I was glad to see Stephen Long’s piece here, Bodies and the Body of Christ. If one is looking for fiery debate, my “response”  may be on the boring side, as I found nothing with which to disagree and much that provoked a hearty “Amen,” especially as a fellow Jenson-appreciator.

Where I would like to camp in this piece is the disagreement concerning Eucharistic presence, especially between Lutherans and Reformed, in hopes of furthering the argument put forward by Professor Long. I write as a Reformed pastor, though, with Calvin,[1] I am largely in agreement with the Augsburg Confession. I don’t propose a new, innovative solution of my own, but simply commend George Hunsinger’s proposal in the first part of his The Eucharist and Ecumenism.[2] Hunsinger’s proposal provides fertile ground, I believe, for growth in the Reformed tradition as well as profound potential for ecumenism among conservative Reformational traditions.

Historic Roadblocks

There is little need to rehearse in depth the historic divisions between the main reformational bodies. Luther took the promise of the Words of Institution to demand a realist understanding of the relation between the bread and wine of the Eucharist and Jesus’ body and blood. The higher-sacramental Reformed theologians (I leave Zwingli aside for the purpose of this discussion, and have in mind Calvin, Bucer, Vermigli, etc.) also sought a realist understanding of the presence of Christ. Calvin, for instance, upholds that “the same body which Christ has offered as a sacrifice is extended in the Supper.”[3] He even goes so far as to argue, as does the French Confession under Calvin’s influence, for true and substantial presence and partaking of Christ.[4]

The historic roadblocks come in through the Reformed push against both any notion of “local presence” that would compromise the integrity of Jesus’ resurrected, ascended human body in the heavens,[5] as well as any containment of Christ within the Eucharistic elements. These concerns led to Calvin’s “sacramental analogy,” highlighted by Professor Long. For Calvin, the Eucharistic bread and wine are fundamentally “instruments” by which the Spirit gives to our souls the spiritual food of Christ’s body and blood.[6] The central role of the Spirit in the Eucharist, which became a distinctive of Calvinist Eucharistic theology, was at times (again, as Long says) seen as merely a “stop gap” measure. Luther’s solution of ubiquity increased the Reformed suspicion of his teaching.

Hunsinger’s Proposal: The Iron in the Fire

In Eucharist & Ecumenism, George Hunsinger offers a compelling vision for a path toward unity among sacramental traditions, especially Lutheran and Reformed. Of course, this unity has been sought before: in the previous century, mainline Lutheran and Reformed bodies published The Leuenberg Agreement, in which we find this statement:

In the Lord’s Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in his body and blood, given for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who receive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord’s Supper for salvation, unfaith for judgment.

While the Leuenberg Agreement is commendable, it is far from satisfactory to many of the more traditional Lutheran and Reformed churches. The statement reflects what could be described as a lowest common denominator agreement, affirming what both Lutheran and Reformed have almost all (again, at least among the higher sacramental Reformed) already agreed upon. The Agreement continues in the next section, “To be concerned about the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper in abstraction  from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.”[7] Again, a commendable statement. As Pastor Rich Lusk says in his catechism,[8] “This is a great mystery, more to be enjoyed than understood.” And yet, I believe we can go further than Leuenberg’s rather minimalist statement.

 Hunsinger draws on an image that was common in the Eucharistic writing of reformers, both Lutheran and Reformed, and from patristic writers before them. It is that of an iron rod in the fire: “Just as the iron was transformed by its participation in the fire, so was the consecrated elements transformed by its sacramental union with Christ’s flesh.”[9] The “iron in the fire” imagery was employed most by Luther, but also cited with approval by Vermigli and Cranmer, as well, who drew from Theophylact, eleventh century Archbishop of Bulgaria. Vermigli writes, “We admit Theophylact’s terms changing, transforming, and transelementing, because of the sacramental change.”[10] It is this imagery of the iron in the fire, the idea of the loaf and cup transelemented in sacramental union with the flesh and blood of Christ by the power of the Spirit, drawn upon by the reformers and developed by the early church, that Hunsinger seeks to exploit.

