The Lord’s supper is a continued reminder of God’s covenant with the Church. On the night of his betrayal, Jesus instituted the only sacrament attributed to him. It is called the Lord’s Supper, Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or the Eucharist. All three Synoptic Gospels record this significant event (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:19-2), along with the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) who corrected its abuse in the Corinthian church.
The synoptics speak of it in reference to Jesus’s return and God’s earthly Kingdom, while Paul told his audience to use it to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns.” In many Protestant churches, the celebration of Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and return is often treated as an afterthought—something to be checked off once a month, or so. Yet Francis Chan went so far as to call it the “New Testament holy of holies.”
Although it has been open to dispute over the intervening centuries, most scholars believe the words Jesus used would have been most appropriate during the Passover meal. It was common practice to set aside a cup for the Messiah, should he come during the celebration of Israel’s salvation. And we should consider the symbolism common to the Passover and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
Just as God redeemed his enslaved people from Egyptian captivity, he was preparing to do so again—this time through Jesus. Like the slain lamb whose blood was placed on the doorposts to save the Israelites, Jesus’s blood covers the sins of those he has redeemed. He is the true Passover lamb, (1 Corinthians 5:7) the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” (John 1:29) sparing those who trust in him sin’s penalty.
We would do well to remember the words salvation, redemption, and holy of holies all first appear in the Bible in connection with the Exodus. On that first observance God required no bones be broken and the entire paschal lamb to be consumed during the meal. With the words “do this in remembrance of me” Jesus linked himself to the Passover lamb as the true savior of all humankind, not just Israel.
He called himself a sacrifice. “It is by the Holy Spirit alone, that the bread and wine, as they are partaken by faith, convey the realities they represent, and that the Supper gives us participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the kingdom of God..”[1] Jesus’s presence in the elements is a function of faith, not magic or ritual.
In John 6, Jesus, after feeding 5,000 men plus women and children, proclaimed himself “the bread of life” (v 48) and went on to assert, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (V.51) Naturally, this caused no little concern. Not only did he say that he came from heaven, but that they were expected to eat his flesh and drink his blood if they were to have eternal life. (vv.53-57)
Cannibalism was forbidden by Jewish law. His suggestion freaked his listeners out. John records that, From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (V.66) His words have been interpreted in several ways giving rise to three primary views of the sacrament. On one end of the spectrum are those who believe the elements to be the actual body and blood of Jesus, while at the other end they are considered a representation of his body and blood as a memorialization of his death, burial resurrection and promised return.
The writings of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) and Athanasius (c. 293-373) contained in the Didache described the proper way of celebrating the Eucharist for the early church. It was an integral part of worship. That changed when Ulrich Zwingli replaced the Lord’s Table with his pulpit. Here are the three prevailing views on the Eucharist.
Transubstantiation. Paschasius Radbertus (785-860), is credited with the doctrine of transubstantiation; “namely, that in the supper the substance in the elements of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents—i.e. the appearance, taste, touch, and smell—remain the same.”[2] The church accepted the doctrine in 1059 and it was officially adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.[3]
The practice has evolved into concomitance and consecration. In concomitance, both the body and blood are in both elements, allowing the wine to be withheld from the laity who are given only the host (bread). Consecration requires the work of a priest to initiate the transformation of the elements into Christ’s body and blood. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and is normally open only to Catholics in a state of grace, those free of any grave or mortal sin.
Consubstantiation. Consubstantiation began with the Protestant Reformation to explain why there was no physical change in the bread and wine, although Christ’s body and blood were very much present alongside, according to Martin Luther, “with, in, and under.” The body and blood coexist with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation is commonly—though erroneously—associated with the teachings Luther and Philipp Melanchthon although some Lutherans still use that term for the sacrament.
Symbolic. (Zwingli and Calvin) Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss Reformer and contemporary of Luther, disagreed with Luther’s notion of “real presence.” Rather he believed Jesus was present in the sacrament spiritually, but not physically and the sacrament was an act of remembrance, not salvation.
Christ is received in a spiritual sense by the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. It is communication with Jesus as a means of grace. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63 | NIV) The Colloquy of Marbug in 1529 brought the matter to a head. But no agreement on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was achieved, leading to a clear divide between those who followed Luther and those who followed Zwingli.
John Calvin agreed more with Martin Luther about Jesus’s presence in the sacrament, but not in the elements themselves. He considered Holy Communion a “spiritual banquet” at which Jesus is present, spiritually—just not in the bread and wine. He disagreed with Zwingli by maintaining that the Lord’s Supper is more than a symbolic ritual.
Yet, he was at a loss as to exactly how it happens. “They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. . . Now, should anyone ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it.[4]
There is no way to know which view is correct. But we can be certain of one thing, our participation proclaims our belief in what Jesus did, is doing and will do. And we should do so reverently and only after examining ourselves.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 | NIV)
[1] R.S. Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.704.
[2] M.E. Osterhaven, “Lord’s Supper, Views of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.705.
[3] Ibid.
[4] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Orlando, FL: Signalman Publishing, 2009) Kindle Edition, Locations 25613-25620