LCMS 2026 Convention Field Guide

Official Workbook report source text

Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.

Report number/id: R62.9
Report title: R62.9 Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper: Applying Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Issues (2025)
Workbook start page: 250
Workbook end page: 263
Source pages: 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263
Source status: source_checked
Committee: Not available

R62.9

2026 Convention Workbook
251
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
PREFACE
At its 2023 convention The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) adopted
Resolution 5-15, “To Uphold Proper Elements and Reverential Administration of
the Lord’s Supper,” addressing concerns about the practice of the Lord’s Sup-
per.
1 The resolution includes reminders that the Supper is “a communal meal . . .
through which His body and blood are distributed in, with, and under bread and
wine for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.” The resolution goes on to
reaﬃrm the confessional teaching “that the proper use of the Sacrament includes
uniﬁed consecration, distribution, and reception” and the consequent fact that the
Supper “should be kept according to His [Christ’s] institution.” It adds: “It is in-
cumbent on all faithful ministers of the Gospel to remove all obstacles that create
doubt regarding what Christ oﬀers in this Sacrament or detracts from it.” Lastly,
the ﬁnal two “Whereas” statements speak about the use of “preﬁlled communion
cup and wafer sets” and “the use of non-wheat hosts and/or grape juice” in LCMS
congregations.
Three resolves follow:
Resolved, That our pastors and congregations give careful consideration to the
reverential treatment of the elements in the administration of the
Lord’s Supper; and be it further
Resolved, That this convention reaﬃrms 2001 Resolution 3-16, “To Encourage
Use of Only Wine in Administration of Lord’s Supper”; and be it ﬁ-
nally
Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations [CTCR] be
instructed to take up these concerns.
The following consideration is oﬀered in compliance with the third and ﬁnal
1 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2003 Convention Proceedings, 157.
/five.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
direction of 2023 Res. 5-15 and seeks to address the three speciﬁc “concerns” about
the practice of the Lord’s Supper identiﬁed therein: ﬁrst, the substitution of grape
juice for wine; second, the use of preﬁlled communion cup and wafer sets; and
third, the substitution of non-wheat for wheat hosts.
Each one of the three practices mentioned in 2023 Res. 5-15 has its rationale in
pastoral concern for the well-being of communicants. Speciﬁcally, each addresses
a matter of bodily health and well-being. Pre-packaged elements were introduced
in some LCMS congregations during the COVID-19 pandemic as an attempt to
protect communicants from transmission of the coronavirus. Churches that make
grape juice available rather than wine do so to aid members who suﬀer from alco-
holism or others who are on medications that should not be taken together with
alcohol. And churches that oﬀer gluten-free bread in the Supper do so to prevent
adverse physical reactions to the gluten in wheat. It is important to acknowledge
and commend the compassion and pastoral concern that these practices represent.
At the same time, appreciation of the compassion, motivations, and actions at
work does not mean that we should ignore the theological appropriateness of
these practices. Therefore, the CTCR seeks to address herein each of these prac-
tices from a confessional Lutheran theological and pastoral perspective. Our goal
is that our practice would fully align with our confession of the Lord’s Supper as
instituted by our Lord Jesus.
/seven.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
THEOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The Gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom.
1:16). As people hear and believe the Gospel’s promises they are sealed with the
Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Holding to
Christ in faith, we also hold to His promises. His promises are spoken that we may
believe them and so receive what they promise: forgiveness of sins, life, and salva-
tion. Faith is thus conﬁdent hope. It is assurance that what God promises is ours,
even when we do not see it (Heb. 11:1).
Among the precious expressions of the Gospel is the Sacrament of the Altar, where
Christ explicitly promises that the bread of the Sacrament is His body and the cup
of wine is His blood—and that this body was given for us and this blood was shed
for the forgiveness of our sins. This is not “interpretation” but a simple acknowl-
edgment of God’s Word:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed,
took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and
gave it to the disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body,
which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”
In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when
He had given thanks, He gave it to them saying, “Drink of it,
all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which
is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as
you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
2
2 See “The Words of Our Lord,” or Words of Institution, as they appear in the Divine Service of
Lutheran Service Book (Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 162, 179, 197, 209, 217.
/eight.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
This wonderful promise of the sacramental union and forgiveness in the Lord’s
Supper also has a sobering corollary: “We hold that the bread and wine in the Sup-
per are Christ’s true body and blood. These are given and received not only by the
godly but also by wicked Christians” (SA III VI 1).
3
Given these words, the Small Catechism simply and boldly restates them, confess-
ing that the Sacrament of the Altar “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted
by Christ Himself ” (SC VI 2). The Formula adds the assurance that the words of
Jesus are “simple, plain, clear, ﬁrm, and beyond doubt” (FC SD VII 48). Thus Lu-
therans make a conﬁdent confession, grounded in Christ’s trustworthy promises.
There is no doubt or quibbling or any attempt to rationalize how such a gift could
be given. Faith does not demand an explanation; it receives and rejoices as it trusts
in Christ’s promises. Rather, Lutheran Christians ﬁrmly confess that the “true”
body and blood—that is, the real, actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—
are what Christ gives Christians to eat and to drink. Any talk of Jesus’ words as
symbolic or mere ﬁgures of speech is ruled out. Thus the Formula of Concord
echoes the Apology (X 54) to say, “We believe that in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s
body and blood are truly and substantially present and are truly administered with
those things that are seen (bread and wine) to those who receive the Sacrament”
(FC SD VII 11; emphasis added).
All this is true, of course, not only of the Last Supper, but every Lord’s Supper that
follows Christ’s intent. Paul’s repetition of Christ’s words in 1 Corinthians proves
that they are rightly understood to apply not only to the bread and wine Christ
distributed on the night of His betrayal, but are also true for the communion ad-
ministration of the church in every age (see 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, especially
1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23–24; see also FC SD VII 54–55).
3 Therefore Lutherans do not administer the Sacrament without restriction to any and everyone.
“Everyone who desires to be a Christian and go to this Sacrament should know them [the words of
Christ]. For it is not our intention to let people come to the Sacrament and administer it to them if
they do not know what they seek or why they come” (LC V 2). That the “unworthy” receive Christ’s
body and blood is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27–32.

2026 Convention Workbook
252
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/nine.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
The “word, institution, and ordination” of Christ creates the sacramental union
(FC SD VII 73–75). 4 And His “Do this” means the validity of the Sacrament also
includes more than a mere recitation of Christ’s word over bread and wine. “This
embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament. In an assembly
of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten,
drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time. St. Paul also places
before our eyes this entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and
reception (1 Corinthians 10:16)” (FC SD VII 84). This is summarized in the ancient
rule that “nothing has the nature of a Sacrament apart from the use [ usus] insti-
tuted by Christ or apart from the action [ actio] divinely instituted” (FC SD VII 85).
“The use or action here does not mean chieﬂy faith. Nor does it mean the oral par-
ticipation alone. It means the entire external, visible action of the Lord’s Supper
instituted by Christ: the consecration, or words of institution, the distribution and
reception, or oral partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, of Christ’s body
and blood” (FC SD VII 86).
Given the emphatic certainty of the Gospel in the words of Jesus when He
instituted His Holy Supper, we should be concerned if any church practice fails to
follow His institution or if it introduces doubt or uncertainty about the Supper. In-
stead, the church rightly seeks to follow our Lord’s own institution in Holy Com-
munion. Just as our Lord took bread and wine, declaring it His body and blood and
promising that “in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given
us through these words” (SC VI 6), so we also echo His very words over bread and
wine, distributing them in conﬁdent faith because He has declared that He wants
to distribute His very body and blood in this way.
The clear words of Christ answer essential questions: “For Christ gives this com-
mand at the table and at supper. There is certainly no doubt that He speaks of real,
natural bread and of natural wine. Also, He speaks of oral eating and drinking” (FC
SD VII 48). Everything important is there in the Words of Institution. Because they
are simple and clear and make unambiguous promises, our practice should avoid
anything that takes the plain, powerful words of Jesus and produces questions or
uncertainty, or leads to unhelpful, confusing, or illegitimate practices.
4 The Latin text reads, “ verbo, institutioni atque ordinationi ,” and the German, “ Wort, Einsetzung und
Ordnung.” See Concordia Triglotta, 999.
