"The Significance
of the Lord's Supper among Sixteenth Century Evangelical Anabaptists"
The
early Anabaptists roundly rejected the Catholic treatment of the Eucharist along
with its rituals, developing for themselves a unique and robust theology of the
Lord’s Supper. Modern Baptists can derive benefit from a careful study of these
Radical Reformer’s beliefs about communion and how it was observed. By
examining their reasons for rejecting Catholic traditions, studying their
understanding of the symbolism in the supper, determining who they allowed to
participate in the memorial meal, and discovering their perceptions of the
banquet’s purpose, the reader will come to a deeper understanding of the
communion of Christ.
The Corruption of the 16th Century Catholic Communion
The early Anabaptist
leaders were vehemently opposed to the observance of the Eucharist being offered
by the Roman Catholic Church at that time, denouncing it with colorful and incendiary
language.
Menno Simons, a
former Catholic priest who became the leader of the Dutch Anabaptists, called
it the devil’s table and an abomination made by anti-Christ. He accused the
priests of seeking worldly honor and criticized them for their hypocrisy, pomp
and idolatry, comparing their ritual to Israel’s worship of the golden calf.
[1]
Pilgrim Marpeck, a
civil engineer and Anabaptist leader, accused the Pope of knavery and said that
he represented the Antichrist. He called the Roman ritual of the supper
blasphemous, a gruesome idolatry and a monkeyshine. He felt that the whole
situation was scandalous and that the true meaning of communion had been perverted,
obfuscated, repressed and forgotten.
[2]
Conrad Grebel, one of
the Swiss Brethren, the first group to accept believer’s baptism, called the
mass antichristian priestly rites. He referred to it as adulterated false
doctrine, an actual idol and even apostasy.
[3]
Peter Riedemann, a
leader among the relentlessly persecuted Hutterites, called the Catholic
Eucharist idolatry and an abomination. He believed that the enemy (Satan) had
distorted the Lord’s Supper.
[4]
These re-baptizing
reformers were more instructive in their refutations of transubstantiation, the
Catholic teaching that when the elements of bread and wine are blessed by a
priest they are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Prior to
his trial, torture and martyrdom, Michael Sattler stated that because Jesus had
ascended into heaven and would not return until the final judgement, the bread
and wine were not the true flesh and blood of Christ.
[5]
Menno called it
heresy to treat the Eucharist as a means of grace and deliverance from death
and hell. He asserted that because Jesus is risen, he cannot be eaten, adding
that because Christ is incorruptible, he cannot be consumed. He complained that
because Jesus was sacrificed once for sin, they were attempting to sacrifice
him over and over.
[6]
In his “Form for the
Supper of Christ,”
another former Catholic
priest turned pastor/theologian, Dr. Balthasar Hubmaier stipulated that the
speaker should clearly say that the bread and wine are not flesh and blood.
[7]
Riedemann argued from
Acts 7:48 that because God does not live in temples made with human hands and
since bread is always made with human hands, Christ is not in the bread.
[8]
Also expanding the discussion to address
the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, the belief that the flesh and blood of
Christ are
in the bread and wine, Marpeck
cleverly insisted that since Jesus was seated at the table with his disciples,
the bread and wine did not contain his flesh and blood. He used John 16:25 to
point to a time
after the institution
of the supper when Jesus reminded the disciples how he had been speaking to
them in proverbs and parables, but would now speak plainly. Pilgrim reasoned
that Jesus had been speaking in such a way at the table and that this supported
a metaphorical or memorial view of the meal taught by Christ at His last supper
with the disciples.
[9]
An important aspect
of the Anabaptist understanding of the meaning in the Lord’s Supper comes from
the words of Jesus, recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. They used a
reading similar to that found later in the King James Version which reads in
part: “Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. This do in
remembrance of me…This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye as oft
as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[10] Most
modern translations do not contain the word
broken,
but it was an integral part of Anabaptist theology which was drawn from a
reading consistent with the majority of ancient manuscripts. Some raise
concerns about the prophecy of Psalm 34:20 that none of Christ’s bones would be
broken. John 19:36 demonstrates that this prophecy did indeed come true. But it
is also true that Jesus’ physical body was beaten and broken to the point of
death, as Isaiah 53:5 prophesied, saying He would be pierced, crushed, punished
and wounded with stripes, which gives credence to the Anabaptist position. In “The
Scheitheim Confession,”
Michael
Sattler stated that the church should share one bread in remembrance of the
broken body of Christ and one drink in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ.
[11]
Hubmaier encouraged
that explanation of the Scriptures accompany the eating of the meal,
specifically proclaiming Jesus’ death and suffering. He taught that viewing the
elements as anything other than a memorial did violence to the articles of the
Christian faith.
