The real presence of Christ in the sacrament of communion.

[Paulomycin]

(please be patient, this is only a rough draft)

I'm becoming more and more convinced lately that Communion/Lord's Supper is not merely a metaphorical, or purely symbolic, memorial. But rather, it's an actual memorial done in obedience, (1 Corinthians 11:24-25; Luke 22:19).

In other words, I think Protestants can take the symbolism to as much of an extreme direction with the "mere symbolism" as the Roman Catholics do with the "real presence of Christ" in the opposite direction with their Eucharist.

Historically, the issue with the Roman Catholic Church is whether or not the presence of Christ in the elements are real or not, as opposed to mere metaphor, or mere symbolism. To them, "real" is interpreted as "materialistic," --and that tends to create more problems than it solves, everything from violating the once for all sacrifice of Jesus in Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:10, to atheist accusations of literal cannibalism, which of course runs afoul of John 6 (see below).

But we can resolve the two extremes to find a happy middle! On the one hand, not so symbolic that it's treated as merely a legal fiction, but not so "real," that it's treated as crass materialism.

I think that the real presence of Christ can be taken literally in that the elements of bread and wine are taken in objective faith and obedience to His real Spiritual presence in communion with the body of believers. The key to this is John 6:48, and all the way through to the end of the chapter (verses 48-69).

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

Otherwise, what's the only other conclusion that one can make? Why, literal cannibalism, of course. And that's why many of His disciples left him in John 6. They didn't comprehend that the Spirit gives life, rather than the flesh.

Thanks for taking the time to meditate on this with me.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Paulomycin, I thought Keith Mathison's article (from Tabletalk Magazine) might be useful, so here it is.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper
by Keith Mathison

John Calvin is widely considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Reformation era. Many associate his name with doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, but fewer are aware that he wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The topic occupied many of his sermons, tracts, and theological treatises throughout his career. Calvin’s emphasis was not unusual. Among the many doctrines debated during the Reformation, the Lord’s Supper was discussed more than any other.

By the time Calvin became a prominent voice in the late 1530s, the Reformers had been debating the Lord’s Supper with Roman Catholics and with each other for years. In order to understand Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is necessary to understand the views he opposed. Throughout the later Middle Ages and up until the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was the received view in the Western church. Two aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine require comment: Rome’s view of the Eucharistic presence and Rome’s view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

According to Rome, Christ’s presence in the sacrament is to be explained in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidens (that is, the incidental properties) of the bread and wine remain the same. Rome also teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice; in fact, the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the sins of the living and the dead.

The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. In his book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther attacked both of these doctrines. Also opposed to Rome’s doctrine was the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. However, although Luther and Zwingli agreed in their rejection of Rome’s doctrine, they were not able to come to agreement on the true nature of the Lord’s Supper.

Zwingli argued that Christ’s words “This is my body” should be read, “This signifies my body.” He claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial, an initiatory ceremony in which the believer pledges that he is a Christian and proclaims that he has been reconciled to God through Christ’s shed blood. Martin Luther adamantly rejected Zwingli’s doctrine, insisting that Christ’s words “This is my body” must be taken in their plain, literal sense.

Martin Luther argued that although Rome’s explanation of Christ’s true presence in the Lord’s Supper was wrong, the fact of Christ’s true presence was correct. He offered a different explanation for the presence of Christ. In order to understand his view, however, a brief explanation of some rather obscure theological terminology is required. Medieval scholastic theologians had distinguished various modes of presence, or ways of being present. They used the term local presence to describe the way in which physical, finite things are present in a circumscribed place. Spiritual presence described the way in which spiritual beings (such as angels, souls, or God) are present. Because this term was somewhat vague, other terms were used in order to be more specific. Illocal presence, for example, described the way in which finite spiritual beings (for example, human souls or angels) are present, while repletive presence described the way in which an infinite spiritual being (God) is present.

