The Sacrifice of the Mass, Hebrews, and the Problem of the One-and-the-Many

Fallibility ^ | September 23, 2013 | Michael Taylor

[RnMomof7]

The Sacrifice of the Mass, Hebrews, and the Problem of the One-and-the-Many

Introduction

In Roman Catholic theology, every particular mass is itself a sacrifice, not merely the memorial of a sacrifice. At the same time, however, the mass is essentially the same sacrifice as Calvary, even though the mass is not in every respect Calvary itself. The Council of Trent says:

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory… For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different (Council of Trent, Twenty-Second Session, chapter II, cited in The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, H. J. Schroeder, translator, [Rockford, IL: Tan, 1978], 145-146).

There is one sacrifice, which is re-presented and perpetuated in many sacrifices. Is this a difficult concept to understand? Sometimes Roman Catholic apologists accuse Protestantism of being a religion devoid of mystery and Protestants in general as being incapable of grasping the concepts of eternity and the supernatural. Karl Keating put it this way:

In the final analysis, what makes the Mass literally unbelievable for fundamentalists is that they cannot conceive of a single act that is perpetuated through time. For them, what happened on Calvary happened there alone and remains in the dead past. They see Catholic priests conducting a sacrifice today and conclude that today’s sacrifice must be distinct from Calvary’s. If it really is a sacrifice, it is an attempt to replay Calvary in the most literal way—which, they know, is quite impossible. Christ cannot be killed again. So, for fundamentalists, what priests do at the altar really reduces to a show. Priests may think they are re-presenting the same sacrifice, but fundamentalists know they are only play-acting. It is fundamentalists’ sense of the mysterious, their sense of the supernatural, that is undeveloped…Having been instructed poorly in the supernatural as such, fundamentalists have not given it much thought, and they have trouble imagining that God is actually beyond time. They usually think of eternity as being nothing but endless years, a time line that disappears into the mists at each end, and they do not think of Calvary being a perpetual Now…It requires a determined refocusing of the mind to see things from the Catholic perspective, and this is not easy for fundamentalists [sic] to accomplish (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 257-258).

When Keating speaks of a “single act that is perpetuated through time,” he is essentially stating a version of the metaphysical problem of the one-and-the-many. How can something that is essentially one also be essentially many? Attempts to solve his problem are as old as philosophy itself. Plato credits Heraclitus with raising the issue of whether or not it is possible to step in the same river twice. If we may oversimplify, the history of philosophy can pretty much be read as a coversation between those who say you can and those who say you can’t and those who say that both sides are right. Those who say you can are the philosophical “lumpers,” those who see forests before they see trees, those who stress unity over diversity. Put a foot in the Nile today, do it again tomorrow, and you’ve stepped into the same river twice, right? Wrong, say the “splitters”—those who tend to see the trees rather than the forests. These will be the first to tell you that the water you put your foot in today is not the same water you’ll put your foot into tomorrow—it’s just too far downstream to be “the same river.” Then there are the “synthesizers”—those who want to have it both ways. Sure, it’s different water, but it’s the same river. The outward appearance (accidents) may have changed, but the essence (substance) of the river has not.

We can modify Hericlitus’ quandary: Can you step into the same sacrifice twice? The theological “lumper” says you can and would appeal to mystical categories to explain how the mass and Calvary are numerically identical. Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott refers to this as the “Mystery Theory,” but notes that this theory was rejected by Pope Pius XII in his encylical, Mediator Dei (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [Rockford, IL: Tan, 1960], 411). The theological “splitter,” in contrast, would say that Calvary is ontologically distinct from the sacrifice of the mass. Generally speaking, Protestants would come close to this position if they were to regard the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The Roman Catholic position, then, is clearly synthetic. The mass is both the same sacrifice as Calvary (essentially) and a different sacrifice from Calvary (in its manner of offering).

What of Keating’s accusations? Are Protestants incapable of grasping metaphysical concepts such as the one-and-the-many problem and the philosophical definition of eternity as being outside of time? Are Protestants incapable of grappling with mystery and the supernatural? Of course, Keating doesn’t really have all Protestants in mind, but rather the anti-intellectual “fundamentalist.” But is it not the case that even the most backwoods, snake-handling, Bible-thumper can and usually does accept the doctrine of the Trinity? In fact, most fundamentalists do accept the major creeds of the church catholic and would therefore agree that Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father” (the eternity problem) and that the one God exists eternally in three consubstantial persons (the one-and-the-many problem). Still, there will always be those in the church who will eschew philosophical and metaphysical categories for expressing biblical doctrine. Let’s assume that Keating’s fundamentalist is precisely that kind of Christian—one who believes that all true doctrine is "expressly set down in Scripture”—but one who also denies that true doctrine may be deduced from Scripture "by good and necessary consequence” (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6). Could such a Christian ever hope to understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass?