/one.lnum/zero.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
That we seek to avoid ambiguity about the Sacrament, however, does not mean
that every speciﬁc thing described in the Last Supper or in Paul’s advice to Corinth
must be followed in some kind of rigid mimicry. When Jesus said, “Do this,” He
focused on eating the bread that He promises is His very body and drinking the
cup that He assures us is His very blood. Our Lord’s emphasis is not on such things
as the Passover setting or the physical action of breaking a loaf or other such mat-
ters. He tells us simply to eat and drink the bread and cup that are His body and
blood—and thereby assures us that our sins are forgiven.
/one.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
SUBSTITUTION OF GRAPE
JUICE FOR ORDINARY WINE
This is not the place to trace the history of how and why grape juice came to be
substituted for wine in the practice of Holy Communion. 5 We should simply note
that the practice came out of Methodist revivalism’s condemnation of all alcohol
use and was spurred by Thomas Welch’s (a Methodist minister) development of a
way to prevent the fermentation of grape juice through pasteurization.
6
Over time the substitution of grape juice for wine was adopted by many Protestant
churches and even by some LCMS congregations. Within the LCMS, however, this
practice has not involved a total substitution of grape juice for wine. In such cases
wine is used by most members and grape juice is available for alcoholics and oth-
ers who avoid alcohol for medical reasons.
Although some LCMS congregations may in some situations substitute grape juice
for wine in the Lord’s Supper, the LCMS has taken a long-standing, consistent po-
sition against the practice. For this reason, although 2023 Res. 5-15 asked the CTCR
to take up the three concerns we are addressing herein, the use of grape juice in
place of wine can be considered most brieﬂy. The resolution itself reaﬃrms a 2001
resolution that strongly encourages our congregations to use only wine and not
grape juice (see Appendix A for the full text of 2001 Res. 3-16).
The Synod’s position on this matter predates 2001 and is based ﬁrmly on Scripture.
It is also consistent with the traditions of the church before the Reformation, of
5 A relatively brief history of the temperance movement in the US is available on the National Institutes
of Health’s National Library of Medicine. See Paul Aaron and David Musto, “T emperance and Prohibi-
tion in America: A Historical Overview,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216414/.
6 See Joe Iovino, “Methodist History: Communion and Welch’s Grape Juice,” United Methodist Church,
June 28, 2016, https://www.umc.org/en/content/communion-and-welchs-grape-juice#:~:text=T o%20
combat%20the%20epidemic%20of,it%20is%20such%20common%20practice.
/one.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
Luther and the Confessions, and of confessional Lutheran teachers who followed.
Throughout this history the term “fruit of the vine” has been understood as a tech-
nical term and not a general description. The LCMS and its theologians have with
great consistency aﬃrmed that only bread and wine are to be used in the Lord’s
Supper. This position can be traced from C. F. W. Walther to Franz Pieper to the
faculties of our seminaries to the CTCR.
7
In 1998, the Synod convention aﬃrmed this understanding in Res. 3-16B, “To Af-
ﬁrm Use of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar.” In keeping with its title,
the resolution included reminders that the Scriptures are unanimous in stating
that our Lord used bread and a cup of wine in the Last Supper and that the same
were present in the Sacrament at Corinth. Pastors were urged to “remain faithful
in their practice of Christ’s institution” so as “not to introduce an element of un-
certainty into the Sacrament.”
8
As noted in 2023 Res. 5-15, the Synod again addressed this topic in 2001, in Res.
3-16, “To Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of the Lord’s Supper.”
The convention then addressed congregations that were using grape juice: “That
the congregations be encouraged to use only wine for the Sacrament.”
9 Once
more, in 2023 Res. 5-15, the Synod again reaﬃrmed its 2001 Res. 3-16 stance, “To
Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of Lord’s Supper.”
10
We must add that this consistent position also indicates concern for the commu-
nicant who for various reasons cannot tolerate alcohol. The discussions of both
seminaries and the CTCR all note the availability of low or non-alcoholic wines
that may be used without objection.
7 See Walther’s Pastoral Theology (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 199; Pieper’s Christian Dog-
matics, vol. 3 (Concordia Publishing House, 1953), fns 94, 354; also “Opinion of the Department of
Systematic Theology,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, nos. 1–2 (1981): 77–80; “Is ‘Non-Alcoholic
Wine’ Really Wine?” Concordia Journal 17, no. 1 (1991): 4–6; Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1983),
under 2. The Elements, b. The Wine, 16–17.
8 See The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1998 Convention Proceedings.
9 See The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2001 Convention Proceedings.
10 2023 Convention Proceedings, 157.

2026 Convention Workbook
253
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/one.lnum/three.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
There is no reason to question the Synod’s time-honored position on this matter.
The elements referred to in Scripture are without question bread and wine. The
Synod therefore rightly opposes the substitution of pasteurized grape juice for
wine in the Sacrament. Rather, the Commission echoes Concordia Theological
Seminary’s “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology”:
We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied,
oﬀense be given, consciences and peace within the church
be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and people continue a
consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated
elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use
of wine, “the fruit of the vine,” which Christ instituted when
He gave to His church this new testament in His blood.
11
In conclusion, we commend once more the Synod’s long-standing teaching that
only bread and wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper, since “the use of an
element other than wine is an alien practice in the churches of the Augsburg Con-
fession and brings about doubt whether the Sacrament is oﬀered or not” (2001
Res. 3-16).
11 “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology,” 80. Earlier in its opinion, the Systematic de-
partment oﬀers this strong caution: “Those who simply ‘prefer’ to receive grape juice instead of wine
should be led to see that their ‘preference’ is in violation of Scripture’s own clear teaching and that
they are thereby making the Sacrament an uncertain matter, if in fact not invalid. Moreover, it is to
be feared that such tampering with the Sacrament may in the ﬁnal analysis involve a deeper error,
the relegating of the Lord’s Supper to a mere memorial meal instead of the blessed means of grace
that Christ has constituted it to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins” (80). See
Appendix B for the full text of this opinion.
/one.lnum/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
THE USE OF PRE-PACKAGED
ELEMENTS
IN THE LORD’S SUPPER
Historical Background
Of the three practices that are named in 2023 Res. 5-15, the most recent—at least
in the LCMS—is the introduction of pre-packaged bread and wine (or grape juice).
COVID-19 led to skyrocketing use of the packets in many Protestant and Evangel-
ical churches,
12 and also to some use in the LCMS. The recent rise of pre-packaged
elements resulted from the mystery of how COVID-19 was spreading. The use of
packets was linked to other changes in church life, from widespread temporary
suspension of worship in many churches, to parking lot services, to physical sep-
aration of individuals and families in sanctuaries, and so forth. For one vendor of
the pre-packaged elements, sales rose by 1,000 percent in the year after COVID-19
hit the US.
13
Over the centuries, various ways of providing the communion elements have been
employed in the church catholic. With regard to the bread, practice has varied
through church history. The earliest evidence indicates that ordinary table bread
was used. The Roman Catholic tradition now is to use only unleavened wheat
bread; churches of the East generally use leavened bread. For many years a larger
12 Lutheranism can arguably be placed under the Protestant and the Evangelical umbrella as a church
body that stems from the sixteenth-century Reformation. However, within this document our general
practice will be to distinguish confessional Lutheranism from other Protestants and Evangelicalism.
13 Parija Kavilanz, “Easter Is Here, and So Are Disposable, Pre-ﬁlled Communion Cups,” CNN Business,
April 7, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/business/preﬁlled-communion-cups/index.html.
/one.lnum/five.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
loaf was employed—sometimes leavened and sometimes not. Both unleavened
and leavened bread have been used, usually made from wheat ﬂour, although there
is evidence that in some places other grains were acceptable to make the ﬂour for
the bread. Usually the unleavened bread for the Sacrament is made with only ﬂour
and water, but in some places oil is added, and in others wine or salt may also be in
the dough.
14 The creation of the individual host dates to the seventh or eighth cen-
tury, and by the ninth century the practice of individually made unleavened hosts
was nearly uniform in the West (almost always baked in monasteries with prayer
and fasting). However, a few, even in the West, preferred a single loaf of leavened
bread for the Eucharist.
15
With the Reformation came more change. The Reformed eventually insisted on
the use of ordinary loaves in the Supper, because of the symbolism inherent there-
in, while Lutherans generally retained the Roman practice of individual hosts.
