As a Southern Baptist, I believe that Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper) is a symbolic act of remembrance. But not every Christian throughout history has seen it that way. In fact, beliefs about communion have shifted quite a bit over the last 2,000 years.
I thought it would be helpful to take a quick walk through the history of what Christians have believed about Communion and how we got where we are today.
The Early Church (1st–3rd Century)
The first Christians right after Jesus mostly gathered in homes. They didn’t have big cathedrals or stained glass. They broke bread together, prayed, and remembered what Jesus did. Communion was part of that.
Early writings from guys like Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch described the bread and wine as sacred and meaningful, but there’s no clear sign they thought the elements literally became Jesus’ flesh and blood. So they took communion seriously, but they didn’t take it literally.
The Middle Ages (4th–11th Century)
After Constantine made Christianity legal, it spread and became more formal. This impacted the way that churches did communion. It began moving from a symbolic understanding to a sacramental one. By the 800s, a monk named Radbertus argued that the bread and wine literally turned into Jesus’ body and blood. That idea started to catch on.
1215 AD
Fast forward to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. During that council the Catholic Church made it official that transubstantiation was their official position. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, even though they still look and taste like bread and wine. This view was dominant in Western Christianity for centuries.
The Reformation (1500s)
The Protestant Reformation brought a in a lot of changes and beliefs about communion was one of them. A number of the prominent leaders of that time spoke out against transubstantiation but the leaders all had different views. For example, Martin Luther believed Jesus was truly present alongside the elements (as opposed to the elements transforming). That view is called consubstantiation. Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, said communion is a symbolic memorial and nothing more. John Calvin took a middle road and said Jesus is spiritually present during communion in a unique way.
The Baptist View (1600s–Present)
The Baptists came out of the English Separatists in the 1600s and sided with communion being symbolic.
Along with the belief of symbolism, the early forefathers of the Baptists saw communion as an act of remembrance, not a ritual that gives you grace. Additionally, they believed that it’s meant for baptized believers and that you are called to examine our hearts before we take it. They saw it as a picture of the gospel, not a re-sacrificing of Jesus. That’s where we still stand today.
So Why Does This Matter?
Why is this important to know? I hope you can see that the belief about communion being symbolic has had a strong presence throughout history, going back to the within a hundred years of Jesus.
Let’s keep in mind that just because it is symbolic, does not mean it is not important. Communion should be viewed as something more than a religious routine. It’s a moment to stop, remember, reflect, and worship. And we don’t need to believe the bread turns into Jesus to take it seriously. In fact, we believe the cross already happened once for all (Hebrews 10:10). That’s why we remember it! So when we take the Lord’s Supper, we’re doing exactly what Jesus told us to do: “Do this in remembrance of me.”