We cannot answer all the questions in this overview, but we can exegete the Lord’s Supper in its original context in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This post also looks very briefly at 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-34 and John 6:35-59. Then, what do various churches teach about the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or Eucharist)? I am here to learn. I updated this post with information that startled me. I also learned something new from Exodus 12:14. Once more I updated this post!

In the table, below, Jesus is about to accomplish his redemptive sacrifice which will launch his New Covenant community. The whole ethos is about to change—or begin to change. It will take at least two thousand years for the launch to reach us today. Jesus is about to fulfill Exodus theology.

This table is my translation. If you would like to see others, please go to biblegateway.com.

The Last Supper in Parallel Columns

For your convenience and for a clearer exegesis, here are the main passages, side by side.

Matthew 26:26-30	Mark 14:22-26	Luke 22:14-20
26 As they were eating, Jesus, taking bread and blessing it, broke it, and giving it to the disciples, said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” 27 And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, everyone, 28 for this is my blood of my covenant which has been poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you: from now on I will surely not drink from this produce of the vine until that day when I drink with you anew in the kingdom of my Father.” 30 And when they sang a hymn, they left for the Mount of Olives.	22 While they were eating, he, taking the bread and blessing it, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Taking the cup, giving thanks, he gave it to them, and everyone drank from it. 24 Then he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which has been poured out for many. 25 I tell you the truth: I will no longer drink from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink this new wine in the kingdom of God. 26 After they sang a hymn, they left for the Mount of Olives.	14 And so when the hour came, he took his place, the apostles with him. 15 Then he said to them, “I have really wanted to eat this Passover with you before I suffered. 16 For I tell you that I shall certainly not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when he took up the cup and gave thanks, he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that I will certainly not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking the bread, he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this for my remembrance.” 20 And after eating, likewise, he did so with the cup, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the New Covenant in my blood.

Passover Meal

Here is a summary of the evidence that the early disciples believed Jesus held a Passover Meal, and not a casual dinner:

1.. The meal was eaten in Jerusalem.

2.. Jesus and the disciples spent the night in the environs of Jerusalem (Gethsemane), a further requirement.

3.. They reclined on couches.

4.. The meal was eaten after sunset, while other meals were in the late afternoon.

5.. The meal ended with a hymn (26:30), and Passover meals closed with the part of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118).

6.. The interpretation of the elements was part of the ritual (Exod. 12:26-27).

7.. Giving to the poor was a custom (cf. Matt 26:9; John 13:29).

Source: Grant R. Osborne, Matthew: Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Zondervan, 2010), p. 961, who got the list from Robert J. Stein.

So we don’t need to be distracted by the hours of the day or which day (late Thursday  on our calculation = Friday by Jewish reckoning) the meal was taken. All Gospels see it as a Passover meal and therefore very special and symbolic.

Old Testament Background

Very briefly, the OT background are found in these sample verses:

The lamb must be slaughtered for each household. The people must eat in haste, with the right clothing placement to symbolize the flight or exodus out of Egypt:

Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.  […] ⁷ Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. […] ¹¹ This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover. (Exod. 12:3, 7, 11, NIV)

Then the bread must be specially prepared:

¹⁴ “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance. ¹⁵ For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast.  (Exod. 12:14-15)

The NIV’s translation “commemorate” could be translated as “memorial” (Hebrew masculine noun zikkaron). This is an important word for what follows.

In the next verse, Moses had already instituted the Sinai Covenant, and the Ten Commandments had been thundered down from on high, so he sprinkled blood to ratify the covenant:

And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exod. 24:8, ESV)

Next, Moses said that no one may eat blood:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. ¹² Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” (Lev. 17:11-12, ESV)

Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

Finally, Jeremiah prophesied the New Covenant. The key clause is the forgiveness of iniquity and remembering our sins no more:

³³ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ³⁴ And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer. 31:33-34, ESV, emphasis added)

Hebrews 8 also quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the Epistle to Hebrews says the Sinai covenant is obsolete. Jesus is now launching the cancellation of this old Sinai covenant, and he is doing it by taking over two elements of the Passover meal: bread and wine.

Question: how deeply and far do we interpret the words of Jesus, as he takes over the Passover meal and reduces it to two elements with new meaning? Exodus 12:14 says it is a memorial.

