| UP |
Revised October 11, 2015
The Roman Catholic Church sends a confused message regarding the purpose of the death of Christ. On the one hand, the catechism does state that Christ died for our sins as our substitute, that is, as the one who took the punishment in our place.
By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant [Isaiah 53:10-12], who "makes himself an offering for sin," when "he bore the sin of many," … for "he shall bear their iniquities." (1994 Catechism, par. 615, italics in original)
Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But ... he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (1994 Catechism, par. 603, italics in original)
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church often emphasizes the physical suffering of Christ as though it were the central redemptive aspect of Christ's death. For example, the note on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in the Saint Joseph Bible refers to "Jesus' death for our sins" being confirmed by his burial, just as his resurrection is confirmed by his appearances. In the case of the resurrection, you have the physical appearances of Christ which do confirm his physical resurrection. Similarly, you have the physical burial of Christ confirming his physical death. Since the note is referring to Jesus' death for our sins, we must assume that the authors of the note think that it was Jesus physical death wherein he was our substitute. In reality, however, it was the spiritual death of Jesus wherein he was our substitute.
The substitutionary nature of Christ's death is clearly established in such passages as Isaiah 53:5-12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18. If this substitutionary death were primarily physical, then Christian believers should not have to die physically. So it is obvious that it is the spiritual death of Christ wherein he was our substitute. This spiritual death took place when he took our sins upon himself, suffered spiritual separation from the Father, crying out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Thus, this Saint Joseph Bible note fails to make the extremely important distinction between the physical death of Christ and the spiritual death of Christ. See the paper The Two Death of Christ.
Another emphasis on the human and physical suffering of Christ is found in the following statement.
The core of Christianity, and of Catholic Christianity, is that Jesus died for the sins of all humankind. Only a real human nature can feel pain and actually die. (Trigilio, p. 79)
Here is another example of a misguided emphasis on the physical sufferings of Christ from an instruction book written "by parish priests."
Because of our sins, Christ suffered the agony in the garden. … He was scourged, crowned with thorns, mocked by the soldiers. … He was nailed to the cross; and suffered the cruel death of a criminal. CHRIST SUFFERED ALL OF THESE THINGS FOR YOUR MORTAL SINS. How terrible is sin! (Instructions in the Catholic Faith, n.d., p. 41, "fulfills the guidelines regarding content of religious instructions as set out by the Committee for Fundamentals of Religious Education National Conference of Catholic Bishops – November 11, 1971")
While we can agree with the sentiment, "how terrible is sin!", we wonder why it is not stated that Christ suffered spiritual separation from the Father, which was the very essence of his substitutionary suffering. The five paragraphs that follow the above quotation emphasize Jesus sweating blood, the scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails in his hands and feet, and the three hours of agony upon the cross. These priests place the entire emphasis on the physical and fail to mention the most important suffering – the spiritual suffering.
The long-standing practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays "to show respect for the day Christ died and sacrificed his flesh on the cross" (Trigilio, page 181) is another indication that the Roman Catholic understanding of the death of Christ focuses on his physical death rather than his spiritual, substitutionary, death.
Another Roman Catholic teaching which detracts from the gospel is the idea that our own personal sufferings can aid in our redemption.
Catholic Christians firmly believe in redemptive suffering, whereby a person willingly offers up their personal aches and pains, trials and tribulations with Christ on the Cross. (Trigilio, page 131, italics in original)
Certainly it trivializes the suffering of Christ to suggest that our troubles can compare with his suffering, or that they can somehow supplement his suffering.
Waffling on this subject is immensely serious in light of the fact that Paul labeled the gospel, that "Christ died for our sins," as "of first importance" (1 Corinthians 15:3). Further discussion of the purpose of Christ's death can be found in the paper The Substitutionary Death of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the custodian and dispenser of God's grace, as though the merits of Christ's substitutionary death on the cross were entrusted to the ordained clergy of the church who, by means of the sacraments, bestow them upon sinners seeking salvation.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments which help a person attain salvation. The church claims that all seven of these sacraments were instituted by Christ. A Catholic clergyman must be a bishop or higher to offer all seven sacraments, which are:
When these actions are described by Roman Catholics as sacramental, it is meant that they effectively convey God's grace to the participant and thus are the means of salvation.
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. (1994 Catechism, par. 1131)
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (1994 Catechism, par. 1129, italics in the original)
As vehicles of grace, the sacraments sanctify Catholics every time they're received. (Trigilio, page 20)
The third sacrament in particular is seen as a fountain of grace.
… from the Eucharist, as from a fountain, grace is channeled into us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God … are most powerfully achieved. (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, chapter 1, section 10)
Certain of these sacraments will be dealt with individually in later sections.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the sacrament of water baptism is extremely important and foundational. The Church teaches not merely that baptism is necessary for salvation, but that baptism accomplishes salvation. The Church also teaches that infants should be baptized. All who are baptized are considered members of the Church, but all adults who are not baptized and all who are baptized but have unconfessed mortal sin go to hell.
