What Happens at the Lord’s Supper

The second of two lectures on the Lord's Supper at the Free Church College, Edinburgh, on 9/4/2014

The Reformation radically changed the way countless millions understood several crucial church practices and one was how the Lord’s Supper affected worshippers when they participated in the sacrament. What was wrong with the way the Lord’s Supper was performed before the Reformation? Timothy George states that at the time of the Reformation the rite of the Lord’s Supper had developed beyond recognition from the practice of the early church: 

• the rite had become clericalised, in that the Mass was the function of the priest rather than the people; 
• The rite had become commercialised, in the growth of private Masses offered for a wide variety of personal reasons, and which were purchased with money; 
• the theology of the Sacrament was scholastized through the dogma of transubstantiation with its use of Aristotelian philosophy; 
• the rite had become an occasion of spectator excitement, particularly at the moment of the consecration of the bread, with parades and processions following the host through the streets. It is not surprising that an attempt was made to reform the church.

In order to appreciate what took place at the Reformation we need to grasp something of how the Roman church explained what happened at the Lord’s Supper. Then we will need to grasp something of three views that were responses to, corrections of, or replacements of the Roman view. The Roman view is called transubstantiation. Each of the three responses has become identified with a leading Reformer. Consubstantiation has been identified with Martin Luther; memorialism has been identified with Ulrich Zwingli; the real spiritual presence has been identified with John Calvin.

 

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation, which was prescribed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, is the teaching that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the concept of transubstantiation was the contribution of the Latin theologians. The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079) and was used by several theologians before it was adopted by several ecumenical councils, including the Fourth Lateron Council (1215) and the Council of Trent. The Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that the fundamental notion of the concept of transubstantiation is the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 

But how did the notion of transubstantiation develop? Robert Letham suggests two reasons. First,

'In the Western or Roman Catholic view, Aristotelian philosophy was used to explain what appears at first glance to be impossible. How can the bread and wine be changed into the actual physical body and blood of Christ when it is obvious to our eyes that they are still the same as they ever were? The Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents was the means to resolve this conundrum. The substance of a thing is what that thing really is, its intrinsic nature. On the other hand, accidents refer to incidentals, features relating not to a thing’s inner nature but more to what it may appear to be, or to something adventitious that could be withdrawn without altering the thing’s substance. The works of Aristotle were rediscovered from around 1050 and so proved a fruitful resource for the church. Hence, the bread and wine were held to change into the body and blood of Christ according to substance (hence trans = change, substantia = of substance), according to what they really were intrinsically, while they remained bread and wine per accidens, in terms of accidents or appearances. Certainly they seemed to remain what they had been, while having undergone this change of inner essence. At root, this was not magic but a sacramental mystery. It occurred when the priest consecrated the elements.'

Letham explains his second reason for the development of transubstantiation:

'Again, the position of the Roman church on the relationship between nature and grace also helped in the development of transubstantiation. According to Rome, grace perfects nature. Natural gifts and gifts from the Holy Spirit are effectively one and the same. In this sense the physical and the spiritual are so closely identified that in practice they merge into one. From this perspective, it is easy to see how the bread and wine can be said to be the body and blood of Christ and how spiritual grace can be conveyed more or less automatically by physical means.'

The acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation results in two inevitable consequences. First, since the bread has been changed into the body of Christ it becomes an object of worship, which occurs when the priest elevates it in the sight of the worshippers for them to adore it. Second, since the bread that has become the body of Christ does not return to being bread and the wine that has become the blood of Christ does not return to being wine, it means that any of the sacramental elements that remain after the Supper cannot be discarded; the bread must be preserved and eaten at a subsequent sacrament and the wine drunk immediately by the priest.

A major response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of the Reformers was the Council of Trent, where among other doctrinal matters, the official teaching of the Church concerning the Lord’s Supper was clarified. Among its decisions are these statements, which allow responses to be made to Roman Catholic teaching at the Reformation period.

A first response is that the Council interpreted Jesus’ words of institution literally and did not recognize that his words concerning the bread and the wine could be interpreted symbolically. 

Second, the Roman Catholic concept of the Mass does not accept the New Testament emphasis on the finality and completeness of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. 

Third, the Council of Trent argues that the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The biblical accounts do not suggest that the last Supper was a sacrifice; rather it was a sacrificial meal of fellowship based on the sacrifice of Christ. 

