Calvary Road Baptist Church
“THE BODY OF CHRIST:
Metaphor Not Myth” Part 7
Please turn to Addendum I after chapter six.
This addendum is challenging, and you will not likely fully grasp its implications by reading it through one time. I suggest you read it through and then read it through in a month and read it through a third time.
The assertion is that there is a correlation between what has been held to be true about the doctrine of the Church and what has been held to be true about the doctrine of the Communion of the Lord’s Supper. If you are in error regarding the doctrine of the Church, you are likely in error regarding the doctrine of the Communion of the Lord’s Supper, and for the same reasons.
Let us begin.
Addendum I
THE ANALOGY OF CHRIST’S BODY
IN THE COMMUNION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
WITH CHRIST’S BODY, THE CHURCH
Introduction
This addendum introduces an example of a comparative study in the Scriptures of two separate doctrines which have more than a coincidental similarity. This type of comparison we are calling a doctrinal analogy or doctrinal model. The purpose of the following example is to establish the usefulness of using a doctrinal model in the study of Scripture. After giving an example of a doctrinal analogy to verify its usefulness as a tool in biblical studies, a doctrinal model will be developed. This doctrinal model will provide some interesting parallels and show that there exists a direct correlation between one’s view of the meaning of “the body of Christ” in the communion of the Lord’s Supper and one’s view of the “body of Christ” as the church. These comparisons will reinforce the truth that has been set forth in these pages concerning the metaphor of the body of Christ, and among other things show the inconsistency of Baptists who hold to the false doctrine of a universal invisible church.
An Example of a Doctrinal Analogy:
Christology and the Inspiration of the Scriptures
For the purpose of demonstration only an analogy between the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is given next. The person and work of Jesus Christ is the heart of the New Testament body of doctrine. For this reason a clear understanding and declaration of who Jesus Christ is held a place of primacy among the early churches. This they did even in the face of intense opposition in the form of false teaching concerning Christ. Many false teachers such as Sabellius (who taught that God was single and indivisible, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three modes or manifestations of one divine Person), Arius (taught that Jesus Christ was not coeternal with God the Father, but was rather created before time), Apollinaris (denied the existence of a rational human soul in Christ’s human nature), and Nestorius (whose opponents claimed he detached Christ’s divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body) fueled the fires of opposition, each denying either Christ’s deity or His humanity, confounding His natures or dividing His person. In spite of all this doctrinal corruption concerning the incarnate Son of God, the truth of His person prevailed for the most part throughout Christendom. Today most of Christianity holds to the truth they defended that Jesus Christ in His one person has two natures — a divine nature and a human nature — in which union His person is not divided and his natures not confounded.
Unlike this raging battle over the person of Christ, the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture did not receive the scrutiny of examination that their Christology received. Historian Lindsell speaks concerning the development of doctrine within Christendom:
In the early centuries of the church, the theologians and church councils faced grave problems. But none of them devoted much time to the question of an inspired and inerrant Bible. The question of Christology agitated every fishmonger in the Eastern Church. The philosophically-minded Greek world wrestled with the question of the preincarnate Christ. The Arian controversy symbolized this struggle, and from it came decisions that firmly imbedded into the theology of Christendom the teaching that Jesus Christ is coeternal with the Father, of one substance in essence and yet distinct in person.”37
One of the chief concerns in the past century (the 20th century) is the nature of Biblical authority and inspiration. Lindsell states the results of a poll taken by Christianity Today in 1964, “... the poll said that Biblical authority is the main theological theme now under review in conservative circles in America.”38 Some have realized a battle already fought and won can help in settling issues in the current debate concerning the inspiration of Scripture. If one places his view of inspiration in comparison to the well-developed Christology we have received and upon which we agree, it will be noticed this process of comparison facilitates the development and understanding of one’s doctrine of inspiration.
The Comparison
The similarity between the incarnation of the living Word and the entrance of God’s Word into the world make this comparison possible. Jesus Christ, God the Son, became man without ceasing to be God. God’s Word became man’s word without ceasing to be God’s Word. Jesus Christ possesses two natures which are united but not mixed in the one person Jesus Christ. The Bible possesses two natures-a divine nature and a human composition-but these two aspects do not mix to make some type of co-authorship, rather the uniqueness of the undivided reality of the Bible is that it is the Word of God. Just as Jesus Christ was born of a virgin by the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit within her womb so the Holy Spirit conceived the words of God in the minds of the human authors. Mary gave birth to Jesus of the seed of David, but He was and is the Son of God. The human authors gave birth to words in the language of their day that would be and still are to this day called the Word of God. Jesus appeared as an ordinary man and yet he was God manifest in the flesh. The Bible appears to be an ordinary book and yet it is the Holy Scripture of God.
