May 30, 2022

Is Apostolic Succession a Mark of the True Church?

 


This mark is alleged by not only many Romanists, but also some among the Eastern Orthodox, and it thus bids us to examine it.


[1]. In order for something to be a mark of the church, it must be proper to the church and belong to it only. However, the office of succession is not proper to the church. For example, for many centuries Muslims claimed the succession of the Caliphate from Abu Bakr (if you are a Sunni Muslim). Annas and Caiaphas succeeded Aaron in the Levitical priesthood, but they were among the greatest enemies of the Lord Jesus. 


[2]. When the church fathers bring forth succession as an argument against heretics, they often mean to refer to the succession of apostolic teaching, rather than the office of bishop itself:


"They therefore publish the origin of their churches, they unroll the list of their bishops, so running down by succession from the beginning, that that first bishop had as his author and predecessor someone of the apostles, of apostolical men who yet continued with the apostles. Heretics may devise something such, but although they may have devised, they will not succeed any better, for their doctrine itself compared with the apostolic will expose it from its diversity and contrariety, because as the apostles did not differ from each other in their teaching, so also apostolic men would not teach contrary to the apostles'' (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32)


"That which is of the same opinion is of the same seat. What, however, is of a repugnant opinion, is of a contrary seat. This has indeed the denomination, but that the truth of succession; nor is he a successor who teaches a contrary doctrine, but he who is of the same faith, unless anyone says he is a successor; as disease is the successor of health, darkness of light, a tempest of a calm, and extravagance of prudence" (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21.8)


"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory...From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 26)





May 15, 2022

The Qur'anic View of Christian Scripture [Part 1]

 


A key point of contention between Christians and Muslims today is the issue of the Quran's view of the Bible. The Christian claim that the Qur'an confirms the Bible is typically in response to the Islamic claim that the Bible has been textually corrupted. In this series of articles, I want to examine the key texts within the Qur'an that speak to this issue, as well as answer the key objections provided by Muslim apologists (in particular, Bassam Zawadi and Sami Zaatari, who both have written extensively on this subject).


The first passage to examine from the Qur'an is Surah 5:47-48, which says the following:

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;" (Yusuf Ali)


A common Islamic response to this is insist that the Arabic word muhaymin in verse 48 (as it is used in the phrase "guarding it in safety") means that the Qur'an views itself as confirming the Gospel, but only insofar as it is in agreement with the Qur'an. This is a key argument that must be understood in this debate. 

First, I respond by noting how William Lane's Arabic lexicon defines muhaymin:

"ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = to watch over, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, protect, determine what is true. muhaimanun - guardian to watch and determine what is true and what is false witness, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, protector." (http://www.studyquran.co.uk/8_ha.htm)


It also be helpful to provide the lexical definition of saddaqa ("to confirm"), another word that is used here in this verse:


"Sad-Dal-Qaf = to be truthful, true, sincere, speak the truth, establish or confirm the truth of what another has said, verify, keep faith, observe a promise faithfully, fulfill, speak veraciously, hold anyone as trustworthy. sadaqa fi al-qitaali - to fight gallantly. tsaddaqa - to give alms. sidqun - truth, veracity, sincerity, soundness, excellence in a variety of different objects, salubrious and agreeable, favourable entrance, praise. saadiqun - one who is true and sincere, one who speaks the truth. saadiqah - perfect woman. sadaqat (pl. saduqaat) - dowry. siddiiq - person who is trustworthy, sincere. saddaqa - to confirm, verify, fulfil. asdaqu - more true." (Lane's Lexicon, Vol. 4, pg. 390)


While muhaymin can indeed sometimes mean "to determine if something is true", the fact that is paired with the verb saddaqa ("to confirm") in this verse indicates that it most likely is speaking of guarding/protecting the previous Scriptures, while confirming them at the same time.

I direct the readers' attention to what the classical Islamic scholars have said about this ayah and the meaning of muhaymin:

"The verse "We descended upon you" refers to Muhammad. "The Book" refers to the Quran. "In Truth" is associated with the phrase "We descended upon you." "Confirming that which is between your hands" refers to the previous scriptures. "From the Book and muhaimin" means it is a witness. "To it" here the Book (in singular form) refers to all the previous books that came before the Quran. "So judge between them" means judge for the People of the Book if they appeal to you. "With what Allah has revealed" means what Allah has reveled to you Muhammad in the Quran. "And do not follow their desires" means judge fairly. "From what has come to you from the Truth and to each of you" here all nations are being addressed. "Sharan" means legislation. "and Minhaj" means a clear path for religion that you can follow. "If Allah willed it He would have made you all one nation" means that Allah could have made you all follow one legislation. "But" implies that that He divided you into groups. "To test you" means to examine you. "With what has come to you" refers to the different legislations that have been given to test who is obedient and who is defiant among you. "Strive speedily in good works" means hurry in performing them. "To Allah is all your return" refers to the day of resurrection. "He will inform you about what you differed" refers to religious differences and Allah will then reward each according to his deeds." (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=GALALEEN&nType=1&nSora=5&nAya=48)


