Communion According to Scripture

Also referred to as the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, and the Sacrament, the ordinance of communion (Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20) is a celebration of Christ's atoning sacrifice. It is observed in remembrance, and though it has real meaning, there is no "real presence" — that is, the bread and wine are simply bread and wine.

Why is it symbolic?

When Jesus gave the bread to His disciples, He was not claiming it was His literal flesh. The Roman Catholic church teaches transubstantiation, which means that the bread and wine are literally changed into the body and blood of Jesus during communion. The Lutheran church teaches consubstantiation, which means that the bread and body somehow both exist in the same space at the same time, yet there is still bread, and that the wine and blood somehow both exist in the same space at the same time, yet there is still wine. Both consubstantiation and transubstantiation are sometimes referred to as Real Presence.

There is no Scriptural or logical justification for believing either doctrine.

It is the plain meaning

In the familiar anti-drug commercial, we are shown an image of a heated frying pan and told, "This is drugs." Obviously, the frying pan is not a controlled substance, so the plain meaning of the narrator's statement is that the frying pan represents drugs. When we are shown an egg and told, "This is your brain", the plain meaning is that the egg represents our brains.

In the same way, when a man holds up some bread and says, "This is my body", the plain meaning is that the bread represents his body.

Consistent interpretation of the event

If we are to take the phrase, "This is my body" to be literal", then what do we do with the phrase, "Drink of this fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)? Jesus is obviously referring to the drink as wine, so if Jesus were saying the drink was His literal blood, then He would be contradicting Himself. Real, physical, literal blood does not have the same physical substance as wine. Unless we are to believe that Jesus was contradicting Himself, then we must assume that Jesus' statement about the wine being His blood is a metaphor.

Literal details don't support Real Presence

Look at Luke 22:20:

And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.Luke 22:20

First, Jesus said, "This cup", not "This wine. An extreme literal interpretation, being consistent, would assume that Jesus was calling the cup His blood.

Second, Jesus did not say the cup was His blood, but that it was "the new covenant". A close look at the details reveals that an extreme literal interpretation does not teach that the wine is literally Jesus' blood, but that the cup used is literally a new promise.

Soteriology

Those who teach Real Presence theologies also teach Real Presence soteriology. That is, they teach that you must literally eat Christ's body and literally drink Christ's blood in order to be saved. This contradicts Scripture, which teaches that salvation is by grace through faith alone. It is also not suggested anywhere in Scripture that anyone was told to eat Jesus' flesh or drink His blood in order to get to heaven. People simply believed, and they were saved.

Chronology problems

If Jesus were telling His disciples that the bread and wine that night were literally His flesh and blood, then this would mean that Jesus' sacrifice had already been made. That is, Jesus was already offering His literal body and blood before He died on the cross. Why bother with the crucifixion at all, then, if Jesus was able to sacrifice His body for us through bread and wine before He ever actually died?

Remembrance, not resacrifice

Jesus did not command His disciples to resacrifice Him, as Real Presence theology teaches, but to remember Him.

Is it blood or wine?

Do you think the drink taken by Real Presence proponents tastes like blood? Has the same texture of blood? Contains hemoglobin? Do you think we could test the drink and obtain Jesus' blood type?

What about the bread? Do you think it tastes like skin and muscle? Is it a bit chewy like sinew? Is there any melanin in it? Is it flesh, or is it bread?

Answers to arguments for "Real Presence"

This page responds to many of the common arguments in support of the doctrine of "real presence" — that is, that Christ's body was literally present in the bread and wine at the last supper.

1. "Body" must be literal
2. "This" was a reference to present items
3. Plain and obvious meaning
4. John 6 - must we eat His flesh
5. It's really His blood, but it's not really His blood
6. Jesus didn't correct those who took His words literally

1 - Reference to Christ's "body" must be literal

1a - Argument

There is a common argument against real presence that "This is my body" should be taken no more literally than should "I am the door". Those supporting real presence try to justify their literal interpretation of "This is my body" by stating that while the "door" is obviously a metaphor for the way to heaven, the "body" is not a symbol for anything — it is a literal reference to Christ's body.

1b - Response

The problem is that this argument doesn't really prove anything. What those supporting real presence want to show that is that, since "body" is literal, then the whole statement must be literal. But this simply isn't the case. As an example, consider the famous anti-drug commercial. A frying pan is shown, with the narrator saying, "This is drugs." An egg is thrown into the frying pan. "This is your brain on drugs." Well, the "drugs" and the "brain" are not symbolic, but certainly the narrator is not suggesting that the frying pan is literally drugs, or that the egg is literally your brain. In the same way, though Jesus was referencing His literal, physical body, He was in no way making the claim that the bread and wine were literally His body and blood.

2 - Jesus was referring to present items

2a - Argument

Again, this argument is given in response to the idea that "This is my body" is no more literal than "I am the door". This argument says that Jesus was not holding or gesturing towards a door when He said "I am the door", and so that statement can be taken as metaphor. But since Jesus was holding the bread, saying "This is my body", it must be taken literally.

