Many of Jesus' actions and words at the Last Supper, such as the breaking and distributing of the bread, were part of the prescribed Passover ritual. But when Jesus said, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" while distributing the bread and the cup, He did something totally new. These words, which were intended for our blessing, have been the focus of sharp disagreement among Christians for centuries. In what sense are the bread and wine Christ's body and blood? What should the Lord's Supper mean to us? The answers to these questions are often grouped into four categories, although there are variations within these four broad views.

The Transubstantiation View. The first view is that of the Roman Catholic Church (especially before the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965). This view holds that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ when the words of institution are spoken by the priest. This doctrine, known as transubstantiation, holds that while the physical properties (taste, appearance, etc.) of the bread and wine do not change, the inner reality of these elements undergoes a spiritual change.

While this view may help to foster a serious attitude toward the Eucharist, it fails to grasp the figurative nature of Jesus' language. Jesus could not have been holding His actual body and blood in His hands. He probably meant, "This bread represents My body" and "This wine represents My blood." Jesus often used figurative language , just as a person does today when showing someone a photograph and saying, "This is my father."

The Consubstantiation View. The second viewpoint, developed by Martin Luther, is that Christ's body and blood are truly present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. The elements do not actually change into Christ's body and blood. But in the same way that heat is present in a piece of hot iron, so Christ is present in the elements. The Lutheran position is often called consubstantiation.

This position can encourage the recipient of the Eucharist with the realization that Christ is actually present at the Supper. But it also misses the figurative use of Jesus' words. It also may tend to draw more attention to the bread and wine than to Christ Himself.

The Symbolic View. The third position, known as the symbolic or memorial view, is derived from the teachings of the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli. Although his teaching is not completely clear, he basically held that the bread and wine were only symbols of the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. He taught that the Lord's Supper is primarily a memorial ceremony of Christ's finished work, but that it is also to be an occasion when God's people pledge their unity with one another and their loyalty to Christ. This is the viewpoint held by most Baptist and independent churches. While Zwingli's ideas are basically sound, this position tends to place more emphasis on what the Christian does and promises in the Supper than on what God does.

The Dynamic View. Finally, there is the view of John Calvin and the Reformed and Presbyterian churches which follow his teachings. Known as the dynamic or spiritual presence view, it stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli.

Calvin agreed with Zwingli that the bread and wine are to be understood symbolically. Christ is not physically present in the elements, because His risen, glorified body is in heaven . Still, He is dynamically and spiritually present in the Lord's Supper through the Holy Spirit.

In the worship service (but not at any one precise moment), when the Word of God is proclaimed and the Lord's Supper is received, the glorified Christ actually gives spiritual nourishment from His own glorified body to those who receive it. As bread nourishes the physical body, so Christ's glorified body enlivens the soul. Because of the organic union between Christ, the risen Head and the members of His body, the church , this nourishment is conveyed to Christians by the Spirit who dwells in them . Calvin admits that the way the Spirit does this is a genuine mystery. Yet, it is not contrary to reason-- just above reason.

Calvin at times places more emphasis on Jesus' glorified flesh and blood than the Scriptures teach. But his position helps to explain why the Eucharist is so important for the Christian to observe, and why it is such a serious offense to misuse it. His view also corresponds well with those Scriptures that speak of God's nourishing and empowering work in His people .

Biblical Teachings. In <1 Corinthians 10:16>, the apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their involvement with idolatry. He referred to the cup as "the communion of the blood of Christ" and the bread as "the communion of the body of Christ." The Greek word for communion has the meaning of "fellowship, participating, and sharing." From the context it appears that Paul is saying that when Christians partake of the cup and the bread, they are participating in the benefits of Christ's death (referred to as His blood) and resurrection life (His glorified body). The most important of these benefits are the assurance of sins forgiven (through Christ's blood) and the assurance of Christ's presence and power (through His body).

The "one body" (the universal church) in <1 Corinthians 10:17> connects with the "body of Christ" in in the sense that the entire church of Christ is organically related to the living, glorified human body of Christ now in heaven. The "one [loaf of] bread" , representing Jesus the "bread of life" , is eaten by all believers at the Supper, symbolizing their unity and common participation in the one body of Christ. The great discourse of Jesus on the bread of life , while not intended to be a direct theological explanation of the Lord's Supper, helps to explain how receiving the Eucharist can be one way in which Christians "feed" on the Lord . Other important ways are by prayer and the hearing of God's Word through the Scriptures.

In <1 Corinthians 11:17-34> Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their pride and greed during the meal that accompanied the Eucharist . Then he described the institution of the Lord's Supper and emphasized the need for Christians to partake in a worthy manner. Many of them who had not been doing so were weak and sick, and many had even died as a result of God's judgment .

Why does Paul use such strong language when speaking of the abuse of the Lord's Supper? The Corinthians were not properly discerning or recognizing the Lord's body. The wealthy Corinthians who shamed their poorer Christian brothers and sisters by their selfish eating practices were not discerning the true nature of the church as Christ's body in which all distinctions of social class, race, etc. were blotted out .

On the other hand, Christians who received the bread and the cup after behaving disgracefully were failing to discern that Christ would not automatically bless and empower those who received the sacrament in this manner. Such persons were guilty of sin against the body and blood of Jesus .

Meaning for Today. When we ask how the Lord's Supper should be meaningful to the Christian today, three concepts-- relating to the past, present, and future-- can be helpful.

First, the Lord's Supper is a time of remembrance and Eucharist. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" . This is not to be so much our dwelling on the agonies of the crucifixion as it is to be our remembering the marvelous life and ministry of our Savior. The Eucharist is to be an occasion for expressing our deepest praise and appreciation for all Jesus Christ has done for us.

Just as one step in the Jewish Passover meal was to proclaim the Hebrews' deliverance from Egyptian bondage , so in the Supper Christians proclaim their deliverance from sin and misery through the death of "Christ, our Passover" <1 Cor. 5:7; 11:26>.

Second, the Supper is a time of refreshing and communion. As we participate in the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection life , we are actually being nourished and empowered from the risen Christ through the Spirit.

John Wesley knew of this strengthening. On the average, he received communion every four or five days throughout his long and fruitful ministerial career. It is not that God cannot empower us without the Lord's Supper, but that He has instituted the Supper for us, even as He has designated prayer and the hearing of Scripture as means of communicating His grace. While the Bible does not tell us how often to observe the Eucharist, Wesley's guideline--" as often as you can"-- deserves our serious consideration.

Third, the Supper is a time of recommitment and anticipation. We are to examine (literally "prove" or "test") ourselves and partake in a worthy manner <1 Cor. 11:28-29>. In so doing we renew our dedication to Christ and His people, in hopeful anticipation "till He comes" <1 Cor. 11:26>. After Christ's return we shall partake with Him-- in His physical presence-- in the kingdom .

(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

(Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Click on the 'back' button to continue.