Lords Supper
The Last Supper or the Lords Supper is the meal that was taken by Jesus and his followers on the evening before he was apprehended by the soldiers to be crucified (Luther, 1955). It was the celebration of Eucharist where be broke the bread which was symbolic to his body and took wine, which was symbolic for his blood. During this meal Jesus Christ instructed his followers to do the same in his remembrance. The meal was a Jewish religious one, which took a new meaning for the disciples when they performed it in memory of him. Christians practice this ritual also in remembrance of Jesus Christ. However, the rite has been surrounded by contradictions in the description of the words of Jesus during the last supper. They have also disagreed on the exact connection on the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. Christians also argue on the frequency with which the last supper should be celebrated. During the Last Supper, Jesus also washed the legs of his followers and commanded them to do the same on each other. This has also been a subject of disagreement in Christianity. This paper seeks to contrast the beliefs of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli concerning the meaning of the Lords Supper
Transubstantiation
During the protestant reformation, the idea of transubstantiation became a subject of serious disagreement. This is word means the transformation of bread and wine to become body and blood of Christ. This issue of transubstantiation has been argued by many religions and religious leaders. There have never been any agreements on the issue letting the people to decide what to follow and whose beliefs to accept. In the rite of the Lords Supper, the disagreement among Calvin, Luther and Zwingli was the on the meaning of the words of Jesus Christ that this is my body.
Martin Luthers views
According to Martin Luther, it was not the idea that was to be considered, but the fact that Jesus was there at the Eucharist. Luther disagreed with the notion of signifies or means, as held by Zwingli and Calvin. This is to say that according to Luther the idea of means, signifies or symbolises does not hold in the Eucharist. Luther argued that it was not important to try and understand whether the bread was really transformed into the body, or whether the wine was really transformed into blood, what was important as per the argument of Luther was the fact that the rite represented the presence of Christ.
He claimed that it was not important to reduce the words of Christ and thus denying them their meaning. This argument goes against the real idea of transubstantiation, which tries to explain the real changes that took place on the bread and the wine.
Luther claimed that since the beginning of the church and the celebration of the Lords Supper, the idea of transubstantiation has never been important. Luther argued that what is supposed to be said during the celebration is that this is my body. This is regardless the fact that bread and body are two different elements. It is from the union of the two substances that a sacrament is derived. He referred to this as sacramental union, saying that the two substances were given to the church as sacrament. Luther also held to the instructions of Jesus to take the bread and eat and to take the wine and drink. This clearly indicated that the body and the blood of Jesus were not to be eaten. As a result, Lutherans believe that the body and the blood of Jesus are independently present as bread and wine. Luther held the idea that due to the fact that Jesus Christ gave the body and the blood to people to eat, it would be wrong for churches to hold to superstitions that would make people afraid of eating it.
Luther is really inclined to the idea of the reality of the presence of Christ during Eucharist. This was the reason he came up with the idea of omnipresence of the body in Eucharist. His presence is celebrated every time the Lords Supper is celebrated. His claim is that the historical body of Christ and the sacramental body are one and the same thing. This is also on his argument that humanity and God are put at the same place and cannot be alienated.
Huldrych Zwinglis Views
Huldrych Zwingli provided a different teaching from that of Luther. There has been a serious disagreement between these two on the doctrine of the sacrament. While Luther believed in the real presence of Christ during celebration of the last supper, Zwingli believed in the celebration as completely symbolic and memorial in nature. His claim is that this was the clear description of the words of Christ that the celebration should be carried out in his remembrance. For Zwingli, the idea of presence is the understanding of faith, but not present as in reality. Zwingli taught that the body of Christ is supposed to be consumed only after the conviction that he died on the cross for our sake.
In Zwinglis argument everything is on the subjective part. It is in the revelation of the past. The present happening is in the subject. This means that it is in the intellect of the follower. Therefore, according to Zwingli, the presence of Jesus Christ during the Eucharist is not in the nature but only in the minds of the followers. Against the beliefs of Luther, Zwingli claims that the body of Jesus is restricted in heaven. By being restricted in a special definite place, it therefore means that it cannot participate in the Eucharist. The restricted nature of the body of Christ is similar to the body of man and therefore the two cannot interact directly. It is from this that Zwingli claims that the Eucharist is a memory and a confession. It is not a direct interaction with somebody who is naturally there.
Luther disagrees with this argument where he says that humanity and God cannot be separated. He claims that where God is put, that is the exactly place where humanity must be placed. He argued that symbolic or metaphorical argument of God is demonic. This is from point of view that Luther completely denied the idea of separating Christ from the humanity. He said that even in that special place where Zwingli argued that he was, his humanity and divinity cannot be alienated. This is the point argues on the omnipresence of the elevated Christ. Though he went to Heaven, his presence with us according to Luther is undeniable. Luther also claims that the presence of Christ is not only in the body during Eucharist, but everywhere and in everything. His presence is in water, fire, stone, but for the human being he is present only when he communicates through everything. This is the presentation of Gods power around the world. It is this powerful presence that is in the body of Christ during Eucharist.
John Calvins views
Calvin can be said to be taking a position that is in between the beliefs of Luther and Zwingli. Calvin presented a rule to the Christians. He told his believers that symbols given to them by the Lord should be taken to mean that the thing that is symbolized is really there. This is on one hand related to the presence of the real body and blood in the Eucharist as argued by Luther and idea of symbolisation as put forward by Zwingli. He claimed that Jesus presented the symbol of the body and the blood for the people to really participate in it. According to Calvin, the visible symbol was provided as a seal for the presence of the invisible thing. It is from the symbol of the body that should be taken to mean that the real body is actually present. This argument of Calvin is very closely related to that of Luther, for presence of the body in the symbol of the blood and that of blood in the symbol of wine. According to Calvin, whatever is signified is affected by its sign. The effect part is what is lacking in Luthers argument. Luther claimed that the bread and the wine are almost one and the same thing as the body and the blood. The aspect of the bread and the wine being symbols for body and blood relates to the argument of Zwingli.
Conclusion
This paper is a presentation of the contrast in the beliefs of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli concerning the meaning of the Lords Supper. Each of the three reformists held different beliefs on the meaning of the words of Jesus Christ during the Lords Supper. The words that bring the greatest controversy are This is my Body. The meaning of these words according to Luther is the real presence of Christ during the Eucharist. This is factor that is hotly contested by Zwingli who claims that the real meaning of the Lords Supper is remembrance and that it is symbolic. Therefore, there is no presence of Christ during the celebration. Calvins beliefs comes midway between the beliefs of Luther and those of Zwingli. This is because in Calvins argument, there is the idea of symbolisation as well as presence. Calvin claims that wherever God gives people a symbol, it means that his presence is in that symbol. The three reformists have remained controversial and a subject of many criticisms. Their views have never agreed and left people with a choice to make on what views are most convincing. Their views have however impacted on Christianity from their time up to today. Different denominations chose different doctrines to follow that are practiced to date.
Critical evaluation
Theology is filled with many controversial beliefs. The subject of the Lords Supper is clearly one of the most controversial. Among the three reformists as well as others who have contributed to this subject, none can be said to be entirely true. Christ never explained the meaning of his words and therefore neither among the three can claim to be right while the others are wrong. The task remains on the Christians to decide whose views to follow.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment