“And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” – 1 Corinthians 11:24-25

What follows is the edited manuscript of a sermon that I delivered on July, 20 2025.

And admittedly, this one was difficult for me.

The church where I serve has been working its way through the Heidelberg catechism, something that I had been entirely unfamiliar with before our study. The catechism contains both an explanation of the basic essentials of the Reformed faith as well as a bit of a polemic against the Roman Catholic theology of the 1500’s.

I was assigned to preach through the content of the material in Lord’s Day 29, which is all about the substance of the Lord’s Supper. So, what follows is my best attempt at wrestling through that material in sermon-form.

Bread and Wine

Belief shapes behavior.

How we live out our faith is fueled by what we believe about our faith.

A few of my friends work at the Cole’s Bakery over in the Lakeside neighborhood. If you don’t know, Coles makes garlic bread, garlic toast, breadsticks, and stuff like that. They’ve got their own brand, but they also produce stuff for Meijer, Kroger, and a few other places as well. If you are ever in Lakeside or downtown and smell that really pleasant bread-baking smell, it’s from there.

But I was curious about something. And this is something I am sure that many of us have thought about before, too. Is the garlic bread that Coles bakes and then packages in their own red Cole’s boxes in the freezer section the same exact product that you can find within the store brand box? That is, is the Meijer toast the same exact thing as the Cole’s garlic toast?

Well, the answer? Yes!

While there is a slight difference in the butter that they put on the bread before toasting it, and in some products there is a miniscule percentage change in the flour blend, the store brand stuff and the name brand stuff is basically the same thing.

I bring this up for two reasons.

First, I am Dutch, as are many of us. I like to save money at the grocery store. So, I think this might give us the peace of mind to save a few bucks by buying the store brand when we spring for garlic toast.

But second, I am wrestling through the Heidelberg Catechism like all of us are. And we’ve now come to a set of questions that are asking about the physical, and even the spiritual substance in and within the meal that we partake together at the Lord’s Supper.

And probably not at the grocery store, but maybe you’ve also found yourself thinking questions like these while in line to receive the Communion elements:

When we partake in the Lord’s Supper what causes the difference between eating toast and drinking juice during breakfast and the bread and cup at the Lord’s Table? Or maybe, if I was to simply order a pack of those self-serve cups that contain a tasteless wafer and a shot of juice imitation and take that in my home by myself, does that count as taking Communion? And don’t get me started on some of those New Testament passages in which Jesus seems to says that the bread and the wine are his actual flesh and blood! 

What in the world are we really eating and drinking? 

These types of questions are what the two we find within Heidelberg day 29 concern themselves with. We will explore them both together. But I’d actually like to frame our conversation in a particular way because I think it might be the most helpful manner by which we can understand what the Heidelberg is attempting to teach us. Let us first consider a bit of theology. Then we will turn back to one of the primary passages in the New Testament in which we find our Communion formula as well as a bit of a warning. We will lastly wrap things up with a brief note on why all of this even matters.

But, as a hint, and once again: belief shapes behavior. How we live out our faith is fueled by what we believe about our faith.

A (very) Brief Theology of Communion

^“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” – 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

If you’ve spent time in church, in any church, you’ve doubtless heard that passage we just read many, many times.

But depending on the type of church you’re in, what Paul is saying about the bread and cup is understood very differently.[1]

Here’s a quick chart to show you what I mean:

If you grew up Baptist like I did, you were taught that the elements you partake in during Communion were symbolic of Jesus body and blood, and they were only that. What you eat is bread. What you drink is grape juice.

If you grew up Catholic, on the other hand, you were taught that Jesus is present wholly and entirely, in his physical body and blood, under the elements of Communion. That is, for a Roman Catholic what we eat is way more than just symbolic. When the priest offers up the Eucharistic prayer, the substance of bread and wine are transformed, or transubstantiated, into Jesus’ literal flesh and blood. Only the accidents remain, like the taste, color, and the shape of what was once bread and wine. 

Lutherans believe similarly. As the Lutheran minister prays, the elements of Communion consubstantiate so that the substance of Jesus’ physical body and blood are shared within the literal substance of the bread and wine. It’s physically bread and Jesus. Or it’s physically wine and Jesus.

Lutherans also differ from Catholics in that they believe that the bread and cup turn back into just bread and wine once the partaking of Communion is done with. A piece of bread doesn’t remain Jesus’ flesh forever if it isn’t eaten like Roman Catholic theology teaches.

Yet, Reformed folks like us in the RCA differ from any of those three.

As question 78 in the Heidelberg reads:

Q – Are then the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ?

A – No. Just as the water of baptism is not changed into the blood of Christand is not the washing away of sins itself but is simply God’s sign and pledge, so also the bread in the Lord’s supper does not become the body of Christ itself, although it is called Christ’s body in keeping with the nature and usage of sacraments.

In other words, in the Reformed tradition, we do not believe that the elements at the Table are, or become, Jesus’ literal flesh and blood. They are metaphors. They are reminders of Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet there is a difference between us and what those who adhere to a Baptist theology might believe, too. This difference has everything to do with the last word in question 78: sacrament.