We think so. For the problem of the one-and-the-many is not just a metaphysical problem; it is also a thoroughly biblical one. Paul, for example, displays “lumper” tendencies when he speaks of the “summing up of all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). His preference here is to see the essential "oneness" of reality in relation to Christ. On the other hand, Paul can be a “splitter”: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘and to your seed,’ that is, Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Paul’s Christological argument depends upon the distinction between the singular “seed” and the plural “seeds.” If reality is not "many" in this case, then Paul’s distinction is hardly warranted. On yet another hand, Paul exhibits “synthesizer” tendencies when he draws his analogy to the body: “We being many are one body in Christ” (Romans 12:5, see also 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:20, 27; Ephesians 4:25) Christ is both one and many—one in his person, many in his church.

We can see, then, that depending on the issue, the Bible can resolve the one-and-the-many problem in any number of directions. Therefore even Keating’s Bible-only fundamentalist should have no problem, in principle, with the concept of one sacrifice perpetuated through time. Now let us assume for the sake of argument that the Last Supper (and therefore every mass) really was a sacrifice in the precise sense Rome requires. How might a fundamentalist or any other reader of scripture evaluate Rome's position (assuming the mass is a sacrifice)?

The One-and-the-Many Problem in Hebrews

The obvious starting point (which is as far as this article will go) is the letter to the Hebrews since it’s author takes up a remarkably parallel problem with respect to the relationship of the one sacrifice on Calvary to the many sacrifices that yearly took place in the Temple on Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement. Using our admittedly oversimplified “lumper, splitter, synthesizer” schema, we can attempt to locate this author’s theological preference for relating the one sacrifice (Calvary) to the many sacrifices (Yom Kippur). The relevant texts are the following:

Hebrews 7:23-28

“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”

The author to the Hebrews develops his argument with a series of antitheses that contrast the perfect high priesthood of Jesus to the imperfect Levitical priesthood. The antitheses between the one and the many, the perfect and the imperfect suggest that the author should be classified as a theological “splitter.”

The One:  The unique priesthood of Jesus is permanent because he lives forever (7:24).
The Many: The temporal Levitical priesthood is subject to mortality (Hebrews 7:23).

The One:  Jesus is able to completely save sinners because he can intercede perpetually (7:25).
The Many: Levitical priests cannot save anyone and can only intercede as long as they live (implied).

The One:  Jesus our high priest is without sin (7:26).
The Many: Levitical high priests are sinners (implied).

The One:  Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices day after day (7:27).
The Many: Levitical priests need to offer daily sacrifices on behalf of themselves and others (7:27).

The One:  Jesus is appointed high priest by divine oath which supercedes the law (7:28).
The Many: Levitical high priests are appointed by the now obsolete law (7:28).

The One:  Jesus is a perfect high priest forever (7:28).
The Many: Levitical high priests are weak and will die (7:28).

From these antitheses, we can draw the following conclusions. The priesthood of Jesus is perfect because it is permanent (7:24), efficacious (7:25), constituted of one sinless priest (7:25), based on one, unrepeatable sacrifice (7:27), and not derived from the obsolete Law, but rather divine promise (7:28).  In contrast, the Levitical priesthood is imperfect because it is temporal (7:23), ineffective (7:25), constituted of sinful priests (7:26), based on multiple sacrifices (7:27), and because it is derived from the obsolete Law (7:28).

The argument in 7:23-25 is designed to show how it is possible for Jesus to completely save sinners. Jesus can save sinners completely because “he always lives to intercede for them,” which follows from the fact that Jesus lives forever. We can thus infer that any priest that does not live forever cannot intercede perpetually for sinners and is therefore unable to completely save sinners. But if this argument demonstrates the impotency of the Levitical priesthood, it would also seem to imply the impotency of any other cultic priesthood (such as that of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) whose priests are likewise mortal. Strictly speaking, the author is not so much concerned with the mortality of Levitical priests as he is with the fact that there were so many of them. Mortality simply explains why there were so many. New Testament scholar, William L. Lane (an Evangelical) explains the argument this way:

The fact that there were many priests under the Levitical arrangement is important to the writer’s argument. In Hebrews multiplicity signifies incompleteness, imperfection, and inconclusiveness (e.g., 1:1; 10:1-4)…In contrast to the Levitical priests, whose ministries were continually disrupted by death, there is no temporal limitation to the ministry of a priest who lives forever. The eternity of the Son qualifies him to exercise a ministry that is permanent and final. The unequivocal statement that nothing can infringe upon Christ’s priesthood includes the subsidiary notion that it passes to no successor” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 47a, [Dallas: Word, 1991], 188-189).