Two particular conditions, as we saw above, must be met as we work towards agreement:

… any viable ecumenical resolution would need to affirm that no real presence of Christ’s body occurs in the eucharist at the expense of its local presence in heaven. Conversely, no local presence of his body in heaven could be admitted that would prohibit its real presence in the eucharist.[11]

The impasse over local presence must be overcome. Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas may be a help to us here, as one who held to both a robust view of the heavenly local presence as well as a realist view of the real presence in the Eucharist[12] (even if his solution is one that both Lutheran and Reformed reject as an explanation).

                  Second,

“It must be possible for all traditions to assert – without equivocation – at the level of first-order discourse as found in the liturgy, that the relation of “This bread” to “my body” is actually one of real predication.”[13]

The proposal put forward by Hunsinger, he says, is “well within the orbit of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Methodism” and

could be embraced by the Reformed churches without any fundamental compromise, though it would require a serious effort at rethinking old polemics and opening up new horizons. It is the view – affirmed by Vermigli, Bucer, and Cranmer – known in Eastern Orthodoxy as ‘transelementation.’[14]

This paradigm could satisfy the Reformed concern over local presence. Indeed, the doctrine of the local presence of Christ in heaven was historically not a barrier to a robust confession of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, shown by none other than Thomas Aquinas, who held that Christ was bodily present in the Eucharist “[not] as if it were present in the way that is natural for a body to be present, that is, visibly in its normal appearance… [but] a spiritual, non-visible presence, in the way of a spirit and by the power of the Spirit.”[15]

We can both uphold the integrity of Christ’s glorified human body and unequivocally confess the real, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. Transelementation[16] puts forward a real conversion of the Eucharistic bread and wine; this loaf and this cup are, in the rite, truly something that previously they were not: “a participation in the blood. . . [and] the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16). Of this bread and wine it is said now, “This is my body. . . This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” The conversion need not require a metaphysical theory such as transubstantiation, but simply a relation of mutual-indwelling of Christ and the Eucharistic elements.

“Transelementation simply holds:

  • that the consecrated bread becomes the body of Christ, by virtue of the epiclesis and the words of consecration, in the mode of a sacramental union;
  • that this sacramental union involves a koinonia relation of inseparable unity, abiding distinction, and fundamental asymmetry (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16);
  • that this is a matter of mutual indwelling between sign and reality, but with the living Christ himself as the active and preeminent factor in the Spirit.”

This position would require adjustment, as has been said, in the Reformed view, but without denying what the Reformed sought to preserve. Calvin’s position would be modified “by moving it away from contiguous union or symbolic parallelism toward mutual coinherence and dialectical identity.”[17] Calvin wished to avoid any notion of the containment of Christ in the elements; the view put forward here avoids containment in favor of participation through sacramental union.

What’s more, Hunsinger’s proposal gives proper weight, as the Reformed have always sought, to the role of the Spirit, without letting “spiritual” take anything away from the reality of the presence of Christ. Jesus is given in the Eucharistic bread and wine by the same Spirit by Whom He was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and by Whom He was raised from the dead. The “Spiritual” nature of these events takes nothing away from their reality or physicality, and it should not when we confess that Jesus is present in the Eucharist by the agency of the Spirit. As T.F. Torrance said, “he is present through the Spirit, not that he is present only as Spirit, far less as some spiritual reality, but present through the same kind of inexplicable creative activity whereby he was born of the Virgin Mary and rose again from the grave.”[18]

Another adjustment for the Reformed would be “[conceding] merit to the traditional Lutheran teaching of twofold eating.”