Fourth, transubstantiation removes the necessity of faith by the participant. Since after the consecration of the bread the person was now eating the actual body of Christ, he did not need to have faith in order to feed on Christ.

Consubstantiation

Advocates of consubstantiation insist that Christ’s statement, ‘This is my body,’ must be understood literally. Luther’s teaching was that while the bread did not become the physical body of Christ, yet the body of Christ was present ‘in, with and under’ the bread. Grudem gives an illustration of this idea: ‘The example sometimes given is to say that Christ’s body is present in the bread as water is present in a sponge – the water is not the sponge, but is present “in, with, and under” a sponge, and is present wherever the sponge is present.’ 

Luther disagreed with three practices of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Lord’s Supper. The first was withholding the cup from the laity. The second was the practice of transubstantiation, which he regarded as philosophical meaninglessness, and instead he preferred to accept by faith Jesus’ words about the bread being his body. The third practice was the Mass, which the Roman church regarded as a sacrifice, but which Luther wanted to regard as a promise ‘of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God’. 

Nevertheless Luther had to explain how Christ was present in the bread and wine. Instead of using philosophy he preferred more visible illustrations. Luther likened the denial of Christ’s presence to a person removing the contents of an egg and leaving only the shell (Christ is the contents and the bread and wine is the shell). He accused these teachers of not being willing to accept the clear meaning of Christ’s words when he said at the first Lord’s Supper, ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’. Luther dismissed their claims that the presence of Christ in the elements was neither fitting nor necessary. 

Concerning the fitness of Christ’s presence, Luther notes that Christ did many things that were not fitting for God, as evidenced in his incarnation and in his cruel death; therefore, it is not up to men to decide what is fitting or not for the Son of God. In attempting to prove the reality of Christ’s presence in the elements, Luther resorts to subtle analogies; for example, (a) a person’s soul is present at all times in all the members of his body; (b) a person can think and speak simultaneously, and see and feel as one does so, and at the same time can digest food; (c) a spoken word can influence many people at the same time. When Christ is preached, and by a bodily voice (the preacher) brought into a person’s heart, Christ’s presence is real; and this experience can be known by many people at the same time, with each person receiving a whole Christ. This does not mean that Christ has left heaven, rather he is still there and also in the heart of each believer. If one believes this, then it is not difficult to accept that Christ can also be in heaven and in the elements of bread and wine at the same time. What causes the elements to have the presence of Christ is the Word of divine authority indicating he is there. ‘Just as he enters the heart without breaking a hole in it, but is comprehended only through the Word and hearing, so also he enters into the bread without needing to make any hole in it.’

As far as the necessity of Christ’s presence in the elements is concerned, Luther comments that it is not men but God who decides what is necessary. A person could just as well ask why God should feed us through the bread and wine when he could have done so by the Word itself. For Luther, such arguments were the devil’s activities to cause people to measure God’s will and work by human reason. Instead, believers should listen to God’s Word and remain in it.

Obviously, Luther has to explain his argument that the human nature of Christ could be everywhere. There is no doubt that Luther believed in the full deity and full humanity of Christ. Yet in explaining how Jesus could be present in consubstantiation he had to allow that the human nature of Jesus possessed divine attributes such as being in more than one place at the same time. He argued that at times his humanity was confined to one place, at other times he can do what a human nature usually cannot do, and at other times his human nature can perform what a divine being does.

It is obvious that Luther had several profound insights into the function of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, his comments on the humanity of Christ indicate that for Luther to advocate consubstantiation required him to believe Christ’s human nature possesses omnipresence, to not only be in heaven but also to be present in the Supper. 

Memorialism

Ulrich Zwingli did not accept the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation or the Lutheran alternative of consubstantiation, which meant he faced hostility from both Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians. In several places his teaching was condemned, including the Swiss canton of Uri and the German city of Nuremburg. His early writings on the Lord’s Supper were written in Latin, but his response to opposition was to publish his teachings in the common language so that, as he said, ‘the ordinary and simple Christian may learn the truth for himself’. Zwingli preferred the name ‘Eucharist’, although he would use terms such as the ‘Lord’s Supper’ and ‘communion’.

