Introduction: A second ordinance that must be observed by the church is the Lord’s Table (or the Lord’s Supper). Unlike baptism, which is observed once following conversion, the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated repeatedly throughout the Christian life.
Background and Practice
On the night before his death, the Lord Jesus celebrated a final Passover meal with his disciples and instituted what came to be known as the Lord’s Supper, or Communion (Matt. 26:26–29).
The observance of Communion was practiced by the church from its inception on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:42). The early church also developed congregational meals that came to be known as love feasts (Jude 12), which were associated with the Lord’s Supper. These meals were designed to foster fellowship and mutual care among the members of the church. But some used these meals as an opportunity to show partiality and engage in drunkenness (1 Cor. 11:18, 21; cf. 2 Pet. 2:13). When they connected such behavior to the Lord’s Supper, they desecrated the holy ordinance (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27–32).
Though believers ought to pursue holiness at all times (1 Pet. 1:15–17), the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an occasion when they ought to carefully examine their hearts, confessing and repenting from any known sin before the Lord. Those who participate in Communion without repenting of known sin profane the celebration and invite the chastisement of God (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–26).
Views on the Meaning of Communion
Jesus’s repeated instruction, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), indicates that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not optional. It should be observed routinely, and prolonged failure to do so constitutes a sin. Jesus instituted his Supper as a perpetual memorial for his followers so that they might repeatedly reflect on the eternal significance of his death. When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they commune with the risen Christ, who indwells them and is spiritually present with his people (1 Cor. 10:16).
The bread and cup are symbols, chosen by the Lord himself to signify and memorialize his atoning death. To celebrate Communion is not to offer a new sacrifice; rather, it is to rejoice in the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:10; Heb. 9:26–28; 1 Pet. 3:18).
There are four major views of the Lord’s Table. The Roman Catholic view (transubstantiation) purports that the substance of the elements is transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ at the moment of the priest’s blessing; hence the act is regarded as an actual sacrifice. However, this view fails to recognize the symbolic significance of Christ’s statements “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26–28). When Jesus said things like “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35), “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), “I am the door” (John 10:9), “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11), and “I am the vine” (John 15:1), his hearers would have understood these words to be metaphorical expressions to illustrate the truth of his person and mission in profound ways. They are not to be understood in woodenly literalistic terms. So too with his words “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Also, the notion of Christ’s death on the cross as a repeated or ongoing sacrifice undermines the reality that it was a once-for-all sacrifice (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 9:28; 10:10; 1 Pet. 3:18), fully completed at Calvary (John 19:30).
Though Martin Luther rejected the Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation, he nonetheless maintained that Christ’s body and blood are really present “in, with, and under” the Communion elements. This view is called consubstantiation or real presence. Luther’s insistence on the “real presence” of Christ continued to ignore the symbolic nature of Jesus’s statements.
Other Reformers such as Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin distanced themselves from the Roman Catholic position further than Luther did. For Zwingli, the Lord’s Table was primarily a memorial celebration that commemorated the work of Christ on the cross, as indicted by his words “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24–25). Zwingli’s position influenced the Reformed tradition and was adopted by many Anabaptist groups. John Calvin taught that, although Christ is not physically present in the celebration of Communion, he is nonetheless spiritually present. However, his views did not necessarily exclude those of Zwingli. Accordingly, when Calvin met with Heinrich Bullinger (Zwingli’s successor in Zurich) in 1549, the two agreed that their views regarding the nature of Communion were generally compatible.
While it is not wrong to speak of the Lord Jesus being spiritually present with his people when they celebrate Communion, since he is spiritually present with believers all the time (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5), to speak of his spiritual presence at the Lord’s Supper seems rather vague, and, if understood mystically, is unhelpful.
The Lord’s Table is best understood as a memorial celebration intended to commemorate Jesus’s substitutionary sacrifice (symbolized by the elements of the bread and the cup); to remind believers of the historical truths of the gospel, including Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension; to prompt believers to repent of any known sin and to cause them to rejoice in their redemption from sin and in their saving union with Christ; to motivate them to continue walking in loving obedience to the Lord; and finally to rekindle their hope in his imminent return (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26; Matt, 26:29; Mark 14:25).[1]
[1] MacArthur, J., ed. (2021). Essential Christian Doctrine: A Handbook on Biblical Truth (pp. 411–413). Crossway.