Quick Exegesis

Given the above contexts, the Passover ritual had no place for the words “this is my body.” It must have shocked the twelve Jewish disciples when Jesus says the wine is his blood and to drink it, even though it is symbolically–not literally–his blood, and the disciples could see with their own eyes that it was wine. It was shocking, for they were not permitted by law to eat blood, let alone to drink it. For centuries later, people falsely accused Christians of cannibalism (France p. 993).

Streamlining it to its essence, Jesus raised up the Passover to a whole different level. He made it his own. It now speaks of intimacy and relationship with him (John 15). In Luke 22:19, he says it is a memorial or remembrance of him (see below, Church Traditions, the fourth point, for the Greek phrase).

He had blessed God for bread before (Matt. 14:19). The typical Jewish prayer of thanksgiving: “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth” (m.Ber. 6:1). In Greek the verb comes from eulogeō (pronounced eu-loh-geh-oh, and the “g” is hard, as in “get”), and it literally means to “speak well.” BDAG, a thick Greek lexidefines the term, depending on the context, as follows: (1) “to say something commendatory, speak well of, praise, extol”; (2) “to ask for bestowal of special favor, especially of calling down God’s gracious power, bless”; (3) “to bestow a favor, provide with benefits.” Here it is the second definition. Some translations have “he gave thanks.” Being grateful even for food shows gratitude and an acknowledgement that God is the source. This is a special meal.

The bread: In Luke’s version Jesus said of the bread, “This is my body.” In Matthew’s version he said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (26:26). In Mark’s version he said, “Take; this is my body” (14:22). So do these words permit a miraculous transformation under the appearance of the bread into the literal, glorified body of Jesus? Didn’t Jesus say, “This bread is my body”? Surely there is something mysterious going on. But what exactly?

The cup: it was a literal cup, but it stands in for the wine. It is used in a metaphorical sense for wrath (Matt. 20:22-23 and Mark 10:38-39). But in Luke’s version, he said “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” He did not say “this is my blood.” Yes, he said in Matthew’s version of the wine: “Drink of it, everyone, for this is my blood of the covenant” (v. 28). And Mark says the same, but with a slight variation (v. 24). But Luke’s version has the intervening vessel instead of the direct statement  “this is my blood.” Therefore, we should not overread the words in Matthew and Mark.

Paul’s View

So what about Paul’s writing? He agrees with the three Synoptic Gospels about the bread, “This is my body, which is for you” (1 Cor. 11:24). However, Paul agrees with Luke about the cup: “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). For the Greek text, see the next section and the fourth point. (Recall that Luke and Paul were traveling companions.)

So, once again, the cup interferes with the neat and tidy and direct correspondence between “This is my blood of the covenant.” If Paul had believed in a miraculous transformation under the appearance of the bread and wine or the Real Presence coming down from heaven, he would have made it clear in a teaching of some kind. Interpreters have to import this prior belief into a symbolic supper that includes bread and wine. And the same goes for the Synoptic authors

(Importing meaning into a text is called eisegesis [the prefix eis means “into’]. Exporting meaning from the text is called exegesis [the prefix ex means “out of’]. Exegesis is the better method.)

However, something miraculous may be happening, since some partake unworthily and have become sick and died prematurely (1 Cor. 11:30), but let’s not make too much of this indirect evidence about those judgments and leap to a miraculous transformation of the bread and wine. Those judgments were probably caused by some people people treating the consecrated and holy bread and wine as common or profane, which brought judgment on people in the OT (Lev. 22:15-16 and Ezek. 22:8). Also, they were eating and drinking unworthily, which means they had not prepared their hearts with God’s willing forgiveness of their unclean heart, on their repentance (2 Chron. 30:15-20). Evidently, Paul is bringing forward the judgment against profanation into the New Covenant. 

Paul states that something very special goes on with the bread and the wine. What is it? He writes:

¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷ Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. (1 Cor. 10:16-17, NIV)

The Greek noun here for participation is koinōnia, which simply means “communion” or “participation,” as the NIV translates it. To be more precise, Paul says that participating in eating bread symbolizes our unity. One Loaf = One Body of Christ = the Body of Believers (1 Cor. 12:12-27). Though we believers are many parts, we still belong to one body, the body of Christ. Paul does not say what participating in drinking the wine symbolizes, but presumably it also symbolizes our unity in Christ. But does this unity happen by the Spirit or by the bread and wine? “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3, NIV).

