From
http://web.archive.org/web/20060303113652/http://www.john14-6.org/catholicmass.htm
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM:
THE ATTACK ON "ROMANISM" BY "BIBLE CHRISTIANS"
THE CHAPTER ON: "THE MASS"
Summary:
Mr. Keating attempts to defend the Roman Catholic mass against, essentially, the Scripture. This is an unenviable position to be in. Mr. Keating uses all kinds of illogical, non-sequitur, emotional arguments in his attempt to defend the un-Scriptural ritual and doctrine of the Roman Catholic mass. Mr. Keating's "strength" appears to be in making arguments based on intimidation (ad baculum), traditional authority (ad verecundeam), and of course abuse (ad hominem) toward these strange "Bible Christian" strawmen he creates.
Roman Catholic dogma states that the mass is necessary for salvation. The Bible says that salvation is a finished work wrought by Jesus Christ on the cross, and that all the merit's of the salvation Christ earned on the cross are available to the true believer by faith (John 6:29; Heb. 11). Furthermore, the Bible explicitly states that, "He [Jesus Christ], HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...". (Heb. 10:12).
In reference to His redemptive work, Jesus Himself said on the cross, "It is Finished" (John 19:30). What is finished is finished, what is done is done. The Roman Catholics say redemption is not finished, it is not done, and that they must re-create and partake in the mass in order to apply the work of Christ's redemption.
Mark 12:30, "You shall love the Lord your God with...all your mind..."
Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF." 1 [parenthesis & emphasis mine]
Hebrews 9:12, "...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ONCE FOR ALL, having obtained eternal redemption." [emphasis mine]
Hebrews 9:28, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..." [emphasis mine]
Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." [parenthesis & emphasis mine]
INTRODUCTION:
Go to the Bible, read the verses surrounding the one's above to check context, and then ask yourself this question - what is the PLAIN MEANING of these verses regarding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross at Calvary?
Have the Bible at your side as you examine with me the Roman Catholic Mass, a key element in a religious system that claims it is Jesus' church, yet argues for continuing sacrifices of Christ, in order to "apply" God's grace so that its adherents might possibly go to heaven some day (contrast Romans 10:9-10 & 1 John 5:13).2 Come with me now as we examine the defense of the Roman Catholic Mass by one of the Roman Catholic Churches leading apologists.
WORD DEFINITION:
Let's define some words before we go forward: 3
| Sacrifice: | The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, esp. the ritual slaughter of an animal or person. |
| Perpetual: | 1. Lasting for eternity: the perpetual fires of hell. 2. Lasting for an indefinitely long duration. 3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship. 4. Ceaselessly repeated or continuing without interruption: perpetual nagging. |
| Perpetuate: | To make perpetual. |
| Propitiation: | A conciliatory offering to a god. |
| Atone: | To make amends, as for a sin or fault. |
| Doctrine: | 1. Something that is taught. 2. A principle or body of principals presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma. |
| Dogma: | 1. A system of doctrines proclaimed true by a religious sect. 2. A principle, belief, or statement of idea or opinion, esp. one authoritatively considered to be absolute truth. |
| Truth: | 1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. Fidelity to an original or standard. 3. Reality; actuality. |
| Mass: | 1. a. In Roman Catholic and some Protestant churches, the celebration of the Eucharist. |
| Eucharist: | The actual and literal ("transubstantiated") Body of Christ. (Chapter 19 of "Catholicism and Fundamentalism:...") |
| Memorial: | 1. Serving as a remembrance of a person or event; commemorative. |
| Commemorate: | 1. To honor the memory of with a ceremony. |
| Metaphor: | A figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to an object it may designate only by implicit comparison or analogy. |
| Typology: | 1. The study of types, as in a systematic classification. 2. A theory or doctrine of types, as in scriptural studies. |
| Ordinance: | 1. An authoritative command or order. 2. A custom or practice established by long usage. |
| Sacramentalism: | 1. The doctrine that observance of the sacraments is necessary for salvation and that such participation can confer grace. |
| Double Talk: | 2. Ambiguous or evasive language. |
| Synonymous Terms: | Bible = Word of God = Scripture |
DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL THEMES:
A. Keating's Foundation for his Defense of the Mass
Page 246, 1&2P: [the "P" represents Paragraph]
Vatican II, "...put the Catholic position [regarding the meaning of the Mass] succinctly:
At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic SACRIFICE of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to PERPETUATE THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a MEMORIAL of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet IN WHICH CHRIST IS CONSUMED, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us." [emphasis mine]
B. Defining Terms
Defining terms is extremely important in examining Roman Catholic doctrine. As will be demonstrated in this critique of Keating's doctrinal apologetics, the terms, as clearly defined above, will be distorted and altered to fit roman dogma. When the Biblical and the normal, culturally agreed upon definition of a term is changed to fit someone's argument, beware. At that point, you are moving out of the arena of rational, logical and thereby meaningful thought, and into the realm of illogical, irrational or "mysterious" (as the Roman Catholics like to call it) musings. (Page 257, 2P)
C. Claims of Authority
As a person or a representative of a church that holds that the Bible is the inspired and revealed Word of God, as Roman Catholicism does, it would be logical to assume that most of the arguments put forth in defending a biblically derived doctrinal position, would be grounded first upon Scripture, and secondly on man's reasoning and tradition. Please notice throughout Keating's work, how little Scripture is used to defend the Roman Catholic's position. Notice the complete lack of Scripture in Vatican II's important doctrinal statement quoted above. Keating, in laying the foundation for the defense of the Mass by quoting Vatican II, also does not attempt to show how this statement is based on Scripture. Instead, he jumps to assuming that Vatican II's statement is an adequate substitute for the Bible verses describing the last supper, and he then attempts to defend his interpretation of the last supper verses. But wait a minute, what about explaining the doctrines given in the Vatican II statement, including "...sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet IN WHICH CHRIST IS CONSUMED, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."? There is much theology in that sentence, yet he proceeds to attempt to only deal with "...Christ being consumed..." Throughout this chapter, Keating never clarifies, or even deals with, the theology presented in the Vatican II statement quoted above.
D. Logical Thought In Examining Scripturally Based Truth Claims
Good Biblical theology BOTH explains contemporary and historical events in the light of God's written revelation (His Word) and His natural revelation (the created realm) AND uses sound human reasoning that does not break the laws of logic. [Please note, miracles break the laws of NATURE, NOT the laws of LOGIC e.g. God always has a God Glorifying reason for performing a miracle]
Notice in the Vatican II statement, a contradiction that will show itself throughout Keating's defense of the Mass e.g. the Mass both "...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross..." and is also "...a memorial...". Keating struggles with this contradiction throughout, and never satisfactorily handles it for a very good reason - because it is impossible to logically explain how two premises dealing with the same fact can both be true while contradicting each other! This breaks the most important law of logic e.g. the law on non-contradiction which says that, "no two contradictory statements can both we true at the same time and in the same sense." 4
The Vatican II statement is a very good example of both distorting the definition and meaning of terms and making contradictory statements. Understand the rest of this paragraph, and you will be a long way towards understanding the main issue in this article. The object of a sacrifice (in Christ's case, a living being) is real e.g. typically is physical/corporeal in nature and therefore subject to human action/manipulation; and the manipulation of the object of the sacrifice occurs in actual time or, "THE PRESENT" (in the case of a living sacrifice, it dies as a result of the manipulation or "sacrifice"). The object of a memorial, on the other hand and by definition, exists only in the mind as a memory of an event in THE PAST e.g. it is not physical in nature; and it exists in the past; that is why you must remember it because it doesn't exist in the present (in the case on an embalmed/preserved body of a dead person, you are remembering the whole person, body and spirit, not the dead flesh). Therefore, the same object cannot be both subject to a sacrifice (present) and a memorial (past). BY DEFINITION, YOU CANNOT, IN THE PRESENT, KILL OR OFFER THE OBJECT OF A SACRIFICE AND AT THE SAME TIME, REMEMBER THIS SAME EVENT AS IT OCCURRED IN THE PAST. This is logically impossible - we exist in time and time, by its very nature, is sequential and chronological. Whatever Roman Catholic's mean by the terms "sacrifice" and "memorial" certainly does not correspond to the Biblical culture's definitions (Gen. 22:2; Exod. 12:21, 27; Heb. 7:27), or our own current culture's understanding of these terms (see definition on page 2).