Why is there so much disagreement about holy communion?
Holy communion or the Lord’s Supper (also known in some churches as the Lord’s Table or the Eucharist) is a source of significant disagreement within the church as a whole. What’s agreed upon is found clearly in Scripture: communion was instituted by Jesus during His last supper with His disciples. During that time, He served them bread and “the cup.” He told them that these elements were His body and blood (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24). He also instructed them to repeat the ceremony in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).
Disagreements over holy communion stem from many questions: Was Jesus speaking of His body and blood figuratively or literally, or were His words a mystical combination of the figurative and literal? How often is the church to observe communion? Is the Eucharist a means of grace or simply a memorial? What was in the cup—fermented wine or unfermented grape juice?
Because Jesus did not give specific, step-by-step instructions regarding the ritual, naturally, there is some conflict about the hows and wheres and whens, and what exactly the bread and wine represent. There are arguments about whether or not the elements actually become the blood and body of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), whether they somehow contain His Spirit (Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation), or whether the wine and bread are simply symbols of His body and blood. There are differing opinions about the liturgy that should be spoken and whether or not confession should be part of the ritual. Denominations differ on the frequency of the communion, how it should be performed, and by whom.
There are four biblical accounts of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples, three in the Synoptic Gospels and one in 1 Corinthians 11:23–34. When we look at these accounts in combination, we know the following:
1. During the Passover meal, Jesus blessed, broke, and offered bread to His disciples, saying, “Take eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
2. He also passed around a cup, telling them to divide it among them: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” He also instructed all of them to drink it.
3. It was during this last meal that Jesus mentions that one of His disciples would betray Him.
4. Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it anew with His followers in the Father’s kingdom.
As He instituted the Lord’s Supper, Jesus was focused on the spiritual relationship between Himself and His disciples. He did not provide particulars of how or when or where or by whom the elements should be served, and, therefore, different churches have some freedom to decide those details for themselves. For example, whether a church observes communion once a week or once a month is not really important.
However, other disagreements over communion are theologically significant. For example, if partaking of the Lord’s Table is necessary in order to receive grace, then grace is not really free and must be earned by deeds we perform, in contradiction of Titus 3:5. And, if the bread is actually the body of Christ, then the Lord is being sacrificed again and again, in contradiction of Romans 6:9–10. These matters are significant enough to have divided the church through the years and actually became an issue of contention during the Protestant Reformation.
Understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9) and considering Jesus’ words concerning the elements of communion to be figurative, we focus on the beauty of the new covenant (Matthew 26:28) brought into effect by Jesus’ own blood. We remember His sacrifice for us as often as we partake of the Lord’s Table (Luke 22:19). And we look forward to once again sharing the cup with Christ in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).
Why is there so much disagreement about holy communion? | GotQuestions.org
Four Views on the Lord’s Supper: The Symbolic View
“IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”
Walk into a typical Protestant church building in the English-speaking world, and it is not unlikely that you will find a table engraved with these words of our Savior taken from Luke 22:19 (and quoted by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24). They come from the slightly longer statement, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” otherwise known as the “words of institution” for the Church’s regular observance of the Lord’s Supper.
By the statement above, Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as one of two sacraments to be observed in His Church until He returns. In other words, this is an important statement. As such, it occupies a central place in shaping our understanding of the nature of the sacrament (and sacraments in general).
It is also prone to misunderstanding.
Standing on its own, this statement might be read so as to suggest that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is entirely symbolic in nature. Whereas other views of the Lord’s Supper affirm the real presence of Christ in one sense or another, what we are calling here the symbolic view1 of the Lord’s Supper defines the sacrament as only a memorial or commemoration of Christ’s sin-atoning death for the salvation of His people.
Indeed, the Lord’s Supper does correspond to the Passover, or Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was “a memorial” for God’s Old Covenant people to celebrate “throughout [their] generations” (Exod. 12:14). In eating the bread and drinking the wine, we do commemorate Christ’s death until He comes again to judge the living and the dead. The commemoration is both celebratory and instructional for us and for our children. As a memorial of what Christ did on our behalf, it is formative and strengthening to our faith. But is that all that the Lord’s Supper is as Christ’s appointed sacramental meal for the Church?