Although this subject does not directly address the matter at hand, it does show the validity of this type of comparative study.
The Doctrinal Analogy Established
We believe that a doctrinal model similar in principle to those particulars considered above in determining the nature of the body of Christ is found in the biblical teaching of the Lord’s Supper. The three common views of communion, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and representation can be compared to the three common views of the church and the body of Christ: the universal visible, the universal invisible, and the local visible church. These comparisons reveal some interesting results.
Transubstantiation: The Catholic View
The doctrine of transubstantiation blossomed in 1215 A.D. Historian S. M. Houghton writes:
In the year 1215 ... at the same time Innocent III put forward the doctrine of transubstantiation which lies at the very centre of the service called ‘the mass,’ and which asserts that, by the words of the priest, the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper (they are sometimes called ‘the elements’ cease to be bread and wine, and literally and actually become the body and blood of Christ. Hence they are to be worshipped. The council accepted the doctrine and thereby legislated idolatry.39
Consubstantiation: The Lutheran View
The Lutherans, following the teachings of Martin Luther, developed the doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper known as Consubstantiation. A summary of Lutheran teaching states their belief:
... we receive bread and wine when we go to communion, but along with it we truly receive Christ’s body and blood. (1 Cor. 10:15-16). We speak of this as ‘the Real Presence’ of Christ in the sacrament. We receive forgiveness of sins, strength for our life and the opportunity to proclaim publicly that we believe Jesus died and rose for us….40
This teaching of the so-called “Real Presence” of Christ’s body and blood is just a step removed from the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation and is typical of the shortcomings of Catholic Reformers.
Representation: The Baptist View
Baptists have been present since the days of Jesus Christ. Baptist historian S. H. Ford writes:
Certainly hundreds of men have testified to the fact that Baptist churches, or churches though called by some other name than Baptists, have been in existence all the way from the days of Jesus until this present time.”41
Baptists believe in neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation. The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 states:
“The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. (I Cor. 11:27; I Cor. 11:26-28)”42
Baptists have believed and do believe today that the elements of the Lord’s Supper only represent the body and the blood of Jesus Christ. They are not sacramental in nature and, therefore, do not convey the forgiveness of sin. This is the biblical position.
The Analogy Between Each View
of Communion And Their Respective Ecclesiology
The parallel between each group’s belief concerning the Lord’s Supper and their ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) is to this writer beyond coincidence. A distinct similarity can be seen by comparing the following: transubstantiation with the universal visible church; consubstantiation with the universal invisible church; the elements of the Lord’s table only representative with the local visible church. This doctrinal model constructed from the three views of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper compared respectively to the three main views of ecclesiology can possibly shed some light concerning the meaning of the body of Christ as referred to in relationship to His church. It is believed that the comparison will reveal a correlation between each respectively and demonstrate the principle that truth builds upon truth and error builds upon error.
Transubstantiation
Compared To The Universal Visible Church
First, a comparison will be made between Catholicism’s view of the church and its belief concerning the Lord’s Supper. The Catholic understanding of the basic meaning of ekklhsia is quite surprising as the following quote from a Catholic encyclopedia indicates:
Our English word is related to the Scots kirk, the German kirche and the Dutch kerk, all of which are derived from the late Greek kyriakon, meaning ‘the Lord’s (house).’ The classical Greek ekklesia meant ‘assembly of citizens’ and implied a democratic equality among its members who met for legislative and other deliberations. In the Greek Old Testament (LXX), ekklesia represents the Hebrew kahal, meaning the religious assembly (Dt 23; I Kgs 8; Ps 22). In the New Testament the term ekklesia be the body of Christ always refers to a group of people: (1) those Christians in a region or city (e.g., Acts 14:23ff.; I Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1); (2) those gathered in a particular house (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19); (3) all Christians gathered in the Church (Mt 16:18; Eph 1:22).43
The Catholic view is correct until the meaning of ἐkklesίa is given an ecclesiastical twist to make it mean all Christians gathered in the universal visible Catholic Church as a religious hierarchy.
This original error within Catholicism’s ecclesiology is greatly multiplied by their inordinate need for mysticism, the idea of directly experiencing reality or the divine. This elevates your subjective opinions and feelings over the objective facts of Scripture. This can be demonstrated by their statement in the Vatican II documents as to the belief concerning the Church as the body of Christ:
Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body … In that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified.44
That is the Roman Catholic view. It appears evident that there is a parallelism in thought concerning Catholicism’s teaching of transubstantiation and its understanding of the nature of the church. The mystical and even cannibalistic interpretation of Christ’s words “this is my body” (1 Cor. 11:24) coincides with the mystical and yet the “real way” that Catholics understand themselves to be the body of Christ.
