This is My body

Several months ago, the Roman CatholicChurch in U.K.issued a statement declaring that Roman Catholics are not to participate inProtestant Lord’s Supper services and that Protestants should not be admittedto Roman Catholic Mass. Though never verified, it was surmised that thestatement was issued in response to the fact that the Anglican British PrimeMinister, Tony Blair, whose wife, Cherie, is a Roman Catholic, frequentlyattended Mass at a Roman Catholic church with his family when he is at home.While many ecumenists will decry the statement as being a step back in theworld-wide effort to reunite Christendom, faithful Protestants ought rather towelcome the declaration instead. Why so? Because, the Roman Catholic mass isnot only repugnant to Scripture but is the cause of manifold superstitions, yeaof gross idolatories (WCF 29.6). It is therefore abominable in the eyes of God. As such, thedeclaration, which distinguishes between the Roman and the biblical Lord’sSupper is to be welcomed. However, it must be noted that though the gulfbetween the Roman view of the Mass and what Protestants believe to be thebiblical Lord’s Supper is very wide, not all Protestants are agreed on whatexactly ought to be the correct biblical view pertaining to the Lord’s Supper.What are the different views, what is the correct view? In this article weshall attempt to answer these questions as we continue on the theme of themarks of the true Church, of which the right administration of the sacrament isone. And having laid the foundation, we shall discuss how the Supper ought tobe conducted and how we should received in our next article.

On the same night that the Lord Jesus wasbetrayed, "He took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, andsaid, ‘Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do inremembrance of me.’ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he hadsupped, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oftas ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as ye eat this bread, anddrink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor11:23-26)

These are the words of the Apostle Paulconcerning the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is today the passage whichis most frequently read by ministers administering the Lord’s Supper in alldenominations of churches. At first glance, it appears to be ratherstraightforward and does not lend itself to controversies, but history hasshown otherwise. What is the point of contention? Inter-estingly, it is theLord’s words: "This is my body."

What does this phrase mean? The RomanCatholic Church teaches that it is to be taken literally i.e. Jesus meant thatthe bread used in the Lord’s Supper actually, supernaturally changes into Hisflesh, and similarly that the wine becomes His blood. This is the doctrineknown asTransubstantiation. By this doctrine the Roman Catholicchurch teaches that in the Mass, the bread and wine miraculously become theactual flesh and blood of Christ and is offered up as a sacrifice to appeasethe wrath of God. Thus Pope Pius IV made this ‘infallible’ declaration in the 5^th article of his creed: "I professlikewise that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, andpropitiatory sacrifice—for the living and the dead. And that in the most holysacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially the blood,together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that thereis made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and ofthe whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the CatholicChurch calleth Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and atrue sacrament." Accordingly, the Council of Trent in 1562-3 declaredemphatically: "If any one shall say, that in the Mass there is not offeredto God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing elsethan Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema" (§ 22.2.1); and the doctrinewas again affirmed in Vatican II (1962-5). …Cont. p. 3

Without going into a lot of details, it mayeasily be seen that this doctrine is repugnant to Scripture, to morality, toreason, and to our senses. It is contrary to Scripture since Christ pronouncedthat his propitiatory sacrifice was finished on the Cross (Jn 19:30), and theauthor of Hebrews repeatedly affirmed that the sacrifice was completed once forall: "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by thesacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26a); "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and untothem that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin untosalvation" (Heb 9:28); "We are sanctified through the offering of thebody of Jesus Christ once forall. " (Heb 10:10); and "By one offering he hath perfected for ever themthat are sanctified" (Heb 10:14). It is repugnant to morality since theeating of the wafer in the mass would be cannibalism if the doctrine is true.(Remember Wycliff’s illustration of the mouse eating the wafer?) It isrepugnant to reason since the physical body of Christ cannot be in heaven andon earth at the same time. It is contrary to our senses because the bread andwine still look and taste like wine without any alteration at all after theblessing. We note that in the Bible, there is actually a case of transubstantiation: when Jesus changed the water into wine(Jn 2:1-11). Of course in that case the wine tasted like wine. The guests whodrank it even thought that it was the best wine they had tasted all evening.Not so in the alleged transubstantiation of the Romanish Mass.

