I wrote my paper for Sys Theo on The Lord's Supper. It's not what you would expect, I think. Just thought I'd share it ... and stirr the pot. :)
The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of the Christian faith that has been observed and practiced throughout the ages. From the time of Christ, to the days of the Reformation, to the Emergent church today, all branches of the Christian faith divulge their view of Communion in their faith and practice. Though most profess the Supper is significant, all observed it in many ways, view it in many ways and hold it with varying degrees of importance.
It is important for us as followers of Christ to understand the significance of and appropriately observe the Lord’s Supper for the following reasons: Jesus Christ commanded we practice it[1], Paul related it as a clear picture of our participation in Christ[2], and it realizes the union of the body of Christ[3]. To evaluate the topic adequately, it is necessary look at the major views on the topic and the passages of Scripture that speak on it, clearly arriving at the understanding that the Lord’s Supper is a fundamental practice of the Christian faith in which Christ Himself is essentially present in the elements of the Supper in such a way as to unite believers with Christ, spiritual nourish the Church, bind believers to one another, and comfort or assure the child of God of their spiritual identity.
The focal issue in the conversation on the Eucharist is the presence of Jesus Christ in the elements used in the sacrament. Is Christ present in the bread and wine? If so, how? To what degree? In what sense? Is Christ memorially present, literally present, actually present, or spiritually present? These are vital questions to consider in the discussion of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
The first of four historically significant views essential to the discussion on the Lord’s Supper is that held by the Roman Catholic Church, namely transubstantiation. According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ[4]. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that at the time the priest announces, “This is My body” concerning the bread, a transformation in the nature or substance of the bread takes place. No longer is the bread made of flour, water, oil, or yeast, but rather it is the very body of Jesus Christ.
This high view of the bread and wine produce immense piety and precaution within the observance of this sacrament. The question was raised by many, what if a piece of the Body or a drop of the Blood were dropped or wasted? For many years, the Roman Catholic Church also refused to allow the laity to drink of the Cup, fearing the blood of Christ may be spilled.
According to Roman Catholic teaching, Communion is a real repetition of the sacrifice of the Son of God, though they would distinguish it in some degree from the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. “In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and mode of the offering are different[5]”. While Jesus is not dying again for the sins of humanity, according to this view, He is suffering and sacrificing Himself in some real sense at the time and observance of the Eucharist.
The Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation fails to acknowledge that many times throughout Scripture Jesus speaks of Himself in figurative ways, employing metaphors and similes to express His character or relation to creation. For example, Jesus said, “I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.[6]” It would be absurd for us to assume Jesus was speaking in literal terms, expecting His disciples, as they were listening, to see Him as boards of wood with hinges and a handle. On the contrary, in this statement we understand Jesus in relation to humanity; Christ is the passage way through which all who come must enter to receive salvation. Similarly, when Jesus affirms, “This is my Body,” there is interpretive room to understand this figuratively. If the Roman Catholic Church chooses to interpret this strictly literally, they must be consistent and do so elsewhere as well.
The Roman Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation also fails to recognize the conclusiveness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Jesus Christ died once, and His death was sufficient for all time. The Father does not require He die again at every observance of the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, the Supper is to be a means of recognition and celebration of the completed sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of the believing man or woman.
Lastly, this view of the Eucharist is problematic because, though it maintains a high view of the Cup and Bread, it trades it for a low view of the presence of Jesus Christ. This perspective places the emphasis on the eating of two physical elements, bread and wine. This emphasis is placed on the elements as a result of a deeper worldview that holds the physical realm as the ultimate realm. The Roman Catholic Church steers away from saying that Christ is spiritually present for fear that this would be a demotion of the value and importance of Christ. On the contrary, to speak of the spiritual realm is to speak of the truest realm of existence. This view of the Lord’s Supper does not acknowledge this truth, and negligence of it has been the Roman Catholic Church’s greatest downfall as it relates to the Eucharist.
As he did with many theological themes, Luther rejected the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist. In distinction from the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of Transubstantiation, Martin Luther held that the bread and wine did not literally become the Body and Blood of Christ. Though he willingly affirmed that the phrase, “This is My body,” must be taken in some literal sense, he denied that the elements literally transformed into a Divine substance. Instead, Luther’s view, which he called consubstantiation, holds that Christ was present “in, with and under” the bread and wine.[7]
Luther’s view is likened the interaction of Christ and the elements of the Table to water and a sponge[8]. While the sponge is not the same in essence as the water, the water is actually present in the sponge, “in, with and under” it. In the same way, Luther believed Christ was present in the bread and wine, consuming it, absorbed by it, and incapable of being fully separated from it.
