Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the Doctrine of the Church, Part 12.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

We've been discussing over the last several weeks different views of the Lord's Supper. And today we want to come to some

assessment of the competing alternatives. First, what might we say about the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Well, it seems to me that this is a doctrine which does not enjoy plausible

scriptural support. I think it's evident that it is not taught by Jesus at the Last Supper,

when Jesus instituted the Last Supper, when he spoke those words of institution, this is my body,

this is my blood, for he was there physically present with them. His body was there in front of them.

His blood was coursing through his veins. So of course, this is not literal when he shows them the bread

and the wine and says, this is my body, this is my blood. That is, I think, evident in the fact

that he was corporally present with them. So the words of institution do not provide any basis for thinking

that Jesus was talking about a literal transubstantiation of the elements before them.

Indeed, Jesus' words are really a rather typical Semitic use of imagery.

Let's look at a couple of other examples.

1 Corinthians chapter 10, verses 3 and 4.

Here, Paul is talking about how the Israelites, as they passed through Sinai, were fed by the manna.

Then you'll remember that God miraculously supplied water for them as well.

Paul says, all ate the same supernatural food, and all drank the same supernatural drink,

for they drank from the supernatural rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Now, here you have the identification of Christ with the rock from which the water flowed.

But it obviously doesn't mean that Christ is literally a rock, or that the rock is literally Christ. Paul is using imagery. Similarly, look over at Galatians

...