You might remember a few weeks ago that Adam Aldridge helped walk us through question 66 in the Heidelberg which explains that sacraments are visible signs and seals, appointed by God, so that by their use, God might declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were acts that Jesus commanded us to do in scripture. And when we do them, we see both a picture of Jesus’ death and are given a promise by God that his atoning work on the cross has truly saved us.

A sacrament, like Communion, is both an is and a does. 

God shows us something by them, and when we partake in them, God does something for us within the act.

With that background, check out how question 79 continues toexplain it:

Q – Why then does Christ call the bread his body and the cup his blood, or the new covenant in his blood, and why does Paul speak of a participation in the body and blood of Christ?

A – Christ speaks in this way for a good reason: He wants to teach us by his supper that as bread and wine sustain us in this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are true food and drink for our souls to eternal life. But, even more important, he wants to assure us by this visible sign and pledge, first, that through the working of the Holy Spirit we share in his true body and blood as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy signs in remembrance of him, and, second, that all his suffering and obedience are as certainly ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins.

The RCA does not believe that Jesus’ literal, physical flesh and blood are present in the elements at the Lord’s Supper. Yet, we do believe that Jesus is spiritually present with us in a special, mysterious, sacramental way when we take Communion.

At the Table, we take the elements as reminders of what Jesus accomplished in his death. And at the Table, the Holy Spirit assures us that our salvation is true.  

Paul’s Formula and Warning – 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

But, ok. Why do we believe this? And why does it really matter that we understand Communion in this way as opposed to a different way?

Let’s return to our passage in 1 Corinthians to find our answer. And we’re actually going to read a bit wider than we did last time.

Here’s 1 Corinthians 11:17-34:

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come, I will give further directions.”

This is a lot we could pull from Paul’s words to the believers in Corinth, much more than we have time for today. But there are a few things I’d like us all to notice about Paul’s Communion formula, and then about Paul’s warning that sort of surrounds this formula on both sides.

I’d like you to first recognize something with me that isn’t all that apparent in English but is apparent in Greek, the language that this letter was originally written in.

Greek utilizes something called grammatical gender.[2] It doesn’t have anything to do with biological gender, but it’s a way to categorize nouns. It helps make sure that nouns, pronouns, and stuff like that which modify nouns agree so the reader know what words goes with what. If you took Spanish or French, or even Greek in school, you know what I’m talking about. 

Paul describes Jesus’ actions in verse 23 and 24, stating that “the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘this is my body that is for you…”

Well, the word “bread” in verse 23 is masculine. Yet the article “this” in the phrase “this is my body…” is actually grammatically neuter. That means that when Jesus says this is my body, he isn’t just referring to the bread as their grammatical genders don’t match. Instead, Jesus is referring to the act of picking up and then breaking the bread.[3]

That action is Jesus’ body, or maybe more accurately, that is the symbolic reminder of what Jesus’ body went through.

Here’s the second thing that I’d like you to notice. In verse 25, Paul doesn’t have Jesus stating that the cup was his blood but a “new covenant in [his] blood.”

And there is a difference. In the Old Testament, covenants and sacrifices were made with the blood of animals. It was thought that the spilled blood of the sacrifice would atone for the defilement of the one offering the animal up on the altar. God made a covenant with Abraham in which several animals were sacrificed, and the Lord instructed the Israelites in Torah to make sacrifices using the blood of animals in order to atone for their sins.

And, of course, Jesus is understood to be the ultimate sacrificial lamb. His blood shed on the cross fulfilled this sacrificial system, and wiped clean for all time the sins of those who would trust in Him as Savior. That understanding is definitely there in the text. It is something we affirm. And it is part of the sign of the sacrament of Communion.

Yet neither Abraham nor the Israelites actually drank the blood of the animals they sacrificed.

That would have been incredibly sacrilegious.[4]

But, as we see in places like Psalm 116:13, a celebratory drinking of wine would often accompany sacrificial feasts.[5] And certainly, in Passover celebrations, Jews drank wine to remember the blood of the lamb that marked their doorposts in Egypt saving them from the angel of death.   

Both grammatically and intertextually, I’d argue that Jesus’ literal body and blood are not physically present in the Communion elements. And even in other places outside of Paul where it’s left a bit more vague, I am comfortable remembering that Jesus used a whole lot of metaphors when teaching.

Jesus said that “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, they will be saved” in John 10, but we recognize that Jesus wasn’t literally made of wood, nails, and hinges. Jesus said “I am the true vine” in John 15, but we know that Jesus was human and not a plant.[6]

Jesus was using symbolism and metaphor at the Table, too.

That’s Paul’s Communion formula in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, but let’s now expand a little bit on each side to think about the warning that Paul gave along with it.

Paul didn’t write this liturgy in a vacuum. No, he was reminding folks in Corinth about their reason for participating in the Lord’s Supper in the first place as it seems like the Corinthians had begun to eat in an unworthy manner.

That is to say, it seems that some in their congregation had gotten into the habit of beginning the meal, in which the Lord’s Supper was a part of, early. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul references a division that had taken place between rich and poor believers. Those who were well-to-do, owned their own homes and allowed the church to meet in them, had begun to favor each other to the neglect of those who didn’t own homes or had to work the weekends.