During the Reformation, Martin Lutherrejected this view and taught that instead of replacing the bread and the wine,Christ’s presence is added to the bread and wine. He maintained that the bodyand blood of Christ are somehow present in, under, and through the elements ofbread and wine. This view may be known as consubstantiation. The process of consubstantiation may belikened to how an iron bar becomes red-hot when it is placed in the fire. It isstill an iron bar, but it has the additional quality of being red hot.

While Luther’s view seems to make moresense than the Roman Catholic view, it is clear that he insisted on the realphysical and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. He taughtthat the divine attribute of omnipresence of Christ was somehow communicated tothe human nature of Jesus, making it possible for His body and blood to bepresent at more than one place at the same time. Sometime after the Reformationbegun, Luther and the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, persuaded by Philip ofHesse, decided to meet to see if they could forge a union. The meeting wasconvened at Marburgin 1529. When the two Reformed groups met, they soon discovered that theyagreed on every point of doctrine except one—the Lord's Supper. Luther at theonset insisted that he would not change his mind about the real presence ofChrist in the sacrament, and then to give his assertion a pictorial emphasiswrote on the table with a piece of chalk, in large characters: "Hoc estcorpus Meum" (Latin: This is my body).

Zwingli and Oecolampadius (his lieutenant)argued that Jesus’ words literally mean "This represents My body." Jesus frequently used theverb to be in such a figurative sense. He said,"I am the door," "I am the true vine," etc. So Zwingliargued that Christ’s body is not present in actual substance at the Lord’sSupper. The supper is a memorial only, with Christ’s presence no different from His normal presencethrough the Holy Spirit. Luther was adamant. He insisted that Hoc est corpus Meum means that the bread of the sacrament is the body of Christ. He would not allow the verb est (is) to be taken in a figurative or representative sense. WhenOecolampadius quoted John 6:63, "the flesh profiteth nothing" to showthat bodily eating is useless if we have spiritual eating, Luther retorted with"If God should order me to eat crab-apples or dung, I would do it, beingassured that it would be salutary." Luther’s profession of absolute obedience is commendable, but it is tragicthat he could be so blind to the fallacy of his arguments. So convinced was heof his position, that he eventually pronounced Zwingli as being of a differentspirit, and would not have anything else to do with the Swiss Reformers.

Whatever we may think of Luther’sobstinacy, however, his objections against Zwingli’s purely commemorative viewis not entirely without biblical and theological basis, if we care to studydeeper into the issue. For example, Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper as a"communion (1 Cor 10:16); and he insists that those who "eateth anddrinketh unworthily," brings judgement on themselves, including physicalillness and death (1 Cor 11:29-30). Such statements, surely, militate …P.T.Oagainst a purely commemorative view. It is not surprising,therefore, that towards the end of his life, when he read John Calvin’s tracton the Lord’s Supper, he remarked approvingly: "The author is certainly alearned and pious man: if Zwingli and Oecolampadius had from the start declaredthemselves in this way, there would probably not have arisen such acontroversy."

Calvin, whose view we essentially subscribeto, denied the "substantial" presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supperwhen he debated with Rome or the Lutherans. Yet when he debated with theAnabaptists, who, like Zwingli reduced the Lord’s Supper to a mere memorial, heinsisted on the "substantial" presence of Christ.

On the surface it seems that Calvin wascaught in a blatant contradiction. However, upon closer scrutiny we see thatCalvin used the term substantial in two different ways. When he addressedCatholics and Lutherans, he used the term substantial to mean "physical." He denied the physical presence ofChrist in the Lord’s Supper. When he addressed the Anabaptists, however, heused the term substantial in the sense of "real." Calvinthus argued that Christ was really or truly presentin the Lord’s Supper, though not in a physical sense. The human nature of Jesusis presently localised in heaven. It remains in perfect union with His divinenature. Though the human nature is contained in one place, the person of Christ is not so contained because Hisdivine nature (which is hypostatically united to His human nature) still hasthe power of omnipresence. Jesus said, "I am with you always, even to theend of the age" (Matt 28:20).

