The inversion of the paradigm of my assumption regarding the sacraments was an epiphany that allowed me to complete my transition to Lutheranism. My former understanding assumed that baptism and the Lord’s supper were acts we performed to demonstrate our sincerity and devotion to Christ. Now, I understand that the sacraments are God’s gifts to His children. Through Holy Communion, God forgives sins and strengthens faith through His very body and blood. Lutherans do not deny that the supper calls for faith and remembrance, but we do assert that faith receives what God’s word promises. I’d like to offer a crescendo case for the Lutheran view and some clarifications.

The Testimony of Church History

The dominant patristic witness is that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. There isn’t a sustained denial that Christ is objectively present until much later as Zwingli raises metaphysical objections to Christ’s locality. A brief survey of the belief of the early fathers and a glimpse into the heart of disagreement at the Marburg Colloquy give us the testimony of the church and a late breaking point as the church began to diverge from its historic position.

In the early 2nd century, Ignatius of Antioch condemns those who “do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”1 Justin Martyr likewise limits partaking of the Eucharist to those “who believe that the things which we teach are true,” which in part includes that the bread and wine “is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”2 The early patristic records indicate near unanimity regarding the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine, but I’ve selected these to also highlight the importance that the early church placed on holding to this belief to set the stage for the disagreement at the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli.

The Marburg Colloquy saw widespread agreement on most issues with the exception of the Eucharist. This represents a divergence from the church’s mostly uniform stance on the real presence of Christ throughout the early patristic and medieval periods.

Fifteenth, regarding the Last Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, we believe and hold that one should practice the use of both species as Christ himself did, and that the sacrament at the altar is a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and the spiritual enjoyment of this very body and blood is proper and necessary for every Christian. Furthermore, that the practice of the sacrament is given and ordered by God the Almighty like the Word, so that our weak conscience might be moved to faith through the Holy Spirit. And although we have not been able to agree at this time, whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread and wine [of communion], each party should display towards the other Christian love, as far as each respective conscience allows, and both should persistently ask God the Almighty for guidance so that through his Spirit he might bring us to a proper understanding. Amen.3

In fairness, there were antecedents to Zwingli’s distilled philosophical approach and Calvin’s spiritual via media approach regarding how the real presence of Christ was explained. Augustine did speak of eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense.

Understand spiritually what I have said to you. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which they who crucify me are going to shed. I have commended to you a certain sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life.4

However, it’s important to take his words in context and understand that he was referencing John 6. In his sermon on the liturgical seasons, he clearly affirmed sacramental realism: “That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”5 So, claiming Augustine was clearly in the spiritual symbolism camp is not a fair assessment of his views. It is more accurate to say that later theologians and writers latched onto pieces of Augustine and took them further as the views of the Lord’s supper began to fracture. The ironic effect is that Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, and Catholic theologians cite Augustine for their Eucharistic distinctiveness. More importantly, we must feast upon God’s word and let it nourish our minds to rightly consider this sacrament of the altar.

The Testimony of Scripture

When Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper His words were clear. It is worth repeating but not rehashing the core of the argument. Many point to Jesus’ words as a metaphor like His “I am statements” while those holding to a real presence insist that His words be taken literally. Instead, I’d like to let Jesus’ words of institution be stated and then considered in light of Paul’s words of admonition.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:26-28, ESV

Paul’s admonition of the Corinthians regarding the Lord’s Supper points to the efficacy and real presence of Christ. Why would he issue such a stark warning if it were only a memorial meal? Instead he says,

 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29, NASB

First, notice that Paul says that eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy way means one is “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” Second, notice that Paul states that one eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. What does he mean by body? The NIV opts to translate this as “the body of Christ,” following the immediate context of Christ’s literal body in verse 27. Other interpretations point toward Paul referencing the corporate body with their disregard for the poor, orderliness, and unity in the supper in the broader context. Going back to chapter ten of 1 Corinthians, Paul raises the question as to whether or not the cup blessed and the bread broken are κοινωνία (communion or participation) in the blood and body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). The language here strongly suggests a true presence understanding in the supper as Paul describes a true participation, as κοινωνία denotes real sharing, not a mere symbolic recollection. When read together, the participatory language of 1 Corinthians 10 undergirds and underlines the seriousness and reality of what we believe and what we receive.

Paul’s admonitions bring greater clarity to the plain, literal meaning of Jesus’ words of institution. His warning would not carry the weight that it most certainly does if Jesus’ “body” and “blood” in the sacrament were merely memorials for our consideration. Paul’s urgency and explicit connecting language to the physicality of Christ reminds us that properly recognizing the body is not just remembering. Paul doesn’t treat the supper as a way to boost our devotion but instead as a participation in what Christ objectively gives.

Clarifications

Terms

Lutherans have been associated with the term consubstantiation; however, they have not and do not typically use the term. Rejecting transubstantiation, the Catholic view, Lutherans simply assert that the real presence of Christ is in, with, and under the elements. They have used the term “sacramental union” to describe this nuanced distinction. It simply means that the bread is bread and the wine is wine while simultaneously confessing that the body and blood of Christ are present in, with and under the elements. The “how” is left to trusting in God’s promises and power.

