This document was supplied for free educational purposes.

Unless it is in the public domain, it may not be sold for profit

or hosted on a webserver without the permission of the
copyright holder.

If you find it of help to you and would like to support the

ministry of Theology on the Web, please consider using the
links below:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theology

https://patreon.com/theologyontheweb

PayPal https://paypal.me/robbradshaw

A table of contents for The Churchman can be found here:

htps://biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar�cles_churchman_os.php
 329

A Spiritual Banquet: John

Calvin on the Lord’s Supper
Matthew W Mason
Summary
Much contemporary evangelicalism neglects the Lord’s Supper. In contrast,
John Calvin, whose view was shared by our English Reformers, viewed it as a
‘spiritual banquet’ wherein we feed on Christ. Although he did view the Supper
as a memorial of Christ’s death, the centre of Calvin eucharistic theology is the
doctrine of faith-union. As believers feed on the bread and wine physically,
they feed spiritually on Christ, a view supported by 1 Corinthians 10:16. As a
covenant meal, the Supper comes annexed with covenant blessings for those
who eat with faith, and covenant curses for unbelievers who partake. Calvin’s
view of the Supper is biblically faithful and theologically satisfying, and the
contemporary church would profit from its recovery.

What we have so far said of the Sacrament abundantly shows that…it was
ordained to be frequently used among all Christians in order that they
might frequently return in memory to Christ’s Passion, by such
remembrance to sustain and strengthen their faith, and urge themselves to
sing thanksgiving to God and to proclaim his goodness….[T]he Lord’s
Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of
Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually….All,
like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast.1

It seems unlikely that many twenty-first century Anglican evangelicals would

echo John Calvin’s sentiments. Judging by church websites and quarter cards,
few evangelical congregations share his passion for the Lord’s Supper. Services
of Holy Communion tend to happen only once a month, morning and evening,
and less frequent celebration is not uncommon.

A comparison of twenty-first century publications with those of the sixteenth

century would show a similar picture. Carl Trueman, bemoaning evangelical
neglect of the Supper, cites as evidence recent theology primers that neglect ‘the
theology of the Lord’s Supper in the litany of what are otherwise considered to
be evangelical essentials and distinctives’.2 This stands in marked contrast to
330 Churchman

the flurry of tracts, books and liturgies produced by both the Continental and
the English Reformers. Doubtless this is, at least in part, due to our different
historical context—sexuality and the clarity of God’s revelation in Scripture are
now more pressing concerns—but it may also betoken a diminished regard for
the Lord’s Table.

There are probably many other reasons for contemporary neglect of the
sacraments, one of which is surely a healthy desire to avoid the errors of
Roman and Anglo-Catholic sacramental theologies. In an effort to avoid an
unbiblical ex opere operato view of the sacraments, evangelicals have
downplayed their importance, and view with suspicion language that suggests
any kind of presence of Christ at the Supper. However, perhaps another major
reason for their neglect is a lack of understanding of the nature and role of the
sacraments in the life of the church: it is doubtful that we will value the means
of grace if we do not understand them. This, again, is in contrast to the
Reformers. For—

While the Protestant Reformation cleared away the superstition

surrounding the sacraments, it nevertheless recognized the place given by
Scripture to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which, alongside the Word,
deliver the gospel to sinners.3

Of course, the Reformers may have got it wrong; we must hold their thinking
to the bar of Scripture. Nevertheless, the fact that we have moved away from
what they did and taught should at least give us pause for thought. Calvin
urged frequent use of the Lord’s Supper because he valued it highly, and if he
is correct, our neglect of the Supper is tantamount to hungry people deciding
to starve themselves three weeks out of every four when they could be at a
banquet.

In the light of this, I propose to examine Calvin’s eucharistic teaching in the

hope that an increased understanding of the arguments of this key
Reformation theologian concerning the Supper will lead us to an increased
valuing of it. I shall not further discuss issues such as how often we should
celebrate the Supper, or quite how it should be done, or whether or not
children should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Rather, I will concentrate on
the theological significance of breaking bread and drinking wine as we gather
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 331

as the Lord’s people. Only as we understand this can we hope to make

headway in answering other questions we may have.

