It bothers me that in most evangelical churches there is a casual attitude to how we regard the Lord’s Supper.  For example, in many churches, the leaders are allowing parents of very young children to let them take the bread and wine.  This is especially so where the elements are taken around to every person in the building and offered to them; at which time, young children with no discernment are allowed to take the elements; and it is obvious, in observing them (as I have), that they think it is a game.

Another nagging irritation for me is that, in most evangelical churches today, grape juice is substituted for the wine.  The justifications given for this are that grape juice and wine are simply different forms of “the fruit of the vine”; that the use of wine could be a problem to those who suffer from alcoholism; and some congregational members don’t drink alcohol so prefer not to drink it even at the Lord’s Supper.  

This troubles me because every account in the NT concerning the Lord’s Supper says or implies that wine is used, the “cup” being one of the four cups of alcoholic wine in the Passover.  What gives anyone the right to change something that Jesus established for perpetual use in the Church?  He mandated wine as the drink in this sacrament, not unfermented grape juice.  But some are even willing to use tea and biscuits or some other common elements instead of bread or wine, particularly on the mission field, because it is supposedly more familiar or more understandable to the culture.

Furthermore, as I began to consider the way the various denominations believe and practice it, it was an eye-opener for me when I compared them all; I was aware that there are different practices and views but when I saw them all together, I realised how chaotic the situation has become.

A Cacophony of Voices

Just to illustrate how thoroughly confusing the issue is I’ve listed the various views below.

First, the ancient and historic view:

• Catholic Church: The Eucharist (Thanksgiving) is a sacrament and conveys grace to all who receive it worthily.  It re-presents Christ’s sacrifice on the cross in an unbloody manner, thus it is known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Through it, forgiveness of sin is obtained.  On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ, whilst maintaining the appearance and characteristics of bread and wine.  This change is known as Transubstantiation, and Christ’s presence in the elements is called the Real Presence. 
• Eastern Orthodoxy: also accepts and teaches the doctrines of the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.  However, unlike Catholicism it makes no attempt to explain how this occurs, preferring to regard it as a divine mystery.

Next are the multitudinous and sometimes-heterodox contemporary views:

• Lutheranism:  there is a sacramental union of the bread and the wine with the body and

blood of Christ.  In other words, Christ’s body and blood are “in, with, and under” the forms

of bread and wine (consubstantiation).  Luther explained his view using the analogy of an iron rod placed in the fire: both are united in the red-hot iron yet both are also distinct. 

• Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian):  Christ is not present literally in the sacrament but he is spiritually present.  Those who receive the elements with faith receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament (Receptionism).  That is, whenever the pious see the symbols of bread and wine, they are to “think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present….let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given us” (Institutes).
• Anglican [Evangelical]:  generally and officially believe in the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Article 28 denies Transubstantiation but insists “the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.  And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith”.  But the Anglo-Catholic (High Church) part of the Church has the same belief and practice as the Catholic Church.
• Baptist and Church of Christ: derive their view from Zwingli who denied any form of physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  The Lord’s Supper is rather a remembrance of Christ’s suffering and a reminder of his power to overcome sin and death (Memorialism).
• Methodist: Christ is truly present in the Holy Communion.  He is present through the community gathered in his name, through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared.  The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants.  Holy Communion is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only; it is a re-presentation of Jesus Christ (oddly for a Protestant church, this last phrase is the Catholic view, too).
• Salvation Army: don’t observe the Eucharist at all.  It “believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian”.  A meal with friends or fellow-citadel members is regarded as a fellowship meal and fulfills Christ’s command.

Is it possible to add any other view to this doctrine?  Could anything be greater cause for confusion than this?  How can Jesus’ words be torn in so many different directions?  And how can I know which view is the right one? 

Protestantism

Although there had been minimal dissenting voices here and there for the Church’s first 1500 years, it wasn’t until the Reformation that the meaning, and therefore the practice, of the Lord’s Supper, was challenged and changed.  Until then, the Church universally taught and believed that the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Mass was a sacrifice of Christ and that his true flesh and true blood were taken and ingested by the communicants.    

But it wasn’t just the ancient Churches which were confused.  The three leading Reformers (Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) each had different ideas about the Eucharist; they each claimed authority for their views from scripture and condemned the others for their “wrong” views.  And the dispute between Luther and Zwingli was so heated that Luther hurled anathemas at Zwingli – a typical response from Luther, sadly.  The result is the confusion of voices listed above.  And their legacy to their churches today is division and confusion. 

One would think that the Reformers would have got it right – after all, they exposed the errors of the Catholic Church and ushered in the Reformation.  Consequently, they’ve left Protestants with a dilemma because they each follow the teaching of the founder of their denomination; and if each of the Reformers claims to have derived their teaching from the Bible, what does this say about sola scriptura?

What Does the Bible Say?

