An Evangelical Friendly “Real Presence” View of Communion

The Eucharist, also known as the Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper, holds a central place in Christian worship. Since its inception at the Last Supper that Jesus shared with His disciples, this mysterious meal has been practiced by Christ followers. Beliefs behind the practice, however, are not quite as unanimous.  The Eucharist has been a topic of theological debate throughout the ages. Countless pages have been written to unravel the meaning of these profound words spoken by Jesus:

“This is my body, which is given for you …This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Lk 22:19-20, ESV)

Are these statements literal? If so, in what way? Are they purely symbolic? If so, in what way?  

Francis Chan, a prominent Evangelical pastor and author, stirred controversy with his recent statements about the Eucharist. He admitted that he had always believed Communion was merely symbolic. However, after reconsidering the first thousand years of church history and being influenced by conversations with Hank Hanegraaff, a prominent Bible teacher who converted to Orthodoxy, he began to reconsider his views. His openness to another view has spurred both criticism and commendation within the Christian community. So, apparently this is a no light issue, and it needs to be approached with humility ¹.

In this article, we’ll explore two distinct views of the Eucharist, and then introduce a lesser known historical middle ground, which I believe can be a powerful rapprochement between the two.

1. Real Presence View

The Real Presence view asserts that the Eucharist is not merely symbolic, but rather a mystical encounter with the living Christ. During the Eucharistic celebration, the bread and wine truly become His body and blood. The following Biblical arguments are made to support this conclusion:

• In John 6:53ff, Jesus speaks about being the bread of life and that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life.

• A symbolic interpretation of John 6:53ff and Luke 22:19-20 should only be sought if a literal interpretation is impossible, but the incarnation is a clear precedent for the possibility of the divine entering the material without diminishing its divinity.

• Throughout history, God has transmitted grace through physical means: The resurrection of a man through the touch of Elisha’s bones (2 Ki 13:20-21); the healings of Jesus through the touch of His hand, the hem of His garment (Lk 8:44), or the application of mud (Jn 9:6); the healings of the apostles through anointing oil (Mk 6:13), a shadow (Ac 5:15) or a handkerchief (19:11-12); the impartation of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands (19:6).

• In the garden, the partaking of “Life” was via oral consumption of the fruit from the “Tree of Life” (Gen 2:9).

• During the passover, the participants were to literally eat the Passover lamb whose blood was applied to the doorframe (Ex 12:7-8); a type of Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate Passover lamb (Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7).

• In the sacrificial system, the priest who ate the flesh of the sin offering was made holy (Lev 6:27), because it was “most holy” (v29). Jesus, our sin offering (2 Cor 5:21), instructed His followers to eat His flesh (John 6:53ff).

• In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul reveals that the Israelites “drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ,” affirming that even in the Old Testament, God’s people partook of Christ in a mysterious yet real way through physical elements like water.

• In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul describes an actual participation in the body and blood of Christ that occurs through the bread and the cup.

• In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul warns that a failure to spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ during communion can result in physical sickness and death, suggesting a direct correlation between the physical and spiritual aspects of the elements.

Belief in some sort of real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was prevalent throughout early Church history. I won’t quote every Pre-Nicene Father, but here are a few samples:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”  ²

St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” ³

St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood….For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.” ⁴

Tertullian (c. 210 AD)

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in Baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in Confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God”⁵

Theories about the mechanics of real presence have shifted throughout church history. In the Fourth Lateran Council, the Catholic Church announced an official doctrine of transubstantiation; a doctrine influenced by Aristotelian metaphysics. According to this belief, the “accidental” properties of bread and wine (how they look, taste, etc.) remain the same, but their underlying substance changes. The Orthodox Church, which allegedly preceded the Catholic Church, holds the Real Presence view, though they do not use the term “transubstantiation” as the Roman Catholic Church does. For them, the Eucharist is a mystery, and they emphasize the actual presence of Christ without rigidly defining the mechanics of that presence. Lutherans, who split from the Catholic Church in the 16th Century, also deny the specific process of transubstantiation, while still holding to the belief that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of consecrated bread and wine. ⁶

2. Memorial View

The Memorial view, prevalent today among Evangelical denominations, emphasizes the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. In this perspective, the bread and wine represent Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross but in no way contain any presence of Christ. The act of partaking in Communion serves as a memorial—a way to remember and honor Christ’s redemptive work. This view originated with Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss Reformation leader in the sixteenth century. It differed significantly, not only from the 16th century Lutheran view, but also from the view held by other reformers, which will be discussed in the Middle Ground Solution. 