The argument in 7:26-28 establishes why Jesus does not need to offer multiple sacrifices. The author begins with the fact that sacrifice must be offered for both the priest who is weak and for the people who are sinners. The implication here is that so long as either party is sinful, there will always be a need for continuing sacrifice. The solution to the problem is Jesus’ impeccability and self-sacrifice. Jesus is both sinless priest and sinless victim. Since Jesus is a sinless priest, he obviously does not need to offer sacrifice for himself. Yet because the people are still sinners, it would seem that there must be continued sacrifices on their behalf. For Roman Catholics the sacrifices of the mass (divine liturgies for the Eastern Orthodox) are precisely these ongoing sacrifices. But for the author to the Hebrews, it is because the priest and victim is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,” that only one sacrifice is necessary. In other words, a sinless victim offered by a sinless priest is a perfect sacrifice that obviates the need for any continued sacrificial offering. This is why the author can say, “he sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself” (7:27).

For the author to the Hebrews, the need for continued sacrificial offering has more to do with the nature of the sacrifice than the sinfulness of the sinner. Only imperfect sacrifices are offered more than once, whereas a perfect sacrifice can only be offered once. “Where there is remission of sin, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (Hebrews 10:18). Contrast this to the Roman Catholic view that holds that because we continue to sin, we are in continuous need of multiple sacrifices. For the author to the Hebrews, those who despise the one, perfect sacrifice by continuing to sin willfully “are crucifying the Son of God all over again” (Hebrews 6:6). For such as these, “there is no longer any sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26). 

Now consider for a moment the conditions for the possibility of such an assertion. To say that “there is no longer any sacrifice for sins” simply precludes the possibility that there is any such thing as ongoing propitiatory sacrifices (such as the mass) in the church. The author to the Hebrews simply does not deal with the problem of ongoing sin by multiplying sacrifices to remit them; rather he insists on steadfast repentance so that the one, perfect sacrifice can be effectively appropriated in the life of the believer. In other words, instead of continued sacrifices for sin (e.g., the mass), the author to the Hebrews holds for the continued efficacy of the one sacrifice for the penitent believer.

Hebrews 9:11-12

“When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Hebrews 9:24-28

“For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”

The author continues to develop his argument by means of antitheses. The Levitical priesthood is an imperfect type that has been fulfilled and replaced by the perfect antitype in Jesus’ unique high priesthood. Again, the author continues to approach this version of the one and the many problem as a “splitter.”

The One:  As high priest, Jesus entered the perfect heavenly tabernacle once and for all (9:11; 24-28).
The Many: Levitical high priests yearly enter a tabernacle that is an imperfect copy of the original (9:12; 24-25).

The One:  Jesus’ sacrifice achieved eternal redemption (9:12).
The Many: Levitical sacrifices achieve temporary redemption (implied).

The One:  Jesus entered the perfect tabernacle by means of his own blood once and for all (9:12, 24-28).
The Many: Levitical priests enter the imperfect tabernacle by means of animal blood on a yearly basis (implied).

The One:  Jesus offered one, perfect and unrepeatable sacrifice valid for all time and eternity (9:26; 10:14).
The Many: Repeat sacrifices necessitate multiple deaths (9:26), which is a sign of their imperfection.

The priesthood of Jesus is superior because Jesus cleansed the perfect tabernacle in heaven (9:11), by means of his own blood (9:12), once and for all (9:12; 28), thereby having achieved an eternal redemption (9:12; 26). In contrast, the Levitical priesthood is imperfect because its high priests enter an imperfect tabernacle (9:12; 24), year after year (9:26) cleansing it with animals’ blood (9:12), thereby achieving a redemption that is valid for only a year.

