Embedded Files
Genitive Case
Genitive Case
There are good reasons to question the Eucharist doctrine of the Catholic church, I'm not just being unreasonable and don't take my claims lightly. I have studied the subject of communion a good while and hope to pass what i have discovered. The grammatical cases and figures of speech like metonymy come into play in figuring things out, making it impossible for me to believe Catholics. The Catholic church teaches the eucharist is the actual transformed body of Christ, we see the Lord's Supper as grammatical imagery called metonymy. This paper will talk about lots of stuff, so stick it out to the end. There is a lot to cover. Forgive my writing, I hate long answers, but it seems necessary to really cover the topics. We won't cover very many verses, but I will break them down and offer some insight.
Catholic Eucharist theory sees the bread statements of Christ, in the Last Supper, as a statement about the substance of the bread, the substance of Christ's body, his flesh, his substance. However, the scriptures see the bread as Christ's entire body. The head, the hair, the hands, the feet, the heart, etc. I Cor.12 lists the Christian body with all its members like head and hands. Transubstantiation would require Christ's full body in each wafer, not just flesh. It isn't communion of flesh only, but of a full body that was crucified. We eat of the hands and feet and head. So, it is metonymy, a figure of speech sort of like a metaphor. "Take eat, this is my body", wasn't meant to teach substance. It doesn't say this is my flesh, the wording is broader. Of course, Christ's body was flesh but that isn't being highlighted in communion passages. The word flesh is only used in one chapter, and that not talking about communion specifically. Christ doesn't address substance in his wording. The bread is in the metonymy, the full body is in the metonymy. The full body suffered for us. The thorns on his head, beating upon his back, nails in hands and feet, spear in the side, lack of breath from hanging, etc. The suffering was his full body. The Greek root "so" is sometimes translated into the word body but can mean whole. The whole person. Therefore, the wording in the Lord's Supper isn't concerned with substance, that is a human invention or misunderstanding. Thus, they twist the wording to their own destruction.
John 6 Not Communion
John 6 Not Communion
John 6:51 does say Jesus will give his flesh for the world, but this is speaking of the cross, not a reference to communion. In this verse we eat of living bread. Also, it is obvious John 6 is not speaking of communion, because John 6:40 says we can see Christ. In communion we can't see Christ, we can only image him in our minds, we can't see him. The bread coming from heaven could be seen. They beheld him.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (this is his human incarnation and the offering on the cross)
John 6:40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6 uses the present tense in many verses,
John 6:55
For my flesh is meat(present) indeed, and my blood is drink (present)indeed.
Since this is before communion was taught, by about a year, it probably isn't speaking of communion. The present tenses show Christ was their spiritual sustenance during his lifetime, our spiritual food as we feed on his life. It was living bread. Jesus doesn't tie this to communion directly, that is an assumption of many. It isn't a good assumption. His body going to the cross is flesh, but he never says communion is literal flesh. He says communion is his body. Christ makes no direct statement in John 6 about communion, and no direct statement about real presence in the last Supper. No direct statement at all. Real presence is his incarnation. His name means God with us.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Christ was the real presence in birth and throughout his life.)
In John 6 Christ uses a different word for Israel eating manna and the church eating Christ. Eat (phago) vs Consume (trogov). Trogov does not automatically imply physically eating. Sometimes this word trogov can mean to spy out such as Noah sending a dove to spy out land, or it can be used as grinding food with teeth to process the benefits or using a grinding stone to mash and break. It does not mean to eat only. Christ was not using it for chewing in John 6, it was used for consuming as to burn energy for life.
The emphasis on consuming the rich benefits vs chewing only. Eating manna is physical with spiritual effects, but the other (consumption) can be spiritual without eating physically, as if consuming God's word. Things can be consumed without eating, like burning oil in a lamp to produce light. The oil is consumed and no eating is involved. Diligent searching to know all details comes to mind, crushing God's word to get all details. As Paul said to Timothy, "rightly dividing the word". Divide or grind into parts are similar. The idea is consumption of a food or an idea. It can be associated with breaking down spiritual food for spiritual application.
Jesus wasn't teaching transubstantiation, but teaching the body and blood are sustenance and life giving if we consume them. It doesn't imply physical eating or chewing but consuming. Trago can mean consume without even eating physically.
John 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth (nourishes) of this bread shall live for ever.
The words consume or nourish could work in the translation. It doesn't imply physical eating but emphasis is on nourishing. All the verses with trago involved can fit consume. It is different than eating manna which involved physical eating. Christ points out it wasn't like eating manna.
Catholics have argued trago proves transubstantiation, but quite the opposite really. It is used when Judas dips a sop with Jesus. When used of physical eating it only means to eat for sustenance, vs just eating. Catholics argue it means to chew or crunch, but the word is more the idea of feeding the body's cells with nutrients. Thus, the idea of consuming completely in digestion and taking the food for life within.
It is used of the food being used up, Judas saw a free meal someone else put together, he did not have to pay. So the emphasis wasn't eating but consuming the food. It is translated eating but means consuming. A different emphasis. He consumed the food of Christ. The genitive "of me" is used, Christ emphasizing Judas was betraying a gracious host. "Eating bread with of me". It is called Christ's bread it seems before communion began or a blessing invoked.
Judas and Christ are tied to the word showing tragov doesn't imply a spiritual act. Christ was spiritual in action but Judas carnal.
John 13:18
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me
Communion does share a part of everyday Christianity. By carrying our crosses daily we fulfill John 6. Consuming Christ daily on a perpetual basis keeps us dwelling in Christ. Communion is one part of that perpetual dwelling. We fulfill John 6:56 in many ways other than communion, but those who refuse to share or participate in the Lord's table will have a hard time convincing God he dwells in Christ. Communion is part of how this concept plays out. It wasn't taught yet in John 6, so not specifically mentioned, but the concept of perpetual union is taught.
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (we should eat and drink daily)
The idea of drinking was used by Christ in speaking of his suffering. Here are three examples of Christ using a cup as a figure of speech, the cup being his suffering. Even though these are used different than other cup and drink passages, it shows Jesus knew and used such imagery.
John 18:11
Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
The idea of using a cup in a figurative image concerning Christ's suffering is very biblical. So, why must the Lord's Supper be literal flesh and blood? Drinking the cup meant performing the Father's will. It was a figure God's entire will for Christ.
The idea in drinking physically is to swallow, to allow the contents to affect your life and health. Spewing it out of your mouth doesn't qualify as eating just as chewing food and then discarding it doesn't mean "trago", consuming is implied. Whether eating or drinking we let food sustain us and strengthen us by swallowing. In this sense chewing or grinding isn't meant, but swallowing for uptake to the body. Likewise, we must spiritually eat and drink of Christ. We must allow it into the heart and mind.
The idea of consuming can be tied to the burnt offerings, they were consumed by fire. We can also see that consuming goes beyond chewing.
Galatians 5:15
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
The statement of Ignatius that the Eucharist is Christ's flesh didn't wholly match what Christ said in the supper, it is likely he extended from John 6 incorrectly, which is the cross not communion. It could be he was arguing with Gnostics over Christ having a real body vs a spirit body. John 6 would prove he was flesh, but it doesn;t apply to the Eucharist except symbolically. He could have been arguing about other things and not substance of the Eucharist, but the symbolism of the Eucharist. Whatever Ignatius intent, his writing overtime introduced a false teaching, creating a big division. His words were used to sustain a false teaching. I would bet he wishes he hadn't taught it with those words.
Realize that Catholic doctrine is the emperor without any clothes, they tell us the bread and fruit of the vine are changed into the actual body and blood, but like the emperor's clothes, they are simply not visible. It is a mystical deception. The emperor's subjects have severely bendable imaginations and forgot how to read scripture. Most of the masses in Ignatius day did not read and write, so they just practiced what was explained to them. Deception was relatively easy.
The resurrection and other miracles of the New Testament were real and visible; people actually saw and handled Christ after his resurrection. People saw and tasted the water turned to wine. People saw and tasted the bread multiplied in feeding thousands, but in the Catholic Eucharist no one sees or tastes the body and blood, it is a hoax perpetrated on the masses. In the manna Israel saw the manna and tasted it, in the incarnation men saw and touched Christ. His breast was there to lean upon. Catholics said the Eucharist changed substance and gullible masses believed it. Some didn't believe it and were killed or imprisoned for speaking out. Perhaps God sent Catholics strong delusion so they would believe the lie. II Thess. 2:9-12.
The term "falling away" in II Thessalonians 2:3 has a prefix meaning "from within", so it wasn't speaking of a foreign religion, but of Christianity itself falling away through various lies and false miracles. The Greek word comes from the idea of witnesses, such as witnesses taking the stand. It is the idea of witness consensus. This seems much like Catholics using the church fathers as witnesses. The word "apostasia", the idea of apostasy. If you notice the root "sta" in this word it is the idea of establishing by witnesses in Matthew 18:16. The English word established has the root "sta" within it.
Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Of course, some religion is developed based upon false witnesses and false claims, a consensus of false claims. Thus, the falling away apostasy being based upon false witnesses from within. Some of the church fathers may be a collection of false witnesses. We need to question them based upon scripture versus taking their word without proving all things as Paul instructed. It is appropriate to question witnesses.
The Greek of I Corinthians 10:16 uses a group of genitive cases when speaking of the blood and body of Christ, which is "of the blood" and "of the body". If it was the blood and body itself it would be in the accusative case. As in Acts 2:38, "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", of the Spirit is in the accusative. Therefore, the gift is the Spirit himself. If in the genitive case it would be a gift supplied by the Spirit but not the Spirit himself. Our communion is a remembrance of the literal body and blood, but not physical flesh and blood as Catholics teach. Genitive can be used when it is about the body and blood but not the actual blood present in the room.
Someone could argue communion is of the body, so a small portion of transubstantiated flesh, the genitive in I Cor. 10:16 might be used this way but there is a problem with the argument, other verses see communion as the whole body. So, of the body and of the blood is likely its source history. The history the communion is about.