But the Roman Catholic's would like you to believe that you are perpetuating ("offering anew" - P248, 3P) a real, bloodless sacrifice of Christ (the Eucharist - Chapter 19), and at the same time, commemorating the actual sacrifice made by Christ on the cross at Calvary. Unfortunately, this is a foundational example of the Roman Catholic's doctrine of the Mass, but it is more accurately described as double talk e.g. saying one thing and attempting to defend two or more contradictory meanings. God gave us minds in order to seek Him by applying sound reasoning in reading His Revelation (the Bible).
Let me state, right at the start, that I do not claim to understand all the true mysteries of God. Two such examples would be fully comprehending His nature (Trinity), or precisely how his redemptive plan for mankind will play out through time (human will versus God's sovereignty). BUT I DO CONTEND, AS WILL BE DEMONSTRATED IN THIS CRITIQUE, THAT GOD HAS CLEARLY GIVEN MANKIND, IN HIS WORD, ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW ONE CAN BE SAVED (Romans 10:9-10) E.G. WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE ETERNAL SALVATION. A perfectly Loving God (1 John 4:8) and a perfectly Just God (Deut. 32:4) could do no less! An illustration will help clarify this:
There is a father who lives on an island with his son. His son must go to work on a boat to a neighboring island. One night God lets the father know that the next day, there will be a storm and his son’s boat will sink. The father loves his son. What would the father do: A) Hand his son, who insists on going, a life preserver and tell his son, "son you’re going to need this today, here, take it; or... B) Take a life preserver and tuck it behind some stuff in an obscure storage cabinet in the boat and pat his son on the back and say, "good luck today son".
Obviously a loving father would clearly and plainly hand his son the life preserver. So it is with our loving heavenly Father. He clearly tells us what we must do to be saved - simply repent and believe e.g. He hands us the life preserver and we must choose whether to accept it or not. Our loving heavenly Father does not hide salvation in the "obscure storage closet" of Roman Catholic mysticism with its complicated, irrational, and New Testament ignoring, sacramental system.
This critical distinction - between man’s not being able to fully comprehend God’s infinite nature and the precise timing of His redemptive plan for mankind VERSUS God making His simple way of salvation (repentance and belief) crystal clear to man (In His Written Word) so that the people He loves and creates in His image and likeness are able to fully comprehend God’s free offer of salvation and choose whether to receive it or not - is apparently difficult for Roman Catholics to understand. Let the reader be aware that it is also possible that the Roman Catholic clergy do understand this distinction yet purposely confuse the issue in order to defend their dogma and their church.
Keating, as a pre-eminent Roman Catholic apologist defending Roman Catholic doctrine, does not meet the preceding definition given in the first paragraph of this section, of someone teaching good Biblical theology. Let's see why.
CRITIQUE PROPER:
The format of this article is to reference Keating's actual words in his book "CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM: THE ATTACK ON "ROMANISM" BY "BIBLE CHRISTIANS". Thus, page numbers and paragraphs are referenced so as to minimize claims of mis-quoting or impreciseness. This article is best understood by having a copy of the chapter, "The Mass", from the above referenced book, and reading the chapter, and then following along with my references. This is not necessary, but will help the reader grasp the overall context in a much clearer fashion.
Page 247, 1P:
Mr. Keating gives us an example right up front, of plain bad interpretation. The Roman Catholic's make the fatal mistake of not being able to distinguish between metaphor and literal meaning based upon the context of the passage.
Keating quotes Luke 22:19 (I'll use Keating's bible translation's verses as quoted in his book), "Then he took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, given for you; do this for a COMMEMORATION of me". The first issue that comes to mind if this is to be interpreted in a rigidly literal way as the Roman Catholics insist, is, at the time Jesus said that, He was holding His body in his hands. How is this possible? In what literal sense could Jesus be holding His "body", as a separate object of matter, in His hands? Secondly, He did not yet make the sacrifice at Calvary, so in what literal sense was his body already "...given for you..."? Of course it was not literal, He was merely giving His disciples the symbolism in advance for the commemoration of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
More important is Keating's "interpretation". Keating's interpretive argument is flawed in that he bases a contextual issue on the meaning of individual words. Even he admits that "is" is sometimes figurative. Then in the second paragraph, he throws out a lot of Scripture references (NOT QUOTES - Why?) in defense of his interpretation. Finally, he bases his defense of the Mass (the Mass rests on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, for without the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, there would be no sacrifice - Chapter 19) on saying, "That the Greek words for body in John 6 is sarx, which can only mean physical flesh, and the word for "eat" translates as "gnaws" or "chews." Keating remarkably concludes, "this is not the language of a metaphor". This is not a rational conclusion. What about context? One can ONLY DETERMINE METAPHORICAL PASSAGES BY CONTEXT! If one based judging metaphorical language on the literal definition of words, then language would have no meaning. "My car is a lemon" would take on new meaning using Keating's method of determining metaphor!
For example, let's say I'm reading an article in the newspaper that says the following: "Today there was a devastating earthquake in Los Angeles. It is estimated that over $10 Billion of damage was done. Paramedics were the life blood of the stricken citizens". Now reading the context, understanding the culture, and knowing something about both paramedics and blood, no rationally thinking person would think that paramedics were actually "blood". They would understand that amid the literal account of the description of events, the author used metaphorical language to describe the importance of the paramedics. According to Keating's interpretive methodology, however, one would have to say that since the words "were the" mean exactly what they say, and the word " blood" is a word which can only mean literal blood, then the paramedics must actually have been blood.
Let's apply his interpretive technique on the following verses to demonstrate the fallacy of his interpretation. Jesus says in John 10:9, "I am the gate: whoever enters through me will be saved". Now according to Keating's exegesis, the Greek words for "I am" are ego eimi, which can only mean what they say, and the word for gate, thura, can only mean a physical gate like that of a sheep pen - therefore, Jesus is a wooden gate! How about John 8:12, "I am the light of the world"? Using Keating's interpretive methodology leads one to believe that Jesus was actually a bright light! This is a grave issue of misinterpretation of the worst kind.
2 P:
In the 2nd Paragraph, Keating uses the word "trope". An excellent word correctly used, but how many people reading the book will know what the word means (I did not until I looked it up) or take the time to look it up? Why use a relatively advanced vocabulary in a book aimed at "laymen", when a more easily understood word would do, such as "figurative" or "metaphorically"? Is he "showing off" or hiding something?
Now, let's deal with his unsubstantiated references of Scripture to see if God's Word really backs up what he is trying to defend.
1 Cor. 11:23-24, "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, be broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" Keating states that interpreting Luke 22:19 metaphorically, "...is precluded by Paul's discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 23-24...". The key question is, how is metaphorical interpretation "precluded" by 1 Cor. 11:23-24? Where is the exegetical analysis to back up this claim? How about ANY substantiation to that serious claim? NOTHING - he just states his opinion and does not substantiate it. Keating claims, "Paul's discussion of the Eucharist..." Where is the word "Eucharist" found in the Biblical text of 1 Cor. 11:23-24? I thought the Greek word sarx was used, which, according to Keating, can only mean literal flesh (remember "gate" and "light")? This interpretive approach used by Keating is called eisegesis, which means to read something into the text that is just not there.
