ManyBibles

This is my body

The words of institution and John's Bread of Life discourse are read by Christian traditions as literal presence, spiritual feeding, or memorial symbol, shaping worship and doctrine.

The passage

Scripture · New Consensus Bible

John 6:51-58

51I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And indeed, the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52Therefore the Jews were arguing with one another, saying, “How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?” 53Therefore Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. 54The one who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56The one who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down out of heaven. It is not as when your fathers ate the manna and died; the one who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Study John 6 →

Matthew 26:26-28

26And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken bread and having blessed it, broke it, and having given it to the disciples, he said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And having taken a cup and having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is my blood of the new covenant, the blood poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Study Matthew 26 →

The question

In what sense are the bread and wine Christ's body and blood?

Background

Historical background

John 6:51-58 occurs in the Gospel of John after the feeding of the five thousand, in a synagogue discourse at Capernaum. It uses the Greek words sarx (flesh) and haima (blood), and alludes to Moses and the manna in the wilderness. The setting includes controversy with 'the Jews' over Jesus' claim to be bread from heaven.

Matthew 26:26-28 is part of the Last Supper, a Passover meal on the night before Jesus' death. The words 'this is my body' (touto estin to sōma mou) and 'blood of the covenant' (to haima tēs diathēkēs) are central; Matthew is generally dated to the late first century and depends on Mark. These passages are foundational for Christian eucharistic practice.

How the traditions read it

Each tradition’s interpretation

Catholic

The bread and wine truly become Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Catholic teaching, defined by the Council of Trent, holds that by the words of consecration the whole substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood, leaving only the appearances of bread and wine. This reading is grounded in the literal sense of 'this is my body' and John 6:53-56, where Jesus insists on eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between substance and accidents to explain how Christ is present without visible change. The Eucharist is understood as the same sacrifice as the cross, made present in the Mass, and the elements are to be adored. Eastern Catholic churches share this faith, emphasizing the life-giving deified flesh described by Cyril of Alexandria.

Catholic views on other disputed passages →

Eastern Orthodox

The bread and wine become Christ's true body and blood, deified and life-giving.

Orthodox theology affirms a real change in the elements, but deliberately avoids defining the mechanics, preferring to speak of mystery and the action of the Holy Spirit. Cyril of Alexandria teaches that Christ's flesh is life-giving because it belongs to the divine Word, and by consuming it believers participate in divine incorruptibility. John Chrysostom stresses that the communicant is organically united to Christ. The Divine Liturgy prays that the bread and wine become the precious body and blood of Christ, and the faithful receive them as such. The tradition rejects both a purely symbolic reading and the Western scholastic theory of transubstantiation.

Eastern Orthodox views on other disputed passages →

Oriental Orthodox

The elements are the life-giving flesh of the incarnate Word, truly present.

Oriental Orthodox churches, following Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch, teach that the bread and wine become the true flesh and blood of Christ, which are life-giving because they are united to the divinity in one incarnate nature. John 6 is read as the direct institution of this mystery: the flesh that profits nothing is ordinary human flesh, but Christ's flesh gives eternal life. The Anaphoras of the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian liturgies invoke the Holy Spirit to change the gifts and apply Christ's promise. There is no division between sign and reality; the mystery is received with fear and faith.

Oriental Orthodox views on other disputed passages →

Anglican / Episcopal

A spectrum: real spiritual presence, objective presence, or memorial.

Anglican theology contains a range of views within one communion. The Book of Common Prayer uses strong language of feeding on Christ's body and blood, and Richard Hooker taught that the sacrament is an instrument of real participation in Christ, without defining the mode. Anglo-Catholics affirm an objective real presence, while Evangelical Anglicans emphasize spiritual communion by faith and a memorial of Christ's death. Article XXXI rejects any notion of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, but the tradition as a whole allows for genuine sacramental grace. This comprehensiveness is reflected in the many ways the same words of institution are understood.

Anglican views on other disputed passages →

Lutheran

Christ's body and blood are truly present 'in, with, and under' the elements.

Lutheran teaching, based on the literal words of institution, holds that the true body and blood of Christ are really present and distributed in the Lord's Supper, though the bread and wine remain bread and wine. The Formula of Concord rejects both transubstantiation and a merely symbolic interpretation, arguing that 'flesh' in John 6:63 refers to fallen human nature, not Christ's flesh. The sacrament's chief benefit is the forgiveness of sins, as Christ says 'for the remission of sins.' The pastor's recitation of the Words of Institution is performative, consecrating the elements by Christ's command. Communicants receive the body and blood orally, both believers and unbelievers, though only believers receive blessing.