The genitive case can be taught pretty easily from Mathew 1, where a book is about someone. In instances where communion is about the body and blood the genitive can be used. The genitive is used for many purposes but in general it is describing origin or location from where something starts, or its purpose. The blood of Christ, the blood coming from Christ himself that has a specific purpose.
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation (genitive)of Jesus Christ (genitive), the son of David(genitive), the son of Abraham (genitive).
The genitive here expresses the idea that the content of the writing is about Christ's origin and his life events. Genitive is usually translated "of" or "because" or "about", It isn't Christ himself but a description of some part of his existence. The book comes from his life. History is often genitive.
The genitive case along with a knowledge of metonymy, a Greek figure of speech, will help explain why the bread and wine aren't the real presence of Christ. They are symbols. Greek sentence structure comes into play as well. The Greek New Testament doesn't teach real presence and most early church teachers didn't either. We will look at this through the lense of Ignatius, who is credited with teaching it but actually may not.
In the Lord's Supper the blood becomes specific through the genitive. "of me" and "of the New Testament", and "which is shed" and "for the remission of sins". Real identity requires adding all of these together to learn who and what the Supper is about. You can't leave one part out and still get the full picture. The same can be true of genitive phrases, one must take the noun and phrases together, when one noun substitutes for another it includes the noun and following genitive phrases.
"this is the body of me (genitive)"
The "is" contains more than the body which could be any body without a genitive to clarify who's body, it includes "of me" making it specific. The genitive tells who's body, whether literal or figurative. Jesus wasn't applying "real presence" but applying identification and purpose clauses. Now apply this to the following verse. All the phrases attatched to the blood add to what the "is" refers to. If you wanted to prove real presence you would stop at blood, as Catholics often quote, but to get the meaning you need the genitive phrases.
Matthew 26:27
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (english translation)
this for is the blood of me (genitive) this of the New Testament (genitive) this for of many (genitive) poured out for forgiveness (accusative) of sins (genitive) (literal Greek order)
The word "for" comes after the word "this" in Greek, it includes all three times the word "this" is used. Basically, because of this, this, and this. Thus, the word "for" pertains to the phrase following, it means this is because of something or about the blood. Meaning the cup stands in for that following vs literal realism. The cup is linked to the theological explanation. "For" can be translated "because", it is the Greek "Gar". The second phrase v.28 explains or is linked to the first v.27. The reason for the cup, the blood of Christ being of the new Covenant and for the remission of sins. It is an explanation of the reason and purpose of the blood. The reason isn't ,
"this is my blood"
but the full explanation of the blood's origin, legal position in the covenant, and purpose in forgiveness,
"the blood of me is of the New Testament and poured out for most for the remission of sins".
The explanation brings in the rest of the sentence. Thus, not emphasizing real presence but an explanation of meaning and scope. It is a theological explanation of the purpose of Christ's blood, not real presence. The genitive cases lead us to facts about the blood.
If just using "this is my blood" it could be figurative or could be real presence. Since it includes the term shed or poured out it can't be real presence, it is blood that will be shed the next day but have meaning and purpose the rest of eternity. Think of it this way, it has this purpose daily not weekly. Real presence according to Catholics is weekly.The blood's purpose is perpetual. The remembrance isn't perpetual but only when gathered into one place. The blood of Christ brings forgiveness moment by moment anywhere in the world.
Christ took this into account when speaking, he knew his death was future. His wording is very interesting.
Luke 22:16
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Jesus knew the history behind the cup was yet unfulfilled. It was a figure of future history. It wasn't literal yet. It had to be fulfilled. When Jesus said the cup is the blood shed, he wasn't speaking literally but through metonymy, the shedding of blood was hours into the future.
The cup is linked to the entire phrase, not just blood. Thus, not emphasizing real presence. Since the cup is tied to a theological explanation it isnt used as a simple real presence statement. "drink you all of it for this is my real blood" is not the explanation, but "the blood shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant and toward forgiveness", The blood being defined in the explanation is not blood at communion, not literal presence blood, but the blood shed on the cross. the blood of me poured out for many. "is" identifies the blood shed on the cross in Christ's death. 100pct, it is talking about the cross. It was unfulfilled in the last supper.
The verb "is" isn't trying to say real presence since the emphasis is on the Testament and forgiveness through the blood, but it is describing the cup as the blood required from the New Testament. The cup takes in the meaning of the entire phrase following, it is way greater in scope than real presence. If you use it for real presence, it loses some of its meaning and identification. The emphasis is the blood of Christ was a requirement for the new covenant; it was of the covenant. It teaches messiah must give his body and blood for forgiveness to come. Not just anyone can give his body and blood, it absolutely must be of Jesus, the messiah.
"of the covenant", meaning required in the covenant. The cup is the blood from the cross, therefore metonymy. No doubt about it.
Metonymy Certain
Metonymy Certain
The commands Christ gave concerning the Lord's Supper are about the clearest and easiest cases of metonymy that you will ever find. There are hundreds of examples of this figure of speech and this is the easiest to identify. It is classical metonymy. Yet Catholics make it realism even when Christ went out of his way to avoid such doctrine. Catholics say, "Jesus spoke the body and blood into existence" at the Last Supper, as when creating the world. We can see the world in all its beauty, we see it and can feel it and taste that which it produces, on the contrary, we can't see the body and blood in the Eucharist. It isn't visible. So, there is doubt Christ spoke the bread to become present flesh. When God speaks something into existence, we can normally see it or feel it, etc. The bread and cup are symbols pointing to the cross.
God would have to multiply the bread/body and blood weekly for all to partake of Christ's literal shed blood world-wide, God can multiply the seed sown, but then is it the same seed or multiplied seed? It can make the same type of bread, but isn't the same seed. The only way communion can be the exact same blood Christ shed is if it is in imagery. Multiplied seed isn't the same seed. Multiplied bread isn't the same bread. Multiplied people aren't the same people, we were told to be fruitful and multiply, but our offspring aren't the same person as us. The cup isn't the same literal cup world-wide unless in the imagery of metonymy.
So, even if God multiplied the bread and blood for communion in every place, it wouldn't be the body and blood of the cross, it would still be metonymy where the multiplied elements take on the meaning of the blood shed on the cross. Another problem for Catholics is the wording "this do" meaning the church performs the communion. It isn't Christ doing it. The priest or someone else would need to multiply the body and blood. Not possible before priests or presbyters/elders were ordained locally. The whole concept is a lie.
God can multiply, but it doesn't say he does in the Eucharist world-wide. We can't visually see it or taste it. There is no direct statement that the body and blood are multiplied. This would be necessary, but it is missing from any biblical text. It is made up. The genitive case gives us clues that Christ described the bread as his body from the cross but didn't perform a miracle to make it his literal flesh. That part is made up by men. Let's look at another verse. When Jesus multiplied the 5 loaves he finished with 12 baskets left over, so more than he started with. In communion Catholics end with less than they start with.
1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing (genitive) which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood (genitive) of Christ (genitive)? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body (genitive) of Christ (genitive)?
The cup here is the same cup blessed all over the world, but an individual cup locally. Some use this for the one cup doctrine, but is speaking of the church world-wide. We all drink of the one cup. We all eat of the one loaf. This is only possible if using metonymy. The word cup can simply refer to the drink portion of a meal, the drink on the table, then it is divided amongst all.
Interestingly this verse does not actually call the bread Christ's body, in Greek the sentence structure shows the bread and cup to be the communion. The "It is" ties the word communion to bread or cup. The genitive "of the body" is descriptive. It expresses imagery. "it is" comes at the end of the sentence in Greek.
"the cup of the blessing which we bless is it not? the communion of the blood of Christ "it is". the bread which we break the communion of the body of Christ "it is"."
The two "it is" modifies communion and the genitive modifier. The bread is "communion of the body". It doesn't say bread is the body of Christ, it says "communion of the body" of Christ. The sentence structure in Greek doesn't match realism. This may seem nitpicky, but it is very important. There is a difference between the body and the communion of the body. One is a person, the other an event about a person. Since it is about the person the genitive is used. The bread is the communion. The cup is the communion. The body and blood are modifying what the communion is about, not saying real presence. The genitive is clear. It is used when something is about something.
The wording of I Cor.10:16 starts with metonymy by calling the cup as if based upon the blessings it symbolizes. "The cup of blessing", which is clearly metonymy with a genitive, it is two real words turned into imagery. The entire verse is to be understood with this in mind. Through metonymy our understanding becomes more vivid. Through the one cup we can see multiple chapters of theology proclaimed. Consider John's usage of metonymy,
1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
We see or behold through the words expressed. We understand God's love through the adoption he has allowed to take place. Love is expressed through the imagery of adoption. It isn't figurative sonship, that is real, but the real becomes an image of something greater. Our communion bread is real bread, it becomes an image of something real that is much greater. Nothing is really figurative, it is the real put into imagery. The figure of speech is figurative, not the elements involved.
Figurative is a bad word choice. The blessings revealed in the cup are real. The fruit of the vine is real. The image expresses something real. Yet, with no real blood present. With imagery.
The purpose of I Cor.10:16 is to tie communion to the body and blood, without claiming it is the actual blood present. "of the blood" can have meanings that do not mean real presence. Our communion's source theology is based in the death of Christ. That is one reason to say it is of the blood or of the body. Our communion is descended from the body and blood of Christ. The communion and the cross are historically linked. It is metonymy of the subject.
The communion is of the blood (genitive) but not necessarily blood, it is actually bread and wine. Take a sentence like "the doctrine of Christ", it is clear the teaching isn't Christ himself but of or about Christ. How about "the wisdom of the cross is foolishness to them" , it is the wisdom provided by a theological understanding of the cross, not the cross itself.
Luke 22:17
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves: (Notice we can't divide a cup, so cup is used by metonymy of the contents, blessings expressed through the contents)
Luke 22:18
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit (genitive) of the vine (genitive), until the kingdom of God shall come.
