It bothers me that in most evangelical churches there is a casual attitude towards how we regard the Lord’s Supper.  For example, in many churches, the leaders are allowing parents of very young children to let them take the bread and wine.  This is especially so where the elements are taken around to every person in the building and offered to them; at which time, young children with no discernment are allowed to take the elements; and it is obvious, in observing them (as I have), that they think it is a game.

Another nagging irritation for me is that, in most evangelical churches today, grape juice is substituted for the wine.  The justifications given for this are that grape juice and wine are simply different forms of “the fruit of the vine”; that the use of wine could be a problem to those who suffer from alcoholism; and some congregational members don’t drink alcohol so prefer not to drink it even at the Lord’s Supper.   This troubles me because every account in the NT concerning the Lord’s Supper says or implies that wine is used, the “cup” being one of the four cups of alcoholic wine in the Passover.  What gives anyone the right to change something that Jesus established for perpetual use in the Church?  He mandated wine as the drink in this sacrament, not unfermented grape juice.  But some are even willing to use tea and biscuits or some other common elements instead of bread or wine, particularly on the mission field, because it is supposedly more familiar or more understandable to the culture.

As I considered the way the various denominations believe and practice it, it was an eye-opener for me when I compared them all; I was aware that there are different practices and views but when I saw them all together, I realised how chaotic the situation has become.

A Cacophony of Voices

Just to illustrate how thoroughly confusing the issue is I’ve listed the various views below.

• Catholic Church: The Eucharist (Thanksgiving) is a sacrament and conveys grace to all who receive it worthily.  It makes present Christ’s sacrifice on the cross in an unbloody manner, thus it is known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Through it, forgiveness of sin is obtained.  On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ, whilst maintaining the appearance and characteristics of bread and wine.  This change is known as Transubstantiation, and Christ’s presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.
• Eastern Orthodoxy:  also accepts and teaches the doctrines of the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.  However, unlike Catholicism it makes no attempt to explain how this occurs, preferring to regard it as a divine mystery.
• Lutheranism:  there is a sacramental union of the bread and the wine with the body and blood of Christ.  In other words, Christ’s body and blood are “in, with, and under” the forms of bread and wine (consubstantiation).  Luther explained his view using the analogy of an iron rod placed in the fire: both are united in the red-hot iron yet both are also distinct. 
• Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian):  Christ is not present literally in the sacrament but he is spiritually present.  Those who receive the elements with faith receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament (Receptionism).  That is, whenever the pious see the symbols of bread and wine, they are to “think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present….let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given us” (Institutes).
• Anglican:  generally and officially believe in the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Article 28 denies Transubstantiation but insists “the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.  And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith”.  But the Anglo-Catholic part of the Church has the same belief and practice as the Catholic Church.
• Baptist: derive their view from Zwingli who denied any form of physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  The Lord’s Supper is rather a remembrance of Christ’s suffering and a reminder of his power to overcome sin and death (Memorialism).
• Methodist: Christ is truly present in the Holy Communion.  He is present through the community gathered in his name, through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared.  The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants.  Holy Communion is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only; it is a re-presentation of Jesus Christ.
• Salvation Army: don’t observe the Eucharist at all.  It “believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian”.

Is it possible to add any other view to this doctrine?  Could anything be greater cause for confusion than this?  How can Jesus’ words be torn in so many different directions?  And how can I know which view is the right one? 

Protestantism

Although there had been minimal dissenting voices here and there for the first 1500 years, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the meaning, and therefore the practice, of the Lord’s Supper, was challenged and changed.  Until then, the Church universally taught and believed that the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/ was a sacrifice of Christ and that his true flesh and true blood were taken and ingested by the communicants; the Catholic Church’s mass later restricted the wine to the communicants.  The Catholic mass is blasphemous as it allows the priest – a mere man – to say by rote, as if it was a magic spell, a bunch of scripture verses in such a way that the whole ritual becomes a blasphemy – and he changes the bread and wine into the true body and blood of Jesus.  Whatever of the “bread” – it is really a wafer – is left over after the service is put into a box at the front of the church so that faithful Catholics can worship it as God.

The three leading Reformers (Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) each had different ideas about the Eucharist; they each claimed authority for their views from scripture and condemned the others for their “wrong” views.  And the dispute between Luther and Zwingli was so heated that Luther hurled anathemas at Zwingli – a typical response from Luther, sadly.  The result is the confusion of voices listed above.  And their legacy to their churches today is division and confusion. 