The spiritual eating of faith would not exclude an oral reception of Christ’s body with the bread. For the body would be connected with the bread by a pattern of unity-in-distinction… Unbelief would not prevent an oral reception of Christ’s body with the bread any more than it would prevent an aural reception of the gospel when within earshot of preaching.[19]

Once again, Aquinas, who distinguished between spiritual and non-spiritual eating in the Eucharist, may be of help here. There is a sacramental reception that, when received without faith, receives not the life of Christ, but judgment. This is consistent with the biblical emphasis, where the distinction between what is received by the faithful and what is received by the faithless or wicked in the Eucharist is that of eating unto life and eating unto judgment (1 Cor. 11:29). Calvin is close to this position when he says “those who only sacramentally eat Christ’s body, which cannot be separated from its power, are deprived of its true and real eating…”[20]

The One Bread & The One Body

Christ’s call to the Church is a call to be one, as Father, Son, and Spirit are One. Catholicity at times means adjustment, correction, and concession. In commending George Hunsinger’s proposal, I am hoping to see adjustment within my own Reformed tradition, though all traditions of the one Church of Christ need continually to reform to the image of our Head.

I do believe there is room in the Reformed tradition to move in the direction Hunsinger’s proposal calls us. This trajectory is already present in Calvin’s theology, as well as in Vermigli and Bucer, though their writing is not always perfectly consistent. The trajectory is pointed out by Calvin scholars like Julie Canlis[21] and Brian Gerrish[22], and it’s exemplified and  further developed in recent Reformed theologians like John Williamson Nevin[23] and T.F. Torrance[24].

Of course, that Jesus is truly given, body and blood, in the Eucharist is, biblically, not the “point” of the Sacrament (if we can speak that way). Rev. Matt Colvin’s response articulates well the telos of the Eucharist: “If we attend to the Bible’s stories, we find that ‘presence’ is not even the point… The goal in all these narratives is participation.” Indeed. St. Paul takes the participation in the body and blood of the Lord through the sacramental meal as the basis for the formation and unity of the eccesial body: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

I would question, however, what Colvin argues that this telos rules out. First, Colvin “[denies] that the bread and wine are changed.” While wholeheartedly agreeing with Colvin’s rejection of reliance on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics, it is true, it seems, that this loaf and this cup are in fact changed. That’s to say, these elements are, through the rite, that which they previously were not: the communion of Christ’s body and blood. Over these elements it is now said, as had previously not been the case, that “this is My body” and “this is My blood of the New Covenant.” That in itself, however it “works,” is a change in the elements. The Bible gives us language and categories for understanding this change, but it at least seems important to acknowledge that this is a real change.

Second, Colvin objects to “objective presence” on the basis that “It is a characteristic of ‘objective presence’ that it can happen without any narrative context.” Indeed, and, as he points out, that error is seen in such practices as Corpus Christi processions and reservation of the host. However, when the Sacrament is observed biblically, it is never without narrative context. The participation and union that is the goal of the Eucharist does not preclude that Jesus is indeed present to the Church by means of the same Spirit by Whom He was incarnate, the same Spirit by Whom He rose the third day.

I find myself in essential agreement with Colvin’s positive arguments for a participationist narratival sacramentology, but unconvinced that the recovery of this focus excludes a sacramental real presence, especially as outlined by Hunsinger’s proposal. It seems that the telos of participation does not rule out sacramental “real presence,” but rather assumes it. The “point” is not that He is present in the Eucharistic loaf and cup, but what His presence effects in the community that shares this meal.

St. Paul assumes, as a given, that the loaf and cup are the participation in the Lord’s life-giving body and blood. When we seek agreement on this question, we are hoping to realize the end for which the Eucharist is given, as Professor Long highlights alluding to the Great Thanksgiving: that we who receive the body of our Lord may be formed to be that which we receive. May it be so.

Jacob Hanby is Pastor at Providence Church in Caro, MI.


[1] Thanks to Pr. Jeff Meyers for pointing this out, in Baptism & Justification: Sacramental Instrumentality in John Calvin and the Pre-Concord Lutheran Confessions and Catechisms, p. 2, note 5.