As you can see Jesus calls the contents of the cup of fruit of the vine. Meaning the source is the vine. It didn't change substance. Jesus recognizes it as juice. In metonymy used with genitive phrases the idea of source can be a physical source with a spiritual application. The reverse can be true as well, it can be a spiritual noun that is remembered in a physical supper. It can be used for spiritual to spiritual or physical to physical comparisons. One noun simply represents another noun or phrase, it can be in many orders to get the meaning or imagery the speaker desires.
The genetive is also used in the Lord's Supper itself where Jesus says this is "my body" and this is "my blood" In Greek it writes reversed, putting MY after the body and blood. Bibles are translated missing the meaning of the genitive. It means "of". It ties the blood back to Christ.
"this is the blood of me (genitive)"
It simply isn't used in the accusative case and Jesus could have said it that way if teaching real presence, but he didn't. It is almost impossible for the Lord's Supper to be literally understood, since Jesus said to break the bread and divide the juice, Luke 22:19-20, while his body was crucified and blood was shed or poured out. The verbs are different for each element, showing a figure being used. The blood shed was soaked into the ground, dried on the nails, in the cracks of the wood, or running down his face or soaked into his hair. The wine being drank is compared to that blood poured out, so not literal. It is common in metonymy to have separate verbs and objects for each noun. Breaking the bread and giving his flesh are two different events. One takes place on a single Friday, the other on repetitive Sundays. Jesus is describing two events on different days and linking them in metonymy.
John 6 does use flesh and blood in the accusative. Yet in reverse order. My flesh is food indeed. It isn't attempting to make the flesh figurative but is food. Spiritual food. In John 6 Jesus is saying his flesh is real flesh. The accusative is used when making such points, it is genitive when not.
Which is Shed
Which is Shed
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it,] and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Metonymy is mental imagery so we can see the body and blood of Christ in our minds. It allows us to contemplate every blessing the body and blood meant for us. Metonymy, where one noun substitutes for another is to create a strong image that we consider in our minds, it is normal in Greek.. The source of the physical is the vine, the source of the imagery is Christ's death.
I looked up the meaning of metonymy using AI, as a neutral and non-biased voice it says, "metonymy makes for concise expressions through imagery". Jesus used metonymy to create a concise tie between communion and his death and the covenant, without using a wordy and long explanation. Jesus left no doubt communion is directly tied to his body and blood and we expand on this relationship while speaking about it before eating.
"As a general rule of thumb in writing, if you can say it more concisely, you should. Metonymy helps you cut down on wordy explanations by relying on a word’s associations and connotations...
...Metonymy is common in our everyday speech because it makes broad concepts briefer. It can be used by writers to create new imagery, add power to writing, and make complicated ideas more concise. "
The idea of word associations will be explored later in relation to the wording used. The Greek word for association is actually used.
In Christ's wording there are two different verb actions, thus showing they are used together as metonymy. God would have to take blood off the thorns, nails, cross, and ground and bring it back to the cup to fill it, to make it fit "real presence" wording. The purpose of the genitive in this case is to say this is the blood that came out of me, out of his body on the cross, not out of heaven. Christ came down from heaven, but his body was created in Mary. The bread of communion is symbolic of his personal natural body, not a mystical body. Mystical blood would violate the genitives intent, thus making transubstantiation violate the passage. Jesus didn't want mysticism but imagery of the real.
The bread of John 6 is Christ's entire body, soul, and spirit. Part came down from heaven. Christ's flesh, like Adam's, didn't originate in heaven. His Spirit and personality did come from heaven.
John 6:32
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
John 6:33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Whether speaking of Jesus before becoming man, or after his ascension, the imagery is never a mystical heavenly body, but his flesh that died on earth. That is why Ignatius would say, "they deny the Eucharist is his flesh". He was fighting a mystical body heresy. Transubstantiation would be something Ignatius would argue against, since it involves a mystical body. He argued against any mystical bread/body doctrine in the Lord's Supper.
John 6 sees the part of Christ that was heavenly as the true bread, this was joined to a body that became a living soul. The bread given by the Father was Christ incarnate. Since it was more about the heavenly, the miracles of John 6 were important for setting the stage for the discussion he had. The part of Christ given for sin was his flesh. This is also what we must believe. Eating and drinking Christ is the constant consumption of Christ's death.
"this is the blood of me...which is shed for you" vs "drink ye all of it (genitive)" Mystical blood would violate the imagery, it was his flesh and real blood that would be shed and broken the next day. So, transubstantiation would be a violation of Christ's intent. The "of it" is the fruit of the vine which, as mentioned earlier, is linked in the verse to the word communion. The "of it" is the cup. It isn't saying drink literal blood. That violates the grammar. It would be a perversion of the grammar.
The cup is a replacement for the blood shed, not the blood transubstantiated. It is that simple really. Christ identified the blood specifically, as that uses the genitive.
Keep in mind Jesus didn't die from blood loss. He still had blood inside of him and the cup is speaking of the specific blood that was shed on the cross. He gave his own life, it wasn't taken from him. The metonymy reveals the blood symbolized came from his real body, not from a heavenly spirit. Blood and flesh that God could make or transubstantiate later for the communion wouldn't fit the verse. The metonymy requires Christ's real flesh and blood he gave on the cross. The blood shed. So, flesh and blood coming from mystical Christ and not the specific blood from the cross would violate Christ's imagery and his intent. It is a perversion of his meaning.
There is no action on the blood and body that points to a change of substance, Christ simply established its meaning to create imagery. Action on the bread by Christ is simply made up, there was no action on the bread except for taking it, blessing it, breaking it, naming it. There is no action to change substance.
When you consider Ignatius was arguing the blood shed was the real blood of Christ, then saying the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ just means Ignatius believes the eucharist originated from the real thing. He wasn't arguing for "real presence" in the bread, but symbolism coming from the real origin.
There are just too many arguments against Catholic realism. The cup we drink is the blood shed, thus it must be imagery. The blood shed on the earth isn't miraculously put in the cup. It isn't blood brought back from heaven through transubstantiation, but the blood shed. The Eucharist doesn't make sense even in a world of mystic miracles. Transubstantiation implies body and blood from heaven, as manna came from heaven. Yet, Jesus says it is the blood shed for us. It is blood from the historical event of the cross. Blood Jesus carried after the resurrection, though his, doesn't qualify as blood poured out or blood shed. It is the blood shed that ratified the New Covenant. It is the blood shed of the covenant that the Communion is focusing on.
Communion requires the blood shed, not the blood later constituted, transubstantiation can't make it the blood Christ shed in that moment. Metonymy can through imagery.
Communion
Communion
Catholics have taught we eat of the sacrifice of Christ as priests as sacrifice offerors did in the Old Testament when eating the flesh of the sacrifice, so in their mind communion must become the body and blood literally to have a valid communion. They believe the sacrifice is completed when the priest and people eat. This isn't true since some sacrifices were disposed of and not eaten. The blood was burned or poured out. Leviticus 16 shows on the day of atonement the bull and goat for the sin offering were burned outside the camp. The simple answer is that you did not always eat the sacrifice. Sacrifices can be valid without eating the carcass. In some cases, it was a command not to eat the sacrifice. Some sacrifices like the scapegoat, it was sent into the wilderness. So, there is no stated requirement to physically eat Christ's literal flesh and drink his blood to continue with Christ's sacrifice. It is difficult to fathom how we can eat a resurrected carcass, especially since prophecy proclaimed through Peter.
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Eating someone's flesh could be considered corruption, this would violate the prophets declaration concerning Christ's flesh. It would violate what Peter said. In some cases eating the flesh of animal sacrifices was done the same day. Sorry Catholics, your theory doesn't fit. To emulate the old sacrifices eating the sacrifice the same day wasn't possible.
Leviticus 19:5-8 says the peace offering had to be eaten the same day or the second day, the third day it was to be burned. So, Catholic usage of I Cor. 10:18 doesn't fit Christ. We couldn't eat of him immediately after Christ's sacrifice. The first possible communion seems to be the Sunday evening following his death. That would have been the third day, so following Judaism they would be required to burn Jesus, not eat of him.
1 Corinthians 10:18
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
Paul here wasn't using Israel except for a principle, he wasn't using it to say Christians physically eat of Christ's literal body like the priests did, but saying Christians eating of Christ spiritually through communion of the elements was akin to sharing in the altar, which was the cross, so God would still be jealous if we shared Christ and a pagan alter. We should avoid mixing Christ and pagan religion. The Christian altar was the cross, and the true tabernacle in heaven, not a Catholic alter. Colossians 1:20-21 says Christ reconciled heavenly things as well.
They should be careful of how they use scripture.
We do eat of Christ through the word. We do this in learning of Christ and developing faith. John 6 has the following verse applied just before speaking of Christ as living bread. Eating Christ's flesh may simply be the process of teaching and learning. We eat of the word. Plus, we eat through symbolism in the Supper. Communion is the exercise of faith. John 6 was spoken before communion was commanded and embraced him coming from heaven, so not the same as communion which focused on his death. They were eating of Christ's bread through the word even before his death.
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (Same chapter Christ is called bread)
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Christ says his body is bread before the cross, and he will give that bread for mankind. Transubstantiation doesn't fit, which makes bread flesh later. The order is backwards. This living bread is Christ before his death but also after his resurrection, communion is a remembrance of this flesh and blood in death. They were taught Christ's flesh was bread before the Eucharist was announced, it doesn't become bread in the Eucharist via a human priest but was bread in Christ's lifetime. Thus, not a change from human priests. Christ's flesh was bread throughout his lifetime. "Living bread" was then crucified.