16
The wine of the Supper through history also exhibits signiﬁcant variety. Only grape
wine appears to have been used throughout the church, although some heretical
groups used only water rather than wine. While water alone was condemned, wine
was typically diluted with water in the ancient world, in Jewish practice, and so
also in the church. Augustine mentions the practice, and Cyprian of Carthage com-
ments on this theologically, although the practice was more likely the result of
practicality and custom than theology.
17 The grape varieties used for wine varied.
The practice of communing in one kind, or withholding the cup, is of course one of
the most signiﬁcant variations that occurred in the practice of the Lord’s Supper.
The practice of the New Testament church, as we know from Corinth, or of the
Western Church in general into the twelfth century was clearly Communion in
both kinds, although there were exceptions in isolated circumstances, for example,
14 See Henri Leclercq, “Host,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia , vol. 7 (Robert Appleton Company, 1910),
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07489d.htm (accessed August 19, 2024).
15 Lucia Graziano, “Communion Wafers Instead of Loaves: A History,” Aleteia, February 7, 2023, https://
aleteia.org/2023/02/07/communion-wafers-instead-of-loaves-a-history (accessed August 19, 2024).
16 “Host,” Catholic Encyclopedia.
17 Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaﬀ (Hen-
drickson reprint, 1995), 590; Cyprian, “Epistle 62: Caecilius, on the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord,”
in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Hendrickson reprint, 1995), 358–64.
/one.lnum/six.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
when the Sacrament was taken to the sick and in the practice mentioned by certain
church fathers of laity taking home the host for communing privately and in the
communion of young children.
18 In the East the Sacrament “is always given in both
forms—bread and wine.” 19 Thus, the Roman practice of communing in only one
kind is a novelty in the catholic tradition that, unfortunately, became the standard
in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Protests against the practice of with-
holding the cup preceded the Reformation, but with the Reformers the chalice was
returned to the laity in virtually every strand of the Reformation.
As noted above, however, some Protestants began the variation of using some-
thing other than wine in the cup. Then, beginning in the twentieth century and
due to advances in knowledge about disease transmission, the common chalice
gradually gave way to the use of individual metal cups or glasses and then indi-
vidual plastic cups. The cups were almost always ﬁlled in advance of the service.
The rationale for the practice is the assumption that communicants are thereby
protected from colds, ﬂu, or other diseases. (It should be noted, however, that this
assumption cannot be ﬁrmly substantiated and that there is no veriﬁable evidence
of any transmission of infections via the common cup.)
20 Over time the use of indi-
vidual portions of wine became common also in the LCMS, and the Synod formally
approved the use of individual glasses in 1944.
21
18 See Patrick T oner, “Communion under Both Kinds,” II. History of Disciplinary Variations, 2, in
The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4 (Robert Appleton Company, 1908), https://www.newadvent.org/
cathen/04175a.htm (accessed February 22, 2026).
19 “Holy Eucharist,” Orthodox Church in America, https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/
worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist (accessed August 22, 2024).
20 In 1998 the US Center for Disease Control “reported that there had never been an outbreak of
infection related to the communion cup and that a theoretical risk of transmitting infectious dis-
eases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetect-
able.” See “COVID-19 and Holy Communion” Public Health 187 (2020): 134–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.puhe.2020.08.012. A later study published in light of COVID-19 came to this same conclusion that
“the common communion cup may serve as a potential vehicle for transmission. However, the risk is
considerably lower compared to other conditions of social gathering . Furthermore, the transmission
of any infectious disease has never been documented ” (emphasis added); see Dimitrios Anyfantakis,
“Holy Communion and Infection T ransmission: A Literature Review,” Cureus Journal of Medical Sci-
ence, June 21, 2020, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8741.
21 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1944 Convention Proceedings, 254–55.

2026 Convention Workbook
254
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/one.lnum/seven.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
Prior use of individual pre-packaged elements for the Lord’s Supper is even more
recent, dating only to the closing years of the twentieth century. 22 The initial “mar-
ket” was among Evangelical churches and other Protestants whose practice of the
Lord’s Supper involved having ﬁlled individual glasses (usually with grape juice)
in a cup holder attached to the pew in front of the worshipers. Convenience was
the initial rationale for the pre-packaged elements since the laborious process of
ﬁlling each individual glass could be avoided.
23
During the pandemic, many congregations, including some in the LCMS, adopted
the use of pre-packaged elements as a way to have the Lord’s Supper without any
perceived danger of virus transmission from either bread or cup. Plus, the packets
simpliﬁed distribution for churches that met in parking lots and enabled it also for
churches that held online or “virtual worship” by having members use pre-pack-
aged elements that had been delivered to their homes.
24
Polarization of opinions was an unfortunate result of the various responses to
COVID-19. Some condemned those who refused government restrictions and
counsel. Others condemned those who followed the guidelines. The use of com-
munion packets was yet another source of disagreement. The debates and, too
often, rancor aﬀected churches and circuits. Hence, the LCMS convention request
to consider the practice of using pre-packaged elements in 2023 Res. 5-15. But we
note that the same convention also urged “charity and latitude” among Synod pas-
tors regarding the various approaches taken in response to the pandemic.
22 According to the Chicago Tribune, prepackaged elements were ﬁrst marketed in 1996. See “Com-
munion in a Cup Has Its Converts, Naysayers,” April 19, 1996, updated August 18, 2021, https://www
.chicagotribune.com/1996/04/19/communion-in-a-cup-has-its-converts-naysayers/.
23 Although popular, the communion package also had detractors even within Evangelicalism. “Com-
munion in a Cup” notes that critics argued that the practice undermined the symbolism of the
Lord’s Supper.
24 The LCMS has, of course, strongly opposed virtual or online Communion. See 2023 Convention Pro-
ceedings, Res. 5-08A, 152–53. The third “Resolved” reads: “That the Synod in convention clearly and
unequivocally reject and condemn the practice of virtual (online) Communion.” See Appendix C for
the full text of the resolution. See also the various CTCR opinions on this issue, available online at
http://resources.lcms.org/reading-study/ctcr-library-means-of-grace-sacraments-lutheran-doctrine
-and-practice/.
/one.lnum/eight.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
Response
We noted above that the accounts of the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
as well as Paul’s comments about the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, cer-
tainly indicate something of how the Lord’s Supper was administered ﬁrst by Jesus
and then in the New Testament church. In both the Passover meal when Jesus
ﬁrst instituted His Supper and in Paul’s description of the Sacrament as he had
received it, we hear of bread (artos) that is taken, blessed with thanksgiving,
25 bro -
ken, and then distributed for eating with the assurance that it is Christ’s body. In
like manner, a cup of wine is taken up to be blessed and declared to be His blood,
and participants are invited to drink.
With regard to right practice, then, the Synod holds ﬁrmly to the confessional un-
derstanding that the validity of the Lord’s Supper involves certain necessities: (1)
right consecration—the use of the words of Jesus (Words of Institution) spoken
over (2) the appropriate earthly elements of bread and wine, followed by (3) the
distribution to the congregation for them to eat and drink (see, e.g., FC SD VII
79–82; FC SD VII 121; FC Ep VII 8–9; FC SD VII 75).
Given the various ways that bread and cup have been given and received by Chris-
tians, as described above, one must proceed with caution before passing judg-
ment on practice. For example, there has been widespread acceptance in most of
Christianity of the use of bread that is provided in individual portions rather than
from a single loaf. Similarly, even churches that do not utilize individual glasses
for the Sacrament often employ several chalices when communing a very large
assembly. Synod congregations have used both a single loaf and, more commonly,
individual hosts, leavened and unleavened bread—all without condemnation or
question. And many if not most congregations oﬀer individual cups with explicit
Synod approval.
The LCMS has no resolutions or statements on the use of pre-packaged elements,
and there is no incontrovertible scriptural basis for asserting that the use of in-
dividual packets of bread and wine would inherently invalidate the Sacrament of
25 Matthew and Mark speak of Jesus “blessing” the bread (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22), while Luke and Paul
describe Him giving “thanks” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).
/one.lnum/nine.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
the Altar. This does not mean that any and every practice is acceptable regarding
pre-packaged elements, especially since the Synod has addressed the manner of
distributing the cup in the Lord’s Supper. We oﬀer the following comments giving
our considered opinion about their use:
Consecration: As is always the case in the Lord’s Supper, the words of Christ must
be spoken over the elements.
To be sure, the words can be spoken over pre-packaged elements.
