Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A PAPER SUBMITTED TO
DR. GREGORY J. MILLER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE/HIS 643 REFORMATION THEOLOGY
BY
ARLANO R. AQUINO
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1
Christ Is Ours……………………………………………………………………………...3
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..17
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..21
INTRODUCTION
John Calvin (1509-1564) was a second generation Reformer. The reforming activities of
Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and their colleagues were already in full swing when Calvin was
in his early teens. His preface to his Psalms commentary suggests that Calvin must have read the
writings of the Reformers, especially Luther’s, and was converted as a result. In 1536, very much
earlier than the publication of his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin put out the first edition of
the Institute of the Christian Religion to defend persecuted Protestants.1 Providence raised him
up to help clarify Reformation doctrines and fortify the Reformation cause.2 As things will turn
out, Calvin would be identified in one of the major streams of Protestantism, the Reformed
tradition, particularly as that tradition would define itself against the Eucharistic understanding
In 1540, Calvin published his Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper.3 The treatise shows
that Calvin had already studied the controversies surrounding the Eucharist and held to a definite
view about it. Comparing this 1540 treatise with his definitive 1559 Institutes edition, we see no
variation in his view.4 There was elaboration and deepening of ideas, but there was no change.
1
David Curtis Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 10.
2
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1988), 166.
3
The treatise is available on the internet at http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html. Citations
from this document will be denoted by Shorter Treatise, followed by the article number.
4
We agree with John T. McNeill that “in actual teaching” that Calvin’s two works are “in accord.” See
footnote 1 in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, The Library of Christian classics v. 20-21, Trans.
Ford Lewis Battles, Ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1359. Citations from this work
are denoted by Institutes (Battles).
1
2
In the Short Treatise, Calvin shared the Protestant view of the sacrament against the
Roman understanding, using the fourth section of the treatise to point out Roman church errors
and superstitions. In the fifth and last section, Calvin briefly touched on the views of Luther and
Zwingli. He affirmed that they were servants of God, and that their differences were meant by
the Lord to humble His people. With Luther he affirmed the presence of the Lord in the Supper,
though (as will be seen in awhile) he disagreed with him on the mode of that presence. With
Zwingli he affirmed that Christ bodily ascended to the right hand of God, though he opined that
Zwingli should have emphasized the presence of Christ in the Supper. (Calvin appeared to have
This paper is a foray into Calvin’s Eucharistic thought. In the first part of the paper, we
will summarize his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper using a Trinitarian framework. The framework
is not an imposition. It is explicitly there in his teaching. This should alert us to the fact that
Calvin’s Eucharistic thought cannot be reduced to Christology, although, as will become obvious
later, Calvin’s views on the person and work of Christ shaped his views on the Lord’s Supper.5
The connection of Christology and Eucharist in the mind of Calvin will already be evident in our
summary. Nevertheless, that connection will be better appreciated when we look at, in the
second part of the paper, how Calvin uses his Christological understanding to distance himself
We shall conclude this paper by pointing out the possible value and applications of
5
Calvin also uses his understanding of the definition of sacraments to make his views distinct from others.
See Institutes 4.17.1, 10, 16, 21, 23, 34.
CALVIN’S EUCHARISTIC THOUGHT
Calvin’s Eucharistic thought, like his over-all theology, exhibits warm piety, not cold
rationalism. He starts with the Father’s gracious adoption of sinners to be His sons and
daughters.6 Having adopted sinners into His family, the Father wants to show His liberality
towards them. Having begotten them to life with Him, the Father now will feed them until they
attain fullness of eternal life. Calvin calls the Father’s table a “spiritual banquet.” There the
children can feast to their soul’s full delight. There the children are supplied full salvation,
Christ Is Ours
The banquet the Father has prepared is no other than Christ Himself. The Father shows
His bounteous love for His children through the sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord,
His Son. For Calvin, the “whole Christ” is the “Bread of Life” given for the life of the world. His
body is food indeed for the soul and his blood is drink indeed for the soul. The Father’s, and the
Son’s, pleasure in giving the banquet to sinners is powerfully expressed in the words “given for
you.”7 By this phrase, the spiritual feast is truly meant for us. It is ours, and it is ours to be
6
Institutes, 4.17.1. This whole paragraph relies on this section.
