THE QUANTUM PAPERS // FILE 018: How Does Communion Work?

PREFACE: THE MEAL

To the Reader who wonders why church people eat bread and drink from a cup:

In many Christian churches, you will see a ritual meal: a small piece of bread and a sip of wine (or grape juice).

To an outsider, it can look bizarre. Is it a snack? A tradition? A symbol? Even if you grew up in church, you might still wonder, "What is actually happening here? Am I supposed to feel something?"

This meal is called Communion (also known as the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist).
It is a central practice of Christian worship because Jesus Himself instituted it and commanded His disciples to continue it. Yet, it is also one of the most debated practices in Christian history. Christians have fiercely disagreed about what Jesus actually meant when He spoke about His body and blood.

We are going to audit this meal.

• Where did it come from?
• What does the Bible actually say?
• Why do some churches say it is a miracle, while others insist it is only a memory?

We are not here to tell you how to feel. We are here to test the claims. We want to understand how a physical sign—bread and a cup—relates to the spiritual reality Christians believe God promises through it.

1.0 THE SOURCE CODE (THE PASSOVER CONNECTION)

To understand Communion, we have to look at the context. We cannot understand what Jesus did at the Last Supper unless we understand what He was celebrating: The Passover.

1.1 The Blood of the Lamb

In the book of Exodus, the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. God sent plagues to free them, culminating in the tenth plague: the death of the firstborn son in every house.
God provided a specific escape plan for His people and explicitly commanded them to keep this memorial forever (Exodus 12:14).

The Instructions (Exodus 12:1–13):

1. Take a perfect lamb without blemish.
2. Sacrifice the lamb.
3. Paint its blood on the doorposts of the house.
4. Eat the lamb as a meal.

The Logic:
God promised that when judgment passed through Egypt, He would see the blood on the door and "pass over" that house. The firstborn inside would live.

• The Cost: A substitution. The lamb died so the son could live.
• The Requirement: The blood had to be applied. It was not enough to simply believe God could save them; they had to physically apply the covering He provided.

1.2 The Update

Centuries later, on the night before He was crucified, Jesus sat down with His disciples to eat this Passover meal.
But during the dinner, Jesus reinterpreted the meal around Himself.

He took the unleavened bread, which represented both the affliction of slavery and the haste of leaving Egypt, and gave it a new meaning:

"Take and eat; this is my body." — Matthew 26:26

He took the cup, which represented the blood of the Passover lamb, and gave it a new meaning:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." — Matthew 26:28

The Logic Shift:
The Bible identifies Jesus as "Christ, our Passover lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

• In the first Passover, the blood of a lamb saved the people from physical death in Egypt.
• In the New Covenant, Jesus claims His blood saves people from spiritual death (judgment).

He was establishing a New Covenant. He was saying that from this point forward, this meal would no longer be primarily about remembering deliverance from Egypt, but about remembering and proclaiming His once-for-all sacrifice—and trusting in the blood that covers from judgment.

2.0 THE RAW DATA (WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS)

Before we look at how different denominations interpret this, we need to look at the raw data. What are the explicit instructions given in the Bible?
Most of our information comes from the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Apostle Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth.

2.1 The Command: "Do This"

This is one of the very few ongoing practices Jesus explicitly commanded His followers to observe.

"Do this in remembrance of me." — Luke 22:19

The Purpose:
The effect of this command is the establishment of a physical anchor—an action involving taste, touch, and sight—to ensure His followers would constantly return to the center of the faith: His death on the Cross.

2.2 The Warning Label

This is a critical piece of data often missed by casual observers. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul issues a severe warning to the church in Corinth regarding how they approached this meal.

The Context:
The church in Corinth was treating the Lord's Supper carelessly. Some were eating all the food before others arrived; some were even getting drunk. They were treating a holy event as a common party, humiliating the poor among them.

The Consequence:
Paul argues that eating the bread "in an unworthy manner" (carelessly, selfishly, or without recognizing its significance) brings judgment.

The Logic of the Warning:
Christians disagree about exactly what "discerning the body" means here—whether it refers to recognizing Christ's presence in the meal, or recognizing the unity of the church body, or both.
However, what is clear is that Paul treats the meal as spiritually serious, not casual. His warning indicates that this is not an empty ritual, but a serious point of encounter with God. To treat the symbol of Christ's sacrifice with disrespect is to disrespect Christ Himself.