Zwingli argued that the only mode of presence proper to the human body of Christ was “local presence.” Therefore, according to Zwingli, Christ’s body is locally present in heaven and nowhere else until the Second Advent. Luther rejected Zwingli’s view, claiming that other modes of presence were proper to Christ’s human body — specifically the illocal mode of presence. Because Christ’s body can be present in an illocal manner, according to Luther, it can be present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), Luther argues that there is a “sacramental union” between the substance of Christ’s body and the bread resulting in a new and unique substance that Luther refers to as fleischbrot (“flesh-bread”). Thus, according to Luther, Christ’s human body is present in the Lord’s Supper supernaturally in a real and illocal manner.

Calvin’s first significant contribution to the subject appeared in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, by which time the battle lines had already been drawn. He continued to progressively clarify and explain his doctrine of the Supper over the next two decades. Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper was very much influenced by Luther, but others were just as instrumental in shaping his approach to the subject. Among those whose influence is discernible are Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.

Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.

Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy.
​

--David

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

Hello @Paulomycin, I thought Keith Mathison's article (from Tabletalk Magazine) might be useful, so here it is.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper
by Keith Mathison

John Calvin is widely considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Reformation era. Many associate his name with doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, but fewer are aware that he wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The topic occupied many of his sermons, tracts, and theological treatises throughout his career. Calvin’s emphasis was not unusual. Among the many doctrines debated during the Reformation, the Lord’s Supper was discussed more than any other.

By the time Calvin became a prominent voice in the late 1530s, the Reformers had been debating the Lord’s Supper with Roman Catholics and with each other for years. In order to understand Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is necessary to understand the views he opposed. Throughout the later Middle Ages and up until the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was the received view in the Western church. Two aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine require comment: Rome’s view of the Eucharistic presence and Rome’s view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

According to Rome, Christ’s presence in the sacrament is to be explained in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidens (that is, the incidental properties) of the bread and wine remain the same. Rome also teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice; in fact, the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the sins of the living and the dead.

The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. In his book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther attacked both of these doctrines. Also opposed to Rome’s doctrine was the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. However, although Luther and Zwingli agreed in their rejection of Rome’s doctrine, they were not able to come to agreement on the true nature of the Lord’s Supper.

Zwingli argued that Christ’s words “This is my body” should be read, “This signifies my body.” He claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial, an initiatory ceremony in which the believer pledges that he is a Christian and proclaims that he has been reconciled to God through Christ’s shed blood. Martin Luther adamantly rejected Zwingli’s doctrine, insisting that Christ’s words “This is my body” must be taken in their plain, literal sense.

Martin Luther argued that although Rome’s explanation of Christ’s true presence in the Lord’s Supper was wrong, the fact of Christ’s true presence was correct. He offered a different explanation for the presence of Christ. In order to understand his view, however, a brief explanation of some rather obscure theological terminology is required. Medieval scholastic theologians had distinguished various modes of presence, or ways of being present. They used the term local presence to describe the way in which physical, finite things are present in a circumscribed place. Spiritual presence described the way in which spiritual beings (such as angels, souls, or God) are present. Because this term was somewhat vague, other terms were used in order to be more specific. Illocal presence, for example, described the way in which finite spiritual beings (for example, human souls or angels) are present, while repletive presence described the way in which an infinite spiritual being (God) is present.

Zwingli argued that the only mode of presence proper to the human body of Christ was “local presence.” Therefore, according to Zwingli, Christ’s body is locally present in heaven and nowhere else until the Second Advent. Luther rejected Zwingli’s view, claiming that other modes of presence were proper to Christ’s human body — specifically the illocal mode of presence. Because Christ’s body can be present in an illocal manner, according to Luther, it can be present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), Luther argues that there is a “sacramental union” between the substance of Christ’s body and the bread resulting in a new and unique substance that Luther refers to as fleischbrot (“flesh-bread”). Thus, according to Luther, Christ’s human body is present in the Lord’s Supper supernaturally in a real and illocal manner.