It may seem strange to examine the teaching of one particular theologian, no

matter how eminent, rather than simply expounding the teaching of the
Scriptures. But, for Anglican evangelicals in particular, and indeed for English
evangelicals more generally, Calvin’s eucharistic theology is significant if only
because it is shared by our English Reformers, as expressed in the Book of
Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and works such as Cranmer’s
Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament4 and Ridley’s
Treatise Against the Error of Transubstantiation.5 Moreover, Calvin is, I
suspect, the theologian to whom most of us look as the exemplar of rigorous
evangelical thinking. Thus, even if we decide that the Reformers fall short of
the Bible at this point, it behoves us at least to understand the heritage from
which we are departing. However, more importantly, Calvin’s doctrine of the
Supper also faithfully captures the essence of the biblical teaching, as I hope to
demonstrate. Melvyn Tinker has argued in Churchman, from the perspective
of speech act theory, that Calvin’s view is fundamentally correct.6 Here I shall
argue from a more extended exposition of Calvin’s writings and a
consideration of perhaps the key biblical text, 1 Corinthians 10:16f.

Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper must be understood in its sixteenth century
context. As is well known, there were three leading contemporary alternatives:
Roman, Lutheran and Zwinglian.

Rome held that ‘after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus
Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the
species of those sensible things’.7 This happens because—

a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the

substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of
the wine into the substance of His blood.8

One looks at the bread, perceiving bread: the accidents, the bread’s sensory
aspects, remain unchanged. However, as the substance has changed, when one
eats one chews the substance of Christ’s body.
332 Churchman

Owing to this substantial change, it is right to ‘render in veneration the

worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this holy sacrament’.9 In
addition, the Mass is a sacrifice—

[I]n this divine sacrament which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ
is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered
Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross.”10

Therefore, it is ‘truly propitiatory….For the victim is one and the same’.11

Against Rome, Martin Luther denied that the Mass is a sacrifice: ‘It is quite
certain that Christ cannot be sacrificed over and above the one single time he
sacrificed himself.’12 Indeed, ‘Such daily sacrificing…is the greatest blasphemy
and abomination ever known on the earth’.13 He also denied the doctrine of
transubstantiation.14 However, although he disagreed with Rome over the
mode of Christ’s presence, Luther did insist, over against Zwingli, that Christ
was bodily, albeit invisibly, present in the bread and wine.15 Thus, in the
Supper, ‘he is just as near to us physically as he was to [those who touched him
during his earthly life]’.16 This being the case, Luther could maintain ‘both the
physical and spiritual eating. The mouth eats the body of Christ physically’.17
He did not, however, believe that physical eating is sufficient: faith is vital,
otherwise ‘physical eating is…poisonous and deadly’,18 hence the importance
for Luther of keeping Word and sacrament together, for faith comes by hearing
the Word of God.

In order to explain how the exalted Christ could be at God’s right hand and
locally present in the Supper Luther developed the doctrine of ubiquity. The
key to this was to understand, against Rome and Zwingli, that—

The right hand of God is not a specific place in which a body must or may
be, such as on a golden throne, but is the almighty power of God, which
at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere.19

In addition to this, Luther argues for the direct communication of the Christ’s
natures which meant that whatever is predicated of Christ’s divine nature can
also be predicated of his human nature. As a result, Christ could be physically
present anywhere, even in many places at once: his body, as well as his divine
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 333

nature, is ubiquitous. To suggest otherwise, according to Luther, would be to

separate the divine and human natures, and so fall into Nestorianism. Because
of the doctrine of ubiquity, Luther could construct a neat syllogism—

Christ’s body is at the right hand of God….The right hand of God,

however, is everywhere….Therefore, [Christ’s body] surely is present also
in the bread and wine at table.20

For Luther this is vital as, if Christ is to be gracious, he must be present.

