What Martin Luther Got Right and Wrong About the Lord’s Supper
Martin Luther played a pivotal role in the Reformation, standing against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the key doctrines he challenged was transubstantiation—the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the literal body and blood of Christ. However, while Luther rightly rejected transubstantiation, he did not fully embrace the biblical teaching on the Lord’s Supper. Instead, he proposed consubstantiation, which still falls short of Scripture.
What Luther Got Right
Luther’s rejection of transubstantiation was a bold and necessary move. The Catholic Church had long held that the elements of communion became Christ’s physical body and blood. This belief was based on a misinterpretation of Christ’s words, "This is my body," during the Last Supper. Luther, armed with Scripture, recognized that such an interpretation was not only unbiblical but also illogical. Nowhere in Scripture is there evidence that the apostles believed they were eating Christ’s literal flesh and blood. Instead, they understood it as a memorial of His sacrifice.
Additionally, Luther recognized that the Catholic Mass had become a work-based sacrament. The Church taught that participation in the Eucharist was necessary for salvation and that priests had the power to offer Christ as a continual sacrifice. Luther saw this as a direct contradiction to Hebrews 10:10-12, which affirms that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all. By standing against the Catholic Mass, Luther helped many see that salvation is by grace through faith, not by sacraments.
What Luther Got Wrong
Though Luther rejected transubstantiation, he could not fully let go of the Catholic understanding of Christ’s physical presence in the elements. He developed the doctrine of consubstantiation, which teaches that Christ’s body and blood are "with, in, and under" the bread and wine. While this view avoided the Catholic claim that the elements change in substance, it still maintained a mystical presence of Christ in the supper.
This misunderstanding stemmed from Luther’s reluctance to fully embrace the memorial aspect of the Lord’s Supper. Scripture clearly teaches that the bread and cup are symbols, not vessels of Christ’s presence. Jesus often used figurative language to convey spiritual truths. In John 6, He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but He clarified that His words were spiritual, not literal (John 6:63). Likewise, Paul teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 11:24-26), not a mystical infusion of grace.
The Biblical View of the Lord’s Supper
As Baptists, we do not use the term "Eucharist" because of its Catholic connotations. Instead, we emphasize the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, not a sacrament that imparts grace. It is a time for believers to remember Christ’s sacrifice and examine their hearts (1 Corinthians 11:28). Unlike Luther’s view, we hold that the elements remain bread and juice, serving as powerful reminders rather than conduits of Christ’s presence.
Luther’s courage in challenging the Catholic Church was commendable, but his failure to fully embrace a biblical understanding of the Lord’s Supper shows the lingering influence of Catholic tradition. The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience, a declaration of faith, and a reminder of Christ’s finished work on the cross.