency [Themes in the Doctrine and Covenants; Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book; Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2024], 79)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Hildegard Lewy on še'um (cf. "Sheum") as an Old Akkadian Cereal Name

THE DESIGNATIONS of cereals occurring most frequently in the Old Assyrian texts are uṭṭutum (gen .: uṭṭitim, acc .: uṭṭatam), še'um, aršâtum, and GIG. . . . In the letter ICK 13, on the other hand, we read in II. 5 f., of "12 ½ minas of silver, or 1 hundred sacks of še'um," which ḫabuala, the shepherd of the princess, owed the writer of this letter. . . . The ideogram GIG, even as the Akkadian terms še'um and aršâtum, denotes a variety of grain. (Hildegard Lewy, "On Some Old Assyrian Cereal Names," Journal of the American Oriental Society 76, no. 4 [October-December 1965]: 201, 202)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Donald Alfred Hagner on Evidence for 1 Clement's Knowledge of the Book of Revelation

The following comes from:

Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 270-71

The evidence of Clement’s knowledge of the Apocalypse is equally slight. There is indeed only one passage in Clement which demands attention as a possible indication of influence from the Apocalypse. It consists of a citation which is apparently made up of several different OT passages.

Clement 34.3 (text of A)	Revelation 22.12 (Text of Nestle-Aland)	Isaiah 40.10 (Text of Rahlfs)	Isaiah 62.11
προλέγει γὰρ ἡμῖν· Ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος, καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ,	ιδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ	ἰδοὺ κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται . . . ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ.	ἰδού σοι ὁ σωτὴρ παραγίνεται ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθὸν καὶ τὸ ἔργον πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ.
			Proverbs 24.12 (cf. also Ps. 16.13; Rom. 2.6)
ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ.	ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ.		ὃς ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

The agreement between Clement and the Apocalypse in combining these particular OT passages is too significant to be dismissed as fortuitous, and must accordingly be explained either by direct dependence, or by dependence upon a common source. The actual agreement between Clement and the Apocalypse against the OT texts is slight, being found only in the infinitive άποδούναι, the singular τό έργον and the καί preceding ο μισθος. On the other hand, if Clement is dependent upon the Apocalypse, it is difficult to account for the differences between the two, especially Clement's πρό προσώπου αύτοϋ for μετ' έμοϋ, and ό κύριος for έρχομαι ταχύ. Further, Clement's words are introduced with the formula προλέγει γάρ ήμιν. But since Clement nowhere cites or alludes to NT material under an introductory formula, he is very probably citing either from our canonical OT or from a particular apocalyptic writing which is no longer extant. The fact that the same combination of passages appears in the Apocalypse, together with Clement's use of an introductory formula, suggests that the latter alternative is the more probable. But for two slight variations (the omission of o before κύριος, and από substituted for πρό before προσωπου), Clement's citation is found verbatim in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata IV, 135, 3). The agreement, however, is explained by dependence upon the Roman Clement since several other OT citations in the immediate context reveal the influence of his Roman namesake. It is possible that the saying in Barn. 21.3, έγγύς ο κύριος καί ο μισθος αυτου, is derived from the same apocryphal source upon which Clement and the author of the Apocalypse are dependent, but because of its brevity this remains uncertain. Since Clement elsewhere quotes from apocryphal writings unknown to us, there is no reason to doubt that he may be doing so here. In any event, it is clear that the present passage cannot substantiate a conclusion of probability as to Clement's knowledge of the Apocalypse.

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Excerpts from Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (1973)

Clement's epistle itself contains allusions to Judith (Cl. 55.4f.) and quotations from Wisdom (Cl. 3.4 and 27.5), but without intro- ductory formulae. Beyond this, however, Clement quotes from at least one, but more probably from several non-canonical writings (Eldad and Modad, Apocryphal Ezekiel, Assumption of Moses, as we have argued), using introductory formulae much as with canonical quotations, in one place employing yéyparal (46.2), and once (23.3) referring to ή γραφή αύτη (cf. 2 Cl. 11.2). (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973], 112)

Returning to our original question, what may we infer concerning Clement's OT canon and his estimation of writings outside the Hebrew canon ? There can be little question but that Clement's OT canon was not a closed one. At the time Clement wrote, the Hebrew canon was in the process of being finally established in Palestine. In Rome, presumably both Jews and Christians possessed and used a number of writings, the canonicity of which was not yet a settled matter. The majority of books were agreed upon, but there remained the writings which we call the Apocrypha as well as a number of apocalyptic writings which were perhaps doubtful. Several alternatives present themselves so far as the valuation of these writings is concerned : these writings may have been accepted as Scripture on a par with the other books of the OT; they may have been regarded as inspired and authoritative, but to a lesser degree than, and thus inferior to, the other books of the OT; or they may simply have been regarded as interesting and helpful writings but not essentially different in character from other secular literature of the day.

Unfortunately, Clement is not explicit concerning his own view of the writings in question. There are possible indications that Clement may have been aware of the classification of OT writings according to the threefold Hebrew canon. In 28.3, introducing a variant quotation from Ps. 138, Clement writes λέγει γάρ που τό γραφεΐον. The expression Tò ypapeîov may well be an intentional reference to the third division of the canon, which on occasion was referred to collectively as rà ypadeia (cf. Epiphanius, Haer. 29, 7, 2ff.). Another interesting term, ή πανάρετος σοφία (57.3) introduces a quotation from Proverbs, and is probably a special designation used in referring to this book, rather than a term referring to the Hagiographa. Clement thus may well have known the concept of a third division of writings, as yet not fully determined, in addition to the Law and the Prophets (for which see 43.1). (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973], 116-17)

Perhaps the most significant of the parallels between Clement and James is found in their common insistence on the place of good works in the Christian life. It is not only the importance of good works, as for example in Cl. 33-a matter concerning which Paul was also explicit- but the relationship between good works and righteousness before God which is in question. Not only in the futility of faith without works, but in the very examples used to illustrate the point, Clement agrees with James. Clement, indeed, knows the doctrine of justification by faith (cf. 32.4), and appears to combine the Pauline emphasis with that of James in 31.2: τίνος χάριν ηυλογήθη ό πατήρ ήμων 'Αβραάμ; ουχί δικαιοσύνην καί άλήθειαν διά πίστεως ποιήσας; In other places the emphasis of James is more clearly to be seen. Thus in 10.1 Clement writes ' Αβραάμ, ο φίλος προσαγορευθείς, πιστός ευρέθη έν τω αύτον ύπήκοον γενέσθαι τοϊς ρήμασιν τού θεού, and in 10.7 διά πίστιν καί φιλοξενίαν εδόθη αύτω υίός έν γήρα, κα δι' ύπακοής προσήνεγκεν αύτόν θυσίαν τώ θεώ πρός εν τών δρέων ών εδειζεν αυτω. Speaking of the necessity that faith be accompanied by good works, James, like Clement, cites the example of Abraham (2.21ff.):

Αβραάμ ό πατήρ ήμων ούκ έξ έργων εδικαιώθη, άνενεγκας Ίσαάκ τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έπι τό θυσιαστήριον; βλέπεις ότι ή πίστις συνήργει τοϊς έργοις αύτοϋ, καί έκ τών έργων ή πίστις ετελειώθη, καί έπληρώθη ή γραφή ή λέγουσα · έπίστευσεν δέ Αβραάμ τώ θεώ καί ελογίσθη αύτω είς δικαιοσύνην, καί φίλος θεού έκλήθη.

Although the similarities between Clement and James at this point are interesting, they would not be judged significant, were it not for the fact that Clement speaks of Rahab in precisely the same terms, and Rahab provides James with his second example. Clement writes in 12.1: διά πίστιν καί φιλοξενίαν έσώθη 'Ραάβ ή πόρνη with which may be compared Jas. 2.25f .: ομοίως δέ καί 'Ραάβ ή πόρνη ούκ εξ έργων εδικαιώθη, υποδεξαμένη τούς αγγέλους καί έτέρα όδω έκβα- λούσα; ώσπερ γάρ τό σώμα χωρίς πνεύματος νεκρόν έστιν, ούτως καί ή πίστις χωρίς έργων νεκρά έστιν. The fact that Clement in mentioning both Abraham and Rahab stresses the com- bination of faith and works found in them, makes it probable that James 2 is in his mind. F. W. Young has pointed out a further interesting similarity between the accounts of Rahab found in Clement and James. In both accounts Rahab is specifically said to have sent someone in the wrong direction, a point which, according to Young, is expressed neither in the OT (LXX or MT) nor in the Rabbinic and early Christian literature. The conclusion that Young draws is that only literary dependence can account for this agreement. (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; Leiden: Brill, 1973], 249-50)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Boniface Ramsey (RC): The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are Absent in Ambrose of Milan's Writings

Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) had a very high Mariology. Notwithstanding, there is no evidence in his writings of the Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption of Mary. As Catholic priest Boniface Ramsey noted:

