Here's the question, embedded in a comment.
I have a question, very unrelated. How do you explain and scripturally defend consubstantiation (the belief that Christ is also physically, not only spiritually, present at the sacrament of communion)?
Let's have a go at this. Timocrat has taken a typical Calvinist view of communion, that Christ is spiritually present. Actually, from what I've heard coming from really educated thoroughgoing Calvinists is that during communion we become spiritually present with Christ, who is there physically in heaven. At the time the question was arising earlier today some other people were making comments about a symbolic presence as well. Unfortunately, Timocrat muddied some of the waters by assigning the label "consubstantiation" to the view of a real presence. I'd rather not get into all the philosophical reasoning behind it, but historically Lutherans have not affirmed consubstantiation. They have affirmed a real bodily presence, but did not wish to define it as consubstantiation, which had been condemned as a heresy around the 10th century. Unfortunately, the label has stuck.
So I can't defend consubstantiation. I don't believe consubstantiation. I don't believe transubstantiation either. But I will affirm a real bodily presence of Christ in communion. The scriptural defense is that Jesus uses a simple copulative verb to say "This is my body." When presenting the cup, he uses metonymy to say "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." Nobody affirms that the cup is a covenant, but that the use of the term "cup" refers to what is in the cup. That seems a safe statement, at least for now. On the surface it seems quite clear that Jesus is saying thing one (bread or wine) is being equated with thing two (body or blood). There are three basic tracks we can take to understand this.
Track #1 is to say that this is a metaphorical use, just like Jesus saying, "I am the door of the sheep." While this would be possible, notice that the words of institution of communion are opposite to all the metaphorical statements Jesus makes. He consistently compares himself, the greater, to a lesser thing. For instance, when he presents himself as the door of the sheep, he is rather clearly saying that the door exhibits some element of which he is the fulfillment. But this statement, and only this one, treats the situation in reverse. The first element, bread, is the lesser. By that reasoning, Jesus would be saying that his body exhibits some element of which bread is the fulfillment. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You could certainly make an argument that says this arrangement doesn't preclude Jesus' use of a metaphor in different directions at different times. But you could not make an argument that says linguistically Jesus must be speaking metaphorically. I have yet to see adequate argument to make me think Jesus must be speaking metaphorically.
Track #2 is to say that we are able to understand what happens in communion. This takes in the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the Calvinist view of a spiritual presence, and the Zwinglian view of a symbolic reference. In all those views we take the very same words of Jesus and say we understand exactly what they mean. We have come up with an explanation for what Jesus actually means when he says "this is my body." And in all those explanations, something happens to the word "this," the word "is" or the word "body" to make it intelligible. Particularly if we are wishing to avoid transubstantiation, we end up having to do something to the word "is" so as to make it somehow mean "represents." Of course, the Calvinist spiritual presence position winds up unable to explain why Jesus didn't say either, "this is my spirit" or "this represents my spiritual presence."
Track #3 is very unsatisfying to many people. It is, however, what I'll affirm. Jesus says, "This is my body" and it is exactly what he means. There is something miraculous which happens when we celebrate communion. Jesus is present bodily. We don't know how. We might even have trouble with explaining why. We may dislike the idea that this means a miracle necessarily happens in communion. It may make us feel like we are not erudite modernists and postmodernists who can deal with communion in a sophisticated knowing way. But it is exactly what Jesus said. Jesus and the apostles had plenty of time and opportunity to explain things more fully. The Holy Spirit inspired no such explanation. So I'll just have to accept what our Lord said.
So there you have it. Is it an explanation? I guess not. But it is an affirmation.
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
3 comments:
Interesting. I actually used the term "consubstantiation" because I had heard of other Lutherans believing in it, and when I looked it up to define it, it appeared to mean just that: physical presence. I understand the issue with labeling, though.
I don't necessarily agree with any single party on this. I would prefer the straight biblical reading. However, something in me balks when I hear "Christ is physically here, somehow".We know that God is spirit, and Christ is reincarnate, perfect flesh-spirit. I'm not sure I see biblical evidence for a physical presence, in the way we understand the term, of Christ anywhere, least of all in Heaven. I think saying that Christ's post-resurrection body is a physical body is like saying that God is more powerful than I am. Well, yes, but so much more.
I find it interesting that the bread is Christ's body, but the wine, far from being Christ's blood, is the covenant *in* His blood. So His body is given for us, which the bread apparently is, but His blood is the element in which this so-called "new covenant" is made, which the cup apparently is. And we can't really have a physical manifestation of a covenant. So this looks to be a contradiction: on one hand, the bread is in some way Christ's body, but the wine can't possibly be in any way a covenant, but only a symbol or sign or seal of the covenant. He seems to be switching uses of the copula midway through, which might lead one way or the other.
Anyway, thank you for the explanation. I was somewhat confused when I first heard of this belief, thinking: "How in the world can it be logically maintained that Christ is at all physically present at communion? He is spiritually omnipresent, but physically?" I know and affirm that something inexplicable takes place at communion, and at baptism. Thus, I can't really describe what it is that makes them special. So many people get divided on this, because they must explain it. I don't think we were meant to understand, but to trust and obey, as the hymn goes.
Like you mentioned in that other forum, it doesn't matter much that we may not agree exactly on every little thing. In fact, I've found that this is one way God uses to focus us on the essential Gospel: 1 Timothy 1.15.
I wish I had time to comment at greater length, but interims are due tomorrow, and I still have a few things to mark before I can record the grades.
Dave, your position is very much like the Orthodox position. "It is bread; it is Christ's body. This is a mystery. We must worship." It's not that the East lacks the big brains necessary to try to define what is happening at the Eucharist as narrowly as possible. On the contrary, the Greek Fathers showed much more aptitude for niceness of thought that the Latin Fathers did. It's just that the Eastern Mind and the Western mind have very different first impulses when bumping into what seems a contradiction.
In the West, our first impulse tends to be to try to sort out what we haven't fully comprehended. (Well, it must be that the host is bread in one respect, and is actually Christ's body in some other respect -- what would those be? Essence and Accidence, perhpas?) In the East, their first impulse tends to be to fully confess the seemingly contradictory propositions and to worship. There is something to be learned there.
So... It is bread; it is Christ's Body. We must worship. It is wine; it is Christ's Blood. We *must* worship.
Having said that, the texts that I think must most be considered are the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6) and Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 11. It was these passages that taught my former Calvinist, Fundamentalist self that the Eucharist is much more than a memorial. The Corinthians passage is one of two clear examples in the New Testament of God striking people down because of their sin (the other that springs to mind is Ananias & Sapphira). These passages let me know that God takes Communion (whatever is happening there & then) far more seriously that I had been doing to that point.
Wish I could say more, but time forbids.
Oh, not really in contribution to the discussion per se, but possibly an interesting side-trip for a Latinist who is mulling such things over. A couple of posts on a Latin inscription in St. Lawrence:
http://stizzyocayce.blogspot.com/2008/05/true-blood-is-on-altar-and-appears-as.html
http://stizzyocayce.blogspot.com/2008/05/whose-blood-is-on-altar-in-appearance.html
Post a Comment