Calvin’s first significant contribution to the subject appeared in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, by which time the battle lines had already been drawn. He continued to progressively clarify and explain his doctrine of the Supper over the next two decades. Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper was very much influenced by Luther, but others were just as instrumental in shaping his approach to the subject. Among those whose influence is discernible are Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.

Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.

Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy.
​

--David

What is the point of this long article, when the Bible is not even quoted once?

 

[St_Worm2]

What is the point of this long article, when the Bible is not even quoted once?

It's a basic/general/historical look into the Reformer's different views of the Lord's Supper (at some of the ways that they differed from one another, and how they differed from Rome). The OP author and Calvin appear to have similar views of the Supper, yes? I wasn't intending to argue one point or another with it, I just thought it would be helpful/informative for anyone who cared to read it.

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

It's a basic/general/historical look into the Reformer's different views of the Lord's Supper (at some of the ways that they differed from one another, and how they differed from Rome). The OP author and Calvin appear to have similar views of the Supper, yes? I wasn't intending to argue one point or another with it, I just thought it would be helpful/informative for anyone who cared to read it.

Thanks, it is useful to a point to read, but I was saying that any article that is supposed to be on Bible Doctrine, should at least quote from the Bible itself to show that it agrees with their view. On the matter of the "real presence" in the bread and wine, I think this teaching to be absurd, as it would mean that every time a person were to take these "elements", the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ entered our bodies! This is complete rubbish, as there is ZERO evidence in the Bible for such a teaching!

 

[Paulomycin]

The OP author and Calvin appear to have similar views of the Supper, yes?

Yes. I am seeing parallels. It just seems so much more direct when read in light of John 6.

 

[Dave L]

If a miracle takes place in the bread and cup, science would confirm it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I treat it as being sacred. As something that is of great significance. Like a baptism or a wedding.

In taking communion at home I could have just used a Ritz cracker and any fruit juice as far as a lot of Protestants are concerned.

But I have used unleavened bread in the form of Matsa and red wine. I bought a special small glass just for communion. I take communion with my pastor via the Internet and I take it very seriously.

As for Christ being in the bread and wine;
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

 

[Paulomycin]

If a miracle takes place in the bread and cup, science would confirm it.

Which is just another reason why we are not making a materialistic claim.

 

[Dave L]

Which is just another reason why we are not making a materialistic claim.

So what are you claiming that amounts to anything? At Pentecost, all believers received the Holy Spirit as they continue to receive him today. Are you saying people are saved by works?

 

[St_Worm2]

As for Christ being in the bread and wine; All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

Hello Brian, I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate a bit more for me/us.

Thanks!!

—David

 

[Dave G.]

Christ is already in the born again believer, we were changed, we already are a new creation. He doesn't live in a wafer, He doesn't need to. He goes everywhere we go. Transubstantiation sounds to me like part of a works program towards salvation. The presence of the Lord in the act of communion I can buy but not changed elements. Just me and my view as I see it from scripture, Jesus said "as often as you do this do it in memory of me".

 

[Jofes]

The never ending debate of transubstantiation, and we be getting to blows in my family. Whit great passion did spit end the debate, and tears, and threats of eternal damnation. The secret to understanding this sorted mess was to shut one's mouth, and face to plate, balancing the last of one's peas on a knife, or plucking petals from the Suzi, she loves me not.
(Excepts from Jofes' unpublished works)
Only the Gospel of John 6:53 mentions the Bread of Life in this graphic way. My simple mind tells me, if it is written in the word of God, then it must have a good reason for being there. Jesus never wasted one word. As I say He spoke no unused words. We must read on to find the answer in this passage. First and foremost we know and believe in the accuracy of the Book of John and therefore we move on. Many disciples today still grumble and say, " This is a hard teaching who can accept it?" But Jesus' response is still, " Does this offend you?" Then from that time many no longer followed him.
Jesus spoke of his physical death and how it counts for nothing. This prophecy have to be told before hand, or who would believe such a tale. Jesus knew the plan of God, yet chose not to understand the spiritual separation from his Father. Jesus was about to endure the unknown, as only a man, for he laid aside his deity. We see the proof of this in the garden the night he was betrayed.

We now enter this prophecy as it is being fulfilled, alone now the roman soldiers began to mock and beat him. As we stand by and watch this unfold, pieces of flesh easily torn from his back by the cruel bone chips strike the crowd, and his blood sprays on bystanders. The crown of thorns cut deeply into his face as they strict the crown again and again with heave blows from a staff. One of his own standing in the crowd is hit in the face with flesh and blood, now recounts the words spoken the night before. Our faith must be alive, not in religious dogma and debate, but as real as standing in that place and partaking in his sacrifice with gladness and thanksgiving.

Jofes

 

[rturner76]

Which is just another reason why we are not making a materialistic claim.

Most Lutherans believe in the Real Presence but it is a spiritual presence like you are talking about. So with them, he is present in the bread and wine but it remains bread and wine.

It was the doctrine of Transubstantiation that lead me to study Catholicism. I thought if someone is serving the physical real presence of Christ "I want me some of that." You can only get it if you're Catholic so I became Catholic for the Sacrament.

I've heard people in the Church describe it as a mystery. That it's a miracle that it changed but still tastes like bread and wine.

Some Catholics I've spoken candidly with are not quite sure about the full transformation but most at least believe in the Real Presence and chalk it up to a mystery with everything else. That's sort of what I do. I just like the reverence the Church has when administrating a Sacrament.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Hello Brian, I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate a bit more for me/us.

Thanks!!

—David

The bread and the wine are a physical part of Jesus because through Him God made all things.

 

[St_Worm2]

The bread and the wine are a physical part of Jesus because through Him God made all things.

That sounds like Pantheism. Are you a Pantheist?

Thanks!

—David

 

[Ceallaigh]

That sounds like Pantheism. Are you a Pantheist?

Thanks!

—David

Not that I'm aware of. I'm just saying what John 1:3 is saying.

 

[hedrick]

(please be patient, this is only a rough draft)

I'm becoming more and more convinced lately that Communion/Lord's Supper is not merely a metaphorical, or purely symbolic, memorial. But rather, it's an actual memorial done in obedience, (1 Corinthians 11:24-25; Luke 22:19).

In other words, I think Protestants can take the symbolism to as much of an extreme direction with the "mere symbolism" as the Roman Catholics do with the "real presence of Christ" in the opposite direction with their Eucharist.

Historically, the issue with the Roman Catholic Church is whether or not the presence of Christ in the elements are real or not, as opposed to mere metaphor, or mere symbolism. To them, "real" is interpreted as "materialistic," --and that tends to create more problems than it solves, everything from violating the once for all sacrifice of Jesus in Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:10, to atheist accusations of literal cannibalism, which of course runs afoul of John 6 (see below).

But we can resolve the two extremes to find a happy middle! On the one hand, not so symbolic that it's treated as merely a legal fiction, but not so "real," that it's treated as crass materialism.

I think that the real presence of Christ can be taken literally in that the elements of bread and wine are taken in objective faith and obedience to His real Spiritual presence in communion with the body of believers. The key to this is John 6:48, and all the way through to the end of the chapter (verses 48-69).

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

Otherwise, what's the only other conclusion that one can make? Why, literal cannibalism, of course. And that's why many of His disciples left him in John 6. They didn't comprehend that the Spirit gives life, rather than the flesh.

Thanks for taking the time to meditate on this with me.

Luther accepted just as much a real presence as Catholics. His objection was to the real absence, the idea that bread and wine ceased to be present, because they turned into Christ's body and blood. For him, Christ was quite literally present through the bread and wine, but didn't replace them.

Calvin is an intermediate, and seems close to what you're suggesting.

 

[hedrick]

You've posted in the Reformed group. It is frequented by conservative Reformed, who would normally accept Calvin's position fairly clearly.

However many Reformed bodies are part of the general mainline Christian family. While historically each member of that family has specific traditions about communion, I think currently most mainline bodies accept a position that's fairly well represented by the Methodist document, "This Holy Mystery": https://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Pr...eve/documents/this-holy-mystery-communion.PDF

 

[Mark Quayle]

(please be patient, this is only a rough draft)

I'm becoming more and more convinced lately that Communion/Lord's Supper is not merely a metaphorical, or purely symbolic, memorial. But rather, it's an actual memorial done in obedience, (1 Corinthians 11:24-25; Luke 22:19).

In other words, I think Protestants can take the symbolism to as much of an extreme direction with the "mere symbolism" as the Roman Catholics do with the "real presence of Christ" in the opposite direction with their Eucharist.

Historically, the issue with the Roman Catholic Church is whether or not the presence of Christ in the elements are real or not, as opposed to mere metaphor, or mere symbolism. To them, "real" is interpreted as "materialistic," --and that tends to create more problems than it solves, everything from violating the once for all sacrifice of Jesus in Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:10, to atheist accusations of literal cannibalism, which of course runs afoul of John 6 (see below).

But we can resolve the two extremes to find a happy middle! On the one hand, not so symbolic that it's treated as merely a legal fiction, but not so "real," that it's treated as crass materialism.

I think that the real presence of Christ can be taken literally in that the elements of bread and wine are taken in objective faith and obedience to His real Spiritual presence in communion with the body of believers. The key to this is John 6:48, and all the way through to the end of the chapter (verses 48-69).

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

Otherwise, what's the only other conclusion that one can make? Why, literal cannibalism, of course. And that's why many of His disciples left him in John 6. They didn't comprehend that the Spirit gives life, rather than the flesh.

Thanks for taking the time to meditate on this with me.

Interesting! I had never gotten it clear enough in my head to think of it that way. There has always seemed to me to be a "mystery" about the "Lord's Supper". It is one of those things that the Lord seems to have made "beyond us" that are Nevertheless not to be ignored or left undone. But it never occurred to me to try to resolve the half-question in my mind.

(As you, from things I have said, probably have picked up on about me, I have for years felt like the church's teaching of hermeneutics ignores one thing --specifically, (as CS Lewis presents it), that the spiritual is more real than the physical, Not just hermeneutics but our very mindset relegates the spiritual to 'ethereal' and logical distance. Because of reading the Bible's description of spiritual things, or at least, Heavenly things, as real --not just allegorical or symbolic-- I've concluded that the things we see on earth as real, are symbolic of the REAL thing in Heaven. For example, when a gate into the New Jerusalem is called a pearl, maybe it actually IS a single pearl, (though granted, some translations use 'Crystal'), and the things we call pearls here on Earth are merely poor representations of the real thing. What we call fathers, sons, wives, friends, lovers, here on earth, are poor representations of the glorious truth we will find in Heaven. And, of course, maybe my personal favorite: What we read in Revelation 22 "as" a Bride ("as" being said in Hermeneutics 101 to always trigger the response in our mind that what it refers to is NOT really whatever the description says), is in fact the actual Bride of Christ. I like to think that the New Jerusalem is in fact, us, the Dwelling Place of God, coming down "adorned as the Bride she is". WE, I like to think, are the place Christ has gone to prepare for us. I also like to ignore the fact that this opens up very exhilarating implications for me, (and exhilarating is too easily addicting, haha!)

Anyhow, in similar fashion to the way Arminian-leaning believers often sound like Calvinists when they pray, I think we take the Lord's Supper as a more serious thing than mere symbolism and 'high church' activity. As happens so often in the lives of believers by obedience we may not understand what we do when we do this, but are doing it nonetheless.