Keating also weakly refers to the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John. He says there you will find, "..the Eucharist is promised." Where, what verse - why no verses? He claims, "...the whole tenor of John 6..." is about the promised Eucharist. Quite a presumptuous statement with not a shred of Biblical exegesis to support this extremely important claim.
3P:
Keating's defense of his interpretation is given in paragraph 3. No verses, just emotional and unsubstantiated claims. "The literal meaning cannot be avoided except through violence to the text - and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries". Sadly, we have already demonstrated who is doing violence to the text by looking at Keating's interpretation ("body", "gate" & "light"). "The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in a Presence that is Real" - WHAT WRITINGS? The unsubstantiated claims in this paragraph do not even warrant a rebuttal. Suffice it to say that the reason why Keating does not quote Scripture is because there is no Scripture to support his (Roman Catholic) theological musings regarding the Eucharist.
Let's examine John 6:10-65. I would ask that the reader examine these verses now, before proceeding.
A comprehensive, in-depth exegesis of this section of text would take more pages than I will allot for this purpose - so I will focus on the literal versus metaphorical issues in the text and how it relates to Keating’s unsubstantiated claims.
Verses 25 - 65 find their context, first, in Exodus 16, and then in the preceding verses e.g. 10 - 15, which describe the miraculous feeding of the over 5,000 people with BREAD and fish. I encourage the reader to study Exodus chapter 16 in order to get the complete picture of the literal basis on which the bread or manna topology and symbolism is used by Jesus in this chapter.
In verse 26, Jesus tells the crowd that they were looking for Him, not because they understood the spiritual sign confirming that He was the Messiah, but rather that they received physical satisfaction. In verse 27, Jesus tells the crowd not to work for food that spoils (physical food) but rather, a different type of food that leads to eternal life - a food that Jesus (the Son of Man), will give them. Notice Jesus is already building the metaphor of physical food versus spiritual food. In the latter part of verse 27, Jesus makes a bold claim to His deity by saying God the father has placed a seal of approval on Him, the self proclaimed Son of Man. Cross reference Matt. 4:4 to Jesus' language in verse 27, for additional historical and contextual insight.
Verses 28 & 29 ARE THE TRUE FOCAL POINT, "...THE WHOLE TENOR..." OF THE ENTIRE CHAPTER - in fact, verse 29 is the Gospel in a nut shell. Of course a Roman Catholic could not recognize this since Roman Catholics teach that they must perform good works/deeds in order to earn salvation (Chapter 13 & P254, 3P). It should also be noted THAT EATING IS A WORK/DEED - ANY PHYSICAL ACTION, INCLUDING SPEAKING AND READING, FALL'S UNDER THE DEFINITION OF WORK OR DEED. Verses 10-27 point towards verses 28-29, and verses 30-65 point back. Jesus, in verses 10-28 demonstrates & says that He is the Messiah, the Son of Man. In verses 28&29, he tells the people what must happen in order to please God - that they cannot earn His favor with deeds of the body (Isa. 64:5-6), but only through BELIEVING in His Son. In verses 30 - 65, Jesus elaborates on what it is to believe - He explains to the unbelieving crowd that they must rely on Him alone for eternal life, just as their forefathers relied on the manna in the wilderness for there physical life. That they must become intimate in a believing relationship with Him alone - and he uses the metaphorical language of consuming food to describe the intimacy accompanying true belief in Him. He also draws a parallel of His upcoming sacrifice and the sin offering of the OT (Lev. 4:1-6). Let's take a look.
In verses 30-31, the people challenge Him for a sign, ignoring and quickly forgetting the miracle the day before (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 27-28 & Luke 16:31). In verse 31, they challenge Him to feed them physical food yet again, quoting Scripture for a fleshly, selfish purpose e.g. full stomachs (verse 26). In verses 32-33, Jesus tries to point them to the heavenly Father and away from Moses, and shows that He (Jesus) supersedes the prophets of old by eluding to Himself as the "true" spiritual bread from heaven. Notice Jesus is strongly making a transition, and focusing upon the bread metaphor - a natural transition from the preceding events and topics. He clearly defines himself, metaphorically, with manna.
Verse 34: The unbelieving hearts just cannot grasp the metaphor - they just will not see Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.
Verse 35: Tiring of their unbelief, Jesus goes further with the bread metaphor and states more clearly and boldly what He has been saying in the previous verses. He clearly is using metaphorical language here, for IF HE WERE TALKING LITERALLY AT THIS POINT, HE WOULD ACTUALLY BE BREAD E.G. GROUND AND BAKED GRAIN ("GATE" & "LIGHT")! Notice particularly, that at this point, He says only that, "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty". But the people's unbelief continued...
Verse 36: Jesus rebukes their continued unbelief.
Verses 37 - 40: Jesus continues to witness to the world that He is the Son of God, intimately and uniquely related to His Father and that His Father's will is that, "...everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him (Jesus) shall have eternal life...". Notice, Jesus, speaking literally here, stepping out of the metaphor for a moment, does NOT say, "everyone who looks to the Son and eats him shall have eternal life".
Verse 41: The Jew's (unbelievers) elaborate on their unbelief by questioning Jesus' biological origins and rejecting or not understanding or knowing about His virgin birth.
Verse 43: Jesus again rebukes them for rejecting His Words.
Verses 44 - 47: Jesus claims deity, in that He will raise (resurrect) those who believe in Him; by quoting Isaiah 54:13 and thereby claiming to be God who teaches; everyone who listens to the Father (God) comes to Him; and that only He, Jesus, has seen the Father. The climax of these remarkable claims is verse 47 - "...he who believes [what I am now claiming] has eternal life". He is reiterating the foundational salvation verses given earlier e.g. verses 28&29. A clearer proclamation to be the Messiah, and of His Deity, is difficult to find in the NT. Clearly these verses are again literal since they are completely lacking in metaphorical language usage and context - these are direct literal claims by Christ.
Verse 48: Back to the metaphor that He has been using throughout this discourse - a restatement of verse 35.
Verses 49 - 50: Jesus clearly lays out the metaphor e.g. PHYSICAL VERSUS SPIRITUAL!
Verse 51: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven". Notice that He is the living bread - NOT ACTUAL BREAD ITSELF, FOR BREAD DOES NOT LIVE (unless, of course, it is the Roman Catholic Eucharist)! Now Jesus simply takes the next logical step of bringing the metaphor to its full expression as He had already eluded to in verses 27, 35 & 50. It was necessary to continue using the metaphor and bring it to its logical conclusion due to the peoples continued unbelief.
In the last sentence of verse 51, Jesus now ties the bread metaphor to His actual upcoming sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. To paraphrase, Jesus says, "I will give the bread that came down from heaven, me (my body and my physical life) as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world so that the world might be saved through me" (Rom. 4:25). "...my flesh..." is the sin sacrifice of his actual bodily death. God's justice had to be satisfied by Jesus' perfect bloody sacrifice on the cross so that the sin's of mankind could be forgiven. So He has elaborated on His metaphor by clearly EQUATING OR MAKING SYNONYMOUS "bread" (metaphorical) with "my flesh" (literal in prediction of his sacrifice on the cross). Again, "bread" is the metaphor representing spiritual reality versus "my flesh" representing physical reality and the upcoming historical fact of His sacrifice on the cross.
Verse 52: The Jews continue to misunderstand the metaphor, and can only see the earthly/fleshly side of Jesus' words (and they received Him not - John 1:11).