Lutheran views on other disputed passages →

Reformed / Presbyterian

The bread and wine are spiritual signs and seals of Christ's body and blood.

Reformed theology, following Calvin and the Westminster Confession, teaches that the elements remain bread and wine, but by the Holy Spirit believers truly feed on Christ's body and blood spiritually. John 6:63 is read as ruling out any corporeal or localized presence, pointing instead to a spiritual eating by faith. The sacrament is a means of grace that signs and seals the covenant promises, especially forgiveness and nourishment. The words 'this is my body' are understood sacramentally: the bread is a sign that represents and exhibits Christ to faith, not a physical change. Self-examination before the Table is required, and the Supper is to be administered only with biblical warrant.

Reformed views on other disputed passages →

Baptist and other believers' churches

The bread and wine are memorial symbols of Christ's body and blood.

Baptists, following the 1689 London Confession and theologians like John Gill, hold that the Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance: the bread and cup represent Christ's body and blood, but do not become them. The words 'this is my body' are figurative, like 'I am the vine' or 'I am the door.' John 6:63 is read as explicitly denying that physical eating profits anything; the true eating is faith in Christ's atoning death. The Supper proclaims the Lord's death until he comes and calls believers to remember his sacrifice and examine themselves. No sacerdotal power is attached to the elements or the minister.

Baptist views on other disputed passages →

Wesleyan / Methodist

The elements are a means of grace conveying Christ's spiritual presence.

Wesleyan theology, rooted in John and Charles Wesley, teaches that the Lord's Supper is a converting and sanctifying ordinance where Christ is truly present spiritually, though the bread and wine remain unchanged. John 6 is read as a promise of spiritual nourishment for those who come by faith, not as a mandate for transubstantiation. The tradition practices an open table, believing the sacrament is for all who seek Christ. Charles Wesley's hymns on the Lord's Supper affirm real communion with Christ through the Spirit. The sacrament is thus a means of grace that both confirms believers and draws seekers.

Methodist views on other disputed passages →

Anabaptist / Mennonite

The bread and cup are memorial signs of covenant community and discipleship.

Anabaptists understand the Lord's Supper as a memorial, not a sacramental transformation. The bread and wine are symbols that call believers to remember Christ's suffering and to commit themselves to one another in love and nonviolence. Balthasar Hubmaier described the Supper as a pledge of mutual faithfulness and willingness to lay down one's life. John 6 is read spiritually: eating Christ's flesh means internalizing his teaching and following his way of the cross. The rite is usually practiced in the context of church discipline and ethical accountability.

Anabaptist views on other disputed passages →

Classical Trinitarian Pentecostal

The elements symbolize spiritual communion with Christ by faith.

Pentecostals generally view the bread and wine as symbols that point to Christ's body and blood, with the Holy Spirit making Christ present to the believer's faith. John 6:63 is decisive: 'the Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing,' so the eating is spiritual, not literal. The Lord's Supper is an ordinance that memorializes the atonement and often becomes a moment of healing and spiritual empowerment. Emphasis falls on personal faith and the present work of the Spirit rather than on any change in the elements. The service may include prayer for the sick and an expectation of God's direct action.

Pentecostal views on other disputed passages →

Seventh-day Adventist

The bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood; the real eating is by faith.

Adventists practice a memorial ordinance: the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood, but do not become them. Ellen G. White taught that eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood means receiving and believing the written Word of God, so the true feeding is through Scripture. John 6's promise of resurrection 'at the last day' undergirds the doctrine of conditional immortality. The communion service, held quarterly, includes foot washing and emphasizes self-examination and hope in the Second Coming. The elements are unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice.

Adventist views on other disputed passages →

Restorationist / Churches of Christ

The bread and fruit of the vine are memorials, with no real presence.

Churches of Christ read Matthew 26 as instituting a weekly memorial supper, using unleavened bread and fruit of the vine exactly as specified. John 6:63 is used to prove that 'eating flesh' is metaphorical for accepting Christ's teaching, not a sacramental reality. The words 'this is my body' are understood figuratively, and the tradition insists on speaking where the Bible speaks, so it avoids terms like transubstantiation. The Lord's Supper is observed every first day of the week as a central act of worship, led by men of the congregation. Its purpose is remembrance and proclamation, not conveyance of grace through the elements.

Restorationist views on other disputed passages →

Latter-day Saint

The sacrament bread and water are memorial emblems of Christ's body and blood.