Luther’s view is problematic in two crucial ways. First of which is the reception of Christ in Communion. Luther holds that in faith the believer certainly receives Christ in the most real manner possible. Continuing this line of thought would lead to the affirmation that if a believer receives the person of Christ at conversion in a real sense in faith, then the Eucharist is of no consequence; there is no need of the sacrament of the Supper since it brings nothing unique to the believing and participating man or woman.
Secondly, Luther’s view of this sacrament is problematic as it relates with the realm of spirituality. As with the Roman Catholic Church’s view of substantiation, Luther seems to be wary of making the statement of the Christ is present in a spiritual sense, as if using such language would demean the presence of Christ to being only pseudo-real. Instead, he affirms that Christ is actually present in the elements, which is ironically more limiting than the language of “spiritually present,” because it insists on pulling Christ from heaven in His physical form to be with us, rather than understanding His spiritual presence as the most actual sense in which He could be present.
There is a third view on the Lord’s Supper to be discussed. This view is held by the majority of conservative evangelicalism today, and can adequately be linked with Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli held that the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper did not change into the body or blood of Christ in a literal, real or actual sense. Instead, they affirmed that the body and blood were symbolically present in the elements.
Zwingli points to other passages in the Scriptures where Jesus Christ uses metaphor to address Himself. For example, when Jesus affirmed that He was the vine, Zwingli would argue that we are not in any way to believe that Jesus was a plant of any sort in a literal, real or actual manner. On the contrary, Jesus is our True Vine in an emblematic sense as we draw our sustenance and life from Him. Zwingli insists Christ is doing so again when speaking of the Lord’s Supper. Rather than the bread and wine being transformed into something different in essence, Jesus is present as He is when “two or more are gather in [His] name”[9]. In the Lord’s Supper, according to this view, the heart of the participating believer feasts on Christ.[10]
This theology of the Lord’s Supper falls apart in many areas, namely the acknowledgement of Christ’s clear statements concerning His flesh and blood in the Supper. There is a profound mishandling and neglect of primary Scriptures on the topic. It is dangerous, to say the least, to begin interpreting sacraments, and consequently salvation, in a merely symbolic or memorialistic way.
Finally, John Calvin distinguished himself from the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli in several ways. First, he argued that the Lord’s Supper did not change into the body and blood of Christ in substance, as the Roman Catholic Church believed, or essence, as Luther affirmed. Many accuse Calvin of rejecting the idea that the bread and wine hold an actual presence of Christ within them when brought to the communion Table[11]. However, he does no such thing. Conversely, Calvin presupposes the Divine Presence in the elements, and asserts that it is the only way the Supper could possibly be understood.
Calvin appears to hear the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther speaking in unison concerning the Lord’s Supper and, for that reason, he rejects both views as being too physically-oriented:
“Ever the systematic theologian, Calvin carefully bounded his theology concerning the Lord’s Supper, against supernaturalism on the one hand and Roman doctrine on the other. Against the first, he contended that the union of the Christian with Christ was union with Him not only as Son of God, but also as Son of Man. Against the second, he excluded both the Roman transubstantiation and Luther’s consubstantiation, which seemed to him essentially the same thing. He taught that reception of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist was in no sense material, but spiritual only, though he certainly believed in a real spiritual presence of Jesus in the Supper.”
So, Calvin offered a third, unavoidably accurate, view. In this third view, John Calvin insists that it is the Holy Spirit that brings the person of Christ to us, not the elements of bread and wine. Along this argument, Calvin writes the following:
“But we must establish such a presence of Christ in the Supper as may neither fasten Him to the element of bread, not enclose Him in bread, nor circumscribe Him in any way (all of which things, it is clear, detract from His heavenly glory.)”[12]
Calvin appeals to John chapter six and is adamant that we actually partake of Jesus’ flesh and Jesus’ blood in the Supper through faith. According to Calvin, there is nothing special about the combination of flour, water, oil, and yeast that makes up the particular bread used in communion, answering the Roman Catholic concern of wasting or dropping the sacred elements and thereby losing part of Jesus. Rather, he affirms that it is faith, a work of the Holy Spirit, which engages the elements of the Supper that brings to the believer what the elements were ordained to symbolize, Christ Himself[13].
