7. Essay
The Lord’s Supper is a doctrine of grace. If Jesus’ body and blood was not sacrificed for us then we would not have hope for forgiveness and we would be doomed to eternal damnation. However, since we have been blessed with the gift of forgiveness and Jesus offered himself up on the cross for us we have hope. We remember Christ’s sacrifice during church services on Sundays when we celebrate Holy Communion. While The Lord’s Supper is one of the key doctrines of Christianity there are many questions and arguments that arise when discussing the Eucharist. Issues such as the validity of the elements actually being Christ’s body and blood, what elements to use, the debate of open verse closed Communion and various adiaphora topics arise when The Lord’s Supper is discussed. Admittedly I was not very well informed in regards to such issues until this class. However the unit on this doctrine was able to illuminate these issues and give a solid scriptural foundation for answering certain questions in regards to The Lord’s Supper.
One of the largest sources of controversy when discussing the Eucharist is the issue of the elements truly being Jesus’ body and blood. This idea is almost an assault on human logic. How can something that is seemingly bread and seemingly wine be blood and flesh? The answer to this enigma is simple and one would not have to look further than the Gospel. Jesus said himself in Mark 14, “Take it; this is my body” when referring to the bread and then later said, “This is my blood of the covenant…” in reference to the cup. Notice that the key verbs in both of these statements is the word “is”. Jesus did not say “Take and eat this bread which is like my body” or “drink this wine which represents my blood”. Jesus said “is” and therefore the elements really are Christ’s body and blood. There is no need for further research into this issue, yet there are still disagreements over this idea.
Yet sadly, human reason and sinful nature makes it easy to doubt Jesus’ words. Mueller touches on this conflict between Scriptural based reason and human logic, “If reason or experience are our main theological influence, we may easily give in to these concerns. On the other hand, if theology is founded in Scripture, we will hear the words of Jesus, listen to his offer to receive him in his body and blood, and trust his words.”
The Gospel isn’t the only place in Scripture that can be used as an argument for the elements being Christ’s true body and blood. Leviticus 17:11-14 provides a revealing testimony to the legitimacy of what Christ’s actual blood meant in regards to atonement for us. In verse 11 God says to Moses, “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” When looking at this passage it acknowledges the legitimacy of Christ’s actual blood being given and shed for the atonement of all of our sins. This ritual of receiving Christ’s body and blood isn’t cannibalistic either. The Jews wrestled with this issue in John 6:52. This is a sacramental eating and drinking, not a cannibalistic ritual.
The common Lutheran phrase in regards to the bread and wine being body and blood is “in, with, and under”. This phrase is saying that Christ’s body and blood is in, with and under the elements; as if to say that since Christ said that they are there then they are most certainly there. Mueller summed it up simply, “Just as Christ is one person with two natures, so the one food is both bread and body of Christ.”
The discussion on Christ’s body and blood leads to another interesting and relating topic. This topic deals with the presence of Christ’s body and blood and when it actually becomes present and the sacrament’s efficacy.
As Lutherans we believe in real presence. We believe that the elements are truly Christ’s body and blood and that he is truly present in the sacrament. We believe this because Jesus said as much when instituting The Lord’s Supper and there is no better authority than Jesus himself. One other reminder from the New Testament that Jesus is truly present in the blood and wine is found in John 6:32-33, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from Heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from Heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world.” Here Jesus is comparing himself to the manna bread that God sent to the Israelites while they were in the desert after they had escaped from Egypt. Through this actual presence of the bread from Heaven we know that He comes into us when we take in the elements because He has said that He would.
One line of thinking that contradicts with this Scripture-based explanation is the idea of transubstantiation, which is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. Transubstantiation states that the inner substances of the bread and wine changes into Jesus’ blood and body even though the outward appearance and characteristics remain bread and wine. This line of thinking is correct philosophically yet it mixes human reason with Scripture which is dangerous because it leads to not relying on solely Scripture. While this method is a slippery slope to walk, it is still technically the recipient is still receiving Christ’s body and blood. Transubstantiation teaches that the transformation of the elements takes place after an ordained priest performs the service and recites The Words of Institution properly. This teaching is typically paired up with the view of ex opere operato which is Latin for “by the work that is worked”. This view basically says that the Lord’s Supper becomes effective only when the right person consecrates it properly. Mueller points out the fault in this thinking, “This error overlooks the importance of faith which receives the grace that God gives in the Supper.”
One idea that is disagreed upon by various denominations is the issue of who is to receive The Lord’s Supper. The church has a long tradition of only allowing those who are baptized to partake in Communion. This stems from the very first Passover when God instructed Moses on the regulations for the Passover. In Exodus 12:48 he said, “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.” Circumcision was the mark of the covenant in the Old Testament so therefore being baptized is a similar marking as one of God’s children in the New Testament.