7
Ibid., 4.17.3.
3
4
Calvin sees the sacrament as signifying Christ’s union with believers and believers’ union
with Christ. This life of union, for Calvin, is deeply personal, not magical or mechanical. One
cannot have the blessings of Christ apart from personally embracing His person. “I see not,”
writes Calvin, “how any one can expect to have redemption and righteousness in the cross of
Christ, and life in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with Christ himself.”8
All that Christ has is for believers and all that they have is His. He is their Head and they
are members of His body. Life flows from Him to them. How does it flow? Through His flesh,
through His body and blood. In Calvin’s thought, Christ’s humanity is a kind of “channel” or
“fountain” through which life from the divine Word comes to believing sinners. We humans
have no life in ourselves. Worse, we have cut ourselves off from God. To enjoy true life, we
must be restored to the Word of life who came near in our flesh:
But ever since that fountain of life began to dwell in our nature, he no longer lies
hid at a distance from us, but exhibits himself openly for our participation. Nay,
the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it
we may feed for immortality. "I," says he, "am that bread of life;" "I am the living
bread which came down from heaven;" "And the bread that I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 48, 51.) By these words
he declares, not only that he is life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God
who came down to us from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh
which he assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate.
Hence, too, he adds, that his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is drink
indeed: by this food believers are reared to eternal life.9
Calvin finds it comforting that we have easy access to life, life in Jesus’ flesh, especially
as it is set forth now in the sacrament. “Let [people] only throw open the door of their hearts,”
Calvin encourages, “that they may take it into their embrace, and they will obtain it.”10
8
Ibid., 4.17.11.
9
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm.B.
Eerdmans, 1989), 4.17.8. Citation from this book is indicated by Institutes (Beveridge).
10
Ibid.
5
When Calvin affirms that the Word of Life gave vitality or vigor to the mortal flesh
Christ assumed, he does not exclude both the complete, righteous obedient life Christ lived in
that flesh and the activity of the Spirit in Christ. Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, His
ascension and the Spirit play crucial roles in Calvin’s Eucharistic theology, as we will see later.
But Calvin explains his doctrine more clearly in his commentary on the Gospel of John. How is
it that Christ’s flesh is the “bread of life” seeing that His flesh is mortal, having no life in itself
even in its resurrected, glorified state? Calvin’s answer has two components. First, the Divine
life of the Word flows through it. Second, life flows through it because in it is righteousness.
For as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, so His flesh is a channel to
pour out to us the life which resides intrinsically…in His divinity. In this sense
[the flesh] is called life-giving because it communicates to us a life that it borrows
from elsewhere. This will not be at all obscure if we consider what is the reason
for life, namely, righteousness. Although righteousness flows from God alone, we
shall not have the full manifestation of it anywhere else than in Christ’s flesh. For
in His flesh was accomplished man’s redemption; in it a sacrifice was offered to
atone for sins, and an obedience yielded to God to reconcile Himself to us; and it
was also filled with the sanctification of the Spirit; finally, having overcome
death, it was received into heavenly glory. Therefore it follows that in it are
placed all the parts of life…11
Consequently, Calvin does not separate the Word of life from Christ’s flesh and
emphasizes the centrality of the Christ’s flesh. Indeed, we cannot have life apart from
As water is at one time drunk out of the fountain, at another drawn, at another led
away by conduits to irrigate the fields, and yet does not flow forth of itself for all
these uses, but is taken from its source, which, with perennial flow, ever and anon
sends forth a new and sufficient supply; so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and
inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the
Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood
of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life?12
11
John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John: Part One, 1-10, Trans. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New
Testament Commentaries, Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1961), 167-8.
12
Institutes (Beveridge), 4.17.8. Emphasis is ours.