Scholars believe that these wealthy believers had begun meeting earlier in the day and would bring lavish foods that they might share with one another. But they ate this food before the rest of the congregation arrived to enjoy it with them. It is also likely that these well-to-do believers would meet in the inner courts of the house their church would meet within, and would fill that space. When those who were of less means would arrive later on, they would be forced to sit in the courtyard or an adjacent atrium.[7]

So, when the whole church would meet, they were segregated.

When they would partake in Communion, they’d do so separated-out by status.

It is this action that Paul deems unworthy and calls the believers to examine themselves over. It’s this action that God is condemning, as stated in 11:30-32. 

And more, Paul tells them in 11:20, that when they do this, they really aren’t eating the Lord’s Supper but are doing something else entirely. The Holy Spirit isn’t nourishing them through it but is standing against them.

I can remember a few times in my life where I was terrified to take Communion because of 1 Corinthians 11:27 and Paul’s words about being “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” This often followed some well-intentioned words by a pastor who exhorted us to examine our hearts for any unconfessed sin, and to get right with God. And that is an appropriate thing to say as well as an appropriate action to take. Yet I can remember some deep anxiety I felt about not remembering some sin and consequently not confessing it to God before I took the elements. Doing so, in my mind back then, would make me unworthy. 

But, again, that individualistic interpretation is not really on Paul’s radar here. The unworthiness of the Corinthians stemmed from their making a mockery of Jesus’ sacrificial love through their exclusion of others.

Our partaking in the Lord’s Supper is a sign, a proclamation of Jesus’ death and what that death accomplished. On the cross, Jesus broke the barrier between Jew and Greek, slave and free, wealthy and poor. This breaking down of social barriers so that all may enter into a new humanity with Jesus as king is a central component of the gospel.

But those in Corinth were coming to the Table divided

They were making the Table too trivial.

And we should be careful that we don’t do similarly in our time now. Who have we not been generous with? Who have we ignored? Do we have anything within the social life of our church that might, even unintendedly, exclude or keep out others from worshipping alongside us?  

Belief Shapes Behavior

When I was younger, my parents had this really nice Sony stereo system.

It was fancy. It had a big subwoofer and a few other speakers. It had a 5-disc CD changer. It had a cassette deck. It was really cool, pretty expensive, and our parents didn’t want my brother and I messing with it because of that. But on the rare occasion where both of my parents were out of the house, my brother and I would load up one of our own CDs into the changer and we’d spend time just playing around with the dials.

We’d turn the bass way up and way down. We’d turn the treble up and down. We’d mess with the volume. We’d mess with the way the different speakers would pump out audio. We’d make our music sound really, really funky just for the fun of it.

Some folks like their music to have lots of bass. Some folks like their music to have more distinct higher tones. Some folks like to listen to their favorites at a lower or even a louder volume. Everybody has their own preferences. But, in my opinion at least, it is possible to really distort the way an artist intended a song to be heard by turning a knob up too high or too low.

And I think this type of thing can sometimes happen with the Lord’s Supper, too.

There are good Christians who love Jesus all over this Communion spectrum. They all have been influenced by a deep history and a theological understanding that informs them just like we have.

Ultimately, the content that Heidelberg day 29 discusses is secondary stuff. And in some ways, the nature of the sign of Communion itself requires us to be sure that we get along with other believers who think differently than we do.

The Table is a call for Christian unity!

But, belief does shape behavior.

And even within other traditions, I think that certain things can be turned up even past what those traditions intend.

If we focus too much on Jesus’ literal, physical presence in the bread and wine during Communion, we risk turning those elements into objects of worship themselves—like a totem—rather than honoring the One who gave us this practice in the first place.

If we treat Communion as just a memorial or a symbolic ritual with no deeper meaning, we might risk making it feel empty and routine. It can become something we do simply out of habit, instead of something that spiritually nourishes us.

And if we make Communion too focused on the individual, we risk repeating the mistake Paul warned the Corinthians about. Communion isn’t just a private moment. It’s something we do together, and something we should be inviting others into.

We come to the table as equals, recognizing that we all have the same deep need for grace because we are all unworthy.

No one is better than anyone else. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

But at the Table, we are reminded of the promise of the gospel.

At the Table, the Spirit assures us that Jesus’ blood has covered our sins.  

---

[1] I found the book Understanding Four Views On the Lord’s Supper by Russell D. Moore, I. John Hesselink, David P. Scaer, and Thomas A. Baima very helpful here. The book Body & Soul: Reclaiming The Heidelberg Catechism by M. Craig Barnes was equally helpful.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

[3] Andrew B. McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and Theological Perspective, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 29.

[4] It would have also been considered sacrilegious to early Christians as well. See: Acts 15:20

[5] Andrew B. McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and Theological Perspective, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 29.

[6] I pulled this argument from Starr Meade’s book Comforting Hearts, Teaching Minds: Family Devotions Based on the Heidelberg Catechism pg. 157.

[7] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 533-534.