The Lord's Supper in the Reformation Era

Introduction

Throughout church history, the Lord’s Supper has been a crucial aspect of Christian worship, yet the meaning of Christ’s mighty words in instituting the sacrament has been widely disputed. Therefore, the practice of the Lord’s Supper, following its varying interpretations, has also varied. This brief essay, composed of a historical narrative section and a case study, will examine these understandings, primarily focusing on the Reformation’s practice and understanding of the Lord’s Supper, as the Reformation Era represents many different positions on the sacrament. Furthermore, it will determine that Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper is the most tenable and in agreement with the Scriptures, offering true sanctifying grace, an essential component of Christian living and faithfulness.

Historical Narrative

Early in church history, it was largely assumed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, yet “the mystery was preserved. Some theologians, like Augustine, emphasized the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, while still affirming the mysterious presence of Christ. Others, like Ambrose (c. 340-397), used concepts such as ‘conversion,’ which seemed to emphasize a change in the elements themselves.”¹ These interpretations were far less nuanced than they would become later, yet there was much agreement on the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The development would come far later when “[d]uring the Carolingian reign, with Charles the Great (718-814), or Charlemagne, crowned by the pope, questions arose concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”² The response came from two different Carolingian monks and theologians. One of them, Radbertus (785-865) in his work Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, stated that, in agreement with Ambrose, that the bread and wine “were actually converted into the body and blood of Christ,” while the other, Ratramnus of Corbie (d. 868) in Concerning Christ’s Body and Blood, in agreement with Augustine, decided that the elements remained the same, yet Christ was mysteriously present.³ These two positions primarily demonstrate how the early church understood the Lord’s Supper but also lay the groundwork for further elaboration on the sacrament.

In the late Medieval Era, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) clarified the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in three Latin phrases: sacramentum or sacramentum tantum (the sign itself), res et sacramentum (the reality and the sign), and res tantum (the fruit of the sacrament). In short, he concluded that in transubstantiation, the bread and wine are sacramentum tantum before consecration, the substance of the bread and wine change to the substance of the body and blood while the ‘accidents’ or outward appearance of the signs remain the same after consecration (res et sacramentum). Furthermore, through participation in the sacrament, the church is united to Christ so that the concept of res tantum is conveyed.⁴ This position was accepted and formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and affirmed by the Council of Trent to be the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.⁵ Many did not accept this position, however.

Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer who sparked the Reformation against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, developed a different understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In his work The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), he exclaimed that transubstantiation was untenable while still allowing Christ to be really present in a view called consubstantiation, a position in which both the substances of the bread and wine and the body and the blood are present in the Eucharist.⁶ Luther says, “In red-hot iron, for example, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why should it not be even more possible that the glorious body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread?”⁷ This logic agrees with another miracle of Christ’s appearance, the Incarnation, in which Christ is simultaneously truly human and divine.

Another reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, disagreed with transubstantiation like Luther, but saw the difference as more dramatic than Luther did. Zwingli argued that Christ was not present in the Eucharist in any way at all and preferred a memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper. In short, he posited that Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:26 were to be taken symbolically, not literally or even spiritually, such as the following interpretation posits.⁸

The final view of the Lord’s Supper in the Reformation Era comes from John Calvin, a student of Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. Calvin argued that “there is such a close connection between the symbol and the gift which it symbolizes that we can ‘easily pass from one to the other.’ The sign is visible and physical, whereas the thing signified is invisible and spiritual- yet the connection between the sign and the thing signified is so intimate that it is permissible to apply the one to the other.”⁹ It is this particular Reformation view that the rest of this essay will focus on.

Case Study: The Institutes and the Libertins — Doctrine and Devotion

Calvin explains his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to a great degree in The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In reference to Luke 22:20, which states, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood,”¹⁰ Calvin writes the following:

And wherever there is a promise, faith has something on which to rely, in which to find comfort and from which to draw strength. Our souls can take and derive from this sacrament much sweetness and fruit of consolation, by which we understand that Jesus Christ is so incorporated into us and we into him that we can call ours all that is his, and his all that is ours.¹¹

This unification with Christ in the sacrament is due to the sacramental unity between the sign and the reality. The sacrament spiritually comforts, strengthens, and consoles those believers who participate in it not because of its own power but because it is so closely associated with Christ, who is the epitome of comfort, strength, and peace.

