Baptism and the Lord's Supper

How Christians Differ on the Lord's Supper

The Lord's Supper · The two ordinances Jesus gave his church

Christians agree that the Lord's Supper remembers Christ's death, communes with him, and proclaims his death until he returns, yet they differ honestly on how Christ is present in the bread and cup. The main views are a memorial view, a spiritual-presence view, and a real-presence view, with the Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, and other traditions each expressing it in their own terms. This page names those views fairly, without declaring one right, and returns to what unites believers at the table.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?1 Corinthians 10:16 (KJV)

A shared table, differently understood

At the Lord's table Christians do the same thing: they take bread and cup at the command of Jesus, remembering his death and communing with him. Paul calls it a real sharing in Christ.

What Christians have long discussed is how to understand the presence of Christ in that bread and cup, and how the sharing happens. The differences are sincere and old, and each view is an attempt to hold together the words of Jesus, this is my body, and the plain fact that he handed his disciples ordinary bread. The Living Bread is non-denominational, so this page describes the main views fairly and leaves them with the reader and their church.

The memorial view

One view understands the Supper chiefly as a memorial. On this reading, the bread and cup are signs that call the church to remember, with faith and thanksgiving, the body given and the blood shed at the cross. The words this is my body are taken as figurative, as when Jesus said I am the vine or I am the door. Christ is present by his Spirit and to the faith of the believer, and the meal is a vivid, grace-filled remembering of his death and a pledge of loyalty to him. This view is common among Baptists, many nondenominational and evangelical churches, and others, and it takes its cue from the repeated command, this do in remembrance of me.

The spiritual-presence view

A second view holds that Christ is truly present and received in the Supper, not by any change in the bread and cup, but spiritually, by the working of the Holy Spirit, and received through faith. On this understanding the believer really feeds on Christ and is nourished by his body and blood, yet in a heavenly and spiritual manner rather than a physical one. The bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, while being true means of communion with the living Christ. This view is associated with the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, following teachers such as John Calvin, and is echoed in various words by others.

The real-presence views

A third family of views holds that Christ is present in a fuller, objective sense in the bread and cup, so that in receiving them the believer receives his body and blood, though the manner is a holy mystery. Within this family the traditions describe it differently.

The Lutheran tradition teaches that Christ's body and blood are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine, which remain bread and wine, received by all who partake.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are changed in their inmost reality into the body and blood of Christ while keeping the appearance of bread and wine, so that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of the Lord.

The Eastern Orthodox Church likewise confesses that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, while reverently declining to define the manner, holding it as a sacred mystery.

Anglican and Methodist traditions have often held a high view of Christ's real presence while leaving room for a range of understanding, and other churches speak in their own terms. Across this family, the shared conviction is that Christ gives himself really and truly at his table.

Frequency and manner

Christians also differ, more mildly, over how often to keep the Supper and how to conduct it. Some churches celebrate it at every gathering, some weekly, some monthly, and some less often, each seeking to honor the meal rightly, whether by frequent nourishment or by guarding its solemnity. Practices vary too over using wine or grape juice, one common cup or many small cups, leavened or unleavened bread. These are matters of reverent custom rather than of the gospel itself, and the family of God has long lived with the variety.

Why the words of Jesus can be read in more than one way

The differences over the Supper grow from a real difficulty in the text itself, which is why sincere readers have landed in different places. On the one hand Jesus said plainly, this is my body, and this is my blood, and Paul warns that to eat and drink unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, language that sounds weighty and real. On the other hand Jesus often spoke in vivid images, calling himself the door, the vine, and the bread of life, and he held actual bread in his hands as he spoke, his body still whole before them.

Each view is trying to do justice to both of these facts at once, to the solemn words and to the plain scene. Those who emphasize the images lean toward a memorial or spiritual reading; those who emphasize the solemn words lean toward a real presence; and several traditions hold that the truth is finally a mystery too deep to pin down. Understanding this shared difficulty helps a believer see the other views not as carelessness but as honest wrestling with the same Lord's words.

It is sobering to recall that these very questions once divided the church sharply, and that much grief came from treating brothers as enemies over the manner of a meal meant to unite them. Later generations have often found more common ground than their forebears expected, agreeing on the reality of communion with Christ even while still describing its manner differently. That history is a warning and an encouragement at once: a warning against pride, and an encouragement that patient, humble study among people who love Christ can draw them closer even where full agreement is not reached.

Holding the difference with grace

These differences over the Supper are among the oldest in the church, and they should be handled with humility. Each view is trying to be faithful to the words of Jesus and to the witness of Scripture, and saints of every view have adored Christ at his table and been fed by him. It is right to seek understanding, with one's own church and the Scriptures, but wrong to let the manner of Christ's presence divide us from fellow believers who love the same Lord. The table Jesus gave was meant to unite his people, not to arm them against one another.

What unites us

Underneath the honest differences is a great and shared faith. All these Christians come at the command of Jesus. All remember his body given and his blood shed. All confess that the Supper is a true communion with Christ, whatever words they use for its manner. And all proclaim the Lord's death till he come, and wait in hope for his return. If the church kept its eyes on that shared center as steadily as it has debated the mystery, the table would do again what Jesus made it to do: gather his people as one around the love that was broken and poured out for them all.

A note for all traditions: baptism and the Lord's Supper are kept across the whole church, yet Christians practice them in genuinely different ways. Where believers sincerely differ, the main views are named here fairly and without taking a side, because The Living Bread is non-denominational. What unites us is greater than what divides us: obedience to Christ, remembrance of his death, and union with him.

Related: The Lord's Supper explained · The meaning of the bread and the cup · How Christians differ on baptism · Baptism and the Lord's Supper