Huldrich Zwingli viewed Luther’s Christology as fundamentally Eutychian,

involving a fusion of Christ’s divine and human natures.21 He therefore denied
the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity. Rather, as Christ is present at God’s right
hand—a particular physical location —he cannot be present physically in the
Supper.22 The sacrament is no more than a sign of the thing signified.23 Hence,
the words, ‘this is my body’ are figurative, just as when Jesus said, ‘I am the
vine’, he did not mean he was literally a vine.24 Indeed, if Christ’s body were
present, ‘its mass and substance would be perceived, and it would be pressed
with the teeth’.25 The Supper is simply a memorial of Christ’s death:26 ‘the
bread is only a figure of his body to remind us in the Supper that the body was
crucified for us.’27

The eucharistic differences separating Luther and Zwingli came to a head in

1529 at the Colloquy of Marburg. At Marburg, the German and Swiss
reformers agreed on fourteen articles out of fifteen. In the fifteenth article they
agreed on five out of six points. However, they failed to reach an agreement
‘on whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread
and wine’.28 This led to a tragic split in the Magisterial Reformation, and
provided a spur for Calvin to seek ‘common ground among the different
branches of the Reformation’.29

Before considering his view of the Supper, it will be helpful to grasp his
theology of the sacraments generally. For Calvin, sacraments are an

aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel…an outward sign by
which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his goodwill
toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn
334 Churchman

attest our piety towards him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels
and before men.30

Three things are noteworthy. Firstly, sacraments are related to the preaching of
the gospel: ‘a sacrament is never without a preceding promise but is joined to
it as a sort of appendix.’31 But, when joined to the Word, they ‘have the same
office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the
treasures of heavenly grace’.32 Their primary direction is therefore God to us,
not us to God, in contrast to the Roman Mass. Secondly, as an outward sign
and seal the sacraments assure us that God’s promises are reliable. It is not that
the Word is insufficient; nevertheless we are weak, and so God in his grace
provides seals, like those on government documents, to assure us of the truth
of his promises.33 The sacraments do what the Word does, but better, because
they also contain a visible component:34 ‘The sacraments bring the clearest
promises; and they have this characteristic over and above the word because
they represent them for us as painted in a picture from life.’35 Thus, they make
the Word ‘more vivid and sure’.36 Thirdly, sacraments do not, contra Rome,
work ex opere operato. They must be received by faith: this is the God-ward
movement as, in response to his promises, we attest our piety.37 However, even
this God-ward movement is dependent on God’s prior, gracious activity. The
Spirit must work through the sacraments to confirm our faith. They

properly fulfil their office only when the Spirit…comes to them, by whose
power alone hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our soul
opened for the sacraments to enter in.38

Within this context, Calvin views the Supper as a banquet, whereby we feed on
Christ.39 Christ himself is ‘the only true food of our soul,’40 but God gives
‘visible signs best adapted to our small capacity’.41 The Supper is thus a
covenant sign and seal, annexed to God’s Word.42 Hence, Calvin agrees with
Luther and Zwingli, against Rome, that the Word of God is indispensable to
right administration.

With Zwingli, Calvin agrees that the Supper is a memorial. The Roman Mass
‘suppresses and buries the cross and Passion of Christ,’ suggesting that it is as
weak as the Old Testament sacrifices, because it must be repeated frequently.43
In contrast, the Supper, rightly understood, does not re-enact Christ’s sacrifice.
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 335

Rather, it

directs and leads us to the cross of Jesus Christ and to his resurrection, to
certify us that whatever iniquity there may be in us, the Lord nevertheless
recognises and accepts us as righteous.44

Christ does not become bread for us in the Supper; he gave himself as bread
once for all when he died.45 Thus, because the Mass re-offers Christ, whereas
the Supper focuses on his one perfect sacrifice of himself, ‘There is as much
difference between [the Mass] and the sacrament of the Supper as there is
between giving and receiving’.46 Calvin consistently stresses God’s gracious act
in Christ, against the Roman view which transforms the Supper into a religion
of human works.

However, Calvin goes beyond Zwingli. We do not simply remember Christ in

the Supper; we also feed on him. The Supper’s chief function is not simply to
recall the cross to our minds, but to

seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is food
indeed and his blood is drink [John 6:56], which feed us unto eternal life
[John 6:55].47

In contrast to a typical Roman Catholic view, Calvin does not view John 6 as
eucharistic;48 ‘it would have been inept and unseasonable to preach about the
Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it’.49 Indeed, to suggest that Jesus here
speaks of the Supper, inverts the relationship, for ‘we might say that Christ
intended the holy Supper to be a seal of this discourse’.50 John 6 does not speak
of the Supper; the Supper signs and seals the promises of John 6.