[12] Grebel
wrote that the supper was not a sacrament, but a sign of fellowship meant to remind
believers of the covenant of the cross.
[13]
Marpeck preferred to use the word communion instead of sacrament to avoid
confusion about the nature of the event. He observed it as an evening meal of
bread and wine in which he encouraged others to consider with reverence and
thankfulness that Jesus lost his life for the forgiveness of sins. Like
Sattler, he stressed eating from one bread and drinking from one cup in memory
of Christ and proclaiming his death. He also placed importance on the broken
state of Jesus’ body. He considered correct communion, along with correct
baptism and proclaiming the Gospel, to be one of three essential elements of
the true church. He believed the Lord’s Supper brought refreshment,
strengthening and solace to the soul.
[14]
Menno directly
related the memorial nature of the Passover to the memorial nature of the Holy
Supper. He portrayed Jesus as the spotless, sacrificial lamb, acknowledging the
substitutionary nature of the atonement, mentioning the broken body of Christ
and the ardent love he displayed through his death. Menno demonstrates that
most Anabaptists did not view communion as a
mere memorial. He cited Matthew 18:20 to show that where people
were gathered in the name of Jesus, His Spirit was present with them. He said “It
is a heavenly power, a living, moving of the Holy Ghost, which warms the heart
and mind of the believers, pervades, comforts, anoints, encourages, awakens and
enlivens them, makes them joyful and happy in God. For this is the true nature
and power of the Lord’s word, if it be rightly preached, and of his Holy
Sacraments, if rightly used.”
[15]
Dirk Phillips, who
became the leader of the Mennonites after the death of his friend Menno, also
held to the supper as a memorial and more. He believed that the elements of
communion must be understood spiritually. He expounded from John 6:33 that
Jesus is the living bread and he demonstrated from Isaiah 55:1 that His Word is
the pure wine. Explaining that eating often signifies believing in the Bible,
he preached that the true bread of heaven is God’s Word and that believers are
fed with that bread. Like Menno, Dirk also went beyond the concept of a
memorial, teaching that participation in the meal refreshed the soul and made
one joyful in the Holy Spirit.
[16]
Who May Eat Of the Lord’s Table?
Riedemann wrote that
before taking communion people should examine themselves to make sure they are
true members of Christ.
[17]
Menno also encouraged self-examination. He harshly criticized the Catholic Church
for opening communion to all people including adulterers, gays, idolaters,
drunkards and others whom he felt did not meet the Biblical qualifications to
be guests at the Lord’s Table. He insisted that communion was only for truly
believing Christians who had been born of God. In addition to explaining the
Scriptures, he offered a chance to respond prior to partaking in the meal.
[18]
Hubmaier prescribed
the confession of sins and offered a formulaic prayer of forgiveness. He
provided an opportunity to ask questions about essential matters. Also an
advocate of self-examination, he admonished the people to think about whether
they truly believed and were grateful, hungering for bread from heaven and had
the desire to care for their neighbor. Drawing from 1 Corinthians 11:29 which
warns about eating the supper unworthily, he compared falsely eating the supper
to Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit which brought death. He only allowed
baptized believers to participate in the meal writing that “as faith precedes
love, water baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper.
”[19]
Marpeck described the
supper as a gathering of Christian believers and warned that damnation would
result from eating and drinking by unbelievers. He taught that the Lord’s
Supper was for the church which was made up of believers who had been brought
together by baptism. He went so far as to teach that one of the two main
functions of communion was to cut off and ban unbelievers, separating
themselves from evil. This was pre-requisite to the other main function of the
meal in Marpeck’s theology which was to hold the church together, uniting them
in faith and in love.
[20]
The Purpose
of Unity in the Body of Christ
Sattler wrote that “whoever
has not been called by God to one faith, to one Baptism, to one Spirit, to one
body, with all the children of God’s church cannot be made [into] one bread
with them
.”[21]
One of the most fascinating aspects to the Anabaptist theology of the
supper is their treatment of the symbolism in 1 Corinthians 10:17: “For we
being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one
bread.”
[22] Simons, Riedemann, and Phillips all
share an interesting expositional idea of this verse with another Hutterite
leader, Claus Felbinger, who states it beautifully and succinctly: “As natural
bread is composed by the coming together of many grains, ground under the
millstones…and wine is composed of many grapes, each sharing its juice with the
rest in the wine press, so that they become one drink. Even so are we also, in
that we become completely one nature with Him, in life and in death, and are all
one in Christ.”
[23]
Riedemann treated the
meal as a sign of the community of Christ’s body. Using the picture of grain
scattered about, he emphasized that people are scattered and divided with
different ideas, but are led together by faith and united into the body of
Christ.
[24]
Menno emphasized
faith, love peace and unity in the supper. Like different grains, he pointed
out that the church consists of many believers brought together by God’s word.
He accentuated the importance of service, acting in love toward one another,
being friendly, long-suffering and peaceful. For Menno the supper was a
Christian banquet where true believers experienced harmony in the presence of
God.
[25]
His friend Dirk also emphasized harmony and the fellowship of the meal. He
pointed out that unity comes from the Spirit.
[26]
Modern Mennonites still draw from these examples, using the parable of the
grains and citing the “Didache
,” a
book of ancient Christian teaching from about 100 A.D. which indicates that at
that time the Lord’s Supper and the Love Feast were one and the same.
[27]
Dr. Hubmaier also realized
the importance of exhibiting an attitude of love and thanksgiving in the
supper. He promoted brotherly love and the fellowship of the saints through
eating the meal together. He included a pledge of love to be recited before
eating together which expressed love to God and included reminders to love
one’s neighbor and practice fraternal admonition. Like the others, he also
taught that believers become one loaf and one body through the supper.
[28]
Even Ulrich Zwingli,
the magisterial former mentor of the Swiss Brethren, who is often credited with
creating a
mere memorial view of the
meal, wrote that it was an intimate union of the body and a symbol of that
union.
[29]
His former mentee, Conrad Grebel, called it a supper of fellowship. He believed
the words spoken during communion were words of unity, not consecration. He
wrote that the meal should be eaten with joy if faith and brotherly love are
present, agreeing that the church becomes one loaf. He added that if a person
ate the supper but did not intend to live in a brotherly way, then that person
ate condemnation.
[30]
Marpeck also taught
that those who eat the bread become one body. He called the gathering an
assembly of love, a time of fellowship that builds a bond of love and a lovely
Christian meal. He taught that believers should be consoled and delighted
during the event. He echoed another important Anabaptist belief that the supper
was a time for people to get right with God and be reconciled with other
believers, calling it a fellowship of love.
[31]
Unity was a major
theme and purpose for the Lord’s Supper in Anabaptist belief which, along with
many other aspects of their rich theology, made it into their hymns. Matthew 26:30
records that after the last supper was eaten, Jesus and His disciples sang a
hymn and then departed. The Anabaptists also wrote and sang hymns of communion,
sometimes using familiar melodies from the Eucharist and re-writing them with
better theology. They sang about baptism and the Holy Spirit’s role in bringing
the church together. They remembered the connection to Passover and sang of
Jesus as the Lamb. They warned of hypocrisy, invited others to join the body of
Christ and sang about opening their hearts to Him. This verse beautifully
expresses the theme of unity found in these hymns: “Just as one bread from many
kernels, and one drink from many berries, so all true Christians, are one bread
and one drink, without deceit or duplicity, in Christ the Lord. He nourishes
us, multiplying true love and communion
.”[32]
The Lord’s Supper was
a vibrant and vital part of Anabaptist church life. Modern Anabaptists still
consider it to be a profound and formative symbol.
[33]
The early Anabaptists took the meal in homes and observed it in worship
gatherings, but their primary focus was not on where it was taken or how the
elements were offered, but rather on the meaning and purpose of the gathering.
By rejecting the man-made traditions of the established church, they were able to
come to more Biblical convictions about the supper of Christ and its meaning.
Rather than adopting the sometimes harsh rhetoric of the radical reformers in their denunciation of the old practices, modern believers would do well to note the apologetic tone of Conrad
Grebel’s letter to Thomas Muntzer which was at the same time brotherly, corrective and
appealing in tone.
Embracing a memorial
view of the supper, they restored a solemn remembrance of the work of Jesus Christ,
proclaiming His suffering and death for the forgiveness of sins. Even in their zeal
to protect the table, many of them provided an opportunity to hear the Gospel
and respond prior to participating in the meal.
The early Anabaptists
were not shy about correcting one another. In fact, brotherly confrontation and
correction were not considered divisive actions, but were an important aspect
of their observance of communion, intended to protect unity by separating from
unbelievers and drawing wayward brothers and sisters to repentance. They
promoted the practices of self-examination, repentance and reconciliation. By
only allowing baptized believers to participate, the supper was reclaimed as a unifying
meal to comfort the followers of Jesus. While they did promote self-examination
prior to eating the meal, they also encouraged a time of thinking about others
and attempting reconciliation. First, they focused inward, getting right with
God. Then they focused outward, getting right with each other. They could
rejoice in the fellowship and unity that comes through the Holy Spirit when the
true church is gathered together.
The Anabaptist
commitment to serving a Biblical communion meal led to a gathering filled with
purpose. They restored the reverence, remembrance, fellowship, joy and unity of
the Lord’s Supper to His church in their time. Learning from their example can enrich
the observance of communion for His church today.
