Article X

Click this for a paper I wrote on this last year.
Luther Versus Zwingli: A Critical Comparison of The Eucharist

Phillipp Melancthon wrote in 1530,

"To the readers, one and all, of these our writings: we are the electors, princes, and deputies of the Holy Roman Empire in Germany, supporters of the Augsburg Confession, who subscribed our names to that document.  We announce and declare- according to the dignity and rank of each person- our devotion, friendship, and greeting, combined with willing service." (McCain 3)

I was talking with some people today about Holy Communion / Lord’s Supper / Eucharist.  They seemed slightly confused as to the different interpretations of Holy Communion.

1.) The Catholic view of communion is called Transubstantiation.  In this view, the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.  This means the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood, yet still tasting like bread and wine. 

            Catholic church

            Episcopal church

            Anglican church

2.) The Lutheran view, of which I believe in, is called Sacramental Union, (and not Consubstantiation, to which some light to refer it).  In this view, the bread and wine, after being consecrated by the presiding minister, contain the body and blood of Christ.  Once communion is over for the congregation or congregant, it just becomes bread and wine again.  This is why it’s acceptable for the pastor to give the leftover bread to little children at the end of the worship service.  I don't know why there is a problem with some people interchanging Sacramental Union with Consubstantiation.  They sound like the same thing to me.  Both involve Christ's body and blood being alongside, or contained in, the bread and wine.  

            Lutheran church

Melancthon wrote in Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession, “Our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper.  They reject those who teach otherwise,” (McCain 39).

This is the shortest of the 28 articles written to explain the new Lutheran faith to a crowd of skeptic Catholics, who thought these crazy Lutherans were throwing away the teachings of the church.  Instead, these Lutherans were simply restating what the church and scripture have been saying all along. 

3.) Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) was a Christian reformer in Switzerland, about the same time as Martin Luther in Germany.  While Luther inadvertently started the Lutheran movement, Zwingli started the Anabaptist movement.   Zwingli got interested in Luther’s writings, but it was soon clear to everyone that there were major differences between the two, mainly on the issue of Holy Communion. 

The term “Anabaptist” does not mean “anti-baptizers,” “anti-Baptists,” or anything like that.  It actually means “re-baptizers.”  Zwingli didn’t believe babies should be baptized because they don’t know what’s going on.  Luther believed babies, in order to be saved, should be baptized (Janz 183).

Zwingli says, “ [the church] will not even brook the question whether the body of Christ is in the sacrament of the Eucharist in actual, physical, or essential form…I do not think we have to listen to those who are so bold as to say, ‘I have always firmly believed that in this sacrament I eat the essential body, or the bodily and sensible flesh, of Christ…It is eaten spiritually…For body and spirit are such essentially different things that whichever one you take, it cannot be the other,” (Janz 193-194). 

Zwingli basically believed that the body and blood of Christ are not present at all in the bread and wine.  He believed communion was just a symbolism.

            Methodist church

            Presbyterian church

Baptist church

            Many Nondenominational churches

           

Now wait just a minute….

What does the Bible say?

Matthew 26:26-27 says, “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’^*

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you.’”

The key word here is is.  I don’t see the word represents or turns into.  Jesus said “this IS my body.”  He didn’t say, “this REPRESENTS my body.”  He didn’t say, “this SOMEHOW TRANSFORMS into my body.”

Mark 14: 22, 24 says, “While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body…’ He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed^* for many.’”

Once again, the key word is is. 

Luke 22:19-20: “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.’”

Do I need to repeat what the key word is?

“Well, Jesse, wasn’t Jesus speaking metaphorically?”

Not really.  You see, as a Lutheran, I believe in taking the Bible literally, but the Bible is not literalistic.  One of the definitions of literal is, “Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic.”  A literal believer lets scripture interpret scripture.  A literalistic believe takes each piece of the Bible as if it were the only one.  Pastor David Glesne says, “...while we [Christians] take the Bible in its literal sense, not everything in the Bible is to be read literalistically. Because not all language is literal! We recognize different literary forms--poetry, parables, didactic portions, historical narrative. We do not read the Bible without regard to the ordinary rules of literature. There are different types of literature and different idioms of speech. When you tell your wife that you "bumped into Nancy at the mall today," you don't meant (or usually you don't mean!) you actually had physical contact with Nancy. You mean you met her at the mall. Similarly, we talk about the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. We are not talking literally here,” (Daniels).

I believe in taking what Jesus said literally.

“You still didn’t answer my question.”

I know.  I’m getting there.  Jesus doesn’t speak in metaphors or use stories, unless it is blatantly obvious that he is.  Let’s take the Parable of the Mustard Seed, found in Luke 13:18-19, for example.  Jesus says, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to?  It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches.”  Jesus directly stated that this is a story; a metaphor.  I don’t see a statement like “What shall I compare it to?” before the three scripture segments about the last supper.  If there is, I can’t see it. 

“Why does Jesus say, “Do this in remembrance of me?”

He says this so we can remember him.  Yes, I know what you’re thinking.  Jesus doesn’t mean to remember him like you would remember an old school mate.  “Man!  I haven’t heard of John Sanders in a long time!  I remember back in school when we used to do burnouts in the parking lot of the local Ames store!  Those were the good-ole-days.”  No.  Jesus says to remember him by reconnecting with him.  You see, when we sin, we fall short of the glory of God; we turn away from Christ when we sin.  We need Holy Communion to turn back to Christ in order to get to God.  We need to somehow reconnect with Christ.  We reconnect with Christ by taking Holy Communion.  In Greek, the word dikaioo literally means “to righteousfy.”  God doesn’t look upon your good works to righteousfy you.  He looks upon your faith in what Jesus did on the cross.  You show him you have faith by taking Holy Communion. 

In his “Apology to the Augsburg Confession,” (apology meaning explanation, not “I’m sorry”), Melanchthon wrote a rather long explanation to his very short 10^th article.  He writes,

“We believe that in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present and are truly administered with those things that are seen (bread and wine) to those who receive the Sacrament.  Since Paul says, ‘The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”’ (McCain 213).

"It doesn't make sense.  How does bread and wine magically contain Christ?"

The word, sacramentum, which is where we get the word sacrament from, means mystery.  Thus, Holy Sacrament means Holy Mystery.

I hope this clears up some confusion about the three big camps on Holy Communion.

Daniels, Mark J. "MarkDaniels.Blogspot.com." : On Reading the Bible. N.p., 7 Oct. 2009. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.

Janz, Denis. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1999. Print.

McCain, Paul Timothy., W. H. T. Dau, and F. Bente. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions : A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2006. Print.