Another Version of the Truth

YouTube is a funny place. There's no end to the crazy things that you can find there, especially in the suggested videos section. Today's insanity comes from a debate over the Eucharist, starring Matt Slick and someone with the Google + handle “Amen.” You can guess which was arguing against the Eucharist being the Real Presence.

I realize that this video is almost three years old, but I think it's a great example of the lengths that Protestants will reach in order to prove Catholics wrong. I also think that it's worth talking about because Matt Slick has a lot of influence on Google + and as I've said before, I don't want misconceptions about Catholicism to propagate. Anyways, on to the debate.

One of the objections Slick raised during the debate was from Leviticus 17:14, which reads,

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’"

Matt went on to argue that literally eating the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was specifically prohibited by the Levitical Law and the Old Covenant.  Here's the video for reference.

I was surprised to hear this one. It was one of the most interesting and novel objection to Catholic doctrine that I have ever heard. It's also ridiculous. To understand why, let's look at the preceding verses,

"‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’"

At first glance Slick's argument seemed pretty clear-cut, but the rest of the passage undermines him. Verse 11 is particularly telling, since the parallels between this verse and Catholic doctrine are striking. I wonder why Slick didn't bother mentioning this part. It's a glaring oversight, especially since towards the end of the debate Slick declared victory because "Amen" was not able to answer the objecting in a way that satisfied Slick. He's hanging his argument on this verse, and when read in context it really doesn't do what Slick wants it to do.

Slick's objection that Christ and the Apostles were still under the Old Covenant also falls flat. All one has to do is read the entire story of the Last Supper, especially this one little tidbit from Luke 22:19-20,

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you."

It's clear the Christ was instituting a New Covenant as he spoke, and it's not too much a stretch to link the Last Supper to the overall Passion. Christ had already established himself as a divine authority during the Sermon on the Mount, where he said over and over, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." while discussing the 10 Commandments. He basically told everyone there that he was re-writing the Old Testament Law, the Decalogue, which was the entire basis for the Hebrew religion.

Scripture is indeed important, but it's a package deal. As Slick is so fond of telling Catholics, "do not set Scripture against Scripture." Well, it seems that he's doing exactly that. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because Hanlon's Razor.

All Scripture is taken from the New American Standard Bible.

EDIT:  I'm not calling Matt Slick stupid with the Hanlon's Razor reference.  This is a pretty elementary error that begged me to correct it. Ignorant might be a better word. Ignorance can be fixed and it's usually an honest mistake. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially since I like to argue in good faith. Like here: (Yes, I really am that bad looking and yes I really did just plug my own YouTube channel with my own blog)