This view is widely held today among Anabaptists, Baptists, and Pentecostals. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Faith and Message 2000 includes this description of the sacrament: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”2 Likewise, the 1527 Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession of Faith opens its teaching on the Lord’s Supper with the words, “All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ.”3
In the past, it enjoyed general popularity with both the Arminian Remonstrants and anti-Trinitarian Socinians during the time of the Reformation. The Socinian Racovian Catechism (originally published in Poland in 1605) contends that the “rite of breaking bread” is to be done after Christ’s institution “with the view of commemorating him, or of showing forth his death.”4 But this restricted definition of the Lord’s Supper as symbolic—imposed both by sincere Christians and by heretics—is woefully incomplete.
While it is true that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal, it is much more than that. To take Christ’s statement—“do this in remembrance of Me”—out of its greater biblical and doctrinal context is to distort the text into a pretext for an anemic understanding of the Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a means of divine grace. No mere ceremony, it is a family meal which Christians enjoy together with God in which they feast upon Christ the (Passover) “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). By this meal we feast on Christ’s body and blood as He is spiritually present in the Supper and received through faith. This is what Christ meant when He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53). By this ordinary means of divine grace, believers are spiritually nourished, strengthened, and assured in their earthly pilgrimage to the great wedding supper of the Lamb.
To the memorialist, we ask with the Apostle, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Thus, the stakes are high. As Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth, “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly” (1 Cor. 11:28-29).
In contrast to the memorialist confessions, catechisms, and statements of faith produced since the Reformation, we do well to present the following paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses” (WCF 29.7).
Zachary Groff (MDiv, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) is Pastor of Antioch Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Woodruff, SC, and he serves as Managing Editor of The Confessional Journal and as Editor-in-Chief of the Presbyterian Polity website.
- This position is frequently referred to as memorialism, the memorialist view, or the memorialist understanding of the Lord’s Supper. ↩︎
- “Article VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” Baptist Faith and Message 2000, https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/ ↩︎
- Qtd. in William R. Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 200. ↩︎
- Trans. Thomas Rees, The Racovian Catechism, with Notes and Illustrations, Translated from the Latin (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster Row, 1818) p. 263 ↩︎
Four Views on the Lord’s Supper: Consubstantiation
Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper are spiritually the flesh and blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from transubstantiation, in which the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of that church, while consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation. Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is “with, in, and under” the bread and wine, but is not literally the bread and wine.
Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the church so it could return to its roots. Luther learned all about the doctrine of transubstantiation in his theological training, and it made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he celebrated the Mass many times, and the dogma of transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.
Thus, when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses (such as the sale of indulgences), and the reform movement was summarily denounced by the church, the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who were now without a church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Thus was born the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine, could be examined in a scriptural light. So, instead of transubstantiation, a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine, the doctrine of consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.
The change from trans- to con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix trans- means “change” and says that a change takes place; the bread actually becomes the body of Jesus, and the wine actually becomes the blood of Jesus. The prefix con- means “with” and says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the body of Christ so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the blood of Jesus so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.
In this way, the make-up of the Host central to the worship service approaches reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change; the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh, and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However, these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran, as examples). Even among these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.
What is consubstantiation? | GotQuestions.org
The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is frequently described as consubstantiation. Though Lutherans do not prefer this description, it captures a key distinction being made in their eucharistic theology.
Lutherans assert that along with (con) the bread and cup in the Supper, the humanity of the risen Christ (substance) is locally present. This means Christ’s humanity is not just seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, it is also at the table. The humanity has received qualities of divinity, especially omnipresence. Christ’s humanity can be locally present in the Supper in his churches throughout the earth asserts the Lutheran.
It is important to understand this Lutheran teaching is not the same as the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Both Lutherans and the Reformed reject transubstantiation, the Roman doctrine that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and become entirely the body and blood of Christ’s humanity. Herein grace swallows up nature and the sign (bread and wine) ceases to be a sign.
For the Lutheran and Reformed, however, the bread remains bread, the wine remains wine, and the sign remains present. The thing signified is also present for Lutherans and the Reformed – that is, the humanity of Christ and the benefits of his death – but both groups differ on exactly how the humanity of Christ is present. Lutherans insist the true body of Christ is physically present (Formula of Concord, Art. VII), whereas the Reformed insist the true body of Christ is spiritually present (Westminster, 29.7; Heidelberg 77, 79.).
