Continuing the ongoing discussion of the Lord’s Supper (Part One, and Part Two) we will be looking at John Calvin’s view of what happens in the Lord’s Supper since there is much in it I share.
John Calvin, in section 4.17.3 of The Institutes of Christian Religion says the following regarding what the body and blood of Christ does:
As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate.
This is the best explanation of what I mean when I use the term “sanctifying grace”. The grace that is given by the eating the body and blood of Christ is not grace that saves a person, but the grace that works like physical food does. It renews us, gives us energy, and keeps us healthy, not physically like ordinary food does, but spiritually. This is what feeding on the body and blood of Christ does.
But is this feeding on the body and blood of Christ what happens in the Lord’s Supper, or is it something that happens only spiritually through relying and trusting in Christ? Most evangelicals would agree with Calvin if he was referring only to what happens through trusting and relying on Christ through faith with no connection to the Lord’s Supper, except perhaps through some disjointed symbolism. But it is clear that Calvin is not only referring to what happens only when one trusts in Christ, but what happens when one trusts in Christ through the Lord’s Supper as section 4.17.10 discusses.
Section 4.17.10 begins by repeating section 4.17.3 in a condensed form which shows it is the same line of reasoning continuing:
The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ.
Calvin then goes on to answer the question of how Christ, being far away from us (sitting at the right hand of God) can be connected to us, allowing us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Although this question has not been a point I have dwelt on in my discussions of the Lord’s Supper it is an important point of which the Reformed and Lutherans have historically disagreed on.
This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.
Calvin then enters into discussion of the question we have here been considering in the past blog entries; what happens in the Lord’s Supper. His answer is that exactly when was said in 4.17.3 is what happens:
That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “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.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified.
Calvin believes scripture connects the Lord’s Supper to what is symbolized by it. When we drink the wine we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the blood of Christ, likewise when we eat the bread we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the body of Christ. If this is the case, then when we take the bread and wine we are in fact taking the bread and blood of Christ and the benefits that come with it. This is not to say that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ, Calvin would deny the Roman Catholic doctrine, but they are connected. How are they connected?
I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.
The bread and wine symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, but the symbol is not a mere symbol. Through the taking of the symbol what the symbol represents is given. The benefits of the body and blood of Christ are given in the Lord’s supper because by receiving the symbol, one receives what is symbolized. To steal an explanation of this consider the example of a wedding ring. The wedding ring is a symbol (among other things) of the marriage, but when the ring is placed on the finger what it symbolizes comes into being. The ring is not the marriage, but it is so connected to the marriage that it is not an empty symbol; it truly represents the truth of the marriage and one who receives it receives the benefits of the marriage covenant through it.
How then shall this all be summed up? According to Calvin the Lord’s Supper gives the Christian sanctifying grace, that is grace for the Christian life, because the bread and wine are the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and through those symbols we participate with what they symbolize.
Bryan, I must admit that I do not agree with a lot of this.
First of all, I think Calvin’s explanation is a cop-out:
In other words, he can’t ultimately explain it or justify it, so he just says that we should have faith. Obviously we all have faith in fundamental things (God exists, the bible is true, Jesus died and rose again, etc…), but faith gets a bit stretched out when we start to need it as a justification for systematic beliefs. I think those kind of arguments should be proven (in relation to the premises of faith we have already agreed upon). It is like me saying, “bronze serpents heal people. I can’t explain why they do, but just have faith that it happens.”
Secondly, and less academic, is my general revulsion to the idea of cannibalism. While I see that you have rejected transubstantiation, there is still a heavy emphasis on consuming the blood and body of Christ. Obviously, this is what the bread and wine represent, but Jesus’ (unfortunately short) words on the matter, I think, have a greater emphasis on remembrance than specificity of symbolism.
Last, take the wedding ring analogy. I would argue that rings don’t make a marriage whatsoever. In fact, there is no need for any symbols or traditions to make a marriage. There is no natural or biblical precedent that some kind of object is required. Marriage is created when the male and female “become one flesh.” It is useful for illustration and remembrance to use things like rings, gowns and the like - but there is not extra specialness inherent in the certain objects (maybe relative to the couple, certain things are important).
I think this follows with the Lord’s supper. Grace is not predicated upon nor does it require objects, sacraments or other activities. Grace is given unilaterally by God, in the death and resurrection of his Son. We may have symbols to help us understand or remember that, but we can’t get side benefits from them.
First of all, let’s examine the reason Christ gave for taking the Lord’s Supper.
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
(Luke 22:19)
Paul reemphasized this when he quoted Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11.
