The Jewishness of Passover Refutes Transubstantiation

After this interview I was thinking about the possibility of other examples where Jesus uses a present physical object in a purely symbolic sense and I think we do have some. When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well He told her that she should ask Him for water, and while there was physical water present the real point Jesus is making is that she needs non-physical water which is representative of new life in the Holy Spirit. Jesus also manifested bread for the crowd but told them that this was food that perishes and they need food that gives everlasting life. He goes on to show that this food is belief in Jesus. Even in the favorite passage for those who promote transubstantiation (John 6) Jesus adds the clarity/commentary that the flesh profits nothing and the Spirit gives life. This is not merely saying the word "spirit" means "symbolism"; rather it is saying that "spirit" is not "flesh" and cannot be interpreted to mean "my physical body being eaten by you". A whole lot more can and should be said about all this but I hope that the above answer will be seen as offering strong support simply for the fact that the Jewish context of the Last Supper is such that we should conclude symbolic meaning in the act and not transubstantiation.

This is just one question from a long interview I did for the moderators of the r/Bible subreddit. They asked their subreddit to send me a bunch of questions and I spent a lot of time preparing so that I would be able to offer the best answers I could. I'll be posting these answers as individual videos so keep an eye out for the rest in the set.

I'm Mike Winger and my goal is to help you learn to think biblically about everything!

I go live almost every Monday and Friday at 1pm. Monday is usually a vs by vs teaching and Friday is a live Q&A where I take questions from the live chat on YT.

[MikeWinger]

Please note that my view here is not based on Protestantism but a historical analysis of the Jewish context of the Passover meal. Any appeal to later history would be ignoring my points.

Here’s a lot more from me on the topic of Roman Catholicism. I hope you’ll consider giving it a fair hearing. :)

[michelangelopainters]

Mike, it has not gone unnoticed that you do not block or delete Catholic responses to your videos. This shows the type of man you are and it's very encouraging. I hope all Catholics can be as civil and respectful here as you are. After all, we all love Jesus and earnestly seek His truth. God bless.

[dustingray]

I know this is late, but the thing that made me pause and consider Christ’s presence in the bread and wine, was that the Passover lamb was actually eaten.

[secundemscripturas]

The fathers affirm real presence, Luther recognized real presence, even Calvin himself whose thought, alongside Zwingli, was a catalyst for low sacramentalism maintained that there was a spiritual presence in the Eucharist.

I’m not a Catholic, transubstantiation inserts thomistic categories that are anachronistic, but real presence is quiet clearly historical and biblical

[Cwik]

As a Catholic, there are two things I'd like to say:

1. Passover was clearly symbolic. But wasn't the *entire* Old Testament with its symbolic rituals/practices/laws of the Jewish people meant to foreshadow the *reality* of what was to come in Jesus and His New Covenant? The psalms, prophets, laws, were all meant to point towards the coming of Jesus and the worldwide blessing that would follow. I'm not sure I understand why the fact we should assume that just because the Passover was a "symbolic tradition" that Jesus would then mean for the Eucharist to be symbolic.

2. You said if Jesus had been literal, that his disciples would've left Him because eating flesh is against Torah. Jesus *did* have disciples that left him after this teaching! In fact, it appears that this bread of life discourse is an definite crossroads for many of those who followed Him!

John 6: 41-42, 52-53, 60-68: "41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’? [...] 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

*66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. *

I think what's even more telling about this is that *Jesus* doesn't even try to stop those who leave Him because of this teaching. You say that Jesus's disciples don't say anything, but shouldn't they have? Many of Jesus's disciples stopped following Him! I think the most telling comment that *is* made by His disciples is by Peter: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." In fact, what an amazing gift of Jesus to transubstantiate bread and wine into His body and blood so that the Jewish people *wouldn't* violate Torah by becoming cannibals. The Catholic understanding is that the accidents of bread and wine still remain although in faith we accept that what Jesus said was real. That it is His true flesh and blood.