For Calvin, it was certainly clear that Jesus Christ must be present within the elements of the Table for more than mere arguments’ sake. To Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is an issue of the Lord Himself; to him, this was a Gospel matter. From Calvin’s perspective, there was no other option than to hold that believers take in the whole of Christ in Communion because we take in the whole of Christ in salvation. He writes of the dynamic this way:
“It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life”[14].
It is important to look primarily to the teachings of Scripture to conjure a firm stance on this issue. If we as Christians claim the Word of God as our ultimate and final authority, a discussion on a vital sacrament in by no means an acceptation. The following is a brief discussion of the significant Biblical Texts that speak on the Lord’s Supper.
The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper harkens back to Old Testament tradition in which the leaders of
“Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household … 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect …7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast … 11This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover.” (Exodus 12:1-11)
This celebration consisted of slaughtering a pure lamb, marking the doorposts of their home with his blood, and eating the entire lamb together as a family. As the Israelites followed these ordinances concerning the sacrificial lamb, as they painted with his blood and ate his flesh, the Lord bypassed their home when He swept through
When Jesus instituted what we now know as the Lord’s Supper, He and His disciples may have been eating this Passover meal[19]. This is vitally important for us to understand in our discussion of the significance and function of the Eucharist. With this constantly in view, we can now turn to selected New Testament Texts which speak concerning the Lord’s Supper.
In Matthew 26, Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper. As He ate a sacramental meal with His disciples for the last time before He would die, Jesus establishes the ritual that has been so highly discussed and debated as well as celebrated and commemorated:
“26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’”[20].
Jesus gives to his disciples and he commands them, not suggests to them, to eat and drink “this”; bread from the Passover Supper. Instead of reciting the usual Passover liturgy, “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the
The ceremonial context specifies that Jesus’ words should not be taken any more literally than the usual recitations of the Passover liturgy would have been understood[23]. This bread was no more His literal body than the Passover bread was the literal bread the Israelite’s ancestors ate. In both situations, a figure of speech is employed to signify another correlation. The Roman Catholic view does not do this passage justice in insisting that the bread and wine literally become the literal flesh of Christ. In a similar manner, Zwingli misunderstood this passage, but to the other extreme, ignoring any real connection between the bread, wine and Jesus Christ. In contrast, Calvin does this verse justice in acknowledging that Jesus is present, not locally or literally, but spiritually.
First Corinthians 10:16also speaks to the Lord’s Supper: “16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” In his writing, Paul had just prohibited idolatry in verse ten. His basis for doing so is the Lord’s Supper. He tells the Corinthians that in Communion they share in Christ and with one another. The word translated “communion” is the Greek word, κοινωνία, meaning “fellowship” or “sharing”[24] “Communion with the body and blood of Christ signifies “an active common share in the life, death, resurrection, and presence of Jesus Christ.’ There is union with Christ by means of participation in the Lord’s Supper.[25]” There is more to this than fellowship, as many translations indicate; rather the word implies a “communal participation” in Christ[26].
The following verse, then, reiterates, “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.[27]” in the Lord’s Supper, believers are united with Christ in a significant way. Therefore, in the same way that all believers participate in the one body and blood of Jesus Christ, as a result they become an increasingly unified body of Christ.
Of all views on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin’s is again the only one that seems to treat this passage adequately. The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, Luther’s view of consubstantiation, and Zwingli’s semi-memorialist view take far too lightly the significance of union with Christ as present in the Lord’s Supper. The first two hold the Christ is present, but only locally; the third claims Him wholly absent from the elements, the “one loaf”, of this sacrament. Calvin, however, assumes union with Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and therefore union among believers.
After surveying these primary passages on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin’s expression and articulation of the Eucharist is the only satisfactory conclusion. The core reality in the Lord’s Supper, therefore, is the believer’s union with Christ. If in salvation, the individual believer is united with Christ spiritually - the most real sense which one can be united - there is no reason to assume differently for the Lord’s Supper.
Without fear believers can certainly affirm that the elements of the Table are “as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands.[28]” Jesus said to “take, eat, drink”, insisting it is His body broken for believers; that it is His blood, which is “shed for the remission of sins”. Calvin writes it eloquently:
“In calling us take, he infers that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation”[29].