However, the packets prevent a more explicit declaration. In a typical setting, the
pastor can clearly indicate the bread and the cup (or cups) separately during the
Words of Institution. He indicates the bread by touching or lifting it as he repeats
our Lord’s words: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in
remembrance of Me.” Then, he repeats Christ’s words as he indicates the cup:
“Drink of it, all of you, this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for
you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of Me.”
In our judgment, the consecration of packets lends itself to a confusion that is not
evident in typical consecration.
Also, the use of disposable plastic cups raises concerns about the proper and rever-
ent treatment of the consecrated wine that remains after Communion.
26
Elements: The LCMS aﬃrms the biblical and confessional understanding that
only bread and wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper.26 In Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, page 17, the CTCR states: “The consecrated elements
which remain after all have communed should be treated with reverence. This reverence has been ex-
pressed by Lutherans in various ways. Some have followed the ancient practice of burning the bread
and pouring the wine upon the earth. Others have established a basin and drain—piscina—specif-
ically for the disposal of the wine. The elders or altar guild may also return the consecrated bread
and wine to speciﬁc containers for future sacramental use, or the elders and pastor can consume the
remaining elements. All of these practices should be understood properly. The church is not, thereby,
conferring upon the elements some abiding status apart from their use in the Lord’s Supper itself.”
See also the reference to FC SD VII 14–15 on page 17.
/two.lnum/zero.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
Communion packets are available for purchase from a number of sources. Some
provide only a portion of unleavened bread with grape juice. A few oﬀer both
packets with grape juice and with wine and some also oﬀer gluten-free bread in
their packets.
Only packets that are ﬁlled with bread and wine are acceptable under any circum-
stances in LCMS congregations.
Distribution: The manner of distribution varies. As is the case in general, some
congregations have communicants come to the altar, kneel, and then receive Com-
munion. Others have individuals walk forward and receive the Sacrament while
standing, and then return to their seats (continuous Communion). In exceptional
cases members are communed in their seat. Regarding preﬁlled packets, variety
also existed. Three approaches were observed in LCMS congregations during the
pandemic. In some churches, packets were handed to each individual communi-
cant by the pastor or an elder assisting him. In others, individuals helped them-
selves, taking the packet from a tray or basket as they approached the altar to
commune. A third form of distribution was having individuals take a communion
packet together with a service folder (bulletin) as they entered the church and
then, during the service of the Sacrament, communing in their seat.
In general, the manner of reception is an adiaphoron.
However, we strongly discourage the practice of having individuals take commu-
nion elements for themselves into the service and then communing in their seats
This practice is problematic in two ways. First, it largely prevents any pastoral
care regarding who is prepared for the Sacrament. Second, it raises confusion and
doubt about the point of reference in the consecration when the pastor speaks of
“this bread” and “drink this cup.” Should he say “That is My body” or “That cup is
the new testament in My blood”?
Further, since “self-communing” in the pew is common in many Reformed
churches and congregations, this may lead to confusion regarding crucial diﬀer-
ences between Lutheran and Reformed theology and practice.
Given these concerns, while the Commission does not consider the use of
pre-packaged elements to be inherently illegitimate, we ﬁnd it troubling. The use

2026 Convention Workbook
255
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/two.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
of pre-packaged elements invites confusion and can encourage bad practices. As
noted above, such usage seems to invite some churches to adopt speciﬁc practices
that undermine or prevent the practice of closed Communion and may also create
questions about what has or has not been consecrated. Consequently, such a prac-
tice may under some circumstances create doubts that may cause communicants
to be unsure that they are receiving Christ’s body and blood and therefore to re-
frain from reception. For these reasons, we believe the Synod should discourage
their future use.
This judgment does not in any way seek to condemn those pastors and congrega-
tions that, according to their best judgment during the confusion of the COVID-19
pandemic, made use of the packets. Nevertheless, we believe that the potential for
confusion and bad practice outweighs any potential beneﬁt. The great treasure
that is Christ’s Holy Supper should not be discounted in place of uncertain at-
tempts to avoid disease. Moreover, if we emphasize worries about the potential for
disease transmission, public worship itself would be viewed as a possible threat to
physical well-being because of the constant presence of inﬂuenza, continuing out-
breaks of COVID-19, and other contagions. Our deepest concern as Christians is
not threats to the body, but threats to our soul. Jesus rightly admonishes us about
the danger of living in fear of this world’s threats and ignoring God (Matt. 10:28).
A risk to the spiritual well-being of those who would be uncertain of the Sacrament
should rank above the unlikelihood that Communion will endanger us physically.
/two.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
SUBSTITUTION
OF NON-WHEAT BREAD
FOR WHEAT BREAD
Biblical and Historical Background
The question of the propriety of using bread made from grains other than wheat is
largely a result of requests by individuals who suﬀer from celiac disease or another
form of gluten intolerance. Although celiac disease was diagnosed as early as the
second century AD, it was given little study or medical treatment until the 1800s.
27
Both celiac disease (CD) and non-celiac gluten intolerance (NCGS) have garnered
increasing attention in recent years. The World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG )
says that “currently, 1% of the United States population holds a diagnosis for celiac
disease (CD), however, a more recently recognized and possibly related condition,
‘non-celiac gluten sensitivity’ (NCGS) has been suggested to aﬀect up to 6% of the
United States public.”
28 In addition to those with such diagnoses, a signiﬁcantly
higher number of Americans—about 20% of the population—have chosen to
adopt a gluten-free diet without either a CD or NCGS diagnosis.
29 This has led to
concerns about the Sacrament, since wheat hosts or bread have been used almost
exclusively for generations. By the late twentieth century non-gluten hosts were
oﬀered to churches as an alternative to wheat hosts for use in cases of CD or other
gluten intolerance. Signiﬁcant numbers of LCMS churches oﬀer non-gluten hosts
27 See “History of Celiac Disease,” Beyond Celiac, https://www.beyondceliac.org/celiac-disease/
celiac-history/ (accessed September 17, 2024). The death rate for untreated celiac children is about
30 percent. Because of high rates of child mortality, the fact that celiac victims tended to be children
may have prevented scientiﬁc attention until more recent times.
28 Samuel O. Igbinedion et al., “Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: All Wheat Attack Is Not Celiac,” WJG 23,
no. 40 (2017): 7201–10, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29142467/.
29 Igbinedion, et al.
/two.lnum/three.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
to those who request them. Hence the question of their propriety has been raised
in 2023 Res. 5-15.
Regarding the bread of the Lord’s Supper, this is what we have been given
in Scripture:
Matthew 26:26 – “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after
blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is
My body.’”
Mark 14:22 – “And as they were eating, He took bread, and after blessing
it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is My body.’”
Luke 22:19 – “And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He
broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body, which is given for
you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’”
1 Corinthians 11:23–24 – “For I received from the Lord what I also deliv-
ered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took
bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My
body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’”
In each of the passages, the text shows that Jesus took “bread” with a blessing or
thanksgiving, and distributed it to the disciples with the words “This is My body.”
The concern the CTCR has here been asked to address is whether it is consistent
with our Lord’s “Do this” for congregations to use “non-wheat hosts” in the Lord’s
Supper. That is, since the Lord took “bread” as one of the elements of the Lord’s
Supper, is bread made from something other than wheat a valid earthly element?
The Confessions simply describe Christ’s instruction: “For Christ gives this com-
mand at the table and at supper. There is certainly no doubt that He speaks of real,
natural bread and of natural wine. Also, He speaks of oral eating and drinking” (FC
SD VII 48). Therefore, consistent with our response in the matter of substituting
grape juice for wine, we should state at the outset that using something other than
“natural bread” would not be in keeping with our Lord’s words.
The Greek word translated as “bread” in the four passages cited is artos. For bibli-
cal studies, Greek lexicons (dictionaries) provide deﬁnitions by summarizing the
/two.lnum/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
usage of a word in the ancient world during both the period of Classical Greek lit-
erature and later, more common (Koine) biblical and early church literature. The
deﬁnitions for artos vary somewhat in the dictionaries but can be summarized: In
Classical Greek when artos appears without a modiﬁer it seems to have referred to
wheat bread almost exclusively; however, the deﬁnition broadened to become the
general term for all bread in the Koine period.