6
Calvin stresses the necessity of participation in Christ’s flesh and blood for eternal life
because he believes Paul’s teaching requires it. The Apostle calls the church the “body” of Christ
and believers (their bodies) are “members of Christ.” Christ is “the head” from which believers
find unity and growth. “We perceive,” comments Calvin, “that all these things cannot possibly
take place unless he adheres to us wholly in body and spirit.”13 Calvin says it is “madness” to
deny the communion of believers in the body and blood of Christ. It is by that sacred communion
that “Christ pours his life into us, as if it penetrated into our bones and marrow.”14
Sacred communion and union with Christ, for Calvin, is effected by Spirit-born human
faith. The “Calvinist” Christian life is one of growing and maturing in every aspect of life in this
union, defined and comprehended in Christ. The primary posture of believers is to rest in Christ
and receive all benefits from Him. Thus, the Calvinist Christian life is one of faith and Calvin
sees faith in Christ as the prime work of the Spirit. Everything else flows from this great work of
the Spirit. Faith unites one to Christ, and it is by faith that one receives all the blessings (as
promised by God in His Word) that come from being united to Christ. This is how Christ’s
Christ is truly offered in the Eucharist. The reality of participation in His body and blood
is truly presented and offered there in the symbol of bread and wine. God does not deceive us by
giving us empty symbols. “For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands,
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 4.17.10.
15
John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas
F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1963), 251.
7
16
but just to assure you that you truly partake of him?” God does not deceive. He truly is
generous. Those who come in faith and with grateful hearts do feed on Christ. His life and
vitality truly become theirs. Christ testifies and seals this reality in the Supper.17 Our souls are
truly fed by Christ’s flesh and blood “just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal
life.”18 How does the believer on earth feed on Christ who is in heaven? By the Spirit’s power:
But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a
distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how
far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how
foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore,
what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly
unites things separated by space.19
The Spirit is not hindered by “spatial distance.” He is also not hindered by time. The
efficacy of Christ’s life, death and resurrection offered in the Supper was somehow tasted and
experienced by believers in the Old Covenant period. This is how Calvin explains the apostle
Paul who, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, said that Israel who came out from Egypt ate the same
spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink that Christians now eat and drink:
[H]ow were the Jews partakers of the same spiritual meat and drink, when the
flesh of Christ was not yet in existence for them to eat? To that I reply that
although the flesh did not yet exist, it was food for them all the same. And that is
not a piece of useless sophistry; for their salvation depended on the benefit of the
death and resurrection, and for that reason on the flesh and blood, of Christ.
Therefore it was necessary for them to receive the flesh and blood of Christ, so
that they might share in the blessing of redemption. The receiving of it was the
secret work of the Holy Spirit, who was active in such a way that the flesh of
Christ, even if it was not yet created, might be efficacious in them. He means,
however, that they ate in their own way, which was different from ours, and, as I
have said already, that Christ is now conveyed to us more fully, because of the
16
Institutes (Beveridge), 4.17.10. This is Calvin’s definition of the sacrament: the sign and the reality
signified are joined together but distinguished. In this sacramental way God shows He does not deceive.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
8
greater degree of revelation. For in our day the eating is substantial (substantialis
est manducatio), something which was not yet possible in their time. In other
words, Christ feeds us with His flesh, which was sacrificed for us, and which was
appointed to be our food, and from this we draw our life.20
It is axiomatic for Calvin (from which he will not budge) that “Christ cannot be separated
from His Spirit.”21 Calvin looks to the Spirit of Christ to “resolve” the mysterious reach of the
Supper over space and time.22 The Spirit makes effective, not remove, the role of Christ’s flesh
in the Supper. Faith is our mouth and Christ’s flesh is the food. By the Spirit’s grace and power,
the life of Christ becomes ours: nourishment for our soul, joy in our heart. This is the Spiritual,
[T]he Lord [in the sacrament] communicates his body so that he may become
altogether one with us, and we with him…by this participation, all become one
body. This unity is represented by the bread...As it is composed of many grains,
so mingled together, that one cannot be distinguished from another; so ought our
minds to be so cordially united, as not to allow of any dissension or
division.…We shall have profited admirably in the sacrament, if the thought shall
have been impressed and engraven on our minds, that none of our brethren is hurt,
despised, rejected, injured, or in any way offended, without our, at the same time,
hurting, despising, and injuring Christ; that we cannot have dissension with our
brethren, without at the same time dissenting from Christ; that we cannot love
Christ without loving our brethren; that the same care we take of our own body
we ought to take of that of our brethren, who are members of our body; that as no
part of our body suffers pain without extending to the other parts, so every evil
which our brother suffers ought to excite our compassion. Wherefore Augustine
not inappropriately often terms this sacrament the bond of charity. What stronger
stimulus could be employed to excite mutual charity, than when Christ, presenting
himself to us, not only invites us by his example to give and devote ourselves
mutually to each other, but inasmuch as he makes himself common to all, also
makes us all to be one in him.23
20
Calvin, 1 Corinthians, 205.
21
Ibid., 251.
22
The emphasis on the role and power of the Spirit is a characteristic of the Reformed conception of the
Eucharist and distinguishes it from their Lutheran brothers. See Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and
Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 200-2.
23
Institutes (Beveridge), 4.17.38.
CHRISTOLOGY AND THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSIES
considered false and dangerous teachings of the papal church.24 Calvin sees two untrue teachings
from which other errors flow: the Eucharist as a present sacrifice, and transubstantiation.
Calvin believes that Jesus’ death on the cross was all and the only sacrifice we need to
reconcile us to God and remove our sins. Deny this one sacrifice and we deny its virtue. We
should not offer additional sacrifices for sins. The Lord is also the only priest through whose
intercession we are put right with the Father. Deny this and we dishonor Him. We should not
appoint priests to offer sacrifices anymore. Now the Roman church in Calvin’s time25 denies both
truths. It teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice offered through the mediation of a priest.
The opinion that the Supper is a sacrifice derogates from that of Christ, and must
therefore be condemned as devilish. That it does so derogate is notorious. For
how can we reconcile the two things, that Jesus Christ in dying offered a sacrifice
to his Father by which he has once for all purchased forgiveness and pardon for
all our faults, and that it is every day necessary to sacrifice in order to obtain that
which we ought to seek in his death only?26
24
See his commentaries on John 6, 1 Corinthians 10-11, his fourth section (points 33-52) of Short Treatise
and 4.17.14-17, 35-37, 46-50 and 4.17.8 of the Institutes.
25
It seems to us that neither teaching is repudiated in more recent Roman Catholic teaching. For
transubstantiation, see 1374-77 of The Celebration of the Christian Mystery: The Seven Sacraments of the Church in
Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994). For sacrifice, see article 3.V.1356,
1362, and 1367; there are nuances, but we continue to hear the echo that Christ is in some sense offered again,
though without blood (3.V.1367). It is Christ who offers the Eucharistic sacrifice who is himself (1410).
26
Short Treatise, Article 35.
9
10
For Calvin, the sacrifice of the only Mediator-Priest was “once for all” offered on the
cross at Calvary. To consider the Eucharist a sacrifice (offered every day by priests) calls into
question the efficacy and completeness of Christ’s sacrificial death. Calvin uses Hebrews 10:1-
18 as weapon: Christ offers Himself, not other (priestly) hands; Christ offered the one sacrifice
that abolished the Old Covenant sacrifices, the papal teaching leads us back to those figures,
making the cross ineffective; biblical sacrifices require blood-shedding, but the priests offer
bloodless sacrifices.27
Important for Calvin against the notion of sacrifice is that the Lord gave us a “Table at
which to feast, not an altar by which to offer a victim.”28 Christ offers to us the result or benefit
of His sacrifice. He does not ask us to offer him again via the Supper but to eat the Supper.
The second error Calvin attacks is transubstantiation. This theory, approved as dogma in
the Fourth Lateran Council, states that upon the priest’s prayer of consecration the bread and
wine “become” in substance the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, while yet retaining their
“accident” features (color, size, taste, etc.).29 Christ is now there present in the bread and wine –
locally, truly, really, bodily.30 In this “venerable sacrament…the whole Christ is contained under
each form and under every part of each form,” says the Council of Trent.31 Consequently, the
pious may and should offer worship to the consecrated elements. Christ in the elements is “to be
27
John Calvin, Hebrews and I and II Peter, Trans. W.B. Johnston, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries,
Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1963), 139.
28
Institutes (Battles), 4.18.12.
29
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker
Academic, 2001), 653-4.
