The Lord's Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes (New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology)

Schreiner, Thomas R. and Matthew R. Crawford, editors. The Lord's Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes. Volume 10 of NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010. 413 pp. $24.99.At only a few pages shy of four-hundred pages of written text, the book covers a significant amount of territory related to the Lord’s Supper. Because of the vast amount of essays, the review below, in order to meaningfully cover the book’s more notable aspects, will be somewhat selective in its evaluation of essays. The entire book will be noted and reviewed, but specific chapters and topics will be more carefully noted. Further, since the book is an anthology, it is spatially difficult to remark upon the achievements of each contributing author and their academic expertise warranting their input on the subject. The reader of the book is encouraged to note each author’s credentials which are noted at the beginning of each essay. The volume is noteworthy overall, like so many in the NAC Studies in Bible & Theology series, and merits the attention of any reader interested in generalized expertise in both biblical and theological discussions of the Lord’s Supper.Summary with Evaluative RemarksAndreas J. Köstenberger writes the first essay “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?” (6-30). There is a significant amount of ground covered in his essay since a few critics (including Scot McKnight, 9 n.7) have written against the meal’s paschal nature, but Köstenberger does a fine job managing the data. One needless complication in his chapter is an issue Köstenberger feels is “at stake” in the debate (8), and that is the doctrine of inerrancy, since the Synoptic Gospels and John have a somewhat discordant chronology. When it is understood that John favors paschal theology over chronology (John 1:29; Rev 5:12), the issue does not nearly press itself as some might feel, and this is the opinion of several conservative New Testament scholars, including Craig S. Keener and Darrell L. Bock. In pages 9-17 Köstenberger provides the common arguments given against a paschal understanding of the Supper but provides firm rebuttals. Here the influential work of Joachim Jeremias’ work is extensively noted, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. What is particularly noteworthy about Köstenberger’s essay, however, is what comes next in his final section discussing evidence favoring a paschal reading. Extensive use of Rabbinic material is marshalled, and here Köstenberger’s impressive research and careful writing and logic really shine.Jonathan T. Pennington’s essay “The Lord’s Last Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels” (31-67) also covers a lot of ground. Pennington treats the Last Supper account holistically based on each Gospel’s presentation, including the far too often neglected Johannine Gospel. After briefly surveying all four Gospels, including recent scholarship (31-41), Pennington provides a positively remarkable account of common themes (or “nodes of meaning,” 43) among them, including: (a) the Passover as an enacted parable of Jesus’ coming sacrificial death; (b) the fulfillment of the Passover festival and the new exodus; (c) the inauguration of the new covenant; (d) the Supper as a community forming event; and lastly (e) the Supper as a marker of the coming eschatological banquet (42-58). Pages 58-65 further elaborate on each Gospel’s distinctive voice.The third essay (of thirteen), “The Lord’s Supper in Paul: An Identity-Forming Proclamation of the Gospel,” is by James M. Hamilton Jr. (68-102). He begins by noting the contextualizing 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 in light of the entire epistle (69-76), and from here he moves to his central thesis that the Lord’s Supper has an identity-shaping nature (77-100). In a church torn by factionalism Paul presents the Lord’s Supper as a fellowship in the body of the Savior, which is a sharing in the redemptive work of Christ. Hamilton’s essay rightly emphasizes the corporate nature of engaging in the Lord’s Supper and critically draws out the pastoral theology of Paul in his historical dealings with the ethically and theologically misguided Corinthians.Essays six, seven, eight, and nine are taken together since they treat, respectively, the theology of the Last Supper in Roman Catholicism (Gregg R. Allison, 151-92), Martin Luther (Matthew R. Crawford, 193-228), Ulrich Zwingli (Bruce A. Ware, 229-247), and traditional Reformed theology, namely John Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith (Shawn D. Wright, 248-84). The repristination of church history and theology throughout this period is wonderfully accomplished. Though working independently, each author manages to create a unified discussion covering the full spectrum of the Lord’s Supper theology in both medieval Catholicism and the Reformation periods. Despite the volume’s Baptist perspective (as Thomas Schreiner notes in the Epilogue, 391), the care to present each tradition’s theology in non-polemical ways allows the reader to understand more readily the importance of the discussion as it unfolded historically, and also invites the trust of careful readers evaluating not just what is discussed but how it is discussed.The controversy essentially centers on whether the elements are understood to be the real body and blood of Christ, or rather seen as a sign which only signify the body and blood of Christ. The Roman Catholic church espouses a realistic understanding (180-1). The church also administers grace through the sacraments, and this can be observed from the manner in which the sacrament itself is conducted, with the priest first receiving the sacrament before offering it to the church (152-5). The priest functions as Christ, the great high priest (158). Concerning the elements, Catholic teaching explicitly states: “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in them (160). The elements are