30
The Bible knows diﬀerent grains and breads. Wheat and wheat bread are most fre-
quently mentioned (over ﬁfty times), but barley and bread made from barley are
also mentioned frequently (more than thirty times). As for other types of grain,
the only certain reference of bread made from them is the passage in Ezekiel 4:9,
where the Lord commands the prophet to make bread from a mixed ﬂour con-
taining wheat, barley, beans, lentil, millet, and emmer. The term “bread” ( lehem in
Hebrew, artos in Greek) is far more common than speciﬁc terms such as “wheat
bread” or “barley bread.” It is used over two hundred times in the Old Testament
and nearly one hundred times in the New Testament. “Bread” can mean a loaf, a
cake, or a wafer—although when the wafer is unleavened bread in the Old Testa-
ment the term matzah rather than lehem is typical.
Bread is further used in ways that go beyond the literal. Since bread was the staple
in the diet of the biblical world, the Bible also can use “bread” as shorthand for
food or nourishment (e.g., Prov. 6:8; Lam. 1:11; Ezek. 18:16; Matt. 6:11; Luke 14:15;
15:17; 2 Thess. 3:12). Reference to bread being broken is connected with the bless-
ing of the meal by the head of the household and the subsequent distribution of
food. This is also, of course, the sense in the four Lord’s Supper narratives. The
combination of breaking and bread in Luke and Acts seems to indicate partaking
of a meal in some cases (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:46; 20:11), but it may refer to the Lord’s
Supper (Acts 20:7). Certainly “the bread that we break” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 re-
fers to the Supper.
There is further usage of the term “bread” beyond any reference to normal grain
bread. Note the connection with manna, “bread from heaven” (Ex. 16:4, 8; Psalm
30 Several dictionaries can be consulted: Henry George Liddell et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon , 9th
rev. ed. (Oxford University Press, 1996); James Diggle et al., eds., The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, vol.
1 (Cambridge University Press, 2021); Johannes Behm, “ artos,” in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoﬀrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1964);
Walter Bauer et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

2026 Convention Workbook
256
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/two.lnum/five.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
105:40; Neh. 9:15; John 6:31). And, of course, Christ refers to Himself as the true
bread or bread of life (John 6:31–59).
The Bible knows more than one kind of bread, although wheat bread is mentioned
more than other grains or bread. Jesus uses wheat in parables such as the Parable
of the Weeds (Matt. 13:24–30) and of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1–30). Bread
made from the “ﬁnest wheat” seems to have been the preferred bread for the Old
Testament. For example, “ﬁne wheat ﬂour” is used for the unleavened bread of-
fered during the consecration of priests (Ex. 29:2; see also Deut. 32:14). Barley is
also frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it evidently was a humbler grain or, at
any rate, less costly than wheat (e.g., Rev. 6:6). Of note are the twenty barley loaves
that Elisha used miraculously to feed one hundred men (2 Kings 4:42–44) and the
ﬁve barley loaves from which our Lord fed ﬁve thousand men and their families
(John 6:9–13).
The passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the Last Supper in the
upper room with Jesus and His disciples as the Passover. Thus the bread that Jesus
used at that meal would almost certainly have been unleavened bread since Pass-
over directly preceded the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4–6). Given their
proximity, Luke refers to Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as one event
(Luke 22:1). Houses were cleansed of leaven in preparation for Passover and the
following Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:15–20; Deut. 16:16).
31 The leavening to
be cleansed would have included any leavened grain bread, such as barley as well
as wheat.
32
Given the direct connection between Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
it is of note that the word for bread in the ﬁrst three Gospels is artos, the general
term for bread, and not the speciﬁc Greek term for unleavened bread ( azymos).
Then, in Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, there
is no mention of a Passover setting or of unleavened bread. In those chapters Paul,
too, speaks only of bread generally ( artos, not azymos) without further qualiﬁca-
31 See Francis X. E. Albert, “Azymes,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (Robert Appleton Company,
1907), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02171a.htm.
32 There is speciﬁc mention of barley in Rabbinic Judaism (T osefta, Pisha, 3:8f.). Later Talmudic Juda-
ism holds that matzah (unleavened bread) is to be made from one of the grains mentioned in the
T orah (wheat, barley, spelt, rye, oats). See “Passover: Matzah,” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www
.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/matzah. Karaite Jews used only barley, believing it to be most suited to serve
as the “bread of aﬄiction” (Deut. 16:3) since it was the bread commonly eaten by the poor.
/two.lnum/six.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
tion (1 Cor. 10:14–22; 11:20–34). 33 Although grain was certainly used for the bread of
the Last Supper and in Corinth, no text explicitly describes the kind of grain used
in either case.
The early church practice of the Lord’s Supper was distinguished from the Jewish
Passover, as was the case in Corinth. In the earliest Christian centuries, there is
no evidence of controversy over the kind of bread—whether leavened or unleav-
ened—that should be used in the Supper. It appears that ordinary leavened bread
was used most widely throughout the early church. Over time, however, a divi-
sion regarding leavening developed between the Eastern and Western branches
of Christianity. Eventually unleavened bread was used almost exclusively among
the Roman—or Western—Church and leavened bread was used in the East.
34 This
became one of the factors leading to the Great Schism. 35
In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas concluded that only unleavened wheat
bread should be used in the Sacrament. Although he argues that only wheat bread
should be used, he concedes that there are other practices in some places where
cereal grains that resemble wheat were used in the Sacrament. He allows that
some mixture of other grains with wheat may be acceptable for use in the Sacra-
ment, as long as wheat predominates. He also mentions that some have thought
wheat starch could be used in place of wheat ﬂour. As for leavening, Thomas is
more circumspect. Wheat is “necessary,” while unleavened bread is only “suit-
able” because it is in accord with the Roman rite, while leavened bread is suit-
able in the East according to their rite. Nevertheless, overall, unleavened bread is
“more reasonable.”
36
33 Paul’s only mention of Passover in 1 Corinthians is in chapter 5, where the subject is the incestuous
sexual relationship of a man in Corinth. In arguing for the necessity that the man be disciplined by the
church, Paul says: “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old
leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has
been sacriﬁced. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice
and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (vv. 6–8).
34 A ugustin Joseph Schulte, “Altar Breads,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Robert Appleton Company,
1907), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm.
35 F or a brief discussion, see “East-West Schism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/
event/East-West-Schism-1054 (accessed September 19, 2024).
36 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 58, trans. William Barden (Blackfriars, 1965), 35–39 (Part 3,
ques. 74, arts. 3, 4).
/two.lnum/seven.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
Thomas’s conclusion that unleavened wheat should be used in the Sacrament was
endorsed by the Council of Florence in 1439 for use in the West, stating that “the
body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread,
and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest accord-
ing to the custom of his western or eastern church.”
37 For Rome, this teaching
remains unchanged. Trent reaﬃrmed it as did John Paul’s Instruction Redemptionis
Sacramentum in 2004. Paragraph 49 is explicit:
The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucha-
ristic Sacriﬁce must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and re-
cently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It
follows therefore that bread made from another substance,
even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance
diﬀerent from wheat to such an extent that it would not com-
monly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid
matter for confecting the Sacriﬁce and the Eucharistic Sacra-
ment. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such
as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the
Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are
not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in
making them and furnished with suitable tools.
38
The same ruling was reiterated in 2017 by Cardinal Robert Sarah in a letter on be-
half of Pope Francis. “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for
the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid
matter, provided they contain a suﬃcient amount of gluten to obtain the con-
fection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of
37 “Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431–49 AD,” Session 6, July 6, 1439, Papal Encyclicals Online,
https://www.papalencyclicals.net//councils/ecum17.htm (accessed February 19, 2026).
38 The Holy See, “Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament,” III 1, para-
graph 48, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds
_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html.
/two.lnum/eight.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
procedures that would alter the nature of bread.” 39 Here the judgment is not what
may be more “suitable” or “reasonable.” An “invalid” sacrament is no sacrament.
The use of low-gluten hosts made by authorized providers is suggested as the only
acceptable alternative to gluten-free hosts.
40
With the Reformation came a signiﬁcant reconsideration of the nature of the Sac-
rament and also its elements. While the doctrine of the sacriﬁce of the mass was
the central point of contention, Luther also addressed other matters, including
the bread used in the Lord’s Supper. In Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets in
the Matter of Images and Sacraments he discusses sacramental bread in the context
of his rejection of the view that has the validity of the Lord’s Supper hanging on
duplication of doing everything that Christ does. “But we are of the opinion that
it is not necessary to do or refrain from doing all that Christ has done or refrained
from doing.”