Verse 53: Jesus now responds with the full force of the metaphor given the peoples continued unbelief and rejection of Him and His Words. He says, "...unless you eat the flesh (spiritual, v. 51) of the Son of Man and drink his blood, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU." NOW, IF THIS WAS LITERAL AND NOT SPIRITUAL, THE PEOPLE HEARING THIS WOULD BE DEAD, RIGHT? Jesus said that if you did not eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Well, the following verses tell us that Jesus was not actually cannibalized and verse 60 tells us the people who heard this were in fact still alive! Therefore, they did not eat and drink Him, and yet were still physically alive. Therefore, the meaning of His word's were metaphorical pointing to spiritual truth!
Verses 54 - 55: Jesus reiterates and reinforces the spiritual realities stated in verse 53.
Verse 56: This is an excellent verse to see the main point of Jesus' use of this metaphor of eating and drinking - it has something to do with the truth in the contemporary saying of, "you are what you eat". The truth in this saying speaks to the actual physical absorption of the food you choose to eat, into your bloodstream, which will affect your physical health e.g. sets limits on you physical fitness and appearance. It speaks of physical (chemical and physiological) assimilation and Jesus implies that the relationship with Him must be just as close as is clearly seen in Jesus' words, "...remains in me, and I in Him". Unless you truly acknowledge Jesus' Words and deeds, and assimilate them into your mind and heart just as the food you choose to eat becomes part of you, you will fall short of receiving eternal life.
Verses 57 - 58: Jesus ties the metaphor together, and restates its parallel to Exodus chapter 16.
Verses 60: The people, being spiritually blind and missing His entire metaphor designed to tell them He is the Messiah, hear only the physical aspect of Jesus' words and react very negatively, as anyone thinking someone advocating cannibalism would.
Verse 61 - 62: Jesus continues to concentrate and teach the spiritual as He asks if becoming so intimate with Him offends them. In verse 62, He makes it clear His question is regarding the spiritual by rebuking them by essentially saying, "OK, you won't believe in me as the Son of God by repenting of your unbelief and desiring to worship me intimately, and you still don't understand about my upcoming bodily sacrifice on the cross for your sins - fine, how about if you see me ascend into heaven [as He predicts His ascension - Acts 1:9] - WILL YOU THEN BELIEVE?"
Verse 63: HERE JESUS CLEARLY STATES THAT "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING", THEREBY REBUKING THEIR UNBELIEF AND WILLINGNESS TO SEE ONLY THE LITERAL [FLESH]; BUT THAT "THE WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT [OR SPIRITUAL] AND ARE LIFE". THIS CLEARLY REBUKES ANY ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE PREVIOUS METAPHORICAL WORDS LITERALLY. Again, to paraphrase, it is as if He is saying, "Let me explain it once again, I have been using metaphorical language that pertains to things of spiritual, not physical, matters - yet you still don't get it e.g. the truth behind the metaphor, and still don't believe!" Unfortunately and ironically, Keating, and Roman Catholics who hold to transubstantiation, could just as easily be a recipient of this same rebuke by Jesus.
Finally, WHAT DOES THIS PASSAGE IN THE 6TH CHAPTER OF JOHN HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAST SUPPER AS RECOUNTED IN THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS? There is no connection at all between the context of this passage, and the symbolic remembrance Christ instituted at the Lord’s Supper as described in Matt., Mark & Luke. The only similarity is a bread metaphor, which Keating wretches out of context to fit Roman Catholic dogma.
Just as a side note of commentary - in light of this Scripture, isn't it amazing what God put up with, and continues to put up with - surely His Grace is amazing!
4P:
"Sometimes fundamentalists say the use..." - Which fundamentalists? Where are the quotes and references to substantiate his derogatory claims? The rest of the paragraph is just slander and attempts to buttress an irrelevant (as he himself states) argument.
Page 248, 1P:
Who is Moffatt? Do you see his translation used in any churches you know of? How about in any "Christian" book stores? Again, Keating states that "Present-day fundamentalists do not rely on his version of the New Testament...", so who cares? Why bring up an irrelevant point other than the desire to unfairly discredit or slander your opponents?
2P:
Interesting, Keating quotes Vatican II on page 246 which clearly says, "...in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries...", and then quotes O'Brien who is more vague, mystical, contradictory and frankly, as Boettner says it, presents "...a jumble of medieval superstition". Let's take a closer look at O'Brien's description.
"The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different:..." OK, the manners are different, but a sacrifice is still offered! "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that IT OFFERS ANEW TO GOD THE VICTIM OF CALVARY..."[emphasis mine] OK, so O'Brien says that their is "no real death" in the first sentence, and then says the above e.g. that a sacrifice is perpetuated in that it offers anew the victim of Calvary. Can you reconcile these two statements? A great example of double talk and definition changing to suit your dogma. Unfortunately, he goes on, "...reenacts it symbolically and mystically [what precisely does "mystically" mean here?], and applies the fruit of Christ's death ... to individual human souls". Where is the scriptural support for this stuff? Where in the Bible does the phrase "the fruit of Christ's death" appear? After all, this is a very significant statement, in essence saying that the people who control this sacrificial reenactment are the distributors of the "fruit of Christ's death". Not only where is the Scripture, but where is human reason here? Could it be hiding behind an authoritarian religious system which desperately does not want people to understand what the Word of God clearly and simply teaches?
4P:
I don't know about you, but I'm glad Keith Green "would not have bought such an explanation", since it does not have Scriptural support, defies human reason AND YET LAYS CLAIM TO INVOLVEMENT WITH ONE'S SALVATION e.g. "...applies the fruits of Christ's death..."! This is literally un-scriptural non-sense - contrast Romans 10:9-10.
Page 249, 1&2P:
I see nothing wrong, Scripturally, with Green's quote - it is Scripturally accurate. And we have clearly seen that Roman Catholic's claim that a sacrifice continues, yet they change their language in defining just what is meant by "sacrifice". That's what happens when men create anti-scriptural dogma to defend their false religion. Remember, one cannot logically have the same event in time be both a "sacrifice" and a "memorial". There is no third logical alternative.
3P:
Green's quote again is good, with the exception of his reference to Heb. 6:6. However, I do notice that Keating does not include Heb. 6:6 within the quotation marks. I do not have Green's tract to verify this claim, but let's for the moment assume it is accurate. Then Keating is right in that Green takes Heb. 6:6 out of context, and this would be very unfortunate. Notice, however, two very important ancillary facts. First, that Keating cleverly [deceptively?] focuses only on Heb. 6:6, and does not even come close to dealing with the other Scripture referenced. Second, that Keating's interpretation of the first section of Hebrews chapter 6 is wrong!
"...the chapter deals with those who fall away from the Faith after baptism." Wrong! Read Hebrews 6:1-8. Paul says in verse 1, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from DEAD WORKS and faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."[emphasis mine] Paul is talking about those who leave the elementary teachings of the New Testament, and Paul lists several elementary teachings of which baptisms is only one. In terms of baptisms, plural, "The distinction between various baptisms is a necessary part of basic Christian doctrine (e.g., the baptism of Jewish proselytes, baptism by John the Baptizer, Christian baptism).5 Yes their is only one baptism established by Christ (Matt. 28:18-20 & Acts 2:38 - adults after repentance for only adults can repent) but that is not the issue in this passage - the issue is simply leaving the faith e.g. basic Christian doctrine. What is Keating talking about with his strange musings about second baptisms?
4P:
After identifying one incorrect reference (assuming it is an accurate quote of Green's tract), Keating proceeds to give an incorrect interpretation of Scripture (Heb. 6:1-6) and then states, "This verse simply does not say what Green thought it did. Nor do the others", in regard to the other references of Hebrews. Not a very substantiated, scholarly or even reasonable statement. He simply doesn't even deal with the other references at all. He simple plows forward, referring to...