There is evidence that Zwingli eventually moved away from a purely

memorialist position, to a view that is closer to Calvin’s own, teaching that in
the Supper the body of Christ is eaten ‘sacramentally and spiritually’.51
However, on a classically ‘Zwinglian’ view, as outlined above, and as espoused
by many contemporary evangelicals, it is questionable whether eating the
Supper is necessary. One might just as well remember Jesus’ death by being
present at the Supper; it is hard to see what consuming the bread and wine
would add. Zwingli does not suggest that partaking is unnecessary, but his
336 Churchman

theology, at least in its earlier form, implies it is not vital. In spite of his
sacramental theology being poles apart from Rome, at this point, and for
entirely different reasons, they are very close: attendance alone is required to
receive the Supper’s benefits.

In contrast, Calvin does not separate remembering and feeding. He sees in the
memorialist viewpoint a danger of dividing the signs of the Supper (bread and
wine) from the things signified (Christ’s body and blood). The Supper ‘is not a
bare figure, but is combined with the reality and substance’.52 Whilst it is
correct to distinguish the sacrament from the reality it signifies, one must not
divide them: sign and signified belong together; therefore, it is right to speak of
Christ’s presence in the Supper, for in order for us to feed on Christ, he must
be present. Calvin’s ‘argument with the Roman Catholics and Lutherans was
53
over the mode of Christ’s presence, not the fact of that presence’.

It is therefore important to specify what Calvin means when he speaks of

Christ’s presence. In order to do so, we must understand that union with Christ
is at the heart of his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.54

Against Luther and Rome Calvin denies physical presence, which necessarily
involves a christological heresy—

[W]e must establish such a presence of Christ in the Supper as may neither
fasten him to the element of bread, nor enclose him in the bread, nor
circumscribe him in any way, [nor] parcel him out to many places at once,
[nor] invest him with boundless magnitude to be spread through heaven
and earth. For these things are plainly in conflict with a nature truly
human.55

Christ is locally and physically in heaven. Nevertheless—

There is no ground…for any individual to charge us with holding that he

is absent from us, and thus separating the head from the members…but,
dwelling in us by his Spirit he raises us to heaven to himself, transfusing
into us the vivifying vigour of his flesh.56

Thus, contra Luther, there is no need for Christ to be physically present in the
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 337

bread and wine in order to be gracious to us. For, if we are united to him by
his Spirit, he is never absent from us, we are never outside of him.57 The Spirit
raises us to heaven to feed spiritually on Christ, even as we feed physically on
the bread and wine. Thus, a double feeding takes place: ‘our souls are fed by
the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that bread and wine keep and
sustain physical life.’58 In this manner, Calvin overcomes the Zwinglian
problem, and demonstrates why partaking of the Supper is vital to receiving its
benefits. He also shows a richer understanding of the benefits that flow from
the Supper. We do not simply remember Christ’s death as we partake, rather
we actively feed on the body and blood of the crucified Saviour.

This language of being lifted up to heaven to feed on Christ probably sounds

strange to many modern evangelical ears. This is quite possibly because we
have neglected the central soteriological importance of the doctrine of union
with Christ. Calvin’s view here is simply an extension of what Ephesians 2
teaches about faith-union more generally. In bringing those who are dead in
trespasses and sins (v. 1) to life together with Christ (v. 5), God raised us with
him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (v. 6).
Making alive and raising are not here two different activities; the latter further
explains the former: to be raised is to be made alive.59 This life-giving
resurrection is linked with God’s grace in salvation (v. 6), which is received
through faith (v. 8), suggesting that we are raised at the point of faith-union
with Christ, i.e. conversion.60 The Supper therefore reaffirms this union as, by
the working of the Spirit, it signs and seals to us God’s gracious promises in
Christ, strengthening our faith, and so raising us up to feed once again on
Christ. It is not that we ever stop being united to Christ; rather, this ongoing
union is strengthened and nourished as we feed on him spiritually even as we
feed on the bread and wine physically.