The passages in scripture which describe this sacrament record Jesus as saying “this is my body…this is my blood of the testament [covenant], which is shed out for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:26-28; Mk 14:23-24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:24-25).  It is plain that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, using bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood.  If Jesus gave the disciples bread and wine to eat and drink while he was there in front of them, very much alive and well, then they weren’t literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood.  Similarly, when claiming to be the shepherd of God’s sheep, he said, “I am the door of the sheep…I am the door” (Jn 10:7,9), we understand that he was using a metaphor.

John (6:30-69) doesn’t deal with the institution of the Lord’s Supper but he does record Jesus’ preaching of the gospel; that he is the living bread which comes down from heaven, and that all who would have eternal life must believe in him.  The bread that he gives us to eat, he told the Jews, is his flesh, and the drink he gives is his blood (Jn 6:55).  The astonished Jews ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn 6:52). 

At this point Jesus could have cleared the matter up for them and for all future readers of this passage simply by saying “The bread symbolises my body and the drink symbolises my blood”.  But he didn’t.  He reiterated and strengthened what he said by replying: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him (Jn 6:53-56). 

But until the Reformation the early Christians universally interpreted Jesus’ words here (John 6:60, 66) as meaning that the bread really does become the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine his actual blood; these words give no indication that they’re meant to be taken as symbols.  In fact, when Jesus said to the Jews that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink, “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?…From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn 6:60, 66).

But why would these disciples have walked away and followed him no more if they knew he was speaking symbolically?  Why would Jesus let them walk away when he could have cleared the confusion up there and then?  And, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a matter of eternal life or death, why are there so many different interpretations of his words?  Why didn’t Jesus speak plainly from the beginning? 

If the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 6 and the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic gospels is correct, then all non-Catholics are headed for hell because they aren’t eating the true flesh of Jesus and drinking his true blood, made so when the priest pronounces the words which change the common elements of bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood. 

But even within Protestantism, a dilemma still exists.  When Zwingli said to Luther that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial feast, Luther simply kept repeating, “This is my body”. 

It wasn’t until the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as discussed above, that Jesus answered the questions that were asked of him in John 6.

Jesus’ words were metaphorical

When the people asked Jesus: “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (Jn 6:28-29).  He showed how faith in him is all-important; physical works do not save a sinner. 

Likewise, he began telling these same people the same message, but with a different metaphor.  They asked him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world” (Jn 6:30-33).

The discussion in the passage continues: “They said to him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always.’  Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst’” (Jn 6:34-35).

In Jesus’s letter through John to the church at Laodicea, he said: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev 3:20).  Here is metaphoric speech used by Jesus again.  The door is the human heart, hearing Jesus’ voice is not an audible voice but is “heard” in the heart of the individual, and opening the door is receiving the Gospel by faith and acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God (Jn 20:31).

So we see Jesus using different metaphors to describe saving faith in him – work, belief, eating his flesh and drinking his blood.  When “many of his disciples drew back and longer went about with him” (6:66), it is because they didn’t believe in him: “But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe” (6:36).

Disobedience in the Evangelical churches

Would that pastors refuse to distribute anything but bread and alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper; would that they refuse to allow parents to give their children the bread and wine to play with as it is distributed to the congregation.  In typical hypocritical evangelical fashion, the Presbyterian Church I attended for too long, only has the Lord’s Supper once a year in order, presumably, to protect the sanctity of the sacrament by reducing the risk of it being taken by unworthy participants; and yet the children are allowed to take it and play with it?  How is this protecting its sanctity?  How is allowing undiscerning children, who think it is a game, to partake of the sacrament ensuring that they examine themselves before partaking (11:28); or protecting the children or the foolish parents who allow and even encourage them to play with it: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself”?  (1 Cor 11:29-34). 

And let’s not forget that the leaders of the church who refuse to ensure that the parents withhold the bread and the wine from their children are also responsible for what happens during the worship service.  It’s not acceptable that when I asked my pastor about this, he evaded responsibility by saying the children of church members are covenant children and therefore allowed to partake of the sacrament at any age; and that it’s up to the parents to teach their own children. 

Every principle of instruction given to us in scripture concerning the elements of the Lord’s Supper is trashed in most Evangelical churches, as its leaders decide to adjust and “improve” or be lenient and accommodating on the commandments which Jesus gave the Church for all time.  Of all Christians, evangelicals trumpet their “bible alone” views the loudest, and yet they, more than the others, feel free to change it when it doesn’t suit them.

The bottom line

So, after weighing up all these practices and beliefs, those Churches which (in my opinion) best embody the teaching and instruction of Jesus are the Calvinist first, then Anglican (Evangelical), and Methodist Churches.  Leaving to one side the issue of whether real bread, not wafers, and real wine, not grape juice, are used, they are a good balance of scripture and common sense.  

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures in this article are taken from the Authorised King James Version of the Bible.