I'll watch your other video on Catholicism. I've only just started watching your videos and I really enjoy your approach here and appreciated your charity in this video :)

Edit: I saw your comment about Trent Horn. I hope you give him a chance someday. Maybe invite him onto your show?

[orthokaiser]

Hi Mike! Here’s what the earliest Christians had to say on the matter:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” - Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of John the apostle, 110 AD.

[Billyjoe]

My question is this, and I haven’t seen it in other catholic responses in the comments: why did Paul say what he said in 1 cor 11:27-30? Paul says that people are literally dying because they are receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Paul said that people who eat and drink the bread or the cup unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Why would Paul say this if it was just a symbolic thing?

[vinciblegaming]

I think the most illuminating thing I’ve ever seen on the substance and theology of transubstantiation, or the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is The Bible Project’s Tree of Life video. If you have not watched it, do so. Without talking about transubstantiation or the Eucharist or Passover, it illuminates the beauty of the Eucharist, the significance of the bread and wine, and the importance of them being linked to the body and blood of Christ.

Absolutely fantastic video.

[thomasfolio]

Jesus told us, unless you "Troas" Chew on my body and drink my blood, you will not have life within you. Those who said it was too hard, and rejected it, walking away, having accepted all He taught to that point, did not get a response from Jesus that they heard him wrong, but doubled down.
Now we come to the Passover. First the word translated as memory, or in some translations remembrance in the Greek is Anmensis. which is not just a remembering a past event, but to make present again a past event. Most of all in the context of the Passover, which Jesus was celebrating with his disciples. They as Jews knew, and it was explained during the Seder, that anyone who fulfilled the observance of the Rites of the Seder (Order of the Passover) could after they had done so no longer say, "I am remembering what God did for my forefathers, brining them out of the Land of Egypt." But must say, "I am remembering what God has done for me ..." that by God's power, He has brought the participation in the Exodus to us and we now must consider we have joined in that even. So that Christ Jesus would use this festival, and the Seder to institute another rite, in which He as God would bring the events of the Last Supper and the Cross to us when we observe what He commanded at the Mass/Devine Liturgy, made it easy for me when as a Jew I first accepted that Jesus is God, the promised Messiah.
Consuming Christ's Body before the day of the Cross, not at all hard to accept if you believe Jesus is God. The Cross is the eternal sacrifice promised which would replace the sacrifice and burning of Kosher animals in the Temple, where a portion was shared by the priests of the temple, the person who bought and presented it to the temple, and God. The only reason the offerings of animals had any effect was in anticipation of the Cross. The effects of the Cross are not bound to that one day on Calvary but reach back to the very first sin of Man, and forward to any sin yet to be committed, if by Faith we accept it and Him. For those who have not heard the Gospel, it is what saves those, if they have lived according to what Natural laws shows us is the correct way of life. It is not the simple living of a good life, or our own works that offers us the redemption which only the Cross can offer, but that Calvary which is an act both within and outside of time is our redemption.




In a couple hours when I am at Mass, Jesus will break the bonds of time and like God did for me at the Passover as a Jew, before I knew Him fully, by His power, I'll be at the Last Supper, and Calvary because Jesus can and does do that for me. The Passover is not abolished by the Cross, it is Perfected by it.,

[ShaaperaBana]

@Mike W. If Jesus' disciples considered the Eucharist as merely symbolic, why did some of them have to leave at the end of His teaching in John 6????

[padraicmkelly]

In the story of Adam and Eve one of the reasons they were kicked out of paradise after the fall was to prevent them eating from the tree of life but since the Last Adam has redeemed humanity we now should have access to the Fruit of Eternal Life: 'Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has Eternal Life and I will raise them up on the last day.'

[pdxnikki]

Thank you for this. As a Jewish believer, I agree that this is true. God bless you, Mike Winger. And your wife. And Moxie too!

[jackjones]

Honestly, the who idea of transubstantiation of the elements during communion makes no sense. Clearly Christ was present, physically, at the Last Supper. The idea He was indicating it was His actual Body and Blood is illogical. It was a symbolic event to which His sacrifice gives meaning.

