Trogo and Transubstantiation

I think it is safe to say that a common Protestant position with respect to John 6:48ff. is that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is a metaphor for coming to and believing in Him. To eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink His blood is said to produce the same contextual effect as looking on or believing in the Son (6:40; 54); in both cases the individual has eternal life and will be raised the last day. Further, the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood and coming to or believing in Christ are each compared with the bread which the ancestors of Jesus’ audience ate (6:28-35; 58). At any rate, such observations are not new.

Years ago – before updates made discussion on facebook groups almost completely undesirable – I debated Roman Catholics on a whole host of issues, one of which was transubstantiation. Now, anyone who has discussed this subject with Roman Catholics is probably aware of what they think about John 6: it’s safe to say the vast majority think Jesus is referencing the Eucharist. To buttress their doctrine of transubstantiation, they then argue that Jesus intended to convey to His audience that they ought to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. I came to find that one of the usual arguments in favor of this is that one of the Greek words Jesus uses to refer to the act of eating His flesh, trōgō (John 6:54, 56-58), is never used figuratively.

However, this word is only found in only two other verses in the New Testament (John 13:18 and Matthew 24:38). A purely inductive argument would not seem to make for a very strong case that trōgō can’t function metaphorically. And as D. A. Carson notes on pg. 296 in his commentary on John (which is what brought this subject to my mind):

In v. 54 and again in vv. 56, 57, 58, the verb for 'to eat' becomes trōgō (as opposed to esthiō, or more precisely its aorist stem phag-, the customary verb found elsewhere in this passage). In earlier Greek, trōgō was used for the munching of (especially herbivorous) animals; from the classical period on, the verb was also used of human beings. Some have taken its presence here as a sign of the literalness of ‘eating’ that occurs in the eucharist. It is far more likely that John injects no new meaning by selecting this verb, but prefers this verb when he opts for the Greek present tense (similarly in 13:18).

Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, Carson

I recently purchased “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” by Beale, Carson, et. al. After reading Carson’s contribution to the “catholic epistles,” I decided to reproduce here one interesting observation from one verse in each chapter. I will probably do something similar for the other authors and chapters, although there is no way I could even begin to include all the information each packs into his notes on one verse, let alone the whole chapter.

James 2:23, NT Context: The Nature of Abraham’s Faith

“…The verb rendered by the NIV as “was made complete” (eteleiothe [from teleioo]) does not mean (despite Calvin’s support) that the actions revealed Abraham’s faith to be perfect (tetioo never has that sense); nor does it mean that works were somehow tacked onto a faith that otherwise would have been incomplete, for James’s point is that such faith does not really count at all, it is simply useless. Rather, to follow James’s argument we must recognize that although the expression teleioo linked with ek (i.e., Abraham’s faith “was made complete… [lit.] out of” works) is found nowhere else in the NT, parallels found elsewhere are illuminating. Philo tells us that Jacob “was made perfect as the result of [ek] discipline” (Agriculture 42); alternatively, he “was made perfect through [ek] practice” (Confusion 181). In other words, he grew in maturity as a result of the stresses laid on him. In Philo, however, the maturation take place in a human being. Jacob; here in James this “maturation” takes place in an inanimate object, faith. This prompts Moo (2000: 137) to suggest that the closest conceptual parallel is 1 John 4:12: “if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete [teteleiomene estin] in us.” Transparently, God’s love is not somehow lacking something, intrinsically deficient, until we love one another; rather, “God’s love comes to expression, reaches its intended goal, when we respond to his grace with love toward others. So also, Abraham’s faith, James suggests, reaches its intended goal when the patriarch did what God was asking him to do” (Moo 2000: 137)…”

1 Peter 2:6, Theological Use

“We too readily overlook how fundamentally divisive Jesus Christ is, even though that point is repeatedly made not only in the NT but also in OT prophecies concerning him. Peter here (in 2:4-12) insists that everyone is affected by the coming of Christ, positively or negatively, depending on whether they too are “living stones” or, alternatively, simply reject him or stumble over him. They will find that he crushes them. That point is not quite made by this quotation from Isa. 28:16, but the links with the other “stone” quotations in the ensuing verses make the conclusion inescapable.
Yet Peter’s first readers might find this peculiarity encouraging. For those who may have suffered major physical dislocation, and who certainly have suffered social rejection, Peter’s quotation, in its context, would reassure them that their painful situation did not reflect the displeasure of God. Far from it: God’s plan includes a division of people around his Son, this cornerstone rejected by so many, and the most important thing, both for this life and for the life to come, is to be living stones along with him in the temple of which he is the cornerstone.
Perhaps it should also be mentioned that Peter leaves no hint that he saw himself as in some way a special or foundational stone in the church, despite the name that Jesus himself had given him (see Matt. 16:17-18).”