2.3 The Mystery Phrase: "Is"

The major disagreement between Christian traditions hangs on a single two-letter word.
Jesus said: "This is my body."

He did not explicitly say "This represents my body" (though many argue that is the implication).
He did not explicitly say "This contains my body."
He simply said, "This is my body."

So, how is a reader supposed to interpret that?

• View A: Is it literal? (Does the bread actually become flesh?)
• View B: Is it a real spiritual presence? (Is He present without a physical change?)
• View C: Is it a metaphor? (Is it purely a memorial symbol?)

In the next sections, we will examine these three interpretations, looking at the Biblical defense for each.

3.0 VIEW A: THE LITERAL VIEW (REAL TRANSFORMATION)

The first major interpretation is the oldest and most historically continuous interpretation of Christ's presence in the meal.
It claims that when Jesus said, "This is my body," He meant it literally.

The Definition:
In this view, a miracle occurs during the prayer. The substance (the actual underlying reality) of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.
To your eyes and tongue, it still looks and tastes like bread. But the underlying reality has been transformed. It is no longer just bread; it is Jesus, truly present under the form of bread.

The Mechanism: A Sacrament
Crucially, this view sees Communion as a Sacrament. This means it is something God does for us, not just something we do for God. It is a "Means of Grace." By eating the Eucharist, a believer is literally receiving Christ into them, which provides spiritual medicine and the forgiveness of sins.

Who Believes This?

• Roman Catholic Church: They call this Transubstantiation.
• Eastern Orthodox Church: They simply call it a Mystery, accepting that it changes without trying to explain the physics of how.

3.1 The Defense: The John 6 Data

The strongest biblical argument traditionally cited for this view comes from the Gospel of John, chapter 6.
After Jesus feeds 5,000 people, He has a conversation about bread. The crowd wants more free food. Jesus pivots to spiritual reality, but He uses shockingly physical language.

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." — John 6:51

The Jewish audience is offended. They ask, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).
Proponents of this view argue that if Jesus were speaking purely metaphorically, this would have been a natural moment to clarify. He could have said, "Relax, everyone. It is a symbol. Like how I am the 'Vine' or the 'Door.'"

He does the opposite. He doubles down.

"Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you... For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.'" — John 6:53, 55

The Greek word Jesus uses here for "eat" (trogon) is significant. It is a graphic term often used for physical eating or chewing.
The result? Many of His disciples abandoned Him because this teaching was too hard (John 6:66). Jesus let them go.

The Argument:
Supporters of this view argue that the sustained literal language, combined with Jesus’ refusal to soften it, suggests He intended the offense rather than correcting a misunderstanding. He let them walk away because He was stating a hard truth they refused to accept.

3.2 The Logic: The Incarnation Pattern

Critics often say, "God cannot turn into a cracker. That is absurd."
The Literal View argues that this objection ignores the pattern of the Incarnation (Christmas).

• The Christmas Claim: The infinite God became a human baby. He looked like a normal baby, cried like a normal baby, but was substantially God.
• The Communion Claim: The infinite God becomes food. It looks like normal food, but is substantially God.

The Logic:
Proponents argue that while the Incarnation and the Eucharist are not identical acts, they follow the same theological pattern: God uniting Himself to created matter without ceasing to be God.
Furthermore, advocates argue it is difficult to justify the severity of Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11 (sickness and death) if the meal were purely symbolic, rather than a real participation in Christ’s body and blood.

4.0 VIEW B: THE REAL PRESENCE (DISTINCT BUT UNITED)

The second view tries to resolve the tension between "This is bread" and "This is Jesus."
It argues that we don't need to destroy the bread to have Jesus present.

The Definition:
In this view, the bread remains 100% bread, and the wine remains 100% wine. They do not turn into flesh. However, Christ is truly present in, with, and through the elements—regardless of who is eating.

The Mechanism: Gift and Forgiveness
Like Catholics, Lutherans view this strictly as a Sacrament. Lutherans emphasize that the primary purpose of the meal is the Forgiveness of Sins. They point to Jesus' words: "This is my blood... poured out for the forgiveness of sins."
While they agree the blood was poured out once on the Cross, they believe the benefit of that sacrifice—forgiveness—is delivered personally in the Cup.
The Analogy: Think of it like a "tangible embrace" or a hug from God. While the Gospel is a promise you hear, Lutherans view Communion as a promise you feel and taste. It is a physical assurance that the forgiveness won on the Cross is specifically applied to you.

Who Believes This?

