Resurrection and the Lord's Supper

Speaking of the resurrection, did you know that your understanding of the resurrection affects your understanding of the Lord's Supper--and vice versa? This was brought home to me as I was reading Calvin's Institutes with a grad student last semester. So, is there anything in faith and life that this doctrine doesn't touch?

Here's the issue... Jesus said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body," and of the cup, "This is my blood of the covenant." In what sense is that true in communion? Do Christians partake of the body and blood of Christ quite literally and objectively? Or is Jesus speaking only figuratively? Or something else?

Calvin took the "something else" route. It was important to him that the Lord's Supper be more than merely symbolic, that Christians truly partake of his flesh and blood in some sense:

We say Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and blood (IV.17.24; my emphasis).

On the other hand, he was emphatic that this partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ could not be understood as actually eating the resurrection body of Christ (somehow present in the elements). Why not? Because a real human body, such as Christ has in his resurrection, simply can't be distributed throughout time and space every time someone celebrates holy communion. Such a body isn't recognizably human:

What is the nature of our flesh? Is it not something that has its own fixed dimension, is contained in a place, is touched, is seen? And why (they say) cannot God make the same flesh occupy many and divers places, be contained in no place, so as to lack measure and form? Madmen, why do you demand that God's power make flesh to be and not to be flesh at the same time!... (IV.17.24)

Good point, if perhaps lacking in subtlety. From Calvin's perspective, it's nuts (paraphrasing here) to speak of Christ having a real human resurrection body and then demand that bits of it appear wherever bread and wine is consecrated and received. Human bodies simply don't work that way. Never have. Never will.

Flesh must therefore be flesh; spirit, spirit--each thing in the state and condition wherein God created it. But such is the condition of flesh that it must subsist in one definite place, with its own size and form. With this condition Christ took flesh, giving to it, as Augustine attests, incorruption and glory, and not taking away from it nature and truth (IV.17.24).

Think about what this means! When Christ was glorified, he didn't somehow become less human. It was all addition (incorruption and glory), no subtraction (of distinctive time-and-space bodily attributes). And, of course, what is true of Christ's glorified body will be true of ours as well. So, when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we do indeed proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Cor 11:26). It can also be an occasion to remember the nature of his resurrection--and ours.

Click here to read the rest of the post...

Ups and downs in the Articles of Religion

I found myself reading through some of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion this morning. That's not as odd as it sounds. Thanks to my good friend, Skip Burzumato, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer has come to play a rather large role in my morning devotions and, well, the Articles of Religion are at the back. It is true, though, that that makes me an ordained Baptist minister seeking membership in a Presbyterian church and saying my prayers from the Anglican prayer book...

Back to the Articles of Religion, though. Two things captured my attention.

First, I was struck by the fact that the third Article of Religion, immediately after the affirmation of the Holy Trinity and the dual nature of our Lord (human and divine), is "Of the going down of Christ into Hell," namely, that "As Christ died for us and was buried; so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell." The placement makes some sense, coming as it does right before the fourth Article, "Of the Resurrection of Christ" (his descent into hell naturally preceding his resurrection). It seems unfortunate, though, that such a controversial doctrine is thus given such prominence. I'm in sympathy with evangelical scholars such as Wayne Grudem who have questioned the biblical validity of this doctrine--and pointed out its very tardy (sixth-century, as I recall) inclusion in the Apostle's Creed (especially as an affirmation separate from the burial of Christ).

Second, and somewhat conversely, I was impressed by the truth and beauty of the fourth Article of Religion, "Of the Resurrection of Christ."

Christ did truly rise from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

This truth surely is at the center of the Christian religion. As Skip told me more than once (quoting one of his seminary professors), we believe that "the dust of the earth is seated on the throne of heaven." Jesus is "of one substance with the Father" (citing the second Article there), to be sure. We worship him as such. And yet... he is also the human lord of the universe, reigning from heaven in all his human glory. And it is that glory which we Christians anticipate sharing with him. I never cease to be amazed at this great truth.

The third Article is a descent, in my view, in more ways than one. The fourth Article ascends to the heights and is itself a great gift to men.

Click here to read the rest of the post...