In contrast with modern evangelicals, the importance of faith-union for Calvin

is seen in the way it pervades his eucharistic writings. Indeed, it is an even more
significant theme than that of remembering Christ’s death. He constantly
emphasises that in the Supper, by the Spirit, believers feed on Christ as they
feed on the bread and wine. Put crudely, the Spirit bridges the vast physical gap
that separates Christ from the believer.61 Therefore, Christ’s presence in the
Supper is not physical and ontological, versus Rome and Luther; but it is a true
presence, versus Zwingli. Calvin’s view is best described as a spiritual and
338 Churchman

functional presence, ‘with the Lord being present not in the elements
themselves but through the actions done with them’.62 As signs and signifiers
belong together—

The bread and the wine are visible signs, which represent to us the body
and blood, but…this name and title of body and blood is given to them
because they are as it were instruments by which the Lord distributes them
to us.63

Therefore—

We must confess…that if the representation which God gives us in the

Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with
the physical signs [Note, Calvin does not say that the physical signs
become the internal substance] and as the bread is distributed to us by the
hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may
be partakers of it.64

However, rather than speaking of Christ’s presence to the believer in the

Supper, it may be more helpful to speak of the believer’s presence to and with
Christ; it is not that Christ comes down and makes himself present to the
believer, but rather, the believer is lifted up by the Spirit and made present with
Christ. Thus, Keith Mathison suggests that, in contrast to Roman
transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation, we might helpfully
designate Calvin’s view

suprasubstantiation…. The prefix supra means ‘above’, ‘beyond’, or

‘transcending’, [and] communicates the idea that there is a real
participation in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, as Calvin
taught, but that this participation occurs on a plane that transcends and
parallels the plane in which the physical signs exist.65

However, the question arises as to whether Scripture supports Calvin’s view at

this point. Much biblical language concerning the Supper focuses precisely on
remembering Christ’s death,66 which would seem to support a more classically
Zwinglian view. Calvin’s understanding turns on I Corinthians 10:16f, where
Paul warns the Corinthians to flee idolatry, and avoid participating in pagan
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 339

altars and the cups of demons (vv. 18-22). To support his exhortation he argues
from what happens when Christians share together in the Lord’s Supper: they
participate in67 Christ’s body and blood (v. 16). Calvin takes this to mean that
believers enjoy communion with the risen Christ. They do so not in a crude,
physical sense, nevertheless, they do so truly—

I agree that the reference to the cup as a communion is a figure of speech,

but only so long as the truth which the figure conveys is not destroyed; in
other words, provided that the reality itself is also present and the soul
receives the communion in the blood, just as the mouth tastes the wine.

However, Gordon Fee and C. K. Barrett challenge this interpretation. Noting

that in v. 17 body refers to the church, they suggest that it must mean the same
thing in v. 16.69 So Fee—

[Paul] does not mean that by eating the bread believers have some mystical
participation in the ‘broken body’ of Christ, but, as he clearly interprets in
v. 17, they are herewith affirming that through Christ’s death they are
‘partners’ in the redeemed community.70

Nevertheless, both commentators appear to ignore the parallelism in v16:

a participation in the blood of Christ (16a)
the body of Christ (16b)

In the New Testament, Christ’s people are never described as his blood, so v.
16a cannot refer to the church; it must refer to Christ’s blood shed on the cross.
Therefore, v. 16b probably contains a parallel reference to Jesus’ body broken
on the cross. Hence, it seems most likely that v. 16 refers to the crucified Christ
himself, in whom the Corinthians participate when they share in the Supper.
This gives body a referent different in v. 16 from v. 17, where it clearly refers
to the church, which is one body, although made up of many members.
However, it is not impossible for a word to change its referent so quickly (cf
e.g., all in Romans 5:18). This being the case, Paul’s meaning appears to run
along these lines: Christians who receive the bread and cup at the Supper
participate spiritually in Christ’s body and blood (v16). Therefore, because
there is one bread (Christ’s physical body, signified by the bread), we who are
many are one body (one church), because we all partake of the one bread
340 Churchman

(Christ) (v. 17).