Since communion is of the blood and of the body it can be seen as a memorial or remembrance of the blood and body stemming from Christ's literal death, brought about through a worthwhile and well-earned ceremony of remembrance. The word communion generally means to speak about and eat of words, and not always eat physical food. Communion of the blood of Christ is to talk about God's intentions as revealed in Christ's death. Often when people commune they share intentions. See,
And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
Zechariah 1:14
the angel that communed with me said
Just realize in most cases in scripture communing shares thoughts or commands or insights and not food. In our communion, imagery is used to share Christ. Since the food has been explained with words our eating can be called communion in a normal sense, it involves words. We share a common acceptance of the meaning and confess it by eating and drinking. God communed with Moses on Mt. Sinai with words, not food.
So, commune or communion of the blood and body is to eat and share God's purpose and intentions surrounding the cross. The word commune has less to do with eating and mostly about sharing feelings about it. We describe it and memorialize it. The eating provides a setting for talking about it. Communion of the blood isn't drinking blood, but talking about it in the presence of a symbol whereby we eat a communion meal, while sharing what Christ did in teaching about it.
The Holy Spirit denies us the right to eat things strangled, Christ was strangled as he had trouble breatheing on the cross. The Holy Spirit denies us the right to drink blood. Peter and James in agreement. Catholics actually deny the application of Peter who consented to the wording.
Acts 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
"this do in Remembrance of Me(Genitive)"
"this do in Remembrance of Me(Genitive)"
We must remember that "in remembrance" isn't to remember Christ becomes real presence, that is the Catholic idol, remembering their doctrine becomes more of the focus than the remembrance of Christ. That is why they want you to turn to incorrect quotes of Church fathers. They have built an alter out of their words. It is idolatry.
"Of Me" shows the focus of communion is on Christ and his life and words. The Cross was the center-piece of his work. Of course they know that, but it doesn't stop them from building an idol out of the church fathers, and making their perverted views their worship. They turn to fathers more than turning to scripture. It is an idol they have built for themselves. The church fathers were often wrong, they were human. They aren't our God. Christ is Lord.
Our remembrance must be "of Christ", not a human doctrine offering a different version of Christ. Ignatius wrote with well intentions it seems, but he could not foresee how his words could be used. He wasn't inspired. So, when the best intentions are used by Satan we must realize that the scriptures are much better than human commentary. If Ignatius hadn't chose the words he chose, while speaking about a different threat, Satan grabbed it and moved people into real presence theory. I am no different, you will see in my writing honorable intentions, but I am not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Neither were the church fathers. Ignatius didn't see how his writings could be used.
My fear has always been Satan will use my intentions and weaknesses to hurt the Church. My prayer is Christ will help me in this work. I am not perfect, but I believe showing a different view than the Catholic view is important.
Reconciliation Before Communion
Reconciliation Before Communion
One Jewish writer noted that communion over the sacrifices of the old law took place because peace had been granted. They ate of the sacrifices and discussed what it meant as a communion. In their minds they did not commune to achieve forgiveness but as an expression of reconciliation with God and man, communion was a product of reconciliation. The Old Testament High Priest reconciled himself, his house, the tabernacle and alter before making the sin offering for the congregation. Leviticus 16:20 Reconciliation occurred without communion. They afflicted their souls during and after. There were sacrifices that were eaten and shared.
Catholics teach the sacrifice is completed in the communion, thus no salvation is possible without communion. Of course. they don't really practice what Christ taught. Their view is a system that shares concepts of Judaism, where sacrifices were made continually. Thus, communion after each sacrifice. Christ on the other hand was offered once. So, one communion should suffice if following Judaism's rules.
We know that isn't what Christian communion is about. We eat weekly, remembering the one sacrifice. Catholics developed rules where you must have communion on two major holidays. Yet why eat twice a year when one communion can in theory complete the sacrifice. Catholics do not require communion other than Easter and Christmas. You can be ex-communicated for missing them. The point is they use man-made law and man-made concepts and don't believe what they teach.
Christian communion isn't to complete the sacrifice of Christ. That has been long finished and reconciliation and redemption complete. Even the word Eucharist reveals Catholics thought of it as thanksgiving after reconciliation. Christ's death made it possible to be adopted through faith and baptism.
It seems that Christ's death reconciled an alter in heaven, not simply an earthly altar, Levitical priests did that in the law. Once Christ died the Temple was left as a gathering place to teach, but the Temple itself was rendered of little effect spiritually. Reconcilliation by Christ was for the entire world/universe and made it possible for man to go into the presence of the Father again. Thus, Christ was able as man to make the ascension into heaven. Daniel 9:24 speaks of a single reconciliation. We often think of individuals being reconciled, but this reconciliation with the tabernacle in heaven seems to be what took place on the Cross.
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say,] whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Thus, reconciliation precedes communion. Of the body and of the blood spoken in I Cor. 10:16 may be communion being made possible by Christ's body and blood through reconciliation. It isn't speaking of changing bread to a physical body. Since the verse uses a genitive, this is very possibly its intent. The genitive would be used with a figure.
Paul wrote reconciliation had been achieved in Christ so we could commune with him. The Lord's Supper admits communion is achieved. Christ said to reconcile with your brother before bringing a gift to the altar, so communion requires a heartfelt attempt at peace with God and man, achieved through Christ's body and blood. Yet, communion is made real and possible. Christ can eat with us.
We shouldn't get the idea that communion reconciles us, but is because we are reconciled. Catholics may get this backwards. Communion should be with sincere gratitude, that we are back together with our heavenly Father and his children. When Paul writes this is the communion of the blood and body, and calls us one body, he is also emphasizing reconciliation with each other. Jew and gentile, together. Communion made possible thru reconciliation by the body and blood.
Ephesians 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
We are one body in Christ and thru Christ and under Christ. This does not require a Papacy since this was written and accomplished before Peter went to Rome, before there was a singular Bishop in Rome.
The genitive case in I Cor. 10:16 and the Gospel accounts of the supper give us probable cause to question Catholic theology concerning communion. The reconciliation makes it more personal since Christ's death paved the way for joining jew and Gentile. Ephesians 2 simply says, "by the cross", not by the Papacy or by Peter or thru communion. In communion we remember the cross and our reconciliation. We have peace with God and each other. The fact Christians make the journey to the same building is proof of reconciliation.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
One must be reconciled to eat of the Lord's table. Eating is proof of reconciliation and proof we believe together. "for we are all partakers", meaning we willfully join in. We aren't forced. We believe in the purpose. It isn't just the act of eating, but eating willfully in faith. This is the proof God desires in calling us his body.
Communion does not finish the sacrifice, the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized and went home rejoicing in Acts 8. He did not immediately have communion; he was reconciled and saved. Christ's sacrifice was completed in him, he ate of Christ spiritually and had the inward qualities of a Christian, I am sure he would commune later.
The word GAR in Greek means for or because, we are one bread through participation. Though Christ reconciled all things to himself, he then requires willful participation to be in the body of Christ.
The word "Partake" involves willful sharing because it is our inward nature. The emphasis with this word is the internal belief in conversion that makes you a Christian believer. We eat because we share properties like all other partakers. Eating one bread is because we are already one bread inwardly. It is evidence of who we are as Christians. It isn't the outward eating making us one, but our shared inward selves. The word partake can mean the bread, or our shared nature as new creations.
Gnostic and Neoplatonist Fathers
Gnostic and Neoplatonist Fathers
Ignatius of Antioch is used by Catholics to uphold the Catholic Eucharist and their real presence of body and blood doctrine. It is a common practice by Catholics to quote older church fathers to justify their doctrines. We have to be careful using these men because some were Gnostics or Neo-Platonists who brought in their baggage from the world. Augustine was previously a Gnostic and Origen a Neo-Platonist and there were others who were similar mystical Christians. Mystical meaning they gained their insight from meditating on Biblical stories. Going into meditative trances is a common idea behind the wording mystical. Besides those who were false teachers there were sincere Christians who simply got ideas wrong or were confused. Some writings are filled with hyperbole without correct language.
Ignatius Not Perfect
Ignatius Not Perfect
Ignatius is one who taught Jesus was begotten before time instead of being eternal. There is a lot to question concerning his writings.
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth;
The scriptures don't describe the Word (Christ) as having an origin or the Holy Spirit having an origin, begotten is used of Christ's incarnation when becoming flesh; and begotten is used of the resurrection of Christ, but scripture says nothing about begotten before time, not directly anyway. Ignatius tended to think beyond what was written as many did. They used wisdom verses in proverbs to claim Christ was begotten. The wisdom spoken of in Proverbs may have been speaking of God's choice to send Christ, the wisdom leading to the Gospel, not Christ himself. Christ existed when that wisdom was decided by God. The wisdom itseld could be seen as begotten. Paul wrote Christ was the wisdom of God, but then, Christ himself could be eternal.
1 Corinthians 1:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
The Godhead preceded the wisdom whereby the earth was created and man was imagined in God's heart. The Godhead preceded the idea of bringing Christ into the world. God's intelligence precedes God's design and planning. Wisdom can be begotten from God. Church fathers may have simply mistook wisdom about Christ for the Immanuel who preceded the wisdom.
We believe Jesus was eternal. Catholics believed Jesus was begotten before the creation of time. So, be careful when quoting church Fathers, they weren't always perfect in theology. They had many faults as all people do. Even when right they may have used confusing language that could be misconstrued. It is best to stick to scripture which has the Holy Spirit's language.
The word eternal means full age, since Jesus is said to be eternal he fills up the age before the beginning. He was in the beginning, meaning he didn't come along after the beginning. He would also fill up the age before the beginning. Besides that, we are told nothing. It is hard to see how one who completely fills an age or more can be begotten within the age. In this we have to respectfully disagree with Catholics. Jesus fills the age. He likely fills all ages. Plus, the Godhead is more than a force, it is life.
