When discussing the Lord’s Supper, we often start with current views among different Christian groups: Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and those in the Reformed tradition. This can be misleading, making it seem like today’s beliefs and practices have always been the same. Instead, we should begin with the New Testament, follow the theology and practices of the Early Church, and then trace the history up to the present. This approach helps us understand the changes and developments in the theology and practice of the Lord’s Supper over time. Let’s go back to the beginning to see how we arrived at where we are today.
The Lord’s Supper in the Bible
In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), Passover and sacrificial meals provide context for the Eucharist’s meaning. The Gospel accounts describe the institution of the Eucharist, and in Luke, the first Eucharist celebration with the Risen Christ in the story of the Emmaus disciples.
In I Corinthians chapter 11, the Lord’s Supper is shown as a renewal of the Passover feast, with Christ being the true Passover lamb. By Jesus’ time, the Passover bread was believed to represent the Passover lamb. During the Seder’s four cups of wine, Jesus takes the third cup, the Cup of Redemption, and says, “this cup is my blood of the covenant.” In I Corinthians 10, we learn that the bread in the Lord’s Supper is a True Communion with the body of Christ, and the cup is a True Communion with the blood of Christ.
The Lord’s Supper in the Early Church
The Apostolic Fathers are Christian writings from AD 70 to AD 135. These documents are crucial because they show how the early church operated and interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. They include teachings about the Lord’s Supper and descriptions of early Christian liturgies. The theology of the Lord’s Supper in these writings shows that the belief in the Real Presence of Christ has been present since the beginning of Christianity, as seen in I Corinthians 10.
Early Christians believed they truly communed with Christ’s body and blood during the Supper, though they didn’t explain how. Thanksgiving was a central theme in early writings. The Lord’s Supper was called the Eucharist, meaning thanksgiving, a term we still use today.
The Great Thanksgiving
We give thanks to God in the Supper for all His gifts, especially for Jesus Christ. Another key element is the idea of Sacrifice. The Eucharist has been linked to the Offertory since early Christianity. People offer themselves, their gifts, and bring forward the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. To this day, the Eucharist begins with the Offertory.
Three Ways of Looking at the Eucharist
In the writings of the later Church Fathers (fourth to fifth centuries), the idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice is explained in three ways. First, the sacramental view, where worshipers partake of Christ’s body and blood through the Holy Spirit. This view was later supported by Calvin and Luther. Second, the spiritualizing view, which sees the bread and wine as symbols, a perspective adopted by Zwingli. Third, the conversionist or materialist view, which believes the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ. This view would later develop into the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though it was not fully detailed at this time.
The Lord’s Supper in the Middle Ages
In 831 AD, a monk named Paschasius Radbertus wrote about the Eucharist, stating, “After the words of institution are spoken … only the body and blood remain under the appearance of bread and wine.” This idea, later known as Transubstantiation, faced many critics. However, over time, his view gained support. In 1215, the Roman Catholic Church officially declared Transubstantiation as doctrine. This doctrine combines the biblical concept of True Communion, where believers connect with Christ’s body and blood during the Supper, with Aristotle’s philosophy.
Aquinas: A Materialist View
Transubstantiation teaches that, despite the bread and wine looking, smelling, feeling, and tasting the same, their true essence changes into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This transformation occurs during the words of Institution. When the priest says, “this is my body,” the bread changes. When the priest says, “this is my blood,” the wine changes.
St. Thomas Aquinas, a leading theologian of the Middle Ages, expanded the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He taught that Transubstantiation was the only way to explain Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. According to Aquinas, not believing in Transubstantiation meant not believing in the Real Presence at all.
The Reformation: Luther and Zwingli
In 1529, during the Reformation, Philipp I of Hesse (in today’s Germany) organized a meeting at Marburg Castle, inviting key Protestant leaders like Luther from Germany and Zwingli from Switzerland. Philipp aimed to unite the various Protestant groups into one church to better oppose Rome. The Reformers discussed fifteen points of doctrine, agreeing on fourteen. However, they couldn’t reach a consensus on the fifteenth point, which was the Lord’s Supper.
Zwingli: A “Spiritualizing” View
Zwingli was a reactionary who opposed anything he saw as Roman Catholic. He completely rejected the idea of sacraments, viewing the Lord’s Supper as just a memorial of Christ’s death, not a means of grace. In contrast, Luther focused on the Scripture phrase, “This is my body.” Some accounts say he repeatedly traced those words on the table with his finger while Zwingli spoke!
Luther: A “True Communion” View
Luther believed the Scriptures showed we partake in Christ’s body and blood but rejected the idea of Transubstantiation, which claims the bread and wine change substance. Instead, Luther thought Jesus’s physical body was present everywhere, not just spiritually but physically.
Luther taught that during the Lord’s Supper, worshipers receive Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine. This concept, known as Sacramental Union, means that in the Sacrament, the bread and wine are united with Christ’s flesh and blood. Thus, when people partake of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, they receive Christ’s body and blood along with the elements.