Page 250, 1P:
...what Roman Catholics almost always refer to for authority, the "Church", saying, "The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again - his death is indeed once for all - but that does not contradict the doctrine of the Mass". Where is the quote from the Counsel of Trent or Vatican I or II to substantiate this claim that the Church says, "his death is indeed once for all"? That is a strong statement, why not quote the Church's writings to substantiate it? We'll the reason is that the Church does not state that, but rather states the opposite, as we have already amply verified ("...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross..." & "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that IT OFFERS ANEW TO GOD THE VICTIM OF CALVARY..." & the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist). Remember the correct definition of sacrifice? Using the Biblical and commonly agreed upon definition of "sacrifice", and in light of the specific method of Christ's sacrifice, I'll let the reader make sense out of Keating's last sentence e.g. "A re-presenting of the original sacrifice does not necessitate a new Crucifixion". So again, Keating specializes in double-speak, definition changing and deception. He uses the Roman Catholic definition of sacrifice, which only the roman clergy understand, since it is unintelligible to the rational mind and varies upon the Roman Clergy’s whim.
Page 251, 1P:
Boettner's quote is accurate, Scripturally based and intelligible. 1 Cor. 11:27 simply means that whoever partakes in the Lord's supper - the solemn remembrance of what Christ did for us by dying on the cross and shedding His blood - in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of grave disrespect and disregard of Christ and His sacrifice for us - and will thereby bring shame and judgment upon himself by merely going through the motions for ritual's sake (Mark 7:6-7).
Keating attempts, unsuccessfully, to make something out of Boettner's leaving out a portion of the verse. He relies on his literal interpretation (which I have shown to be incorrect) that the Eucharist is actually Christ, because "...one can hardly revile baked flour or fermented grape juice". He goes on to say, "...the bread and wine become Christ himself" (their un-biblical and mysterious doctrine of transubstantiation), but of course when they "offer him anew to God" in the "perpetual sacrifice" of the Mass, they are not actually killing him, just perpetually sacrificing Him. Please explain that again? A rational interpretation is that by treating the solemn remembrance of Christ's sacrifice in an unworthy manner, one reviles the living, heaven dwelling Son of God and not the symbols of his sacrifice.
2P:
Let's go through this again, Keating just gets finished telling us that "...the bread and wine become Christ himself" (their un-biblical doctrine of transubstantiation and the Eucharist), and after the "priest" turns the bread and wine into "Christ himself" and gives Him to be eaten to the members of the Church, this is not a form of cannibalism? Cannibalism does seem like a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Could this be another case of double-speak? He completely avoids dealing with this truth, and instead turns to an unsubstantiated historical argument. I would have to review Stravinskas work, and the accuracy of Keating's presumptions about Tertullian & Minucius Felix, "give[ing] considerable attention to their second century writings to the charge of cannibalism..."; at this juncture, I'm skeptical. Again, where are the direct quotes of Tertullian & Minucius Felix? Assuming the accuracy of Keating's observations in this matter (a generous assumption) could it be that pagan cultures misunderstood the REMEMBRANCE of the Lord's Supper rather than Roman Catholic's literal view? As a believer, how much weight would you place on pagan observations of the true Church's activities and ordinances (1 Cor. 2:12)?
3P & Page 252, 1P:
Read Rumble and Carty's interpretation in light of the interpretation given earlier in this work. Rumble and Carty give a good example of how NOT to interpret Scripture. I'll let the reader compare.
2P:
Keating does not like the rational truth presented in the poem.
3P:
Keating's tenor is less than charitable. There is no Scriptural or rational explanation of transubstantiation - this doctrine eludes rational thought and yet claims to be the key to experiencing salvation. Keating then attempts to justify this strange and irrational doctrine.
Page 253, 1P:
...priest was quite right, of course..." It appears that only the Roman Catholic clergy understands the doctrine of transubstantiation. Serious scientific and philosophical problems exist with the doctrine. What types of bread can be transubstantiated? What if there are water molecules fused to the bread molecules -do they get transubstantiated? What about the microbes on the bread? Keating then attempts to justify transubstantiation and turns to the Old Testament to do so.
2P:
Gen. 14:18 says, "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed by God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." The text says Melchizedek brought out bread and wine (bread was primary food - wine was the only generally available formal drink besides water); it seems likely that he was being a gracious host. It seems reasonable to assume that the king of Sodom and his troops were hungry and thirsty after war.
Let's take a closer look at verse 18:
a) Melchizedek brings water and wine; b) He was a priest of God Most High; c) He blessed Abram.
Keating claims, "Melchizedek...offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine". Isn't that reading a bit much into the text? Where is the word "sacrifice" mentioned or even eluded to in this text? Don't you think if the Holy Spirit would have wanted the word sacrifice recorded in this passage, He would have done so? The concept of sacrifice was already introduced a long time ago by God through Able (Gen. 4:5). Anything beyond what the text says (In this case the text is clearly literal history) is excessive topology invented to substantiate Roman Catholic notions.
Psalm 110: No "fundamentalist" I know denies Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 & 7:17) as is foretold in Psalm 110:4, but Keating implies that Christ is seen, "...offering a sacrifice in bread and wine", in this passage. Where is this in the text? Keating closes this paragraph with bringing reproach upon Christ and His "once and for all" sacrifice, by saying, "We then, must look to some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine". This is a blasphemous statement that clearly states that Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary was insufficient, and that the Roman Catholic ritualistic Mass can complete the insufficient sacrifice of Christ at Calvary; "The Mass fits the bill" says Keating. Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need daily, LIKE THOSE HIGH PRIESTS, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF." [parenthesis & emphasis mine] Does the honest reader not see a contradiction here? Does the honest reader not see how this statement by Keating of the insufficiency of Christ's "once for all sacrifice" dishonors the Lord? By saying Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient clearly contradicts with Scripture and clearly fits with the Roman Catholic belief that a real sacrifice is actually taking place during the Mass, which contradicts their double-speak denials up to this point.
The fact is that Christ abolished a separate class of people called priests (Heb. 10:10-14) and has made all true believers "priests" (1 Pet. 2:5-9). These Scripture that state this fact throw a bit of a monkey wrench in Roman Catholicism’s priestly authoritative power structure. If we are all priests, like the inspired words of Peter claim, then why do we need these guys in all the pompous garb and regalia mumbling mysterious things at their alter so that they can give God's grace to us?
3P:
Zacchello is grasping for straws? "The conjunction 'and' in Greek often has the force of 'for', so here 'and he was a priest' means the same as 'for he was a priest'". The "...often..." does not make a closed and shut case. It appears that Mr. Keating believes the OT was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew. Let's give Keating the benefit of the doubt and assume the Roman Catholics are still using the Latin Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments. However, if they are using the Vulgate, it certainly does not speak well of Roman Catholic "scholarship" since we have excellent Hebrew manuscripts to work with. Why would anyone who claims to be a scholar use secondary translations when you have the original language manuscripts available?
The transliterated Hebrew word for the conjunction in question is "hayah" which usually means "and". I urge the reader to do a word study in Genesis on "hayah" to substantiate this. The following broadly excepted Protestant translations state the verse in the following manner: RSV - "...wine; he was..."; KJV - "...wine: and he was..."; ASV - "...wine. And he was..."; NKJ - "...wine; he was..."; NAS - "...wine; now he was...". The other popularly available Roman Catholic bible translations state the verse this way: NJB - "...wine; he was..." & NAB - "...wine, and being a priest..." HOW COME KEATING DOESN'T DIRECTLY QUOTE THE VERSE FROM HIS ALLEGED TRANSLATION, IN WHICH HE CLAIMS THE WORD "FOR" IS USED INSTEAD OF "AND"? Could this be bald faced deception?