If this exegesis is correct, Calvin’s reading of v16f, and his overall

understanding of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper, seems to be the
most plausible of those on offer.

Since the benefits of the Supper flow from union with Christ, there are
corresponding implications for those who are not joined to him by faith. The
bread and wine, as visible words, must be received by faith: ‘men bear away
from this sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of faith’.71 For—

just as rain falling upon a hard rock flows off because no entrance opens
into the stone, the wicked by their hardness so repel God’s grace that it
does not reach them.72

Thus, unbelievers receive no benefit from partaking in the Supper. Indeed, it is

worse than this. Those who eat unworthily are not in a neutral position
regarding the covenant of which the Supper speaks. Like any covenantal
activity, the Supper is annexed with blessings and curses, so faithless partakers
eat and drink covenant curses upon themselves. They eat condemnation for
‘having profaned the mystery by trampling underfoot the pledge of sacred
union with God, which they ought reverently to have received’.73

Further, union with Christ has horizontal, as well as vertical implications, as

the Epistle to the Ephesians makes clear. As those united with Christ, believers
are united to each other. Thus, because the Lord’s Supper has union with Christ
at its heart, it has serious implications for Christian unity; it should lead
believers to mutual love.74 If this is absent, the Supper ‘is turned into a deadly
poison,’ just as it is for those without faith.75 In so teaching, Calvin faithfully
reflects the teaching of I Corinthians 11:27-29. In 11:29, body most likely
refers back to 10:17,76 where it refers to the church, suggesting that Paul is
addressing the problem of the loveless relationships characterising the
Corinthian congregation (cf ch. 13). The context of chapter 11 strengthens this
view: the divisions and factions (vv. 19f) in the Corinthian church were
demonstrated by their loveless attitude towards one another, particularly those
who had nothing, as they came together to eat the Lord’s Supper (20-22). They
were profaning Christ’s death (v. 26f) because they were failing to discern his
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 341

body; that is, in not loving one another, they were failing to recognise Christ’s
body the church, brought into existence through the very death they were
proclaiming as they ate and drank. And so they ate and drank God’s judgement
(v. 29). Just as there are very real spiritual benefits from feeding on Christ by
faith in the Supper, benefits that contemporary evangelicals often downplay, so
there are very real spiritual dangers from feeding in an unworthy, faithless and
loveless manner.

Cranmer’s attempts to fence the Table by including in his eucharistic liturgy

dire warnings of the dangers of unworthy reception demonstrate a strongly
Calvinistic theology of the Supper—

Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come to the holy Communion
of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint
Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before
they presume to eat of the Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit
is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive the holy
Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his
blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ,
and Christ with us;)77 so is the danger great, if we receive the same
unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our
Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord’s
Body; we kindle God’s wrath against us; we provoke him to plague us with
divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Judge yourselves, brethren, that
ye be not judged of the Lord; repent you truly for your sins past; have a
lively and stedfast faith in Christ our Saviour; amend your lives and be in
perfect charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of those holy
mysteries.78

Cranmer’s words sound extreme to our ears. It would be rare to hear

something similar prior to the administration of the Supper in modern
Anglican evangelical churches. Generally one might hear a welcome for all
those who believe in Christ and have been baptised, leaving the lack of
welcome for unbelievers implicit, rather than explicitly stated. This again may
well betray the lack of seriousness with which we take the Supper, and our lack
of understanding of its attendant blessings and curses.
342 Churchman

In contrast, Calvin’s eucharistic theology is biblically faithful, theologically rich

and spiritually satisfying. By placing union with Christ at the heart of his
understanding, he surmounts the problems inherent in the Roman, Lutheran
and Zwinglian views, and holds before believers the riches of God’s provision
in the bread and the cup, whereby God feeds us in ‘a spiritual banquet, wherein
Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed
unto true and blessed immortality’. 79

This being the case, evangelicals neglect the Supper at our peril. The Lord Jesus
instituted it for our benefit; to disregard it is to put ourselves in danger of an
eviscerated experience of God’s gracious promises to us in his Son, and to deny
ourselves the very real spiritual benefits that come from feeding on Christ as
we partake of bread and wine.