Ambrose’s views on virginity lead us quite naturally to the related issue of his Marian theology. In this regard, too, sheer emphasis played a role: Ambrose spoke of the Virgin Mary with a frequency and to a degree that were unusual up until then. He insisted upon Mary’s perpetual virginity and, in particular, upon her virginity in partu, i.e., in the very act of giving birth. Here, in opposing the monk Jovinian, whom he condemned at a Milanese council around the year 390 for holding, among other opinions, that the birth of Jesus had occurred in a natural way (cf. Letter 42.6–7), Ambrose carried with him other Western theologians, especially Jerome. He saw in Mary a model for both virgins (cf. On Virgins 2.2.6–18) and mothers (cf. Letter 63.109–11). She was, in addition, thanks to her being at once virginal and married, a symbol of the Church, which was likewise virginal and espoused to Christ (cf. Commentary on Luke 2.7). We do not yet find the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception and her assumption in Ambrose, but his was the most comprehensive teaching on Mary produced up to that point, and it would help create an atmosphere conducive to further developments. (Boniface Ramsey, Ambrose [Early Church Fathers; London: Routledge, 1997], 50-51, emphasis in bold added)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jerry Bergman on Genesis 9:4 and Blood Transfusions

Genesis 9:4

A careful reading of Genesis 9:4 shows that the Hebrew does not prohibit eating blood, as the Watchtower teaches, but meat which has blood in it. Almost all translations of Genesis 9:4 (including the Watchtower’s New World Translation) read in words similar to the King James Version: “But flesh with the life thereof [still in it], which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Or, as the Anchor Bible states: “Only flesh with its life blood still in it shall you not eat.” A footnote literally translates the passages as “whose blood in the/its being” (p. 58). Considered by some the most accurate translation of the Bible today, The New International Version, states, “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.”

In other words, the eating of blood was no more expressly prohibited than the eating of meat. Rather, the eating of a certain kind of meat and the eating of a certain kind of blood were both prohibited. It was only meat in combination with blood or meat with blood in it that was prohibited. If one concludes from Genesis 9:4 that it is wrong to eat blood, then one must also conclude that it is wrong to eat meat. This would contradict Genesis 9:3, which gives man permission to eat meat. Since in the Hebrew the word blood modifies the word meat, we cannot construe the passage to mean that the eating of blood itself is forbidden.

The Hebrew word basar means “flesh” or “body” and, by extension, a person. Thus Genesis 9:4 does not even say that meat with blood in it is forbidden, but flesh or “bodies” with blood still in it is prohibited. If the writer had wanted to refer to meat itself he would have used the Hebrew word mazown, meaning food or meat in general. In this passage, the words “blood” and “soul” are synonymous. The teaching is that animal bodies can be eaten, but only animal bodies without their soul or life still in them.

Bruce Waltke (1976) stated to the author:

I hope my treatment of Genesis 9:4 will help. Actually the grammatical construction is quite straightforward. The Hebrew text says literally: “Only flesh with its life, its blood, you must not eat.”

As you suggest flesh is restricted to that kind of flesh with its life (nephesh) in it. Grammatically speaking the kind of flesh in view is modified by the adjectival phrase “with its life.”

The life now is qualified by “its blood”; that is, the blood and life are equated. In this case the qualification or modification is indicated by an apposition—that is, blood (dam) in apposition to life (nephesh).

The Hebrew of Genesis 9:4 tells us that God has now given man permission to eat animal flesh, but that most of the animal’s blood must be drained out in order to insure that the animal is dead before it is eaten. Genesis 9:5 reiterates the fact that man must not eat live animals because of respect for life. But if the animal was dead, the sanctity of life would not be profaned because the animal would not have life in it. For thousands of years, people ate animals while the animals were still alive—a cruelty this passage is designed to prevent. Pagan cultures taught that the “fight” of the animal eaten alive could he transferred to the person eating the animal. Other qualities of the animal, such as strength, power, and wisdom, it was thought could also be transferred at the same time.

. . .

The Purpose of Genesis 9:4

Because of the grammatical construction of the Hebrew, nothing else could be meant by Genesis 9:4 other than, as the NWT states: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”

We have shown that Genesis 9:4 most likely teaches that man should not eat blood while it is still in the flesh, so to speak, because God wants to be sure that the animal is mercifully dead before it is eaten. What is God’s purpose in making this restriction? Obviously not to protect man’s health, because there is nothing inherently unhealthy about eating an animal’s flesh while that animal is still alive. The Watchtower’s explanation, that it was protecting against future dangerous transfusions, is not valid because, although there have been abuses which have resulted in undesirable side-effects, on the whole medical science is able to improve man’s health to a great extent through the judicious use of blood transfusions. Again, the reason for God’s law could only be to assure reverence and respect for all life, animal or human, since it all comes from God and is sustained by God.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 9:4 is precluded because of the obvious symbolism and figurative language of the context surrounding the verse. For example, Genesis 9:4 states, “Your blood of your souls I shall ask back.” Is God literally asking us to wrap up our blood and send it back? Obviously not. The text is stating that under certain conditions, God may take our lives—the word blood in this context is synonymous with “life.”