Keating goes on to say, "What is more, 'according to the order of Melchizedek' means 'in the manner of Melchizedek' ('order' not referring, of course, to the modern notion of a religious order, there being no such thing in Old Testament days)." First, Keating uses a portion of the NEW TESTAMENT, Hebrews 5:6,10, WITHOUT QUOTING IT AND THEN STATES THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT (REFERRING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE!) HAD "NO SUCH THING..." AS "...THE MODERN NOTION OF A RELIGIOUS ORDER..." Keating is apparently confused between the New Testament and the Old Testament and this could account for his aversion to quoting scripture. However, the reader must consider that deliberate deception would also account for the absence of Scripture quotes. After all, the publisher, on the back cover of the book says, "special emphasis is given to the scriptural basis for Catholic doctrines and beliefs".
Second, the Greek word for "...order..." in Heb. 5:6,10 is transliterated "taxis" from which we get the word taxonomy, which of course is the system of the classification of plants and animals. Strong's NT Greek Dictionary states the definition of "taxis" as "a fixed succession of rank or character; official dignity".6 Given the Greek word used, Keating's "manner" argument is completely without merit. Keating's misusing Scripture, I would suggest, further detracts from what might be left of his argument.
"... so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed". Now here is a true example of, as Keating alleges of fundamentalists, "grasping at straws". Since Melchizedek was a priest, he no doubt did sacrifice something at some time, to God (Lev. 4:27-31) - BUT THE TEXT IN QUESTION DOES NOT SAY "SACRIFICE" OR EVEN SUGGEST A SACRIFICE! The Hebrew word for sacrifice is transliterated as "zebach" and means, "...a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice".7 In the OT, it is always used in the context of the killing of an animal as an offering to God. Now there are other "offerings" that are bloodless, and the Hebrew word used to describe offerings in general is transliterated as "minchah" and is defined as "...to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary)".8 Notice Keating says that "...Melchizedek sacrificed" bread and wine. How does one sacrifice something that is not alive? Keating is confused between an offering to God and a sacrifice as an offering to God. In the OT, an animal sacrifice was always an offering to God (or pagan gods), but an offering was not always an animal sacrifice to God (Lev. 1:5 & 2:1). Poor insight into the difference between a sacrifice and an offering by a Roman Catholic who should know a great deal about religious sacrifices since their entire church is built upon the mass which "...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross...".
Page 254, 1P:
In terms of Keating scoffing at the idea that Melchizedek was being a gracious host by offering food and drink, read Deut. 23:4 and Gen. 24:33. Offering food and drink to guests is the most common courtesy found in almost every culture, past and present.
2P:
Which "fundamentalist" is Mr. Keating referring to? Why no references to this serious charge? Again, an unsubstantiated claim not supported by a reference or quote. Even if he does dredge some statements up, who cares? The question is, WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY? Does the reader see a clear parallel of Genesis 14:18 with Christ's Words or actions at the Last Supper (don't forget context)? Correct, Mr. Keating, "Clearly, he (Jesus) was not talking about a one-time thing", He was referring to remembering His upcoming sacrifice at Calvary, NOT REMEMBERING THE SYMBOLISM OF THE LAST SUPPER! Hopefully Mr. Keating can accede that "remembering" can occur more than once.
3P:
Now we get to the crux of the matter, SALVATION, and we will see just how warped and heretical Roman Catholic's view of salvation is. First, which "fundamentalist" claims that "...all people were saved in that one momentous occasion."? Please show me a quote for this most critical allegation - NONE. I personally know of no universalist (the anti-scriptural notion that everyone is going to heaven) conservative evangelicals, prominent (writers, preachers) or otherwise. It is impossible to hold to the inerrancy, inspiration and infallibility (a hallmark of "fundamentalists") of Scripture and to also claim that "...all people were saved..." by Christ's sacrifice (see John 3:18 & Matt. 25:46).
The Bible teaches that Christ paid the penalty of our sins by His "once for all" atoning sacrifice for our sin (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:12, 28) and He now offer's salvation (eternal life) as a free gift (Rom. 6:23 & Rev. 22:17) to all who will repent from their sin (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38) and receive salvation by believing by faith (Rom. 10:9-10; John 6:29) in Christ as Savior and Lord and doing the works that Jesus commands (James 2:24) - not un-Scriptural religious rituals. This is biblical salvation - repent, believe and obey Jesus! Beautifully simple isn't it? A perfectly loving God would have it no other way. No priestly experts needed to administer a complicated system of religious rituals/sacraments.
Now let's take a look at Roman Catholic's salvation. First, again notice the complete lack of scripture reference or quoting even in dealing with so important an issue as salvation! The reader must ask himself why this is so. Keating quotes the gospel of Stravinskas regarding why the "Church" continues to offer the sacrifice of the Mass (here it is again in plain English), "Because the salvation promised AND EARNED is conditional;". Salvation always was promised by God, and it is conditional upon faith which exists after repentance and belief (changes in the heart), BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN INITIALLY RECEIVED BY MAN'S "GOOD WORKS" (Isa. 64:5-6; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:20-22; Titus 3:5; Matt. 19:26; John 6:29; et al). HERE KEATING CLEARLY STATES THAT SALVATION IS ENTERED INTO BY RELIGIOUS RITUALS. And how do we earn our salvation? "because it (salvation) is CONTINGENT UPON our acceptance of Jesus, our desire to be saved, AND OUR LIVING OF A LIFESTYLE WHICH DEMONSTRATES an understanding of what life in Christ means."[emphasis added]
Let's break apart what the Roman Catholics say we must do to earn our salvation e.g. is "contingent upon"...
a) "...acceptance of Jesus" - The Bible says "repentance" and "belief" as referenced above. What precisely does "acceptance" mean? Shouldn't we use the word's God uses in His Word in this most important area of understanding salvation?
b) "...our desire to be saved" - This could describe the "feeling" of repentance, but repentance is much more than emotions - it includes a willful turning away from sin (Luke 13:3; 2 Pet. 3:9). Again, shouldn't we use the Biblical term, "repentance" in this most important area of salvation?
c) "...our LIVING OF A LIFESTYLE which demonstrates an understanding of what life in Christ means." So, Mr. Keating, when will I be saved? I guess after I prove to God I'm good enough in my living. But Romans 10:9-10 says, "...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Where is earning salvation found in this concise statement of how one receives salvation? The Bible records that Jesus said to the thief on the cross next to Him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." How much good living did this thief do?
Keating again proves that mixing some vague truth a) & b) with an utter lie c) goes a long way in leading people astray - especially since the lie panders perfectly to the sinful, unbelieving and prideful human heart.
"Our remembrance and ritual re-enactment of the event make it happen again - for us." Again, some real sacrifice is happening with the actual "Presence of Christ" in the form of the bread. NO - "...once for all...".
4P:
Another distorted interpretation of God's Word. Read Malachi 1:10-11 and the surrounding verses to get the context. Keating says, "...after foretelling the rejection of the Jewish priesthood...". Do you see that clearly put forth in this particular text? I see God scolding the Jewish priests for bringing defective animals to be sacrifices (Lev. 22:20-25 & Deut. 15:21). Those offerings disobeyed the Word of God and thereby showed disrespect and contempt to the Lord Almighty. Keating goes on, "...Malachi predicted a new sacrifice would be offered in every place". The text from the roman version says, "...in every place there is a sacrifice...", but a clearer rendering of the middle portion of verse 11 in the NASB says, "...and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name...". Keating states, "Note that he speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices, but one that is offered everywhere." WHERE DOES HE GET THAT? Even using the Roman Catholic translation, and looking at English grammar, the subject of the phrase, "sacrifice", is directly tied to the noun "place", which is modified by the adjective "every". Therefore, if we reverse the position of the subject and the noun for further clarification, it reads, that there will be a sacrifice in every place. There is no legitimate grammatical reason to state that there is one sacrifice offered in many places - this distinction simply does not exist.