"Muhaimin means raised above and elevated and this shows the opinion of those who say (muhaimin) means to be preferred or to increase in reward. This was alluded to in (Surat) "Al-Fatiha" which is the opinion of Ibn Hassar as written in his book "Explanation of the Sunnah" and we have mentioned what he stated in our book regarding the explanation of the divine names, thanks be to Allah. Qatada stated that "muhaimin" means the witness. It was also said that it means "the keeper". Al-Hassan said it means "the corroborator"; using this meaning the poet said, "The book corroborates our prophet and the truth is known by those with knowledge." Ibn Abbas said that "muhaimin" means a protector of it. Ibn Sa’id Jubair stated that the Quran is a protector to what came before it. Ibn Abbas and Al-Hassan also stated that "muhaimin" means "the faithful." Al-Mabrad narrated that the words was originally pronounced "Mu-aymen" where the "A (hamza)" letter was changed into an "H" as in the saying ‘the water was poured’. Al-Zujaj and Abu Ali also said likewise by conjugating the verb to give the meaning "to be faithful to." Al-Jawhari narrated that it means to give protection to him who is scared, for the original form of that word (muhaimin) is actually "A’amana" so there are two "A" (hamza) letters in the word but the second "A" was changed into the letter "E" (ya’) out of necessity so the word became "mu’aymen". Later the first "A" (hamza) was changed into an "H" to become "muhaimin" as in the saying ‘the water was poured’ and from it is derived the meaning "to protect." Abu Ubaid narrated from Mujahid and Ibn Mahees that it is read "mu’haiman" by changing the diacritical mark above the second "M" to give the meaning that Muhammad – pbuh – was given the responsibility of the Quran." (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=5&nAya=48)

"(Confirming the Scripture that came before it) meaning, the Divinely Revealed Books that praised the Qur'an and mentioned that it would be sent down from Allah to His servant and Messenger Muhammad. The Qur'an was revealed as was foretold in the previous Scriptures. This fact increased faith in the previous Scriptures for the sincere who have knowledge of these Scriptures, those who adhered to Allah's commands and Laws and believed in His Messengers......(and Muhayminan over it) means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawri who narrated it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn `Abbas. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "Muhaymin is, `the Trustworthy'. Allah says that the Qur'an is trustworthy over every Divine Book that preceded it.'' This was reported from `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b, `Atiyyah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. Ibn Jarir said, "The Qur'an is trustworthy over the Books that preceded it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books conforms to the Qur'an is true, and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an is false.'' Al-Walibi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `Witness'. Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Muhayminan means, `dominant over the previous Scriptures'. These meanings are similar, as the word Muhaymin includes them all. Consequently, the Qur'an is trustworthy, a witness, and dominant over every Scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Qur'an includes all the good aspects of previous Scriptures and even more, which no previous Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a witness and dominant over all Scriptures. " (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)


Another objection made by our Muslim friends is that when the Qur'an speaks of the Torah and of the Gospels, it is referring to the original revelations and books given to Moses and Jesus, whereas they had already been corrupted by the time of Muhammad.


I respond by noting that Surah 7:157 says "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them (عِندَهُمْ)"

How can the Qur'an speak of the Torah and the Gospel which is "with" the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) if it had been corrupted?

The next text I would point out is Surah 3:48-50, where it said that Jesus (known as "Isa" in the Qur'an) confirmed the Torah that was before him:

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): 'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (I have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me." (Surah 3:48-50)

"<the Tawrah and the Injil>. The Tawrah is the Book that Allah sent down to Musa, son of Imran, while the Injil is what Allah sent down to Isa, son of Maryam, peace be upon them, and Isa memorized both books ...<If you believe. And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Tawrah,> affirming the Tawrah and upholding it" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, pgs. 163, 165)


All of this sort of information (and much more) lead the Lebanese Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayoub to conclude the following:

"Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur’an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by ‘altering words from their right position’ (4:26; 5:13, 41; see also 2:75). However, this refers more to interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the sacred books. The problem of alteration (Taḥrīf) needs further study" (Maḥmoud Ayoub, “Uzayr in the Qur’an and Muslim Tradition,” Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, ed. W. M. Brenner and S. D. Rick (The University of Denver, 1986), pg. 5)


In the next article in the series, we will examine Surah 2:79, the most common text that Islamic apologists cite to show that the Qur'an endorses textual corruption in the Bible. 