The mystical and the real blend together to “form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.” They make an analogy between the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the Spirit’s vivification of the visible church in such a way as to make it a living organ of salvation and an ecclesiastical incarnation of Jesus Christ. They believe that “in that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified.” Note also that the “hidden” is contrasted with the “real” giving the understanding that the real way pertains to the visible and physical nature of the Church.
A Wrong Hermeneutic, or way of interpreting God’s Word
A comparison of these two doctrines reveals an error in applying proper hermeneutical principles in the interpretation of Scripture. The Bible is literature and we find a full range of figurative language in it. But with their inordinate desire for the mystical, they press some figurative language to the absurd. In building their doctrine of transubstantiation, the Catholics misinterpret Jesus’ words “this is my body” and take them literally by which they justify their belief that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic doctrine concerning the church misinterprets those passages which refer to the church as Christ’s body to produce their belief that the body of Christ through the sacraments is in a real way the universal visible Church.
Instead of seeing the church as a called-out assembly of believers organized in a particular locality and only metaphorically a body because Christ’s diverse gifts dwell there in a corporate unity; they force this metaphor of a body into a form which mixes the mystical and the real into a universal visible sacrament. They ignore the truth taught by the metaphor the Holy Spirit moved Paul to use in 1 Corinthians 12:12:
“For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ.”
This is the foundational statement which establishes the metaphor used throughout the rest of the chapter. The Apostle gives a metaphor of a physical body picturing a functional unity among the Corinthian Church. Like the diversity of members in a human body exists in the unity of one body so the diversity of spiritual gifts dwell in Jesus Christ in the unity of His person. This being true, it is then developed that the church of Corinth is metaphorically one human body with each member possessing a diverse gift of Christ and yet just like Jesus Christ, they too were to exist in unity.
The Unity of Christ’s Body, the unity of a Christian Church congregation
The unity of Christ is a recurring theme in the Corinthian epistle. It begins with the question, “Is Christ divided?” The centrality of Jesus Christ is then developed in different applications throughout the book. When one reaches 1 Corinthians, chapter twelve, Paul is not speaking about being placed in Christ pertaining to salvation but being placed into an assembly which is described as a metaphorical body, so he can demonstrate that the unity sought is practical. What practical meaning does 1 Corinthians 12:26 have to do with the millions around the world who are presently in Christ?
“And whether one member suffer, all the
members suffer with it; or one member be honored,
all the members rejoice with it.”
This speaks concerning the same body which is within the context throughout the chapter-the Church of Corinth.
That which defines us in the body of Christ is neither our nationality, gender, nor our social standing, rather the gift of Christ which the Holy Spirit has sovereignly given and the Father sovereignly placed in each particular assembly, just as He did at Corinth. Members are spoken of as being an eye, foot, head, etc., and each placed by God so as to constitute an organized body. Jerrel Huffman writes:
The ‘body’ is not a mere aggregation of parts, but an orderly arrangement of these parts. For instance, the human ‘body’ is a whole, made up of many parts-hands, legs, arms, feet, ears, eyes, head, and torso. A pile of heads, hands, feet, or legs, does not compose a body! Likewise, a number of believers or the totality of believers does not necessarily make an ekklesia. These members must be set in orderly arrangement to constitute an ekklesia.45
Now I think you begin to understand why there is great harm when a Church member just leaves. Great harm.
He ends his chapter by speaking of God’s placement of these gifts in the Church. The person and his gift are spoken of as one and the same. Apostles are set in the church but also miracles, governments, and tongues.46 The unity with which Christ possessed these diverse gifts is analogous to the diverse members of a human body existing in the unity of the body. Likewise, the church at Corinth with their diversity of gifts exists in unity because they are Christ’s metaphorical body.