[2] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)

[3] Institutes. IV.XVII.34

[4] Inst. IV.XVII.19); The French Confession, XXXVI.See also Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, 14.

[5] Robert Jenson, as shown in Professor Long’s article, and T.F. Torrance both offer helpful insights in the metaphysics of local presence, ubiquity, and containment. For Torrance, see especially Space, Time, and Incarnation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997).

[6] Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, 14.

[7] Cited in Hunsinger, pp. 50-51.

[8] I Belong to God: A Covenantal Catechism (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2014),Question 114. The entirety of Pr. Lusk’s question and answer here is worth including: “Is Jesus Christ, the God-man, truly present in this Supper? Yes, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us in the Supper, so that he is not only our host but also our food and drink. We eat the bread of God from heaven and drink his blood, given for the life of the world, so now he abides in us and we abide in him. This is a great mystery, more to be enjoyed than explained.”

[9] Hunsinger, p. 41.

[10] The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist (Moscow, ID: The Davenant Press, 2018), p. 218.

[11] Hunsinger, p. 47.

[12] Hunsinger, p. 23

[13] Ibid., p. 60

[14] Ibid.,, p. 59. Emphasis added.

[15] Summa Theologiae 3.75.1, cited in Hunsinger, p. 24.

[16] To my mind, the term “transelementation” is not of primary concern. Whatever one may wish to call it, what I find promising is the substance of the position.

[17] Ibid.,, p. 67.

[18] Theology in Reconciliation: Essays Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),p. 120.

[19] Hunsinger, p. 69

[20] Inst., IV.XVII.34

[21] Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2010).

[22] Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002).

[23] The Mystical Presence and The Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2012).

[24] Theology in Reconciliation: Essays Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1975), particularly his essay The Paschal Mystery of Christ and the Eucharist.

Next Conversation

I was glad to see Stephen Long’s piece here, Bodies and the Body of Christ. If one is looking for fiery debate, my “response”  may be on the boring side, as I found nothing with which to disagree and much that provoked a hearty “Amen,” especially as a fellow Jenson-appreciator.

Where I would like to camp in this piece is the disagreement concerning Eucharistic presence, especially between Lutherans and Reformed, in hopes of furthering the argument put forward by Professor Long. I write as a Reformed pastor, though, with Calvin,[1] I am largely in agreement with the Augsburg Confession. I don’t propose a new, innovative solution of my own, but simply commend George Hunsinger’s proposal in the first part of his The Eucharist and Ecumenism.[2] Hunsinger’s proposal provides fertile ground, I believe, for growth in the Reformed tradition as well as profound potential for ecumenism among conservative Reformational traditions.

Historic Roadblocks

There is little need to rehearse in depth the historic divisions between the main reformational bodies. Luther took the promise of the Words of Institution to demand a realist understanding of the relation between the bread and wine of the Eucharist and Jesus’ body and blood. The higher-sacramental Reformed theologians (I leave Zwingli aside for the purpose of this discussion, and have in mind Calvin, Bucer, Vermigli, etc.) also sought a realist understanding of the presence of Christ. Calvin, for instance, upholds that “the same body which Christ has offered as a sacrifice is extended in the Supper.”[3] He even goes so far as to argue, as does the French Confession under Calvin’s influence, for true and substantial presence and partaking of Christ.[4]

The historic roadblocks come in through the Reformed push against both any notion of “local presence” that would compromise the integrity of Jesus’ resurrected, ascended human body in the heavens,[5] as well as any containment of Christ within the Eucharistic elements. These concerns led to Calvin’s “sacramental analogy,” highlighted by Professor Long. For Calvin, the Eucharistic bread and wine are fundamentally “instruments” by which the Spirit gives to our souls the spiritual food of Christ’s body and blood.[6] The central role of the Spirit in the Eucharist, which became a distinctive of Calvinist Eucharistic theology, was at times (again, as Long says) seen as merely a “stop gap” measure. Luther’s solution of ubiquity increased the Reformed suspicion of his teaching.