Just as the new covenant is the “cup [of blood] that is poured out,” Jesus is also the “bread of life” (John 6:48, 51). Regarding this, Calvin writes, “The main point of the sacrament, therefore, is not simply to present to us the body of Jesus Christ, but rather to seal and confirm the promise in which Christ tells us that his flesh is truly food, and his blood, drink, by which we are nourished for eternal life.”¹² In other words, the bread and the wine “sends us to the cross of Jesus Christ, where this promise was fully ratified and completely fulfilled.”¹³

So far, Calvin has demonstrated the power of the sacrament. He then elaborates on the mode of the sacrament or how the sign and the reality are sacramentally unified. Critiquing erroneous understandings of the Lord’s Supper, he decides the following:

The sacrament is something spiritual, by which our Lord chose to feed not our bellies but our souls… [Furthermore,] we must not imagine communion in the form dreamed up by the Sophists [those Medieval scholastics who argue for transubstantiation], as if the body of Christ were to descend onto the table and were placed there as a local presence for hands to touch, teeth to chew and throats to swallow. For just as we do not doubt that it has the same dimensions as are required by a human body, and that is contained in heaven where it was taken until he comes in judgment, so we consider it wrongful to degrade it to the level of the perishable elements or to imagine that it is present everywhere.¹⁴

Not only do Calvin’s words in the Institutes regarding the spiritual reality of the Lord’s Supper approve of the extra calvinisticum and reject the genus majestaticum, they also provide the theological foundation for devotional and disciplinary aspects of the covenant meal, as demonstrated in Calvin’s other literature and pastoral practice.

In 1553, twelve years after this particular edition of The Institutes was first published, Calvin experienced a struggle with the Libertins and the Genevan government. He wrote about it to Pierre Viret, another French Reformer in Switzerland. He spoke of the excommunication by the Consistory, the ruling authority of the church in Geneva, of Philibert Berthelier, the Libertins leader, for his irregular and sinful habits, and how the Council of State overruled the decision, allowing Berthelier and the Libertins to participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. This unworthy participation infuriated Calvin, who saw the sacrament as a means of sanctifying grace, unified to Christ’s body in heaven, that should not be desecrated. Moreover, Calvin was dismayed because the state had undermined the authority of the church over its parishioners, the purity of the sacrament, and the opportunity for repentance brought about by Berthelier’s discipline, which is an essential component of the Christian life.

Regarding the experience, Calvin saw an attack on the sacredness of the Lord’s Supper as an attack on the Lord Himself:

During my absence, however, and unknown to the Consistory, an opportunity was afforded him of receiving the Supper. As soon as I got notice of it, I used all my endeavours to get the Syndics to call a meeting of the Senate. I have devoted myself so earnestly to the cause, that, in my mind, nothing calculated to influence their minds was left undone. I endeavoured, partly by vehemence, and partly by moderation, to reduce them to a sound mind. I even took an oath, that I had resolved rather to meet death than profane so shamefully the holy Supper of the Lord; for that nothing was more intolerable than that individual, mocking and insulting the Church of God by his contumacy… From which you perceive, that by this law my ministry is abandoned, if I suffer the authority of the Consistory to be trampled upon, and extend the Supper of Christ to open scoffers, who boast that pastors are nothing to them. In truth, I should rather die a hundred times, than subject Christ to such foul mockery.¹⁵

The desecration and mockery of the Lord’s Supper by unworthy participants and its attribution to Christ Himself demonstrate the sacramental unity of the sign and the reality, and Calvin’s unwavering commitment to taking the sacrament and church purity very seriously. He is not only devotionally committed to defending the integrity of the sacrament but also to faithfully protecting his congregants from sinful influence and reckless living.

Conclusion

While the Reformation presented a wide range of theological views on the Lord’s Supper, none better balanced biblical faithfulness, theological clarity, and pastoral integrity than Calvin’s. Rooted in Christ’s institution of the sacrament—“This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me,” and “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”—Calvin affirms that the Lord’s Supper is not merely symbolic nor a transformation of substance, but a spiritual communion with Christ in heaven. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Calvin’s view of the covenant meal fully embraces this participation, while encouraging believers to examine themselves in light of the sacred nature of the sacrament.

Bibliography

Bowden, Zachary M. “The Church.” In Historical Theology for the Church, edited by Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn, 115-137. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: Calvin’s Own Essentials Edition: A New Translation of the 1541 Institutes. Translated by Robert White. Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 2020.

———. “Letter CCCXXV.—To Viret: Troubles at Geneva—Berthelier and the chiefs of the Libertins are refused admission to the Lord’s Table.” In Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5*,* “Letters, Part 2: 1545-1553,” edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable, 423-425. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2017.

———. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998.

---

Footnotes

1. Zachary M. Bowden, “The Church,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 121. ↩

2. Ibid. ↩

3. Bowden, 122. ↩

4. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th edition (West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 396-397. ↩

5. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), 196. ↩

6. McGrath, Historical Theology, 198. ↩

7. Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, qtd. in McGrath, Historical Theology, 198. ↩

8. McGrath, Historical Theology, 198-199. ↩

9. Ibid. ↩

10. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

11. Calvin, Institutes, 623. This particular edition does not make use of section markers. ↩

12. Ibid., 625. ↩

13. Ibid. ↩

14. Calvin, 626-635. ↩

15. John Calvin, “Letter CCCXXV.—To Viret: Troubles at Geneva—Berthelier and the chiefs of the Libertins are refused admission to the Lord’s Table,” in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 5*, ‘Letters, Part 2: 1545-1553’,* ed. Jules Bonnet, trans. David Constable (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 423-425. ↩