The Eucharist: What Jesus Actually Taught— And Why It Still Matters Today

Ask ten Christians what the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper means, and you might get ten different answers. For many, it’s symbolic—a reminder of what Jesus did. But if we take Jesus’ own words seriously, and consider how His followers responded, something very different comes into view.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is not merely a symbol, but the real presence of Jesus Christ—His body, blood, soul, and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. This isn’t a medieval invention or a theological add-on. It’s the plain, challenging teaching of Christ Himself, rooted in Scripture and confirmed by the earliest Christians.

Let’s take a closer look.

Not Your Average Teaching

Jesus often used metaphors—“I am the vine,” “I am the door,” “I am the good shepherd.” In each case, the crowd understood it as figurative speech, and if they didn’t, Jesus clarified.

But in John 6, something very different happens. Jesus declares:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

Instead of explaining away the confusion, He intensifies it. The word He uses for “eat” eventually shifts to trogein—a Greek verb that means “to gnaw” or “chew.” It’s blunt, even disturbing.

The reaction? Many of His disciples walked away. They had already believed in Him. They had seen miracles. But this teaching was too much. And Jesus didn’t stop them. He simply turned to the Twelve and asked, “Do you also want to leave?” St. Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

If Jesus had only meant “believe in me” or “receive my message,” it would have been the perfect moment to clarify. Instead, He let those who walked away go, reinforcing the literal reality of what He had just said.

A Sacrifice, Not a Symbol

In 1 Corinthians 10, St. Paul reflects on the Christian celebration of the Eucharist:

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?
The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

Paul doesn’t use symbolic language. He compares Christian worship to both Jewish temple sacrifices and pagan altar rituals, in which people consumed real sacrificial offerings. He even warns that you cannot “partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Why would Paul compare the Eucharist to pagan sacrifices—where food was offered to idols—if it were only a memorial?

Because the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, the re-presentation of Jesus’ once-for-all offering on Calvary. And by receiving it, we are united to that offering in a real, sacramental way.

It’s a Matter of Life and Death

Paul’s words grow even more intense in 1 Corinthians 11:

“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (v. 27)

He warns that failing to “discern the body” leads to judgment—and says that some in the Corinthian church have fallen ill or even died as a result.

No symbolic act carries this kind of consequence. Paul doesn’t say “guilty of disrespecting the symbol of Christ”—he says guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

This warning only makes sense if what’s being received is truly Christ Himself.

Echoes from the Early Church

You don’t have to take modern Catholicism’s word for it. The earliest Christian writings outside the Bible confirm the same understanding.

Around A.D. 107, a bishop named Ignatius of Antioch wrote about those who refused to receive the Eucharist because they denied it was the actual flesh of Christ:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans)

He also called the Eucharist the “medicine of immortality” and the means by which we live forever in Christ.

These early Christians didn’t believe the Eucharist was symbolic—they believed it was sacred, real, and powerful. And this belief wasn’t rare or regional. It was the norm across the ancient Church.

Still Shocking Today

Even today, the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist can be hard to accept. The idea that bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ—while retaining their appearance—sounds bizarre.

But that’s the point.

It was hard to believe in the first century, too. That’s why many walked away. That’s why early Christians were accused of cannibalism. That’s why the Church has always taught this mystery with awe and reverence.

There’s nothing casual about the Eucharist. It is meant to shock us, because it reveals how far God is willing to go to be united with us—not just spiritually, but physically, sacramentally.

Is Your Belief Rooted in Christ’s Teaching?

If your understanding of the Eucharist is comfortable, abstract, or purely symbolic, it might be time to look again—at Scripture, at history, and at the witness of the early Church.

Jesus didn’t offer vague metaphors. He offered Himself.

(As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)