Real Presence & Various
Views of the Lord’s Supper
Theme of Matthew: “Behold your King
is coming to you” (Zech.9:9; Mt.21:4-5) CHARTING THE COURSE FOR THIS STUDY Ø Various Explanations of the Last
Supper have led to division Ø Communion is catholic/universal. Calvin’s desire for a consensus that
included church history and 16th century churches. NOTE: The Lord’s Supper fits with our
working theme of Matthew: “Rejoice
greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your
king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. Some
of my underlying convictions 1. Unloving conduct is incompatible
with a biblical view of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor.11:27–31; cf. 1 Corinthians
13). 2. Our goal in discussion of the Lord’s
Supper should be unity among Christ’s body and not division or theological
speculation. God is more concerned
with unity, the transformed and loving fellowship of those who sit at the
table than our divisive theories of what happens. 3. There is much about the Lord’s
Supper that we cannot explain or fully understand (mystery). Explanations of what happens in the Lord’s
Supper and how Jesus is present have not generally been helpful for the love
and unity of the church. In fact, they
most often lead to division. We need
to be careful not to explain more than the Scriptures explain and not to be
more dogmatic than the Scriptures. VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS
OF THE LAST SUPPER Orthodox – hold to a theory of “transformation” wherein the
Holy Spirit is called down and the bread and wine are transformed into the
actual body and blood of Jesus.
Main weakness: The Bible teaches that Christ’s
body is now in heaven and not on earth (Acts 3:21; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1-2;
9:11-12,24; 10:11-13). To argue that
His body is in heaven and earth in multiple places is to deny the true
humanity of Jesus and is contrary to the Council of Chalcedon. Rome – hold to a theory of “transubstantiation.”
This view is that the substance, or inner reality, of the bread and
wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but the
accidents, or external qualities known through the senses (color, weight,
taste), remain unchanged.
Main weaknesses: (1) The Bible teaches that
Christ’s body is now in heaven and not on earth (Acts 3:21; Hebrews 1:3;
8:1-2; 9:11-12,24; 10:11-13). To argue
that His body is in heaven and earth in multiple places is to deny the true
humanity of Jesus and is contrary to the Council of Chalcedon. [1]
R.C. Sproul helpfully explains that the power to be omnipresent, of being
equally present everywhere, is an attribute of deity, not humanity. For the human nature of Jesus to be spread
over the world would require the deification of the human nature. (2) Unwarranted worship. Rome infallibly declared, “The Worship of
Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.” Eucharistic adoration was not practiced by
the Apostolic church nor the early church.
The ancient
liturgies contain no direction for adoration of the consecrated bread and
wine; see Schaff,
Philip. History of the Christian Church; Chapter 95, “The Sacrament of
the Eucharist.” "If anyone
says that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the
Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of latria, including
the external worship, and that the Sacrament, therefore is not to be honored
with extraordinary festive celebrations nor solemnly carried from place in
processions according to the praiseworthy universal rite and custom of the
holy Church; or that the Sacrament is not to be publicly exposed for the
people's adoration, and that those who adore it are idolators: let him be
anathema." (Council
of Trent 1551) Vatican II said: “There can accordingly be no doubt
that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship
which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic
Church. Nor is it to be adored any the
less because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be eaten.”
Main weaknesses: The Bible teaches that Christ’s
body is now in heaven and not on earth (Acts 3:21; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1-2;
9:11-12,24; 10:11-13) (see footnote 1). Lutheran’s hold to Christ’s body as being
ubiquitous. Lutheran theology says
that the divine attributes are communicated to the human nature (communication
idiomatum). Martin Luther wrote,
“Because the divinity and the humanity form in Christ one single person, the
Scriptures attribute to the divinity, on account of this personal unity,
everything that concerns humanity, and conversely” (Confession on the
Lord’s Supper). The Lutheran explanation of the Lord’s Supper leads
to a Christological problem at best and heresy at worst (see the Council of
Chalcedon). Anglican/Episcopalian – “the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and
likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ” (Articles
of Religion, Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper). Individual belief on what Article XXVIII
means range from the Catholic view of transubstantiation to Reformed.