41 It is what Christ teaches—the Word alone—that matters.
Attempts to mimic Christ’s actions exactly would lead to “utter foolishness,” says
Luther, even to avoiding the Sacrament completely due to uncertainty about ex-
actly what Christ did or did not do (or say) at the Last Supper. Sarcastically he
writes: “Since we do not know and the text does not state whether red or white
wine was used, whether wheat rolls or barley bread were used, we must by reason
of doubt at this point refrain from observing the Last Supper, until we become
certain about it, so that we do not make any external detail diﬀer a hairsbreadth
from what Christ’s example sets forth.”
42 To the contrary, Luther concludes: “No
one is to command or prohibit anything which he has neither commanded nor
forbidden.”
43 The kind of bread and the color of wine are adiaphora.
39 “Letter to Bishops on the Bread and Wine for the Eucharist,” Vatican Radio, July 8, 2017, https://www
.archivioradiovaticana.va/storico/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the
_eucharist/en-1323886.
40 F our providers of hosts are named by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
Committee on Divine Worship, “Celiac Disease, Alcohol Intolerance, and the Church’s Pastoral Re-
sponse,” updated April 20, 2016, https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/
liturgy-of-the-eucharist/celiac-disease-and-alcohol-intolerance.
41 Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, AE 40:131.
42 AE 40:132–33.
43 AE 40:133.

2026 Convention Workbook
257
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/two.lnum/nine.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
This general perspective with regard to the altar bread has been passed down
in Lutheran theology. Martin Chemnitz notes former debates about the
bread—“Whether it should be of wheat, whether leavened or unleavened”—but
adds that “the church judged correctly that these things are free and not of ne-
cessity for the sacrament.”
44 In naming only wheat—“whether it should be of
wheat”—before saying that “these things are free and not of necessity,” Chemnitz
apparently holds simply that the kind of grain may not be restricted only to wheat
at risk of binding something that has been kept free.
Generations later, C. F. W. Walther also addresses the matter of sacramental bread
in his Pastoral Theology. In his discussion of “ Valid administration of the Lord’s
Supper” (emphasis original), Walther states:
Whether the bread is made with yeast or not; whether it is
rye, wheat, corn, barley, or oat bread; and whether it has this
or that shape is an adiaphoron, so long as it is a baked good
[made] with grain ﬂour and water.
45
Interestingly, Walther puts rye before wheat in his list of grains. One can only
speculate that this may be the case because of the strong preference for rye in
German breads and baked goods.
46
Walther’s perspective, that the kind of grain used to make the bread of the Supper
is an indiﬀerent thing, has continued to be endorsed by later LCMS theologians.
Franz Pieper quotes directly from Walther’s theological opinion in his Christian
Dogmatics.
47 John H. C. Fritz paraphrases Walther’s statement, listing the same
grains in the same order. 48
44 Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent , Part II, Chemnitz’s Works, trans. Fred Kramer
(Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 540.
45 Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, American-Lutheran Pastoral Theology, Walther’s Works, ed. David
W. Loy, trans. Christian C. Tiews (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 168.
46 “The History of German Bread: A Crusty Chronicle,” German Culture, https://germanculture.com.ua/
baking-recipes/history-of-german-bread/ (accessed June 20, 2023).
47 Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 354.
48 John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scriptural Principles Written Especially for Pastors
of the Lutheran Church (Concordia Publishing House, 1945).
/three.lnum/zero.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
In 1983 the CTCR continued in the same vein, but with one variation. In consider-
ing “The Elements” to be used in the Lord’s Supper, the CTCR states:
The Greek word for bread in the New Testament texts, artos,
is generic. It applies to bread in general. While Greek has a
more restricted term, azumos [azymos], for unleavened bread,
it is not found in any of the New Testament accounts of the
Lord’s Supper.
The fact that unleavened bread was used in the Passover and
that the three evangelists set the time for the Lord’s Supper
“on the ﬁrst day of [the Feast of ] Unleavened Bread” would
strongly suggest the use of unleavened bread in our Lord’s
original action (Matt. 26:17; cf. Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7).
Therefore we have reason to conclude that unleavened bread
should also be used today. Since the Scriptures are silent on
the source of the bread, it may be baked from the ﬂour of
wheat, rye, barley, or other grains. While the form of distri-
bution should reﬂect reverence for the elements, there is no
speciﬁc guidance on the size or shape of the wafer or por-
tion.
49
Note that the CTCR here also views the type of ﬂour to be an indiﬀerent thing, but
concludes that “unleavened bread should also be used today” (emphasis added). 50
The most recent statement from within LCMS circles on the bread to be used in
Holy Communion comes from Pastoral Theology (1990), edited by Norbert Muel-
ler and George Kraus. They also continue the position set forth in Walther, but
provide a somewhat more substantial discussion of the type of bread that may be
used in the Sacrament of the Altar. In so doing, they distinguish between what is
“essential” for the Lord’s Supper and what is “custom”:
49 CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 15–16.
50 CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 16.
/three.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
In the Koine Greek, artos is the generic name given to bread of
whatever kind—white, whole wheat, rye, barley, etc. It would
seem, however, that the context of the institution of the
Lord’s Supper indicates the use of unleavened wheat bread.
It is not essential that the bread used in the celebration of the
sacrament be unleavened, but it is a custom of long-standing
in the Lutheran Church.
51
To summarize, artos may refer to any kind of grain bread.
Response
With regard to the substitution of non-wheat for wheat bread in the Sacrament,
the Commission believes it is helpful to uphold some important distinctions. First,
we would distinguish between practices that are required for a valid Communion
and those that are condemned because they prevent a right and salutary sacra-
mental service. Paul condemned the twisted practice of Corinth with its self-ab-
sorbed feasting and drunkenness, saying, “It is not the Lord’s supper that you eat”
(1 Cor. 11:20). To correct this he delivered again what the Lord requires: that bread
and wine be blessed and received according to the declaratory words of Christ:
“This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” And, “This cup
is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of Me” (vv. 24–25). The Lord’s Supper is exactly what Christ promises—His true
body and blood for the forgiveness of sins—so long as “bread and wine are taken,
consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown
forth” (FC SD VII 84).
But what of the kind of bread that is employed? Does non-wheat bread invalidate
the Sacrament? No. To make such a judgment is to go beyond what the Word of
God makes necessary and to forbid what God does not forbid. Even if it could be
proven that only unleavened wheat bread was used in the Sacrament by Jesus and
51 Norbert H. Mueller, George Kraus, eds., Pastoral Theology (Concordia Publishing House, 1990), 96.
They go on to contrast “the generic bread” with “a speciﬁc ‘fruit of the vine’: wine,” 96–97.
/three.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
the apostles, that would not be grounds to declare all other practice, such as the
use of leavened bread or bread from other grains, to invalidate the Lord’s Sup-
per. Wheat bread has not been commanded. Unleavened bread has not been com-
manded. Breads from barley, rye, or other grains have not been forbidden. “No one
is to command or prohibit anything which he [our Lord] has neither commanded
nor forbidden.”
52 The position of Luther and other fathers is correct. To hold oth-
erwise introduces dissension and division into the church and risks a return to
the kind of ritualistic understanding of the Sacrament as continues in the Roman
Church today.
Validity is not the only question, however. We also hold that it is helpful to dis-
tinguish between what is customary and what is innovative. And while our cul-
ture tends to value innovation over custom, that is not the case throughout the
church’s history or, for that matter, in the Lutheran Church. In the midst of nec-
essary changes, the Lutheran Reformation steadfastly held to countless tradi-
tions. Tradition is not ironclad, of course. For example, the church at some point
went from the use of a loaf that required breaking to individual broken morsels
to individually made hosts—at least in the Western Church. Yet these changes
all came to be aﬃrmed both explicitly and implicitly and were then handed on to
further generations.
Emerging from within this kind of tradition, Lutherans were insistent that they
would not forsake the doctrine of the church catholic and so were favorably dis-
posed toward church traditions. So Lutherans retained the liturgy as it was handed
down, making changes only where a practice contradicted the Word of God (AC
XXIV 1–9; XXVI 40; see also Ap XXIV). Custom was valued highly for the sake of
good order, but also critically so that none should suppose it merits forgiveness
(Ap XV 1–7). In keeping with this the Commission strongly encourages churches
to continue the custom of using unleavened wheat hosts in the Lord’s Supper,
although our pastors and churches should be reminded that this custom is for
the sake of good order and does not mean that other practices—such as the use
of leavened bread or bread made from other grains—make the Sacrament invalid.