Further, Paul appeals to the ancient Israelites and their participation with sacrifices at the altar in the temple, which they are permitted to eat: “Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” (1 Cor. 10:18, NIV). How do they participate in the altar? Did the presence of God come down from heaven? Maybe so, but how? And how would this coming down from heaven take place in the New Covenant? Would it encircle or touch the bread and wine or the participant? Would it not be done by the Spirit?

Circling back around, let’s ask one more time: Do these passages speak directly and explicitly of a miraculous transformation of the substance under the appearance or of the Real Presence coming down from heaven in, under, and around the elements? If so, can Christians experience this presence coming down from heaven, or does his presence come down from heaven on the bread and wine through the Holy Spirit and on to the participant? Let’s see if we can answer those questions in the next sections.

Church Traditions

Unfortunately, I have to be too brief in this summary section also. My goal is not to offend, but to understand. I’m a lifelong learner, though in this section I offer my opinion at the fourth church tradition.

Four views: (1) Catholic, (2) “High-Church” Protestants, (3) Spiritual Signs, (4) Symbolic Memorials

Another introductory item: sacraments are things that are made holy by prayer and consecration and have saving power in them or some level of power in them, like building one’s faith. The first three church traditions use the term sacrament for the bread and wine. In contrast, an ordinance is related to the word ordain, for Jesus ordained the Lord’s Supper. The elements are not sacred in themselves, but they represent the body and blood. The fourth church tradition typically uses the term ordinance.

One last introductory item: You can search online at youtube for professional theologians who offer more details about their article of faith on the Lord’s Supper. I have, and the videos are educational for me.

Or go to my post:

Basics about the Lord’s Supper

(1).. In celebrating the mass, Roman Catholics call the miraculous transformation transubstantiation because the substance below the appearance is somehow, mysteriously, transformed. (Note the word “substance” in transubstantiation.) The appearance does not change, but the substance does. So the bread and wine are sacraments. Don’t ask me what the substance is, but the idea surely comes in from super-genius Aristotle and then through Thomas Aquinas, who incorporated Aristotle’s views into Catholic theology. The bread and wine really are the glorified body and blood of Christ, but under the accidents (appearances).

So it works out like this, boiled down without complications (the arrow meaning “leads to,” “brings about” or “effectuates”):

Bread + Wine + Priestly Prayer of Consecration → Miraculous Transformation of the Substance under the Appearance

That equation is designed to clarify, not tear down people’s belief in the sacred.

(2).. In comparison, Lutherans (and perhaps Anglicans) believe that the presence of Christ is in, under, and around the bread, but the substance is not transformed. Lutherans do not like to call this article of faith consubstantiation, meaning the presence is “with” the substance (“con” means “with”). They want to take out the idea of a substance in their doctrine. (I don’t blame them for this.) But others say the label is right because Christ’s glorified body and blood enter the two sacraments under the appearances.

And so Lutherans believe that somehow, mysteriously, the presence of Christ is in, within, under the bread and wine, but without a miraculous transformation of the substance. Christ’s presence comes down from heaven and blesses the bread and wine. Therefore, the bread and wine are sacraments–holy things, holy in themselves.

Here is the equation:

Bread + Wine + Consecrated Prayer → Glorified Body and Blood → Presence in, under, around the Sacraments

(3).. Calvinism (Reformed) says that the bread and wine are really bread and wine, but they are also the glorified body and blood and Christ in a spiritual sense. The bread and wine are spiritual signs (or symbols) and seals and sacraments. The elements are for the eyes, and the preaching of God’s word is for the ears. The word brings us to Christ, but the sacraments build our faith. So the elements are superior or equal to the word. The Spirit communicates or is the means of grace and power to the participants.

Equation:

Bread + Wine = Body and Blood in a Spiritual Sense → Building Your Faith through the Sacraments

This is the best I can do for the Reformed view in my brief survey.

(4).. The next equation is typical of Protestants, like Baptists and Calvary Chapel and various Evangelical churches and independent charismatic churches and Pentecostals. Recall that Luke’s version says that drinking the wine is done in remembrance of Jesus (v. 19). And Exod. 12:14 says that Passover is to be celebrated as a memorial (once again the Hebrew masculine noun is zikkaron). So Memorialism cannot be ruled out. Just the opposite. It has to be ruled in.