Reinstating the Supper to its rightful place, alongside baptism and the preached
Word, at the heart of what we do when we gather in the Lord’s name, may
involve significant changes to contemporary evangelical practises. It may
necessitate a reassessment of the purpose of our Sunday gatherings—are they
for evangelism, or should the focus be the edification of believers, regardless of
whether unbelievers are present (cf 1 Corinthians 14:24-26 in the context of
the rest of the chapter)? It may require a clearer emphasis in our preaching on
the importance and significance of union with Christ more generally, and the
sacraments more particularly. It may also raise questions of how often the
Table should be spread, and who may partake. Clearly a renewed appreciation
of our sacramental heritage is not in and of itself the only solution to the
challenges facing us at the dawn of the twenty-first century. However, if Calvin
is correct in his assessment of the biblical import of the Lord’s Supper, as I
believe he is, such an appreciation is vital if we are to enjoy fully the benefits
of our union with the crucified and risen Christ.

MATTHEW W. MASON is studying for an MTh in Theological and Pastoral

Studies at Oak Hill College, London.

ENDNOTES
1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion John T. McNeill, ed, Ford Lewis
Battles, trans, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960
[1559]), IV.xvii.44, 46.
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 343

2. Carl Trueman, “The Incarnation and the Lord’s Supper,” ‘The Word Became Flesh’:
Evangelicals and the Incarnation David Peterson, ed. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003),
pp. 185-208 citing p. 185.
3. Michael Horton, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centred Worship
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), p. 93.
4.. Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Jesus Christ (Lewes: Christian Focus
Ministries Trust, 1987 [1550]).
5. Nicholas Ridley, “A Treatise Against the Error of Transubstantiation,” The Works
of Nicholas Ridley Henry Christmas, ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 1841).
6. Melvyn Tinker, “Language, Symbols and Signs: Was Calvin’s View of the Lord’s
Supper Right?” Churchman 112/2 (1998): 131-149.
7. The Council of Trent, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical
Council of Trent J. Waterworth ed. and trans. (London: Dolman, 1848 [1545-
1563]), <http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html> Session XIII, chap. I.
8. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Session XIII chap IV.
9. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Session XIII chap IV.
10. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Session XII chap II.
11. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Session XII chap II.
12. Martin Luther, “That These Words of Christ, ‘This Is My Body’,” etc., Still Stand
Firm Against the Fanatics, 1527’ Luther’s Works Volume 37: Word and Sacrament
III Robert H. Fischer, ed. and trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961) p. 143.
13. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 143.
14. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 64.
15. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ pp. 69-73.
16. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 94.
17. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 93.
18. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 87.
19. Luther, ‘This Is My Body’ p. 57.
20. Luther, ‘This Is My Body,’ pp. 63f.
21. On the Christological problems associated with a Lutheran view of the Supper, see
Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ Contours of Christian Theology (Leicester:
IVP, 1998), pp. 196-9; also Trueman “The Incarnation and the Lord’s Supper,” p.
187-9.
22. Huldrych Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” Zwingli and Bullinger, G. W. Bromiley
trans. The Library of Christian Classics vol XXIV (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1953 [1526]), p. 186.
344 Churchman

23. Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” p. 188.

24. Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” p.189f.
25. Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” pp. 190f.
26. E.g. Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” p. 229.
27. Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” p. 225.
28. Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction 3rd edn. (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1999) p. 190.
29. Keith A Mathison Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), p. 5.
30. Institutes IV.xiv.1.
31. Institutes IV.xiv.3.
32. Institutes IV.xiv.17.
33. Institutes IV.xiv.5-6.
34. Cf Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press, 1995), p. 137: ‘the bare word cannot have its full effect
without the sacraments.’
35. Institutes IV.xiv.5.
36. Wallace, Word and Sacrament, p. 133.
37. On the necessity of faith ,see Institutes IV.xiv.7.
38. Institutes IV.xiv.9.
39. Institutes IV.xvii.1.
40. Institutes IV.xvii.1; cf Calvin, “A Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord
Jesus Christ,” John Calvin Tracts: Containing Treatises on the Sacraments,
Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith,
Volume Second Henry Beveridge trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,
1849 [1540]), §11.
41. Institutes IV.xvii.1.
42. Cf Calvin, “Short Treatise,” §6.
43. Institutes IV.xviii.3 citing Heb. 9:12.
44. Calvin, “Short Treatise,” §9.
45. Institutes IV.xvii.5.
46. Institutes IV.xviii.7.
47. Institutes IV.xvii.4.
48. John Calvin, The Gospel According to St John: 1–10 T. H. L. Parker trans. Calvin’s
Commentaries (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1961), p. 169.
49. Calvin John p170; cf D. A. Carson The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP,
1991) pp. 276-80, 294-9 for further reasons why John 6 is unlikely to be the
 A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Suppper 345