Hunsinger’s Proposal: The Iron in the Fire

In Eucharist & Ecumenism, George Hunsinger offers a compelling vision for a path toward unity among sacramental traditions, especially Lutheran and Reformed. Of course, this unity has been sought before: in the previous century, mainline Lutheran and Reformed bodies published The Leuenberg Agreement, in which we find this statement:

In the Lord’s Supper the risen Jesus Christ imparts himself in his body and blood, given for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine. He thus gives himself unreservedly to all who receive the bread and wine; faith receives the Lord’s Supper for salvation, unfaith for judgment.

While the Leuenberg Agreement is commendable, it is far from satisfactory to many of the more traditional Lutheran and Reformed churches. The statement reflects what could be described as a lowest common denominator agreement, affirming what both Lutheran and Reformed have almost all (again, at least among the higher sacramental Reformed) already agreed upon. The Agreement continues in the next section, “To be concerned about the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper in abstraction  from this act is to run the risk of obscuring the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.”[7] Again, a commendable statement. As Pastor Rich Lusk says in his catechism,[8] “This is a great mystery, more to be enjoyed than understood.” And yet, I believe we can go further than Leuenberg’s rather minimalist statement.

 Hunsinger draws on an image that was common in the Eucharistic writing of reformers, both Lutheran and Reformed, and from patristic writers before them. It is that of an iron rod in the fire: “Just as the iron was transformed by its participation in the fire, so was the consecrated elements transformed by its sacramental union with Christ’s flesh.”[9] The “iron in the fire” imagery was employed most by Luther, but also cited with approval by Vermigli and Cranmer, as well, who drew from Theophylact, eleventh century Archbishop of Bulgaria. Vermigli writes, “We admit Theophylact’s terms changing, transforming, and transelementing, because of the sacramental change.”[10] It is this imagery of the iron in the fire, the idea of the loaf and cup transelemented in sacramental union with the flesh and blood of Christ by the power of the Spirit, drawn upon by the reformers and developed by the early church, that Hunsinger seeks to exploit.

Two particular conditions, as we saw above, must be met as we work towards agreement:

... any viable ecumenical resolution would need to affirm that no real presence of Christ’s body occurs in the eucharist at the expense of its local presence in heaven. Conversely, no local presence of his body in heaven could be admitted that would prohibit its real presence in the eucharist.[11]

The impasse over local presence must be overcome. Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas may be a help to us here, as one who held to both a robust view of the heavenly local presence as well as a realist view of the real presence in the Eucharist[12] (even if his solution is one that both Lutheran and Reformed reject as an explanation).

                  Second,

“It must be possible for all traditions to assert - without equivocation - at the level of first-order discourse as found in the liturgy, that the relation of “This bread” to “my body” is actually one of real predication.”[13]

The proposal put forward by Hunsinger, he says, is “well within the orbit of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Methodism” and

could be embraced by the Reformed churches without any fundamental compromise, though it would require a serious effort at rethinking old polemics and opening up new horizons. It is the view - affirmed by Vermigli, Bucer, and Cranmer - known in Eastern Orthodoxy as ‘transelementation.’[14]

This paradigm could satisfy the Reformed concern over local presence. Indeed, the doctrine of the local presence of Christ in heaven was historically not a barrier to a robust confession of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, shown by none other than Thomas Aquinas, who held that Christ was bodily present in the Eucharist “[not] as if it were present in the way that is natural for a body to be present, that is, visibly in its normal appearance… [but] a spiritual, non-visible presence, in the way of a spirit and by the power of the Spirit.”[15]

We can both uphold the integrity of Christ’s glorified human body and unequivocally confess the real, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. Transelementation[16] puts forward a real conversion of the Eucharistic bread and wine; this loaf and this cup are, in the rite, truly something that previously they were not: “a participation in the blood. . . [and] the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16). Of this bread and wine it is said now, “This is my body. . . This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” The conversion need not require a metaphysical theory such as transubstantiation, but simply a relation of mutual-indwelling of Christ and the Eucharistic elements.