Bread + Wine = Symbolic Memorials + Partaking of Them by Faith → Miraculous Transformation in the Person by the Spirit

The latter part of the equation looks like Calvinism (Reformed), but the first part looks like Zwingli’s view (Memorialism). This is my view, too. I expect the Holy Spirit to move in my heart as I partake of the bread and wine. Deep activity of the Spirit can happen when we remember his death on the cross and take the elements by faith. The activity goes directly from the Spirit to my own heart, without the intervening elements being transformed or sacramentalized. They are not sacraments but ordinances because Jesus ordained this supper, though I see that some memorialists now advocate calling them sacraments. I’m open but only if we redefine sacrament as an item that is set apart or consecrated for special service or use without containing any power in it; then and only then am I open to calling the bread and wine sacraments.

Ouch. I just heard a youtube Baptist theologian and pastor call the Memorialism doctrine “low-grade” Evangelicalism. However, the Greek supports Memorialism, as follows:

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (touto poieite eis tēn emēn anamnēsin)
“Do this for my remembrance” (Luke 22:19)

The noun anamnēsin (accusative) comes from anamnēsis (nominative), which means “reminder, remembrance, memory” (Shorter Lexicon). It is used only four times in the Greek NT: Hebrews 10:3; Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (twice). The latter two occurrences are in the context of the Lord’s Table, and the wording in Greek in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is exactly what is seen in Luke 22:19, duplicated just above. Exactly.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (touto poieite eis tēn emēn anamnēsin)
“Do this for my remembrance” (1 Cor. 11:24)

This exact repetition startled me. (Recall that Luke and Paul were traveling companions at various times.) Therefore, Memorialism is not “low-grade” Evangelicalism. It is perfectly biblical.

The main point of the fourth view is that life in the Spirit is the whole project and new way that God grants to people in the New Covenant (Luke 24:49; John 20:22; entire book of Acts; Rom. 8; Gal. 5). People of the Old Covenant did not have life in the Spirit, in the same way, as do people of the New. So the Spirit is involved in our partaking of the two elements in New covenant believers. Thus, hopefully these verses take away the objection that importing the Spirit into the passages about Lord’s Supper, which do not bring up the Spirit in the Synoptics, is eisegesis. We achieve unity during our partaking of the one loaf by the Spirit (Eph. 4:3).

For me:

Yes:

Communion + Pneumatology

No:

Communion + Mystical heavenly body and blood of Christ coming on, in, under, and around bread and grape juice

When the church takes communion together at a gathering, the Spirit of God dwells among his people and honors and glorifies the exalted Jesus and his sacrifice.

The Four Churches’ Views in Light of Scripture

Now we combine the exegesis of the parallel passages and Paul’s view and the churches’ interpretations. Let’s call it a biblical critique of the four views–from my point of view.

So do those parallel passages argue for a literal transformation of the substance of the elements below the appearance, or do they argue for the Real Presence in some way? I say no to both, unless one imports this belief into those verses. But I admit that something special is going on when we partake of the two elements. The Passover meal was originally symbolic on some level and to some degree. Passover was a memorial. For a Renewalist like me, I say the Spirit in my heart makes them special and holy, subjectively in me.

Why? My guess is that Luke’s version about the cup determines the interpretation. If he really believed in a miraculous transformation or the Real Presence around the wine, he would have indicated this by saying what Matthew and Mark said about it. “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24). Instead, Luke wrote, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” (And so does Paul.) So there is an interfering or intervening vessel between the words and the miraculous transformation, for it is not likely that the cup is transformed under the appearance of an ordinary cup.

Also, Jesus had turned the water into wine (John 2:1-12), so Jesus could have taught the disciples clearly about a miraculous transformation. Instead, he said “this cup” and not “this blood” in Luke’s version, which tones down and clarifies the other two versions.

But there are other reasons than Luke’s wording for Memorialism.

In John 6:35-59, Jesus clearly spells out the blood and the body as something to feed on, but this imagery has to be metaphorical or symbolic, speaking of intimacy and connectedness with Jesus. It cannot be literal cannibalism, and there is no direct and clear teaching about the miraculous transformation of his blood and flesh under the appearance or the presence of Christ coming down from heaven to be in, around, or underneath the elements. It is in this Gospel that he turned the water into wine, yet he offers no explanation of this change in John 6. But I admit something profoundly symbolic is going on. But how far do we push the symbolism? Not too far, culturally speaking in first-century Israel.

In the word study on “bless” in the Quick Exegesis section, I cannot find that Jesus’s blessing of the bread leads to a miraculous transformation of the substance, under the appearances or the calling down of the Presence of Christ from heaven and coming inside or around the elements. One has to import this article of faith into the parallel Synoptic passages (and into Paul’s view).

