Category: Word/Sacrament

In his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians he expands on the words of institution. ¹ At the outset he acknowledges the diverse trials the church has faced due to the meaning of these words. According to Calvin, Jesus was not presenting the bread to his disciples but his very body. Indeed, the bread is the center of the Paschal event. ²

Nevertheless, the question is “in what sense is the bread the body of Christ”? Calvin writes: “Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes.” ³ Calvin says that the “expression is figurative.” ⁴ As an illustration of this figurative language Calvin uses the Holy Spirit. Just as John called the Spirit a dove,⁵ Jesus uses the bread as a representation of himself. When the bread is exhibited the body is also there (when the parishioners take the elements by faith). This to Calvin is a “sacramental form of expression,” in which the Lord gives the sign the name of the thing signified.” ⁶

Though Calvin did not attend the Marburg Colloquy ⁷ he wished he could have been there. ⁸ Calvin thought Zwingli and Luther took extreme positions, and that perhaps his understanding of the “spiritual presence” view would bring the discussion to a more mediating position. But what exactly was it that Luther believed concerning Christ’s words? Luther expounds deeply his understanding of “This is my body” in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. ⁹ There he writes that on those words “we must rest; on them we must build as on a firm rock, if we would not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.” ¹⁰ For Luther the words of institution were deterrents to heresy.

In the Formula of Concord (1577) there is a more detailed explanation of the developed Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as it applies to the “is” of Christ’s institution. Article 7, section 2 reads:

We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be otherwise received than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ.

Once again there is a clear denial of the Zwinglian idea that “is” means “signifies.” Luther believed those words had to be taken literally. But this is not to be understood as absolutely literal. In other words, Luther does not mean that the bread is Christ’s body, but rather the bread remains bread and that Christ’s body is present simultaneously with the bread. Therefore, Luther’s doctrine interprets Christ’s words to mean, ‘This accompanies my body.’ ¹¹ For Luther, Christ was present alongside the bread; therefore he is “in,” “with” and “under” the elements. This is, of course, substantially different from the Roman idea of “transubstantiation” where bread and wine are changed into that of the body of Christ.

Luther, however, faced a dilemma. How can Christ’s body be present in the Eucharist in numerous locations? This led Luther to formulate the “Doctrine of Ubiquity.” ¹² Keith Mathison summarizes this doctrine in the following words:

“According to Luther and the Lutheran church, there is a real communication of divine attributes to the human nature. The divine attribute that is communicated to the human body of Christ in order that it may be in more than one place at one time is the attribute of omnipresence or ubiquity.” ¹³

Mathison offers several valid critiques of Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity. Among them he writes that to assume that a divine attribute is given to Christ’s body so that He may be in more than one place is a mixing of the two natures. Mathison writes:

It stands in opposition to the definition of Chalcedon, which asserts that the two natures of Christ exist in one person without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. The communication of omnipresence to the human body of Christ is a confusion of the attributes of one nature with the other. ¹⁴

Keith Mathison makes these concluding observations:

The doctrine of ubiquity not only distorts orthodox Christology, but also is inconsistent with scriptural teaching about the divine nature of Christ’s human body. The union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ began at his conception, and this union existed throughout his entire life and continues today…the Gospels continually speak of Christ’s body in terms of specific locality. He is in Galilee, or he is in Judea, or he is in Jerusalem.¹⁵

This is not an exhaustive critique, but sufficient enough to raise some doubts concerning Luther’s sacramentology.

1. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]
2. The Paschal Event is the fulfillment of the Passover in the Old Testament. The “Bread” is synonymous for the Eucharist event. [↩ back]
3. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries Volume XX Translated b Rev. John Pringle, Grand Rapids: MI, 1979, pg. 376-377. [↩ back]
4. Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
5. John 1:32 [↩ back]
6. Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
7. Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to discuss their views concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. [↩ back]
8. Of course, young Calvin was still pursuing his studies in France in 1529 when the Colloquy took place. [↩ back]
9. In this work Luther examines the seven sacraments of the medieval Church in light of the Bible. [↩ back]
10. Basic Theological Writings, pg. 293 [↩ back]
11. Mathison A. Keith, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pg. 259. [↩ back]
12. “Ubiquity” means the capacity of being everywhere at the same time. [↩ back]
13. Ibid., pg. 257-258. [↩ back]
14. Mathison 258. [↩ back]
15. Ibid., 258. [↩ back]