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God … (1994 Catechism, par 405)
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit …, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ … (1994 Catechism, par. 1213)
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (1994 Catechism, par. 1257)
By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. (1994 Catechism, par. 1263, italics in original)
By being baptized, born again of water and the Spirit, new Christians become children of God by adoption. (Trigilio, p. 94, italics in original)
Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1994 Catechism, par. 1265)
All men and women are born with original sin, and only Baptism can wash it away. (Trigilio, page 96)
The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (1994 Catechism, par. 1250)
He [Christ] Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the church. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, par. 14)
The Church also teaches that baptism can never be repeated, nor removed. In fact, it recognizes the baptisms performed in over a dozen Protestant denominations (see the list of denominations in Trigilio, page 94). So, if a person who had been baptized in one of these denominations wanted to become a Roman Catholic, he would not be re-baptized. Baptisms are performed by a bishop, priest, or certain deacons. Although not required, it is customary in the United States that the sponsor ("godfather") of the person being baptized pay the person performing the baptism an honorarium (usually from $20 to $100).
Historians differ on the date of the beginning of the practice of infant baptism. Some affirm, others deny, that it started in the first century, but most agree that it was probably practiced in the second and certainly in the third centuries. Both Tertullian (155–230) and Origen (185–254) refer to infant baptism as a common practice.
The sacramental view of baptism, which sees baptism both as the means of salvation and as suitable for infants, is completely out of line with New Testament teaching. First, scripture knows of only one "gateway" or "door" to salvation – Jesus Christ.
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved …. (John 10:9)
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
Second, the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism. The main Greek words for baptism, βαπτιζω (baptizo), βαπτισμος (baptismos), and other forms of these same words, are used well over 100 times in the New Testament. In all these passages, there are no commands to baptize infants, and no explicit examples of infants being baptized.
Third, in the New Testament, baptism involves confession of sin, repentance, and belief in Christ – things which infants cannot do. Just as there is a continuity between the preaching of John the Baptist and of Jesus (compare Matthew 3:1 with 4:17), there is also a continuity between the baptism of John and Christian baptism. Both baptisms involve hearing the gospel message and responding appropriately. In other words, they require acceptance of the truth about one's own sin, which leads to repentance, confession, and turning in faith to God and receiving Christ.
| John's baptism | Christian baptism |
|---|---|
|
|
Clearly, the New Testament teaches believer's baptism, not infant baptism.
The book of Acts does associate baptism with salvation in several passages. For example, after Peter preached to the crowd that gathered on the day of Pentecost, they asked the apostles, "What are we to do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter replied,
Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38; compare 18:8)
But in the New Testament, baptism is always believer's baptism. In other words, a person is expected to respond to the gospel message by believing (that is, receiving Christ, trusting in Him). Then, since he has become a believer, he is expected to be baptized. Baptism does not save. Rather, it is an act of obedience expected of those who are already saved. This is the order found repeatedly in the book of Acts – first salvation, then baptism.
Those who accepted his message were baptized. (Acts 2:41)
... once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. (Acts 8:12)
And after Peter preached the gospel at the home of Cornelius and his Gentile audience spoke and glorified God,
Peter responded, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:46-48)
Thus, baptism is for believers.
The words "baptize" and "baptism" in the New Testament usually refers to the physical ritual using water. But that ritual is meant to be a sign of something much deeper – it has to do with the humility required to recognize one's own sin, repentance, and acceptance of God's way (for those who did not yet know the identity of the Messiah) and acceptance of Jesus Christ for those who know he is God's Son sent to be our savior. Luke describes two opposite heart attitudes, signified by baptism.
All the people who listened, including the tax collectors, and who were baptized with the baptism of John, acknowledged the righteousness of God; but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, who were not baptized by him, rejected the plan of God for themselves. (Luke 7:29-30, compare John 1:31)
Indeed, the concept of baptism goes way beyond the mere physical ritual – it includes identification with Christ, that is, being "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27). And John the Baptist had foretold that Jesus would baptize believers in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11), again indicating something which goes far beyond the mere physical ritual.
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13).
This is the same as the "being baptized into Christ Jesus" that Paul spoke about (Romans 6:3).
So scripture indicates repeatedly that the reality is repentance from sin, faith in Christ, conversion, forgiveness, and regeneration. Water baptism is a symbol of that reality – an outward physical expression of the new birth that has taken place internally. The symbol cannot change a person on the inside. The water has power to wash only the surface; it has no power to cleanse the inner person. Water baptism does not come first as the cause. It comes after the reality and is only a symbol of that reality. This is why John the Baptist had such harsh words for those who came to be baptized but gave no indication of genuine repentance (Matthew 3:7-8).
Scripture teaches believer's baptism – a fact which completely disqualifies infant baptism because infants do not have the ability to hear and understand the gospel message. That ability comes later in life at the age of accountability. See the paper The Age of Accountability.
