One of the many significant divides between Catholics and Protestants is the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper literally transform into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus’ human body. Though they still appear as bread and wine to all of our senses, Roman Catholics claim that these elements of the supper are actually no longer bread and wine at all but are only Jesus’ literal human flesh and blood. In support of this, some savvy Catholic apologists point to parallels between Leviticus 7:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:27.

The argument from Leviticus 7:20

As we have noted in another article, the text of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, on its own, does not support Roman Catholic claims. Thus, some Roman Catholic apologists attempt a different angle on the argument. Instead of relying on the words of 1 Corinthians alone, they attempt to connect Paul’s language with a specific text from Leviticus and establish transubstantiation through this parallel. The verses read:

“But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, in his uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from his people,” (Leviticus 7:20).

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

The argument goes that Paul is borrowing directly from Leviticus and applying it to the communion meal. Thus, since Leviticus is talking about the actual flesh of the sacrifice, it must be that Paul regards the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as likewise being the literal flesh and blood of the sacrifice, i.e., of Jesus’ human body. There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning.

The evidence for the parallel

It is important to state upfront that the Roman Catholic apologist is not being entirely unrealistic to see some kind of parallel between these two verses. While the language does not overlap and one is obviously not directly quoting the other, the themes are certainly similar enough to deserve consideration. This is further reinforced by the fact that, just as Leviticus 7:20 says that those who eat the peace offering in their uncleanness will be “cut off from their people,” Paul goes on to say of those who eat the Supper in an unworthy manner “many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep,” (1 Corinthians 11:30). These are both euphemisms for death. Thus, again, while the words are not the same between the two passages, there are certainly overlapping themes.

The Roman Catholic is also not the first person to see a parallel here. As early as the third century, Cyprian connected these passages on multiple occasions.¹Cyprian, Treatise 3, Section 15 https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/treatises/anf05.iv.v.iii.html (Accessed 10-18-2021), and Testimonies Against the Jews, Book 3, Testimony 94 https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/treatises/anf05.iv.v.xii.iv.xcvi.html (Accessed 10-18-2021) At least some Christians throughout church history understood Leviticus 7:20 to apply today as a warning against taking the Lord’s Supper improperly and thus, at least in that one specific way, to parallel Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Finally, one might point out that Leviticus 7:12-15 speaks of this sacrifice being offered for a “thanksgiving.” Early Christians frequently called the Lord’s Supper a “thanksgiving.” Indeed, the Greek word for thanksgiving, eucharistia, is where Roman Catholics get the term “Eucharist.” Now, the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the New Testament writers and early Christians) did not use the word “eucharistia” to describe this sacrifice, so this point should not be pushed too far, but it does potentially provide another overlap in themes between the two passages, or at least help us see why some early Christians thought there was such an overlap.

So, while the case is hardly air-tight, it would not be totally unreasonable for a Christian to find a related principle of warning in these two texts. But is any of this enough to say that Paul actually had this parallel specifically in mind and intended the reader to import the sacrificial context of Leviticus into his words in 1 Corinthians 11? That is a leap far beyond what this evidence can support. Still, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that a meaningful connection exists here. What would that imply about the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper? Would it point to anything like transubstantiation?

The implications of Leviticus 7:20

For the Roman Catholic to prove his case, the alleged connection between these two verses must require, or at least strongly imply, that the bread and wine of communion have completely ceased to be bread and wine and are now entirely and only the literal flesh and blood of Jesus’ human body. The problem is that neither 1 Corinthians 11 nor Leviticus 7 will allow this conclusion. In literally the verse right before the one we’ve been discussing, Paul writes:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes,” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Thus, Paul is explicitly clear that what you are eating in the Lord’s Supper is still bread when you eat it. What you actually eat, according to Paul, is bread. It has not ceased to be bread and become something else entirely. Even more importantly, Leviticus 7 does not only pronounce the death penalty on someone who eats the flesh of the peace offering in an unclean manner. It goes on just a few verses later, in the very same context, to pronounce death on anyone who consumes the blood of the offering at all, regardless of cleanness:

“Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people,” (Leviticus 7:27).

Thus, if Paul wants us to have Leviticus 7 in mind, he certainly would not be claiming that we are eating or drinking literal blood! Indeed, while this verse is written in context to the peace offering, the wording reminds us that the consumption of any blood is strictly forbidden by God, something Christians of Cyprian’s day (and earlier) didn’t hesitate to point out! Origen, commenting on this very passage, explains:

“The Lawgiver forbids the eating or the use of ‘the fatty parts’ of these animals which are offered in sacrifices, and of several others, but he prohibits the eating of the blood of all flesh.” (Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 5, Section 11.2)²Gary Wayne Barkley, The Fathers of the Church: Homilies on Leviticus 1-16 (The Catholic University of America Press, 1990) 110

So, if we are supposed to read Paul’s words about the Lord’s supper in direct connection to the instructions related to peace offerings in Leviticus 7, it actually leaves us with even more solid grounds to reject transubstantiation. Neither Paul nor Leviticus supports a doctrine whereby the bread ceases to be bread before it is eaten and the partakers consume literal human blood. Both of these assumptions are forbidden by the texts.

Conclusion

Even if we allow for a parallel of sorts between Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11 and Moses’ command in Leviticus 7:20, this connection would be in the area of moral principle rather than the physical ingredients of the two sacred meals. Neither text allows for the details required by transubstantiation, such as the bread entirely changing its substance or the drink becoming literal blood. Indeed, by bringing the Levitical prohibition directly into the context of Paul’s words, the Roman Catholic doctrine becomes even more problematic rather than less. Thus, this argument fails to provide any support for Roman Catholic dogma. If anything, it gives us yet another reason to reject it.