Expert: Thurman C. Petty, Jr. - 10/4/2007

Question
Hi Thurman- I appreciate you taking the time in answering my question. I'm curious about early beliefs on transubstantiation. (I hope I'm spelling this correctly). I have been fortunate enough to read Augustine, and while I realize he is 6th century, he seemed to think, like most Protestants do today, that the "real presence" does not mean a real conversion of Jesus's body and blood during communion. I've also read similar comments from Justin Martyr -- however it seems the majority of those who learned directly from the apostles think this is a true conversion. Honestly, for me, it is the most difficult passage(s)(John 6, Corinthians 11)outside of Revelation I have pondered. I read the Bible and I am fairly convinced that this is, as Jesus says, "in remembrance of me" and a real conversion to Jesus' body and blood seems for me to contradict Hebrews, the rest of John and Corinthains -- plus if this was such a critical thing, why isn't it ever directly addressed by Paul, John, James, Peter or the others? This being said, its perplexing to me why most of the earliest Church Fathers would believe in the actual turning of the bread/wine to flesh/blood, if in fact they did, which from my limited knowledge, is the case. Any clarity or explanation about this would be highly appreciated. I thank you greatly for your time. In Christ, Anthony

Answer
Dear Anthony

I realize that the Roman church believes that the wafer and wine, after they intone the proper phrases, becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus. But this is not biblical.

As you point out, the words “in remembrance of me” contradicts this belief. (e.g. 1 Cor 11:24-26) The entire communion supper is a “monument” (the root word for remembrance) of the death of Christ—His broken body and His spilt blood. This is what He also referred to (without using the word remember) in John 6:

John 6:53  Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
John 6:54  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Scriptures plainly teach (Lev. 11; Deut. 14) that God’s people are not to eat the meat of any animal that does not both have a split hoof and chew the cud. Obviously humans do not fall into that category, so the meat of a human would be “unclean” to God’s people—including Christians as well. To say that the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ would mean that we were actually eating meat—meat that would be classified as unclean by God!

Another thought to consider is the act of transforming the bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ. Jesus Christ is clearly portrayed in the New Testament as the Creator (John 1:1-4, 14; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; et. al.). To maintain that the priest, by incantation, can turn wine and bread into the body and blood of our Creator is blasphemy. It portrays a created being as having the ability to create the Creator! (And I have read such wording in Roman seminary texts—quoted elsewhere, of course. At the moment I cannot remember the source.)

With this in mind, I don’t believe that we can impute the doctrine of transubstantiation to any of the apostles.

I’m not familiar with the writings of Augustine and other ancient Christian writers. I do know, however, that by the time of Augustine, a great deal of Greek philosophy had crept into the beliefs of the church.

Thank you for your question.

Thurman C. Petty, Jr.
Thurman@PettyPress.com
Check out my web site, www.PettyPress.com-- where I’ve posted 16 of my books and 40 Bible lessons, and much more.