The following Biblical arguments are made to support the Memorial view:

• In Luke 22:19, “This is my body” means “This signifies my body.”

• In Luke 22:19, Jesus instructs His disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” This phrase underscores the memorial aspect of the Eucharist.

• In John 6, Jesus is using parallelism to emphasize that just as food and drink are necessary for sustaining physical life, faith in Jesus and acceptance of His words are necessary for obtaining and sustaining eternal life. In v35, He equates eating His flesh with “coming to Him” and drinking His blood with “believing”. A comparison of v47 with v51 also suggests that eating His flesh is equivalent to “believing” in Him.

• In 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, Paul echoes Jesus’ words, emphasizing the act of remembrance during the Eucharistic celebration.

• In 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul emphasizes the proclamatory purpose of communion; to proclaim the Lord’s Death until He comes.

• According to scripture Christ is in a glorified, finite body. It resides in heaven and cannot be in two places at once in any physical way. Therefore, transubstantiation, which suggests a change of the material elements into the body of Christ, is impossible.

3. A Middle Ground – The Spiritual Presence View

These two polar opposite views of the Eucharist, the Real Presence and the Memorial view, are not the only two options. There is a middle ground view that respects the Biblical and historical support for a Real Presence view, yet shares some affinity with the Memorial view. This view, also articulated during the Reformation, is commonly referred to as the Spiritual Presence view. 

The Spiritual Presence view, associated with John Calvin, posits a real yet spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Calvin diverged from the notion of physical presence as in transubstantiation and Zwingli’s purely symbolic view, advocating that believers engage with Christ’s true body and blood spiritually through the Holy Spirit and faith. This perspective asserts that while Christ’s glorified physical body resides in heaven (and cannot be in two places at once), His presence is imparted to the Eucharistic elements in a substantial but spiritual form by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the bread and wine, though unchanged in their physical substance, become spiritually infused with Christ’s presence. As such, when the faithful receive Communion, they are spiritually nourished by Christ’s presence ⁷. While Zwingli’s emphasis was on the action of the participants as a communal remembrance, the Spiritual Presence view emphasized the action of the Holy Spirit to make the presence of Christ a reality in the hearts of the participants. This distinction is crucial in understanding the theological diversity within the Reformation regarding the nature of the Lord’s Supper. 

The 17th Century Puritans and Spiritual Presence

From my prior articles, I’m sure the reader will discover that I have a love for the writings of the Puritans. To bring more color to the discussion of the Spiritual Presence view, I’d like to introduce the reader to Thomas Watson. Watson was an influential English Puritan preacher and author, born around 1620. He is best known for his work as a non-conformist minister who was ejected from his parish after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Despite this, he continued to preach and write, contributing significantly to Puritan literature. In his book, “The Holy Eucharist, or, the Mystery of the Lord’s Supper Briefly Explained” Watson has several quotes that bring the Spiritual Presence view to life.

When speaking of sacraments, Watson describes them as “visible sermons” which build our faith beyond the bare preaching of the Word. He proposes that we need the sacrament to feed and cherish us spiritually, primarily because we as physical beings who are still dependent on physical means.

QUESTION. But why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper appointed? Is not the Word sufficient to bring us to heaven? ANSWER. The Word is for the engrafting; the Sacraments are for the confirming of faith. The Word brings us to Christ; the Sacrament builds us up in Him. The Word is the font where we are baptized with the Holy Ghost; the Sacrament is the table where we are fed and cherished. The Lord condescends to our weakness. Were we made up all of spirit, there would be no need of bread and wine. But we are compounded creatures. Therefore God, to help our faith, not only gives us an audible word but a visible sign. I may here allude to that saying of our Savior, “Except ye see signs, ye will not believe,” John 4:48. Christ sets His body and blood before us in the elements. Here are signs, else we will not believe. Things taken in by the eye work more upon us than things taken in by the ear. A solemn spectacle of mortality more affects us than an oration. So, when we see Christ broken in the bread and, as it were, crucified before us, this more affects our hearts than the bare preaching of the Word.⁸

In this next quote, Watson denies the physical presence of Christ’s body, while affirming a spiritual presence. 

This doctrine of the Sacrament confutes the opinion of transubstantiation. When Christ said, “This is My body,” the papists affirm that the bread, after the consecration, is turned into the substance of Christ’s body. We hold that Christ’s body is in the Sacrament spiritually. But the papists say that it is there carnally, which opinion is both absurd and impious.⁹

In the following quote, Watson also denies the Memorial view, claiming that it is not efficacious enough.  He suggests that much more is happening during communion than a simple remembrance.

Also, this doctrine of the Sacrament confutes such as look upon the Lord’s Supper only as an empty figure or shadow, resembling Christ’s death, but having no intrinsic efficacy in it. Surely, this glorious ordinance is more than an effigy or representative of Christ. Why is the Lord’s Supper called the communion of the body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:16, but because, in the right celebration of it, we have sweet communion with Christ? In this gospel ordinance, Christ not only shows forth His beauty, but sends forth His virtue. The Sacrament is not only a picture drawn, but a breast drawn. It gives us a taste of Christ as well as a sight, 1 Peter 2:3. Such as make the Sacrament only a representative of Christ shoot short of the mystery and come short of the comfort. ¹⁰

Next, Watson highlights how something efficacious must be occurring during communion if Paul takes such time to warn us of partaking of it unworthily.

Does Christ offer His body and blood to us in the Supper? Then with what solemn preparation should we come to so sacred an ordinance! It is not enough to do what God has appointed, but as He has appointed. “Prepare your hearts unto the Lord,” 1 Samuel 7:3. The musician first puts his instrument in tune before he plays. The heart must be prepared and put in tune before it goes to meet with God in this solemn ordinance of the Sacrament. Take heed of rashness and irreverence. If we do not come prepared, we do not drink but spill Christ’s blood. “Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 11:27  ¹¹

Finally, Watson heralds the numerous benefits that exude from the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Under these elements of bread and wine, Christ and all His benefits are exhibited to us. The Sacrament is a repository and storehouse of celestial blessings. Behold here, life and peace and salvation set before us! All the sweet delicacies of heaven are served in this feast. ¹²

Watson’s insights eloquently invite us to contemplate the deep mystery of communion, where the sacred and the mortal intertwine in a moment of divine grace.

A Protestant Cross-Denominational View

Since the Spiritual Presence view was articulated by John Calvin, and popular among Puritans, one might ask: Is this view exclusive to Reformed Presbyterian churches? Actually it is not. Many reformed baptist churches hold this historical view. The David S. Dockery and Timothy F. George Center for Baptist Renewal (CBR) is a growing group of evangelical Baptists committed to retrieving the Great Tradition for the renewal of Baptist faith and practice¹³. Regarding the sacraments, CBR aims to explore and renew a reformed view, including the Spiritual Presence view of communion. Therefore, the Spiritual Presence view is shared by both Presbyterians and Baptists. Beyond these, the Wesleyan tradition also affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it may be unrealistic to expect a universal shift towards a more objective view of the presence of God in the Eucharist, it is both hopeful and necessary to invite a reflective examination of one’s approach to Communion. Is it merely a ritualistic act, or is it a profound encounter with Christ’s presence? The call is to embrace a deeper openness to the spiritual reality that Communion represents. Historical believers in the real presence should not be viewed as outliers but as fellow Christians engaging in a shared, Spirit-filled experience. Just as we are filled with the Spirit through worshiping with spiritual songs (Eph 5:18) and hearing the spoken Word (Col 3:16), so too can the Sacrament of Communion be a vessel through which the Spirit fills us, as we expand from hearing the audible Word to seeing and tasting the illustrated Word – the bread and wine, symbols of the Word made flesh. Let us, therefore, approach the Eucharist not as a mere formality but as a sacred moment of spiritual nourishment and unity with the divine.

Press the SUBSCRIBE button at the bottom to get emails when new articles publish!

Click the link to our FACEBOOK Group at the bottom. Come and join the conversation!

Endnotes:

Photo by CWMGary on Freeimages.com

1. Francis Chan, Evangelical Pastor, Faces Backlash After Preaching on the …. https://relevantradio.com/2020/01/francis-chan-evangelical-pastor-preaches-on-the-real-presence/. ↩︎
2. Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 ↩︎
3. First Apology 66 ↩︎
4. Against Heresies: 4, 18, 4 ↩︎
5. The Resurrection of the Dead 8 ↩︎
6. An Explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism, (LCMS), question 291 ↩︎
7. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper – Ligonier Ministries. ↩︎
8. Watson, Thomas. The Holy Eucharist, or, the Mystery of the Lord’s Supper Briefly Explained. Puritan Publications, 2012. ↩︎
9. ibid ↩︎
10. ibid ↩︎
11. ibid ↩︎
12. ibid ↩︎
13. https://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/ ↩︎