2 Peter 2:22, Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:22

“Peter does not have in view people who have been enthusiastic false teachers from the beginning of their professional lives, nor is he thinking of genuine Christians who, sadly, have lipped into some sort of temporary backsliding. The context shows (esp. 2:20-22) that these people once lived sinful and debauched lives but then for a time “escaped the corruptions of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20), but now they are again entangled in the world and all its corruptions. This is so serious a retrogression that Peter can declare, “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2:21 TNIV). And so the two proverbs prove true (2:22), which means that the true nature of these people never changed. A dog may leave its vomit for a while but will return to it; a sow might well be spruced up and look clean but will still find a mud pit enticing.”

1 John 2:27, John’s Use of the OT in 2:27

“Assuming (rightly with, e.g., Brown 1982: 341-348) that the “anointing” is “an anointing with the Holy Spirit, the gift from Christ which constituted one a Christian” (Brown 1982: 248), then the fourfold structure that we saw in the Jeremiah oracle (see letter B. above) is nicely paralleled here in 1 John. This anointing, (1) whereby one becomes a Christian, is bound up with the forgiveness of sins (1:8-2:2), such that Christians do come to know the truth (2:20-21), (2) establishing an abiding new-covenant relationship in which we remain in Christ (2:24), (3) and in which all who enjoy this relationship genuinely know God (2:23-3:1) (4) with knowledge independent of what must be passed on by mediating teachers. In other words, for John’s readers to rely on these (false) teachers is to admit that their own knowledge of God is somehow faulty or inadequate, which is to undercut all the power and reality of the new covenant. John is not denying the proper place of teachers; rather, he is denying the place of mediating teachers under some tribal-representative structure of covenant, for under the new covenant, in direct fulfillment of the promise articulated by Jeremiah, the place of mediating teachers is forever passed.”

Jude 8, NT Context: The False Teachers’ Lust for Authority Not Rightly Theirs

“According to Jude 8, not only do these teachers “pollute their on bodies” but also “reject authority” and “slander celestial beings.” There is good reason to think that the “authority” they rejected was that of Christ or of God (see Bauckham 1988: 56-57). But what does it mean to say that they slandered the doxas (NSRV: “glorious ones”)? In the MT the Hebrew equivalent can on occasion refer to famous people (e.g., Ps. 149:8; Isa. 3:5; 23:8; Nah. 3:10; similarly IQM XIV, 11; 4Q169 3-4 II, 9; 3-4 III, 9), but the LXX never uses doxas (“glorious ones”) to refer to famous people. If these “glorious ones” are angels (cf. the usage in Exod 15:11 LXX), they are unlikely to be evil angels (only good angels are in view when the expression crops up in passages such as 1QH XVIII, 8; 11Q5 XXII, 13; 2 En. 22:7, 10). The verb for “slander” (blasphemeo) has to do with dishonoring or shaming someone, speaking insultingly about someone, or the like. Angels sometimes are seen as the guardians of God’s established order and thus his authority, or the ones who have mediated God’s revelation to us (e.g., Acts 7:38, 53; 1 Cor. 11:10; Heb. 2:2). To “slander” them, then, looks like rebellion against God’s authority, which not only admirably fits the context but also is in line with the rebellious tendencies of the false teachers. So Jude goes on in our verse (v. 9) to give an example of a dispute in which even the archangel Michael is careful not to outstrip his authority.”

The Johannine Corpus and the Canon

In my most recent post, I wrote:

"Historically, I believe the Protestant canon to be God's word because God regenerated me, and as a regenerate I hear and submit to the voice of my Shepherd"

A Roman Catholic on facebook asked me to exegete relevant texts so that he could better understand my position. As I here referenced John 10 as support for the contention that the Scripture itself explains the means by which a Christian comes to accept the canon of Scripture - which is a claim that many "C"atholics, in want of ammo against sola scriptura, argue is not the case - my response was as follows (edited):

"The Johannine corpus contain the passages to which I particularly refer. I believe I already mentioned John 10 in the conversation we’ve been having; 1 John 4:4-6 is another.