Since the use of unleavened wheat hosts has been the nearly uniform practice
52 AE 40:133.

2026 Convention Workbook
258
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/three.lnum/three.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
of LCMS congregations throughout recent history, to change this would result in
needless confusion.
There remains the pastoral question of how the spiritual needs of Christians with
celiac disease or gluten intolerance are to be addressed: What is the most appro-
priate pastoral care for individuals with a diagnosed medical consideration like CD
that makes the reception of the bread in the Lord’s Supper cause physical harm?
53
There is something of a parallel here with the question of the potential danger
to an alcoholic in receiving the wine of the Lord’s Supper. We recall the coun-
sel oﬀered by the CTCR earlier in this document, together with the Synod’s 1998
Res. 3-16B, which both acknowledge the need for pastoral discretion. Acceptable
suggestions for pastoral care in the case of alcoholism included diluting the wine
and intinction, but the Commission also acknowledged that in some cases there
may be “no fully satisfactory answer” to the question of how best to respond to
alcoholism.
While both alcoholism and CD are conditions plaguing individual Christians, they
must be distinguished. Alcoholism is understood as “a disease characterized by
compulsive decision-making, impulsive behavior and relapse” and thus a men-
tal health disorder.
54 CD is a physical disorder, that is, an autoimmune disease in
which gluten triggers an attack on the small intestines, potentially leading to many
other serious physical conditions.
The danger of gluten is real for individuals with CD, although it was unknown
prior to World War II, when wheat shortages resulted in vastly improved health
outcomes for celiac patients. Over time the practice of following a gluten-free
diet expanded beyond celiacs and also for those with non-celiac gluten sensitivity
(NCGS), about 1 percent of all people, to include many people without CD or
53 It is important to distinguish the challenge of CD from missiological questions—such as whether in
Asian countries a rice host would be preferred over a wheat host.
54 “Is Alcoholism a Mental Illness?” Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, October 9, 2019, https://www
.hazeldenbettyford.org/articles/why-is-alcoholism-classiﬁed-as-a-mental-illness#:~:text=Since%20
1956%2C%20the%20American%20Medical,making%2C%20impulsive%20behavior%20and%20
relapse.
/three.lnum/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
NCGS. 55 The only known treatment is dietary—“a lifelong adherence to a strict
gluten-free diet.” 56 Most gastroenterologists recommend that a CD patient con-
sume less than 50 milligrams of gluten each day for adults and less for children to
remain symptom free. However, as little as 10 milligrams of gluten causes intesti-
nal abnormalities in some patients.
57
The average communion wafer contains about 22 milligrams of gluten. As such,
it may be consumed without triggering symptoms by most who suﬀer from CD
or NCGS. The operative word is “may,” however, and many individuals do suﬀer
problems from even such a small amount. What options can be considered for
such individuals in light of no speciﬁc direction from Scripture?
Decisions regarding these alternatives should remain a matter of pastoral discre-
tion in consultation with those who suﬀer. However, several options may be sug-
gested for consideration by pastors and members with CD/NCGS. We list them in
order of preference after due consideration by the Commission.
Perhaps the single best option is to use low-gluten wheat hosts. The North Amer-
ican Society for the Study of Celiac Disease found these hosts to be “safe for con-
sumption by celiac disease patients.”
58
A second option is to receive only a fragment of the normal host, which thereby
reduces the amount of gluten consumed. This may present practical problems in
distribution and reception, however.
A third option is to use non-wheat, gluten-free hosts made from rice ﬂour or an-
other grain. (Even though we are here recommending low-gluten hosts, an al-
55 Jacqueline Howard, “Gluten-Free Diets: Where Do We Stand?,” CNN Health, updated March 10, 2017,
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/gluten-free-diet-history-explainer/index.html.
56 “What Is Celiac Disease?” Celiac Disease Foundation, https://celiac.org/about-celiac-disease/
what-is-celiac-disease/ (accessed September 23, 2024).
57 Inna Spector Cohen et al., “Gluten in Celiac Disease—More or Less?” NIH National Library of Med-
icine, January 28, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6363368/#:~:text=studied%20
the%20long%2Dterm%20eﬀect,communion%20wafer)%20prevented%20histological%20recovery.
58 “NASSCD Conﬁrms Use of Low-Gluten Host for Catholic Mass,” Celiac Disease Foundation, Sep-
tember 1, 2017, https://celiac.org/2017/09/01/nasscd-statement-use-low-gluten-host-catholic-mass/#:~
:text=Accordingly%2C%20considering%20the%20total%20weight,safe%20in%20various%20
clinical%20studies. This option has another potential beneﬁt, namely, that such low-gluten wheat
hosts could be used for the entire congregation and not only for people with CD/NCGS.
/three.lnum/five.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
ternative recommended by the Roman Catholic Church, it is important to state
forthrightly that we disagree with the Roman view that the use of bread made by
another grain invalidates the Sacrament.) However, we emphasize that caution is
necessary if the third option is employed. Gluten-free “bread” for Communion is
oﬀered now by many vendors, but in many cases it is made without grain ﬂour.
Other starches are used instead (e.g., potatoes, garbanzos, tapioca, palm fruit oil,
cellulose, sunﬂower). The CTCR urges congregations that decide to use non-glu-
ten bread to ensure that the alternative hosts are made from actual grain crops. /three.lnum/six.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
CONCLUSION
2023 Res. 5-15 instructed the Commission “to take up these concerns.” To summa-
rize the results of our study herein we
Strongly reaﬃrm the long-standing LCMS understanding that only wine, of what-
ever alcohol content, should be used in the consecration of the Lord’s Supper;
Recommend against the use of preﬁlled wine and wafer sets in the Lord’s Supper
because of potential confusion and the potential encouragement of bad Commu-
nion practices; and
Suggest that the medical needs of celiac patients and others with gluten intoler-
ance may best be met through the use of low-gluten wheat hosts, or if that is not
possible, the use of hosts made from another grain crop.

2026 Convention Workbook
259
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/three.lnum/seven.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION 3-1659
Overture 3-52 (CW, p. 172)
WHEREAS, A number of congregations in the Synod have introduced grape
juice for use in the Sacrament of the Altar; and
WHEREAS, The clear statements of our Confessions instruct us that “As the
Words of Institution of Christ expressly state: while at the table during the Supper,
he distributed natural bread and wine to his disciples” (FC SD VII 64); and
WHEREAS, The use of an element other than wine is an alien practice in the
churches of the Augsburg Confession and brings about doubt whether the Sacra-
ment is oﬀered or not; and
WHEREAS, “Since Christ used and sanctiﬁed no other element for this Sac-
rament; since no place in Scripture which treats of the Lord’s Supper mentions
even a single other element; since it beﬁts the true disciples of Christ to abide by
His ordinance and institution, John 8:31; since the promise of Christ concerning
the sacramental reception of His body and blood is expressly dependent upon the
bread and wine; and ﬁnally, since bread and wine are the essential elements of the
holy Lord’s Supper, it follows that under no circumstances can or should one sub-
stitute elements, which might be comparable, in place of bread and wine” (Johann
Gerhard, A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper [trans.
Elmer M. Hohle; Repristination Press, 2000], 228–29); and
59 2001 Convention Proceedings, 141–42.
/three.lnum/eight.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
WHEREAS, Both theological faculties of the LCMS have oﬀered opinions
(Gutachten) (cf. Concordia Theological Quarterly 45:1/2 [Jan./Apr., 1981], 77–80;
Theological Observer 17:1 [Jan. 1991], 4–6) supporting the use of wine, or reduced-al-
cohol wine, oﬀering the clear teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church with
regard to this matter from the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the teaching of the
church; and
WHEREAS, The Synod has spoken in 1998 Res. 3-16B “To Aﬃrm Use of Bread
and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar”; therefore be it
Resolved, That the congregations be encouraged to use only wine for the Sac-
rament; and be it further
Resolved, That the theological faculties of our seminaries be commissioned to
oﬀer guidelines to pastors and congregations in meeting the needs of those who
feel they cannot drink wine; and be it ﬁnally
Resolved, That all action taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry
out “The Great Commission” and shall not in any way detract or distract from the
primary mission of God’s kingdom here on earth. We will remember 1-02!