May 11, 2022

The Deification of Muhammad

 


Muslims frequently boast of their "pure" monotheism, in contrast to Trinitarianism, which they consider to be polytheism in disguise as monotheism. However, when one digs deeper into the history of Islamic theological debate, especially when it comes to the issues of Allah's attributes, one can see the discrepancies beginning to become clearer. Just as the church's main battle in the first few centuries of church history was over the Trinity and the deity of Christ, so also, the main battle within Islamic history has been over the issue of Allah's attributes, in particular the anthropomorphic passages in the Qur'an.


In this series, I want to examine just one example which shows that Islamic monotheism is not pure, but actually quite inconsistent with itself. I will be focusing on how Muhammad is portrayed throughout the Qur'an, Hadith, and other Islamic literature in history.


Muhammad as a Mediator for Divine Forgiveness


Consider Surah 4:64, which says "We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful." (Yusuf Ali translation)

(Note: Surah 3:164 also speaks of Muhammad "purifying" the people, which Surah 24:21 speaks of as a divine prerogative)


The well-known Islamic exegete Ibn Kathir says the following concerning this passage:

"<If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves,> directs the sinners and evildoers, when they commit errors and mistakes, to come to the Messenger, so that they ask Allah for forgiveness in his presence and ask him to supplicate to Allah to forgive them. If they do this, Allah will forgive them and award them His mercy and pardon. This is why Allah said…<they would have found Allah All-Forgiving (One Who forgives and accepts repentance), Most Merciful>. " (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)


Here, we can see that Muhammad functions as a divine mediator between Allah and Muslims. 


This is played out in a narration of an Arab going to the grave of Muhammad and asking him to plead forgiveness of his sins to Allah:


"As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (S. 4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord.’ Then he began to recite poetry: O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth, And from whose fragrance the depth and the height have become sweet, May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit, And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence! Then he left, and I slept and saw the prophet in my sleep. He said to me: ‘O `Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’" (Imam an-Nawawi, Kitab al-Adhkar[al-Maktaba al-Tijariyya, Mecca, 1992], pgs. 253-254)

The chain apparently is as follows: Shafi’i Shaykh Sufyan ibn `Uyayna - Abu Sa`id al-Sam`ani - Ali.

Here are some other Muslim scholars who have narrated this hadith in their books:


[1]. Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi in Al-Mughni, vol. 3, pgs. 556-557.

[2]. Ibn al-Jawzi in Muthir al-gharam al-sakin ila ashraf al-amakin, pg. 490

[3]. Taqi al-Din al-Subki in Shifa' al-Siqam, pg. 52


This is even more problematic when we see that the Qur'an teaches that those who are dead cannot hear those who are trying to communicate with them:

"Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves." (Surah 35:22)


Allah Praises Muhammad


"Al-Bukhari said: “Abu Al-`Aliyah said: ‘Allah’s Salah is his praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.’” Ibn `Abbas said: “They send blessings.” Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: ‘The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.’” There are Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah commanding us to send blessings on him and how we should say Salah upon him. We will mention as many of them as we can, if Allah wills, and Allah is the One Whose help we seek…" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 33:56)


The Islamic scholar Qadi Iyad also had a section where he spoke about Allah honoring Muhammad with his own names:

"He has preferred our Prophet Muhammad since He has adorned him with a wealth of His names in His Mighty Book and on the tongues of His Prophets One of His names is the Praiseworthy (al-Hamid). This means the One who is praised because He praises Himself and His slaves praise him. It also means the One who praises Himself and praises acts of obedience. The Prophet is called Muhammad and Ahmad. Muhammad means praised, and that is how his name occurs in the Zabur of David. Ahmad means the greatest of those who give praise and the most sublime of those who are praised. Hassan ibn Thabit indicated this when he said: It is taken for him from His own name in order to exalt himThe One with the Throne is praised (Mahmud) and he is MuhammadTwo of Allah’s names are the Compassionate, the Merciful (ar-Ra’uf, ar-Rahim). They are similar in meaning. He calls him by them in His Book when He says, “Compassionate, merciful to the believers.” (Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One) [Madinah Press, 1991], pgs. 126-127)


This is a violation of one of the main principles of Tawheed, namely Tawheed al-Asma was-Sifat (the unity of Allah's names and attributes). Islamic scholar Bilal Philips says the following:

"Maintaining the unity of Allah's names also means that Allah's names in the definite form cannot be given to His creation unless preceded by the prefix 'Abd meaning 'slave of' or 'servant of'." (Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism), pg. 30)


Muhammad Sitting on Allah's Throne


The issue of whether or not Muhammad would be seated on the throne of Allah on the Day of Judgment was debated amongst Muslims in the medieval period of their history. 