“Transelementation simply holds:

  • that the consecrated bread becomes the body of Christ, by virtue of the epiclesis and the words of consecration, in the mode of a sacramental union;
  • that this sacramental union involves a koinonia relation of inseparable unity, abiding distinction, and fundamental asymmetry (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16);
  • that this is a matter of mutual indwelling between sign and reality, but with the living Christ himself as the active and preeminent factor in the Spirit."

This position would require adjustment, as has been said, in the Reformed view, but without denying what the Reformed sought to preserve. Calvin’s position would be modified “by moving it away from contiguous union or symbolic parallelism toward mutual coinherence and dialectical identity.”[17] Calvin wished to avoid any notion of the containment of Christ in the elements; the view put forward here avoids containment in favor of participation through sacramental union.

What’s more, Hunsinger’s proposal gives proper weight, as the Reformed have always sought, to the role of the Spirit, without letting “spiritual” take anything away from the reality of the presence of Christ. Jesus is given in the Eucharistic bread and wine by the same Spirit by Whom He was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and by Whom He was raised from the dead. The “Spiritual” nature of these events takes nothing away from their reality or physicality, and it should not when we confess that Jesus is present in the Eucharist by the agency of the Spirit. As T.F. Torrance said, “he is present through the Spirit, not that he is present only as Spirit, far less as some spiritual reality, but present through the same kind of inexplicable creative activity whereby he was born of the Virgin Mary and rose again from the grave.”[18]

Another adjustment for the Reformed would be “[conceding] merit to the traditional Lutheran teaching of twofold eating.”

The spiritual eating of faith would not exclude an oral reception of Christ’s body with the bread. For the body would be connected with the bread by a pattern of unity-in-distinction… Unbelief would not prevent an oral reception of Christ’s body with the bread any more than it would prevent an aural reception of the gospel when within earshot of preaching.[19]

Once again, Aquinas, who distinguished between spiritual and non-spiritual eating in the Eucharist, may be of help here. There is a sacramental reception that, when received without faith, receives not the life of Christ, but judgment. This is consistent with the biblical emphasis, where the distinction between what is received by the faithful and what is received by the faithless or wicked in the Eucharist is that of eating unto life and eating unto judgment (1 Cor. 11:29). Calvin is close to this position when he says “those who only sacramentally eat Christ’s body, which cannot be separated from its power, are deprived of its true and real eating…”[20]

The One Bread & The One Body

Christ’s call to the Church is a call to be one, as Father, Son, and Spirit are One. Catholicity at times means adjustment, correction, and concession. In commending George Hunsinger’s proposal, I am hoping to see adjustment within my own Reformed tradition, though all traditions of the one Church of Christ need continually to reform to the image of our Head.

I do believe there is room in the Reformed tradition to move in the direction Hunsinger’s proposal calls us. This trajectory is already present in Calvin’s theology, as well as in Vermigli and Bucer, though their writing is not always perfectly consistent. The trajectory is pointed out by Calvin scholars like Julie Canlis[21] and Brian Gerrish[22], and it’s exemplified and  further developed in recent Reformed theologians like John Williamson Nevin[23] and T.F. Torrance[24].

