The document discusses the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of transubstantiation. It provides biblical references for the institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus, its purpose of remembering his death, and guidelines for partaking worthily. While Jesus' words that the bread and wine are his body and blood have led to division, the document argues they were likely meant metaphorically or metonymically rather than implying transubstantiation, given other passages like the prohibition of blood consumption in Acts. The belief in transubstantiation arose in the 12th century and conflicts with scripture.

1. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
The Lord’s Supper is the greatest
memorial ever given to man. It is a
celebration of the death of the
sinless Son of God and the
declared anticipation of His return.

2. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
“26: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the
disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and
gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28: For this is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth
of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink
it new with you in my Father's kingdom” (Matt.
26).

3. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Brief biblical facts:
1. Instituted by Jesus (Matt. 26: 26-30).
2. Observance set forth (I Cor. 11: 23-
26).
A. In remembrance (Luke 22: 19).
B. With anticipation (I Cor. 11: 26).
C. Self-examination (I Cor. 11: 28).
D. Worthily (I Cor. 11: 27).
3. Place and time (Luke 22: 29, 30;
Acts 20: 7).

4. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Brief biblical facts:
1. Purpose:
A. Declare Jesus’ death (I Cor. 11:
26).
B. Keep alive spiritually (I Cor. 11:
29, 30).
C. Keep Christ in memory.

5. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Division regarding the Lord’s Supper.
It is regrettable that there is division over Jesus’
Memorial.
1. Division over frequency of observance.
2. Division over “cup” versus “cups.”
3.Division over “open” and “closed.”
4. Division over fermented/unfermented juice.
5. Division regarding transubstantiation and
Consubstantiation.

6. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation defined:
“…the Roman Catholic doctrine
that the whole substance of the
bread and the wine changes
into the substance of the body
and blood of Christ when
consecrated in the Eucharist.”

7. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Jesus did say:
“26: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the
disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27:
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28: For this is my
blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26).

8. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
A viewed supporting text:
“53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in
You” (John 6, see vs. 27-58).

9. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
The consumption of blood forbidden.
“19: Wherefore my sentence is, that we Trouble
not them, which from among the Gentiles are
turned to God: 20: But that we write unto them,
that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and
from fornication, and from things strangled, and
from blood” (Acts 15).

10. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Is there a contradiction between Matthew 26:
28 and Acts 15: 29?
Consider:
22: For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,
the one by a bondmaid, the other by a
freewoman….25: For this Agar is mount Sinai in
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,
and is in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4).

11. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Jesus told them to eat of his body and
drink of his blood when he was physically
standing before them (Matt. 26: 26-29).
As they partook, he did not physically
diminish!
Metonymy: “The use of the name of one
object or concept for that of another to
which it is related, or of which it is a part”
(RHCD).
Matt. 26: 29
Cp. I Cor. 15: 50

12. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
“The Metaphor. …Webster says of it: ‘A short similitude;
a similitude reduced to a single word; or a word
expressing similitude with the signs of comparison. Thus,
that man is a fox, is a metaphor; but that man is like a
fox, is a simile, similitude, or comparison’ (Luke 13: 32,
dm). When the Saviour gave the institution of the
supper, He did it in the most beautiful of metaphorical
language (Matt. 26: 26-28)….Paul presents this thought
without the use of the metaphor (I Cor. 10: 16)….But in
11: 23-25 he employs the same figure that the Lord did in
Instituting it....”

13. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
“…To say this is the communion of the body and blood of
Christ, is metonymy of the agent; to say that these are
like the body and blood, would be a simile, but the
beauty and strength would have been removed in that
way; hence the Master chose the form of the metaphor
as the most expressive…” (Hermeneutics, pg. 252-254,
by D. R. Dungan).

14. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
“Agar” stood for Mount Sinai in Arabia (Gal.
4: 25, see vs. 21-31). After a similar
fashion, the unleavened bread and the fruit
of the vine stand for Jesus’ body and blood.
The properties of the unleavened bread are
indicative of purity and lack of “corruption.”
The blood of the grape is the life of the
grape and is pure and also without leaven
or fermentation. Hence, perfect
representation.

15. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation, its origin:
The formal belief of transubstantiation (when
term used) appeared in the twelfth century and
was initially associated with Hildebert.

16. The Lord’s Supper and Transubstantiation
Conclusion:
The unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine
appropriately stand for the body and blood of
Jesus. As the Christian partakes of each
emblem, he is reminded of Jesus’ death. To
make any more of the elements is to add to the
teaching and introduce irreconcilable doctrinal
conflicts between such verses as Matthew 26:
27, 28 and Acts 15: 29.