The argument continues to assert the superiority of the one sacrifice over and against the many sacrifices. If Jesus had offered himself “again and again,” then he would have had to suffer “many times.” For the author to the Hebrews, there is only one offering per sacrifice and every sacrifice entails suffering. As he says elsewhere, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (9:22). The author to the Hebrews simply would not accept the idea of a repeatable “unbloody” sacrifice in which the victim does not suffer. Such a sacrifice would not be a sacrifice at all. For the Roman Catholic, an unbloody sacrifice is surely a mystery.  But for the author to the Hebrews, it is an oxymoron.

Hebrews 10:1-18

“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-- not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'" 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.”

The author continues to argue for the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood by means of several more antitheses which contrast the superiority of Jesus’ sacrificial offering to that of the Levitical priests. Once again, the author continues to exhibit “splitter” tendencies.

The One:  If Jesus’ sacrifice were to be offered repeatedly, this would imply its imperfection (10:1-2).
The Many: The repetition of the same sacrifice implies its imperfection (10:1-2).

The One:  Jesus’ unique sacrifice removes consciousness of past sins because of the efficacy of Christ’s blood (10:2).
The Many:  Levitical sacrifices continually remind the sinner of his sin because of the impotency of animal blood (10:3).

The One:  God is pleased with Jesus’ obedience to His will that took him to the cross (10:4-9).
The Many: God is not pleased with the animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood (10:4-9).

The One:  Jesus offered his sacrifice once and for all and then sat down, signifying the completion and perfection of his sacrifice (10:10-14).
The Many: Levitical priests stand day after day to offer the same sacrifices that cannot take away sin. Their work is never complete (10:10-14).

The One:  Once sin has been forgiven, there is no need for any further offering for sin (10:15-18)
The Many: To continue to offer the same sacrifices implies a continued need for sin offerings.

The sacrifice of Jesus is perfect because it is offered once and for all (10:1-2), efficacious (10:2), pleasing to God (10:4-9), eternally complete (10:10-14) and eternally valid (10:15-18). In contrast, the sacrifices of the Levitical priests are imperfect because they are repetitious (10:1-2), impotent (10:3), unpleasing to God (10:4-9), never complete (10:10-14) and therefore always needed (10:15-18).

The argument in 10:1-4 raises the question of what exactly makes a sacrifice imperfect.  Is a sacrifice offered more than once because it is imperfect? Or is the sacrifice imperfect because it is offered more than once? For the author to the Hebrews, the answer seems to be both. On the one hand, the proof that a sacrifice is imperfect is the fact that it needs to be offered more than once:

“For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins (Hebrews 10:1-2). 

On the other hand, the only reason sacrifices must be continually offered is because the sacrifices themselves are intrinsically imperfect: 

“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3-4).

What, then, might the author to the Hebrews conclude about the sacrifice of the mass? At first, he might conclude that it is an imperfect sacrifice simply because it is offered repeatedly. But would he think differently if the offering itself were intrinsically perfect? In other words, if he knew the mass to be an “unbloody” re-presentation of the original blood that was shed on Calvary (rather than the shedding of animal’s blood, which cannot take away sin), would he change is mind about the imperfection of repeated sacrifices in this case? Would he embrace the doctrine of a single, absolute sacrifice (Calvary) perpetuated through time by means of multiple relative sacrifices (the mass)?

Probably not. While such a view may be tenable for a “synthesizer,” the author to the Hebrews (a confirmed “splitter”) would probably never accept such a position. If the perfect High Priest does not need to offer himself over and over again, then surely the imperfect priests of the church do not need to either. If the movement of salvation history is from the lesser to the greater, the imperfect type to the perfect antitype, the copy to the original, then the development of a new cultic priesthood that offers “re-presentations” of the original sacrifice would surely be a step in the wrong direction, at least as far the author to the Hebrews is concerned. 

If Jesus has finished his sacrificial work (as the session at the right hand of the Father indicates), then could he envision a new cultic priesthood that must continually “re-present” to the Father the very work that Jesus has already presented to the Father once and for all? If, for the author there is “no further offering for sin,” could he ever imagine continued propitiatory sacrifices (the mass) in the life of the church? To ask such questions is to answer them.

[CynicalBear]

Excellent!! Thank you for posting that.

