“This Is My Body”: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Spiritual Presence View

What you are about to read is a guest column from my friend Zachary Costello, I pray it blesses and edifies you in your walk with KING JESUS!

Introduction

Few debates have stirred more theological ink than the meaning of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper: “This is my body.” Roman Catholicism insists on transubstantiation, claiming the bread and wine become Christ’s literal body and blood. Lutherans, not wanting to be left out of the mystery party, affirm a bodily presence “in, with, and under” the elements—we wouldn’t want to confuse people on their source of carbohydrates. The Reformed tradition, however, stands firmly on Scripture: Christ is truly present, but spiritually, not physically localized in bread and wine.This article will:- Examine Scripture’s teaching.- Address Roman Catholic claims (and their late arrival to the party).- Provide historical context.- Explain the Reformed position.- Show why hermeneutics—Scripture interpreting Scripture—is always essential.

1. Roman Catholic Claim and Its Problems

You may have heard the argument from your Romanist friend: “Jesus said, ‘This is my body,’ so we take Him literally.” The Council of Trent (1545–1563) declared:“By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord.” (Session XIII, Canon II)Problems:- Transubstantiation wasn’t dogma until the 4th Lateran Council (1215)—over 1,200 years after Christ instituted the Supper. That’s a long time to “discover” something supposedly essential.- Scripture never teaches a metaphysical change. Paul still calls it “bread” after consecration (1 Cor. 11:26–28). If Rome is right, Paul needs a remedial theology class.Calvin responds:“They are not mistaken who call the bread the body of Christ, not because it is so in substance, but because it is so in signification.” (Institutes IV.17.5)

2. Biblical Case for Spiritual Presence

a) Figurative LanguageJesus often spoke metaphorically:- John 10:9 – “I am the door.” (No hinges involved.)- John 15:5 – “I am the vine.” (No grapes growing from His arms.)If “This is my body” must be literal, then Jesus was a wooden door and a plant.Calvin writes:“Christ is not to be worshiped in the bread, nor is the bread to be adored as if it were Christ.” (Institutes IV.17.19) (Please note: As I quote Calvin I am not treating him as an infallible source, but when considering these issues, there is none better all these centuries later)b) Context of the Last SupperLuke 22:19 – “Do this in remembrance of me.”The Supper’s purpose is memorial and proclamation, not a re-sacrifice.Jesus was physically present at the table. If the bread literally became His body, He would have been offering His body while sitting there—an absurd duplication.Calvin argues:“The bread is called his body because it represents it to us.” (Institutes IV.17.5)c) Scripture Interprets ScriptureJohn 6:63 – “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”Calvin comments:“Christ teaches that his flesh is eaten not carnally, but spiritually, by faith.”d) Sacramental NatureRomans 4:11 calls circumcision a “sign and seal.” Likewise, the Supper is a sign pointing to Christ’s work.Calvin again:“The sacraments are testimonies of divine grace, not empty figures, but instruments by which God acts efficaciously.” (Institutes IV.14.17)e) The Presbyterian Reformed Position: Lifted Up, Not Pulling Christ DownRome accuses us of denying Christ’s presence because we reject transubstantiation. In reality, we affirm a real presence—but spiritual, not physical. The Lord’s Supper is not about dragging Christ down from heaven into bread and wine. Instead, by the Spirit, believers are lifted up into heavenly places to commune with the risen Christ.Biblical Foundation:- Ephesians 2:6 – “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.”- Hebrews 12:22 – “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”Calvin beautifully captures this:“We do not bring Christ down to us, but by the secret power of the Spirit, He lifts us up to Himself.” (Institutes IV.17.31)Contrast with Rome? They’re still trying to pull Christ down like He’s on a theological bungee cord. Lutherans? They’re halfway there—Christ is “in, with, and under” the bread, like He’s hiding in a carb cave. But Scripture says: we go up, not He comes down.

3. Historical Perspective

The early church spoke of a mystery, but not transubstantiation.- Fourth Lateran Council (1215) first defined transubstantiation.- The Council of Trent (16th century) anathematized anyone denying it.Calvin counters Rome’s novelty:“They invent monstrous fictions, as if Christ were enclosed under the bread.” (Institutes IV.17.19)

4. Hermeneutics and Christ’s Example

Sound interpretation matters. Scripture interprets Scripture. Jesus Himself interpreted the Old Testament typologically and Christologically:- Luke 24:27 – “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”- John 3:14 – “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.”If Christ interprets symbols spiritually, so should we. The bread and wine signify His body and blood—they do not become them.

Closing Exhortation

The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, not a magical transformation. Christ is truly present—not in the elements, but by His Spirit, received by faith. To confuse sign and reality is to misread Scripture and undermine the sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10).

Hermeneutics matter. Rome’s error stems from ignoring how Scripture interprets itself. Just as Jesus showed the Old Testament pointed to Him spiritually, so the Supper points to His finished work. Let us cling to the Word, not human inventions—especially ones invented over a millennium later.