Latter-day Saints believe the sacrament is a memorial ordinance, not a literal transformation. The Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 26 adds 'in remembrance of' to 'my body' and 'my blood,' making the symbolic intent explicit. The atonement is understood to have occurred in Gethsemane and on the cross, and the sacrament renews baptismal covenants. John 6 is read as a spiritual metaphor for accepting Christ's atonement and internalizing his attributes. The sacrament is administered weekly with bread and water, emphasizing ongoing discipleship.

Latter-day Saint views on other disputed passages →

Jehovah's Witnesses

The emblems 'mean' Christ's body and blood, purely symbolic.

Jehovah's Witnesses hold that the unleavened bread and red wine are symbolic emblems of Christ's body and blood, not literal. The New World Translation renders 'is' as 'means' in Matthew 26:26,28 to convey this understanding. Only the 144,000 anointed Christians may partake of the emblems because they are in the new covenant; the 'great crowd' with earthly hope observe respectfully. The annual Memorial of Christ's death is the only religious holiday observed, on Nisan 14. John 6 is interpreted metaphorically: eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood means exercising faith in his ransom sacrifice.

Jehovah’s Witness views on other disputed passages →

Jewish

Not scripture; the language conflicts with Torah dietary law.

These passages are not part of the Jewish canon and have no normative reception in rabbinic tradition. Jewish scholars study them historically, noting that the command to eat flesh and drink blood is radically incompatible with kashrut and the Torah's prohibition against consuming blood (Leviticus 17). The Gospel accounts are analyzed for their polemical portrayal of 'the Jews' and their use of Jewish exegetical forms. The institution narrative is understood as a Christian reinterpretation of Passover, not as a continuation of Jewish practice. Jewish tradition neither affirms nor denies Christian eucharistic faith; it simply does not share these texts.

Jewish views on other disputed passages →

Historical-critical scholarship

The sayings are best understood as metaphorical or cultic within first-century contexts.

Scholars examine these passages in light of first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman meal practices, noting the Passover setting and Jewish blessing motifs. Many conclude that Jesus' words were originally symbolic or prophetic sign-acts, and that the explicit sacramental theology of later centuries developed from them. John 6 is often seen as a later composition reflecting eucharistic practice in the Johannine community. Textual and redaction criticism highlight differences between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts. This reading does not privilege any confessional claim but seeks to reconstruct likely historical meanings and the tradition's growth.

Scholarly views on other disputed passages →

The text and its translation

Historical background

No significant Greek manuscript variant affects the core sayings; Matthew 26:26 reads touto estin to sōma mou. Translations differ: the New World Translation renders 'is' as 'means'; the Joseph Smith Translation adds 'in remembrance of'. John 6 uses sarx and haima consistently.

Common ground

AI explanation

Christian traditions that practice the Lord's Supper or Eucharist agree that these passages are authoritative and that Jesus connects the bread and cup to his sacrificial death and the new covenant. They agree that receiving the elements is an act of faith and remembrance and that the rite is to be repeated until Jesus returns. Beyond this, they differ sharply on whether the elements become or convey Christ's body and blood, and how.

Why it matters

AI explanation

The dispute determines whether the elements may be adored, whether the rite is a sacrifice or a memorial, who may preside and partake, and how often it is celebrated. It also shapes Christology, atonement theory, and ethics, including nonviolence and community discipline. Historically, these differences have divided churches and at times been used to exclude or harm; for Jewish readers, the language of eating flesh and blood is a point of profound difference from Torah.

Questions people ask

AI explanation

What does 'this is my body' mean in Matthew 26:26?

The article lays out how different churches read the words of institution at the Last Supper. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Lutheran teaching holds that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the sacrament, while Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Anabaptist, Pentecostal and other traditions read the bread and wine as signs, means of grace, or memorials of his death.

How is John 6:51-58 interpreted?

Sacramental traditions read the Bread of Life discourse as teaching that believers truly receive Christ's life-giving flesh and blood. Many other traditions take the eating and drinking as a metaphor for coming to Christ in faith, often citing John 6:63, 'the flesh profits nothing.'

Where do the traditions agree on the Lord's Supper?

They agree that these passages are authoritative, that Jesus connects the bread and cup to his sacrificial death and the new covenant, and that the rite is repeated until he returns. They differ sharply on whether the elements become or convey his body and blood, and how.

Why are these passages disputed?

The dispute shapes worship and doctrine: whether the elements may be adored, whether the rite is a sacrifice or a memorial, who may preside and partake, and how often it is celebrated. Historically these differences have divided churches, and for Jewish readers the language of eating flesh and drinking blood stands in tension with Torah's prohibition of blood.

Related disputed passages

Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from this project’s records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.