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it,] and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
Scriptures Better than Flowerly Speech
Scriptures Better than Flowerly Speech
True sanctification can only come by God's word. Sola Scripture pertains to sanctification. "sanctify them by thy word" was Christ's prayer. Someone guided by his own intellect can't get it right. Whether written or spoken, it is by the word. Scripture always matches the spoken Oral word. They aren't different. One doesn't contain what the other doesn't. Speaking and writing are just two ways to convey the same word. Since we aren't prophets being directly guided as the apostles were, our speech should be measured by the scriptures. The apostles message was measured by the Spirit, as scripture is. The Spirit produced the Oral and written. Since oral inspiration is passed, we are left with scripture. The things in scripture were already known and believed.
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:1-4 explains how oral teaching was written into scripture. Literally, that known. Luke wrote what had been made known. Oral and written are the same. Before scripture, in the age of prophets, they relied on prophets to reveal and make known, once made known the knowledge was transferred into scripture. Don't let Catholics deceive you, oral and written are the same. There aren't hidden mysteries made known hundreds or thousands of years later, what was made known was put into scripture.
Catholics do not follow Ignatius in all things, for instance he was opposed to church names God did not declare in prophecy. Ignatius would not accept the adjective catholic as a name. The idea of the name " Judaist Christian" was appalling to him. He would only use the name Christian. The idea of the name Roman or Orthodox wouldn't be received by him. He even believed people could miss heaven by wearing a different name. Irenaeus who wrote later used catholic as an adjective, not as a name. It only described the multi-national nature of the Church. Most early writers shuned names not given by God.
Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. For "if Thou, Lord, shalt mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? " Let us therefore prove ourselves worthy of that name which we have received. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, he is not of God; for he has not received the prophecy which speaks thus concerning us: "The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people." This was first fulfilled in Syria; for "the disciples were called Christians at Antioch," when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the corrupt leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven of grace. Abide in Christ, that the stranger may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ.
The idea of a new people not called by Judaism is seen throughout the Psalms and prophets.
This speaking of the church, not Judaism which rejected the Lord except for a remnant. Ignatius believed God's people should wear the name God embraced. They were called Christians first at Antioch, this acknowledges the general acceptance of the name Christian. The word "they were called" embraces all Christendom, not just Antioch. It started in Antioch, however.
I also believe Ignatius did not accept or even know about the Papacy, for he says to Polycarp that his Bishop was God himself. He seems to not have heard of the Papal doctrine at all.
Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp
who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or
rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting.
He also doesn't see Rome's authority extending past its own region.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God,
Understand this, the only way Roman Catholic can be true under Ignatius is if the Prophecy of Daniel 2 has failed, which called for all 4 empires to fall and break up. Rome as an empire no longer exists. Some believe the Papacy continued the Roman empire, its only possible if Daniel 2 failed. The region of the Romans no longer exists outside of the city. Others are now called Italians.
There were Ceasars and leaders who spoke of the eternal kingdom of Rome, so perpetuating this myth through the kingdom of the church became a goal.
Ignatius said he was the last in Syria, we don't know what he meant exactly, but it seems no one was available to corroborate his letters. It took a few centuries for his letters to be fully accepted, that doesn't mean he was 100% correct in all matters, but his letters were accepted as authentic. They could have been changed or forged later, there are different versions of the same letters, so someone embellished them at some point or he wrote a draft and then the main copy. It is still argued over which version is original.
Ignatius also believed in Bishops strongly and was very much pushing that the office of Bishop and Presbyter should be separate, he was likely in the first generation to push for the change. Ignatius was arguing so strongly that it seems the idea was new and not practiced in all places. Jerome, generations later, seems to explain the offices were separated by necessity, not by the Apostles, but by church leaders after the Apostles. Ignatius seems to say by prophecy after the Apostles.
The New Testament didn't require a single Bishop rule over the Lord's Supper. There is nothing in scripture requiring such, but Ignatius promotes the idea that Bishops should oversee who officiated the Eucharist. This couldn't have been original since the office of Bishop and Presbyter hadn't split during the Apostles lives. This is true of the Papacy as well, Peter didn't confer power to the Bishop of Rome because that office didn't exist in that form in Peter's lifetime. Christ did not confer power to Rome, the word Rome is not in any Gospel in any form, so Christ never publicly announced any special power to Rome. In discussing the Eucharist all of this must be taken into account.
Luke said he wrote about all that Jesus said and did, so if Jesus wanted Rome to rule, Luke left it out. If Jesus mentioned Rome ruling Luke would be a false prophet, since he said he wrote about everything Jesus taught.
Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Rome ruling wasn't public in the Gospels, and even if you include Matthew 16:19, it mentions Peter without mentioning Rome. The word Rome isn't in the Gospels in any form. The writers would have left out a substantial doctrine. It is likely Rome twisted scripture as a power grab, covetousness for power.
Ignatius should be viewed in light of Catholic structural evolution and Gnosticism, which wasn't Biblical, and probably not God's will. He does give us some insight into early changes in Churches and why they occurred. Ignatius claims to have accepted the office of Bishop by the Holy Spirit, a prophecy through him. From his letter to the Philadelphians,
For though some would nave deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes,(10) and detects the secrets [of the heart]. For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you.(11) But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man.(13) But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies(1) as the temples of God;(2) love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.
Letter to Philadelphia
who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.
He admits that this caused division or was necessitated by division. He claims to have received his message from the Spirit. If true, then we can admit the Gospels or Epistles didn't openly introduce the idea of regional or congregational Bishops. The office would have been announced by prophecy after the death of the Apostles. If announced by the Spirit you would be wasting effort to prove it from the Gospels themselves.
Realize that he claimed the prophetic gift and we can't verify his were real. The office of Bishop may have come from false prophecy, at least the office as we know it today. It is obvious Ignatius didn't believe in regional bishops, but a singular congregational bishop is what he pushed for. He says he got no wisdom from any man, this seems to contradict Luke who received instruction from the Apostles but wrote as a prophet. Ignatius was taught by men so such a claim would be limited to the Bishop doctrine. If not taught by any man in this area we can conclude he wasn't taught this by any Apostle. We should realize that many main changes in doctrine, leading to Catholicism, came through this one man. The Council of Nicea followed Ignatius very closely in saying Jesus was begotten before time, etc., even when deviating from scripture men followed Ignatius. Catholics have admitted changes from scripture but at the same time they try to prove their doctrines from scripture. They aren't really consistent. When it suits them they use scripture, when it suits they use history, when it suits them they claim authority to change what they want.
Catholics teach the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus via transubstantiation, a doctrine called the "real presence" in the bread and wine. Ignatius actually disproves the doctrine if you consider his wording closely and in the right context. He doesn't use the term "real presence" or "transubstantiation" but used Christ's wording with one deviation, he called it flesh not body. Ignatius did not change Christ's use of a figure called metonymy, where one word stands for something related ie. Bread for Christ;s body. Ignatius seems to use metonymy as well. He says,
"they deny the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ"
He emphasized flesh vs body, which could have several causes and purposes. It isn't proof he believed in real presence.
As above I noted modern bibles in English say "my body" vs "body of me", so Ignatius quotes it and it is translated as original order in Greek. Ignatius doesn't seem to be changing from the genitive and keeps it as metonymy. So, it doesn't help Catholics much, it just lets them make the claim, but not 100pct proof.
It is unclear whether Ignatius believed in the terms real presence or transubstantiation since he didn't use them. They seem to be much later in coming along. Catholics have publicly admitted they came later. John Chrysostom admitted in his Ephesians commentary that terms like saints evolved to mean something different over time. So, we should seek original meanings when possible. Catholics have admitted many evolutions within their doctrines and wording and have admitted the terms real presence and substantiation came along well after Ignatius. They teach defining words were added to bring about clarity and remove ambiguity, so admitting the New Testament does not clearly teach their doctrine. They take steps to define and clarify, slanting it towards their position.
Christ did not use the terms real presence or transubstantiation either, so his words may not have inferred it as Catholics demand. It does matter if the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, since men bow and worship the Eucharist bread and wine. If not real this would be idolatry, and Paul wrote idolators would not enter the kingdom of God. It may matter to billions of souls. Also consider the worship of the non-living could be idolatry. If it is Christ's dead body, it would be worshipping the non-living. Jesus was cut off from the land of the living, Isaiah 53:8. Christ, eternal God, wasn't in his body. His spirit was in Paradise. They would be worshipping where Christ isn't. In the 3 days Christ is in the tomb, his body received no worship from the church.
Galatians 5:21
.Idolatry...Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
There are two possibilities in looking at the scripture, real presence language or metonymy language. I will explain in this article why I believe in metonymy. Christ used a figure of speech called metonymy.
Matthew 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it,] and brake [it,] and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (this says the church is bread but they don't argue the church is transubstantiated from people to bread)
In both verses there is metonymy being used. Christ's language can be figurative, and likely is. Catholics haven't been able to disprove that it can have a figurative meaning, it is common in Greek and English. Some early writers admitted it was a figure. Ignatius doesn't really articulate enough about his view to know his thoughts exactly, but it seems he believes in the figurative view and used his wording figuratively. Some documents have him saying the cup "shews forth" the blood. If the Cup "shews forth" the blood, then it is used as metonymy and isn't the actual blood. Ignatius seems to see the figure. Shewing forth can't be verified as literal since we can't see or taste the blood, so it is shewing forth in an imagery/descriptive sense. Christ did use the word proclaim, about the same idea as shew forth. We proclaim the Lord's death...
Augustine also believed in a figurative aspect of the supper.
It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood
It seems, many of the church fathers who Catholics say are champions for real presence, taught it was imagery as well. The idea God "presented" us with the body and blood through bread and wine carries a usage in figures. So, all church fathers used the Eucharist figuratively in some respect. Ignatius used it figuratively as well in this respect.
Catholics chastise those who say it is a figure, but they themselves have used it that way. People have been put to death for calling it a figure, but their champions say its a figure. Hypocrits and murderers.