[daniel1212]

But how then do we reconcile this event completed before the world was made with the fact that Jesus died at a later point in human history? This can be easily understood as a typical feature of Hebraic thought, where events that were certain to occur because they were in God's plan are spoken of as having been completed even before they occurred in time. A classic example of that is Jude 14:

Again, the sanctification of the believer, their setting apart for the divine purpose, is spoken of here as an accomplished, past tense event. The word translated "once for all" is the adverb "ἐφάπαξ" "ephapax." It is also used here, and also in connection with Christ's death. Note the emphasis on the past tense nature of the event:

Romans 6:9-10 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Note the holy author is not saying He is dying once. He says "died once." It is a concluded event.

Well said, and contrary to,

"The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." (CCC 1367)

In the sacrifice of the Mass “Christ the high priest by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross...no less truly today than occurred on the cross.” (Catholic Catechism, 1981, by John Hardon, p. 466)

1) The Mass is Calvary continued. 2) Every Mass is worth as much as the Sacrifice of Our Lord's Life,suffering and death. 3) Holy Mass is the most powerful atonement for your sins. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mgraces.htm)

[RobbyS]

Are we anyone saying that Jesus died more than once? Of course, he died once, in our past. But to the writer of Hebrews that was an event fresh in the memory of men still living and doctrines new to the men to whom his words were addressed. We, however, who live live almost 2000 years later, a span of time equal to the span from Abraham to Christ, we must be cautious that we do not employ the words as if we have the authority to interpret them but in fact do not. Do we indeed have the equivalent of Joseph Smith’s magic spectacles? Did Dr.Luther and his peers? Do even our greatest scholars understand the words was well as, say Origin, or Jerome, for whom the language was as native as the words, indiums and nuances, are as native to us as those of the American Founding Fathers?

[Springfield Reformer]

We, however, who live live almost 2000 years later, a span of time equal to the span from Abraham to Christ, we must be cautious that we do not employ the words as if we have the authority to interpret them but in fact do not.

Christians have not only the authority but the duty to try and understand what God is saying to them:

Matthew 4:4  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

It is our most important food.  We cannot live without it.  We cannot "ingest" it without thinking about what it means.  That is a psychological impossibility. You cannot have chosen your own faith tradition without first engaging in your own interpretation of their teaching.  Contrary to popular misconception, there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God's word.  Quite the opposite:

Psalms 119:101-106  I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.  (102)  I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.  (103)  How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!  (104)  Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.  (105)  NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.  (106)  I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.

And earlier in the same Psalm:.

Psalms 119:10-11  With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.  (11)  Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

So we see that the one who claims to have faith in God is duty-bound to keep God's word, to not depart from His judgments.  In the keeping of that duty you will find His words sweeter than honey, that they give understanding, that they teach us to hate every false way.  God's word lights our way.  How can we find our way without it?  We can't!

That's why verse 11 above is so important.  We meditate, think on, ingest, hide in our heart, the word of God, because that is how we will know to live as God wants us to live, to think and be the godly person God wants us to be.  None of that can happen without the mental process of hearing the word and trying to understand what it means.  That's interpretation. We are all interpreters because we think.  Thinking is continuous interpretation.  Information hits our sensors, we sort through it all and come up with meaning. That's how we are designed by God Himself.  God made us all interpreters.  So I truly do not understand this objection to interpretation.  We have to do it.  We have no choice.

Now that does not mean we have authority to invent any meaning we like by deliberately twisting a clear textual meaning.  Thankfully, we have the inspired apostolic testimony, which is so clear in the principal truths that no one enlightened by the Holy Spirit could possibly miss those essentials.  As Paul said:

2 Timothy 3:14-15  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;  (15)  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So we see that the Scriptures have the inherent power to make one wise to salvation in Jesus Christ.  Of course in a rebellious heart where no such light is admitted, the understanding will be dark, no matter how clear and bright the light.  God must open and assist our understanding:

Acts 16:14  And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

And when the Lord so opens our heart, we do give heed to the apostolic testimony, just as Lydia did.  In fact, if we are His sheep, strangers may come along and profess to be some mighty authority, claiming they have been granted the sole power of interpretation, like, as you say, Joe Smith and his magic glasses, or Rome, and you know what?  God will protect us from that error:

John 10:2-5  But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.  (3)  To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.  (4)  And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.  (5)  And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

This of course only applies to those who are actually the sheep.  Those among the flock who do not know or care for the voice of the true Shepherd will follow any old pretender into mischief, and so you will have much mischief in the world.  So much so that the wheats and the tares (yes, I'm mixing the metaphors) cannot be separated until the end of the age, and then only under divine supervision.  Simply inspecting the membership lists of one or another denomination would give a false answer to who the sheep are.  They are those who hear the voice of the Shepherd, and will not follow another.

