Almost every group that calls itself “Christian” performs a ceremony that recalls the Last Supper shared by the Lord Jesus and his disciples. They remember his words in instituting this ceremony, preserved in Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1Cor 11:23-25. First he broke bread and shared it with the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is broken for you.” Then, after a delay recorded in Luke and 1 Corinthians, he passed his disciples a cup of wine, saying, “this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many.” So those who seek to follow him share a morsel of bread, and a swallow of wine or grape juice, remembering that his body was broken and his blood poured out for their sin. As Paul said in explaining the ceremony, ”Ye do shew the Lord’s death until he come” (1 Cor 11:26).
A central teaching of those who call themselves Roman Catholics is that at the last supper, and whenever they perform this ceremony, the bread actually becomes the real body of Christ, and the wine actually becomes his real blood. This transformation is so real that they feel it their duty to bow in worship before the elements, and the bread is often preserved and exhibited for later worship. If they are wrong, they are worshipping nothing more than a matzo cracker, an idol, and idolaters shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15).
The Roman belief is based on the words of Christ in the upper room: “this [bread] is my body, this [cup] is my blood.” For many, the most natural understanding of these words is that the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the very body and blood of Christ. Importantly, these words are the only basis for this belief. Nowhere else in Scripture are the bread and cup of the communion service identified with the body and blood of Christ.
This is not the only way to understand these sentences, particularly if we hear them as the disciples, probably speaking with the Lord in Hebrew or Aramaic, would have heard them. They would have recognized a relation between the bread and the Lord’s body; between the cup and his blood, but not necessarily an identity. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s set aside this other, symbolic interpretation. Let’s assume for the moment that Rome is correct, that the Lord (or a subsequent priest acting as his successor), by saying these words, actually transforms the elements. Just what did he say, and what would his words imply?
First the Lord presents the bread and says, “This is my body, which is broken for you.” Then the disciples eat the bread. At this moment, nothing has been said about his blood. The bread is his body, but it is broken, not whole. His body was broken in crucifixion, his flesh torn by scourging, his forehead wounded by thorns, his hands and feet pierced by nails, his side ripped by a spear. If we believe that his words have transformed the bread into his body, we must receive that bread as his dead body. That’s the picture he was trying to present. Remember Paul’s words, “Ye do shew the Lord’s death.”
Then, after a delay, he presents the cup, and says, “This is my blood, which is shed.” Just as he emphasizes that the body is broken, he emphasizes that the blood is shed, poured out from the body through the wounds that broke it. If we believe that his words have transformed the wine into his blood, we must receive that blood as blood poured out. “Ye do shew the Lord’s death.”
The body is broken, to release the blood. The blood is poured out from the body. This is the message of the last supper. If we believe that the bread becomes the actual body of Christ, and the wine the actual blood, based on these records, we must receive them as the broken body and shed blood of Christ. Every time a priest celebrates the mass, the broken body and shed blood of the Lord Jesus are physically present among his people.
Really?
There was indeed a time when the Lord’s followers had to face his broken body, stained with his shed blood—when they laid him in Joseph’s tomb and prepared him for burial. But three days later that body rose from the dead. Search as they might, the Jewish rulers couldn’t find the dead body of Christ anywhere. It no longer existed. Do we really believe that thousands of times every day, in thousands of Roman sanctuaries around the world, suddenly the dead body of Christ exists? What does that say about the resurrection?
It took twelve centuries for theologians to start recognizing this problem. By the time of the reformation, at the council of Trent, they formulated a dogma that what the priest produced from the bread contains not only the body, but also the “blood, soul, and divinity” of Christ, and similarly for the wine. But by doing so, they are abandoning the scriptural basis for the transformation of the elements. The whole structure of the last supper as the Lord presented it to the disciples emphasizes the body broken, separate from the blood, and the blood poured out from the body. If we understand his words as Rome does, the body has no blood and the blood is separate from the body. And they are dead, with no soul—no life—in them.
In explaining the OT sacrifices, Moses taught,
11 For the life [Hebrew נפשׁ, LXX ψυχή, soul] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev 17:11)
Without the blood, the flesh has no life, no soul. That was a major point of the Levitical sacrifices: the blood was separated from the body, to atone for sin. The death of the Lord Jesus was the fulfillment of those OT sacrifices, and the picture he drew in the upper room was of the separation of the body and blood in death. Whatever relation between bread and broken body he intended, whatever relation between wine and shed blood he had in mind, it must emphasize this fundamental picture. Remember Paul’s words: “Ye do shew the Lord’s death.”
The simple belief that the bread really becomes his body, and the wine becomes his blood, does emphasize that picture. But it denies the resurrection every time the mass is celebrated.
The dogma of Trent, that the bread becomes body, blood, and soul [ and divinity], affirms the resurrection, but has abandoned the Lord’s words: “this bread is my broken body [separated from the blood],” then later, “this cup is my shed blood [poured out from the body].” It is neglecting the words of institution as much as it accuses those of doing who reject its doctrine of transubstantiation.
If we insist on the resurrection, and adhere to the Lord’s words in the upper room, we must conclude that he was not transforming the elements into his body and blood, nor authorizing his followers to do the same, but that he was presenting them as memorials of that finished sacrifice, “in remembrance of me.” He wants us to show forth his death until he comes, but praise God, we do not–we cannot–bring back that dead body or shed blood. “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more–death hath no more dominion over him” (Rom 6:9).