Zwingli affirmed that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper had several virtues:

1. They were instituted by Christ and he himself received them.
2. They testify to historical events.
3. They take the place, and name, of that which they signify.
4. They represent high things: for example, the bread represents the body of Christ.
5. There is an analogy between the signs and the things signified. In the Supper, there is a twofold analogy. First, just as bread and wine sustain human life and bring joy, so Christ sustains and rejoices the soul. Second, just as the bread is made up of many grains and the wine is made up of many grapes, so the many members of the church are constituted one body.
6. They augment faith and are an aid to it.
7. They act as an oath of allegiance to Christ and to fellow Christians.

  

As with Luther, Zwingli realised that the central matter was the meaning of the presence of Christ in the Supper, particularly in relation to the physical body of Christ. Those who say that Christians eat the body and blood interpret ‘This is my body’ literally. Zwingli notes that Christ often compared himself to objects, for example, he said, ‘I am the vine’, by which he did not mean he was a literal vine. Moreover he stressed that since the Ascension the human nature of Jesus has been in heaven since his Ascension, so references to the presence of Christ with his people must refer to his omnipresent divine nature.

For Zwingli, the ‘is’ in ‘This is my body’ means ‘signifies’, which he regards as important for the emphasis on remembrance: ‘Behold the end for which he [Jesus] bids them eat, namely, the commemoration of him.’

Zwingli stressed the corporate aspect of the commemoration: ‘Since, therefore, this Lord’s Feast, or in Paul’s words, Lord’s Supper, was instituted that we might call to remembrance the death of Christ, which he suffered for us, it is clear that it is the sign itself by which those who rely upon the death and blood of Christ mutually prove to their brethren that they have this faith.’ He regarded Paul’s teaching concerning the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10 as referring to the body of Christians rather than the physical body of Christ. In emphasising the corporate nature of the Supper, his teaching at one level was a response to the Roman Catholic practice of the Mass in which the laity played a spectator role. 

Stephens helpfully summarises Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper: ‘thanksgiving for Christ’s death for us, a confession of our faith, and a commitment to our brethren, to love them as Christ loved us.’ 

Yet his teaching does not give sufficient weight to the biblical details. Bromiley identifies an important aspect of Zwingli’s writings on the Supper when he says that while Zwingli gave effective criticism of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views, he did not provide an alternative method, which gives the impression that he was only able to offer a bare sacramentalism. He so separated the sign from what it signified in the Supper that he ‘did not show any clear sense of its unity’. It is not fair to speak of Zwingli’s interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Supper as ‘the real absence’, because he did believe that Christ was present in his divine nature. But since Christ is present everywhere in his divine nature, it is possible that Zwingli did not regard Christ as present in a special sense.  

Spiritual presence

In his chapter on the Lord’s Supper in his Institutes, John Calvin makes many pertinent points as he not only refutes the Lutherans and Roman Catholics but also explains his own understanding of what occurs at the Supper.

First, the Lord’s Supper is a provision of our heavenly Father to ‘assure us of his continued liberality’. Because Christ is the only food for our soul, ‘our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.’ Because no-one can see by nature the secret union between Christ and believers, the Father gives visible signs (the bread and the wine) in order to show ‘that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine’  (4:17:1).

Second, it is not sufficient to limit communion with Christ to being made partakers of the Spirit, and omitting all mention of flesh and blood (4:17:7).

Third, before the Incarnation, Christ as life was the source of life for all creatures. By the incarnation, Christ is the life both as God and man (4:17:8, 9) – ‘in his humanity also fulness of life resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the participation of life.’ The flesh of Christ ‘is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself.’

Fourth, the Holy Spirit ‘truly unites things separated by space’ i.e., Christ and believers. In the Supper, Christ exerts ‘an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises’ – ‘the sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us’ (4:17:10). Although the physical body of Christ remains in heaven, the Holy Spirit, who unites us to Christ, is ‘a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us’ (4:17:12).

Calvin had two safeguards in attempting to understand Christ’s presence in the Supper: ‘First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures [such as “affixes him to the element of the bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way”]. Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.’

Calvin disagreed with the view that the Supper is only an act of remembrance. To regard the Supper as only an act of remembrance does not explain other biblical passages such as Paul’s words that ‘the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (1 Cor. 10:16). Paul’s words point to a form of communion with Christ in his death. 

