The Lord's Supper - Part 3

I spent a number of years in churches that taught polar opposite views on the Lord's Supper. The Catholic understanding that the Mass involved a transformation of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ conjured strange images in my head as a youngster. Then as a teen I embraced the evangelical view derived from Zwingli's influence, that the bread is just bread and the grape juice (no wine) is just grape juice, but we are to be obedient in "remembering" the sacrifice of Christ periodically.

Reading church history has forced me to rethink that common evangelical viewpoint, yet I don"t see that the Catholic view is quite tenable either. But as I looked at the writings of the early church, certain passages in scripture started to take on a richer meaning



The writer of Hebrews in the eighth chapter of the book says in vs 1-3:

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

Note the verb tenses the writer chooses. First of all we are told Christ "sat down" - past tense. This is a key point to Protestant views of salvation. The finished work of Christ is paramount. What was accomplished in Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value and need never be repeated. So the medieval Catholic implication that the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice offered again and again by the priest was seen to contradict Biblical passages such as this one.

But note the second verse, which says Christ "serves" - present tense - in the heavenly sanctuary. The image, in the context of the whole book of Hebrews is that Christ is the ultimate High Priest. Where the High Priest in the Old Covenant entered the holiest place with the blood of animals that had to be sacrificed over and over again, Christ's perfect sacrifice occurred only once, but the key point is that his ministry as high priest continues. The term High priest is used of Christ over a dozen times in the book of Hebrews. The implication is that though Christ's sacrifice occurred only once, his ministry, as High Priest is ongoing.

It has to be stressed that Hebrews Chapter 9:12 teaches that "he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood", so that he only had to go into that Most Holy place once. He does not sacrifice himself again and again, nor is his sacrifice perpetual. But our identification with that sacrifice and our participation in that sacrifice is ongoing, continuing, as he remains our high priest.

Chapter 9 of Hebrews embellishes this theme, contrasting Christ's High Priestly ministry with that of the Levitical priesthood:

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb 9:14)

This makes John's statement in his first epistle take on a whole new and rich meaning. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

Eastern Orthodox theologians make much of the idea that participation in the Lord's table is a mystical joining with the High Priestly ministry of Christ in Heaven. If that sounds like a bit of a stretch, consider again 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Paul there is arguing against the association some Corinthian believers still had with their pagan past. In this context, he makes a telling point about the Lord's supper. Regarding particular sacrifices, he says in vs. 18-21:

"Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons."

Note that eating the sacrifice is "participating" in the offering. Paul offers a specific parallel. Both in the case of the Israelite sacrifice in the Old Testament and the Pagan sacrifice to false Gods, the sacrifice was eaten, ingested, identifying the individual with the sacrifice. The key is that Paul uses the exact same language to speak of the Lord's table in vs 16.

"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

I tend to agree with the Protestant point that from the Biblical language, it does not seem necessary to conclude anything like a physical transubstantiation of the bread and wine into literal flesh and blood. Yet the other extreme, that of seeing the table as merely a memorial seems difficult to maintain as well. Particularly in light of Chapter 11

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Many and blood of the Lord. man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)

Mere eating of bread and drinking of wine irreverently would hardly be a crime worthy of such stern language. For Paul, treating the thanksgiving meal disrespectfully is tantamount to trampling the cross underfoot. But Protestants caution, such language need not be stretched to a wooden literalism. Paul uses similar language, as noted in the previous post, to describe baptism.

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)

Clearly for Paul, in describing our identification with Christ in baptism he is describing something he counts as true, a spiritual reality, not mere figurative language. But no one would argue that he means the language to be taken with a hard literalism, as if we were physically crucified with Christ, physically died and physically rose. The traditional concept of sacrament is that something true and real is symbolized by something else real and tangible. The waters of baptism represent a spiritual reality.

Likewise the bread and cup represent something true and real. The eating and drinking of bread and wine in faith are truly a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, a uniting with Christ's High Priestly work in the heavenly tabernacle. It is true, but not necessarily literally, physically so. The Eucharist, then, is not literally consuming flesh and blood but is truly participating in the heavenly eternal sacrifice. There is a real presence in the elements. Perhaps not a literal physical presence, but nonetheless a real one. Both Luther and Calvin had views approximating this, perhaps differing in nuances.

I tend to find myself most comfortable with an Anglican understanding, that the bread and cup are in some way a receiving of, a feeding on, the body and blood of Christ, without making any attempt to attach a metaphysical explanation on how that occurs. It is a spiritual reality. That is all the biblical language requires. But I believe it requires nothing less.