30
Transubstantiation is Thomas Aquinas’ way of affirming that God does not deceive. See Anthony C.
Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007), 530.
31
Denis Janz, A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
2002), 360. See Canon 3, “Canons on the Eucharist.”
11
adored with the worship of latria,…venerated with a special festive solemnity,…borne about in
In questioning the theory of transubstantiation, Calvin asks, “When Jesus Christ, pointing
to the bread, calls it his body, is it not a very forced construction to say, that the substance of the
bread is annihilated, and the body of Christ substituted in its stead?”33 He further argues that
transubstantiation destroys the definition of a sacrament. He writes, “It is a general rule in all
sacraments that the signs which we see must have some correspondence with the spiritual thing
which is figured.”34 Water has the property to wash and cleanse things. Water is therefore a fit
sign for the washing and cleansing of our souls from sin. We are thus assured that in water
baptism God fulfills His promise to wash away our sins from us. The same applies to the Supper:
[T]here must be material bread to testify to us that the body of Christ is our food.
For otherwise how could the mere colour of white give us such, a figure? We thus
clearly see how the whole representation, which the Lord was pleased to give us
in condescension to our weakness, would be lost if the bread did not truly remain.
The words which our Lord uses imply as much as if he had said: Just as man is
supported and maintained in his body by eating bread, so my flesh is the spiritual
nourishment by which souls are vivified.35
Calvin adds that transubstantiation destroys the analogy Paul uses for unity. The bread is
one yet of many grains; so we are one in Christ though many. “If there were whiteness only
Calvin’s last argument is Christological. If Christ is locally present in the Supper, His
physical body becomes present everywhere whenever the Eucharist is observed. This makes
32
Ibid., Canon 6.
33
Calvin, Short Treatise, article 40.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
12
37
Christ a “mere phantom,” not a real human. For Calvin, to be human is to be finite, to be
“contained” at a specific place at a time. The body Christ has when He ascended is still finite.38
Calvin remarks, “We have two things to consider when we speak of our Lord’s humanity. We
must neither destroy the reality of the nature, nor derogate in any respect from his state of glory.
To do so we must always raise our thoughts on high, and there seek our Redeemer.”39
In the Marburg Colloquy held in 1529 (some three to five years before Calvin was
converted to the Protestant faith), Luther and Zwingli were able to agree on 15 essential
Reformation doctrines, on all but one: the Eucharist.40 The issue between them turned on the
“presence of Christ.” Luther affirmed a “real presence” while Zwingli did not. Three crucial
questions surfaced.41 First, what did Christ mean in the word of institution when he said “This is
my body”? Second, what do we mean when Christ ascended to the right hand of God? Third,
how do we understand Christ’s saying when He said, “The flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63)?
Zwingli took “This is my body” to be figurative or metaphorical. Luther affirmed that the
Scriptures use figurative language at times, but not on this point of contention.42 For him, to deny
the real presence is to deny the incarnation. David Steinmetz’s summary is illuminating:
37
Ibid., Article 41.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., Article 42.
40
Harold O. J Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the
Apostles to the Present (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1988), 319.
41
The three questions are based on Theology of the Reformation class lecture given by Dr. Greg Miller,
Asia-Pacific Theological Seminary, July 2010.
42
David Curtis Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 75.
13
The central message of the Bible is that God is found in dust…God always comes
to men and women in creaturely elements that they can see, touch and handle.
That does not mean that his saving presence is self-evident to human reason or
that his glory is visible. Just as the flesh of Jesus Christ is the figura or form under
which the divine nature is hidden, so too are the bread and wine are figurae or
forms under which the body and blood are hidden…In that sense, the incarnation
and the eucharist are exactly parallel. No objection can be alleged against the
doctrine of the real presence which cannot be alleged equally well against the
incarnation itself. To say “this signifies my body” is to obscure the reality of the
incarnation principle.43
Zwingli denied the bodily presence because of his understanding of the ascension and
Christ’s human nature. Christ’s body, like ours, is finite. His humanity was not divinized by the
Second Person of the Trinity. “Unless human nature remains finite in the hypostatic union…the
the right hand of God will be undermined.”44 The implication for the Eucharist is obvious: Christ
cannot be physically present in the elements for He is at God’s right hand in heaven.
