
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh Justin Martyr, Apology 1, LXVI
Introduction
The Lord’s supper is a Lutheran doctrine that is often misrepresented, if not completely caricatured. It has been called Transubstantiation at worst and Consubstantiation at best. In this post I hope to set the record straight by giving a brief explanation of this most important Lutheran doctrine. Let us begin by defining the terms we have just stated.
Defining the Terms
There are three prevailing views when discussing the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and Sacramental Union.
Transubstantiation

In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of the Lord. The prefix trans means on or to the other side, suggesting that the elements themselves change. The participant then, is no longer receiving bread and wine but the body and blood of the Lord. While there is no apparent physical change in the appearance of the elements, the person chews and eats the flesh and blood of Christ. This has been called Capernaitic by some. Lutherans reject Transubstantiation based on illocal presence, which will be discussed a little later on.
Consubstantiation

This view suggests that the body and blood of Christ coexists con (alongside or with) the bread and the wine. While the participant receives the body and blood, they are also receiving the elements of the bread and wine, as well. Lutherans have been accused for decades of holding to consubstantiation, even though it has been explicitly denied by Lutheran authors over and over. I admit that it is a more accurate view than transubstantiation but nonetheless, it lacks a proper explanation of what Lutherans believe. Lutheran theology distinguishes between local and illocal presence, discussed below.
Sacramental uniton

Sacramental Union probably best describes the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. In it, the participant receives the elements of bread and wine while at the same time participating in the body and blood of Christ illocally, that is Christ is truly present in the Supper in a manner that is undetectable to the human senses. Just as the Book of Concord states,
Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by Christ’s word to eat and drink.
LArge Catechism, VIII (emphasis are mine)
Notice the words in bold, in and under. This represents what Lutherans call the illocal presence of Christ or the Communication of His attributes. This means that while Christ is truly present in the Sacrament, He is not physically present, that is, in a transubstantial way. We receive the true body and true blood of Christ but He is present illocally rather than locally. In means that the body and blood are truly present within the elements. Under means that the body and blood do not change the elements and that they cannot be detected with the senses (i.e., illocal presence). Some theologians have added the word with to communicate that we truly do partake of the body and blood of the Lord, being illocally present.
The Solid Declaration clarifies this in defining the union between the humanity and deity of Christ:
We believe, teach, and confess that, although the Son of God is a separate, distinct, and complete divine person in and of himself and thus was truly, essentially, and fully God with the Father and the Holy Spirit from eternity, nonetheless at the same time, when the fullness of time had come [Gal. 4:4*], he assumed human nature into the unity of his person, not in such a way that there were two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus was in one person at the same time true and eternal God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and a true human being, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary…We believe, teach, and confess that there are now in this one, inseparable person of Christ two distinct natures, the divine, from eternity, and the human, which was assumed into the union of the person of God’s Son in time. These two natures can never more be separated nor mixed together with each other, nor can one be transformed into the other…We also believe, teach, and confess that as these two natures remain unmixed in their nature and essence and never cease to exist, each therefore also retains its natural, essential characteristics and will not lay them aside ever in all eternity, nor will the essential characteristics of either nature ever become the essential characteristics of the other. Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and present everywhere at the same time naturally (that is, to be present in and of itself as a characteristic of this particular nature and its natural essence), and to know all things, are essential characteristics of the divine nature, which will never in all eternity become essential characteristics of the human nature
Solid Declaration, VIII, 6-9 (Emphasis are mine)
Luther sought to reform the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from Roman Catholicism. By defining the terms the way he did, he kept his flock from being charged as cannibals, much like the early Christians were charged. But he also retained the purity of the Supper without commingling and confusing the deity and humanity of Christ and having the charge of the heresy of Nestortianism thrown upon him.
Concluding Thoughts
The Lutheran doctrine of the Sacramental Union between the body and blood of Christ and the elements of bread and wine remain the best explanation for the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. It is well-attested to in church history, defined greater by the authors of Concord, and demonstrated in its language that Christ can truly communicate His attributes as Deity however He desires. Perhaps we shall some day embark on a polemical trail of this doctrine, but for now we should simply be content with Christ’s own words, “This is my body [and blood] given for you for the forgiveness of sins.”