Figurative Presence of Christ in the Elements
Part 3 of 8
Unlike literal interpretations, a metaphoric interpretation of Christ’s Communion words seems to fit well within the greater Scriptural context. This metaphoric perspective is generally associated with the Swiss reformer, Huldrych Zwingli. Both Luther and Calvin rejected Zwingli’s view of a figurative Communion. J. Oliver Buswell, a prominent 20th century American Presbyterian theologian, called Zwingli’s perspective “metaphorical pageantry”. Most conservative branches of the Church have been similarly dismissive, but the dismissals seem to be short on clear explanations. Buswell’s “Pageantry”, for example, is a word of negative connotation, but he would be comfortable referring to Communion as a “ritual” or a “ceremony”. There is no more pageantry in Zwingli’s Communion than other Christian observances. Additionally, neither Buswell, nor Calvin, nor Luther would argue there are no metaphors involved in the practice of Communion. So Buswell himself embraces metaphoric pageantry. The only difference is that he wants to add the consumption of Christ. So he complains about the similarity and fails to defend the difference.
Jesus certainly was a heavy user of metaphoric language. He was not the only person in the Bible to make use of metaphors, but there were few who doggedly employed metaphors to the extent Jesus did. “You are the salt of the earth”; “Do not toss your pearls to swine”; “They are white-washed tombs”; “By their fruit you will recognize them”; “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few”; “Be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves”; “I am the good shepherd”; “I am the true vine”; “I am the bread of life”, etc. Not only did he frequently use metaphors, he often spoke in parables, which are essentially expanded metaphors.
Perhaps we give metaphor too little credit, as if the device is some sort of inferior language. (Jesus’ Communion language is not mere metaphor—it is literal; real language is literal.) Metaphors are used to evoke images in the minds of hearers…but all words are representational. Words are God-like and mysterious in that they convey not only concrete objects such as, say, “the cross” but also abstract ideas such as “substitutional atonement”. (For the Christian, the concrete cross is rich in references, including substitutional atonement.) The ability to manage a large vocabulary separates humans from animals; the ability to manage nuance and abstract ideas separates us from computers (and is why the quest to create artificial intelligence has pretty much been abandoned).
Christ himself was referred to as “the Word” by John in his Gospel. God gives us his Word because (amazingly) the Creator of the universe has made us in such a way that if we have ears to hear (metaphoric language for: if we are humble and honest enough to give fair attention) he will speak and we will understand. The Spirit of God works in Communion when the richness of meaning that belongs to the ceremony is properly presented. Consider these words from the Apostle Paul: I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. – 1 Corinthians 14.18
Why are words so important? Because right understanding gives rise to character transformation which, in turn, gives birth to right action. Out of right action comes relational health…or, I could say, out of right action comes communion. When God speaks, reality obeys—things that were not become things that are. God’s integrity is so complete that his words coincide precisely with reality. While none of us have the ability to make something out of nothing, God does call us to become glorious creatures whose words are rich in understanding and whose words coincide precisely with our actions, all of which are to be good. There is nothing trivial about metaphors or words and how these are connected to our spirits.
Consider these words from John, verses 32,33,35: Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” Here is a pretty strong example. The literal bread (the manna the Israelites ate in the desert), however important, was only a type of the prototype, the figurative bread, which is Jesus Christ himself. Some take this passage to refer to literally eating Christ through Communion. But if you read further in the passage the message is reinforced as metaphorical. “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” -v. 63
There is another problem with Christ literally in the elements that bears mentioning. No one (I think) believes that feeding on Christ through Communion is a means of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith. That faith is not in the saving power of feeding on Christ’s blood and body but in the salvation offered by him through his sacrifice, and in his Lordship over all creation. But feeding on Christ, taken literally, suggests that Communion is a source of life, which is to say, salvation. Feeding on Christ metaphorically does not present such a problem.
So if Jesus means the words about body and blood metaphorically, what is the point he is trying to make? If he wants the disciples to continue with the ritual of Communion, why? If Communion is understood to be a “means of grace”, is it possible that right understanding is the means? Is it possible that right understanding would lead to appropriate worship? Is it possible that right understanding would lead to appropriate behavior (obedience to God) in one’s life? It might be helpful in answering these questions to look more fully at the original celebration and its context.
(end of part 3 of 8-part series)
Recent Comments