Luther countered that the resurrected Christ is no longer limited by time and space.45 In
addition, God’s right hand does not mean a fixed location but a “metaphorical expression for the
place of favor from which God rules.”46 If God’s Word says that Christ is present, then He is.
Christ is still in human space and time. The ascension did not mean He went away and became
inaccessible to us. He is still present with us but in a different way. The ascension “celebrates the
ubiquitous presence of the God-man, Jesus Christ, and the universal accessibility of that saving
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid., 78.
45
Ibid., 79-80.
46
Ibid., 80.
47
Ibid., 81.
14
The third point of contention focuses on the “flesh of Christ.” Zwingli believes that man
is sprit and body. The Spirit nourishes the spirit of man. Man’s spirit is not nourished for eternal
life by physical food that nourishes the physical body. In this sense the “flesh profits nothing.”48
What counts is the work of the Spirit. “When the human soul has been quickened and nourished
by the Holy Spirit, then it is appropriate for the human being to eat the bread and drink the wine
as a eucharist or act of thanksgiving for an invisible work of grace already completed.”49 Luther
agreed that the Spirit communicates life, but that does not stop the Spirit from using physical
means. In the disputed verse from John, the flesh refers to human self-centeredness, not to Jesus’
Calvin sought to transcend the differences between Luther and Zwingli by formulating a
Eucharistic doctrine that can unite the camps. Calvin affirmed the best, that is, biblical insights of
both and forged a Eucharistic theology that he hoped would help unify the Reformation. With
respect to the three issues above, he put forward a (1) sacramental presence of Christ, (2) where
pious believers truly partake of the true human flesh (body and blood) of (3) the bodily ascended
Calvin affirmed with Zwingli that the resurrected human body of Christ is not
ubiquitous.51 Yet he affirmed with Luther that Christ is truly present and offered at the
Eucharistic table. The promise of life in Jesus’ flesh is annexed to the elements. God does not
deceive. He is trustworthy, giving what he offers. When believers embrace the divine promise by
48
Ibid., 76.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Calvin followed Luther closely in almost everything. It is in the question of the ubiquity that they
disagree sharply. See François Wendel, Calvin: the Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (London:
Collins, 1963), 331.
15
faith – here Calvin echoes Luther – however shaky and wavering and immature that faith is, they
truly partake of Christ’s flesh – denied by Zwingli – and are made to grow into greater oneness
with Him as members of His body. This is more than signifying the unity Christians have with
Christ. Something really happens in the Eucharist. God really does feed His children. The life in
Christ’s flesh is truly communicated by the Spirit. This is more than remembering what
happened at the cross. It is more than signifying a work of grace that was already completed.
Calvin agreed with Luther that Christ is present to save in the means God has appointed
to communicate His saving grace: in the preaching of the Word and the sacraments. He too
wanted to make Christ accessible to everyone, everywhere and all the time. As we saw above,
Luther believed this universal presence of Christ to be bodily, as God-man in the unity of His
person. Calvin parted from Luther here. For Calvin, the whole Christ is present in the fullness of
His divine majesty but not in His bodily fullness. Here is Calvin:
[W]hen Paul says of the princes of this world that they "crucified the Lord of
glory," (1 Cor. 2: 8) he means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but
that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise
God and the Lord of glory. In this way, both the Son of man was in heaven
because he was also Christ; and he who, according to the flesh, dwelt as the Son
of man on earth, was also God in heaven. For this reason, he is said to have
descended from heaven in respect of his divinity, not that his divinity quitted
heaven to conceal itself in the prison of the body, but because, although he filled
all things, it yet resided in the humanity of Christ corporeally, that is, naturally,
and in an ineffable manner. There is a trite distinction in the schools which I
hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything
which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the
force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the
corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere,
he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a
special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in
him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till
he come to judgment.52
52
Institutes (Beveridge), 4.17.30.