The words, “It is broken for you … it is shed for you” are vital in our understanding of this sacrament. These words are the crux of our salvation, the apex of our redemption. Here, as in salvation, is true bread, intended to nourish our spiritual life. This cannot be a mere metaphor; the thing which is represented, Christ, and the thing which represents it, the bread and wine, must be connected in the most real sense. Therefore, when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, wouldn’t it be natural to assume Christ’s similarity to the element in that bread nourishes, sustains, and satisfies our physical life[30]? In the same way, Christ is true food of our spiritual life, the most real life we have. If wine is a symbol of Christ’s blood, and wine is useful to fortify, delight, and strengthen the physical body, wouldn’t Christ in a very true sense do the same for our spiritual lives[31]?
The natural conclusion of this study is that Jesus Christ Himself becomes fully ours in the Lord’s Supper by means of the Gospel[32]. In the Eucharist, Christ offers us all of Himself and we receive him in faith[33]. The ritual of eating bread and drinking wine while remembering the sacrifice of Christ does not make Him true bread and true drink, but “calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy”[34].
The Lord’s Supper gives believers confidence of all that occurred on the cross for our salvation and nourishes and strengthens the Church in this conviction. Christ gave Himself once in death to become living bread for His church. He seals this Gospel promise in the mystery of the Eucharist in which He accomplishes in the believer what the symbols externally demonstrate[35].
As Scripture likens union with Christ to marriage, believers can accurately liken the Lord’s Supper with sexual union between spouses. When two are married, they become one in essence, and nothing can alter their union. But in sexual intercourse there is a physical reminder, an outward expression and a profound reality of their oneness. It is in sexual union they see, taste, feel, experience, and grow in their union. The same is true for Communion. In salvation we are united with Christ; in the Lord’s Supper we see, taste, feel, experience, and grow in our union with Him.
One’s view of the Lord’s Supper dramatically influences one’s view on salvation. However, changing belief on Communion should not change belief on salvation; rather, it reveals the unstated view of salvation and union with Christ. A shallow view of salvation will lead to a shallow view of the Lord’s Supper. Reflections on the Eucharist demand serious reflection on the gravity of the other sacraments as well.
This way of thinking should dramatically alter the way believers today observe the Lord’s Supper. Rather than an empty ritual in which all past sins and necessary reconciliations must be mustered to memory, the Table is a celebration of, a feasting on, and a union with Christ. I believe John Cumming states it well:
“But you, the chiefest of sinners, wearied with the burden of your sins, and seeking rest – you who know what it is to have tears, and anxieties, and perplexities, and suspicions of self – you who are anxious to be rid of all this, and to have perfect peace and perfect joy, you are invited to come. That table is spread, not for those who bring their virtues to glory in them, nor for those who bring their sins to get sanction for them, but for those who bring their goodness and cast it at the Saviour’s feet, as his creation; and for those who bring their sins, hating them, and to wash them away in the Saviour’s blood. It is spread for imperfect sinners seeking to be perfect, for weak faith seeking to be strong; for cold love seeking to be warmed; for humble hearts that can say, ‘Lord, we perish, do thou save us.’[36]”
[1] Mark 14, Matthew 26
[2] 1 Corinthians 10:16
[3] 1 Corinthians 10:17
[4] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: Page 991.
[5] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: Page 991.
[6] John 10:9
[7] Freeman, Elmer Stone. The Lord's Supper in Protestantism: Print.
[8] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: Page 992.
[9] Matthew 18:20.
[10] Freeman, Elmer Stone. The Lord's supper in Protestantism: Page 66
[11] Freeman, Elmer Stone. The Lord's supper in Protestantism: Page 67.
[12] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion : Print. IV:18.
[13] The Lord's Supper: Five Views: Page 75.
[14] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion : Print. IV:18.
[15] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: Page 988.
[16] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 182.
[17] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 183.
[18] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 185.
[19] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 209.
[20] Matthew 26:26-2
[21] Matthew 26:26
[22] Matthew 26:28
[23] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 212.
[24] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 229.
[25] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 229.
[26] Mathison, Keith A.. Given for You: Page 228.
[27] I Corinthians 10:17
[28] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: IV;3.
[29] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;3
[30] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;3.
[31] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;3.
[32] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;5.
[33] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;5.
[34] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;5.
[35] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Print. IV;5.
[36] Cumming, John. The Communion Table: Page 63.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave me a peice of your heart's ponderings: