Communion

The Biblical Meaning and Practice of the Lord’s Supper

I. Communion: A Sacred Meal for a New Covenant

Communion is one of the most sacred and defining practices of the Christian life. Also called the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist, it is a regular reminder of Christ’s death, a proclamation of the Gospel, and a foretaste of the coming Kingdom. Yet, confusion surrounds it. Is it merely a memorial? Is Christ actually present? How often should we take it? And does it matter how we take it?

The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστία (eucharistía), meaning “thanksgiving.” This is the word used in the Gospel accounts when Jesus “gave thanks” before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:27). Long before the term became formalized by tradition, the early Church understood the Lord’s Supper as an act of profound gratitude—giving thanks for the body broken and the blood poured out. Communion is, at its core, not just a ritual or remembrance, but a response of thankfulness to the saving work of Christ. Every time we break the bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Gospel with our mouths and hearts full of gratitude.

The Bible gives us both instruction and warning when it comes to communion. When practiced faithfully, it is a source of grace, unity, and remembrance. When treated lightly or arrogantly, Paul warns that it can result in spiritual—and even physical—judgment.

To understand communion rightly, we must go back to its origin, examine its biblical foundations, and test every view by the Word of God.

II. Origins of Communion: From Passover to the Cross

The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus on the night He was betrayed, during a Passover meal. This was no accident. The Passover celebrated God’s deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt, where a lamb was sacrificed and its blood marked the homes of the faithful. In that context, Jesus revealed that He Himself was the true Lamb of God.

“As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, ‘Take this and eat it, for this is my body.’ And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, ‘Each of you drink from it, for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.’” (Matthew 26:26–28, NLT)

Jesus took the bread and wine—common elements of the Passover meal—and gave them new covenant significance. His body would be broken, and His blood poured out for forgiveness. This act inaugurated a new covenant, not with the blood of lambs, but with His own.

III. Key Greek Terms: What the Bible Actually Says

Understanding the language of the New Testament helps us see what communion meant to the early church.

• κοινωνία (koinōnía, Strong’s G2842): Often translated fellowship or sharing, it refers to deep participation and communion. Paul uses this in 1 Corinthians 10:16 to describe communion as “sharing in the blood of Christ.”

• εὐχαριστία (eucharistía, Strong’s G2169): Meaning thanksgiving, it’s where the term Eucharist comes from. Jesus “gave thanks” when instituting the meal.

• διαθήκη (diathēkē, Strong’s G1242): Meaning covenant or testament. Jesus called the cup “the new covenant in My blood,” linking the act to the promises of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36.

These are not casual terms. They define the meal as more than remembrance—it is spiritual participation, covenant affirmation, and fellowship with Christ.

IV. Paul’s Teaching: Warning and Worship in 1 Corinthians

Paul offers the clearest apostolic teaching on communion in 1 Corinthians 11:23–32. He affirms what he “received from the Lord” (v. 23) and passes it on:

“This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me... For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 26, NLT)

Yet he also gives a strong warning:

“So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking the cup.” (1 Corinthians 11:27–28, NLT)

This is not a casual snack. Communion is sacred. It represents our unity in Christ, our covenant with God, and our need to confess sin before partaking.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul calls the cup and bread “a sharing in the blood” and “a sharing in the body” of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16, LEB), echoing the Greek term koinōnía again. It is participation—not reenactment.

V. Theological Views: What Do Christians Believe?

Throughout church history, various views on communion have emerged. Here are the major positions:

1. Memorial View

This view, made popular by Ulrich Zwingli, holds that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of remembrance only.

Christ is not present in any real or spiritual sense. The bread and wine are reminders, not means of grace.

Many evangelical and Baptist churches hold this view. It is based largely on Jesus’ words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)

The Memorial view, popularized by Ulrich Zwingli, holds that Communion is a symbolic act—a remembrance of Christ’s death. This view finds strong biblical footing in passages like Luke 22:19: “Do this in remembrance of me” (NLT). It rightly guards against mystical or superstitious abuses and emphasizes that salvation comes through faith, not through consuming elements. Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11 supports this emphasis on remembrance, as does his reference to the “cup of blessing” and “bread we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16), without implying literal transformation. Importantly, after instituting the meal, Jesus remained physically present—clearly not implying cannibalism as misunderstood in John 6. Furthermore, in John 6 itself, Jesus says “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63, NLT), suggesting that the metaphor was spiritual, not physical. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the Bible, describes the bread and cup as spiritual nourishment and thanksgiving, not literal flesh and blood. However, the weakness of this view lies in the tendency to underemphasize the sacredness of the act. Over time, the memorial approach can reduce the Lord’s Supper to a mere mental exercise—devoid of mystery, reverence, or spiritual participation. It may preserve orthodoxy but risk losing awe.

2. Spiritual Presence (Reformed View)

Taught by John Calvin, this position holds that Christ is spiritually present during communion. While the bread and wine do not change, believers truly commune with Christ through faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This avoids both a cold memorial and a mechanical view of transformation.

The Reformed tradition, shaped by John Calvin, teaches that Christ is spiritually—though not physically—present in the elements. This position aims to balance biblical warnings about partaking in an “unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29, NLT) with the reality that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:9–11). Calvin argued that while Christ's body remains in heaven, believers spiritually commune with Him through the Holy Spirit. This preserves the sacredness of Communion without collapsing into material literalism. It also accounts for Paul’s language that we participate in the “body and blood of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:16, NLT), while maintaining that the elements remain bread and wine. However, the spiritual presence view can sometimes feel too abstract or undefined, leading to confusion. Critics argue that it sits awkwardly between literal and symbolic understandings, and while it seeks theological precision, it may not provide the experiential richness found in either of the extremes. Still, it may be the most balanced view in terms of biblical integrity and spiritual weight.

3. Transubstantiation (Roman Catholic View)

This view teaches that the substance of the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ, though the appearance (accidents) remains the same. This view was formally codified by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are transformed in substance into the actual body and blood of Christ, while their outward appearance—called “accidents” in Aristotelian philosophy—remains unchanged. This view takes literally Jesus’ words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 26:26–28, NLT), and reverently upholds the sacredness of the sacrament. It also provides a strong defense against casual or irreverent treatment of Communion. However, transubstantiation goes beyond Scripture in attempting to explain the “how” of the mystery, relying on extra-biblical categories and definitions that Jesus and Paul never used. Nowhere in the New Testament do the apostles teach that the elements undergo a metaphysical change. Paul still refers to the bread as “bread” after consecration (1 Corinthians 11:26–28), and no apostle warns that one might accidentally chew the body of Christ. Additionally, this view risks reducing the meal to a mechanical ritual—where grace is received by consuming rather than by faith. It emphasizes sacredness but may obscure the simplicity of the Gospel.

4. Real Presence (Lutheran View)

Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation but affirmed that Christ is truly and bodily present “in, with, and under” the elements. This view does not explain how, but affirms the mysterious reality of Christ’s presence.

The Lutheran view, known as “sacramental union,” affirms that Christ’s body and blood are truly present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. Unlike Catholic transubstantiation, Luther rejected philosophical explanations and simply accepted Jesus’ words as literal. This view maintains a strong emphasis on the sacred, incarnational nature of Christ’s presence. It’s a robust affirmation that God can be present in ordinary things and a rebuke to overly rationalistic interpretations. However, like transubstantiation, this view presses the language of “is” (as in “This is my body”) in a way that may ignore metaphorical and covenantal usages of similar language elsewhere in Scripture. It also doesn’t reconcile well with the continuing use of bread and cup language in Paul’s letters. While it offers a high view of Communion’s significance, it leaves unanswered the question of why Jesus, standing in the flesh, would refer to bread in His hand as His “body” in any literal sense. Nevertheless, the Lutheran view emphasizes reverence and mystery in a way that guards against the flippancy of memorial-only practices.

5. Mystery (Eastern Orthodox View)

The Orthodox Church affirms that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but refuses to define how. It is called a Mystery (μυστήριον / mystērion, Strong’s G3466). They reject transubstantiation as an overly philosophical approach.

The Orthodox believe it is a divine act of God, beyond human explanation, received in reverence and awe.

The Eastern Orthodox Church refers to the Eucharist as a holy Mystery (μυστήριον / mystērion, Strong’s G3466). The bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Church refuses to define how this occurs. This humble approach avoids philosophical speculation and rests on the authority of Christ’s words and the witness of the Church throughout history. The mystery view preserves awe and reverence, treating the Eucharist as sacred space where heaven meets earth. It also allows for a deeply experiential encounter with God in worship. However, the strength of this view—its refusal to define the process—can also be its weakness for those seeking biblical clarity or theological structure. Critics argue that it leans too heavily on tradition and mysticism without clear New Testament explanation. Yet in doing so, it avoids the pitfalls of over-literalism or over-rationalism. It’s a faith-forward position that protects the sacred from the scalpel of systematic theology.

VI. Communion in the Early Church

The early Christians celebrated communion regularly, not as a ritual, but as a central act of worship and unity.

“All the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, and to sharing in meals (including the Lord’s Supper), and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42, NLT)

Early documents like the Didache (1st century) show that the church emphasized confession, unity, and holiness before receiving the meal.

Communion was not an optional devotional—it was the heartbeat of the gathered church.

VII. Purpose of Communion

Paul gives us four clear purposes in 1 Corinthians 11:

1. Remembrance – “Do this in remembrance of Me.” (v. 24)

2. Proclamation – “You are announcing the Lord’s death.” (v. 26)

3. Examination – “Let a person examine himself...” (v. 28)

4. Anticipation – “...until He comes.” (v. 26)

It is both a looking back at the cross and a looking forward to the return of Christ—the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

VIII. Common Errors and Clarifications

• It’s not a private act. Communion means “together.” The New Testament context is always corporate worship.

• It’s not optional. Jesus commanded it. Paul taught it. The church practiced it.

• It’s not casual. Partaking “unworthily” invites judgment (1 Corinthians 11:27–30). This isn’t about being perfect, but about examining your heart honestly.

• It’s not magic. There’s no power in the elements alone, but in what they represent—and in the faith of those who partake.

IX. Conclusion

Communion is one of the clearest, most sacred ordinances of the Christian faith. It is:

• A reminder of Christ’s body broken for us

• A sharing in the covenant sealed by His blood

• A communion with one another as His body

• A proclamation of His death and return

It isn’t just bread and wine. It’s the Gospel—tasted, touched, and remembered.