The Hebrew word for what Keating is claiming translates, "sacrifice" in verse 11 is transliterated "qatar", which the NASB more accurately translates, "incense". According to Strong's this word "qatar" means, "to smoke, i.e. to turn into fragrance by fire...".9 Incense was used as an offering to God, but why use "sacrifice" instead of the more accurate "incense"? As you examine the point Keating is trying to invent, you see that "incense" would not fit into Roman Catholic Mass dogma.
Verse 11 of Malachi uses topological language to foretell the extent to which the Lord will be honored some day. Of course we know that there will not be any more sacrifices because Heb. 7, 9 & 10 as quoted previously tells us so, and God's Word does not contradict itself. For relevant examples of the broader metaphorical New Testament usage of "sacrifice" relating to the Old Testament types, see Rev. 5:8 & 8:3; Heb. 13:15-16; Rom. 12:1.
Keating goes on, based on his reasoning (which was shown to have a weak Scriptural foundation and to be false in its grammatical interpretation) to say, "The sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for A SACRIFICE APART FROM CALVARY, one that is given under the form of bread and wine". Is it not clear to the reader that Keating (and Roman Catholics) obviously states that Christ's one sacrifice was inadequate? That His "Real Presence" must be "offered anew" to "perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross" since Christ did not do an adequate job in the first place. Let me ask the reader, does this glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and does it correspond with Scripture? Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish & NOW ROMAN CATHOLIC!) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." [parentheses & emphasis mine] The answer is a clear and vehement NO!
5P & Page 255, 1P:
In reference to pope innocent III, Keating says, "He merely insisted on a doctrine...He formalized...". Where are the references and quotes to substantiate these claims? I hope it is becoming obvious to the reader that Mr. Keating merely is resting on his perceived "authority" and worldly "credentials" among the faithful Roman Catholics, and has no claim to objective scholarship in this book. At this point, does the reader feel comfortable with Keating's quotes in this paragraph? Do you think that it is possible that Keating is quoting out of context (especially since he rarely provides the actual word's he bases his reference on) or misinterpreting what he is reading? His one quote where he provides the actual words of the reference he cites, has three points of interest. First, the correct New Testament term referring to church leadership "episcopate" is used, NOT PRIEST. Second, what does the word, "its" refer to? Keating left out the subject to which it refers. Why? It appears that Keating hopes the reader will substitute the word "Mass" which is in his previous reference and is not an actual quote from the reference but rather Keating's word!
Third, Clement's quote and the use of the word, "Sacrifices", could easily be interpreted correctly since the word sacrifice has a fuller meaning in the New Testament (Rev. 5:8 & 8:3; Heb. 13:15-16; Rom. 12:1). The term "Mass" does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The whole paragraph says nothing of Scriptural value, but merely tries to lean on man's (Roman Catholic's in this case) tradition as being theologically significant (Mark 7:6-13).
2P:
Keating goes back to the same technique of distorting definitions. "Fundamentalists" do not claim that Christ is actually being killed again, and in fact know that He isn't - it is Roman Catholics who say He is since they "sacrifice" His "Real Presence" yet in the same breath deny it by distorting definitions! Nothing new here, the same stuff. Consider this, that Christ's physical dying had tremendous spiritual implications and that His physical dying and the spiritual realities that followed are related but not identical e.g. He physically died (Mark 15:37) AND His death atoned for the worlds sin's and made redemption available to all mankind (Rom. 3:24; John 3:16). Christ died (physically) and through His death (ONCE FOR ALL SACRIFICE) he made salvation available to all mankind (spiritual ramifications of His physical action). A good analogy is to think of a stone thrown into a pond. The physical stone breaks the surface of the water AND creates the effect of ripples concentrically moving away from the point where the stone entered the water. Analogous to this, Keating would refuse to deal with the ripples, and insist on acknowledging only the stone's entry when acknowledging the ripple would destroy his argument.
Notice, however, that Keating attempts to define sacrifice (in this instance) in only the physical terms e.g. "...what Catholics call a sacrifice seems in fact to have no relation to biblical sacrifices since it does not look the same; after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on Catholic alters." So Keating defines "sacrifice" in this instance only in terms of its physical nature, while earlier in the chapter he quotes O'Brien who says, "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense it offers anew to God the Victim of Calvary and...AND APPLIES THE FRUIT'S OF CHRIST'S DEATH...to individual human souls". Which aspect (physical versus spiritual) will he claim next time to defend his Roman Catholic dogma? Now either Keating cannot make this distinction, or he will not make it where it defeats his position. Keating claims that fundamentalists are attacking the actual physical aspects of offering a sacrifice, "...after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on Catholic altars." - Well, who says there is? Apparently only Keating's imaginary "Bible Christians". Here, as he has previously, Keating creates a classic "Straw man".
Page 256, 1P:
Boettner's quote is fine, their is nothing wrong with it because he is referring to the spiritual elements and the fact that the New Testament says that without blood there is no remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). All Boettner is doing is trying to get Roman Catholic's to see that "...appl[ying] the fruit's of Christ's death..." with a bloodless sacrifice is Scripturally impossible. Why? Because God's Grace was released only through the bloody sacrifice of His Son centuries ago! (Rom. 3:25) Therefore, to claim to have the authority to dispense God's Grace (which is exactly what the Roman Catholic's claim in their doctrines of the Mass/Eucharist [Sacramentalism] as documented previously) directly contradicts Scripture (John 1:17; Acts 4:12) as well as brings reproach upon Christ since it directly implies that His sacrifice was insufficient.
2P:
Hebrews 9:28 says, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..." [emphasis mine] What is unclear about this verse? Keating's interpretation again leaves much to be desired and starts by stating that, "Boettner misreads' chapter 9 of Hebrews...". What specifically does Boettner misread? Why no specific refutation using Scripture or reason? Keating then boldly (blindly?) quotes Heb. 9:23-25 which contradict his position!. It's interesting that Keating didn't quote verse 12 ("...once for all..."), verse 22 ("...and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.") verse 26 ("...now ONCE at the consummation of the ages...") and verse 28 ("...having been offered once..."). He treads gingerly around truth that contradicts his position.
Keating's last sentence in this paragraph says, "Under the Christian dispensation, blood (Christ's) is shed once, but it is continually offered to the father."[bold mine] Where does Scripture say "Christ's blood... is continually offered to the Father? The text in the NASB in verse 23 says, "...but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Could it be that Keating is again unable (unwilling?) to differentiate between the physical ("...blood [Christ's] is shed only once...") and the spiritual implications of the physical act? What is perfectly clear by other Scripture (Heb. et al) is that Christ's sacrifice, His consummation of the new covenant, was offered once for all, and He now makes salvation available to all who repent and believe. Therefore, this one verse must be referring to the word "sacrifices" in the same sense the word is used in Roman's 12:1, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." The same Greek word for sacrifice, transliterated thusia, is used in both Heb. 9:23 and Romans 12:1. In both places, thusia (which means sacrifice e.g. the act or the object) is used metaphorically. The writer of Hebrews clearly contrasts earthly or physical things with heavenly things in this verse. Again, Keating's inability (perhaps) to discern between physical and spiritual lead him into another interpretive trap - of course not relying on sound interpretation by interpreting Scripture with Scripture, doesn't help him either.