The Lutheran language then is that Christ’s body and blood is in, with, and under the bread and wine. The difficulty of this teaching is it redefines what a real human body is. The properties of a human nature do not include ubiquity, that is, the ability for a body to be in an infinite number of places at the same time. This is a property of divinity, not humanity. It is a confusion of the two natures of Christ to assert that his humanity has now received the properties of his divinity.
By making Christ’s risen humanity more than a real physical human body in this way, Lutherans actually weaken the agreement between what Christ assumed and what he redeemed. If his humanity at some point becomes unlike ours, because of the communication of divine attributes to it, then some kind of distance enters between us and him in human nature.
Christ’s humanity is of course more excellent than our own in that he was always without sin and is even now glorified, but his humanity is not of a nature different than our own. As Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli wrote: “We too confess that the body of Christ transcends everything human, but it does not thereby cease being the body of a man. It still retains its limbs, shape, limits, and limitation. It transcends everything human which pertains to the weakness, infirmity, and necessities of this life.”
By their sacramental theology, Lutherans end up placing a double weight of hiddenness on the body of Christ. He is hidden in heaven, ascended bodily, as all agree (1 Peter 1:8), but they would have us confess he is also hidden when his body is present locally at the table. This is radically unlike the presence of his body in the 40 days after his resurrection. When he appeared to his disciples then his human nature was among them, in a place, in a form, visible and conscripted, like our own human nature. Yet in the Supper the Lutherans would have us believe his bodily presence is locally in our midst but only as a phantom.
It may very well be, as Carl Trueman suggested, that Lutherans fear the Reformed are taking the presence of Christ out of the Supper by asserting that his humanity remains in the heavens, supposedly making the Supper an empty sign. If there is no feeding upon the real body and blood of Christ, the goodness and kindness of God toward sinners is shattered. A valid concern.
It is not the case, however, that the Reformed deny such a feeding. We confess and believe the body and blood of Christ are really but spiritually present to the faith of believers, just as the elements themselves are present to our outward senses. We really receive and feed upon Christ knowing only life begets life. But the Lutherans, as Calvin said, “do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself” – the Holy Spirit (Inst. IV.17.16). The Reformed then must labor more tirelessly and carefully to show by the scriptures that we indeed feed upon his body and blood (WLC, 168).
John Hartley has been pastor of Apple Valley Presbyterian Church since 2010, having previously been a pastor for 10 years in Vermont. He is a Wisconsin native and a graduate of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee as well as Dallas Theological Seminary. John lives with his wife Jen and their five children.
Four Views on the Lord’s Supper: Spiritual Presence
The meaning of the “spiritual presence” concerning the Lord’s Supper is that Jesus is spiritually (but not physically) present at communion. The view can perhaps best be seen in distinction from other views regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
The traditional Roman Catholic view is that of transubstantiation or sometimes called the “real presence” view. According to this view, when the priest pronounces the words “this is my body” over the bread and elevates the cup, the elements are actually changed into the physical body and blood of the Lord. This change is not discernable to the senses; in other words, the bread and wine still look and taste like bread and wine, but they really are the body and blood of the Lord and are to be honored as such.
Martin Luther held to a position called consubstantiation; that is, the body and blood are physically present with the elements. The elements do not change, and the body and blood cannot be recognized by taste, but in some real, physical way the body and blood of Christ are present.
Most Protestants today hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The elements do not change or become the body and blood of the Lord in any way. The elements are symbols of His body and blood. While Jesus did say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” it was in the context of a Passover meal in which every element had a symbolic meaning. It would have been entirely out of context for the disciples to suddenly interpret these two items literally—especially since Jesus had not yet been crucified.
When we partake of the elements of communion today, we recognize that they are more than just symbols of something that happened a long time ago. Whenever we gather together to observe the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present with us spiritually. It is not just the memory of Him that is present; He is in the midst of the congregation. The emphasis is upon His presence within the worshiping body, not within the elements of the table. The believer communes with the Lord through the act of remembrance and worship.
First Corinthians 11:23–26: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
What is the spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper? | GotQuestions.org
In Matthew 26:26-28 Jesus spoke a few simple words that have been the cause of a great many differences between Christians. The differences, or disagreements, are centered upon what Jesus meant when the Bible tells us that:
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 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.
Just about every Christian agrees that this is the establishment, or foundation, of the Lord’s Supper. Most even acknowledge that what Jesus is describing here—the practice of coming together as a body of believers to partake of bread and wine—is a practice that Jesus has mandated all Christians to participate in. In fact, for many, the Lord’s Supper is a highlight of corporate worship, wherein the gospel takes a physical and tangible form as the congregation participates in a sacramental meal commemorating all that Jesus has accomplished on behalf of sinners.
So, if the debates that rage are not over what the practice of the Lord’s Supper is to be, where then are the differences? Well, to put it simply, the question that has raised so much disagreement is, “In what way does Jesus mean that the bread is His body, and in what way does Jesus mean that the wine is His blood?” How, exactly, is Jesus present in the Lord’s Supper?
To answer this question, there have been several ideas put forth. The one that was likely the most common during the Middle Ages was the view of transubstantiation, which many Roman Catholics still believe today. This is the view that when the priest blesses the bread and wine, it transubstantiates into the literal body and blood of Christ. This is also why the Roman Catholic Mass is such a big deal—the priest is literally participating in offering up Jesus as a sacrifice to take away the sins of the people.
This view, however, cannot be right simply because it is not biblical. In 1 Peter 3:18, the Scriptures plainly state that, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Jesus suffered once. He will not ever suffer again for sinners.
But, is it not possible for the bread and wine to still become the literal body and blood of Jesus when blessed without forcing Jesus to suffer again? The Reformers differed in their approaches. For men like Ulrich Zwingli, the very idea was an impossibility because Jesus is temporally located in Heaven in a physical body, incapable of being present in more than one place at a time. The Zwinglian approach was to view the Lord’s Supper as a memorial and little more.
For men like Martin Luther, however, it was not only possible for Jesus to be present in the Supper, but essential. He disagreed adamantly with the Roman Catholic approach of transubstantiation, but agreed that Christ was truly present in the meal. The difference, however, was in the mode of Christ’s presence, which Luther viewed as being profoundly spiritual. Rather than being physically and locally present in the Lord’s Supper, Luther saw Christ as being supernaturally present in a sacramental union.
Ultimately, Calvin would build upon Luther’s teachings more so than Zwingli’s. In fact, while Luther and Calvin disagreed on the finer points of the Lord’s Supper, it’s possible that if they had been able to meet and discuss these truths together, they may have been able to come to an agreement. After all, Calvin also believed that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper.
Calvin viewed the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament like baptism and understood a sacrament to be a visible sign and seal of something promised by God. For Calvin, then, the Lord’s Supper is a sacramental sign that confirms the believer truly does partake of the Lord’s body and blood. So, while the bread and wine do not become the physical body and blood of Christ, for the Christian, the bread and wine become signs of the body and blood of Christ. While no transubstantiation takes place, there is—like Luther taught—a way in which the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s body and blood to the saint.
According to the spiritual view, Christ is truly present by means of the believer’s union with Christ through the Holy Spirit. By faith, the believer partakes of all the benefits of Christ’s body and blood. After all, as Jesus said,
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him (Jn. 6:53-56).
For those who hold to the spiritual view of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus is truly present, and these benefits are truly enjoyed by means of the Holy Spirit and believer’s union with Christ.
Jacob Tanner is the pastor of Christ Keystone Church in Middleburg, PA. He is married to his wife, Kayla, and together they have two sons, Josiah and Owen. He is the author of The Tinker’s Progress: The Life and Times of John Bunyan, Wait and Hope: Puritan Wisdom for Joyful Suffering, and Resist Tyrants, Obey God: Lessons Learned from the Life and Times of John Knox.
Four Views on the Lord’s Supper: Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:
“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’”
In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord’s Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical? There are some Scriptures that, if interpreted strictly literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Examples are John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”
Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a “re-sacrifice” of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died “once for all” and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.”
What is transubstantiation? | GotQuestions.org
While it is odd to begin an article with such large quotes as follows, it seems wise to allow Rome to speak for itself.
“There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.”1
“But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.”2
“The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique….In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, od our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained….It is by the conversion of the bread and win into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament.”3
Contained therein lies the doctrine of transubstantiation stated, beginning first in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. Before a response is offered, we must seek to understand the doctrine. Simply stated, transubstantiation is the doctrine of Rome which declares that during the Eucharist, the physical substance of bread and wine is transformed into the physical substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ upon the consecration of the priest. It is through transubstantiation that the real presence of Christ is offered to His disciples.
Among the effects of transubstantiation stands the most prominent: a re-sacrifice of the Savior. While the Catechism does not use the word ‘re-sacrifice’, for indeed it states that “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”, the explanation clarifies that “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross”, and later, “’The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.’ And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner…this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”4 The Eucharist, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, brings a risen and glorified Christ back to the altar where He is offered once again, though in a bloodless manner.
Protestants have responded in a number of ways and arguments. The first and most obvious is that this doctrine transgresses the Chalcedonian Creed’s formulation of the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures of Christ by mixing the divine and human natures. The ubiquitous presence of the physical body of Christ would require a transference of the omnipresence of the divine nature to the human. Calvin states, “As we cannot at all doubt that it is bounded according to the invariable rule in the human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, and will remain till it return to judgment, so we deem it altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it everywhere present.”5
Francis Turretin gives a fuller response. He states, “We deny it [transubstantiation] and maintain that the bread and wine, although they are changed as to use according to the institution of God, yet they always retain their own substance, and that no real change or conversion takes place in reference to them. This we demonstrate by a threefold class of arguments: (1) from the senses; (2) from reason; (3) from faith.”6 As for his first argument, Turretin argues that four of our senses (sight, touch, taste, and smell) together betray transubstantiation, for we know in eating and drinking that not only is what we are eating NOT flesh and blood, but we positively know that we ARE eating bread and drinking wine.7 As to reason, Turretin not only argues alongside Calvin that it is nonsensical to declare that a physical body could “be at the same time in more places than one because it would be one and not one, standing apart from itself and exposed to various and contrary motions, which everyone sees to be absurd,”8 but also that Rome “affirms that the accidents of the bread and wine exist under the subject in which they adhere and by a contrary prodigy the body of Christ exists without its accidents and essential properties.”9
As for faith, Turretin provides Scriptural arguments against Transubstantiation as well as theological ones. He states for example, “It overthrows the things signified, despoiling the body of Christ of its quantity and dimensions, and for one introduces a multiple body. It takes away the sacramental analogy because it removes the foundation of the sacramental relation, for when the sign is converted into things signified, all similitude between them ceases.”10 In essence he here states that transubstantiation nullifies the Eucharist as a sacrament since it nullifies the symbol itself. Turretin also then spends pages laying to rest the Romish argument of historicity, showing that this doctrine was intimated first in the 8th century at the Second Council of Nicea (787 AD)11 and showing what the Fathers (Augustine, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Theodoret) meant as they used language of change in their discussions of the Supper.12
Much more could be said, but the works of Calvin and Turretin are well worth a deeper study on the topic by an interested reader. It is a good use of one’s mental energy to consider why the Chalcedonian Formulation of the hypostatic union is vital to our salvation and sanctification.
Keith Kauffman attended University of Maryland (B.S.) and Capital Bible Seminary(M.Div.). Keith currently works at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, working in the Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases studying the immune response to Tuberculosis. Keith serves as an elder at Greenbelt Baptist Church.
- Canon 1 of the 4th Lateran Council, 1215 AD, found at https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp ↩︎
- “Transubstantiation”, Chapter IV of the 13th session of the Council of Trent, found at https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/thirteenth-session-of-the-counc… ↩︎
- Paragraphs 1374 and 1375, Article 3, Part 2 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1994. 346. Accessed at https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/IV/ ↩︎
- Ibid, #1366-1367. 344 ↩︎
- Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, MA, 2008. 902 ↩︎
- Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 3. P&R: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1997. 489. ↩︎
- Ibid, 490 ↩︎
- Ibid, 491 ↩︎
- Ibid, 492 ↩︎
- Ibid, 498 ↩︎
- Ibid, 501 ↩︎
- Ibid, 503 ↩︎
Truth2Freedom's Blog 