This Is My Body: How We Understand the Lord’s Supper
November 19, 2009 by Brian Allred
Filed under Latest New Life News
It may surprise some people to know that former President Bill Clinton was not the first person to suggest that a lot can hinge upon what one’s understanding of the word “is” is! When Jesus says, “This is my body,” what does “is” mean? How are we to understand Jesus when he refers to the bread as his “body” and the cup as his “blood” in instituting the sacrament of the Supper (Mat. 26:26-27)? On the third Sunday of every month, the congregation at New Life celebrates the Lord’s Supper, but what exactly is happening when we partake of the bread and the cup? There is, undoubtedly, mystery involved in the Lord’s Supper, but just what that mystery precisely is has been an area of debate in the church, especially since the time of the Protestant Reformation.
There have been basically four ways of understanding Jesus’ words of institution. Some understand the Lord’s Supper to be merely a memorial that recalls the death of Jesus for sinners in the giving of his body and the shedding of his blood. This view regards the bread and the cup as purely symbolic and rejects the notion that by receiving the elements one partakes of Christ himself.
Over against this “memorialistic view”, others argue for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. For example, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ is physically present – really and truly – as the elements of ordinary bread and wine are transformed through priestly consecration into the literal body and blood of Jesus. Though outwardly the elements still look like, taste like, and smell like bread and wine, they are, in reality, the physical body and blood of Christ. This view is referred to as transubstantiation. Martin Luther rejected this view at the time of the Reformation and the Lutherans eventually formulated a view that has come to be called consubstantiation, in which the ordinary elements of bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ but the physical body and blood are mysteriously “added” to the elements so as to be “in, with, and under” them.
Contrary to common assumptions, the historic Reformed position, following John Calvin’s interpretation of Jesus’ words, does not deny the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and does not regard the sacrament as merely a memorial. Instead, the Reformed position argues that while the elements are not transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ, nor is the physical body and blood of Jesus “added” to the elements, Jesus is spiritually present – really and truly – in the sacrament. So while we do not feed upon Christ with our mouths and teeth, we do feed upon Christ – really and truly – by faith to the nourishment of our souls. As surely as our bodies are nourished and sustained physically by the bread and the cup, we can be certain that our souls, too, are nourished and sustained as we feed upon Jesus spiritually in the sacrament by faith.
One of the important implications of this view is that by receiving the bread and the cup, we are not simply pledging our consecration to God, but we are receiving God’s continuing work for us and in us as He nourishes us and our faith by drawing us into union with Christ and the saving benefits of the cross. In other words, observing the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper isn’t primarily about us doing something for God; it is about God doing something for us. For this reason, many, including Calvin, have maintained that the Lord’s Supper should be observed and celebrated as often as possible.
In His Abounding Grace,
Brian
I really liked this article. It broke down three different denominations of how the bread and wine are seen and partaken. You were clear on what each one believed without bashing other beliefs but basically saying, “This is what we hold true at new life.” I think it helped me understand what new life believes regarding the bread and wine that we partake. There was one thing that I did have a question about and that is why new life only has communion once a month compared to having it every week? Especially if we believe that our souls are being nourished by God and bringing us closer to the cross of Christ. Why should we limit this type of nourishment to only once a month? Thank you Brian once again for growing me in my understanding of our faith.
Thanks for your response, Matt. You can read more about the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the confessional materials in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, and the Westminster Larger Catechism Q.s 168-175 (and I would also encourage reading the Belgic Confession, Article 35).
Your question about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper at New Life is a good one. There is the idea within evangelicalism that the more a congregation celebrates the Lord’s Supper, the less “special” it is. A related concern is that a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper would have a tendency toward a heartless, ritualistic, and mechanical observance. As to the first issue, when and where the sacrament is properly administered, by God’s grace something “special” (feeding on Christ by faith to the nourishment of our souls) is happening whether we “feel” it or not. As for the latter concern, falling into a ritualistic pattern would seem to be a danger associated with any element of worship: the call to worship, the confession of sin, the assurance of pardon, the giving of tithes, the singing, the bendiction, etc. There should be a sense of wonder and awe in each of these elements, but they CAN become mechanical. That, however, is not an argument against their weekly inclusion, and few seem to make such arguments except when it comes to the Lord’s Supper!
It should be noted that the Scriptures do not prescribe a frequency for observing the Lord’s Supper. Jesus’ words of institution are simply “whenever you do this”. But given our reformed understanding of what is happening in the Lord’s Supper, weekly observance should be seriously considered. Still, it is interesting to note that while John Calvin was a proponent of weekly communion, the practice was resisted in the church in Geneva where he pastored and was never adopted during the time he served there.