week 12

Psalm: Psalm 111

Old Testament: 1 Kings 2:10-12, 3:3-14
Gospel: John 6:51-58
Epistle: Ephesians 5:15-20

This week, I want to do something a little different.  Last week, I wanted to mostly explore the idea that Jesus declaring he is the bread of life reveals that he is from God, just like manna in the Old Testament.  I was planning on leaving it at that, but this week, the Gospel of John continues with the theme of Jesus as bread. So, of course, I think this is a good week to actually discuss the Eucharist.  I want to focus on the idea of the elements, the bread and the wine, actually becoming Jesus’ body and blood.

Like I said, this week will be different.  First, let me describe four broad and historical interpretations of the elements without getting into technical details.  1. Transubstantiation (the Roman Catholic position): in which substance becomes the flesh and blood whereas the “accidents”—taste, color, texture, etc. remain the same.  2. Consubstantiation (the Lutheran position): again, there is a real presence, but Christ’s presence is in, with, and under the elements.  Thus, when we receive the elements, we also receive the body and blood of Christ. 3. Spiritual presence (Reformed or Calvinist view): For Calvin, the presence of Christ is communicated by the Holy Spirit.  In a sense then, the real presence of Christ is received in Communion.  4. Memorialist view (Zwingli): in the elements we remember Christ’s sacrifice by reenacting the meal.

I want to briefly look at Zwingli’s arguments against a real bodily presence of Christ in the elements.  These historically aren’t the same used by Calvin or even Wesley, but they are helpful to me. (Plus, I wrote a paper about it, so I have all the research.)  First, the main words of contention are the words which read “this is my body.” (Matt: 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24)  For Zwingli, these words were to be taken figuratively, like so much else in the Scripture.  In the Gospels, Jesus is said to be the vine, the Lamb of God, the living bread, a stone, etc.[1]  In all of these cases, the word “is” is used figuratively.  Zwingli also goes to great length to argue that Jesus can’t be present in the elements because he repeatedly says that he is leaving to go the Father. For example, John 16:28 says “now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” (see also John 17:11, 12:8, Mark 16:19, Acts 7:55) Finally, Zwingli made a distinction between Jesus’ divine and human nature.  He basically argued that if Jesus was present in his human flesh at every Eucharistic celebration, then he is no longer fully human and thus didn’t atone for our sins.  I think this is his weakest argument mainly because he might make too much of a distinction between Christ’s human and divine nature and also because we don’t really know the properties of the incarnate body.

Hopefully, that wasn’t too confusing.  I tried to keep it brief and simple.  Rather than looking at and constructing Zwingli’s Eucharistic understanding, I think it will be more fruitful to look at John Wesley’s, so let’s turn to that.

According to Rob Staples, Wesley’s views most closely resemble Calvin’s.  Like Calvin, he argued that Christ’s body is present only in heaven and thus there is no local presence of Christ in the elements.  Like Calvin, and against Zwingli’s memorial view, Wesley believed in a spiritual presence. However, whereas Calvin thought of the “power” of Christ being mediated by the Holy Spirit, Wesley “stressed the presence of Christ in terms of his divinity.” The whole Trinity is present bestowing the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work.

Perhaps more needs to be said about Wesley’s understanding of the means of grace, which extend much farther than just the sacraments and other elements of Eucharistic understanding but I think this is probably enough.  For this post, I was drawing from Rob Staples’, Outward Sign and Inward Grace, which is the only book I have on the topic, but an important work nonetheless. 

I want to leave you with his top suggestion for Eucharistic practice: “The Lord’s Supper should always be celebrated in conjunction with the reading and teaching of the word.” (279)  But the words of James F. White, which he quotes offer a great caveat to that: “A weekly celebration of the Eucharist under the spirit and form in which it is now performed monthly or occasionally in most Protestant churches would be an unmitigated disaster…it is unduly long, unduly lugubrious, and unduly penitential.” (281) I don’t mind the long part; that is hardly a reason for or against anything, but lugubriousness (or mournful) and penitence are not necessary.  There is a reason it is called the Eucharist, and that is because it is a celebration of what Christ has done for us, in us, and through us.  So, I believe we should celebrate the Eucharist every week, but perhaps the ways in which it is often done needs to be reevaluated.

For the few of you who are still reading, thanks.  Sorry I didn’t get to Solomon or Paul. Oh well, next week we’ll see what’s on the docket. Comments and questions are welcome.

Grace and Peace.

---

[1] John 15, John 1, John 6, Matt 21.