Ignatius mentions in the Smyrna letter that his opposers did not believe in Christ creating the world saying the world came by a different power; or he said they did not believe in the blood of Christ, so they dismissed the Lord's Supper in general. In the letter to Smyrna Ignatius claimed a group was denying that the Lord's Supper was the flesh of Christ. Catholics take this to mean they denied real presence, but it isn't necessarily what Ignatius was arguing. The group denied Christ used bread or wine or even a supper. They didn't believe in Christ's physical death on the cross. So, Ignatius wasn't speaking of transubstantiation, which was articulated generations later, but more likely Ignatius was saying it was representative of Christ's flesh and not mystical flesh, and they were denying this, he was arguing about an earlier subject before real presence was an issue. If it was generally accepted that Christ's words were metonymy then Ignatius wouldn't need to clarify it was figurative. He would just quote the words of Christ. At the time, before Catholics came along, everyone knew they were figurative.
Writers don't have to use the word figurative if it was already generally accepted to be metonymy. When a symbol like the bread is a strong match to its counter term, it is spoken of as if it is the same. This is metonymy. Christ used metonymy which is a figure of speech using symbols.
the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing.
A good example is Christ being called "the lamb of God". It is clear Jesus wasn't a physical lamb, he was never transubstantiated into a lamb but was a sacrifice, but the lamb represented his purpose as a pure sacrifice without blemish, notice John doesn't include the word figurative here, the Holy Spirit did not think it necessary for us to understand that it was figurative language.
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
In the transfiguration of Christ, the Greek word morphe is used (Mark 9:2), so it is possible to morphe a physical body into a spiritual body, but in Christ's transfiguration case it was visible to his audience and clear to them that change had occurred. They could see it was still Jesus so no change of image occurred. If God wanted to morphe the bread into the body he could make it visible as well, but he doesn't in the Eucharist. The word morphe isn't used with the Lord's Supper and there is not a visible change to the bread or wine. We shouldn't conclude the bread is morphed into the body, or the wine into blood.
Bread is used because the body of Christ and his death are spiritual food. It is that simple. Jesus in John 6 said his flesh was food indeed, not physical food but spiritual food that feeds knowledge and faith. John 6 wasn't speaking of eating physically and wasn't about the Eucharist, it was about faith. Yet it provides a basis for using bread later in the supper.
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 was speaking of eating the flesh and drinking his blood spiritual, the words of preaching are a meal. They aren't physical but spiritual. As in Revelation where John swallowed the book,
Revelation 10:10
And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Christ's flesh and blood become spiritual food as we hear and understand the meaning of it, it feeds faith which comes by hearing God's word. (Romans 10:17)
Many authors have mentioned correctly that the New Testament writers wrote that Jesus called the elements of the supper bread, he saw them as bread, that the bread always stays bread and wine stays wine, even if we visualize it mentally and account it as Christ's body, so transubstantiation (changing of substance) doesn't actually occur, or you would see it and taste the blood. So, they claim a mystical presence which we can't see and taste. Ignatius was likely arguing against a mystical presence. Basically, they admit it doesn't change from bread, but they teach that the substance of Christ is added which we cannot see. It becomes a mixture of real bread and the body of Christ mystically. It isn't true change. It isn't a true doctrine.
It is the mystical presence Ignatius is arguing against, so that he disproves the Catholic Eucharist, he calls it flesh. The bread is flesh, not a mystical spirit. He calls it flesh so not a symbol of a mystical body. In this regard Ignatius doesn't support the Catholic Eucharist. Quite the opposite. He sees the bread as flesh, not mystical. His metonymy usage substitutes bread and flesh, not bread and mystical bread from heaven.
Ignatius says the bread is Christ's flesh, not his glorified flesh and not his mystical flesh. Thus, aluding to time when Christ was incarnate on earth. This could be his usage, that Christ wasn't mystical flesh, the supper symbolized his physical flesh and blood vs a glorified mystical body. The blood that was shed not mystical blood. If you read the Smyrna letter you will notice Ignatius believed Christ is in heaven in the flesh, he argues all the sightings up through his ascension into heaven, that Jesus was still his incarnate flesh. Of course, he is correct about Christ being flesh through his ascension but doesn't seem to think Christ could be glorified and changed after his ascension.
For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh,(7) and I believe that He is so now. (Ch3)
Some Gnostics may have taught the bread was Christ's mystical body and blood. This could be his argument when declaring the Eucharist is Christ's flesh. He doesn't use the term body and blood since those could be misconstrued as mystical and glorified. He uses the term "flesh". Of course, blood isn't technically flesh, like skin or muscle. He was clearly letting the docetists know the eucharist symbolized flesh. Christ's physical body. The blood Christ shed wasn't reconstituted and put back into his body, it still lay in the dirt of Calvary. People mention the shroud of Turin has Christ's blood, why is it still there? Is the blood poured forth on the nails not on the nails or on the cross anymore? Is it reconstituted weekly and in every place for the supper. No one sees blood leaving the shroud. It probably isn't Christ's shroud, but if it were would blood leave the shroud every sunday to be consumed in a cup?
Christ appears to be a glorified body when appearing to Saul of Tarsus, at least a transfigured body. It is possible his argument over the Eucharist was simply whether the bread symbolized his fleshly body or a glorified body. He said, "they deny the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ". In this sense he would be arguing against the bread as a symbol of a mystical body coming down from heaven.
This would explain Ignatius' language in his letter. He wasn't arguing for real presence but was clarifying the nature of Christ at the time of crucifixion up through his ascension, and this affected the descriptive meaning of the supper. Augustine adopted the flesh that suffered symbolism like Ignatius, while developing the idea of the mystical body of Christ. He blended the two.
Belief In Symbolic Language
Belief In Symbolic Language
From Ignatius' wording he could be using his wording as metonymy just as Christ was. Augustine used the same wording in his sermons, so he could be using it as metonymy as well. We don't have to assume they were realists. There is no definitive proof Ignatius believed in real presence. It just depends on if you believe the phrase was used as metonymy. Which such phrases often were.
Catholic theologians have taught the mystical body is the spiritual union of Christ and the church, as alluded in I Corinthians 12. They used the term mystical instead of spiritual, making it sound magical. It has a very incorrect meaning if you study the teachers of it. FR. William G. Most wrote,
St. Paul did not use the word mystical. It was developed more recently to bring out the fact that this union is unique, there is no parallel to it. It is not the same as a union of a physical body, nor that of a business corporation.
Catholic theory is that a mystical union is created in the Eucharist, which is incorrect. The union comes by the simple task of eating with a common meaning. "for we eat of that one bread", the Greek yar means for or because, they are one because they eat, not through a mystical process. There is no necessity revealed that it must be a transubstantiated body.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
We have a spiritual union from baptism when we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. From that point on we are united to Christ, being baptized into his death and raised with him. I Corinthians 6:15 discusses the union of the Spirit before discussing the Eucharist. Our bodies are members and our spirits joined to his spirit. It is more than mystical, and it occurs before communion. Our union with Christ is not initiated through the Eucharist, but is maintained in a sense. It started in faith and baptism.
1 Corinthians 6:15
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1 Corinthians 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
We become members of Christ in baptism but men like Augustine and those following him switched this to a Eucharist doctrine. Yet, they still considered it signified or symbolic. Real unity signified by the breaking of bread. Unity wasn't made real since Corinth was a church with divisions.
So pay attention, and see how the Holy Spirit is going to come at Pentecost. And this is how he will come; he will show himself in tongues of fire. You see, he breathes into us the charity which should set us on fire for God, and have us think lightly of the world, and burn up our straw, and purge and refine our hearts like gold. So the Holy Spirit comes, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is the body of Christ. And that's how unity is signified. sermon 227 Emphasis mine
Catholics can't defend total realism when the writers use the word signified. The realism is they eat of one bread, but the bread signifies something and the communal meal signified unity. At best it shows unity is enhanced with a communion where the body and blood express Christ was flesh and he suffered and died. Since Augustine used the same phrase as Jesus and Ignatias, "this is my body", it does not clearly express whether Augustine believed in transubstantiation or saw the phrase as metonymy. Clearly he believed in some signified usage.
The words of I Corinthians 10:17 is we "partake or share" in the one bread, which may not be from eating, having action and faith in common. This is a proof that we have a shared faith and interest in the blood and body before we eat, we don't become one by eating. We eat because we believe, we are one because we believe in the same death, we are one when we eat of the meal symbolizing the death. Eating is faith fulfilled.
It isn't mysticism or mystical. It is spiritual. Realize carnal people partake of a spiritual act. Corinth was said to have carnal members. Many of these refused or changed the supper. I am sure some carnal members ate of the supper for many were weak and sickly.
The word mystical isn't in scripture and is an attempt to describe what can't be seen, from Greek religion, mystical is a use of a word from a foreign religion. It is somewhat like spiritual but has a magic context. A hidden power or force. The Lord's Supper doesn't need a force beyond faith to bring us to eat one bread. It isn't mystical. Mystical implies contemplative knowledge.
Ten Commandments
Ten Commandments
One might ask, why would God substitute different elements for the actual, the answer could lie in the Law of Moses ten commandments, it was forbidden to make a likeness of God or anything on earth for worship. It was forbidden to make a statue of Jesus for worship. They weren't allowed to create a memorial with a statue or likeness. So, Christ used elements like bread, wine, and then words to explain the meaning. In this way Jesus complied with the ten commandments. He was still under the law at the time of instituting the supper.
Augustine insisted upon bowing and worshipping the Eucharist, but if it isn't the actual Christ, but a figure, that would be idolatry. Paul says in I Corinthians 10 to flee idolatry. If the Catholic Eucharist is Idolatry, we should flee from it. Run as fast as you can and don't look back. We have no example in scripture of worshipping the bread and wine. Just as in the Passover they did not worship the lamb, even if it stood for Christ. They never worshipped the manna. They never worshipped the temple, though many made an idol of it.
There are no examples in scripture of worshipping the bread and wine, not a one.
We also see this in the Old Covenant sacrifices, where animals, bread, oil, and wine were prevalent. These were referred to as shadows of Christ. Many believe Christ was revealed in every Old Testament sacrifice. Yet, no one claims they were transubstantiated as with the Catholic Eucharist. They had chosen elements in the sacrifices that complied with the ten commandments. The use of shadows in the law were forerunners to the use of the elements of the Lord's Supper.