Which is why we should be very intolerant of error (such as transubstantiation), but very gentle toward our fellow travelers in this life. If God won't force a sorting out until the very end, who am I to take that on?  Way above my pay grade.  But that is no excuse to evade my Christian duty to feed on God's word, to try to understand it, and to share it with others, giving all due respect to the gifted teachers God has given us, but with first authority going to those words of God Himself, which by design are for our nourishment and enlightenment, if we take them in and ponder their meaning, and make them part of how we think and who we are.

Peace,

SR

[RobbyS]

Indeed, Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit. But which Christians? You say that there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God’s Word. There is also no express grant of that right. Believe it or not, Catholics are also urged to read Scripture in search of the truth, but we seed what you do not, that where that search is not curbed, then there is division. Indeed, even with curbing there is division. The devil has his agents at work inside the Church as well as out. God is righteous: he will keep his covenant. He will also help us to keep our faith as well. The ship will not sink, but someone must read the charts and who that is is the question.

[Springfield Reformer]

Indeed, Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit. But which Christians? You say that there is no Scripture prohibiting the attempt of the individual to understand God’s Word. There is also no express grant of that right. Believe it or not, Catholics are also urged to read Scripture in search of the truth, but we seed what you do not, that where that search is not curbed, then there is division. Indeed, even with curbing there is division. The devil has his agents at work inside the Church as well as out. God is righteous: he will keep his covenant. He will also help us to keep our faith as well. The ship will not sink, but someone must read the charts and who that is is the question.

1. All Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit:  That's part of the package deal.  If you belong to Christ, you must have the Spirit :

Ephesians 1:12-14  That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.  (13)  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,  (14)  Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

So if you don't have the Spirit, you don't have the down payment on your heavenly inheritance, i.e., you don't belong to Christ.  

2.  If your question is really, which "denomination" has the assurance of the Holy Spirit's assistance, Scripture doesn't tell us. Instead, it offers various tests by which we can discern the truth.  For example:

Matthew 24:23-26  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.  (24)  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (25) Behold, I have told you before.  (26)  Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

So under this particular test, while we are waiting for Christ to return, we can know a false Christ by someone representing that He is here, just hidden in some secret chamber.  This is obviously false because Christ in His physical being is sitting at the right hand of God, not hiding out in Area 51, or disguised as a wafer in a monstrance.  

Who has access to these truth tests?  The sheep, as I mentioned in my previous post.  His sheep hear His voice, and will not follow another.  So it's not about a denomination.  It's about whether you are one of the sheep.

3.  If you are looking for an express grant to digest food in Scripture, you have set up an impossible test.  Some powers are simply implied by others.  For example, in constitutional law, the federal government has some implied powers, based on those expressly enumerated.  An implied power is one that is necessary and proper to carry out the action of an express power.

Similarly, everyone has an express duty to feed on God's word.  Interpretation is digestion, drawing out the sustenance from the food consumed.  Therefore, even if we did not have a multitude of Biblical examples of people attempting to understand the word of God, we would still have the implied authority for any act "necessary and proper" to carry out our express duty to "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," including interpretation. Yes, we use God's gifted teachers to help us interpret rightly, but we do not substitute their digestion for ours.  It does us no good to sit in the pews afraid to ask with the Bereans whether what we are hearing is true.  We have an obligation before God to reject falsehood, no matter from what human authority we may hear it.  

4.  The Roman ship sank long ago.  They have drifted so far from the simplicity of the Gospel as revealed in Scripture that one cannot even tell what Roman doctrine is without reference to the Roman equivalent of Joe Smith's magic glasses.  Whereas it is the duty and joy of any ordinary believer to meditate daily on God's word, without fear of offending funny hat wearers anywhere, but as the Scriptures say, to mature past the milk stage, and get on to the solid meat that God has for us in His word:

Hebrews 5:12-14  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.  (13)  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.  (14)  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Peace,

SR

[RobbyS]

You say that Jesus is physically sitting at the right hand off the Father. But what do you mean by” physically? The Resurrected Christ is not bounded by the Laws of Physics. Yet he remains a real human being.” Sitting at the right Hand of the Father” is obviously a metaphor, imagining God as like a an earthly ruler with Jesus in the place of power to his “right”.. Calvin spoke of Jesus as “being in heaven,” But he conceded that we could experience his “Power” if we receive in Good Faith. If we receive it unworthily, then perhaps his “wrath.” What limits his power? If his “glory” could “reside”in the ark, and in the tent and in the Tabernacle, the why not in the bread and wine, That box is called the Tabernacle, by the way.