In John 10, Jesus is talking about the way in which He gathers His sheep. While this could easily rabbit trail into unconditional election or irresistible grace, I will try to stick to the topic. It seems John’s intention is to explain more specifically Jesus’ statements made in 8:42-47. The Jews who belong to the devil (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3) could not believe Jesus’ words – they did not possess the capacity – precisely because they belonged to the devil; equivalently, Jesus states that those not of God cannot “hear” His words. In accordance with Romans 8-10, the problem of the Jews wasn’t with their ears, per se, but with their minds, which were set on flesh (unregenerate). We come to faith by hearing God’s word, but it doesn’t profit our soul to hear the word if we don’t belong to God.

So much for establishing why I must be a regenerate to “hear and submit to the voice of my Shepherd.” What remains is to connect this with why I historically (!) believe[d] the Protestant canon to be God’s extant word.

1 John 4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome [the spirit of the antichrist], because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

It is not a little important that the context of this statement is surrounded by passages dedicated to expressing that which regeneration causes (righteous behavior – 2:29; obedience to God’s law – 3:9-26; knowing God and lives in love – 4:7-16; belief, love, obedience, and victory over the world – 5:1-4; safety from the devil and sinless behavior – 5:18), and that the most relevant one – knowing God – is found right after the passage in question. To be honest, I think these passages are rather self-evident: “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us” is obviously a reference to the apostles. We know God because He regenerates us, so those whom He regenerates will listen to those whom He sent to be His messengers of good news. Moreover, the inverse is true, as we have seen: “whoever is not from God does not listen to us.” That is to say, only regenerates are capable of submitting to the words of God as conveyed by His messengers: “This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” One who is regenerate knows and submits God, His words, and His messengers because that is the very purpose of regeneration (Romans 8:7-9, 10:17, and 1 Peter 1:3)! Regeneration is the precondition for a lively hope, a prerequisite in order to “hear” God’s word and, so doing, come to faith. But our faith is not empty: it’s object is the propositions of the gospel, which necessitates the idea we can discern what the gospel is (and hence, as John writes, who the bearers of the gospel are).

Finally, returning to the gospel of John to tie these points together (even though I consider the matter already settled):

John 10:1 "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.
3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
7 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.
8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.
10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Briefly:

1. Jesus is talking about gathering His sheep (who were considered to be His sheep before they entered Him!).
2. He says the sheep will listen to the Shepherd alone. Question: how does a sheep know his Shepherd’s voice (i.e. that it is indeed His voice, the extent of His words)?
a. The sheep follow the Shepherd because they hear His voice (I can’t stress that enough, given the rampant existentialism in present-day “Christendom”).
b. The sheep follow their shepherd because they know their Shepherd (which parallels the above exposition of 1 John 4, also ensuring the regenerate the apostles were given the authority to act as the mediators of our Shepherd’s actual words)
3. The sheep will follow their shepherd (this submission is due to “irresistible,” regenerative grace).

Jesus is being perfectly clear. The sheep He is gathering will recognize and follow His voice because of the nature of the sheep and the Shepherd’s voice. I recognize[d] the Protestant canon as my Shepherd’s voice because as a regenerated sheep, I am able and willing to listen and submit to His word, whether or not communicated efficiently or through His prophets. I’m not a red-letter Christian; the application of this passage extends beyond Jesus’ “own” words to those whom God sent to communicate His word. All Scripture is God-breathed.

And as if this weren’t enough, Jesus has to reiterate His own statements to the Jews… again:

10:26 You do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

Given what we’ve just read, these words are a neat summation of the topic. Those who don’t believe are not sheep (or if they are, they haven't yet been called); those who do believe are regenerated sheep, i.e. sheep whose Shepherd has effectually called them – sheep who know their Shepherd’s voice because He regenerates or makes them belong to Him, speaks to them, and causes them to know Him and His word by whatever means it is communicated to them.

You may find the following short posts apropos:

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/12/canon-of-scripture.html

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2010/01/doctrine-of-perspicuity.html

Again, please recall that this discussion is meant to establish the historical reason I accept[ed] the Protestant canon. As you read in our previous discussion and the wall posts to [deleted] et. al., you should know that my first principle itself entails what the canon is, so I'm not reasoning circularly (i.e. I'm not arguing that my exegesis is a premise for my first principle, as that would mean my first principle is no longer my first principle); rather, this exegesis suffices to show that my epistemological “system” is self-affirming, or that I’m not just making up a canon arbitrarily."