Of course, that Jesus is truly given, body and blood, in the Eucharist is, biblically, not the “point” of the Sacrament (if we can speak that way). Rev. Matt Colvin’s response articulates well the telos of the Eucharist: “If we attend to the Bible’s stories, we find that ‘presence’ is not even the point… The goal in all these narratives is participation.” Indeed. St. Paul takes the participation in the body and blood of the Lord through the sacramental meal as the basis for the formation and unity of the eccesial body: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

I would question, however, what Colvin argues that this telos rules out. First, Colvin “[denies] that the bread and wine are changed.” While wholeheartedly agreeing with Colvin's rejection of reliance on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics, it is true, it seems, that this loaf and this cup are in fact changed. That’s to say, these elements are, through the rite, that which they previously were not: the communion of Christ’s body and blood. Over these elements it is now said, as had previously not been the case, that “this is My body” and “this is My blood of the New Covenant.” That in itself, however it “works,” is a change in the elements. The Bible gives us language and categories for understanding this change, but it at least seems important to acknowledge that this is a real change.

Second, Colvin objects to “objective presence” on the basis that “It is a characteristic of ‘objective presence’ that it can happen without any narrative context.” Indeed, and, as he points out, that error is seen in such practices as Corpus Christi processions and reservation of the host. However, when the Sacrament is observed biblically, it is never without narrative context. The participation and union that is the goal of the Eucharist does not preclude that Jesus is indeed present to the Church by means of the same Spirit by Whom He was incarnate, the same Spirit by Whom He rose the third day.

I find myself in essential agreement with Colvin’s positive arguments for a participationist narratival sacramentology, but unconvinced that the recovery of this focus excludes a sacramental real presence, especially as outlined by Hunsinger’s proposal. It seems that the telos of participation does not rule out sacramental “real presence,” but rather assumes it. The “point” is not that He is present in the Eucharistic loaf and cup, but what His presence effects in the community that shares this meal.

St. Paul assumes, as a given, that the loaf and cup are the participation in the Lord’s life-giving body and blood. When we seek agreement on this question, we are hoping to realize the end for which the Eucharist is given, as Professor Long highlights alluding to the Great Thanksgiving: that we who receive the body of our Lord may be formed to be that which we receive. May it be so.

Jacob Hanby is Pastor at Providence Church in Caro, MI.


[1] Thanks to Pr. Jeff Meyers for pointing this out, in Baptism & Justification: Sacramental Instrumentality in John Calvin and the Pre-Concord Lutheran Confessions and Catechisms, p. 2, note 5.

[2] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)

[3] Institutes. IV.XVII.34

[4] Inst. IV.XVII.19); The French Confession, XXXVI.See also Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, 14.

[5] Robert Jenson, as shown in Professor Long’s article, and T.F. Torrance both offer helpful insights in the metaphysics of local presence, ubiquity, and containment. For Torrance, see especially Space, Time, and Incarnation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997).

[6] Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, 14.

[7] Cited in Hunsinger, pp. 50-51.

[8] I Belong to God: A Covenantal Catechism (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2014),Question 114. The entirety of Pr. Lusk’s question and answer here is worth including: “Is Jesus Christ, the God-man, truly present in this Supper? Yes, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us in the Supper, so that he is not only our host but also our food and drink. We eat the bread of God from heaven and drink his blood, given for the life of the world, so now he abides in us and we abide in him. This is a great mystery, more to be enjoyed than explained.”

[9] Hunsinger, p. 41.

[10] The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist (Moscow, ID: The Davenant Press, 2018), p. 218.

[11] Hunsinger, p. 47.

[12] Hunsinger, p. 23

[13] Ibid., p. 60

[14] Ibid.,, p. 59. Emphasis added.

[15] Summa Theologiae 3.75.1, cited in Hunsinger, p. 24.

[16] To my mind, the term “transelementation” is not of primary concern. Whatever one may wish to call it, what I find promising is the substance of the position.

[17] Ibid.,, p. 67.

[18] Theology in Reconciliation: Essays Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),p. 120.

[19] Hunsinger, p. 69

[20] Inst., IV.XVII.34

[21] Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 2010).

[22] Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002).

[23] The Mystical Presence and The Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord’s Supper (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2012).

[24] Theology in Reconciliation: Essays Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1975), particularly his essay The Paschal Mystery of Christ and the Eucharist.

-->

To download Theopolis Lectures, please enter your email.

CLOSE