Consubstantiation
Compared To the Universal Invisible Church
Secondly, a comparison can be made of Luther’s view of consubstantiation and his view of the church. The popular teaching today even among some Baptists that the church is the universal invisible body of Christ finds its roots in the Reformation period. S. E. Anderson (1900-1977, pastor, theologian, and author of fourteen books) states, “The Reformers promoted the ‘universal invisible church’ theory trying to outwit the Catholics.”47 According to historian Philip Schaff, the doctrine of the invisible church began with the Reformer Zwingli:
Augustine ... made a suggestive distinction between ‘the true body of Christ’ and ‘the mixed body of Christ,’ which led the way to the Protestant distinction (first made by Zwingli) between the visible and invisible church.48
Although Schaff attributes the formulation of the doctrine to Zwingli, he states that Luther was the first one to use the word invisible in relationship to the church.49
The Development of Consubstantiation
It is interesting and in support of the point being made that it was during the Reformation Martin Luther introduced his teaching of consubstantiation and the idea of the invisibility of the church. According to Luther himself he had difficulty with this teaching;
For being in great perplexity I took great pains in Difcuffing the point; I endeavour’d with all my might to extricate and free my felf, as well perceiving I fhould thereby very much incommode the Papacy. But I fee I am caught, there is no way of efcaping left me: For the words of the Evangelists [This is my Body, &c.] are too plain and clear to be fore’d to any other meaning.50 [original spelling]
After quoting Luther concerning the bread and wine in the sacrament Thomas Deane, a papist, goes on to state:
It is evident that in this Doctrine Luther was neither Catholick, nor Church of England Protestant. But yet fo much a Catholic he was, as to hold the real prefence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament.”51 [original spelling]
Once again a parallel can easily be made. In Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper the bread and wine do not literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but they become the “Real Presence” of Christ’s body and blood. This is a step removed from the position the Catholic Church holds. Luther stopped short of the truth in his reforms concerning the Catholic sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and concerning the Church. His reluctance to let go completely of Papal doctrine caused him to develop the teaching of consubstantiation, and his rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church led him to develop the idea of invisibility in relationship to the true church. The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements of the sacrament was invisible but real according to Luther’s understanding. This same idea of the invisible yet real presence of Christ’s body which was used in his interpretation of Catholicism’s view of transubstantiation was introduced by Luther into the ecclesiology of the Reformers, who developed a view of the church as the invisible yet real presence of the body of Christ. Hence, the body of Christ becomes a cosmic presence, something that no Christian can see, but of which every Christian is a part. The Baptistic view does acknowledge the real presence of Jesus Christ by His Spirit in the midst of the assembly, but not the real presence of His body mystically joining the individual members.
Representation
Compared to the Local Church
Thirdly, a comparison can be seen between the historic Baptist understanding of the Lord’s Supper and their view of the church. It is acknowledged by this author that our Baptist forefathers gave a greater spiritual significance to the Lord’s Table than many Baptists today. In The London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 the language is vehemently clear in the denial of transubstantiation and inherently clear in their denial of consubstantiation. The Baptist view believes the elements are representative of the real body and blood of Christ. Jesus’ body and blood are only present metaphorically. Baptist ecclesiology is consistent also to its view of the Lord’s Table. The body of Christ is a metaphor for a local assembly such as existed at Corinth, and it has no cosmic supramundane existence or reality. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul simply draws an analogy between Jesus Christ’s possession of all the diverse spiritual gifts in the unity of His person to a human body which has all the diverse organs and appendages and yet exists in a beautiful unity. First Corinthians 12:12 then develops this metaphor of a body using the Corinthian Church instead of Christ.
“For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ.”
Each of them is pictured as a distinct member of a body and yet there is the unity of the body. Each member represents a gift of Jesus Christ. Therefore the diversity of the members represents the diverse gifts of Christ given by the Holy Spirit and the unity of such associates them as the body of Christ because it is a metaphorical body that possesses Christ’s gifts.
Summary
Truth builds on truth and error on error. Our comparisons show how vital a biblical view of any doctrine is--especially ecclesiology. Heresy, of course, rarely has a logical order, but when one’s ecclesiology is faulty, it leads to other gross errors in soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and the ordinances of the church by mixing and confounding them. To this writer the correlations made above reveal a pattern of doctrine that demonstrates the inconsistency of Baptists who hold to the Protestant doctrine of the universal invisible church. This doctrine, now held by many Baptists, is obviously not a revival of truth but a doctrinal novelty born out of the doctrinal necessity in which the Reformers placed themselves when they rejected the authority of the Catholic Church but did not recognize the succession of local Baptist churches from the time of Christ unto their day.
The author states a valuable insight, truth builds on truth and error on error. In explaining away baptism as the Church-authorized immersion in water of believers only and clinging to Roman Catholicism’s paedobaptism of unsaved infants, Protestantism embarked on an erroneous course of error.
While we are profoundly grateful for the Reformer’s embrace of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the other Solas, we deeply regret their confusion about numerous other things, such as the separation of Church and state, the change in the mode of baptism, candidates for baptism, and authority to baptize, and what is the subject of this book, the doctrine of the Church, specifically the body of Christ metaphor.
There is no universal invisible body of Christ. In heaven there will be a general assembly and Church of the firstborn, but that time has not yet come. At present, local congregations of born-again, Scripturally baptized believers in Jesus Christ, organized to conduct the Great Commission and administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are each the body of Christ.
Question? Comment?
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.