Calvin taught that though Christ’s body andblood remain in heaven, they are spiritually "made present" to us byJesus’ omnipresent divine nature. Wherever the divine nature of Christ ispresent, He is truly present (ICR 4.17.30). This is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching that He was"going away" yet would abide with us. When we, by faith, meet Him atthe Lord’s Supper we commune with Him as thetheoanthropos, the God-Man.Note that this communion occurs not because Christ is brought down to us(transubstantiation or consubstantiation), but because we are lifted up to Him(see ICR4.17.31). By meeting us in His divine presence, we are brought intoHis human presence mystically, because His divine nature is never separatedfrom His human nature. When the Lord’s Supper is participated in faith, thedivine nature of Christ brings us into communion with the ascended Christ. Thisis how we are to understand 1Cor 10:16. The Lord’s Supper is a mysticalcommunion with Christ in which "from the substance of His flesh Christbreathes life into our souls—indeed, pours forth His very life unto us—eventhough Christ’s flesh itself does not enter into us" (ICR 4.17.32). Is eating the flesh of Christ anddrinking His blood the same as believing in Him? Calvin denies (See Comm. on John, 260). How then is it possible that theflesh and blood of Christ can feed the soul? This is a mystery that even Calvinfinds to be "too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words todeclare" (ICR 4.17.32).But the Lord has declared, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, anddrink his blood, ye have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Although Calvinbelieves that the Lord’s sermon in John 6 is not an exposition of the Lord’sSupper which was to be instituted later, he suggests that "Christ …intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation ofthis sermon" (John, 266). Herein is the difference between theCalvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper which the Reformed Church has acceptedand the Zwinglian memorial view. And herein is the reason why we must discernthe Lord’s body in the Supper or be in danger of eating and drinking damnationon ourselves (cf. 1Cor 11:29). Calvin explains that the Lord’s Supper, which isspiritual food for those who partake it by faith, "[turns] into a deadlypoison for all those whose faith it does not nourish and strengthen, and whomit does not arouse to thanksgiving and to love" (ICR 4.17.40).

Herein also is the answer to the questionon the value of the Lord Supper as a means of grace. The Westminster Assembly,which perhaps for didactic and prudential reasons did not reflect theparticular details of Calvin’s view, explains that "they that worthilycommunicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon thebody and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritualmanner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply untothemselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death" (WLC170).This is true, yet incomplete from Calvin’s perspective, since the generalapplication of Christ crucified and the benefits of His death, may be achievedwithout the Lord’s Supper and appears to leave out the secret but immediatefeeding of our souls which is implied in Calvin’s thought. On the other hand,the Heidelberg Catechism which follows Calvin’s view closely answers in, Q. 76,"What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood ofChrist?"

It is not only to embrace with a believingheart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the pardonof sin, and life eternal; but also, besides that, to become more and moreunited to His sacred body, by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and inus; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding"Flesh of His flesh, and bone of his bone"; and that we live, and aregoverned forever by one spirit, as members of the same body by one soul. 

Note that while Calvin speaks about theagency of the divine nature of Christ, the catechism speaks about the agencythe Holy Spirit. Theologically there is no difference, since they are one inessence. This answer is based largely on the Lord’s sermon in John 6, andteaches us that the unique benefit of the Lord’s Supper is the increase ofunity that we have with Christ. This translates in our experience to growth inChrist-likeness, increase of love for Christ, increase of fidelity to Him, andincrease of assurance of our being in Him.

Thus, if Calvin is right,—and most Reformedtheologians, including the Westminster divines would not impute error to him,though many find his presentation too speculative,—then the Lord’s Supperbecomes not an option, but a vital means of grace which must not be neglectedin the church or by the individual believer. Moreover, when we contemplate onthe real presence of Christ in the Supper, we are convinced that the supper mayno more be conducted in a flippant, hasty and mechanical manner without properexhortations to reflect on what Christ has done for us and to examine ourhearts before Him.