This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison Between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part IV

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]