Also, scripture teaches a strict alignment of guilt and judgment, that is, the one who is guilty is the one who will be judged. One person's sins will not be counted against another person. Similarly, one person's righteousness will not help another person (Ezekiel 18:14-20). The notion that parents could settle the eternal destiny of their children by having them baptized is clearly at odds with scripture.
Infant baptism, as a ritual performed on an infant, parallels the Old Testament practice of circumcision in its inability to save, a fact which Paul makes very clear in Romans:
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work. yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record."
Does this blessedness apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well? Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness." Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised, so that to them [also] righteousness might be credited, as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised. (Romans 4:3-12, compare 2:28-29).
The parallel is obvious. Abraham was not saved by an outward, physical ritual of circumcision. Nor are we saved by the outward, physical act of baptism. Everyone who is saved is saved apart from circumcision, apart from baptism, and apart from every other ritual or good work. We are saved only by God's love and grace in providing atonement for us through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, and through our faith in Christ.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Matthew 28:19-20. Often the great commission is used to support the notion that baptism is essential to salvation.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20)
In the Greek, this passage is structured with one main verb (disciple) and three participles (going, baptizing, teaching). The going is obviously necessary in order to make contact with new people. Making disciples is the core of the command, both grammatically and conceptually. The baptizing and teaching are actions which follow the individual's decision to believe in Christ as his disciple. The command is not primarily to baptize, but to make disciples. If it could be correctly argued that baptism is necessary to salvation simply because it is included in this command, then it could also be correctly argued that being taught all that Jesus commanded was also necessary to salvation. Obviously, both of these notions are misinterpretations of the intent of the passage.
This fact, that the heart of the great commission is making disciples and not baptizing, is also clearly seen in Paul's statements about his own mission.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17)
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2)
Mark 16:16. This passage is sometimes used to support the necessity of baptism for salvation.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
There is a real question whether the twelve verses that make up the long ending of Mark 16 (verses 9-20) were actually part of Mark's original gospel. Many Protestant Bibles include this long ending with a note explaining its lack of support in the earliest manuscripts along with a short ending found in some manuscripts. Roman Catholic Bibles include the long ending since it was declared canonical at the Council of Trent (1563). Without attempting to settle this textual dispute, we will assume the authenticity of Mark 16:16 for purposes of discussion.
Since the requirement for salvation is listed in two parts, we must consider the following four cases:
Case 1: a person believes and is baptized
Case 2: a person believes but is not baptized
Case 3: a person does not believe but is baptized
Case 4: a person does not believe and is not baptized
Obviously, the person in Case 1 is saved – the first half of Mark 16:16 says so.
Just as obviously, the person in Case 3 and Case 4 is not saved, for the second half of the verse says "whoever does not believe will be condemned." And he is condemned whether he is baptized (Case 3) or not (Case 4), proving that baptism alone cannot save the person.
So only Case 2 remains to be examined. Whenever two actions are combined and said to cause some effect, it is always necessary to ask whether the two actions were combined because they are both necessary to produce the effect, or whether they were combined merely because they are often found together. We commonly combine two actions without intending to indicate that they are both necessary. For example, suppose that a parent instructs a child, "Bend down and tie your shoe lace so you won't trip on it." Everyone recognizes that the significant part of the advice has to do with tying, not with bending. The child might put his foot up on a chair to tie the lace. Or he might get someone else to tie it for him. The sole requirement for the desired result is that the lace be tied. Or, suppose that you learn from your teenager that he recently called his friend a disrespectful name. You instruct him, "You need to call him and apologize." But again, if it happens face to face, or in a note, email, or text, the important thing is the apology, not the means of communication.
Similarly, the word "and" in Mark 16:16 does not make both belief and baptism required for salvation. When it comes to belief, baptism, and salvation, it is easy to figure out what is essential and what is not. Repeatedly throughout the New Testament belief (including repentance) without any mention of baptism, is given as the requirement for salvation (John 1:12; 3:16, 18; 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; 11:20; Ephesians 2:8).
Acts 2:38. When the Jews heard Peter's speech on the day of Pentecost, they asked, "What are we to do, my brothers?" Peter replied,
Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Some have taken this to mean that both repentance and baptism are required for salvation. However, there is a not-so-subtle change in the person and number of the original Greek which helps us analyze this passage. The first imperative, "repent" (Greek: metanoesate), is second person, plural. In contrast, the second imperative, "be baptized" (Greek: baptistheto), is third person, singular. Then the remainder of the sentence, "for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive …," reverts back to the same person and number used in the first imperative. Thus, the second impreative, "be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ," is best understood as parenthetical. The main thrust of the passage is: Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Here is an expanded translation of Acts 2:38 which recognizes this grammatical switch:
You must repent – and, as an expression of it, let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – that you may have your sins forgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit … (Charles B. Williams translation, Moody Press, 1958)
Similarly, Olson suggests the following as the force of Peter's statement:
All of you (pl.) must imperatively repent (and let him [s.] be baptized) for the forgiveness of your (pl.) sins, and you (pl.) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (C Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, Global Gospel Publishers, 2002, page 482)
And the well known Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, points out the gramatical change in Acts 2:38 between "repent" and "be baptized", then comments as follows:
Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. … My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. (A. T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
So the passage is not saying that baptism is required for salvation. Rather, it is saying that repentance is required for salvation (and, of course, those who repent should also get baptized).
