This Is My Body - Response to Andrew Clover III

This will be the third and final installment of a response to Andrew Clover, who blogs over at Reformation 500. Mr. Clover wrote a three-part refutation of the Lutheran stance on the Lord's Supper. As I have asserted in my first two installments, his premise is a strawman and his argument is not only not what Lutheranism teaches, but is also illogical.

Part I

Part II

The first installment to Andrew's three-part blog is found here: (This Is My Body) There are links to the other two installments within his blog.

This final installment will address part 3 of his three-part series.

"At first blush, that rhetorical question (What would Jesus have said if He wanted His words to be taken literally?) appears to make a strong point; but I wish to head the argument off at the pass. I will do this by asking two rhetorical questions of my own. First let me acknowledge that if Jesus had meant to convey that the bread was literally his body, then he would definitely have said exactly what he said. He would have said “this is my body”. My first question though is this: What would Jesus have said in that situation if he were speaking metaphorically? Would “this is my body” not work equally as well as a metaphor? Such is the nature of a metaphor. It reads as a literal statement of fact, the context determining the reader’s understanding. Take the phrase “Teddy Roosevelt was a mountain”. What would I say if I wanted to convey the idea that Teddy Roosevelt was literally a naturally occurring pile of rock that stood over 2,000 feet tall? What if I wanted to convey the idea that Teddy Roosevelt was a really, really large human being? Would the phrase “Teddy Roosevelt was a mountain” not work just as well as a metaphor as it would a statement of literal fact as far as the grammar is concerned? Indeed it would."

I'm not sure Andrew's argument here is rock-solid, although I certain can concede that is how some metaphors function. Here is Mr. Clover's problem: He concedes (rightfully) that Jesus would have said exactly what He said if He meant for His words to be taken literally. Now I ask Mr. Clover: On what basis should we seek a metaphorical interpretation of this passage? What words in the Lord's Supper passages demand that we do so? As we will see later, Mr. Clover has to go elsewhere in Scripture to support his claim. Even more so, he has to go to other passages that are not about the Lord's Supper at all to support his claim.

"The second question is this: What statement could we not do that with? Is it not in fact rather silly to argue that a statement is not a metaphor simply because a state of being verb is present? To repeat my argument from above, doesn’t a metaphor require a state of being verb?"

This is true. But again, on what basis should we do this with the Lord's Supper passages? Are there Lord's Supper passages specifically that should lean us toward a metaphorical interpretation? Again, I would insist strongly that we draw our Eucharistic Theology from passages in Holy Scripture actually dealing with Eucharistic Theology.

Andrew quotes St. Luke 22:16-23 and then says the following:

"Christ said “this is my body which is given for you”. Was he being literal? Seems to me it would be good to establish some facts about the giving of Christ’s body before we try to answer that. So there are some questions that need to be asked. 1. What was the nature of this giving? 2. To whom was the body of Christ given? 3. Do the words of institution contain any information about the giving as it relates to those who were not the receivers of the giving?"

Here he tries to use passages outside of the Lord's Supper passages to show that the bread is not the Body of Christ. But he still has the same huge glaring problem. Namely, what did Christ give to His disciples and what did He say that it is? He broke bread. Then He said that the bread that He gave them is His body. Why all the shenanigans to say that's it's not?

Here are the statements and passages Mr. Clover uses in support of his position:

1. Christ’s giving up of his body was a propitiatory sacrifice (1 Jon 2:2). A propitiation is a sacrifice which removes the wrath of an offended party. 

2. The giving of Christ’s body was a giving toward God The Father, in sacrifice. Christ’s body was given to God. “It pleased Yahweh to crush him“. 

3. The words of institution make it clear that the giving of Christ’s body was for mankind. “Given for you”. I note that Christ did not say “This is my body, given to you”. Why not? I submit that it is because the disciples, and we, do not need Christ’s body in us. We need what his given body provided for us.

The first statement he makes is an either/or fallacy. In effect, He is implying that Christ's body is a propitiatory sacrifice given on the cross *only.* I know he would reject that line of thought. However, it is essentially what he is using as a defense. Christ is eternal God. Why can't Christ's body be given at Calvary as a propitiation for our sins...and the whole world (1Jo 2:2), as well as given for us in the Eucharist? Why can't Christ do that when Scripture is clear that He does? In fact, Christ Himself told us that "...And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Mt 28:20b) Why can't Christ be present with us in the Eucharist, especially when He says that it is His body and blood?

My point is, there are a lot of both/and situations in Scripture.

The second statement says absolutely nothing about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of course the body of Christ was given to God. Who disputes that? But Scripture is also clear that the body of Christ is also given to us. Here we have another both/and situation. His second statement is a non-argument.

The third statement is nothing more than philosophical nitpicking. When Christ gives the bread, He gives us something tangible and objective and says it is "for you." The absence of the word "to" is really a weak argument, since Christ is also giving the bread and wine to His disciples. And by the way, He says it is His body and blood.

Clover continues,

"The words of institution do not in any way demand a woodenly literal understanding of the phrases “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. To insist on such a thing is to fail to take into account the very nature of Christ’s sacrifice, the internal logic of the atonement, if you will."

Unless you can find good reason to take them metaphorically within the Words of Institution themselves, yeah, they do need to be taken at face value. And likewise, it certainly does not fail to take into account the nature of Christ's sacrifice for all humanity. Why can't Christ make that sacrifice present for us in the Eucharist by giving us His body and blood? Christ is God. Why can't He do that again? Can we have a both/and here? If not, why not?

"One last point needs to be addressed. Often Baptists are chided for believing that Christ’s Supper is a memorial meal and not a consuming of Christ’s *real* body and blood. However it often goes overlooked that the only reason Jesus actually gives the disciples for the church’s observing the ritual in perpetuity is “in remembrance of me”. He never says “do this for the forgiveness of sins” or “do this” for any reason other than “in remembrance of me”. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the supper is primarily a “perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death” as the London Baptist Confession states?"

The "in remembrance of me" clause in no way speaks to either stance really. It actually doesn't say anything about His presence in one way or the other. Is it to be done in remembrance of Christ as a bare memorial? Or is it a Real Presence where He comes to us to be done in remembrance? Either way is completely possible.

And actually, Christ does link the Holy Eucharist with the forgiveness of sins.

St. Matthew 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Christ says directly that the cup is the blood of the new covenant. The cup which He gave them, containing wine, is the blood of the new covenant. And it is poured out (the blood of the new covenant, the wine in the Eucharist) for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The cup which He gives them is the blood of Christ and is for the forgiveness of sins. That is what the text says.

"To conclude, the words of institution do not demand a literal understanding as is so often claimed. This is seen to be so in light of the facts concerning the nature of metaphors, the internal logic of the atonement, the grammar of the entire account of Christ’s words at the supper, and Christ’s own stated purpose for the observing of the ceremony. Surely, given all of this, the case is in reality such that a symbolic understanding of Christ’s words is the only really tenable understanding of the words; and the sacramentally literal understanding of Lutherans and others is in fact the one foreign to the text itself."

And hopefully I have shown that Mr. Clover's conclusion is faulty and that his critiques of the Lutheran stance of the Eucharist are based on faulty premises, are strawmen, and are illogical.

+Grace and Peace+