The Protestant/Catholic Divide

 

 

Based upon conversations with Catholic friends, it seems that our primary disagreement is about the literal presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist (“Communion,” “Lord’s Supper”). While Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present in the communion, most Protestants believe that He is not physically present. Why?

·       1 Corinthians 11:23–26 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Which is it? Is Jesus literally and physically present in the elements or is the Communion merely a way of “proclaiming” and remembering what He has done for us?

This is truly an important question. It not only divides Catholics and Protestants, but it had also created the historic divide between Lutherans and Calvinists.

Jesus had also proclaimed to the crowds who had been following Him after feeding the thousands:

        “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [manna] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)

However, Jesus often expressed Himself figuratively and parabolically (Matthew 13:13).  How then are we to understand these verses? If taken literally, Jesus had seemingly invited the crowd to cannibalize Him. However, none pursued Him with knife and fork. Instead, the Jews understood that eating human flesh was strictly forbidden, but that didn’t enable the crowd to understand His teaching as figurative.

So what did Jesus mean? Some claim that this teaching was an allusion to the Eucharist (Communion), which the Roman Catholic Church regards as a sacrament through which Jesus offers His actual flesh and blood as a necessary means of grace. However, none of His original audience would have had any idea about the Eucharist. Instead, they left in utter perplexity.

However, the context helps us understand to what Jesus was alluding. First, He criticized the crowd because they were following Him for the wrong reason. They had  miraculously been fed, and they were following Him for more of the same:

·       John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs [that He is the Savior], but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”

Instead, they demanded a sign like the manna that Moses had provided. What blindness! Jesus had just provided a great sign! To this, Jesus answered that He was the true manna, the bread of life:

·       John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Consequently, Jesus is the Bread they required, not the manna. They had to feast upon Him, but how? Through His teachings:

·       John 6:40 “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

·       John 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.”

No mention here of consuming His body! The crowd had been so spiritually blind that they failed to understand that Jesus used the metaphors of “manna” and the “bread of God” to say, “Ingesting the bread of life is a matter ingesting my words and believing in Me”:

·       John 6:47-51 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

What gives eternal life: Believing or literally ingesting Jesus’ body? What did Jesus give “for the life of the world?” His body on the Cross! Seeing that they remained skeptical, He tried again:

·       John 6:63-64 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Their problem wasn’t that they didn’t regard His body as literal food but that they didn’t believe. Life wasn’t a matter of eating and drinking. Instead, eternal life was a matter of believing “the words I have spoken to you” and not a matter of taking the Eucharist.

How did Jesus’ disciples understand His teaching? Did they think that they had to literally eat Jesus’ body? Evidently not! After Jesus asked them if they too would abandon Him:

·       John 6:68-69 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter understood that life was a matter of knowing and believing in Jesus and not ingesting His body. Life was not a matter of brilliant arguments, or even feeding thousands out of virtually nothing. Instead, it required the secret and inner work of the Holy Spirit:

·       John 6:65 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Salvation is a matter of the gift of God—the regeneration of the heart and mind so that we will believe (Titus 3:5-7)

John 6:63-64 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Creation, Jonah and Turning the Bible into Allegory

Is it important to know whether or not the Bible as historical? One respondent correctly pointed out, “Parts of Scripture are history--other parts are not.” So then, how can we determine the historical from the non-historical? Well, if we take the Bible seriously, we try to determine how the Bible regards these “parts.” We compare Scripture with Scripture.

This same respondent, took the position that we shouldn’t regard the Book of Jonah as historical. However, it seems obvious that Jesus took it and used it as history:

• He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:39-41)

Consequently, Jonah should not be taken as parabolic (non-historical) for several reasons:

1. Jesus doesn’t say, “According to the tale, Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish.” Instead, He speaks as if this actually happened.

2. Jesus then states “so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the “Book of Jonah” is no more than a parable and Jesus knew this to be the case, then He is affirming, “In the same way that Jonah was fictitiously in the whale, I too will be fictitiously buried for three days. However, this could not have been His meaning.

3. Jesus warned Israel that “Nineveh will stand up at the judgment” of them. However, if all knew that Jonah was simply parabolic, they would have scorned Jesus: “As it is fiction that Nineveh repented, so too is it fiction that Nineveh ‘will stand in judgment.’”

However, there was no such retort, as appropriate as this retort would have been had Jonah been regarded as a mere allegory or parable.

It seems obvious that Jesus regarded the Book of Jonah as history. If we are followers of Jesus, then we are constrained to also be followers of His thinking and reasoning. He regarded Scripture as the undefiled Word of God (Matthew 5:16-18) and submitted to it in all regards. Quoting Deuteronomy 8, He responded to Satan:

• “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

This means that we too must live by “every word” and to understand them as Jesus did. If He regarded the first several chapters of Genesis as history – and we find that the Apostles also regarded these chapters as history – then we too are constrained to regard them as history.

Jesus based His teaching on marriage and divorce on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2:

• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Jesus’ entire argument is based upon the history of God’s work, that:

• He created them,
• He made them one flesh,
• And “joined [them] together.”

If God had only figuratively (not historically) created and joined them, then we would have every right actually divorce as long as we don’t figuratively divorce. Therefore, one who is contemplating divorce could reason that, “I’ll divorce my wife, but I’ll remain married to her figuratively, in my heart.” Of course, this is absurd, but this is because a non-historical understanding of Jesus’ words is also absurd. Instead, Jesus’ clear intent was to demonstrate that divorce is wrong and that the Pharisees were wrong for justifying divorce.

Jesus built His case on the common understanding that Genesis is history. If Genesis hadn’t been widely regarded as history, the Pharisees could easily have retorted, “Well, God didn’t actually join them together, so we are not prohibited from actually divorcing our wives!” in which case, Jesus’ argument would have completely collapsed.

This is not to deny that Genesis 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. However, if we start with the conclusion that these chapters are not history – and also that the New Testament’s interpretation of them shouldn’t guide our interpretation (Scripture interpreting Scripture) - then we consequently reject our most important interpretive guidelines and constraints. Operating with this “freedom,” the door is opened to just about any interpretation we’d like to paste on Genesis.

Perhaps the “God” of Genesis is a blind, impersonal force – gravity, according to Stephen Hawking? Perhaps instead, he is the universal consciousness – Eastern monism? Or perhaps he’s naturalism anthropomorphized. If we refuse to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, anything is possible, and if any interpretation is possible, we are left in utter confusion and our faith is for naught.