[jimmyyoung]

A few passages later He says, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." Seems to contradict taking it literally.

[hugonegron]

They did put up a fight !!! In John 6 many people questioned him and many of his FOLLOWERS left him for it. If it was so normal and just symbolic, why did followers (not the crowd) leave him for it ??

[julioalonzo]

Then it’s curious how the early church and the church fathers all believed in the real presence. Even the first Protestant reformers believed in it. The “it’s just a symbol” doctrine is novel and cannot be traced to the apostles and their teaching

[Jessard]

Note none of what I'm about to say is intended to be antagonistic or attack Pastor Winger in any way. I say this all in charity and as a Protestant myself.
So to start off, I'm not sure the symbolic parallel here makes much sense here given Christ is the Passover Lamb. The lamb is literally eaten at the end of the Passover and so this would seem to indicate there is at least some precedent here for a less symbolic view. It is certainly true that the Passover Lamb isn't the same as the original Passover lamb however that is because it is a repetitive sacrifice. It is not a once for all sacrifice. Jesus being the once for all sacrifice would explain this disconnect fairly easily. Not to mention it's very common in regards to the OT practices for them to be a shadow of a much greater fulfillment in the New Covenant. If anything this would corroborate the idea of the Real Presence (note transubstantiation is not the same as the Real Presence which is what Pastor Winger attempted to refute. Most Historical Protestantism hold's to some type of Real Presence whether that's the Lutherans or the Calvinist's view of a Spiritual Presence).
An interesting thing that Pastor Winger noted was that the Apostles did not put up a fight to this type of language. That's certainly a fair objection and I'd note two things in regard to it. So first off in John 6 they do put up a fight. Regardless of whether you connect this to the Lord's Supper, it would still explain their lack of protest to the language Christ is using.
Secondly, transubstantiation does not refer to the bread and wine physically transforming into the flesh and blood of Christ but of replacing the essence of the bread and wine with the essence of Christ's body and blood. To demonstrate the idea of essence one could paint a dog with black and white stripes so that he would appear to be a zebra. His substance on the surface level might be that of a zebra because his physical characteristics are that of a zebra but his essence remains the same. There is a sense of dogness there. Likewise, that is what is being replaced and not the physical characteristics. While we can never know it's certainly possible the Apostles did not object because they understood that regardless of the specific philosophical explanations of it the body wasn't physically present in the bread nor the blood physically present in the wine. Regardless I'll admit this last statement is conjecture but I would also note that the argument Pastor Winger is putting forth would also be an argument from silence in any case here so even if we were to dismiss this we would at the very least be agnostic on the issue.
In any case, I would love to see Mike Winger engage with some of the Protestant takes on the Real Presence given there's a large range of views on the issue. Perhaps there could be a dialogue there with the Lutheran Pastor-Theologian Jordan B Cooper for example given he's more in line with the spirit of this channel as opposed to professional apologists such as Trent Horn or someone like that.
Thanks for coming to my Ted-Talk and God bless!

[TwoMessianicJews]

Examining the first-century Jewish context when interpreting the New Testament is so valuable! Thank you for this! That is what our channel is all about.

[randalwdeese]

I think that it is important not to read into the text symbolism or transubstantiationism. Both of those views are definitely post early church. I don't believe we have to explain what Jesus meant. I believe all we need to do is believe that scripture says this is my body and this is my blood without trying to come up with man made understandings of what that means which may be way beyond what any of us think anyway. Whatever happened to the statement "Speak Where the Bible Speaks; Be Silent Where the Bible is Silent."

[ronaldkulas]

IMO, the best way to determine this particular argument is: How did the earliest Christians - first and second century - look upon this sacred meal? If it were not for St. Paul's comments in First Corinthians, I would not be confused about this issue. Part of me says, "there is something going on here" and another part of me says, "this is symbolism at its finest."