The Old sacrifices were called a remembrance of the sin they had committed. So used as a remembrance as the Lords Supper is. In the sacrifices sin is remembered, in the Supper the atonement is remembered.
Numbers 5:15 says as a remembrance as well as,
Hebrews 10:3
But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year.
Sacrifices had to comply with the prohibition against images. They were sometimes in remembrance. They did not worship the animals being killed or the elements of communion after. They did not worship the Passover lamb or any other offerring.
Deuteronomy 4:13-16 (KJV) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
The law was commanded to avoid making images in the likeness of man. All sacrifices contained elements that did not violate this principal. The usage of elements like the Passover lamb, bread, and wine complied with these statutes and were shadows of reality. The Lord's Supper was similar. The law and the supper were different in that the supper had the Gospel to illuminate the historical meaning of the elements. The law had nothing to illuminate it completely.
Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
The law did not have the very image, and therefore complied with the ten commands, it was a system of shadows and figures. The figures were not to be worshipped, they did not worship the passover lamb or the elements on the table.
Worshipping the bread and wine violates the first commandment.
We could never see the image of Christ clearly through the law, but we can see Christ in the Gospel, and the elements explained with the Gospel proclaim Christ sufficiently. Just understand that for Christians already born again and saved, it is a remembrance, a memorial. We already know it and need to be reminded.
Ignatius and Christ called it the bread, so both saw it as bread. Paul saw it as bread when he wrote, "Whosoever eats this bread and drinks this cup unworthily" and "the bread which we break". So, it is still bread. It hasn't changed substance but it has been given a new meaning by Christ's declaration. Transubstantiation where the substance is supposedly changed is a mystical deception. In feeding with 7 loaves In Matt 15:36 he fed with bread and the fragments left over were bread. The same is true of our communion, the fragments left over are bread and wine. It is obvious that at no point did they change substance.
Ignatius did not see it as Christ's mystical body, but his fleshly. He wasn't making a claim for real presence, but saying the bread is meant to tie the Eucharist to Christ's fleshly body. Of course Christ is present in all worship and Church actions.
"wherever two or three are gathered together in my name there I am in the midst of you"
We don't see him, but he is omni-present and can visit where he wishes.
The Lord's Supper is still called bread at the point of breaking and partaking, and and the wine at the point of drinking, so that it can't be argued that it changed in the prayer. It is called communion of the body and blood before being blessed, see I Cor. 10:16, so we can't argue a priest changed it during a blessing. That which we eat is called bread. It is bread literal and the body by metonymy at the same time. We partake of bread, not bread changed into flesh. It was bread when they partook of it.
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
The word of God was settled in heaven Psalms 147:19, was already bound in heaven Matthew 16:19, so the elements of the bread and cup had their meanings before Christ came into the world, he simply pronounced and bound the elements in the world. The bread was the body of Christ before any priest could bless it. Thus, not literal since it was considered the body before Christ died. Many Church fathers referred to it as the flesh that suffered, but at Christ's teaching he hadn't suffered yet. It wasn't literal but future.
Some teachers saw the bread transformed by receiving the word's of Christ, but the word was settled in heaven before Christ spoke them. Jesus spoke them present tense as if already settled. There wasn't a transition by enacting the word, that was long past.
It was metonymy. It looked forward. The word "is" can, in this respect, look forward. "This is the New Testament in my blood". Since Christ hadn't died, the New Testament wasn't in force yet, so it looked forward, it was a figure of something not yet realized. It wasn't literal at the time Christ spoke it. As with baptism which first looked forward in John's baptism, then in the Christian period looked back, but in both cases the effect was the remission of sins. The death of Christ was toward the remission of sins whether looking forward or back. Abraham and David looked forward, Paul looked back.
It seems and is generally accepted that Ignatius was speaking against Docetism, which denied the suffering, and in many cases, the physical death of Christ. They didn't deny real presence because they didn't even believe Jesus had a real body. They didn't keep the Lord's Supper and denied Christ implemented bread and wine. So, Ignatius wasn't arguing for real presence with them, but the general acceptance that Christ's flesh was real, and he actually suffered, and Christ gave the elements.
It is possible that "real presence" originally referred to Christ's incarnation, him becoming real flesh at conception, not in the Lord's Supper. Many Docetists and other Gnostic teachers taught Jesus was spirit and not truly flesh. It may have been inadvertently argued in the supper at some point, not for transubstantiation. This seems more likely than not. Writers simply misunderstood it to mean in the communion. The idea that the communion is the real body and blood may have been a misunderstanding of the original argument, as revealed in John's epistles.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The opposite is also possible, Docetists may have accepted the fleshly incarnation but taught the communion was spirit and not flesh as Catholics have in transubstantiation, as Orthodox have viewed it. Since many of the writings were destroyed, we have to rely on hearsay. It is possible Catholics were the Gnostics, believing the bread became the spiritual Jesus.
Ignatius didn't hold the view of a glorified body present in the bread, he spoke against a glorified body at all.
Ignatius used Christ's words in implementing the Lord's Supper to prove Christ's flesh was real, some Docetists denied Christ's implementation of the Supper, so he quotes the whole of Christ's sentence, not to uphold real presence in communion but to uphold Christ's declaration of the Lord's Supper elements. Using that declaration there is no argument necessary to prove Christ's suffering and death. His body was real, so his suffering was real. The supper is meant to remember Christ's real death, so his flesh was real when conceived. Our supper remembers the real fleshly body of Jesus and its death.
The Greek word "remembrance" (mimn)is a root word meaning to bring to mind, it is the same root whereby we get the English word memorial. The Lord's Supper is a memorial of Christ's death. Catholics have often argued it was not called a memorial by Jesus, but Jesus spoke as if future, and we must realize the translation "in remembrance" could be translated "as a memorial". The purpose is to bring to mind a person's life. As with the Washington or Lincoln memorial, it brings to mind the person and their deeds. Specifically, the death in Christ's case. The words "bless" and "remember" in I Cor.10:16 have similar meanings in accounting vs count. Both have the sense of bringing to mind. Yet, bringing to mind in order to account something as something.
The word eucharist simply means to give thanks, which is very Christian, and I recommend it highly, but giving thanks doesn't infer a priestly duty. Women give thanks but aren't priests in Judaism or Catholicism. All tribes of Israel gave thanks without being Levitical priests, they weren't priestly tribes. They gave thanks without priests and through offerings using the priests., but in general they could give thanks without them. David gave thanks but wasn't a priest, and many of his psalms were used ascending to Jerusalem without priests. The ones first calling it Eucharist probably didn't think of Christian priests in the wording.
Naming the supper thanksgiving doesn't accurately describe it since it was a memorial. The word eucharistia isn't directly tied to the Lord's Supper as a name in scripture. Not that I have found, anyway. We are to give thanks in all things as stated in Colossians and I Thessalonians 5:18, so the term "the eucharist" isn't used in scripture since we have multiple times of thanksgiving, not just a singular one.
To be fair, Christians over time did start to use Eucharist solely for the Lord's Supper but that wasn't the original wording, as the one main time in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ's death. It just isn't used that way in scripture. Christ gave thanks at the Lord's Supper, but he also gave thanks over the 7 loaves and fish he gave the multitude {Matthew 15:36, Mark 8:6}. Christ had a common practice of giving thanks when feeding people physically or spiritually. Feeding the crowd was a spiritual meal for some who saw the miracle. Christ gave thanks when raising Lazarus. "The Eucharist" just isn't all that accurate in defining the Supper. On the other hand it disproves the idea of transubstantiation, showing early Christians saw the prayer as thanksgiving vs a priestly incantation.
The Lord's Supper developed into what Catholics call the eucharist. A main time of giving thanks for the death of Christ and a priest calling Christ into the elements. It isn't wrong to give thanks, but it is wrong to drag in a lot of false baggage and then force people to follow it. People were severely persecuted for not accepting the Catholic version, even killed. Call to mind the meat offering in Leviticus was to be free-will, as Christ went to the cross of his own will offering himself. Showing up for the Lord's Supper is freely done, and how we partake shouldn't be forced by violence. Augustine and others were wrong about compulsion by force.
Leviticus 1:3
He shall offer it of his own voluntary will...
As time progressed some believed the prayer itself changed the bread and wine into different substances instead of Christ's proclamation revealing a meaning. So, it became the Eucharist with all of its magical deception. Older Greek religion practiced magic so that the Eucharist and Christmas traditions were filled with it by deception. The priest in fable became filled with magical acts. God doesn't like magical incantations.
Through magical incantation the Lord's Supper became realism (the actual body) vs an accounting. Real presence vs. an accounted presence.
Accounted Vs Transubstantiation
Accounted Vs Transubstantiation
The word eucharist is not used in I Corinthians 10:16 for bless. It is a different word, evlego, that means to account or take into consideration and speak about it. As with Abraham and David who were accounted righteous. This word alone can show the bread is an accounted memorial of Christ's body. It isn't via transubstantiation but by accounting one element for another via teaching. It means to join known information together.
The cup of blessing which we bless (account), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Luke 22:24
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted (same word root)the greatest.
This word translated blessing can be used in calling someone a name or describing them. Thus, renaming bread for the body and then glorifying it above common bread, etc. Yet, the blessing is in the information, not just in the eating. Communion shares information through discussing the elements. The word lego comes with the idea of calling something a name or describing it.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
One teacher of Greek described the word as accounting, by describing with words. It is used when prophets spoke about a matter "saying" it with words. It is sometimes translated "saying". Instead of building a statue you describe it with figures or words.
The bread is named the Lord's body, the cup is named the Lord's blood, the speaker then describes the history to the audience and the audience accounts it for what is described. It is mental accounting through which we remember the Lord's death. We proclaim the Lord's death through the blessing as we speak about it and take it into consideration. We account it mentally.
