Question From the Girl Next Door: What's Your Take On Communion?

The neighbor kids have grown up.  
 
As a younger man I used to see them playing with cap guns and doll babies in the back yard but those days are gone.  I reckon that the days are soon coming (if not already here) when those grown children will have houses of their own and thereby neighbors of their own to befriend.  And I sincerely hope that when they do they will appreciate and enjoy their neighbors as much as I did all those years ago when I was a younger man and they were the little children who used to shout their greetings to me over the back fence. 
 
One of those grown neighbor children (the one that played with the dolls) has gone on to serve the Lord on the mission field and we pray for her regularly.  Corresponding online in recent days she asked me a question about Holy Communion but my answer was far too long to post on a social media platform.  It is, therefore, posted here where a long-winded, old neighbor-turned pastor, who is all too eager to provide lengthy theological answers on the feeblest of provocations, will not not be hemmed in by the constrains of less generous online platforms.
 
I thank her sincerely for giving me the opportunity to answer such an important question.  Lord knows, she probably could have gotten a better answer from own dad, a faithful pastor in his own right and a man with much more wisdom and experience than me.  The relevant portion of her question is below:
 
QUESTION:
I ...believe that when Jesus said, “Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (he was) being symbolic... not literally drinking His blood or eating His body rather saying that we need to take communion in remembrance for what he is about to do for us and to remind ourselves to sacrifice as well. What’s your take on it?
 
RESPONSE:
This is a really great question and I’ll answer it as best as I can. I only ask that you will “hear” my response generously. Some might suggest it sounds far too “Roman Catholic” (though I assure you I have very little sympathy for the Roman Catholic understanding of Holy Communion.)  Even so a simple investigation of the points raised will clearly show that my answer is well within the confines of the historic Protestant and Christian understanding of the sacrament. 
 
Allow me to answer your question in three parts:  

1.   Do we take Holy Communion “in remembrance of Christ,” as you stated?  

The answer is “yes.”  But that is not the full answer.  Allow me to explain,  the view of HC that you have articulated (that of it being ONLY a remembrance service) is called the “Zwinglian” view.  It is held by many Protestants, including perhaps all evangelicals, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, etc.  Its name is derived from the theologian who developed it in the 16th century, he was Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss reformer.  In his view (and yours, if I understood what you stated above) the Lord’s Supper is merely a memorial service – a kind of punctuated, corporate remembrance of the cross – something Christians do to remember their Lord.  Now of course, this is true – Christ said “Do this in remembrance of me” – but it is not complete, as I’ll explain in a minute, and it might even be a little dangerous.  To my mind the potential danger that accompanies the Zwinglian view  is summed up thus: The Christian reasons that “since the sacrament is merely a ‘memorial service,’ the sacrament is something I do for Jesus.”  You see the danger?  We are not saved, let alone sustained in the Christian life by “doing things for Jesus.”  It’s actually the exact opposite. We are saved and sustained because Jesus has done something for us...  and (I would hasten to add) because He continues to do something for us at the Lord’s Table as I’ll explain in the next point.   

2.     What does the Bible actually say about Holy Communion and what, if anything, does it actually do? 

Think of how the Bible presents the institution of HC.  Even a cursory reading of the accounts in Matthew, Mark, & Luke, or of 1 Corinthians 11, shows us very clearly that Christ was, in fact, the main actor in all that was taking place.  This is a very important point to come to grips with.  It is for this reason that even in John’s account of the Last Supper (John 13) we see the Lord of glory stooping low to take up a basin of water and a rag so as to wash the feet of His followers.  That action on His part was illustrative of all that would follow – even down to the present day in the sacrament.  He serves His disciples at the table.  The Lord takes bread, breaks it and says “this is my body broken for you.”  The Lord takes the cup and says “this is the cup of the New Covenant in My blood.”  What we clearly see here is that HE is the one humbly serving His followers.  HE is the primary actor.  HE is the initiator.  HE, since the night it was instituted, has been the One at the table who is doing all the doing (so to speak.)  And I believe that this is still what takes place when the Sacrament is administered... 
 
So... the question becomes what is it that He is actually doing for us in the Lord’s Supper?  Well, to answer that we must consider the Lord’s own words.  In distributing the elements of bread and wine He speaks of that which is “given” and “shed for you” (hold on to your hat!!!) FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.  (go ahead...  reread the last 5 words and think them through very carefully...)
 
Now, I know it runs contrary to what many Protestants believe today, but if we take the Lord at His word (and we must) then we can only conclude that in HC the forgiveness of sins and life and salvation are – in some way – offered and actually given to the Christian by Christ Himself.  I can see no other meaning in His words.  They are very plain.  And a good rule of thumb for the interpreter of scripture is “when the plain sense makes the best sense seek no other sense lest it become nonsense.  

3.   Is the Lord merely being symbolic when He says of the elements, “this is my body & blood.” 
​
Well, let me ask you a provocative question:  Apart from what others have told you, why would you assume it’s symbolic?
 
Here’s a test:  If we were to set aside all of our biases and presuppositions about HC and were to simply read the Lord’s own words..  do you suppose we would conclude that the whole thing was symbolic?
 
Or think of it this way:  If you or I had never heard of Christianity until one day when we suddenly found ourselves at a Communion service, hearing the pastor read the words of Jesus, “This is my body.  This is my Blood” do you reckon we would conclude that these were merely poetical statements as opposed to being statements of fact?
 
I don’t imagine we would conclude that the whole thing was symbolic.  Nor do I believe that we could conclude that the Lord was speaking in poems.  Simply put, I believe that we would readily understand what He meant.  I believe that His words – though strange to our ears – would certainly be clear to us in their meaning...  Simply put, we would conclude, this really is His body and this really is His blood.
 
But of course the question at this point is “how?”  Because when we come to the realm of the senses we can clearly see that the bread has not transformed into human flesh and the wine has not transformed into human blood... so what are we to make of this?
 
The best answer I can give is this – that while, to my mind at least, it is a mystery how it happens, nevertheless it does happen.  That is to say that at the Lord’s table the Christian is being offered the true body and blood of the Lord to eat and drink.  Again, by “true body” I am not claiming some sort of crass literalism – a cannibalistic feast of flesh and blood – but I am saying – and without reservation – that in HC Christ is truly present. Martin Luther talked about the body and blood of the Lord being “under” the bread and wine, if this helps you better understand my meaning, and I think Luther was, on the whole, correct.  
 
Therefore, I think we should beware of banishing the elements of HC to the realm of mere symbolism.  There is something much more in them. We know this because the Lord explicitly tells us as much. But note what He doesn’t say: He doesn’t say that when the Christian comes to the table he comes to mere symbols of his redemption...  Instead He says clearly that when the Christian comes to the table he comes to the Redeemer Himself. 
 
 
In conclusion it seems that there is still one more thing to answer.  You were asking if HC was given to remind us (in part) of the need for personal sacrifice.  Yes, I think there is definitely some truth to that in a Romans 12:1 sort of way.  As we come to the Lord’s Table, we should humbly resolve to deny ourselves, to crucify the sin that is within us, to resist the devil, and to follow Christ as becomes those who bear His name.  We should come conscious of the fact that in the sacrament, by the Holy Spirit and through faith, the crucified, resurrected, exalted Christ gives Himself to us that we may be strengthened in our warfare against sin and in our endeavors to serve Him in holiness as living sacrifices.   
 
I hope all this helps answer your question and while I apologize for the length of this response I felt it was necessary to be as detailed and precise as I could given the importance of what you asked.  If the information is too lengthy and overwhelming feel free to read it and think over it in bits and pieces. 
 
Yours,
R Crabtree