the ‘substance’ of Christ (‘substance’ is taken in the technical, Aristotelian sense, 168), and this is so by means of transubstantiation (160). Augustine built upon Aristotelian philosophical notions and sacramental theology was forever wed to Roman Catholic dogma; specifically in understanding the sacraments as “communicating grace ex opera operato – literally, by the work performed” (166). Further, the sacraments are necessary for salvation (160). In the closing evaluation, Allison objects that the sacraments are simply symbolic of the real person and work of Christ, not the body and blood in reality (182). Overall, the essay, while being confusingly arranged, mainly discusses earlier Catholic theology, making much of Augustine and the Council of Trent, though the author acknowledges this to a degree (176-7).Luther, while resolutely objecting to the whole sacramental system in Catholicism, since the sacraments were said to merit grace, nevertheless maintained a realistic view of Christ’s presence in the elements. But he despised the idea that Christ was sacrificed anew in each eucharistic celebration (199). He also notably focuses on the importance of faith (195-9, 201-2). Luther adamantly stood by the reality of Christ in the elements, which subsequent theologians identified as “consubstantiation” (209). While Luther had done much to counter Roman Catholic errors, he would not concede to his Reformed interlocuters, specifically Zwingli, in his understanding of the elements (210-19). Crawford’s evaluation helpfully points out Luther’s error in exegeting Last Supper texts in Scripture, noting as unfounded his literal emphasis (219-228).Ware’s essay on Zwingli is fluidly written and critically clear. Zwingli was a Genevan Reformer who understood the Lord’s Supper primarily as a memorial meal (230-2). Zwingli also spoke of Christ’s “spiritual presence” in the elements (240-3), something he shared with Calvin. Ware’s closing evaluation is excellent in summarizing Zwingli, particularly his controversy with Luther at Marburg (244-7).The Reformed Tradition essay by Wright includes reflections on both Calvin and the Westminster Confession. The Reformed tradition understands, surprisingly, the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace while at the same time denying Roman Catholic ex opera operato notions (255-6). Calvin equivocates some in his theology and Wright picks up on this when he quotes him as saying, “when we have received the symbol of the body, let us no less surely trust that the body itself is also given to us” (267). Is it a symbol or the real thing? Ultimately, Calvin understands the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements as a “mysterious work of the Holy Spirit” (268; 267-71). Wright’s analysis of Calvin in the closing evaluation helpfully appropriates Baptist theology and creeds, noting how Baptists have distanced themselves from Westminster on the point of sacraments (279). Surprisingly, this was the first essay in the book to address the Lord’s Supper with respect to Baptist teaching.Gregory A Wills’ essay, “Sounds from Baptist Theology,” focuses almost exclusively on closed and open communion (285-312). This is unfortunate sense he pens the essay on Baptist theology. No confessions or significant Baptist theologians are regarded. Brian J. Vickers pens the essay “The Lord’s Supper: Celebrating the Past and Future in the Present” (313-40). Vickers focuses on memory and memorialism in Old Testament festivals, chiefly the Passover. Gregory Alan Thornbury writes the essay “The Lord’s Supper and Works of Love” (341-63), noting some very sober thoughts concerning the outlook for Baptist tradition (358f). The final essay of Ray Van Neste continues with the closing thoughts of Thornbury by discussing “how we practice this ordinance in the local church,” and suggests “some ways to improve our practice” (364-90). Neste’s essay is titled “The Lord’s Supper in the Context of the Local Church.” Many of his points are sobering and call attention to the high-church traditions’ power to compel Baptists away from their sound theological roots, a point that Thornbury also raised.ConclusionAs a Baptist book on the subject, the lack of a specific Baptist theological understanding of the Last Supper is a cause for some disappointment, particularly when there are so many excellent Baptist theologians to involve, such as Carl F. H. Henry, Donald A. Carson, Millard Erickson, etc. Overall, the work of the contributors is excellent and the writing is almost always very compelling.

Every church leader and member will benefit from reading through this marvelous resource. The contributors do not all agree on everything, and I do not agree with some of the conclusions either, but the survey of biblical texts, historical views, theological realities, and pastoral applications is fantastic.Read what’s here, consider the validity of the claims, and then develop and solidify your own convictions… but whatever you do, think more deeply about the Lord’s Supper. This book will certainly help you do that.

Great book.

A comprehensive survey of biblical text and history of doctrine. A practical note how to apply all implications of Communion in a local church. From a Baptist perspective, but also include and review other traditions (Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran).

What a book! I highly recommend this as to anyone who is interested in knowing why we practice Communion. The chapters by Gregory Wills and Ray van Neste were worth the price of the book; add in the rest of the essays and you have an excellent, readable, scholarly explanation of the Baptistic understanding of the Lord's Supper.

Very good book on the history and theology of the Lord's Supper.

Great over view from a Conservative Baptistic perspective.

Excellent collection of essays. Deals well with both the theological and practical questions of the Lord's Supper. Well worth the cost.

Ich habe mit viel Freude dieses Buch gelesen und viel davon gelehrnt. Mit Namen wie in der Baptistenkirche die Abendmahlspraxis ist.