Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

Holy Communion

A summary of this study

Christ is really present to His people at the Lord's Supper, and the meal genuinely gives what it signifies. The Roman Catholic account of how fails on Christological grounds, because a human body that can be substantially present on ten thousand altars at once has stopped being a human body. Bare memorialism fails on exegetical grounds, because it cannot account for koinonia, cannot account for the judgment of 1 Corinthians 11:30, and cannot even account for the word remembrance it takes as its own proof text. The Reformed account of a real presence effected by the Holy Spirit carries the weight best, and the Lutheran instinct it opposes is worth honouring even where its mechanism is wrong. The most neglected material in the whole doctrine is not the presence question at all: it is what the meal does to a congregation, what it obliges them to do to each other, and the fact that it is eaten in the gap between a garden and a wedding.

Holy Communion, also called the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20), the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42), or the Eucharist (from eucharistia, thanksgiving, reflecting the fact that Jesus gave thanks over both bread and cup), is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ on the night before His crucifixion (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20). I use the three names interchangeably.

The meal is the corporate act of partaking in bread and wine as signs directly tied to Christ's body and blood: a visible promise of God's grace, a memorial of His sacrifice, a means of grace that nourishes believers, and a corporate proclamation of Christ's death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26).

The Three Questions This Study Answers

  1. Is Christ present? Yes, and the case does not rest on any single text but on several: koinonia in 1 Corinthians 10:16, the covenantal sense of anamnesis in Luke 22:19, the judgment presupposed in 1 Corinthians 11:30, and the fact that Christ attached a promise to material elements, which is not a thing He did casually or often.
  2. How is He present? By the Holy Spirit, who unites believers to the ascended Christ. This is of secondary importance, but I do have a stance. See Spiritual Presence.
  3. What does the meal do to a congregation? Far more than is often taught. It constitutes the church, obliges its members to each other, preaches the gospel, and is eaten in the gap between Eden and the marriage supper of the Lamb. See The Table and the Body - Unity, Discipline, and Mission and Eating in the Presence of God.

The Four Views Compared

All four differ over the mode of Christ's presence rather than over whether the meal matters.

View (click for link) The claim The mechanism Christological cost Chief weakness
Transubstantiation (Roman Catholic) The substance of bread and wine is converted into Christ's body and blood; the accidents remain Priestly consecration; the words effect what they signify Christ's glorified human body is substantially present on countless altars at once An Aristotelian framework imported into the text which destroys the sign it means to exalt. Also, entangled with the sacrifice of the Mass
Sacramental union (Lutheran) Christ's true body and blood are present in, with and under the bread and wine Divine promise; the genus majestaticum communicating omnipresence to the human nature The human nature receives divine attributes, tending toward a confusion of the natures Purchases real presence at the price of Christ's genuine humanity; the mechanism is denied as metaphysics and then used as metaphysics
Spiritual Presence (Reformed) Christ is really present and really feeds His people; the elements remain bread and wine The Holy Spirit unites believers to the ascended Christ, joining what physical space separates None; Chalcedon preserved intact, both natures keeping their properties The "lifting up" is a theological synthesis rather than an explicit biblical observation
Memorialism (Zwinglian) The meal is a symbolic act of remembrance and public pledge Human faith and recollection; no divine action in the rite as such None, but at the cost of an absent Christ Cannot account for koinonia, for the judgment of 1 Cor 11:30, or for the covenantal sense of anamnesis; makes the meal a human work

Why it is not the Literal Body and Blood (Transubstantiation)

Affirming any sort of real presence does not require the physical change of bread to flesh. That belief is rooted in Aristotelian metaphysics, which is a philosophical category foreign to Scripture, and the Bible never speaks of a change of essence in the elements.

The primary objection is Christological. Christ ascended bodily into heaven and remains at God's right hand. His human nature is not omnipresent and therefore cannot be physically present on every table, because a human body is located, and being locatable is part of what makes it a human body. Only the divine nature is omnipresent.

Christian faith does not need to depend on Aristotle. We can hold that Christ is really present without asserting a change of substance.

Why it is More than a Memorial

1 Corinthians 10:16 - ESV

16. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Paul is warning the Corinthians off idol meals, and he needs an analogy strong enough to make attendance at a pagan temple unthinkable: "you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (10:21). Memorial doesn't create a conflict of allegiance. A participation does.

Add to that the judgment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, where some believers became weak, ill and died through partaking in an unworthy manner. Whatever that passage is doing, it is not describing the consequences of mishandling a metaphor.

And add the word remembrance itself, which in its covenantal sense is the mechanism by which a participant is placed inside the remembered event rather than held at a distance from it.

