MARK 14:22-24 TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Q: Even as a Bible-believing Christian, I have trouble taking these verses literally. However, I know that Roman Catholics do understand them in this way. Aren't they taking the Bible more seriously here than Protestants do?

The first thing to point out is the confusion in thinking that the literal understanding of a passage in the Bible is always the intended meaning. Here are three simple tests to see if a given verse or set of verses should be taken in a figurative sense instead:

1. Would a literal understanding lead to an absurdity? When Jesus spoke these words at the Last Supper, he obviously had all his blood in him and did not cut off pieces of his body to eat.

2. Would it contradict known scientific or historical facts? The Eucharist has none of the physical properties of flesh and blood.

3. Would it lead to committing an immoral act? Cannibalism is forbidden in all cultures today, but especially by the Jews who held that even animal blood was sacred and should not to be ingested.

4. Would it lead to a contradiction with doctrinal teachings in the Bible? Christ died once for all (I Peter 3:18; Romans 6:9-10) unlike the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over again each time the Eucharist is performed.

Even though this passage and its parallel in Matthew 26:26-29 have “this is my blood of the covenant,” Luke 22:17-20 and I Corinthians 11:23-26 use a slightly different figure of speech: “This cup is the new covenant (will or agreement) (written) in my blood.” Here the wine is not Jesus' blood at all.

The similar passage in John 6:31-65 is used by Catholics to prove the importance of Communion observance in order to stay in grace. However, this passage is typical of others in John where the people totally misunderstood Jesus by taking him literally instead of figuratively. Jesus explains in verse 63: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

John 6:53 quotes Jesus as saying, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This takes the similar form as another statement in John's Gospel that no one understands literally: “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me. (John 13:9b).”

Actually, John's Gospel is organized around seven metaphorical “I am” statements of Jesus. It would be absurd to take most of these teachings in a woodenly literal manner:

1. The bread of life (6:35)

2. The light of the world (8:12)

3. The door of the sheep (10:7)

4. The good shepherd (10:11)

5. The resurrection and the life (11:25)

6. The way, and the truth, and the life (14:6)

7. The true vine (15:1)

Lastly, the doctrine of transubstantiation was a relatively recent development within the Catholic tradition.

1. Augustine (4^th century): Taking it literally would seem to be advocating a crime or vice; “It is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us.” “Believe, and thou hast eaten.”

2. Bernard of Clairvaux (12^th century): It means ”he who reflects on my death and mortifies his [body]...has eternal life.”

3. Pope Innocent III proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation only in 1215 AD.