While being baptized is a great blessing there are other issues to consider before taking Communion. Holy Communion is an act of the Gospel and receiving it who has faith receive His grace. There is an issue to be raised here, though. Christ’s body and blood is going to be present regardless of the recipient’s faith. As Mueller put it, “Faith does not cause him to be present; rather, it recognizes and receives him.” Paul warned against receiving the Lord’s Supper while rejecting the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 11:27-31. Paul warned the Corinthians that whoever receives the body and blood of the Lord in an “unworthy manner” would be sinning against the body and blood of Jesus himself.
Paul also wrote a chapter earlier in Corinthians that we are connected through Communion with all others who commune. Paul explained is 1 Corinthians 10:17, “because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” So because when we receive Christ’s body and blood we receive God’s grace along with all brothers and sisters in Christ who commune, and because an individual could receive Communion to their harm some churches, including the Lutheran church, practice closed communion. Closed, or close, communion is Holy Communion offered only to those who share the same confession of the Lord. This is opposed to open communion, which invites all people to be admitted to accept the elements regardless of their faith. This is a slippery slope and it can be argued that this goes against Jesus’ very own words when he gave The Great Commission. Jesus told the disciples to baptize all nations and teach them what Jesus taught his disciples. This leads to a possibility of people new to the faith partaking and not realizing what they really are receiving.
Another issue raised is the element of wine and the use of it during Communion. The two elements in use are bread as well as “fruit of the vine” which translates into wine. The Scriptures clearly state that the element in use during the Lord’s Supper is wine, with Paul chastising the Corinthians for getting drunk during Communion in 1 Corinthians 11:21. Some Christians have an issue with using alcohol in church however they seem to forget that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine in John 2:1-11. The Bible clearly does not condemn the use of alcohol, it does condemn the abuse of alcohol, but it certainly does not discourage a responsible intake of alcohol. There are concerns over people struggling with alcoholism and there are many different ways to go about dealing with that problem. Many of which include changing the element. However, it is very imperative that when alternating the elements that it is done so in a correct manner so that the Lord’s Supper is not stained with human error. Mueller points out that changing the elements can create doubt or skepticism in the validity of Holy Communion. While this is true I think that it can be changed if it is done with the right line of thinking. For instance, in the example of an alcoholic it is not wise to give one struggling alcohol, therefore they should be given juice and if they accept it just as they would wine then there is no harm done.
Various other issues concerning the Eucharist fall into the adiaphora category, things that are not explicitly taught in the Scriptures. For instance, one of which issues is the idea of how often one is to take the Lord’s Supper. Jesus never explicitly stated how often we are to take Communion. We do know that this was a fairly regular practice, this is pointed out in passages like Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11. The question of frequency turns the sacrament of Communion into an application of the Law, not Gospel. As soon the focus shifts on how often us humans are to do something then the focus is turned from what Jesus actually did.
Another issue that might fall into a gray area is the protocol on dealing with leftovers of the Lord’s Supper once the congregation has received the elements. This issue is not addressed in scriptures yet is still a vital question. Because the elements are truly Jesus’ body and blood the leftovers are not to be just thrown aside as if some leftover food item. This can lead to the questioning of the legitimacy of Christ’s presence. Mueller points out various ways to handle this and also discusses this is centered on the wrong question of “When is Christ present?” and not just accepting that Christ is present. Mueller explain we should avoid actions that promote superstitious behavior yet at the same time don’t do anything that would lead to the questioning of Christ’s presence. The pastor and those assisting with distribution may consume what is lefts long as it doesn’t intoxicate them. Also, Mueller suggested a special sink called a piscina, as long as this doesn’t offend members. Also, conserving leftovers until the next celebration of Communion is a viable option as well. The bottom line of this issue is that whatever is done with leftovers ought to be done in a way that does not take away from the Grace that is offered through this sacrament.
The Lord’s Supper is a concept that can easily be taken for granted if one is not careful. Human logic can sometimes be misguiding when taking on ideas such as the presence of Christ’s body and blood at Holy Communion. By using human logic it is all too easy to fall into the Aristotelian lines of thinking, the line of thinking that produced explanations such as transubstantiation. While these types of ideas are logical from a human perspective we must remain aware that these philosophies are not based in Scripture and therefore are based in sinful, human logic. Therefore, we must stay grounded to Scripture in all things doctrine and trust that authors of the Scripture were influenced by the Holy Spirit and that is all we need for guidance.