The Lord's Supper

Many of Jesus' actions and words at the Last Supper, such as the breaking of bread, and distributing of the bread, were part of the prescribed Passover ritual. But when Jesus said, "This is My body' and "This is my blood" while distributing the bread and the cup, He did something totally new. These words, which were intended for our blessing, have been the focus of sharp disagreement among Christians for centuries. In what sense are the bread and wine Christ's body and blood? What should the Lord's supper mean to us? The answers to these questions are often grouped into four categories, although there are variations within these four broad views.           

(Note: the italics are quotes from Nelson's Bible Dictionary)

The Transubstantiation View

The first view is that of the Roman Catholic Church (especially before the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965). This view holds that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ when the words of institution are spoken by the priest. This doctrine, known as transubstantiation, holds that while the physical properties (taste, appearance, etc.) of the bread and wine do not change, the inner reality of these elements undergoes a spiritual change.

While this view may help to foster a serious attitude toward the Eucharist, it fails to grasp the figurative nature of Jesus' language. Jesus could not have been holding His actual body and blood in His hands. He probably meant, "This bread represents My body" and "This wine represents My blood." Jesus often used figurative language (Luke 8:11, 21), just as a person does today when showing someone a photograph and saying, "This is my father".

Personally, I have doubts and convictions concerning this particular view. Because we must keep in mind that Jesus had not gone to the cross yet. Everyone was still under the Old Covenant. And I think we will both agree that Jesus kept the Law and statutes of God perfectly without breaking a single one. This means that Jesus would not eat flesh with the blood under Mosaic Law. Nor do I see Him enticing His disciples to break the Law and sin before God.

Leviticus 19
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

Deuteronomy 12
23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

The forbidding of drinking blood continues into the New Covenant as well.

Acts 15
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

So I think it safe to say that there are clear contradictions between this doctrine of transubstantiation, and the Scriptures under both testaments. As Nelson's Bible Dictionary suggests, the figurative language of Jesus is not being addressed in an area that it was most likely used. Did Jesus command us concerning the communion? Yes He did, however He would not command us in contradiction to the word of God.


The Consubstantiation View

The second viewpoint, developed by Martin Luther, is that Christ's body and blood are truly present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. The elements do not actually change into Christ's body and blood. But in the same way that heat is present in a hot piece of iron, so Christ present in the elements. The Lutheran position is often called consubstantiation.

This position can encourage the recipient of the Eucharist with the realization that Christ is actually present at the Supper. But it also misses the figurative use of Jesus' words. It also may tend to draw more attention to the bread and wine than to Christ Himself.


The Symbolic View

The third position, known as the symbolic or memorial view, is derived from the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Although his teaching is not completely clear, he basically held that the bread and wine were only symbols of the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. He taught that the Lord's Supper is primarily a memorial ceremony of Christ's finished work, but it is also to be an occasion when God's people pledge their unity with one another and their loyalty to Christ. This is the viewpoint held by most Baptist and independent churches. While Zwingli's ideas are basically sound, this position tends to place more emphasis on what the Christian does and promises in the Supper than on what God does.

The Dynamic View

Finally, there is the view of John Calvin and the Reformed and Presbyterian churches that follow his teachings. Known as the dynamic or spiritual presence view, it stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli.

Calvin agreed with Zwingli that the bread and wine are to be understood symbolically. Christ is not physically present in the elements, because His risen, glorified body is in heaven (Hebrews 10:12-13). Still, dynamically and spiritually present in the Lord's Supper through the Holy Spirit.

In the worship service (but not at any one precise moment), when the Word of God is proclaimed and the Lord's Supper is received, the glorified Christ actually gives spiritual nourishment from His own glorified body to those who receive it. As bread nourishes the physical body, so Christ's glorified body enlivens the soul. Because of the organic union between Christ, the risen Head, and the members of His body, the church (Ephesians 1:18-23; 4:15-16; 5:23), this nourishment is conveyed to Christians by the Spirit who dwells in them (Romans 8:9-11). Calvin admits  that the way the Spirit does this is a genuine mystery. Yet it is not contrary to reason... just above reason.

Calvin at times places more emphasis on Jesus' glorified flesh and blood than the Scriptures teach. But his position helps to explain why the Eucharist is so important for the Christian to observe, and why it is such a serious offense to misuse it. His view also corresponds well with those Scriptures that speak of God's nourishing and empowering work in His people (Ephesians 3:13-21; Colossians 2:6-10, 19).

I fall into the Dynamic view myself. It wasn't until this year that I learned that this view even had a name.

God Bless.