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
I think going beyond the basic reason that Jesus gave for observing Communion embellishes on the scripture. In fact, I really can’t see how this teaching is biblically-based at all. We have to remember that Calvin was steeped in Catholicism, and he was seeking to find theological explanations to refute the Catholic position. So he probably started out with the Transubstantiation doctrine and said, “This can’t be right. Let me investigate the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper.” Rather than accepting the simple statement made by Christ, that the idea is to remember that Christ’s body was broken and his blood was spilled for our redemption, he ends up with another superstitious explanation on the other end of the spectrum. And I am familiar with the previous argument about how this isn’t a magical or mystical explanation, but I still disagree - respectively of course.
I will say that observing the Lord’s Supper should be done in faith with a clear conscience, but that’s not unlike anything else that we do in the name of Jesus. The just shall live by faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And faith is always expressed either by words and/or action predicated on belief. The grace that continually brings salvation is based on Christ’s justification of man alone.
So while I believe that health can be achieved by consumption of the bread and wine (or juice as the case may be) it is only because it is an expression of faith in Christ’s finished work. The same result of health can be achieved by expressing faith in other ways as well.
Here’s a view from the Catholic perspective:
“Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.”
“Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. “
God doesn’t hold out “empty” symbols, but neither do the symbols impart the grace. That is the entire POINT Paul makes in Romans 4:9-12:
Just as it was Abraham’s FAITH that was rewarded by grace and not the symbolism of circumcision, so it is our FAITH that is rewarded by grace rather than our symbolism of baptism and communion. See also Passover, the forerunner of communion. In the original Passover, it was the real blood on the doors that signified the faith of the inhabitants and resulted in the salvation of the resident firstborns. In future Passovers, the feast was commanded as an observation and reminder of that event. The payment of sins is a past act, completed by Christ. The baptism and communion of saints is an act of obedience and remembrance of that act. Our FAITH is what bestows grace (and that faith is also a gift from God). Belief in magic rituals that “force” God to bestow grace is unbiblical. Grace is not something we do acts to earn, it is a gift granted despite our complete inability to do anything to deserve it Romans 4:1-6a:
Grace granted as the result of an act isn’t grace, it is a wage that was earned. Mankind is unable to “earn” the blessings of God due to our sin.
You might find some of these examples interesting as you discuss the meaning of the Last Supper and the Eucharist. They are similar in wonder to the Shroud of Turin. There are pictures as well on the site.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
Throughout Christian history, our Lord has shown us that he is really present as the Blessed Sacrament. Interestingly, many Eucharistic miracles have occurred during times of weakened Faith. For instance, many Eucharist miracles have taken place as a result of someone doubting the Real Presence. Included on this page are descriptions of just a few of these miracles. All of them have received full approval by the Church.
Most Eucharistic miracles involve incidences in which the Host has “turned into human flesh and blood”. Of course we as Catholics believe that the consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, Jesus, through these miracles, merely manifests His Presence in a more tangible way.
“Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’” (Jn 20:27-29)
Sienna, Italy — August 17, 1730
Consecrated Hosts remain perfectly preserved for over 250 years. Rigorous scientific experiments have not been able to explain this phenomena.
Amsterdam, Holland 1345
Eucharist thrown into fire overnight miraculously is unscathed.
Blanot, France — March 31, 1331
The Eucharist falls out of a woman’s mouth onto an altar rail cloth. The priest tries to recover the Host but all that remains is a large spot of blood the same size and dimensions as the wafer.
Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy
Again, a priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today.
Lanciano, Italy — 8th century A.D.
A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit)
“Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.”
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Mike, thanks for posting your concept of the Catholic position. It is helpful in understanding Catholic theology when it comes from someone who isn’t a non-Catholic Christian (or “Protestant” if you prefer).
I totally agree with Atanamis’ comments, namely this:
“Grace granted as the result of an act isn’t grace, it is a wage that was earned. Mankind is unable to “earn” the blessings of God due to our sin.”
And to his point on the Passover and its relation to Communion, it is important to realize that Christ is the New Covenant equivalent of the Passover lamb. To borrow from John the Baptist, he is “lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). So the language about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is obviously being used to convey to the Jewish audience the significance of Christ’s death in instituting a covenant sufficient to eradicate the sins of mankind. As part of the Passover ceremony, the Passover lamb was eaten. This foreshadowed the ministry of Christ.
Thanks Chris,
It’s certainly a mystery and difficult to understand from a human perspective, but this is the case in so many examples in God’s interaction with man as shown in the Bible. In both the Old and New Testaments there are so many events that escapes man’s ability to comprehend. And in a particularly striking manner was the continued confusion of the Apostles. As followers who spent so much time with him, his words so often made no sense to them. They were confused by the words of Christ and the descriptions of what was coming. And after the Resurrection, the Apostles were totally confused even after multiple visits by the resurrected Jesus until Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit brought to them understanding and strength and fearlessness.
Here’s a little more on the description from a Catholic view:
“Vatican II puts the Catholic position succinctly:
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.
Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor.
No “figurative presence”
The literal meaning can’t be avoided except through violence to the text—and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries. The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in the Real Presence. There is no basis for forcing anything else out of the lines, and no writer tried to do so until the early Middle Ages. Christ did not institute a Figurative Presence. Some Fundamentalists say the word “is” is used because Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, had no word for “represents.” Those who make this feeble claim are behind the times, since, as Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman showed a century ago, Aramaic has about three dozen words that can mean “represents.”"
“Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised.The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor.”
I don’t know that there is a “language of metaphor” as such. By their very nature, metaphors are stated in the same way something literal is. Following this same logic, we could also say that Christ was literally a lamb or a lion. However, although these titles help us to understand the identity of Jesus in the redemptive sense, they cannot be taken literal because they were not intended to be literal. Jesus is not literally bread or wine any more than he is literally a lion or a lamb. Let’s look at John 6:35:
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Question: Was Jesus speaking of literal hunger and literal thirst? If we say no, then we must also conclude that he was speaking figuratively when he referred to himself as the bread of life. We can’t have it both ways. We must be consistent. Either he was speaking altogether literally or altogether figuratively. We cannot say that he was speaking figuratively about hunger and thirst, and then in the same sentence speaks literally about being the bread of life. It is quite clear that he was speaking figuratively to convey a spiritual truth.
Ok, based on this discussion and questions here the next entry in this “series” will take a bit of a step back and look at Sacraments in a more broad sense (IE. are they are work or not…so read your Luther if you want to pre-empt my argument).
This was never intended to be a series, but one post just lead to another. If it had been intended to be a series I would have started with the next post, but it’s kind of fun always basing the next entry on comments on the previous one.
“This was never intended to be a series, but one post just lead to another. If it had been intended to be a series I would have started with the next post, but it’s kind of fun always basing the next entry on comments on the previous one.”
Yeah, that’s what makes it interesting.
Aside: Chris A said, “We can’t have it both ways. We must be consistent. Either he was speaking altogether literally or altogether figuratively. We cannot say that he was speaking figuratively about hunger and thirst, and then in the same sentence speaks literally about being the bread of life. It is quite clear that he was speaking figuratively to convey a spiritual truth.”
I’m not so sure we can’t “have it both ways,” as least linguistically speaking. Humans often use “double meaning” when they speak, and maybe Jesus was too. That is the whole point of using metaphorical language at all–to bridge the gap between literal, surface, and physical meaning to something more abstract and general.
Back to the main topic. I don’t claim to understand all the implications of all the different positions on the Eucharist, though I grew up in the “it’s only symbolism” camp. I will say that if it is just a symbol, at times I’ve experienced it to be a very powerful one. As I’ve bitten down on one of those micro hardtack cracker bits, I realized that just like my jaws couldn’t help but violently break the bread, so my sin couldn’t help but violently crucify Christ’s body. Did that physical bit of flour impart grace to me? Well, it certainly helped.
“I’m not so sure we can’t “have it both ways,” as least linguistically speaking. Humans often use “double meaning” when they speak, and maybe Jesus was too.”
If we are entertaining this as a possibility, does this mean that Jesus was referring to himself literally as bread and also figuratively as bread at the same time? Was the hunger and thirst both literal and figurative? Or was his statement a hybrid on indistinguishable literal and figurative speech? Those are the only possibilities of double meaning that I can see in John 6:35. I really don’t see how that could be a plausible explanation in this context.
CORRECTION: Hybrid “of” not “on”.
Chris, I think thainamu was just indicating that “having it both ways” is linguistically possible, without indicating either way whether that is what is taking place here. As such, it might be beneficial for someone to research the original language that was used in the passage, and determine if any such double meanings are likely. As the only professional linguist in this discussion (that I am aware of), thainamu’s warnings about linguistic assumptions are important to consider.
“Chris, I think thainamu was just indicating that “having it both ways” is linguistically possible, without indicating either way whether that is what is taking place here. As such, it might be beneficial for someone to research the original language that was used in the passage, and determine if any such double meanings are likely. As the only professional linguist in this discussion (that I am aware of), thainamu’s warnings about linguistic assumptions are important to consider.”
I could be wrong, and I’d be willing to consider other possibilities if I could see how it would apply specifically to this passage. I don’t doubt that it could be linguistically possible in other contexts, but I just don’t see how it could apply here. And for the record, I respect Thainamu’s opinion. I would just require a more thorough explanation in order to form a basis for belief.