Muslim scholar Al-Tabari says the following about this issue:

“Even though the traditions we have mentioned on the authority of the Prophet and his Companions and the Followers indicate the correct interpretation of maqaman mahmudan in Qur. 17:79 (as referring to Muhammad’s role as intercessor on the Day of Resurrection), Mujahid’s statement that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne remains one whose soundness cannot be rejected either on the basis of traditions (khabar) or on the basis of speculation (nazar). This is so because there is no tradition from the Messenger of God or anyone of his Companions or the Followers that declares it to be impossible… From what we have said, it has become clear that, it is not impossible for an adherent of Islam to say what Mujahid had said, namely, that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne. If someone says: We do not disapprove of God’s seating Muhammad on His Throne (in view of the following tradition transmitted by) ‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-‘Azim – Yahya b. Kathir – al-Jurayri – Sayf al-Sadusi – ‘Abdallah b. Salam: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, Muhammad will be on the Lord’s footstool (kursi),’ but we disapprove of God’s seating him together with Him, it should be said: Is it then permissible in your opinion that He seat him on it but not together with him? If he permits this, he is led to affirming that either he is together with Him, or God seats him (on the Throne) while being Himself either separate from it or neither contiguous with nor separate from it. Whatever alternative he chooses, he thereby enters into something that he disapproves. If he says that it is not permissible, he deviates from the statements of all the groups we have reported. This means diverging from the views of all adherents of Islam, since there is no other possible statement than those three, according to each of which Mujahid’s statement in this sense is not impossible.” (The History of Al-Tabari, vol. 1, pgs. 149, 151)


Even Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the greatest scholars in Islamic history (hence his title "Shaikh al-Islam"), said "Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (s) will be seated by His Lord on the Throne next to Him." (Majmu al-Fatawa, Vol. 4, pg. 374)


Here is another, more in-depth, Islamic source:


"Mu‘adh ibn al-Muthanna told us: Khallad ibn Aslam said: Muhammad ibn Fadl told us, From Layth, From Mujahid: Concerning the verse: “It may be that thy Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station”: “He will seat him with Him on the Throne” (yujlisuhu ma‘ahu ‘alâ al-‘arsh).Al-Najjad said: “I also asked [about it] Abu Yahya al-Naqid, Ya‘qub al-Mutawwa‘i,[126] ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and a group of our shaykhs, and they narrated to me the hadith of Muham­mad ibn Fudayl from Layth from Mujahid. “I also asked Abu al-Hasan al-‘Attar about it, and he narrated to me the hadith of Mujahid. Then he said: ‘I heard Muhammad ibn Mus‘ab al-‘Abid say: “[The Prophet’s seating on the Throne will take place] in order for all creation to see his station before his Lord, and his Lord’s generosity towards him. Then the Prophet (s) shall retire to his apartments and gardens and wives, and alone shall remain Allah in His Lordship (yanfaridu ‘azza wa jalla bi rubûbiyyatihi).”’ “I also looked into the book of Ahmad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Marwazi, who is our imam and guide and proof in this. In that book I found what he mentioned concerning the rejection of the hadiths of ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam and Mujahid, and he listed the names of the shaykhs who criticised those who rejected these hadiths or objected to them. Therefore, what we declare and believe before Allah Almighty is what we have just described and made clear concerning the meanings of the hadiths quoted from the Prophet with an uninterrupted chain (al-ahadith al-musnada ‘an rasul Allah),- and what was said by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas—and the scholars after him, which was handed down from elder to elder and from age to age until our shaykhs’ time concerning the saying of Allah: [It may be that your Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station]: the Exalted Station consists in the seating of the prophet with his lord on the Throne. Whoever denies this or contradicts it is only attempting to promote the sayings of the Jahmis. He should be avoided, exposed, and warned against." (Ibn Abi Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila (History of the Hanbalites), Vol. 2, pg. 43)


Now the expected objection from our Muslim friends (which they make against tons of their own respected scholars throughout history) would be that the narration of Ibn Mujahid is not authentic or reliable. I would direct them to the narration of Abdullah ibn Salam (a Jewish rabbi who converted to Islam during Muhammad's lifetime), who said “A seat (kursî) will be placed for the Prophet (s) on the right of Allah (swt).” (Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn, Vol. 4, pgs. 568-569)


It should be noted that while many scholars grant that this hadith is sound, they do not grant it the status of marfu (going back directly to Muhammad), but rather marquf (going back to the companions of Muhammad). 

May 2, 2022

Is the Paschal Lamb a Type of the Mass?

 


Bellarmine (De Missa, Book I, Chapter 7) makes the argument that the Passover lamb was not only a type of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, but also of the Eucharist, the Roman Mass. He produces a number of arguments in favor of this idea, each of which will be examined and refuted here in this section of my book.


Here is his first argument:


“The fact that the celebration of the Paschal Lamb was a figure of the celebration of the Eucharist is proven firstly from Scripture. 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Christ our Pasch has been immolated, let us feast … on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” From this passage we can constitute for certain that the Paschal Lamb which is called the Pasch in the Gospel, was a figure of the immolation of Christ…..it is certain from the Gospel that before the passion of Christ the Apostles ate the flesh of Christ in the Last Supper, and hence ate the true Paschal Lamb, the feasting upon which the Apostle exhorts us to when he says, “Therefore let us feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” But the feast follows the immolation; for first, the lamb had to be immolated, then eaten, not the other way around. So, the immolation of Christ should precede that eating of the Last Supper which the Apostles did before the passion of the Lord. Therefore, not only is the passion the immolation about which Paul is speaking, but also the consecration and oblation of the Eucharist prefigured by the immolation of the Paschal Lamb.” (Robert Bellarmine)


I answer; the tables can be turned on this argument quite easily by noting that the Paschal Lamb was slain before it was eaten, whereas the Last Supper was eaten before Christ was slain on the cross, therefore Bellarmine’s argument collapses. 


The cardinal’s second argument is that since the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the time of Passover and the offering of the Paschal Lamb, that therefore the Eucharist was the antitype of the Paschal Lamb.


I answer: types are not by necessity fulfilled at the same time as when they were originally performed. For example, the High Priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies was a type of Christ’s ascension into heaven (Hebrews 9:24), but these events did not occur at the same time, in the sense that they were most likely at different times of the year.  Add to that the fact that the Eucharist is not always celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month of the year, as the Paschal Lamb was (Exodus 12:6)


Bellarmine’s third argument is that just as the Paschal Lamb was slain by the Israelites in remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, so also the Eucharist is slain in remembrance of Christ’s suffering for the cross on our behalf, and that therefore the Paschal Lamb is a type of the Mass.


I answer: It is the original and first Passover that is primarily the type of Christ’s passion on the cross, and not every single Passover that was offered throughout history by the Jews. The first Passover typifies Christ’s passion in that both were deliverance from bondage, one from bondage in Egypt, the other being deliverance from bondage to sin, death, and the devil.



Bellarmine’s fourth argument is as follows: “the lamb was immolated so that it could be eaten and was like a viaticum for wayfarers; thus, it was eaten by the Jews, the habit of wayfarers carrying before themselves with staffs, chalices, etc. And what else is the Eucharist but a refreshment and viaticum for wayfarers to the true and heavenly homeland?” (Bellarmine)


I answer: The passion of Christ on the cross is our hope for entering into heaven, whereas the Eucharist is but a sacrament signifying that reality for Christians.


The cardinal’s fifth argument is that “the lamb could not be eaten except by the circumcised, and the clean, and in Jerusalem; so the Eucharist cannot be taken except by those who have been Baptized, cleansed, and are within the Catholic Church.” 


I answer that Bellarmine shows his ignorance of typological interpretation and makes many things which are most likely not so. We could apply his reasoning against him, by inferring that the Paschal Lamb was not a type of the Eucharist, since it was not carried about in procession as the Eucharist is within Roman Catholicism.


In spite of all this, even if one were to grant that the Paschal lamb is a type of the Eucharist, this would not serve the purpose of Romanists. This is because it is possible to consider the Paschal Lamb as a type of the Eucharist in a variety of ways besides the sacrificial aspect. For example, one might say that just as the Paschal Lamb was a sacrament of the Jewish church during the Old Testament period, so also the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Testament church. 

Eutyches and the Double Consubstantiality of Christ

  During the Home Synod of Constantinople, Eutyches was summoned multiple times to appear before the assembly of bishops. On one such instan...