Is consubstantiation biblical?

Redemption Theology

TL;DR:

Consubstantiation teaches that Christ is spiritually present in Communion without the bread and wine becoming His literal body and blood. While Christians disagree on this view, we can agree on the fact that Jesus died once for all.

what does the bible say?

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the New Covenant with bread and wine, calling the bread His body (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19) and the wine His blood (Matthew 26:27–28; Mark 14:23–24; Luke 22:20). There are three views of what He meant: memorial, transubstantiation, and consubstantiation.

Transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine literally become Jesus’ body and blood while maintaining their appearance. However, Scripture teaches that Jesus died once and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 9:28; 10:10–14). Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church's elevation of the elements led to them being withheld from everyday Christians for fear they’d profane Jesus’ body.

Consubstantiation was Martin Luther’s reaction to transubstantiation. He wanted to keep a mystical understanding of Jesus’ words without the theological problems of transubstantiation. He argued (as Lutheranism still does) that Jesus’ body and blood are spiritually present “in, with, and under” the elements.

Because consubstantiation avoids transubstantiation’s theological errors, it’s not unbiblical. However, Protestants both in Luther’s day and today disagree with it, noting that Jesus called the act a remembrance (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24–25). Their view is called the memorial view, as it holds that the symbols merely memorialize what Jesus did.

While believers disagree on the accurate understanding of consubstantiation and the Lord’s Supper, let us charitably agree to disagree with faithful believers on this point!

from the old testament

Consubstantiation is not found in the Old Testament.

from the new testament

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the New Testament ordinance we now call “The Lord’s Supper” or “Communion” (Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–23). In that supper, Jesus said the bread was His body (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19), and the wine was His blood (Matthew 26:27–28; Mark 14:23–24; Luke 22:20).
Because Jesus said “is” rather than “is like,” Christians have debated Jesus’ meaning throughout the centuries. The three views known today—memorial, transubstantiation, and consubstantiation—were largely settled during the Reformation.
At that time, transubstantiation was the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) official position. They taught that the substance of the bread and wine transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus. While they originally thought the elements fully changed, the RCC later moderated its position, saying the change occurred while maintaining the appearance of bread and wine. However, this was theologically problematic. First, Scripture teaches that Jesus was only sacrificed once (Hebrews 9:28; 10:10–14), yet at each Mass, the RCC was insisting that Jesus was effectively sacrificed again. Second, because they viewed the elements as actually part of Jesus, they believed that eating them imparted something into the partakers. Third, by the Reformation, most Christians were not allowed to take the elements because the RCC feared that the common people would profane Jesus’ body. Fourth, and a bit ironically, they argued that one had to take the sacrament of Communion to receive the merits of salvation.
When Luther and the Protestants broke from the RCC, they began evaluating everything the RCC did against Scripture. Luther agreed with the RCC’s view that the Lord’s Supper has an unexplainable, mystical aspect. However, he viewed Transubstantiation and the subsequent theological errors as contrary to Scripture. He began promoting the view we call consubstantiation. Instead of the substance being changed, Luther argued that Jesus was uniquely and spiritually with (“con”) the elements. His famous explanation was that they were “in, with, and under.” This view doesn’t treat eating the elements as imbibing something special, and it maintains that salvation comes by faith, not by partaking of the elements.
Calvin and other Reformers disagreed with Luther. They agreed that the RCC was wrong, but that Luther’s mystical view was still too far removed from Scripture. They pointed out that Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:24–25). The memorial view thus sees the elements as symbols that, when taken, remind the believer of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. It’s consistent with how Jesus used similar language symbolically elsewhere (cf. John 6:52–59).
Of the three views, transubstantiation is the most clearly unbiblical. Consubstantiation, the corrective to transubstantiation, is not unbiblical because it avoids significant theological errors. However, it introduces a special presence of Jesus during Communion that places theological weight on a passage it may not have intended to support. The memorial view seems best because it understands the symbolic language, though it still has the burden of explaining why Jesus said the elements are His body and blood.

implications for today

We need to be careful in how we put the various spiritual disciplines into practice. In the Roman Catholic Church, they began worshipping them and treating them as if they were Jesus. While consubstantiation was a corrective, it still has a mystical element that can lead one’s imagination, if they are not careful, to arrive at theologically shaky conclusions about the nature of Jesus or the special act of taking Communion versus remembering that the focus is not on the elements but on what they point towards.

Genuine Christians disagree on whether Jesus is somehow actually present with the elements, or whether consubstantiation misses the symbolic nature of Jesus’ teaching. Therefore, we must be careful not to assume bad motives on either side. What is clear from the Lord’s Supper is that it is reserved for believers (1 Corinthians 10:16–17; 11:27–29) and commemorates the New Covenant, which would come through His blood (Luke 22:20). Let us treat the elements, then, as the means through which we remember and thank Jesus for what He has done.

Also, let us remember that, while somber, the Lord’s Supper is not a funeral service! It reminds us that Jesus is returning, when He will again drink the fruit of the wine with us (Matthew 26:29; 1 Corinthians 11:26) at His banquet (Luke 22:29–30; cf. Revelation 19:9).

Therefore, when you take communion, remember Jesus’ command: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).

understand

There are three historic views of the Lord's Supper: transubstantiation, which holds that the elements literally become Christ's body and blood; consubstantiation, which holds that Christ is spiritually present "in, with, and under" the elements; and the memorial view, which holds that the elements are symbols that remind believers of Christ's sacrificial death.
Transubstantiation is the most clearly unbiblical of the three, as it implies a repeated sacrifice of Christ contrary to Hebrews' once-for-all teaching.
Consubstantiation avoids transubstantiation's theological errors and is therefore not unbiblical, but the Memorial view best accounts for Jesus' remembrance language and the symbolic language He used elsewhere in the Gospels.

reflect

How should understanding the Lord's Supper as a memorial affect your focus during Communion and why you are taking it?
In what ways do historical debates like the one about the Lord's Supper illustrate why it's important for you to verify everything with Scripture and not to accept something just because it's your church's tradition?
Where do you land in your understanding of Communion?

engage

How does the once-for-all nature of Christ's sacrifice in Hebrews 9–10 provide a clear argument against Transubstantiation?
How should we approach taking Communion?
How can we honor what Communion represents while extending grace to Christians who understand it differently?

More Resources

Theology

Consubstantiation – What is it?

Consubstantiation teaches that Christ is spiritually present with the bread and wine during Communion while the elements themselves remain bread and wine. It is distinct from Roman Catholic transubstantiation and is similar to—but not the same as—Luther’s sacramental union.

Church

What is the significance of the Lord’s Supper?

Celebrating the Lord's Supper is deeply significant and full of meaning. The Lord's Supper, or Christian Communion, looks back to the death of our Lord and ahead to His victory over death at the resurrection, as well as His coming again to earth at the end of the age.

Christian Life

What does it mean to take communion in an unworthy manner?

Communion is a declaration of what Christ has done in giving Himself for us to be saved and it shows that we are one in Christ, equal at the foot of the cross. We take communion “unworthily” when our actions deny the very gospel we’re remembering, turning a symbol of grace into a misrepresentation of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Church

How often should Communion be observed?

Communion is commanded and given for believers to remember Jesus and proclaim His return, but the Bible does not command its frequency. The focus of communion should be regular, heartfelt participation, not the exact schedule.