[Springfield Reformer]

You say that Jesus is physically sitting at the right hand off the Father. But what do you mean by” physically? The Resurrected Christ is not bounded by the Laws of Physics. Yet he remains a real human being.” Sitting at the right Hand of the Father” is obviously a metaphor, imagining God as like a an earthly ruler with Jesus in the place of power to his “right”.. Calvin spoke of Jesus as “being in heaven,” But he conceded that we could experience his “Power” if we receive in Good Faith. If we receive it unworthily, then perhaps his “wrath.” What limits his power? If his “glory” could “reside”in the ark, and in the tent and in the Tabernacle, the why not in the bread and wine, That box is called the Tabernacle, by the way.

What does limit His power is His own decision as to how to use it, especially when that decision is recorded in Scripture.  I agree God can do as He wishes.  But that is not a blank check for me to imagine false solutions to false problems created by false handling of Scripture, then impose all that nonsense on others as if it were critical dogma.  

Having said that, I will agree that defining physicality is certainly an interesting part of the problem. However, as you indicated yourself, there are challenges here that are millenia old, and we should be respectful of what those before us found difficult, lest we fall into the trap of pride.  One of those areas is the careful preservation of the doctrines concerning the person of Christ, how best to describe His deity and humanity and their relationship to each other. Per Chalcedon, a key principle of this analysis is that there must not be confusion of the two natures, human and divine.  They exist together, in one undivided person, yet it is essential to preserve the distinction of attributes between the two.  What is at risk, among other things, is the doctrine of the atonement.  If we go assigning to Christ's human nature things that are only ascribable to His divine nature, we void his being like us in every way, as Scripture says, in which case we also void the atonement, because His humanity must be a true humanity, a true likeness to us, for Him to be offered as our substitute.

This is why attributes such as omnipresence cannot be safely assigned to His humanity, his flesh, His physical being.  And this reconciles well with Scripture.  While His in His resurrection body He did do some things we cannot now do, such as going around walls without passing through ordinary space, there is absolutely no indication He was then or is now physically omnipresent.  This notion would be at odds with Chalcedon itself, in that they rejected confusion of the natures, in which they meant ascribing to His deity attributes of His humanity, and vise versa.

This is why the Protestant/evangelical position has typically focused on Christ's omnipresence as a spiritual reality, rather than corporeal. This preserves the distinction of the natures.  God is spirit, and as such can be everywhere at once. Christ is divine in nature, and it seems reasonable and safe to see Him as being present everywhere spiritually by means of His nature as God.  This is how we can have an uncomplicated understanding of such passages as those below, without resort to misleading speculations such as transubstantiation:

Romans 8:9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And ...

Matthew 18:20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So in the celebration of Lord's Supper, we do not confuse the two natures.  He is there with us in spirit, which is no less real than His physical being.  His presence is real, but not corporeal.  Else His warning about not running off to find Him in "secret chambers" makes no sense.  He will be with us again, but not corporeally until He returns for us.  Until then, our mission is to wait patiently, and not following cunningly devised fables, such as transubstantiation.

Calvin's solution (though I am more Zwinglian) likewise avoids assigning omnipresence to the human nature of Christ.  In his view we come into his total presence, both human and divine natures, in a spiritual pilgrimage, taken by faith when we partake of the elements, which remain in both their appearance and their substance truly bread and wine.  So we are coming to Him, as He really is in Heaven, and have no grounds to think He is "in" or "behind" the mere appearance of bread and wine.  Thus idolatry is avoided.

And while I respect Calvin's view as a big improvement over transubstantiation, I would contend that both he and Luther were too much still under the influence of Rome, that Scripture still presents the best view, that we do this service, not to "refuel" on grace, but as He said, to remember what He has done for us.  I frankly do not understand the impulse to make it more complicated.  It is quite beautiful enough for me just as I find it in Scripture.

