The Battle of the Lords Supper

The Corruption of Communion Meal

De: Don Pirozok

Narrado por: Virtual Voice

The struggle, therefore, has never merely been about ritual form; it has always been about the nature of redemption itself. What is the gospel? Is it an ongoing sacramental process administered through priestly mediation? Is it an inward awakening into higher consciousness? Or is it the once-for-all, bodily death and bodily resurrection of the Son of God accomplished in history and proclaimed in faith?
The New Testament answers with unmistakable clarity. Christ “was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28). The language of “once” appears repeatedly in Hebrews (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). The sacrifice is complete. The resurrection is the Father’s vindication of that completed sacrifice. Hebrews 10:14 declares, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” If the offering perfected forever, it cannot be repeated in substance. Communion does not continue sacrifice; it proclaims sacrifice already accomplished.
This is why the apostolic pattern describes the Supper as remembrance and proclamation. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Paul adds that believers “shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). The Supper looks backward to the cross and forward to the return. It does not re-present Christ in sacrificial form; it re-announces what He has done. The resurrection guarantees that what is remembered is living reality, not relic.
When the medieval Church developed transubstantiation, the stated intention was reverence and defense of Christ’s real presence. Yet the effect was a theological shift from proclamation to transformation of substance. Instead of bread signifying Christ’s body given once for all, bread was said to become His body. Instead of the cup proclaiming blood shed, it was said to become the blood itself. In practice, this altered the structure of remembrance. The focus moved from completed historical atonement to ongoing sacramental mediation.
Scripture, however, presents Christ as the only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and His sacrifice as complete. Hebrews 10:18 says, “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The Supper cannot be a renewed offering if Scripture says there is no more offering. The resurrection confirms that finality. Christ is not repeatedly sacrificed; He is risen and seated (Hebrews 10:12). Communion declares the death of the One who now lives and reigns.
Yet modern distortions run in the opposite direction. Where medieval theology risked over-materializing the elements, contemporary spirituality risks dissolving them into symbolism devoid of doctrinal content. In some circles influenced by New Age thought, communion becomes an exercise in inner reflection, a symbolic alignment with divine love, or a ritual of communal affirmation. The cross becomes a metaphor for vulnerability. Resurrection becomes awakening into personal empowerment. But Scripture will not allow such reduction.
Paul does not say, “If Christ be not spiritually experienced, your faith is vain.” He says, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). He anchors faith in event, not feeling. And he insists in verse 17 that without bodily resurrection, “ye are yet in your sins.” Sin is not ignorance; it is guilt. Guilt requires atonement. Atonement required blood. Resurrection proves blood was accepted.
The communion meal keeps these realities intact. It is neither magical transformation nor empty symbol. It is covenant proclamation grounded in historical redemption. The bread testifies that God entered matter. The broken bread testifies that God suffered in matter. The shared cup testifies that blood was shed in matter. The proclamation “till he come” testifies that the same embodied Lord will return.