What is transubstantiation?
Introduction. Over the past few weeks we have considered several questions relative to the Lord's supper. At this time we shall direct our attention to the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The doctrine of transubstantiation. In the ninth century Paschasius Radbert, a monk, produced a book in which he advocated transubstantiation. He taught the unleavened bread in the Lord's supper "is the very flesh of our Saviour..." and the fruit of the vine is "the very blood that ran out the Savior's side...." In 1215 Pope Innocent the Third assembled a council in whose hearing was read seventy cannons. One of these cannons gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church.
Jesus' teaching regarding the bread and the fruit of the vine. Did not Jesus say regarding the bread and the cup "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? (Matt. 26: 26, 28.) Beloved, the Bible abounds with metaphors (Greek meta, beyond, and pherein, to bring, see Hermeneutics, pg. 251 ff., by D.R. Dungan). It is true Jesus did not say, in actual words, the bread and the fruit of the vine are like (simile) my body and by blood, but it is obvious Jesus is metaphorically presenting the bread and the fruit of the vine. The fact is, the elements materially remain the same but they uniquely represent Jesus' body and blood. The bread used by Jesus was unleavened (free of any impurities or fermentation). The fruit of the vine also is indicative of purity (it is obvious fermented drink was not used, cf. Prov. 23: 31), Those who insist that the original material of the elements undergo a transformation would have man engaging in cannibalism and drinking blood. Such an act is unthinkable (see Acts 15: 29)!
Conclusion. Jesus did not teach that the elements actually become his body and his blood, but they uniquely represent Jesus' body and blood.
The doctrine of transubstantiation. In the ninth century Paschasius Radbert, a monk, produced a book in which he advocated transubstantiation. He taught the unleavened bread in the Lord's supper "is the very flesh of our Saviour..." and the fruit of the vine is "the very blood that ran out the Savior's side...." In 1215 Pope Innocent the Third assembled a council in whose hearing was read seventy cannons. One of these cannons gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church.
Jesus' teaching regarding the bread and the fruit of the vine. Did not Jesus say regarding the bread and the cup "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? (Matt. 26: 26, 28.) Beloved, the Bible abounds with metaphors (Greek meta, beyond, and pherein, to bring, see Hermeneutics, pg. 251 ff., by D.R. Dungan). It is true Jesus did not say, in actual words, the bread and the fruit of the vine are like (simile) my body and by blood, but it is obvious Jesus is metaphorically presenting the bread and the fruit of the vine. The fact is, the elements materially remain the same but they uniquely represent Jesus' body and blood. The bread used by Jesus was unleavened (free of any impurities or fermentation). The fruit of the vine also is indicative of purity (it is obvious fermented drink was not used, cf. Prov. 23: 31), Those who insist that the original material of the elements undergo a transformation would have man engaging in cannibalism and drinking blood. Such an act is unthinkable (see Acts 15: 29)!
Conclusion. Jesus did not teach that the elements actually become his body and his blood, but they uniquely represent Jesus' body and blood.