Peace,

SR

[RobbyS]

What we know about Jesus is that after his Resurrection he appeared to his disciples in a “glorified” body, which I take to mean a physical body like our own, but not as it is in time-space. He could appear to them, interact with them as he had before, share with them a meal on the shores of the lake, walk and talk with him as he had “before.” We cannot explain this either in concrete terms as known by the apostles, nor theological terms as known to the Council fathers. nor in terms of the science of our own times. It is a mystery. And my problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that some take it to explain what it only describes. It describes truly but explains nothing. Much the same is true of what the Bible says. It compares with the Summa of St. Thomas as a mountain does to a plain, but it is not the last word. THAT will only come later. As Paul says about seeing things darkly as in a polished metal mirror.

[Springfield Reformer]

What we know about Jesus is that after his Resurrection he appeared to his disciples in a “glorified” body, which I take to mean a physical body like our own, but not as it is in time-space. He could appear to them, interact with them as he had before, share with them a meal on the shores of the lake, walk and talk with him as he had “before.” We cannot explain this either in concrete terms as known by the apostles, nor theological terms as known to the Council fathers. nor in terms of the science of our own times. It is a mystery. And my problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that some take it to explain what it only describes. It describes truly but explains nothing. Much the same is true of what the Bible says. It compares with the Summa of St. Thomas as a mountain does to a plain, but it is not the last word. THAT will only come later. As Paul says about seeing things darkly as in a polished metal mirror.

"but not as it is in time-space?"  Based on what?  There is simply no evidence His glorified body was any more detachable from time-space than his pre-glorification body.  How does a natural body walk on water?  How does a natural body evade a crowd pressing in to stone Him to death?  The things He did in either state were miracles engineered by the Godhead, but in no fashion require him to violate His human nature, including His human physicality and its limitations in space-time. To do so, as I said before, would violate the well established principles of Chalcedon, and I am in shock that you, as a professed Catholic, have taken no apparent effort to factor that in, especially after preaching to me on the value of listening to those who have gone before us.

In any event, the notion of a Christ "outside of time" is nowhere found in Scripture, and relies heavily on modern, post-Newtonian ideas of the space-time manifold, which notions have in modern, liberal theology merged with the eastern notion of timeless Nirvana, but are completely absent in the actual revelation God gave us concerning these things.  To retrofit Scripture with such an anachronism is preposterous, and a grand presumption against the plain facts as they have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.   Any retreat to "ineffability," the inability to express an idea, where the facts are plainly recorded, amounts in my view to yet another attempt to discover a blank check with which you can solve any glaring inconsistency by the appeal to uncertainty.  

But all this is so unnecessary.  John 6 is clearly teaching we consume Christ by coming to Him and believing in His words, as Peter himself demonstrates right at the end of the Bread of Life discourse. He understood what the materialists who abandoned Jesus did not.  The earliest records give no evidence of a sacramental re-participation in the supposed perpetual suffering of the Lamb, but instead present a time of offering thanksgiving, in memory of the gift once given.  The very name "Eucharist" records this fact, as it simply means "thanksgiving."  Not until centuries later did the neoplatonic influence drive many in the churches to a distorted view of the bread and wine, reverting in effect to nearly the same error as those failed materialists who so profoundly misunderstood Jesus that day.  The body and blood He gave for us was real enough on the cross.  But it is only when we trust in Him, and believe in what He said, and what He did for us on that cross, that we really are consuming Him, drawing our life from Him, eternal life, which Jesus never taught came from eating bread and wine, or even the appearances of bread and wine, but only ever by believing in Him.

John 6:47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Peace,

SR

[RobbyS]

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

[Springfield Reformer]

I meant that in his appearances to the disciples, he does so in the form that the elect —hopefully us—will assume, just as before he had appeared to them as they were. In both cases, he was who they saw and heard

Time-space is our paradigm. how we think of things, today. It is hard to get back to a frame of mind based on Aristotle’s science of Physics, much less into the heads of the Hebrews with a less abstract view of the world. Eternity is, I saw, God’s “point of view.”

I don't have any real disagreement with these statements, as far as they go.  Which is cool.  It's nice to be able to agree on some things. :)

But the Hebrews were indeed more concrete.  Hebrew as a language reflects that.  But we have discrepancies with even more recent slices of history, as you say, paradigms of thought that would lead to some considerable difficulty in understanding one another.  I am attempting to write a novel (to be completed sometime this century) that explores this problem in some detail, a "plausible" time travel story that sets two such paradigms against each other in the search for understanding.  Hard work getting back to a mindset operating so differently.  But hopefully beneficial.  I know I'm getting some good out of it.  Don't know if I'll ever finish the book. Sigh ...

Anyway, good conversation.  I wish you well.

Peace,

SR