“Zwinglian View” – holds that the Lord’s Supper is only a “mere memorial.”
ü
“The
bread and wine are only the symbols of the body that was broken and the blood
that was shed” (Gordon Keddie, The
Lord’s Supper Is a Celebration of Grace: What the Bible Teaches About Communion,
p.41). ü
“The
Scriptures seem to support the memorial view, and rather than the elements
containing or symbolizing the presence of Christ, they are instead a
recognition of His absence” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, quoted in Keith Mathison, Given for You p.262). The
“Zwinglian View” is a misnomer named after the Swiss reformer, Huldreich
Zwingli (1484-1531). Zwingli so
strongly opposed the physical presence of Christ in relationship to the bread
and wine that many misunderstood him to say the Lord’s Supper only symbolic. However, the last words Zwingli spoke on
the subject were written in the Confession to King Francis I prove that
Zwingli is often misrepresented, “We believe that Christ is truly present in
the Lord’s Supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence ....
We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion, not in a
gross and carnal manner, but in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the
religious, believing and pious heart” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church). While the Swiss Reformed were not
able to reach agreement with Luther, the Zwinglian and Calvinist branches of
the Reformation did in the Consensus
Tigurinus or the Zurich Consensus (1549). Interesting
facts “Luther’s activity as a reformer extended
from 1517 to 1546; Melanchthon’s from 1521 to 1560; Zwingli’s from his
appearance at Zurich, 1518, to his death, 1531; Calvin’s from 1536 to 1564.
The Marburg Colloquy was held October, 1529; the Augsburg Confession
published June, 1530; and the first edition of “Calvin’s Institutes,” was
published at Basle, 1536, and the finished work was published by him in
Geneva, 1559” (Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology). Main weaknesses: That the bread and wine are mere symbols is unscriptural (1
Corinthians 10:16-17) and has little or no support from the early church. Reformed
– holds that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. [2] Yet at the same time we believe a mystery
is involved, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood
of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?”
(1 Corinthians 10:16; cf. 1 Cor.11:27). Westminster
Confession of Faith 29:5 The outward elements in this
sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation
to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes
called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood
of Christ; (Matt. 26:26–28) albeit, in substance and nature, they still
remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. (1 Cor. 11:26–28,
Matt. 26:29) Westminster
Confession of Faith 29:7 Worthy receivers, outwardly
partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, (1 Cor. 11:28) do then
also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally
but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits
of His death: the body and blood of
Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread
and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of
believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward
senses. (1 Cor. 10:16) In the 17th century
Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God ministers are instructed
in the celebration of communion to “Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of
all mercies, and God of all consolation, to vouchsafe his gracious presence,
and the effectual working of his Spirit in us; and so to sanctify these
elements both of bread and wine, and to bless his own ordinance, that we may
receive by faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so
to feed upon him, that he may be one with us, and we one with him; that he
may live in us, and we in him, and to him who hath loved us, and given
himself for us.” Strengths: (1) Jesus says in Matt.26:28 what
His disciples were drinking was His blood. In 26:29 Jesus says, “I will
not drink this fruit of the vine...” indicating that what they drank had not
been “transubstantiated”; (2) Jesus explains the elements of the Lord’s
Supper as was the tradition of the Passover; Reformed theology has always
emphasized that one aspect of the Lord’s Supper is that it is a
memorial/remembrance [Westminster
Confession of Faith 29:1]; (3) The Reformed view does not demand of our
faith and worship something beyond or contrary to the Scriptures; (4) The
Reformed view has emphasized the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper but
has not been dogmatic in its explanation of how Christ is present; (5) It is
the view that is most consonant with the early church. For a 9th
century interpretation of the early church see, The Book of Ratramn: On the Body and Blood of the Lord COMMUNION
IS CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL: CALVIN’S DESIRE FOR A CONSENSUS BETWEEN CHURCH HISTORY AND 16TH
CENTURY CHURCHES A. Calvin’s view of the Lord’s
Supper was motivated by: 1. Desire to be faithful to
Scripture 2. Desire to be faithful to early church
and creeds (e.g. Chalcedon) 3. Desire that there be a general
consensus between the 16th century church B. With these three things in mind
Calvin formulated his view of the Lord’s Supper. 1. Calvin believed that Christ’s
flesh remains in heaven and that through the Holy Spirit we are lifted up to
heaven. Calvin referred to this as sursum
corda – “lifting of the heart” (Institutes,
4.17.18; 4.17.38). a. This was not original with Calvin
but is as old as Hippolytus' Apostolic Traditions, chapter 4, dated
around 215. Calvin was trying to
incorporate in his explanation and practice of the Lord’s Supper tradition
wherein the church was summoned by the Sursum Corda (“Lift up your hearts”).