Calvin spends a significant amount of time responding to his opponents. Though the majority of his efforts are spent responding to transubstantiation, ¹ he spends time in the Institutes of Christian Religion interacting with some apologists for the Lutheran view. There is no direct positive commentary on Jesus’ words of institution in the Institutes, but in his commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels he spends a short time dealing with the meaning of the phrase. He begins his commentary on the words “This is my body” by commenting that some “entertain” what the phrase means. This is an unfortunate element of Calvin’s discussion, namely that he spent a major part of his treatments responding to his opponents instead of making a positive case for the meaning of Jesus’ words of institution. ²

Calvin takes a few sentences to give adequate treatment of those words of institution in the gospel of St. Matthew. Concerning the words of our Lord he writes, “that it is not an empty or unmeaning sign which he held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood.” Further he notes “that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord’s Supper; for, though we perceive nothing in it but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality.” ³ Therefore, when Jesus says, “This is my body” he means that he is truly present in the eating. Calvin assures the reader that Christ has not fooled us when he said his body is present.

In another place Calvin writes that God will “nourish us throughout the course of our life.” And the sacrament is a “spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality.” ⁴ His body is the life-giving bread. Calvin sees a divine banquet in an earthly table. There are many mistakes in interpreting Jesus’ words, but one thing is clear in Calvin: it is a reality. Simply put, the body of Christ is mysteriously present and those who partake by faith partake of Christ himself. Calvin rejected outright Zwingli’s view that the table served only as a memorial. Rather, the recipient had the assurance that the body of Christ would be spiritually present at the Holy Meal.

1. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ that, according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the “substance” of the bread was converted to that of his body. [↩ back]
2. It is unmistakable that as one responds to the arguments of another, he is at that very moment making a case for his position. Nevertheless, it appears that Calvin spent too much time responding to opponents, while Luther spent much time exploring the text itself. This is certainly not to say that Luther did not have “choice” words to his opponents, but merely to point out that he dedicated more of his attention to his text. [↩ back]
3. Calvin, John. Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. III. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids: MI, Reprinted 2003, pg. 209. [↩ back]
4. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]

Martin Luther understood Jesus’ words literally. When Jesus said: “This is my body,”¹ Luther believed it meant that the bodily presence of Christ was there alongside the elements. Zwingli, on the other hand, saw those words figuratively. The physical body of Christ could not be everywhere at the same time, therefore he could not be physically present at the table.² He understood Jesus’ words to mean: “This signifies my body.” As a result of this disagreement, Luther and Zwingli failed to unite the Reformation.

Luther and Calvin: An Analysis of their views of Jesus’ words of institution
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the truthful, all-wise, and almighty God-man, has instituted this Sacrament.”³ Luther writes concerning the institution:

We must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and this alone, and set nothing before us but the very word of Christ and this alone, and set nothing before us but the very word of Christ by which he instituted the sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us. For in that word and that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the mass.⁴

For Luther, Jesus’ powerful words are the heart of the Sacrament of the Altar.⁵ Luther writes:

In these words nothing is omitted that pertains to the completeness, the use, and the blessing of this sacrament; and nothing is included that is superfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets aside these words and meditates or teaches concerning the mass will teach monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who have made of the sacrament an opus operatum and a sacrifice. ⁶

Here Luther is reacting to the pomp of the Roman doctrine of the mass. He is convinced that unless people turn their eyes away from the ornaments, candles, and chants there can be no true Eucharist. ⁷

1. It is significant to note that among the many issues brought for discussion, Luther and Zwingli agreed on almost all. It was only on the interpretation of “is” in Jesus’ words that they came to severe disagreement.
   In the Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic tradition there is no disagreement as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The difference is how is Christ’s body present in the sacrament. Zwingli on the other hand denied that Christ could be present in any way. [↩ back]
2. In the Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic tradition there is no disagreement as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The difference is how is Christ’s body present in the sacrament. Zwingli on the other hand denied that Christ could be present in any way. [↩ back]
3. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Small Catechism, , St. Louis, Missouri, Concordia Publishing House, 1943, Answer 297. [↩ back]
4. Luther, Martin. Basic Theological Writings. Ed. Timothy F. Lull, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pg. 292. [↩ back]
5. “Sacrament of the Altar” is synonymous with the Lord’s Supper, Lord’s Table, and Holy Communion. See Shorter Catechism Questions 296 [↩ back]
6. Luther, Martin. Basic Theological Writings. Ed. Timothy F. Lull, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pg. 293. By “opus operatum” Luther refers to a work that is accomplished or finished, which is supposed to impart grace simply by virtue of its having been properly performed, without reference to any faith or lack of faith on the part of the person for whom it is performed. [↩ back]
7. Luther refers to all outward things that would take away attention from the Sacrament. [↩ back]