16
In Calvin’s judgment, the Lutheran view that Christ’s body is ubiquitously present under
the bread commits the Eutychesian heresy of mingling the divine and human natures of Christ
into a third compound.53 Meanwhile, Calvin’s opponents charged him of overly separating the
We conclude that Calvin affirms the presence of Christ in two ways. First, the whole
Eucharistic activity is conducted before His personal presence. Second, Christ’s flesh is
sacramentally present in the elements in that communion and life in His body and blood are truly
cosmological reality.54 The present author lacks the requisite knowledge (biblical, patristic,
theological and scientific) to weigh in on this. Our provisional take here is that Christ indeed is
bodily absent from His people. His physical absence is one big reason Christians feel acute pain.
Divine love is love incarnate. Love’s joy, from the human side, is never complete unless it sees
and touches and embraces bodily the person it loves. In this sense, Christ is near and yet so far.
When the church gathers before the table of the Lord, the minister and the Eucharistic elements
powerfully show both the wonderful (majestic; sacramental) presence and painful (bodily)
absence of Christ. The Lord is here and not here at the same time. That is why the Word of
promise in the Eucharist is important: in the Supper the Father welcomes us into His presence;
through the sacrament, the Spirit imparts life from Christ’s flesh to us; through the bread and
wine, we truly receive and commune in His body and blood. That promise is not empty.
53
Institutes, 4.17.30.
54
Marilyn McCord Adams, “Biting and Chomping Our Salvation: Holy Eucharist, Radically Understood”
in Redemptive Transformation in Practical Theology: Essays in Honor of James E. Loder, Jr., Ed. Dana R. Wright
and John D. Kuentzel (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 2004), 73, charges that Calvin's philosophy of
reality is narrow and simplistic.
SUMMARY AND APPLICATION
Christ is God and man according to Chalcedon’s definition. In Christ, true Godhood and
manhood come together in one Person, without confusion and mixture. This implies that Christ’s
humanity was not divinized by His divinity. Christ’s ascension and glorification did not make
His finite, physical body universally present. This view cuts against both Roman Catholic
transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation. It holds that Christ in His divine majesty is
personally, but not bodily, present in the Eucharistic event. Yet, Christ is sacramentally present
in the Eucharist. That is, life in His flesh is truly offered and exhibited in the bread and cup, and
it is truly given to all who partake in faith. Those who do not eat with the mouth of faith do not
The divine Word is the source of eternal life with God and Christ’s flesh is the channel of
that life. This life, without ceasing to be the life of the Word, is truly human life, a life lived in
the flesh, the life of the God-man Jesus Christ, shaped by/in the Spirit from conception to full
maturity, offered up in the Spirit to the Father on the cross, and given immortality and glory in
the Spirit in the resurrection and ascension. This is the life offered by Christ in the eating of His
flesh through the Eucharist. This is the “extra,” the something more (we suggest) that separates
the Calvinist Eucharist from other doctrines of the Lord’s Supper.55 The believer is nurtured unto
eternal life by this life from Christ’s flesh. Christ’s flesh remains central in the Eucharistic event.
55
John Nevin accepted Calvin’s doctrine here to be biblical, while Charles Hodge rejected it. See B. A
Gerrish, Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1978), 60-5. 17
18
Calvin does not dispense of it, unlike Zwingli. Here is Calvin’s analogy: “souls are fed with the
very flesh of Christ just as bread imparts vigour to our bodies.”56 Without Christ’s flesh, the
Spirit has nothing to draw from to give to believers who come in faith.
The Spirit of Christ is absolutely indispensable for spiritual feeding to take place. Indeed,
his role is deep and wide. It is by the Spirit that the Word became incarnate; the union of God
and man in the person of Christ was his work. He is the one responsible for uniting believers to
Christ through faith. The efficacy of the sacrament rests in him. Calvin does not separate Christ
Union with Christ is the precondition for partaking in Christ’s flesh. The Father truly
offers Christ in the Supper. Yet, only those united to Christ through faith receive the benefit.
Only members of the body receive nourishment from the Head of the body. We grant this enters
the application of the work of Christ. Still, Calvin does not conceive the person of Christ apart
from His body, the Church. We suggest therefore that the unity of Christ and His people can
Christ is the high priest who offered the one sacrifice for sins once for all. Spiritual
nourishment comes from that one priestly sacrifice, offered to believers at the Lord’s Table.