Calvin asserted that it was not a physical presence, for the human nature of the ascended Christ remains in heaven. He taught that the presence was spiritual, that by ‘the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the body and blood of Christ’. This means that the presence is more than one accomplished by Christ’s divine omnipresence. For Calvin, the presence of Christ is achieved by the Spirit, this secret agency being ‘the bond of our union with Christ’. So ‘the body of Christ is given to us in the Supper spiritually, because the secret virtue of the Spirit makes things which are widely separated by space to be united with each other, and accordingly causes life from the flesh of Christ to reach us from heaven.’ The Spirit nourishes believers with life from the flesh of Christ as they partake of the elements. The Spirit ensures that there is real communion between Christ and believers as they receive from Christ the benefits he purchased for them on the cross. It is important to stress that Calvin affirmed the necessity of the believer’s faith being active, in the sense of receiving from Christ, during the Supper. 

There is a real mystery here. It seems to me that Calvin was correct to object to both a mere remembering and to the consubstantiation interpretation of the Supper. In doing so he indicated that it is possible to deny that the elements are mere memory aids or that they are affected in some way. Some of what happens at the Supper is not comprehensible to the human mind. The Lord Jesus, through the Spirit, imparts to his participating people the benefits he died to give them, spiritual blessings such as assurance of forgiveness, the peace of God and so on. But Jesus also gives himself, including his body and blood.

Most Reformed theologians admit to a twofold sense of the presence of Christ: first, the second person of the Trinity must be present because of his inherent omnipresence; secondly, he is present through the working of the Holy Spirit employing the means of grace. But Calvin has been criticized for his third sense of Christ’s presence, with William Cunningham basically saying it was nonsensical. 

In response to these criticisms, it is admitted that Calvin’s view does contain aspects difficult to understand, particularly his idea that spiritual life comes to believers through partaking of the physical body and blood of Christ. Yet, as Sinclair Ferguson comments, there is the possibility that ‘discomfort with Calvin’s language masks a discomfort with the language of Scripture itself.’ 

What can we say?

The obvious lesson that comes from a survey of the views of the leading Reformers is the seriousness with which they regarded the Lord’s Supper; for them it was an important means of grace. As Timothy George puts it, we need to reclaim a theology of presence. The Reformers differed as to what was involved in Christ’s presence in the Supper, but they did stress that he was present. The Lord’s Supper is not only a meal with symbols, it also involves communion with Christ. 

Connected to the above point is the lesson that a true understanding of the Lord’s Supper cannot take place in isolation from other doctrines of the faith. In particular, such an understanding involves appreciating the person and work of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the functions of the church and its ministers. The Reformers remind us that it is possible for a religious rite to descend into an exhibition of clericalism, commercialism, scholasticism and spectatatorism (to use George’s insights mentioned earlier). But they also remind us that it is possible to recover a comprehensive range of biblical doctrines which will lead to a restored biblical practice.

In response to the various views of the Reformers, several other comments can be made. First, the notion of consubstantiation is non-biblical, because it requires that Christ’s human nature received divine properties, particularly the property of omnipresence, when he was exalted at his ascension. In effect, the idea of consubstantiation denies the ongoing humanness of Christ’s human nature. 

Second, the emphasis on memorialism is fine as far as it goes, but Paul’s comments on communion indicate that what happens at the Supper is more than an act of remembrance.

Third, while we need not accept every aspect of Calvin’s teaching, it is recognized that his emphasis on communion through the Spirit with the risen Christ who conveys spiritual life to his people through what is symbolised at the Supper is a biblical teaching. This emphasis of Calvin’s also leads to another important aspect of the Supper, that it is primarily an activity of Christ in feeding his people, and then secondarily an act of his people in remembering him. 

Fourth, we should not forget Zwingli’s emphasis on the corporate nature of the Supper, that in addition to fellowship with Christ, believers have fellowship with one another.

Fifth, we need to return to the practice of more frequent communions. The Reformers wanted weekly celebrations, and although they failed in the attempt, they were aiming to return the church to New Testament practice. Reformation should not be left to the past, rather it should be an ongoing phenomenon. The common objection to more frequent communions is the possibility of becoming so used to the practice that it becomes a mere ritual. But that objection can be made against any biblical feature of worship, whether it be the singing of praise, prayer or preaching. 

Sixth, we need to restore the balance between Word and sacrament in Christian worship. For the Reformers, the believers needed both the audible Word of God in sermonic form and the visible words of God in the sacraments. A service containing both a sermon and a supper conveys truth in both these mediums. The audible explains what the visible depicts and the visible enables the worshipper to be involved in what is proclaimed.