The sursum corda is found in
all primitive liturgies. b. The idea of ascension into God's
presence in heaven central to New Covenant worship (Col 3:1-2, Eph 2:6, Heb
12:22ff, Phil 3:20-2, Rev.1:10 with 4:1). 2. The core of Calvin’s view of the
Lord’s Supper is our mystical union (unio mystica) with Christ, “Through
the Holy Spirit we have true fellowship with Christ himself and we
become participators in all of his benefits.” In this way, “Calvin taught a much
more real and essential presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in
the Lord’s Supper than the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans.” (in R.N.
Gleason, “Calvin and Bavinck on the Lord’s Supper” WTJ, Vol.45:293). 3. The Orthodox, Roman Catholics and
Lutherans in explaining the presence of Christ did so by saying His
body somehow comes down from heaven.
Calvin looked at the Scriptures and the early church’s interpretation
of them and concluded that the body of Jesus remains in heaven (Acts
3:21; Philippians 3:20-21; Hebrews 1:3,13; 8:1-2; 9:11,12,24; 10:11-13; etc.)
and that in some way the Holy Spirit
brings us before the heavenly presence of Christ. a. Calvin
persuaded Martin Luther’s right hand man, Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon
had revealed to Calvin privately that he agreed with his interpretation of the
Lord’s Supper. Calvin had sent twelve articles concerning the “real presence”
to Melanchthon for his opinion. In private correspondence Melanchthon wrote
of his approval, but cautioned that the more obstinate would not accept the
articles.” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church in
Westminster Theological Journal). b. Calvin
was able to get consensus with Zwinglian branch of the Reformation at Consensus
Tigurinus or the
Zurich Consensus (1549). c.
Calvin’s view even persuaded Cyril Lucaris (lyūkā'rĭs)
(1572–1637), elected patriarch of Alexandria (1602–20) and of Constantinople
(1620–37). However, Cyril’s Protestant
leanings were condemned in the 17th century by the Orthodox at the
1672 Synod of Jerusalem (several years after the Westminster Assembly). FOR NEXT WEEK: What do we learn about
the relationship of the New Testament church to Old Testament Israel from
Jesus’ words, ““this is My blood of the covenant…” (v.28; Jeremiah
31:31-34//Hebrews 8:8-13 with 10:15-18; Daniel 9:24-27)? |
|
[1] It
is also contrary to the early church fathers’ exegesis of Scripture. Augustine (354–430) wrote, “Do not doubt, therefore, that the man
Christ Jesus is now in heaven, from where he will come, and recall to mind
and maintain with faith the Christian confession that he rose from the dead,
ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will
come from nowhere else when he will come to judge the living and the
dead. And, as the angel’s voice testified,
he will come just as he was seen going to heaven, that is, in the same form
and substance of the flesh, to which he certainly gave immortality, but did
not take away its nature. In accord
with this form he should not be thought to be spread out everywhere. For we must be careful not to defend the
divinity of the man in such a way that we remove the reality of his
body. It does not follow, however,
that what is in God is everywhere, as God is.
For scripture also says of us that we
live, move, and have our being in him (Acts 17:28), and yet we are not
everywhere, as he is. But that man
[Jesus] is in God in a different way because, as God, he is in the man in a
different way, in a manner that is proper to him and singular. For one person is God and man, and the two
are the one Jesus Christ, everywhere as God, in heaven as man” (Augustine,
Letter 187 in The Works of Saint
Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century p.235). That the body of Jesus is now in heaven was also
emphasized by Theodoret (c. 393–c. 458) in his discussion with the Eutychian
heretic Eranistes: Dialogue II.-The Unconfounded Orthodox/Theodoret.--So
the body of the Lord rose incorruptible, impassible, and immortal, and is
worshipped by the powers of heaven, and is yet a body having its former
limitation. Eranistes--In
these points you seem to say sooth, but after its assumption into heaven I do
not think that you will deny that it was changed into the nature of Godhead. Orthodox/Theodoret.--I
would not so say persuaded only by human arguments, for I am not so rash as
to say anything concerning which divine Scripture is silent. But I have heard
the divine Paul exclaiming "God hath appointed a day in the which He
will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained
whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from
the dead," and I have learnt from the holy Angels that He will come in
like manner as the disciples saw Him going into heaven. Now they saw His
nature not unlimited. For I have heard the words of the Lord, "Ye shall
see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven," and I acknowledge
that what is seen of men is limited, for the unlimited nature is invisible.
Furthermore to sit upon a throne of glory and to set the lambs upon the right
and the kids upon the left indicates limitation. (Dialogue
II – The Unconfounded) |
|
[2] This
was also the view of the early church.
For example, Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d.
490) said, “By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and
yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.” The following is attributed to Chrysostom (c.
347–407), “Like as before it is consecrated, it is
bread: so after it is consecrated, it is delivered from the name of bread,
and is endued with the name of the Lord’s body, where as the nature doth
remain.” (Chrysostom, ad Caesarium monachum) 'Before the bread is sanctified, we call
it bread: but when the grace of God makes it holy by means of the priest, it
is then freed from the name of bread,and counted worthy to be called Christ's
body, even if the nature of bread remains in it still, and we speak not of
two bodies but of the one body of the Son of God.' (John Chrysostom, Epistola
ad Caesarium Monachum) Ephrem/Ephraim
of Antioch (6th century) wrote, "The body of Christ which is
received by the faithful does not depart from its own sensible substance, and
yet it is united to spiritual grace; and so baptism, though it becomes wholly
a spiritual thing and but one thing, yet it preserves the property of its
sensible substance, I mean water, and does not lose what it was before."
(Quoted by Photius, cod. 1: 229) It seems that
it was the heretics who held that the substance of the bread changed. There is an interesting
discussion between the church father Theodoret (c. 393–c. 458) and the
heretic Eranistes: Dialogue II.-The Unconfounded Eranistes.-And
how name we the other symbol? Orthodox/Theodoret.-This
name too is common, signifying species of drink. Eranistes.-And
after the consecration how do you name these? Orthodox/Theodoret.-Christ's
body and Christ's blood. Eranistes.-And
do you believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood? Orthodox/Theodoret.-I
do. Eranistes.-As,
then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the
priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another
thing; so the Lord's body after the assumption is changed into the divine
substance. Orthodox/Theodoret.-You
are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the
consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they
remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and
tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become,
and believed so to be, and are worshipped [The term “worship” is to be taken in the wider
sense of honor/respect and not proper adoration. The ancient liturgies contain no direction
for adoration of the consecrated bread and wine; see Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church;
Chapter 95, “The Sacrament of the Eucharist.”] as being what they are believed to
be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness,
for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former
form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but
after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it
has become worthy of a seat on the righthand; it is adored by every creature
as being called the natural body of the Lord. Eranistes.-Yes;
and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation; it is no longer called by
the name it went by before, but is styled body. So must the reality be called
God, and not body. Orthodox/Theodoret.-You
seem to me to be ignorant-for He is called not only body but even bread of
life. So the Lord Himself used this name' and that very body we call divine
body, and giver of life, and of the Master and of the Lord, teaching that it
is not common to every man but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ Who is God
and Man. "For Jesus Christ" is "the same yesterday, to-day,
and forever." (Hebrews 13:8) (Dialogue
II – The Unconfounded)
|