Acts 22:16. Some use the words that Ananias spoke to Paul, after his vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, as support for the idea that baptism actually imparts salvation.
… Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)
But it is clear from this passage that "calling upon his name" is part of the process. Paul was not merely to be baptized, or have his sins washed away, he was also to call upon the name of Jesus Christ. In other words, this passage is subject to the same analysis we applied to Mark 16:16. There is also a further consideration having to do with the translation of this verse.
Lets assume that the baptism in this passage is the physical ritual of baptism. Some interpreters connect the phrase "your sins washed away" with the earlier phrase "have yourself baptized" and thus conclude that physical baptism washes away sin. However, the phrase "your sins washed away" should be connected with the later phrase "calling upon his name." The word "calling" in the Greek is a participle which can indicate instrumentality or means. In other words, the washing is done by the calling. Williams understands the participle this way, for he translates:
… be baptized and wash your sins away by calling on His name (Acts 22:16, Charles B. Williams translation, Moody Press, 1958)
Thus, the passage is actually stating that salvation (having one's sins washed away) is accomplished by calling upon the name of Christ. It is not stating that physical baptism saves.
Furthermore, when we examine the three accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-19; 22:4-16; 26:12-23), we read that Jesus told Paul he was sending him to witness to the gentiles
to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been consecrated by faith in me. (Acts 26:18)
Here Jesus makes it clear that salvation ("forgiveness" and "inheritance") will be obtained when Paul's listeners repent ("turn ...") and have faith in Christ. If baptism were so important for salvation, Christ surely would have mentioned it in this context. And if Paul understood baptism to be important for salvation, he certainly would have preached baptism. But instead he preached "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2) and de-emphasized baptism as mentioned earlier.
1 Peter 3:20-21. There are a number of places in the New Testament where the word "baptism" is used, not literally to refer to the physical ritual of water baptism, but figuratively. Christ referred to his own suffering as a baptism (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50). Also, the believer's conversion experience, his identification with Christ, is also referred to as a baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 2:11-12; Ephesians 4:5; Romans 6:3-4). This spiritual baptism is in view when both John the Baptist and Jesus refer to being baptized with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5).
This fact, that "baptism" sometimes refers to the believer's conversion, helps us interpret 1 Peter 3:20-21, which is often cited as support for the notion that baptism saves.
… in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now. (1 Peter 3:20-21)
This passage is part of a larger context in which Peter is encouraging Christians. The letter of 1 Peter is written to believers; they are already saved (1 Peter 1:1-9, 23; 2:9-10). The section in 3:13 - 4:2 is parallel in emphasis to both earlier and later statements (2:21; 4:12-14, 19). Peter is encouraging believers to live a godly life even in the face of opposition, and even to suffer for doing good if that is necessary. Below we will look at 1 Peter 3:13 - 4:2 to see how this section "hangs together" and how verses 20-21 fit into this context.
| The exhortation to believers to do the right thing and keep their conscience clear, even in the face of suffering |
|
| The example of Christ, who suffered doing the right thing providing salvation, and was brought back to life in the spirit |
|
| The believer's spiritual baptism, that is, freedom from guilt and fear – salvation through Christ's victory |
|
| The exhortation restated – follow Christ's example |
|
Verses 20-21 should not be viewed in isolation from the rest of the context. Peter is not jumping from one idea to another, but is developing a consistent flow of thought that runs throughout these 12 verses. His overall point is that the believer, even in the face of suffering, should do the right thing and keep his conscience clear, and in the end he will suffer no harm and will be saved from fear and a guilty conscience, just as Christ also suffered but then rose victorious and is with God.
Now consider the function of verses 20-21. The claim made by many interpreters, that verses 20-21 teach that water baptism saves, makes several mistakes. First, it makes the mistake of assigning water as the antecedent of the relative pronoun "this" at the beginning of verse 21, and thus makes the water of Noah's flood prefigure baptism. If we were to limit our understanding of this passage just to the grammatical forms of certain words in these two verses, we might mistakenly reason as follows. In the Greek, both "this" (beginning of verse 21) and "water" (end of verse 20) are neuter, while "ark" is feminine, so water must be the antecedent of "this." This gender agreement has led to the common misinterpretation that, in Peter's mind, the water of the flood prefigured baptism. But if we enlarge our focus somewhat and consider the concepts in this passage, we see that there is a better solution. The parallelism of thought is obvious: "the ark, in which a few persons … were saved" (verse 20) parallels "baptism, which saves you now" (verse 21). Water is a poor candidate to prefigure something which saves, for the eight persons were saved from or through water, by the ark. So we might be tempted to think of the ark as the conceptual (if not grammatical) antecedent of baptism (see J. B. Phillips' translation of these two verses). However, if we look beyond these two verses to the larger context, we see that the substitutionary death of Christ, particularly his "death in the flesh" and his being "brought to life in the spirit" (verse 18), is the real conceptual antecedent. In this context Christ's substitutionary death serves as an example for believers who are facing persecution and suffering.
When we suggest that the substitutionary death of Christ is the true precursor of baptism, we are referring to spiritual baptism. Of course, many take the word "baptism" in this passage to refer to water baptism. But as we have shown above, "baptism" can easily refer to spiritual baptism, that is, inner repentance and faith, and the resultant conversion, forgiveness, and regeneration. Indeed, it appears that Peter is trying to make it clear that he is referring to spiritual baptism when he adds "not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (verse 21).
In Greek, the words baptizo and baptismos are used both for the ritual baptism of people with water and for the ritual washing of hands, cups, jugs, and kettles with water according to Jewish tradition. (In Mark 7:1-4 these words are translated "purifying" and "purification" in The New American Bible). Because of this flexible usage of the words, it makes perfect sense for Peter to emphasize that he is not talking about any form of washing with water ("not a removal of dirt"), but about an inner change. So when Peter refers to "baptism which saves you," he is talking about spiritual baptism – the equivalent of personal salvation. This is the same distinction made by the writer of Hebrews when he refers to "ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh" and contrasts the old scheme with the "new order" in which "the blood of Christ" will "cleanse our conscience" (Hebrews 9:6-14).
John 3:5. Some regard the "water" in John 3:5 to be a reference to water baptism, but in context (see verses 4 and 6) water refers to physical birth.
For centuries the Roman Catholic Church has taught that infants who die without being baptized spend eternity in a place called limbo (limbus infantum). The Latin word limbus means border or fringe and is used to refer to the outer fringe of hell where the punishing fires do not reach. Thus, limbo is neither heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory; so the infants who are confined there for eternity experience neither hell's punishment nor heaven's bliss, but only natural happiness. The need for such a place is thought to be required since such an infant, although he had not yet personally sinned before he died, had not had the stain of original sin removed through baptism. The Roman Catholic Church has never made the doctrine of limbo official (by papal or conciliar decree), which accounts for the following generalized statements from the 1994 Catechism.
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God … and Jesus' tenderness toward children … allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. (1994 Catechism, par. 1261)
With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation. (1994 Catechism, par. 1283)
The central ritual of the Roman Catholic Church is the mass, a formal worship ceremony performed daily in catholic churches around the world. A Sunday (weekend) mass lasts about one hour, while a weekday mass includes less music and is considerably shorter.
The mass includes several elements such as public acknowledgement of sin, prayers, scripture readings, recitation of ancient creeds, and a homily. But the most significant part of the mass is the Lord's Supper (also called communion, holy sacrifice, or Eucharist).
Only an ordained priest can "say mass." Before Vatican II (1962-1965) the entire mass was said in Latin, but since then parts of the mass are said in the local common language. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that when the priest says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28), he is not merely quoting Christ, but is speaking in first person as Christ.
The priest doesn't say, "This is Christ's body" or "This is Jesus' blood." He uses the same pronoun, My, because at the moment of consecration, the priest is Jesus. (Trigilio, page 145, italics in original)
The Eucharist is regarded as a sacrament, that is, an instrument or channel of divine grace.
If anyone saith that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice ... let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon III)
Thus, according to the Roman Catholic Church, the sacrifice of the mass is "propitiatory," meaning that it is effective in appeasing God and regaining his favor. And whoever does not accept this teaching is anathema, that is, cursed and banned.
The claim that the Eucharist is propitiatory is based on the claim that the bread and wine of the Eucharist, when consecrated by the priest, are turned into the actual body and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. The point of consecration comes when the priest, speaking as Christ, states the same words Christ spoke at the Last Supper, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28). This doctrine appeared early in church history. Around A.D. 106 Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. The doctrine was made official by Pope Gregory I in his "Canon of the Mass," A.D. 600, and was reconfirmed at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. (1994 Catechism, par. 1367, quoting the Council of Trent, 1563)
Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. (1994 Catechism, par. 1376, quoting the Council of Trent, 1563)
Jesus does not die and rise again every time the Eucharistic liturgy is enacted, but His one sacrifice is made present to men in every celebration of Mass. (The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, edited by Lawler, Wuerl, and Lawler, Our Sunday Visitor, 1976, p. 426)
… the consecrated bread and wine are actually, really, truly, and substantially the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. For Catholics, the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is not just symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, or merely spiritual. It is real. That's why it's also called the Real Presence – because Christ really is present. (Trigilio, page 105, italics in original)
… it still looks, feels, and tastes like bread and wine, but it's not. (Trigilio, page 145)
The same sacrifice is offered – namely, the Son is sacrificed to the Father on behalf of all humankind. The same risen Christ comes to enter the soul of each person at Holy Communion when the congregation eats and drinks his living (risen, not dead) flesh and blood. (Trigilio, page 136)
Catholics … give the same respect and adoration to the Holy Eucharist that's due to God (Trigilio, page 131)
These descriptions of the eucharist are very perplexing. On the one hand, we are told that the eucharist is not a mere commemoration; rather, it is a "propitiatory sacrifice" (Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon III, quoted above). On the other hand, we are told that the eucharist is an "unbloody" offering (1994 Catechism, par. 1367, quoted above). But the author of Hebrews tells us that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). How then can the eucharist, as an unbloody offering, be propitiatory?
When Roman Catholic communicants take part in the Eucharist, they believe that they are eating the flesh of Christ. The host (bread) becomes both the body and the blood just as the cup becomes both the body and the blood, so when the bread which has become the body of Christ is offered to the laity, both Christ's flesh and blood are said to be present.
While the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ are emphasized in the Roman Catholic concept of the Eucharist, it is more than a mere physical experience. Roman Catholicism claims that the underlying spiritual reality is that
the human soul is being fed by the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The body merely consumes the appearances of bread and wine while the soul receives Christ personally and totally. (Trigilio, page 106)
Roman Catholics are told that they must attend mass every weekend, and must receive the Eucharist at least once every year.
The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily. (1994 Catechism, par. 1389)
Catholics are … bound to attend a Catholic Mass on each and every Sunday or the Vigil Mass on Saturday of every weekend in the calendar year. To miss Mass on Sunday is considered a mortal sin unless the person has a legitimate excuse, such as serious illness. (Trigilio, page 187)
Attendance is also required at several additional special "holy days of obligation" throughout the year. In the United States, the list includes:
The Roman Catholic is taught that if he misses a required mass he commits a mortal sin, which means that he has lost his salvation and is headed to hell. He believes that he must confess this sin to a priest in order to receive absolution from the sin and reconciliation with God.
Catholics who want to participate in communion are expected to have confessed to a priest any known mortal sin, and to have been absolved of that sin. They are also expected to agree with the church's teachings (such as the seven sacraments, the authority of the pope, and the church's views on divorce and remarriage and on abortion) and are usually told they should fast for one hour before receiving communion.
This doctrine, transubstantiation, is supposedly based on John 6:22-58 which includes these statements from Jesus:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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 6:48-53)
However, the emphasis in John 6 is on believing in Jesus, or coming to Jesus (mentioned explicitly in verses 29, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 45, 47, and 64). Believing in Jesus, or coming to Jesus, is an intimate, personal action which is represented symbolically by the eating and drinking mentioned in John 6:51, 53 quoted above. This figure of eating bread is especially appropriate in this context, for Jesus has just miraculously fed the 5000. They should have understood that the miracle was a sign that Jesus was the divine Son who came from the Father and would provide eternal life. Instead, they sought Jesus just for the physical bread.
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill." (John 6:26)
The Jews whom Jesus had miraculously fed saw him as a human prophet and their response was to try to make him king (verses 14-15). But they failed to see him as the divine Son who had come from the Father offering eternal life. If they had understood this, their response would have been to come to him and believe in him, which is why the coming and believing is emphasized so much throughout the chapter, as mentioned above.
Underlying the emphasis in John 6 on believing in Jesus is the issue of the identity of Jesus, which also runs throughout the chapter. Is he merely a human, or is he the divine Son of God come from the Father? This was the issue when the Jews murmured about him by claiming that they knew his earthly father and mother (verse 42). It was the same issue when his listeners continued to murmur and Jesus asked what their response would be if they saw him ascending back to heaven (verses 60-62).
Thus, the continuity of John 6 is obvious. Indeed, for most of the chapter, Roman Catholic interpreters recognize the bread as a figure. Yet, in order to preserve their doctrine of transubstantiation, they suggest a break between verses 50 and 51.
Up to v 50, "bread of life" is a figure for God's revelation in Jesus; in vv 51-58, the eucharistic theme comes to the fore. There may thus be a break between vv 50 and 51. (footnote to John 6:35-59 in the Saint Joseph Bible)
But if any two verses belong together in the entire chapter, it is these two verses, which are completely parallel in thought and structure. Everything in this chapter pertaining to eating Jesus' flesh and drinking Jesus' blood is figurative. The eating and drinking are both metaphors for personal, intimate acceptance of Jesus. Here is Olson's explanation.
… Christ's blood had not only to be shed two millennia ago, but it must be applied by faith in Him to be effective in our lives. Christ emphasized the imperative of believing to receive eternal life (Jn. 6:35, 40, 47). Then He used exaggerated symbolism to emphasize the importance of personal appropriation by faith [here Olson quotes John 6:53]. This could not be a reference to the Lord's Supper, which had not yet been instituted. It rather emphasizes the necessity of appropriation of Christ's sacrifice personally by faith. (C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, Global Gospel Publishers, 2005, p. 49)
At the Passover meal with his disciples,
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29)
It is worth noting how Jesus referred to the cup after stating "this is my blood." Rather than referring to it as his blood (which would seem to be required by the Roman Catholic interpretation of the passage), Jesus referred to the cup as "this fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29). No change had taken place. The wine had not become Jesus' blood. It was still wine and Jesus was using the wine as a symbol – the wine represented his blood.
Grudem summarizes what would have been obvious to the disciples at the Passover meal.
… when Jesus says, "This is my body," he means it in a symbolic way, not in an actual, literal, physical way. In fact, as he was sitting with his disciples holding the bread, the bread was in his hand but it was distinct from his body, and that was, of course, evident to the disciples. None of the disciples present would have thought that the loaf of bread that Jesus held in his hand was actually his physical body, for they could see his body before their eyes. They would have naturally understood Jesus' statement in a symbolic way. Similarly, when Jesus said, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:30), he certainly did not mean that the cup was actually the new covenant, but that the cup represented the new covenant. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 993 italics in original)
Jesus often spoke figuratively, and his listeners often misunderstood him, not merely because of the figurative language, but because they were dull to the spiritual meaning. In the following chart we find a pattern in which Jesus teaches a certain spiritual truth using figurative language, his listeners misunderstand and try to apply the figure to some natural, earthly event, and Jesus has to correct their mistake.
| Passage & context | Figurative language | Mistaken literal Interpretation |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
John 2:13-22 Jesus and the Jews Jesus has just cleared the merchants out of the temple courts. The Jews demand a miraculous sign from Jesus to prove his authority to do this. |
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (19) | The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" (20) | But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (21-22) |
John 3:1-18 Jesus and Nicodemus Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night, acknowledges that Jesus is a teacher from God and that God is with him. |
"no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above" (3) | "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" (4) | Must be born of water (physical birth) and Spirit (spiritual birth). Flesh gives birth to flesh; spirit to spirit (5-6) |
John 4:4-42 Jesus and the Samaritan woman The Samaritan woman, who had come to draw water, is surprised by Jesus' request for a drink (4-9) |
"he would have given you living water" (10) "will never thirst" (14) |
"you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep " (11) "give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water." (15) |
The water Jesus gives becomes an internal spring that wells up to eternal life (14) Many Samaritans believe in Jesus as the savior of the world. (42) |
Matthew 16 Jesus and the disciples The Pharisees and Sadducees, as part of an evil generation, seek a sign, and the disciples forgot to take bread (1-5) |
"beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (6) | "It is because we have brought no bread?" (7) | They understood Jesus was not talking about bread, but about the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (12) ——Chiding—— "You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?" (8) "How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread?" (11) |
John 6:22-69 Jesus and the many followers 5000 have been miraculously fed and find Jesus on the other side of the lake. (5-26) |
"work … for the food that endures for eternal life" (27) "I am the bread of life" (35, 48, 51) "the bread that I will give is my flesh" (51) (see also 52 - 58) |
"give us this bread always " (34) "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat" (52) |
"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (63-64) "Believe in the one he sent." (29) He who believes has eternal life (40, 47) |
If, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, Jesus were stating in John 6:51 and 53 that spiritual life depended upon actually eating the flesh of Christ, then we would never expect to hear Jesus say, just a few sentences later, that the flesh is of no avail (verse 63). This clearly shows that the eating of flesh is a symbol for the belief – the symbol being relatively unimportant compared to the belief, which is all important.
And there are other examples of Jesus' use of figurative language. See, for example,
In John 10:6, cited above, Jesus' statement is followed by John's comment regarding the lack of understanding among his listeners – a comment that is applicable to the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6 as well.
Although Jesus used this figure of speech, they did not realize what he was trying to tell them. (John 10:6)
There is absolutely no biblical evidence that the bread and wine of the communion (Eucharist) changes its substance in any way. And there is absolutely no physical evidence either, for the bread (wafer, host) still looks and tastes like bread and the wine still looks and tastes like wine. Indeed, it is this same sort of sensory observation which was used to identify Jesus when he told the disciples of John the Baptist to "Go and tell John what you hear and see" (Matthew 11:4) and when he told Thomas to look at and touch his wounds (John 20:27). As surely as the physical evidence led to the correct identification of Christ in those cases, the physical evidence leads to the certainty that, both before and after they are consecrated by the priest, the bread is merely bread and the wine is merely wine.
The communion elements both retain their original substance and, as bread and as wine, they serve as reminders of Christ's body and blood.
… the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also 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 this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
This passage makes the nature of the communion celebration clear. It is not a sacrament, but a remembrance. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, but a proclamation of his death. But the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to this biblical teaching is also clear.
If any man says that in the New Testament there is no corporate body of priests, and no sacrifice to loose or retain sins, but only the responsibility and work of preaching the Gospel, let him be accursed. (Council of Trent, 1563)
This Roman Catholic teaching, with its priest, altar, and actual sacrifice parallels the Old Testament sacrificial system of worship. But the old system is gone forever. Jesus taught that the manner of worship would change when he told the Samaritan woman at the well,
the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ... the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth. (John 4:21-24)
And God signaled the exact time of the change when, at the death of Jesus, God tore the temple veil in two. This happened at the end of the three hour period of darkness (around 3:00 PM), immediately after two other very remarkable events.
| Jesus spoke of God forsaking him as he took our sins upon himself and suffered our punishment of separation from the Father. This was the spiritual death of Jesus. | "Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?', which means 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (Matthew 27:45-46) |
| Jesus pronounced his atoning work finished. | "it is finished" (John 19:30) |
| Then, when Jesus died physically, God tore the temple veil in two. | "Jesus … gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:50-51) |
At that point in time the final, and only effective, sacrifice – the separation of the Son from the Father – had taken place, once for all. (See the paper "The Two Deaths of Christ," especially the section on The timing of Christ's spiritual death.)
Jesus has pronounced his atoning work finished. The new covenant (testament, or will) was established. No further sacrifices are needed. The writer of Hebrews explains that the first (old covenant) has been replaced by the second (new covenant), contrasting Jesus' one effective sacrifice with the many sacrifices which the Jews continued to perform at the temple, even at the time he was writing.
He takes away the first to establish the second. By this "will," we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But this one [Jesus] offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:9-12)
The complete effectiveness and finality of the substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is obvious, making any continued sacrifices not only unnecessary and ineffective, but in reality a denial of the central work of our Lord. This passage emphasizes the finality of Christ's sacrifice explicitly in the words "once for all" and implicitly by the contrast with the daily offerings of the priests which can never take away sins, and by the fact that Jesus, after offering one sacrifice for sins, took his seat forever at the right hand of God. The atonement was completely accomplished in this one sacrifice. The finality of this single sacrifice of Christ is emphasized again and again in the book of Hebrews:
he did that once for all when he offered himself (Hebrews 7:27)
he entered once for all into the sanctuary … with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)
not that he might offer himself repeatedly.… But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice … offered once to take away the sins of many (Hebrews 9:25-28)
we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)
The finality of this single sacrifice of Christ is also taught by both Paul and Peter:
We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. (Romans 6:9-10)
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God (1 Peter 3:18)
The fact that the priests of the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly offer this "sacrifice of the mass" violates not only New Testament teaching about the sacrifice of Jesus, it also violates New Testament teaching about priests. The Roman Catholic Church does recognize that all believers are priests, but it distinguishes between the "common priesthood" made up of all the baptized and the "ministerial priesthood" made up only of those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. However, nowhere does the New Testament speak of priests as a separate class of Christians. Instead, when the New Testament refers to priests after the sacrificial death of Christ, it refers to all believers, not to a particular subgroup of believers. For example, when Peter wrote "to the chosen sojourners of the dispersion" (1 Peter 1:1), he told them that they were
a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own (1 Peter 2:5, 9, compare Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10; 20:6)
The writings of Peter are especially significant, not only because they mention the priesthood of all the saints as quoted above, but also because they never mentions a separate "ministerial" priesthood. In fact, when Peter refers to himself, he calls himself a "fellow presbyter" (fellow elder, 1 Peter 5:1) rather than a priest. Furthermore, the sacrifices which these priests (all believers) make are limited to such things as sacrifices of
These sacrifices are never sacrifices for atonement.
Similarly, when Paul refers to the various ministers in the church, he lists apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Ephesians 4:11) but does not mention priests. And when he lists the various spiritual gifts which God gives to the church (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10), again there is no mention of priests. This is because of the fact that each individual believer is a priest in the sense that each believer has direct access to God. And that access was gained by our Lord Jesus Christ who is our one and only, permanent, great high priest.
… we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God. (Hebrews 4:14)
... he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself. (Hebrews 7:24-27)
In an attempt to explain what caused the early church to veer off track on this important subject, scholars have cited various factors. Some have suggested that, since converts from both paganism and Judaism were accustomed to ritual sacrifices performed by a priest on an alter, they were also comfortable accepting notions such as transubstantiation and eucharistic sacrifice within Christianity. Others point out that, in responding to docetism with its denial of the physical body of Christ, some, who were correct to defend the real physical presence of Christ in his incarnation, may have seen the notion of a real physical presence of Christ in the eucharist as an additional hedge against docetism. Whatever factors we think might have led to this nonbiblical teaching, we must not forget more direct spiritual factors. After all, any deviation from biblical teaching is encouraged by the devil who is "a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44) and is corrected by Spirit led interpretation of scripture in context.
All the evidence points to the same conclusion.