Is there anything mere about the symbolic? In answering this question, Garrett W. explained in great and substantial detail how no, the symbolic is not just “mere” but the symbolic means a whole lot more. I was greatly impressed by his very philosophical and charitable view on the importance of symbolism in Holy Communion, as I am sure many other readers were as well. The symbolic has had importance on the human psyche since the beginning of time and creation. Whether we are talking about the rainbow after the flood, Jacob’s ladder, or the serpent on the pole, there have been many Biblical symbols that have had symbolic, spiritual, and at times physical meaning. I am however not inclined to agree that “the symbolic is closer in meaning to the spiritual than the physical is.” Rather I would like to make a case for why, especially when thinking about Communion, the symbolic and the spiritual exist in a beautiful union. To try and separate the two would be to lose a part of what makes this sacrament so special to believers.

The Reformed view of Holy Communion is that the Lord is present in the elements and that taking it is symbolic and should be done in remembrance. Partaking in Communion is a way to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again. What is beautiful about that Reformed view is that it meets in the middle of the existing views. This view is not quite as literal as the transubstantial and consubstantial view nor is it as figurative as the memorial view. I believe the spiritual presence view finds a perfect balance between the two, carving a path between two extremes.

Assuming you, dear reader, have read the previous article in this series, I feel there is no reason to explain the importance of the symbolic within the Lord’s Supper, as that case has been made very clear by Garrett W. and the Reformed view does not differ much from it. Where the major disagreement lies is in the presence of God. Therefore, this topic is what I will be spending the bulk of our time defending.

Before we run off into the jungle, I think it would be wise to read the gospel account in question. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is presented clearly in three of the four gospels. The references being: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:19-20. In Matthew the main statement from Jesus to the disciples is “Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Chalk it up to my Lutheran upbringing, but there is one verb that I could never get past: is. To quote Luther, “hoc est meum corpus” This is my body. Is means is. The greek word here is εἰμί (eimi) which is the verb; to be. This is one of the most important verbs in all of creation. Not to mention God’s revelation to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-22). Existence and consciousness are some of the pillars of God and humanity, and I believe that before one goes any further trying to explain the Lord’s Supper, it is critical that we respect every single part of the message in question.

To those of the Baptist and Zwingli tradition, here is my question; How can you explain away is? Sure, I have heard countless times that is means symbolizes, but that is not what the Bible says. The Bible uses is. This is my body. I do not see how one can easily explain that away without making a lot of assumptions. To assume that Jesus is not speaking literally, but rather very metaphorically on the eve of His betrayal and death seems like a very bold assumption to make. Especially if we consider that Holy Communion is one of the sacraments (the other being Baptism). Whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox all realms of Christendom affirm the importance of the sacraments. Because many Baptist and nondenominational churches seem to harp on the Lord not being present in the Lord’s Supper, this often leads to a severe lack of reverence when receiving Communion. While I am sure that is not the intention, it is nonetheless the result, and this is not something to take lightly (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

On the other end of the spectrum, the transubstantial and consubstantial views are views that I am quite sympathetic to. Infact, I will make the case as to why they are more correct than the memorialist view. For me it comes back to is. There is a deep reverence of the gospels and of the words of Jesus. When the Catholic or Lutheran reads: “This is my body” they do not try to explain it away or try to insert words or meanings that are not there. They deal with the words of Jesus as they are. I also think that there is a lot of beauty in the physical presence. Jesus died on the cross and shed His body and His blood. It is by the body and blood of Jesus that the elect are saved, and the fact that in a church on Sunday a holy and worshipful experience can be had with the same body and blood that saves, I think this is priceless.

Where I think this view falls short is in trying to explain the Lord’s presence in the elements. The transubstantial/consubstantial view has to try and make up metaphysical terms and concepts (yes, based in Aristotelian ontology) that explain how something that looks, feels, tastes, and smells like bread and wine are actually the body and blood of the Son of God. This is again where the beauty of the spiritual presence view shines through. We do believe that the Lord is actually in the elements. When Jesus said “This is my body”, we do not deny it for a second. We also do not have to use ancient Greek philosophy to make it make sense. The Holy Spirit is in the elements, meaning that is means is. And, on top of that, the elements are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ and the death by which our Lord will die.

To be fair, the entire idea of Holy Communion and how exactly it fits as a sacrament is mysterious. How exactly the Lord is present spiritually is not exaxtly clearly laid out. To try and answer what is specifically unique about the elements, I have two answers. The first is that it really does not matter. To hold a spiritual presence view is to take a fairly non combative stance. Because we do not have to explain how bread is physically flesh, we are able to let the mystery ride and let the Holy Spirit be present however He has decided to be present. This does not make us lose any sleep. However, I understand this is a pretty weak answer, so I will try to answer the question in a different way.

How are the elements more filled with the Spirit than normal? To that I would ask; how could they not? Whether it is Baptism or Holy Communion, both of the sacraments feature prominently in the life of the believer. Both were instituted by Jesus, and therefore it is quite materialistic and anti-mystical to say that there is nothing inherently or extra spiritual about the sacraments. While my love for evangelical preaching and scripture memorization knows no end, I find that the typical Baptist/evangelical/nondenominational church experience tends to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit. To be fair, some of these churches lean more charismatic, and this leads to a very wacky and dare I say pagan way of thinking about the Spirit. While Catholics and Orthodox have their many doctrinal problems, it is impossible to not be in awe or thinking about the spiritual when inside of a gothic cathedral or when singing ancient hymns. In fact, burning incense is prominently used in Catholic mass as a symbol of the Holy Spirit being present during the service.

Another point worth noting about the spiritual presence in Holy Communion is something that we have been dancing around, but have not yet pinned down; letting the Holy Spirit work. In any of the views, there is some awkwardness. We have to explain how God is present either spiritually or physically in the elements, or we have to explain how is actually means symbolizes. Either way, it does not fit nicely into a human sized box. Personally, this is an aspect of Communion that really shows the majesty and complexity of our Lord. It is messy and not straightforward, and in response I think the best thing for us believers to do is to let the Holy Spirit work. What I mean by this is that we should let the mystery breath without trying to explain it away because it offends our twenty-first century and rationalist sensibilities.

Whenever thinking about Holy Communion, a particular part of scripture always comes to mind. In John 6:53-58 Jesus says to His followers that “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” He goes on to say that “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” It is my belief, and the general Reformed position that here Jesus is referring to Holy Communion. One of the more substantial downsides of the memorial view is that there is no emphasis on the encounter that one has via Communion. All of the other views affirm that Communion is no joke, not only should it be done in remembrance but the believer is also going to have a personal, spiritual, and physical experience with Jesus; our Lord and savior. Not only that, but we also are having an encounter with His body and blood which He gave for us on calvary and continues to give us in Communion.

It’s this encounter with Christ that has always had a large impact on me. It is very difficult not to be in reverence when one can feel and touch the flesh and blood of Christ. Every time I take Communion I always picture both the Last Supper, where Jesus faithfully had fellowship and preached remembrance of His death to come to His disciples. I also picture the cross and Jesus’ blood pouring out and His body slowly dying and being given to the Father as a sacrifice for all of our sin. Given the importance of how one responds when encountering the living Christ, it has become near impossible for me to deny His real presence for the sake of the symbolic alone. While there is nothing “mere” about the symbolic, the encounter one has with Jesus in Holy Communion is a whole lot more.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. – John 6:53-58 (KJV)