Johannine record of the institution of the Supper.

50. Calvin, John, p. 170.
51. See Huldrich Zwingli, “An Exposition of the Faith,” Zwingli and Bullinger G. W.
Bromiley, trans. The Library of Christian Classics, vol. XXIV (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1953 [1531]), pp. 245-79. In this brief work Zwingli restates the
christological problems with suggesting that Christ can be physically present in the
Supper. He concludes that, ‘as regards a natural, essential and localized presence the
humanity is not here, for it has left the world. Hence the body of Christ is not eaten
by us naturally or literally, much less quantitatively, but sacramentally and
spiritually’ (p. 257). To eat Christ spiritually ‘is equivalent to trusting with heart
and soul upon the mercy and goodness of God through Christ’ and may be done
without reference to the sacrament (p. 258). To eat sacramentally, however, ‘is to
eat the body of Christ with the heart and the mind in conjunction with the
sacrament’ (p. 258, italics mine): a view that sounds very close indeed to Calvin. I
am grateful to Garry Williams for drawing this reference to my attention, and
indeed for stimulating much of the thinking behind this article.
52. “Short Treatise,” §15.
53. Cf Mathison, Given For You, p. 27.
54. Compare Institutes IV.xvii.11 with III.i.1; Mathison Given For You p273; Wallace
Word and Sacrament, p. 143.
55. Institutes IV.vii.19,
56. John Calvin, “Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments; between the Ministers
of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva,” John
Calvin, Tracts: Containing Treatises on the Sacraments, Catechism of the Church of
Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Volume Second Henry
Beveridge, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849 [1554]), p. 240.
57. Luther, of course, understood the doctrine of faith union (e.g. Martin Luther, “The
Freedom of a Christian,” Three Treatises (Fortress Press, 1970 [1520]), pp. 261-
316; on faith-union see pp. 286-91). Nevertheless, he appears not to have grasped
its full implications for a biblical theology of the Lord’s Supper.
58. Institutes IV.xvii.10; cf John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Corinthians John W. Fraser, trans. Calvin’s Commentaries (Carlisle, Paternoster,
1960), p. 245.
59. Cf P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Leicester: Apollos, 1999), p. 170.
60. Cf Richard B. Gaffin Jr, The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul’s
Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 42.
346 Churchman

61. Institutes IV.xvii.10.

62. Tinker, “Language, Symbols and Signs,” p. 144.
63. Calvin, “Short Treatise,” §18.
64. Calvin, “Short Treatise,” §19.
65. Keith Mathison, Given For You, pp. 279f.
66. E.g. Luke 22:14-22; I Cor. 11:23-26.
67. koinonia, ‘communal participation’; Anthony C. Thistleton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text New International Greek Testament
Commentary (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), p. 761.
68. Calvin, I Corinthians, p. 216.
69. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 2nd edn.
Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: A & C Black, 1971), p. 233;
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 469.
70. Fee, I Corinthians, p. 469.
71. Institutes IV.xvii.33.
72. Institutes IV.xvii.33.
73. Institutes IV.xvii.33.
74. Institutes IV.xvii.38.
75. Institutes IV.xvii.39.
76. Fee, I Corinthians, p. 563.
77. Note the emphasis on feeding on Christ and union with him.
78. ‘The Communion’ in The Book of Common Prayer.
79. Institutes IV.xvii.1.