I believe that the first two church traditions overinterpret the original context. Some reformers seemed to be in a competition to come as close to Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation as they could without actually teaching it or crossing a line. They allowed this Medieval doctrine to influence them too much. They were not careful exegetes, in this case. The latter two theologies (Reformed and Memorialism) come much closer to the original context and Jesus’s intention (as I see things).

Bottom line for this section: in the three parallel passages and Paul’s theology, there is no context for a miraculous transformation of the substance of the bread and wine or the presence of Christ in, under, or around the sacraments. This interpretation takes the original context of the Passover too far. Therefore, the bread and wine are not sacraments with saving power in themselves. They represent and symbolize Christ’s body and blood. And in the New Covenant and after Pentecost, the Spirit makes Communion or the Eucharist supernatural in the hearts of the participants. Faith is important to receive the operation of the Spirit, while the participants eat the bread and drink the wine.

Conclusion

The main goal of Christ in instituting the Lord’s Supper is to demonstrate that the New Covenant is superior and better than the Old Sinai Covenant, as the epistle of Hebrews teaches. Jesus is inaugurating a new way, the New Covenant. Just before the exodus, the blood of the lamb was spread on the doorframe (Exod. 12:1-29, 43-51), and Jesus is keying off of this practice and replacing the lamb’s blood with his own blood. His sacrifice is once and for all (Heb. 9:26) and eternal (Heb. 9:12). Wine now symbolically replaces the blood. His sacrifice does not have to be done every year or every time we take Communion. The unleavened flatbread symbolizes eating in haste because the exodus from Egypt is about to happen–soon–now! The bread now symbolizes his body.

I believe that Jesus was simply taking over the Passover meal when he held up the bread and cup. (The demonstrative pronoun “this” in “this is my body” indicates he was holding it up before his disciples.) He also knew that Exodus 12:14 says that the entire Passover meal was to be a “memorial.” In effect he was saying: “This unleavened flatbread right here which I am holding up before your eyes is now my body, and it no longer symbolizes what Moses had said about it. It symbolizes something new: my body. And the wine which is used for celebration is now my blood. I am now the Passover lamb, which had shed its blood for the ancient Israelites. Everyone, converted Jew and converted Gentile living in my New Covenant, must take it regularly, not once a year. When you do, remember me and my sacrifice, from now on.”

Therefore, I see no room for the belief in a miraculous transformation of the bread and wine under the appearance, and for the belief that the presence of Jesus comes down from heaven to surround and enter the two sacraments yet without a miraculous transformation. None of these beliefs can be proven empirically (by the five senses) or from the original cultural context or from careful exegesis.

Catholic theology and “high-church” Lutheranism and perhaps Anglicanism seem the most eisegetical and further removed from the original context of the Passover meal and the three passages in the parallel columns, while Reformed theology and Memorialism seem more exegetical and closer to the original context.

I personally am attracted to simplicity and not to overreading biblical texts, but streamlining them, so the fourth view (Memorialism) is best for me. Faith should not be placed in the elements, even though they are consecrated or set apart for a special purpose, but directly in the ascended Jesus as I remember what he did for me on the cross. I trust that the Spirit will then work directly in my heart.

And finally …..

Throughout the centuries people have killed each other over these articles of faith. I say: let everyone have their belief. There is a certain intangible beauty in devout belief. We are analyzing two physical objects (bread and wine) and calling them symbols and then taking the symbolic meaning to various degrees of sacramental transformation or just memorials and anything in between. None of these views can overtake the others and shut them out in the hearts of people.

Whatever your belief about the sacraments / elements might be, let’s not quarrel or break our deeper unity of love over it, for the Lord’s Supper expresses the New Covenant of love and unity. One loaf, one body. We are one people–his people.

RELATED

Basics about the Lord’s Supper

John 6 and Partaking of His Body and Blood

Offsite: James M. Arcadi. “‘This Is My Body’ Broken into Three Views of Communion.” Christianity Today, 9 Mar. 2022. Excellent brief overview. If the link goes dead, just copy and paste the author’s name and key words in a search engine.

Why the Blood of Jesus?

Why the Cross?

What Is Penal Substitution?

What Is Redemption in the Bible?

The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 from a NT Perspective

‘Life Is in the Blood’ in Leviticus 17 from a NT Perspective

Luke 22

Matthew 26

Mark 14