3P:
Please read Heb. 13:8 in CONTEXT. The context is assuring believers who are struggling with sanctification, that God is Great and He will never let them down. The verse speaks of God's eternal NATURE, that He will never change, and as such, we will always have the same loving God to turn to for help. I ask the reader, what has this to do with sacrifices or the Mass? Keating yanks the verse out of context and incorrectly attempt to use it to justify Roman Catholic doctrine. Keating then attempts to apply 1 Cor. 11:26, but makes no attempt to deal with the fact that the word "...heralding" means what it says! In Keating's mind, I guess "heralding" is synonymous with "continually offered to the Father"! (please look up "heralding" in a dictionary) I'll ask again, how does "heralding" equate with a mystical re-sacrifice of Christ's actual body (roman doctrine of the Eucharist and the Mass)? "What Jesus did in the past..." - irrational gobbledygook versus a clear and rational remembrance.
Page 257, 1P:
"...dead past." is the author's own choice of derogatory terms, since he AGAIN doesn't reference or quote anyone.
"...priests conducting a sacrifice today and conclude that today's sacrifice must be distinct from Calvary's." Does that seem like an irrational conclusion to the reader given all that we have seen? Back to the same old reliance on distorting definitions and selective use. "Christ cannot be killed again", yet He is "sacrificed" and "consumed" ("Real Presence", actual body and blood [transubstantiation]).
2P:
No, Mr. Keating, we just don't want to be irrational roman mysticists who check our mind in at the door when analyzing truth claims that have eternal ramifications (Mark 12:30; Isa. 1:18). Perhaps we just have the "problem" of relying primarily on Scripture as the foundation for our reasoning. Question from a dumb fundamentalist - why does Keating always say that the "sacrifice" is "perpetual"? Why is not Christ's resurrection "perpetual"? (Sadly, Roman Catholic's do leave Christ dead on the cross) Why not any other event in His life, or any event in time for that matter? Well, if every event (or any individual event) in time is "perpetual", then I guess we're back where we started e.g. using rational thought to interpret events in time (Mark 12:30), since that is where God has us and our minds are not God's. Perhaps Mr. Keating claims to understand the concept of existing in eternity outside of time, in which case he would claim to have the mind of God.
At this point, I think it would be a good idea to quote Keating on the matter of "fair play" in arguing one's points. "...but we do insist on fair play. We do not want one participant to misrepresent what the other thinks or to make points by using cheap shots. Ridicule, misrepresentation, taking quotations out of context, bending the truth, leaving out important facts - these violate the rules of the game (of arguing). We feel cheated if one side tries to gain an unfair advantage. If all this is true when the participants meet face to face before an audience, it is even truer when the argument is conducted in writing, when all we have is one side's version tucked between the covers of a book. Nowhere, perhaps, are these rules of fair play violated with greater regularity than in the writings of fundamentalists who attack the Catholic religion."(Page 27, 1P) After reading this document, the paragraph which we're in now, and statements like the ones on page 252, 3P, I hope the reader sees this statement by Mr. Keating for what it is - sickening hypocrisy.
My view on debating doctrine is that I certainly grant Mr. Keating's right to present his opinions, and would fight for him to keep his freedom to present his views. I also don't know Mr. Keating personally, so my response is not an attack on his person per se (except in response to, and in order to correct, his own false and hurtful stereotypes as put forth in this paragraph and elsewhere), but rather an attack on his anti-scriptural views and opinions. My purpose is to defend what I believe to be "truth". I will also defend my brethren's Scripturally correct views as they attempt to honestly defend the True Gospel and truthfully show the Roman Catholic "religion" for what it is. This book by Mr. Keating clearly contains false viewpoints, as has been amply documented, and his bitter tone is most clearly summed up by phrases like, "falsely pious; pretentious, unmerited arrogance; and defensive frustration".
3P:
Keating uses an illustration that is irrational and one which I (or, I imagine, his presumptuous "They...") do not agree with. He presents three DIFFERENT, SEPARATE SACRIFICES occurring at "...about the same time". How could three priests and presumably three animals being sacrificed in three non-identical places be considered "a single sacrifice"? In what sense? At this point I don't feel any comment is necessary for this paragraph which concludes on the top of page 258, except to say that Keating patronizes even his own, obviously lesser enlightened, Catholic friends who simply find it hard to grasp irrational, contradictory truth claims. Force contradictory facts and illogical dogma on people, and they will "have problem[s]...in getting a right appreciation..." of anything!
Page 258, final paragraphs:
Keating closes in the only place one has left to hide when Scripture and logic contradict one's beliefs e.g. in the dark caves of mysticism, illogic and authoritarianism where only the "enlightened" "priesthood" of the roman "Church" can understand, explain and administer the "...fruits of Christ's death upon the Cross...". If nothing else is evident in reading Keating's apologetic, it should be obvious that he and the Roman Catholic system he tries to defend, is desperately trying to maintain CONTROL OVER "lay Catholic's". Why? Because, "...in many fundamentalist congregations a third, a half, or even a majority of the members once gave allegiance to Rome" [fortunately, true believers give allegiance to Christ and Christ alone, not "Protestantism" or ROMANISM]. (Page 14, 1P!) Praise the Lord! Jesus says, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32) God's Truth as put forth in His Word does have a way of persevering (Matt. 24:35), even amidst sinful humanity who craves man-made religious systems that attempt to excuse away the guilt of sin before an all Holy God through self-righteous works (Isa. 64:6)! The Truth of the Gospel will continue to win lost people out of the false religion of Roman Catholicism and to Him be the Glory. Amen.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND EXHORTATION:
I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad God is PERFECTLY LOVING AND JUST and thereby makes His salvation easily understood, and thereby available, to all people that desire to seek Him - REPENT (Luke 13:3) and BELIEVE (Romans 10:9-10). No lifetime of keeping sacraments in the hopes that your efforts will pay off in the end, but rather, a clear and easily understood choice which can be made at any moment in time e.g. repent and believe (Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10) AND YOU SHALL BE SAVED (1 John 5:13)! GOD DOES NOT HIDE SALVATION FROM MANKIND IN A MYSTERIOUS RITUAL BASED ON THE TRADITION OF MEN! (Mark 7:5-9, 13)
The purpose of this critique is twofold. First, to show the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass for what it is e.g. a Christ dishonoring, anti-Scriptural, and thereby heretical religious ritual (Gal. 1:6-9). Any true believer who participates in the Mass participates in a Christ dishonoring, anti-Scriptural, and thereby heretical and idolatrous pagan religious ritual which happens to have an anti-Scriptural "Christ" as one of its objects. Any true believer who passively observes others participating in the Mass and does not warn them, must take heed of Ezek. 3:18 and James 4:17. Essentially the Mass is the key element in a false, allegedly "Christian" religious system, whose actual, unstated purpose is to hold people captive to the system by claiming that salvation is partly found through this church controlled, mysterious ritual.
My second purpose is to show Mr. Keating's apologetic for what it is - a poor attempt at thinking, sound scholarship, honoring the Scripture, and glorifying Christ. I would hope that one would seriously consider whether they would want to subject themselves to the deceptive, misleading and false teachings of Karl Keating as have been documented in this work.
If you call yourself a Roman Catholic, I'll leave you with a biblical command of God in regard to the roman church - "Come out of her, my people, that you may not participate in her sins and that you may not receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." (Rev. 18:4-5)
May you be set free from a burdensome, works laden false religion to enjoy a true relationship with the Lord of Glory, the Living Savior Jesus Christ!
Footnotes:
1 All Scripture quoted in this critique, unless otherwise noted, will be taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
2 Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" (Ignatius, 1988), Page 248, 3rd paragraph (all page and paragraph references after this point will be in the body of the critique proper).
3 The American Heritage Dictionary, The Second College Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 1985.
4Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Michigan 49516, 1990), 16.
5 Charles Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New International Version (Moody Press. 1986), Notes on Heb. 6:2.
6 Strong's Greek New Testament Words. 1993. Ellis Enterprises Inc.
7 Strong's Hebrew Old Testament Words. 1993. Ellis Enterprises Inc.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
