Does Westcott Present Unorthodox Views On The Lord's Supper?

Despite these stylistic choices, the commentary itself is moderately conservative in its conclusions. Westcott usually does not delve into absurd notions nor does he present unorthodox views. It must be noted, however, that Westcott was a rank member in the Anglican church. As such, his views occasionally coincide with their teachings. His views on the Lord’s Supper, for example, are common among Catholic and Protestant sources (Westcott 113-114). This view suggests that Jesus prophesied of the Lord’s Supper being instituted in John 6, and with it, the idea of Transubstantiation. This idea supposes that the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus as these elements are consumed. The Scriptures, however, show that these items are symbolic, not literal (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Interestingly, Westcott admits that Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood “cannot refer primarily to the Holy Communion” (Ibid).

He suggests that Jesus’ promise did not end with the apostles, but that it extended to other people present. Westcott makes the following claim: “There is nothing in the context, as has been seen, to shew that the gift was confined to any particular group (as the apostles) among the whole company present” (Ibid). Mr. Westcott fails to recognize that Jesus’ words are nearly parallel to His promise to the apostles of binding and loosing power (Matt. 18:18). Jesus’ point is not that the apostles could lay their hands on someone and forgive him: His point was that the apostles would provide the terms of pardon for mankind that could forgive its