• Lutherans: Affirm a Sacramental Union, believing Christ is truly physically present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine.
• Anglicans / Episcopalians: Affirm a Real Presence, intentionally leaving the mode of that presence undefined as a spiritual mystery.
• Presbyterians / Reformed: Affirm a Spiritual Presence, believing believers truly partake in Christ by the Holy Spirit, though Christ’s physical body remains in Heaven.

4.1 The Defense: The Iron in the Fire

Martin Luther, the German reformer, used a famous analogy to explain this mystery: Iron and Fire.
When you put a specific iron bar into a fire, the iron heats up. It glows red. It takes on the properties of the fire (heat and light).

• If you touch it, do you touch iron? Yes.
• If you touch it, do you touch fire? Yes.

The fire does not turn into iron. The iron does not turn into fire. They are distinct substances, but they are united in that moment.
This view argues that Jesus joins Himself to the meal without deleting the meal.

4.2 The Biblical Data: Participation

This view relies heavily on Paul’s specific wording in 1 Corinthians.

"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?" — 1 Corinthians 10:16

The word "participation" (Greek: koinonia) means fellowship, sharing, or deep connection.
The Argument:
Paul does not define the bread as the body in a metaphysical sense (like Transubstantiation), but he also does not reduce it to a mere mental reminder. He says it is a Participation.
When we eat, we are actually connecting to the spiritual reality of Jesus. It is an active means by which God strengthens faith and communicates grace, not merely a mental exercise.

4.3 The Logic: The Promise

This view argues that when Jesus said, "This is my body," He was making a Promise, not a physics statement.
If a father hands his child a coin and says, "Here is your inheritance," the coin is not the inheritance itself, but it carries the value and promise of the inheritance.
In this view, Communion is a Vehicle. It is the vehicle through which God delivers forgiveness and strength to the believer. It is more than a symbol, but less than a magical transformation.

5.0 VIEW C: THE MEMORIAL VIEW (THE SYMBOL)

The third major interpretation argues that the first two views make a category error. They mistake a metaphor for a mechanic.

The Definition:
In this view, the bread and wine are symbols. They represent the body and blood of Christ, but they do not contain Him. The "presence" of Christ is not in the bread; it is in the heart and mind of the believer who remembers Him.

The Mechanism: An Ordinance
View C sees Communion not as a Sacrament (God giving to us), but as an Ordinance (us obeying God). It is an act of remembrance and obedience. You do not receive forgiveness of sins by eating the cracker; you eat the cracker to remember that your sins were forgiven at the Cross.

Who Believes This?

• Many Baptists
• Many Pentecostals / Charismatics
• Many Non-Denominational Churches
• Many Evangelical Free Churches

5.1 The Defense: The Grammar of Metaphor

This view argues that Jesus spoke in metaphors constantly, and His disciples knew it.

• Jesus said, "I am the door" (John 10:9). No one looks for a doorknob on Jesus.
• Jesus said, "I am the vine" (John 15:5). No one thinks He has leaves.

The Logic:
When Jesus held up the bread and said, "This is my body," He was physically sitting right there in His actual body. It would have been apparent to the disciples that the bread was not His physical flesh, because His flesh was holding the bread.
Therefore, when He said "This is," He meant it in the same sense as pointing to a photo and saying, "This is my grandmother." It represents her; it is not physically her.

5.2 The Rebuttal: The Spirit vs. The Flesh

Their strongest defense against the Catholic "literal" argument comes from Jesus Himself in John 6. After making the controversial statements about eating His flesh, Jesus clarifies to His disciples:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." — John 6:63

The Argument:
View C argues that this verse is the key to the whole chapter. They claim Jesus explicitly told them He was speaking spiritually, not physically ("the flesh counts for nothing"). If eating literal flesh counted for nothing, then transubstantiation would be spiritually useless. Therefore, the "eating" must be spiritual (faith), not physical.

5.3 The Logic: Guarding Against Idolatry

A major motivation for this view is the fear of idolatry.
If the bread turns into God (View A) or if Christ’s presence is located in the elements themselves (View B), there is a risk that people will begin to worship the object rather than the Creator.
Historically, this view emerged strongly during the Reformation (specifically with Huldrych Zwingli) as a reaction against what they saw as superstition. They argued that Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven (Hebrews 1:3).

To look for Him in the bread is to look in the wrong place. We connect with Him through faith in His promise, not through a physical transformation of the elements.