The short answer is: yes we do. (Although I should clarify that it is by the Holy Spirit, and inwardly through faith.)
I am writing as an Evangelical Protestant Christian, a Grace Baptist pastor, and a church historian. I can assure you that we, that is to say, Protestants/Evangelicals believe (and have always believed) it to be the case that when we take communion we partake of Christ's body and blood .
This post is mainly written for my fellow Evangelical brothers and sisters who struggle with this truth, and perhaps suspect that it is a throwback to a medieval Roman Catholic, or High Church Anglican past. It isn't.
At the time of the Reformation in the 1500s, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Menno Simmons, and later John Calvin challenged many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
On the subject of communion, the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation teaches (wrongly) that, during the communion service, the bread and cup at communion are changed into the substance of Christ's glorified body and blood. This means that they need to be revered - since they are the body and blood of Christ, an extension of the Bethlehem incarnation of the Eternal Son of God. This novel teaching only goes back to the 1200s, and is based on dubious Aristotelian distinction between the "substance" (inner essence) and "accidents" (the outward properties). The bread and cup clearly display the outward properties of bread and wine, but, it is suggested, in substance they are the body and blood of Christ. Related to this is the false doctrine of the re-sacrifice (renewal of the sacrifice) of Christ offered by the priest during the Mass. These things the Reformers rightly disproved and rejected.
When it comes to the Reformed teaching, leaving aside the earlier teaching of Zwingli on this subject (see below), the clear and consistent teaching of the confessions of Reformed Christianity is that, by the Holy Spirit, we feed on Christ by faith when we partake of the Lord's Supper. With our mouths and stomachs, we feed on the bread and wine, which remain unchanged; at the same time, with our souls by faith we feed on Christ. That is what "communion" means; it means "partaking". We "partake" of Christ. As Paul puts it, in the form of rhetorical questions, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, since all of us share the one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)
So the Reformation didn't question whether or not we partake of Christ, and his body and blood. They knew and affirmed that we do. The Reformers' point was that the bread and wine remain unchanged, and that the mode of feeding is not carnal but spiritual (by the Holy Spirit), not by the mouth but inwardly through faith.
Here is the Anglican expression of this truth.
Firstly the epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit):
"Hear us Father, through your Son Jesus Christ, our Lord; through him accept our offering of praise, and grant that _by the power of your Holy Spirit_ these gifts of bread and wine may be _for us_ his body and blood."
Secondly, the invitation:
"Draw near with faith — receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you, and his blood which was shed for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving."Thirdly, the prayer of humble access:
"We do not presume to come to this your table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your abundant and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table; but you are the same Lord whose character is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
Notice the careful wording that makes it clear that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ "for us", i.e. it is in the act of eating with faith that what are and remain bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ "to us", not in some carnal or physical sense (the so called "real presence"), but rather by the operation of the Holy Spirit (the "spiritual presence" of Christ). Consequently, the bread and wine are not to be venerated or considered an extension of the incarnation.
So far, so good. Now, here are two objections I want to address:
1. These are Anglican prayers, not the theology of Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists who rejected the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
2. This amounts to something along the lines of cannibalism to talk about eating Christ's blood and drinking his blood.
Let me address these in order.
1. Baptist versus Anglican theology of communion
Here is a verbatim quote from the 1689 Baptist confession on the subject of the Lord's Supper.
"Worthy recipients who outwardly partake of the visible elements in this ordinance also by faith inwardly receive and feed on Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death. They do so really and truly, yet not physically and bodily but spiritually. The body and blood of Christ are not present bodily or physically in the ordinance but spiritually to the faith of believers, just as the elements themselves are present to their outward senses." (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 30.7)
Please note the wording: "worthy recipients... by faith inwardly receive and feed on Christ crucified... They do so really and truly... spiritually. The body and blood of Christ are... present... spiritually to the faith of believers..."
Clearly, this is exactly the same theology as the Anglican Prayer Book.
2. The cannibalism objection
Now, an objection to the above is that speaking of "eating Christ's body" and "drinking his blood" amounts to cannibalism or something along those lines. The problem with this objection is that this is actually just quoting the words of Christ in John 6. Here is one example of many, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51) Clearly, in this verse, Christ says, "I am the living bread," and, "... if anyone eats of this bread." It is so obvious from the passage and from the way of speaking - Christ is the bread and, by faith, we feed on him, or, eat him.
Anyone raising this objection has to explain why it's okay for Christ to say these things about himself, but not for us to say them.
Probably, other wordings of this truth are less direct and more palatable. For example, "the communion of the body and blood of Christ", or, "We feed on Christ." Or, "we receive the sacrifice of his blood poured out for us." But this is basically just saying the same thing - only more subtly. The point remains that Christ invites us not just to believe in him, but to partake of his flesh and blood for our salvation. And we do so by believing, and we do so by faith as we share in the Lord's Supper.
To say this is a metaphor or symbolic doesn't really help the case. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the bread and cup are mere symbols or metaphors. This may be the early view of Zwingli (who arguably changed his views on this towards the end of his life in 1530). According to the earlier "Zwinglian" view, the bread symbolises Christ's broken body - and nothing more. The cup symbolises Christ's spilt blood - and nothing more. But what are we then commanded to do? We are commanded to eat and drink. What does that "symbolise"? Surely, that we eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, no? Even taking a symbolic view, it boils down to the same thing. If Christ is the light, we follow; if Christ is the vine, we abide; if Christ is the bread, we eat. You can't really get round that logic.
Perhaps the concern is that to speak in these terms would be to in some way demean Christ, controlling him or even destroying him in our church celebration of the Supper. In this context, I have found the following quotation helpful. It belongs to the historic liturgy of John Chrysostom. These words are said as the bread is broken to be distributed to the faithful, and they make the point that Christ is not "consumed" (eaten up) in the Communion:
"The Lamb of God is apportioned and distributed; apportioned, but not divided; ever eaten, yet never consumed; but sanctifying those who partake."
In summary, the Reformed teaching is and always has been that, by the power of the Holy Spirit and through faith, believers partake of Christ's body and blood, as they celebrate communion. As Christ said, "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." (John 6:55) As Paul wrote, "They all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10
Comments
Post a Comment