Calvin uses this doctrine to reinforce Reformation polemics against the papal teaching that the
As far as we can see, the primary theological value of Calvin’s Eucharistic thought is that
its basic contour is faithful to Chalcedonian biblical Christology. Our present view is that the
56
John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. III, James and Jude, Trans. A.W.
Morrison, vol. 3 in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 136.
19
distinctions made by Chalcedon, with all the mysteries involved, are better maintained in the
There is much that needs to be developed. Francois Wendel, for instance, asks: if the
whole of Christ is also offered in preaching, why do we need the sacraments?57 Why do we eat
the flesh of Christ at all? Calvin, we imagine, will begin with the immovable fact that Christ
Himself instituted the Supper. He might say next that it strengthens our faith when we see and
contemplate there God’s paternal love and generosity.58 But maybe Calvin needs to add that God
has so constituted man as one who lives by eating, not by seeing or contemplating alone. God
made man a hearing and eating being. Nothing is redundant or superfluous about that. Eating is
basic to our created humanity. Christ affirms it in that He “he came eating and drinking.” This
should also follow from Calvin’s insistence that Christ’s flesh gives vigor to our soul much in the
same way as food nourishes our body. Christians with Gnostic tendencies should realize this.
God’s Word in Genesis created physical, material reality. This Word entered that same reality.
The Reformation insight on the Word’s primacy should not lead to the devaluation of this
Calvin’s term, “spiritual feast or banquet,” connotes joy and celebration. Alas, Calvin’s
bent for contemplation59 can go against what his Eucharistic expression tries to capture. Did he
not say that all the parts of our salvation are complete and comprehended in the en-fleshed
person of Christ? This is true, mighty and wonderful. We preach this, and let the people rejoice
and celebrate. This implies some changes in the way we conduct our Eucharistic service.
57
Wendel, Calvin: the Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, 353.
58
Institutes, 4.14.1, 3, 5, 7-11, 17.
59
Ibid., 4.14.5, 12, 16; 4.17.3.
20
Without taking away reverence and sobriety, we should endeavor to add more music and joyful
Calvin strives to preserve the integrity of Christ’s humanity in the Eucharistic event. For
Calvin, it is the Spirit who “gets” the life and virtue of Christ’s humanity and “gives” it to us for
the nourishment of our soul unto/in life eternal. Now this eternal life is true human life lived in
community. The Lord became an embodied human, lived in a human community of embodied
persons, and now lives in glorious incorruptible humanity. He is gathering a new humanity
around Himself. It is right that believers receive true life from Him in the Eucharist. All this is
the Spirit’s work for Calvin. Calvinist Eucharistic spirituality is, thus, embodied and communal
spirituality. We should stress and work out the implication of this for us and our churches.
Being human in the Calvinist perspective is participating in the life of Christ. This
means loving and thanking the Father, and loving and serving our brothers. That is the substance
and goal of Jesus’ life, the life He gives in the Eucharist. The glory of Christ in the forging of
that life is worth fighting for. That is why Calvin fought for the work of the Spirit of Christ in the
Eucharist, for the humanity of Christ unimpaired in heaven, for the true offer of that human life
in the Eucharist, and its true reception by believing communicants. We let him has the last word:
A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Augmented & improved [ed.].
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002.
Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from
the Apostles to the Present. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Book House, 1988.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Ed. John T.
McNeill. The Library of Christian classics v. 20-21. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1960.
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B.
Eerdmans, 1989.
______. 1 Corinthians. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1963.
______. A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Trans. A.W. Morrison. Calvin's
New Testament Commentaries, Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1978.
______. Hebrews and I and II Peter. Trans. W.B. Johnston. Calvin's New Testament
Commentaries, Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich:
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1963.
______. The Gospel According to St. John: Part One, 1-10. Trans. T.H.L. Parker. Calvin’s New
Testament Commentaries. Ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker
Academic, 2001.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1988.
21
22
Gerrish, B. A. Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century.
The Andrew C. Zenos memorial lectures 1977. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1978.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Jaroslav Pelikan. Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Steinmetz, David Curtis. Calvin in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
———. Luther in Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co, 2007.
Wendel, Francois. Calvin; the Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. London:
Collins, 1963.