One would think that the Reformers would have got it right – after all, they exposed the errors of the Catholic Church and ushered in the Reformation.  But they’ve left us with a dilemma because we each follow the teaching of the founder of our denomination; and if each of the Reformers claims to have derived their teaching from the Bible, what does this say about sola scriptura?

What Does the Bible Say?

The passages in scripture which describe this sacrament, record Jesus as saying “this is my body….this is my blood” (Matt 26:26-28; Mk 14:23-24) and “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20, 19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). 

John (6:30-69) doesn’t deal with the institution of the Lord’s Supper but he does record Jesus’ preaching of the gospel, in effect, saying that he is the living bread which comes down from heaven and that all who would have eternal life must believe in him.  The bread that he gives us to eat, he told the Jews, is his flesh and the drink he gives is his blood (Jn 6:55).  The astonished Jews ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn 6:52).  At this point Jesus could have cleared the matter up for them and for all future readers of this passage simply by saying “The bread symbolises my body and the drink (presumably wine – John doesn’t specify) symbolises my blood”.  But he didn’t.  He reiterated and strengthened what he said by replying “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me” (Jn 6:53-56). 

So Catholics and other sacramentalists interpret this as meaning that the bread really does become the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine his actual blood; that these words give no indication that they’re meant to be taken as symbols.  In fact, when Jesus said to the Jews that his flesh was food and his blood was drink, “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? …..From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn 6:60, 66).

Why would these disciples have walked away and followed him no more if they knew he was speaking symbolically?  Why would Jesus let them walk away when he could have cleared the confusion up there and then?  And, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a matter of eternal life or death, why are there so many different interpretations of his words? 

And the words in the institution of the Eucharist by the Apostle Paul i.e. “For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you….the Lord Jesus….said….Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you….This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor 1:23-25) are taken by sacramentalists as literal.  In his instructions to the church at Corinth, and thus to all churches for all time, he wrote: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body…..If any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation” (1 Cor 11:29, 34).  So they explain these words as Paul talking about the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, for nobody can be justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body if the bread and the wine are merely symbols.

Matthew Henry Resolves All

However, the Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry, gives a satisfying corrective to the sacramentalist view, and to all the questions raised above.  He comments on 1 Cor 11:27-34 thus: 

“11:27 guilty of the body and blood: Despising His body and blood.  He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction with intentions opposite to its design or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up with the covenant with sin and death while they are professedly confirming their covenant with God.  They profane the institution and in a manner crucify their Savior over again.  Instead of cleansed by His blood they are guilty of His blood.

11:28 let a man examine himself: Try and approve himself.  Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it.  When he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend.  Those who through weakness of understanding cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat this bread and drink this cup.  Nor should those participate who have just ground to charge themselves with impenitence, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God.  You should have the wedding garment on if you want to be welcome at this marriage feast.

11:29 eateth and drinketh damnation: They provoke God and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves.  Every sin is damnning, and surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance as this is so.  But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending this holy ordinance.  The Holy Spirit never intended this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty.

11:30 many sleep: The Corinthians came to the Lord’s table as to a common feast not making a difference or distinction between that and common food.  This was sinful in them and displeasing to God and brought His judgments on them.  Some were punished with sickness, some with death.  A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord’s Supper may bring temporal punishments.  Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them.

11:31 we should not be judged: If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves and condemn others and correct what we find amiss, we would prevent divine judgments.  To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father.  We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Matt 7:1); but we must judge ourselves to prevent our being judged and condemned by God.

11:32 chastened of the Lord: It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity.  God punishes His people now to prevent their eternal woe.

11:34 come not together unto condemnation: Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation.  Christians may keep sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt and bring on heavier doom.  A sad but serious truth!   Let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God’s worship and all the while provoke Him and bring down vengeance on themselves.  Holy things are to be used in a holy manner or else they are profaned”.

Would that pastors refuse to distribute anything but bread and alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper; would that they refuse to allow parents to give their children the bread and wine to play with as it is distributed to the congregation.  Every principle of instruction given to us in scripture, and as expounded here by Matthew Henry, concerning the elements of the Lord’s Supper are trashed in our modern evangelical churches, as its leaders decide to adjust and “improve” on the commandments which Jesus gave for a remembrance by the Church for all time; and trashed by the Catholic Church to mean that one cannot have eternal life unless they eat and drink the literal body and blood of Jesus as offered to them in a re-presentation of his sacrificial death for sinners.