Note: This is meant to be an introductory study on Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the phrase: This is my body. This study will serve to provide a background for current controversies regarding the blatant denial of a robust Eucharistic faith in our modern Protestant Churches. The footnotes will be very helpful throughout these readings.¹

The Reformation marked a return to the Scriptures in the area of the sacraments. This derived from a high view of Biblical authority. Throughout the Reformation, there was a conscious determination to bring all things under the authority of Scripture. Both Luther and Calvin believed that only the Scriptures would bring about true change. Though their adherence to Holy Writ led them to different interpretations on significant issues, yet their commitment to the authority of the Bible led to an unprecedented change in the European religious structure. It is with this zeal for the Word of God that Luther and Calvin approach the Lord’s words of institution. However, when great minds gather, great divisions occur.²

The sixteenth century was a time during which the moral collapse of the Roman Church stirred the Reformation, and other movements as well, to pursue a renewed church.³ Indeed, John Frame’s statement reflects the Reformation’s zeal: “We must first be assured that Jesus Christ established on earth one church.”⁴ The Reformation was not interested in starting a new church since Christ had already instituted His one apostolic church. Initially, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others were simply concerned, with the restoration of Rome and the purification of its doctrinal errors.⁵ Of course, as the years went by they became aware that Rome was not about to change. It appears that the people too wanted change, so when Luther found that Rome did not seek a return to the authority of Scriptures, the Reformation became a separate entity; a viable alternative to the Roman Church.⁶

At that point, they began to dispute differences among themselves. This diversion ultimately led to division between the early Reformers.⁷ Luther’s disciples began to concentrate on Luther’s distinctives and Calvin’s disciples on his. Among the many distinctions in the developing Reformation none caused greater division than the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Jesus’ phrase of institution: “This is my body”⁸ was the most disputed of the Reformation period. There were various understandings of this language among the Reformers. The irreconcilable differences among them led to the eventual fragmentation of the Reformation. The last chance of a united Reformation died on October 1st, 1529. That day brought Luther and Zwingli together in Marburg⁹ to discuss their differences and try to come to an agreement. If this had happened the Reformation would have been a more effective movement.¹⁰

1. This is intended to be a seven part series. Each reading will take 3-5 minutes. [↩ back]
2. This is evidently true for Luther and Zwingli. [↩ back]
3. The Magisterial Reformers did not initially want a departure from Rome, but a reformation of her wide corruption. [↩ back]
4. Frame, John. Evangelical Reunion, Volume 3, Number 23, June 4, 2001, www.framepoythress.org, Reformed Perspectives Magazine, chapter 1. Professor Frame is criticizing “denominationalism.” In personal correspondence I asked Professor Frame if “denominationalism” is a necessary evil? His response: “That depends on the source of the necessity. In the early days of the church, the evil was unnecessary. The problem of division might have been prevented and would have been if the people had followed Scripture. Of course today the prospect of complete reunion is so dim that I can understand your saying that for practical purposes at least denominations must be treated as necessary.” [↩ back]
5. This is fundamental to acknowledge at the outset, lest some believe that the Reformers were anti-institutional. [↩ back]
6. The Reformers continued to dialogue with Rome as the Colloquy of Resenberg (1541) indicates, but not as pervasively as they did in the beginning. [↩ back]
7. It must be noted that though there were differences (as in the sacraments) there was also a great level of mutual respect among the leaders of the 1st and 2nd generation Reformers. Calvin, for example, who was much younger than Luther, spoke very highly of Luther in many occasions. [↩ back]
8. Matthew 26:26 also I Corinthians 11:24. Some manuscripts read: “This Is my body broken for you.” This paper will center its attention primarily on Matthew’s account as opposed to Paul’s. Quotation is taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible. [↩ back]
9. For a helpful summary see: Stephen J. Nichols: Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of his Life and Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pgs. 117-120. [↩ back]
10. I continually make this point clear because if the Reformers were to attack Rome’s serious errors together and united, their influence could’ve had far reaching power. Today Europe is a graveyard. The majority of Europeans are not even aware what the Reformation was. However, in God’s great providence the Reformation went beyond Europe. [↩ back]