Disagreement between Luther and Zwingli
Zwingli disagreed. He believed Jesus’ physical body could only be in one place at a time. For Zwingli, this meant no Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As with Thomas Aquinas, for Zwingli it was all or nothing: either Transubstantiation or no Real Presence at all. Zwingli chose “nothing.”
For Luther and Zwingli, it was either Luther’s idea of Sacramental Union or no Real Presence. So, they split, and Swiss and German Protestants stayed separate. John Calvin and John Knox, as we will see, took a middle path.
John Calvin and John Knox
John Calvin was only 20 years old when Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg, so he wasn’t there. His first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion was published seven years later. Some believe that if Calvin had been older and attended the meeting, Luther and Zwingli might have reached an agreement. This is because Calvin shared Zwingli’s view that Jesus’ physical body can only be in one place at a time. Calvin thought Christ’s human body ascended to heaven and would stay there until the Day of Judgment.
Yet Calvin agreed with Luther that believers truly feed on Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. Where Calvin differed was in how this feeding happens. For Calvin, it occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Calvin: By the Power of the Holy Spirit
When we, following Calvin, speak of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper as a “spiritual presence,” we don’t mean imaginary. By “spiritual” we mean “enabled by the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit connects us to Christ and allows us to partake in Christ’s body and blood, even though Jesus’ human body isn’t everywhere. The Second Helvetic Confession in our Book of Confessions explains it this way:
“From all this it is clear that by spiritual food we do not mean some imaginary food I know not what, but the very body of the Lord given to us, which nevertheless is received by the faithful not corporeally, but spiritually by faith.” (5.201)
Knox: “Lift up your hearts!”
John Knox escaped Mary Tudor’s persecution by fleeing to Geneva, where he met Calvin. He led the English-speaking congregation there and learned from Calvin. After Mary’s death, Knox went back to Scotland, bringing Calvin’s ideas with him, and founded the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This church is considered our spiritual Mother Church, similar to how the Church of England is the Mother Church of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.
For John Knox, like Calvin, the phrase “lift up your hearts” in the Eucharistic Prayer was very important. Here’s what Knox says in the Scots Confession of 1560, which is part of our Book of Confessions:
Wisdom from the Scots Confession
“In the Supper, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. This union which we have with the body and blood of Christ is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, fleshly, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once given and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of the Father.” (3.21)
Although Calvin differed from the Roman Church and Lutherans on how we receive Christ in the Supper, he agreed that we truly do receive Christ’s body and blood: “[Joachim] Westphal (a Lutheran pastor) insists on the presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper. We do not deny it.”
Again Calvin writes, “The controversy with us is not as to reception but only the mode of reception.” And again, “That we really feed in the Holy Supper on the flesh and blood of Christ, just as bread and wine are the nourishments of our bodies, I freely confess.”
Getting Back to the Roots of the Church
Calvin and Luther, despite their somewhat differing views on how we commune with Christ’s body and blood, aimed to return the church to its first-century understanding of the Lord’s Supper. They were true radicals in the sense of going back to the roots of Christian thought and practice. By studying the Apostolic Fathers, they found a belief in True Communion and the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. This presence was mystical, not material as in Transubstantiation, nor merely symbolic as Zwingli believed.
Today
Though our heritage is Calvinist, and John Knox echoed Calvin’s views (shared by the Apostolic Fathers), reflecting this in our Confessions like the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Scots Confession, and the Second Helvetic Confession, many in the Reformed world have been Calvinists de jure (“by right”) but Zwinglians de facto (“in reality”): True Communionists by confession but mere memorialists in practice.
Disagreements in the Church
This was evident in the 19th Century when Charles Hodge, a theology professor at Princeton, and John Williamson Nevin of Western Theological Seminary (now Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) engaged in several debates over the Lord’s Supper. Nevin supported Calvin’s view, while Hodge backed the Zwinglian memorial view. Hodge largely prevailed, leading Nevin to leave the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Hodge accused Nevin of having a “Romanizing tendency” in his theology, though Nevin was simply expressing the views of Calvin and Knox.
A similar situation occurred in the South between Robert Louis Dabney of Union Seminary and James Henley Thornwell of Columbia Seminary. Dabney supported the Zwinglian memorial view, while Thornwell taught Calvin’s view. Thornwell had slightly more influence in the Southern Church than Nevin did in the Northern Church, but Dabney was still very influential. The dominance of Southern Baptists in the South has also greatly affected churches of all denominations, keeping the memorial view prevalent, even within the Presbyterian/Reformed community.
True Communion: Let us keep the feast!
Unlike the common tendency to “explain away” True Communion, our Confessions present a much stronger sacramental theology. They teach us, as I Corinthians 10 does, that the bread we break is a True Communion in the body of Christ, and the cup we bless is a True Communion in the blood of Christ. Therefore, let us keep the feast!
Leave a Reply