2b - Response

This argument fails at the start, because it simply does not make any logical case. Simply holding something doesn't mean that it must be taken literally. We can again use the anti-drug commercial to illustrate this point. In the commercial, though the audience is shown a frying pan and told "This is drugs", this in no way indicates that the narrator is making the claim that the frying pan is literally a controlled substance.

3 - The plain and obvious meaning of Jesus' words teaches Real Presence

3a - Argument

Supporters of the Real Presence doctrine claim that the plain meaning of Jesus' words at the last supper is that the bread literally is His body, and the wine literally is his blood. Since this is the plain meaning, we shouldn't take His words symbolically.

3b - Response

This simply isn't true. Rather, it is the extremely literal meaning of Christ's words. The same extremely literal meaning would teach us that Christ, when he said "I am the door", is made of literal wood and hinges. But this meaning is not the plain meaning. If a man holds a couple of rose pedals before a woman and says, "These are your lips," is the plain meaning that the rose pedals are literally the woman's lips? Or that they are a symbolic representation of her lips?

4 - Jesus said we have to eat His flesh to be saved

4a - Argument

Jesus said in John 6, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." Obviously, then, Christ was referring to the bread as His literal flesh, and the wine as His literal blood, and unless we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, we can't go to heaven.

4b - Response

The proceding verse teaches a cannibalistic soteriology, if we take it very literally. John 6:54 says clearly, "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." According to the extreme literal interpretation, then, all we have to do is eat a wafer, blessed by the priest (so that it turns into flesh), and drink blood, blessed by the priest (so that it turns into blood), and then we'll go to heaven. We don't have to believe in Him at all, just eat some stuff and call it good. Clearly, this is not the statement Jesus was making.

The previous verses make Jesus' symbolic statement about eating His flesh and drinking His blood very, very clear. He says (in verse 35), "I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty." Obviously Jesus is using metaphor when calling Himself the bread of life, just as He is when He calls Himself the door, the good shepard, etc. In fact, the extreme literal interpretation that proponents of Real Presence theology would have us take would necessitate that eating communion bread and drinking communion wine would mean that we "will never go hungry" and "will never be thirsty"!

5 - It's really His blood, but it's not really His blood

5a - Argument

Some who believe in Real Presence, especially modern Romanists, claim that even though the bread literally becomes Christ's flesh, and the wine literally becomes Jesus' blood, the bread and wine do not actually become flesh and blood, and this is why there is no apparent physical change in the elements. The problem, of course, is that this is incredibly hypocritical. These people will spend hours trying to prove to you that Jesus was being very literal, and that we have to literally eat His flesh and drink His literal blood or we won't go to heaven. Then they'll immediately back down and say, "Well, the bread doesn't really turn into flesh." Which is it? Do we have to eat His flesh or don't we? Do we have to sacrifice Him again or don't we? Is Jesus literally, physically in the bread or isn't He?

6 - Jesus didn't correct those who took His words literally

6a - Argument

When the Jews objected to Jesus' statement about eating His flesh in John 6:52, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", Jesus did not correct them by saying He was not speaking literally. But in Matthew 16, when the disciples took Jesus' words about the yeast of the Pharisess and Sudducees literally, Jesus corrected them by saying that He was speaking symbolically. Obviously, then, Jesus corrects people when He speaks in metaphor and they interpret His words literally. Since Jesus did not correct the Jews in John 6 when they interpreted His words literally, He must not have been speaking metaphorically.

6b - Response

First, simply showing that Jesus did something once in Scripture does not prove a definite pattern that can be used to judge all events by. This is poor reasoning and is stretching for an argument.

Second, Jesus did not correct Nicodemus in John 3, either. Jesus said we have to be born again, and Nicodemus replied, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother's womb and be born a second time, can he?" Jesus did not correct him, but said, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Yet proponents of Real Presence theology do not teach that a man must literally crawl back into his mother's womb and pop out again in order to be saved. In fact, there is a good parallel between the two sections of Scripture:

John 3 - Nicodemus, born again	John 6 - Jews, bread of life
"I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3	"If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:51
"How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother's womb and be born a second time, can he?" John 3:4	"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" John 6:52
"I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5	"I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." John 6:52

If Jesus was clearly not speaking literally in one, why would we assume He was speaking literally in the other?

Jesus said the blessing

Although most translations say something like "after giving thanks" (Luke 22:17), the better translation would actually be that Jesus "said the blessing". These traditional blessings, according familybible.org, are as follows:

The b'rakhah for wine
Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu, Melech ha'olam, boray p'ree ha'gafen.
Blessed are You, Adonai our God, King of the universe, the One Who creates the fruit of the vine.

The b'rakhah for bread
Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu, Melech ha'olam, ha'motzie lechem mein ha'aretz.
Blessed are You, Adonai our God, King of the universe, the One Who brings forth bread [or sustenance] from the earth.