Focus

When I was a Baptist as well as when I attended a Reformed congregation, the emphasis in communion was on remembrance and personal holiness. Let me be clear. Remembering and coming with reverence and holiness is absolutely a part of partaking in communion. However, this is simply a baseline of what it means to follow our Lord’s institution of His supper and the whole of the biblical teaching. Additionally, Lutherans are not concerned with the “how” as scripture does not give us those answers. Any “how” is speculative, and we rest in the assurance of God’s promises as seen in His word. Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches an ascension in spirit to the presence of Christ through the participation in the Lord’s supper, as Calvin’s moderating, middle view claims. Lutherans are comfortable asserting what scripture asserts even when it transcends our human philosophical categories.

Closed Communion

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession highlights careful consideration of belief in the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ.6

Confessional Lutherans generally hold to closed communion, which can cause fellow believers in Jesus to wonder why they are not invited to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Put simply, Holy Communion is taken seriously because scripture says to take it seriously and Lutherans want to make sure that those who partake of the body and blood of Christ have properly recognized the body and eat and drink in a worthy manner. Fencing the table in this manner is a sign of pastoral care that makes faithful shepherding a precursor to communing.

Too Much of a Good Thing

Lutherans generally favor more frequent celebration of Holy Communion. Luther, in the large catechism, gives spiritual context for the urgency and frequency: “If you could see how many knives, darts, and arrows are aimed at you every moment, you would be glad to come to the Sacrament as often as possible.”7 We are not commanded in scripture to partake with a particular frequency, but the need for forgiveness, the comfort of grace, and the nourishment of our souls points to seriousness and regularity. No matter how often you come to the Lord’s table, it is not too much of a good thing.

Moments Magnified

One of the first times I visited a Lutheran congregation there was a moment that led to the epiphany referenced earlier. It was not exactly during communion; however, it was the precursor to it as we prepared ourselves through confession and absolution. We began singing the first two stanzas of “Great is Thy Faithfulness,” we paused to confess our sins corporately, and then the pastor pronounced the absolution. We were forgiven on account of Christ. Then we picked up with the third verse and I sang it like I had hundreds of times before and yet somehow it impacted me with the weight of glory and a peace that passed all understanding.

Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide;
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
Blessings all mine and ten thousand beside.

That inversion point was what began my rethinking of the church, the sacraments, and the posture of heart and mind that we sinners bring before our gracious God. As I made my way to the altar rail later that day to receive “the body of Christ broken for me” and the “blood of Christ shed for me” the peace of God literally gave strength for the day and bright hope for the next.

Recently, we had several weeks that the wintry weather prevented us from gathering together for worship and partaking in the Lord’s Supper. The chaplain and mentor to our current Vicar made the suggestion to have a Wednesday night worship service with Holy Communion and was willing to make the hour commute yet again and in another bout of possible weather. Why did he make the suggestion and why was he willing to do this? Because coming to the table of the Lord for forgiveness of sins matters. His genuine pastoral concern was a powerful reminder to me that God’s word and promises should guide our practices. We believe that the body and blood of Christ are in, with, and under the bread and wine and that partaking is for the forgiveness of sins because God’s word says so.

Holy Communion is not an optional luxury that followers of Christ can casually contemplate or recklessly relegate. Our Savior’s words of institution and the apostle’s words of admonition point us to the reality of Christ’s presence, the severity of false understanding, and the mercy given in consuming the body and blood of our Lord. Let us consider rightly, consume worthily, and cherish appropriately the good gift that Christ instituted and gives His children as often as they partake.

Footnotes

  1. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, ed. Michael W. Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 231.
  2. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 185–86.
  3. “The Marburg Articles (1529),” Article 15, in German History in Documents and Images, trans. Ellen Yutzy Glebe, accessed February 9, 2026, https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/from-the-reformations-to-the-thirty-years-war-1500-1648/ghdi:document-4311.
  4. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888), accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm.
  5. Augustine, Sermons (184–229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons, sermon 227, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part III, vol. 6 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1993), 300.
  6. Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article X, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. and ed. Charles Arand et al., accessed February 15, 2026, https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-x/.
  7. Martin Luther, Large Catechism, V.82, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. and ed. Charles Arand et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 469.

Bibliography

Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Article X. In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Translated and edited by Charles Arand et al. Accessed February 15, 2026. https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-x/

Augustine. Sermons (184–229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons. Translated by Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Part III, vol. 6. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1993.

Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888. Accessed February 15, 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Smyrnaeans. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. Edited by Michael W. Holmes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Luther, Martin. Large Catechism. In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Translated and edited by Charles Arand et al. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

“The Marburg Articles (1529).” In German History in Documents and Images. Translated by Ellen Yutzy Glebe. Accessed February 9, 2026. https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/from-the-reformations-to-the-thirty-years-war-1500-1648/ghdi:document-4311