In practice, denying any real presence shrinks the sacrament to a social meal. Scripture promises an effectual meeting with Christ, and Communion is the only explicit promise of Christ's presence tied to physical elements in the whole Christian life.

Where I Land, and why

I'm jumping to conclusions here (so, prior knowledge is needed). All explanations and studies are below.

1. Christ is really present to His people in the Supper. The case rests on multiple verses rather than on one verse, and each verse is worked out in its own note below.

2. Transubstantiation fails, and it fails Christologically before it fails exegetically. The Aristotelian machinery is imported and unnecessary, no language uses est to denote a change of substance, and the doctrine dissolves the sign it exists to honour. But the argument that closes the case is the ascension. A human body substantially present on ten thousand altars simultaneously has received an attribute of deity, and the Chalcedonian Creed forbids exactly that. The associated doctrine of the Mass as propitiatory sacrifice also compounds the error against the plain argument of Hebrews.

3. Bare memorialism fails. It cannot account for koinonia, it cannot account for the judgment in 1 Corinthians 11. Ironically, it cannot even account for the word remembrance. Zwingli used the term remembrance, whose native covenantal use is to make the past event present to the participant's identity, and used it to argue for absence.

4. The Reformed account carries the weight best. It affirms a real presence and a real feeding without violating Chalcedon, and it gives the Holy Spirit the role the New Testament actually gives Him: taking what is Christ's and making it ours. It also handles the eschatology correctly, which no realist alternative does. "Until he comes" is not a decorative phrase.

5. The Lutheran view is worth considering even when its mechanism is wrong. Luther's refusal to let the words be softened into nothing, his insistence that Christ is genuinely given rather than merely pictured, and his suspicion of clever explanations are all great. However, the genus majestaticum is the wrong answer to a right question, and anyone rejecting it should be careful not to reject the concern that produced it.

6. The objection to the Reformed view is too often dodged rather than answered. That "spiritual ascent" is a synthesis rather than a stated biblical observation has real force, and it should moderate how tightly anyone holds the mechanism. Two things answer it. Colossians 3:1-4 and Ephesians 2:6 already place believers with Christ in the heavenlies, so we extend a stated relation rather than inventing one. And every position here involves a synthesis at the point where Scripture stops describing: Rome synthesises with Aristotle, Wittenberg with communicated attributes, Zurich with a theory of signs. The question is which synthesis does least violence to the texts and the creeds.

7. Hold the mechanism loosely; hold the fact tightly. Chris Green states the correct priority: "the how question, while important, is never as important as the question of who is present." He adds a caution worth pinning above the desk: "anything that takes the mystery or scandal out of the Eucharist must be wrong." Calvin said the same thing in fewer words: "I rather experience than understand it."

The presence question is essential for this study and non-essential for fellowship. Christians who disagree about the mode belong at the same table. If a doctrine of unity produces division over its own mechanism, it's misunderstood itself.

Key Themes of Communion

Instituted by Christ. Jesus established the Supper on the night He was betrayed, commanding His disciples to "do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19-20). See The Institution of the Lord's Supper.

New covenant sign. The bread and cup signify the new covenant sealed in Christ's blood (Luke 22:20; Matt 26:28), echoing the covenantal pattern of blood-ratified promises (Exod 24:8; Heb 8:6-13). In Matthew 26 the blood and the Mediator are one for the first time: Moses handled someone else's blood, Jesus handles His own.

Memorial and proclamation. Communion remembers Christ's once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 7:27; 9:28), and the remembering is covenantal incorporation rather than mental recollection. In partaking we proclaim His death "until he comes" (1 Cor 11:24-26).

Sharing in Christ's body and blood. Paul describes the bread and cup as a participation in the body and blood of Christ, not in the elements alone but in Christ Himself (1 Cor 10:16). A real encounter with the risen Lord, mediated by the Holy Spirit.

Forgiveness of sins. "Given for you" and "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Luke 22:19; Matt 26:28) ground the Supper in the saving power of Christ's atoning death.

Spiritual nourishment. Christ is the true bread of life (John 6:35) and feeds His people through this meal. Augustine called the elements "visible words" through which invisible grace is communicated.

Church unity. "We who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor 10:17). Communion creates and cultivates the unity of the church, and calls believers to discern not only Christ's body but the body of believers (1 Cor 11:29).

Eschatological anticipation. The Supper points forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9). Each celebration is a foretaste of that final feast, eaten in the gap between a garden and a wedding.

The Research

Exegetical Analysis

These are the studies on each passage:

The Four Historic Answers

The Key Doctrinal Points of Contention

Practical Things for the Pentecostal