Paul by inspiration used this word and not Eucharist. There is a difference in the meanings. Catholics don't use the original meaning. Though thanksgiving is important, in this case the Holy Spirit chose a different word, then man substituted his own. Those substituting were probably sincere and very Christian, but they made a mistake leading to centuries of confusion. Satan used it to great effect. Catholics separated and were too stubborn to receive correction. Then they somewhat remained silent about the meaning of bless. Thereby keeping practitioners in darkness.
Before Presbyters or Bishops
Before Presbyters or Bishops
One does not have to be a separated priest for this blessing. It is plural and takes in all present. The pronoun Paul uses is "we bless", meaning all present account it as the body and blood of Christ. It isn't real presence but mental accounting that takes place. The entire church is involved in the blessing/accounting.
We account bread for the body, wine for the blood, cup for the covenant.
Originally the church did not need presbyters or Bishops to preside over the Lord's Supper. Churches were started by Apostles or evangelists that went months or years without Presbyters/Elders, they still partook of the Lord's Supper. Paul received his prophetic vision describing the Lord's Supper as mentioned in I Corinthians 11:23-26, before presbyters were appointed in most areas. It is obvious they had the Lord's Supper before presbyters. Catholics later made it a rule that presbyters must preside, or their priests that were wrongly considered presbyters. Presbyter meant elder, many priests are young.
We see this concept of eating without priests in the Jewish Passover as well, since the first Passover was before any Levitical priests were appointed. It was before any of the Levitical law came through Moses. The priesthood was appointed after the rebellion and golden calf. The first Passover was without priests and without special instruments. The tabernacle was not commanded yet, nor its instruments, nor the temple music. The first Passover was a dinner, a meal. Older heads of households could have it in their dwellings.
So, Ignatius using the term Eucharist for one act of thanksgiving is misunderstood. His usage wasn't biblical, to form one act of thanksgiving for the whole service wasn't true to the text, but was saying thanksgiving in the Lord's Supper was over one event, the death of Christ. We give thanks at many points in worship, but the meal is concerned with the body and blood of Christ. The term Eucharist became solely associated with the Supper, it probably shouldn't have. The Lord's Supper or Lord's table are better biblical terms. The Holy Spirit always chooses better terms than man.
The Gnostics Ignatius was arguing with denied Jesus suffered or died on the cross. Jewish teaching and references to the wisdom books in the apocrypha, incorrectly taught the messiah would be saved from death, not through resurrection, but by avoidance of the crucifixion. Muslims also followed this Jewish belief that messiah would avoid death. Other Gnostics believed Christ was spirit and not flesh, in their view Jesus couldn't suffer or die physically. Ignatius argued the death was real and suffering was real, so the bread and wine did remember and shew forth his fleshly body and blood. He did a good job, he seems very sincere, but his usage became misunderstood.
Ignatius wasn't arguing for real presence, but for the need for real emblems to remember the real flesh and blood. Gnostics refused to partake because they did not believe in the gift, that he suffered and died. Thus they had no need for the emblems Christ gave. Ignatius wasn't changing their position on real presence because they didn't partake at all. It wasn't like today where you have both, churches that teach real presence and those teaching an accounted presence, but both keep a Lord's Supper, the Docetists didn't keep either, so Ignatius wasn't convincing them of real presence, he wasn't convincing them to switch sides to believing real presence in the Eucharist but to believe the bread symbolized real flesh.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
"is the flesh" was a reference to accounting it the flesh of Christ, not it is transubstantiating into the flesh of Christ. It is the same word used in metonymy in many other scriptures. It is present tense and not in active transition. Ignatius wasn't arguing real presence since he sees Christ's flesh as resurrected. It was unavailable for transubstantiation because it wasn't dead anymore. The flesh was no longer suffering; he uses this past tense. The bread and wine could be accounted as the body and blood. The wording is the same Paul and Christ use.
Ignatius argued they denied the gift which wasn't the eucharist, it was the real suffering, and because of that refused the bread and wine. The Docetist group wasn't arguing against real presence but against real suffering. Ignatius was pointing out Christ appointed the figures and wouldn't have done so if his flesh and blood, suffering, and death weren't real.
Only Christians believe Christ overcame death, Gnostics and Jewish heresy taught Jesus simply avoided death. Some believed by escape of the cross and others through a non- flesh incarnation, believing Jesus was spirit and couldn't die as we do. In view of this heresy Gnostics had a Supper that focused on other topics than the body and blood. We see this in Corinth and Paul rebuked them openly.
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1 Corinthians 11:20
When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper.
It was manifest that some congregations changed the Lord's Supper by focusing on topics other than the cross. Ignatius was writing about groups who changed the Lord's Supper and deny its purpose.
Ignatius wasn't arguing for Christ's real presence at all, since he used a word commonly used in metonymy, as Christ did. He was arguing the Lord's Supper was based upon a real death and real suffering of our Lord. The Gnostics argued against the real death so in their theology the Supper wouldn't represent the body and blood. Those who deny the bread is the body wouldn't always mean real presence, but real association. The word "is" was common when identifying associations. ie. "theirs is the kingdom" is an association.
It is a real association.
Metonymy Examples
Metonymy Examples
The Greek word "is" was commonly used in figures of substitution or accounting. Catholics argue real presence for the body and blood, but not the covenant. "This cup is the New Testament". We know the New Testament has words and doctrines and ideas and history. That means the cup as a figure covers all aspects of the covenant. Yet, we know it is a figure substituted. The wording is a figure called metonymy. There are many examples of metonymy in scripture as below. Yet, the cup is a commandment so that it is part of the covenant itself. Partaking of the cup is a fulfillment for believers. It is a figure for the covenant as a whole and a real fulfillment as we partake of it.
you are the salt association of figure and purpose, it becomes real through action
you are the light association of figure and purpose, it becomes real through action and speech
you are the Christ, the son of the living God Matt. 16:17-19: association of office and sonship, real when appointed
he was there - Matt. 2:15 association of place
this is my body - association of figure, real when accounting and eating
this is the new covenant in my blood - association of scope and place
Thus, "is" is a verb of association that can be figurative but is lived into real service. Consider, in none of these associations is transubstantiation required. If not required and the Bible is silent about transubstantiation, we can apply precedents of silence.
Hebrews 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any times, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
The idea that God never spoke about something is often used against that idea in scripture. God spoke to us by his Son but never said this of Angels, God taught on the Lord's Supper but never mentions transubstantiation. The word "is" often references figures, however. This is my body is most certainly metonymy, that is its normal grammatical usage. As below,
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Footstool is clearly a figurative association. The eye is not a light but acts in concert with light, so called a light.
Since Jesus used a word commonly associated with this figure of speech (metonymy/syndoche), he didn't have to spell out it was a figure, it was a word substitute common to Greek speakers. They would get it. The earth is a footstool. The bread is the flesh, the wine is the blood, the cup is the covenant, Jesus is the lamb, etc. Catholics always ask, "where does it say it is a figure"? Christ didn't have to say it since he used wording commonly associated with figures of speech.
As time went by people moved closer and closer to the realist usage, out of ignorance of course. Later writers who misinterpreted Ignatius moved to a dogmatic realist heresy.
There were other words associated with substance, Christ did not use that word. There are words associated with transformation of substance, Christ didn't use that. The word "is" is present tense and already existing, not transforming into a new substance. The metonymy never implied transformation but present tense representation. Christ chose physical bread to represent spiritual food which was his dead body. Spiritual drink was his spilled blood.
The word "is" doesn't mean an exact match or have all things involved spelled out. "Is more" implies going beyond without all it may imply. It can be a partial representation of one aspect of a topic.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
The word "is" can also be used with individual perception, where an individual understands an association between two words. The person knows they are different words but understands the association. In their mind the representation becomes real. It is so accurate a representation that it becomes real in their mind. It isn't real presence, but perception makes it as if it is real.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
It is the recognition of the principal and basis for the association. It makes it real enough to be used as law. It is real in faith, but not actually transubstantiated.
Later writers believed that the prayer transformed common elements into something Holy. Prayer made the bread the symbolic flesh and the cup symbolic wine. This was put forth by Justin Martyr. Yet it seems he borrowed from Paul's letter to Timothy. Our food is sanctified by prayer and thanksgiving. In his mind this principle applied with either common food and the Spiritual food.
The bread is the body per instruction by Christ, not by prayer and transformation of substance.
Justin Martyr was likely incorrect in making the Lord's Supper food to nourish our bodies for eternal life. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. So nourishment of the body isn't necessary, God will overcome any problem with body nourishment. We eat of the Lord's Supper and still die physically. The spirit must be nourished. Jesus said to take no thought what you eat and drink. The body is more than food and raiment.
Irenaeus also saw the Lord's Supper for nourishment of the body toward eternal life, but again "Flesh and Blood cannot inherit eternal life" I Corinthians 15. Using communion to nourish the flesh wasn't its purpose.
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
It seems Irenaeus believed flesh and blood could inherit eternal life and then wrote some flowerly hyberbole around the idea that communion supported the flesh. He was incorrect it seems in this area. He also mixed wine and water, which is not commanded and is taken from Judaism. Probably a perversion of the commandment.
Early writers leaned toward making all aspects of Christianity holier by adding to or taking from, when in truth the commandments as given were holy and needed no change. The Eucharist they thought was made bigger than life through priests, vestments, and overdone realism. It really just made non-christians reject Christianity. Over blowing holiness is detrimental to the spread.
Over the centuries millions rejected Christ because Catholics added hypocritical holiness to Christian teaching. Transubstantiation offended people.
One messianic prophecy denouncing blood offerings in a cup was Psalms 16:4 - their drink offerings of blood I will not offer.
It isn't likely Jesus would give a drink offering of blood, only an offering that used juice to symbolize the blood he offered. As commanded by Peter in Acts 15 to refrain from blood. So it is unlikely transubstantiation is God's choice.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse