The Benefits of the Supper
The exposition by the writers in Four Views on the Lord’s Supper[1] are useful to compare multiple views of the Supper by different Christian communions. Rome and the Orthodox are treated together. The Roman theologian Thomas Baima confesses the Supper not from meaning or significance but rather what he calls “central truths.” First the Supper brings us into unity with the communion of the Trinity. “Being is communion.” Second the communion of the church with God can only come via the union of God and man in Christ’s incarnation. “Sacraments are not something the church does; rather, the sacraments make the church.” Baima includes all six of the other Roman sacraments as creating and sustaining the church. “In the Eucharist, Christ and members offer praise, sacrifice, and worship to the Father in the Holy Spirit.” The Eucharist is the central and unifying act of the Holy Trinity for the life of the church (economy). The Supper is not merely a “liturgical amnesis but a real amnesis, where the same offering, the same priest, and the same sacrifice are present.”With Trent, Rome confesses that the Supper is “true, real, and substantial.” This is their response against Zwingli (true), Luther (real), and Bucer (substantial). The Words of Institution effect “real” change, conversion, or “adduction” to the bread and wine which are now and forever the body and blood.
A second view comes from Reformed theologian John Hesselink. Hesselink seeks to correct a misrepresentation of the Reformed view as Zwinglian (memorialist). Instead, the view of Calvin and the Reformed confessions is that the Supper is eating spiritually, a view shared by Bucer and Beza. For Calvin, a sacramanet “is an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith.” Calvin amplifies Augustine’s view of sacraments as a “visible word” calling them also “pillars of faith.” The Spirit is essential: “the power and efficacy of a sacrament does not lie in the external elements, but wholly emenates from the Spirit of God.” Sacraments rely on faith and faith upon Christ. Calvin believes in the real spiritual presence of the Supper, not simply symbol. Yet, the Supper is visibly on symbol and received invisibly in faith. Calvin does not deny that we eat and drink Christ’s body and blood, yet it is not done manducatio oralis but instead spiritually. The sursum corda is our lifting of hearts and minds to heaven where Christ is, so that we may enjoy the reality of the signs. Christ sends the “efficacy” of His flesh to earth for us in His supper.
Finally, a third view is confessed by Baptist theologian Russel D. Moore. He articulates Christ’s presence as a memorial, yet he takes issue with the Supper as mere symbols. The Supper is a memorial sign of the promises of God, just as God set a rainbow in the sky for Noah. The Supper is the sign of God’s redemptive purposes through the whole canon. So also, the Supper is a forward-looking memorial of the eschatological feast. The Supper then is both a sign that the battle is won but also that it still rages. It is not a sacrifice but rather recalls the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ at the crucifixion. Moore seeks to reclaim the supper not a funereal meal but instead the vision of the eschatological messianic banquet. “The congregation ought to be taught to understand that the Supper is a victory lap – announcing the triumph of Christ over the powers of sin, death, and Satan.” Moore’s exegetical foundation for the Supper is consistent to Zwingli, with emphasis on the faithful reception of the Passover and the spiritual eating of John 6. He understands the admonition of 1 Corinthians to be speaking of divisions arising in the “body of Christ,” meaning the communion of believers rather than the sacramental presence in the Supper. “Participation in the body [and blood] of Christ” is understood as faith-based. Finally then, the Supper is not “just a symbol” but is a memorial symbol of Christ’s atoning work. In response, Dr. Scaer provides a Lutheran critique of each of these views. Scaer rightly returns to the debate at Marburg in 1529 to respond to Moore (Baptist). Their view of the supper as memorial is faulty Christology, “which allowed neither Christ’s human nature to embrace his divine nature nor the sacramental body to be recognized as his body.” We cannot surrender our confession that the elements of bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. We can though confess that the Supper can also be understood as a memorial, recognizing it as the culminating act of God feeding his people. Yet the Supper is more than memorial, because Christ is present giving forgiveness, life, and salvation. Here is the rub with the Zwinglians: God is not present in the rite and element and, hence, the Sacrament is indifferent to salvation. For Lutherans, the Supper is the cross brought to the present for the life of the world. So too, we must critique the view of the Reformed. We confess that all receive the Supper regardless of faith, but those who receive unworthily receive to their damnation, not merely offense or sacriledge. Christ’s body and blood are present in the Supper through the unity of the divine and human natures. Christ is not limited to heaven. Speaking of “real presence” is as ambivalent as speaking of a “spiritual” presence. This language disguises our different views on atonement, justification, and sanctification. For Lutherans, these doctrines lie at the heart of the sacrament, for “forgiveness, life, and salvation.” In conclusion, Scaer finds the most in common with Rome. They rightly understand Christ’s presence within the doctrine of the Trinity. We also confess with Rome that Christ’s body and blood are received by the mouth. Yet, we place Baptism as the effective Sacrament, leading to the Supper. We also grant that the Supper is the Lord’s not the church’s supper. In the Formula of Concord (1577), the article on Christ is placed right after the one on the Lord’s Supper. The two articles of faith inform each other. Christ becomes part of us and we become part of Him. Christ as God and man is present feeding us with the fruit of the vine in His Father’s kingdom, which came with His resurrection. This is food for body and soul. It is rightly called the “Sacrament of the Altar” (SC), where earthly elements are consecrated and become Christ’s body and blood, not by faith but by Christ’s word of institution. The Supper is the new testament or covenant. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). What Christ sacrificed to God, He gives as sacrament for his people for the remission of sin. By receivinf the body of Christ, the church is constituted as a fellowship in His body. The sacrament is the Holy Communion because recipients share in the holy things of Christ’s body and blood and through them have communion with one another and express a common faith.[1] Russell Moore et al, Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007).