If we understand the word blood to be synonymous with life in Genesis 9:4, we could translate the passage: “Only flesh with its life still in it you must not eat.” Genesis 9:6 has the same definition of blood: “Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his blood be shed.” This obviously does not mean that if a man causes another man to bleed, he also must bleed! It clearly means that if one man takes the life of another, the punishment God exacts is that the murderer’s life also must be forfeited—“one who takes another man’s life must lose his own life.” The shedding of blood obviously refers to the taking of life, just as the word “blood” in verse 4 refers to the life of the animal. (Jerry Bergman, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusions,” The Journal of Pastoral Practice 4, no. 2 [1980]: 68-70)

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Monday, December 30, 2024

Annual Lecture 2024: Words Never to Be Forgotten by John W. Welch

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Eucharistic Theology in Various Eastern Orthodox Confessions

The Confession of Dositheus (1672)

Decree 17: Of Holy Communion.

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking the bread, and blessing, He gave to HIs Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying, “Take, eat; This is My Body” (Matthew 26:26). And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink of It, all of you; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.”

In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is changed (μεταβαλλεσθαι), transubstantiated (μετουσιουσθαι), transformed (μεταποιεισθαι), and converted (μεταρρυθμιζεσθαι) into the true Body Itself of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is transformed (μεταποιεισθαι) and transubstantiated (μετουσιουθαι) into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world (John 6:51).

Further, that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there is no longer remains the substance (ουσιαν) of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species (ειδει) and form (τυπω) of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents (συμβεβηκοσιν) of the bread.

. . .

Further, that it is a true and propitiatory sacrifice (θυσιαν αληθη και ιλαστικην) offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as it is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles in accordance with the command they received of the Lord. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 60, 61, 64)

The Shorter Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow (1824)

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 208)

The Catechism of Peter Mogila (1898)

106. What is the third Sacrament?

The holy Eucharist, or the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the beholding (υποκατο εις την θεωριαν; Latin sub visibili specie) of bread and wine: Wherein, according to the thing itself (ηγουν κατα το πραγμα), Jesus Christ is truly and principally present (αληθως και κυριως παρων).

. . .

107. What is to be observed in this Mystery?

. . .

Secondly, It must be provided that where the Prist is to celebrate this Sacrament, there be a fit and proper Altar, or at least a consecrated antimension (αντιμισιον), without one of which he may not, by any means, offer the bloodless Sacrifice (την αναιμακτον θυσιαν).

. . .

Fourthly, In the moments of consecration of the holy Gifts, the Priest must firmly and undoubtedly resolve within himself that the substance or essence (ουσια) of the bread and the substance or essence (ουσια) of the wine are changed (μεταβαλλεται) into the substance or essence of the true Body and Blood of Christ (Gεις την ουσιαν του αληθινου σωματος και αιματος του Χριστου), by the operation or working of the Holy Spirit (δια την ενεργεις του αγιου Πνευματος), whose power and influence let the Priest invoke (επικλησιν) in these words in order to the due performance of this Sacrament:

O Lord, send down from Heaven your Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these Gifts here offered; and make this Bread the precious Body of your Christ, and that which is in the Cup the precious Blood of your Christ, changing (μεταβολων) them by your Holy Spirit.

At these words there is wrought a change in the substance of essence of the elements (μετουσιωσις; Latin: Transsubstantiatio), and the bread becomes truly the Body of Christ, and the wine truly his Blood; the species (τα ειδη) only remaining, which are perceived by the sight.

. . .

The Chief Fruits of the Eucharist.

First, A commemoration (αναμνησις) of the sinless suffering (του αναμαρτιητου παθους) and death (και του θανατου) of Christ; As says the Scripture, As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Secondly, This Sacrament is a propitiation (ιλασμος) and reconciliation (καλοσυνημα; Latin: propitiation reconciliatioque) with God (προς τον Θεον), for our sins, both of the living and also of the dead: Wherefore the holy Liturgy is never without prayers and supplications made unto God for our sins. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 399, 400-1, 403-4)