Action: Adopted as amended (11)
(This resolution was ﬁrst discussed during session 10. The ﬁfth whereas as presented
by the committee, WHEREAS, Both theological faculties of the LCMS have oﬀered opinions
(Gutachten) to the contrary (cf. “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology: The Fruit
of the Vine in the Sacrament of the Altar,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45:1/2 [ Jan./April.,
1981], 77–80; Department of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, “Is ‘Non-Alcoholic Wine’
Really Wine?” (Theological Observer, Concordia Journal 17:1 [Jan. 1991], 4–6), oﬀering the
clear teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church with regard to this matter from the Scriptures,
the Confessions, and the teachers of the church; and , was amended by replacing it with the para-
graph included in the adopted resolution. A substitute resolution, To Encourage Use of Fruit
of Vine in Lord’s Supper, was considered by the delegates when this resolution was brought
back by the committee in session 11: WHEREAS, Any guidelines for celebrating the Lord’s Sup-
per must originate in God’s Word; and WHEREAS, The Constitution of the Synod, Article II, refers
to “The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written Word of God and the only
rule and norm of faith and of practice”; and WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Luke 22:17–18, “And
taking the cup and giving thanks He said, ‘Take this and distribute it among yourselves. For I say to
/three.lnum/nine.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
you that I will certainly not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes’”; and
WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Mark 14:24–25, “And He said to them, this is My blood of the cov-
enant which is being poured out on behalf of many. Truly I say to you that I will certainly not any
longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”; and
WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Matthew 26:27–29, “And taking a cup and giving thanks He gave
to them saying, drink of it all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant being poured out for the
many for forgiveness of sins. And I say to you that I will certainly not drink of the fruit of the vine
until that day whenever I drink with you anew in the kingdom of My Father”; and WHEREAS, the
word wine (oinos) is used in the New Testament 33 times, but never in relation to the Lord’s Sup-
per; and WHEREAS, God’s Word only uses “the fruit of the vine” in regards to the content of the
cup; therefore be it Resolved, That the congregations be encouraged to use only the fruit of the vine
as one of the elements for the Sacrament. The substitute motion was defeated and the original
motion was adopted as amended in session 10 [yes: 814; no: 184]. The ﬁnal resolve is added
as required by Res. 1-02, adopted by the convention at an earlier session.)
/four.lnum/zero.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
APPENDIX B
Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology 60
The Fruit of the Vine in the Sacrament of the Altar
The classic deﬁnition of the Lord’s Supper was given by Luther: “It is the true body
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to
eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.” Luther cites Matthew (26:26–29),
Mark (14:22–25), Luke (22:15–20), and the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23–29)
as Scriptural proof for the institution, nature, and meaning of the Sacrament of
the Altar.
In recent years some have raised the question whether grape juice might be substi-
tuted for wine in the Sacrament in view of the fact that the texts do not expressly
state “wine,” but “fruit of the vine” or “cup.” The reasoning is that grape juice
should be an allowable substitute for wine in sacramental use, since grape juice
can rightly be termed “fruit of the vine.”
The Scriptural texts leave no doubt that Christ was celebrating the Passover meal
with His disciples. Among the foodstuﬀs on the table would have been unleav-
ened bread and wine. As regards the latter, it was without question the fermented
product of the grape vine, in view of the fact that this was the spring of the year,
probably April. Moreover, wine was the customary drink of the Jews at solemn
festival meals, the peri haggephen (liturgical Hebrew for “fruit of the vine”). There
can be no doubt then, as Lenski points out, that “ this fruit of the vine”—with em-
phasis on the this—which the Passover cup contained “shuts out any and all other
products of the vine save actual wine and thwarts all modern eﬀorts that speak
60 Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, nos. 1–2 (1981): 77–80.

2026 Convention Workbook
260
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/four.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
of unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup” (Commentary on
Matthew, [p. 1007]). The point is that “fruit of the vine” is a technical term which
in the stated contexts can have no other meaning than wine. The church has never,
from that day forward, felt at liberty to alter the solemn testament given by Christ
in conjunction with the bread and the wine of the Sacrament (cf. Matt. 28:20; Gal.
3:15). Whenever such altering or substitution was introduced, it was promptly re-
pudiated, lest any doubt be cast upon the validity of the sacrament as Christ in-
stituted it.
In an article dealing with the “Archaeology of the Sacraments” (CTM, X [1939], p.
328), P. E. Kretzmann avers: “There never was any doubt in the minds of the teach-
ers of the Church as to the meaning of the expression [fruit of the vine]. For this
reason they resented the use of any substitute for wine.” The consensus is virtually
unbroken. The chief quibble seems to have been whether water was to be added
to the wine. This Jewish custom was followed later in the Roman Church, on the
grounds that this action symbolized the uniting of the people with Christ in the
priest’s celebration of the Mass and on the fact that blood and water ﬂowed from
the side of the cruciﬁed Christ.
The Lutheran Confessions stand as a phalanx behind Luther’s simple and beau-
tifully clear deﬁnition in the Small Catechism, “under . . . the wine.” There is
not a single concession, nor any implication, that anything else was ever to be
substituted or understood for “wine.” The Small and Large Catechisms enjoy the
support on this point of the Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Smalcald Articles (III, vi), and the brilliant
exposition and defense of the Lord’s Supper in the Formula of Concord and its
Epitome (Article VII). There is total concurrence that in the Lord’s Supper Christ
“oﬀers His disciples natural bread and natural wine” (FC VII 64). Countless other
references in the Confessions attest the same fact.
Luther’s many writings on the Sacrament of the Altar also bespeak the same con-
sistency of usage. There was no substitute for wine in the Sacrament. For Luther,
of course, Christ’s precious gift of His true body and blood in the Sacrament was
the pre-eminent thing, but never apart from the stated bread and wine. He advised
those who had doubts or misgivings about receiving both kinds in the Sacrament
to forego reception for the time being. That they could do without sinning (St. L.
/four.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
22, 1862; 21a, 608). He noted, too, that the Sacramentarians, for all their wild no-
tions concerning the meaning of the Sacrament, were at least agreed on one point,
viz., that the bread was bread, and the wine, wine (St. L. 20, 1773). While he consid-
ered it an adiaphoron whether water was mixed with the wine, Luther’s personal
emphasis was on natural wine, without additional diluting or mixing with water
(St. L. 19, 258). Luther noted that the Scriptures did not specify whether the wine
should be red or white (though it was to be of or from the grape vine), nor whether
the bread was to be of wheat or barley ﬂour or another grain (St. L. 20, 188). These
matters were adiaphora, as were also the quantity and shape of the host or bread,
manner of distribution, and other externals or usages connected therewith.
Sometime during the winter of 1542–43 Luther was asked whether a sick person,
wishing to have the Sacrament but unable because of nausea to use wine, could be
given something else in place of the wine. According to Kaspar Heydenreich, who
recorded the conversation, Luther replied (WA 74, TR 5, 5509; emphasis added):
The question has often been put to me; but I have always re-
sponded as follows: Nothing else but wine should be used. If wine
cannot be taken, then let the matter rest that way, in order
that nothing new is done or introduced. Must a person who
is dying receive the sacrament yet? In times past it was said
that he who received the one kind might consider himself to
have partaken of both kinds. Why do we not rather say: If you
receive nothing, consider yourself to have received both?
Clearly Luther rejected any idea of substitution for the materia terrestris. Hence the
barbed reductio ad absurdum above, suggesting that then a person take or receive
nothing and just simply believe that he has received something.
Luther’s stance, as also that of the Confessions, is upheld by all Lutheran theo-
logians. (Cf. Baier-Walther, Compendium, p. 498; N. Hunnius, Epitome, p. 208; F.
Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 3, p. 354; T. Engelder, Popular Symbolics, p. 93; J. T. Muel-
ler, Christian Dogmatics, p. 525; Ad. Hoenecke, Dogmatik 4, p. 115; E. Hove, Christian
Doctrine, pp. 340f; et al.) Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran Church’s greatest theolo-
gian in the generation after Luther, wrote deﬁnitively of the Sacrament of the Altar
/four.lnum/three.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
in his Enchiridion, in his famous Examen Concilii Tridentini, and in his beautiful De
Coena Sacra. As with Luther there is no question in Chemnitz’s mind as to the pre-
scribed elements, bread and wine; Holy Scripture clearly teaches them.
Nor ought the question be raised for dispute in our day. Those who do so, that is,
argue that “fruit of the vine” should also allow for the use of grape juice, processed
or unprocessed, are clearly making this suggestion for other reasons than on Scrip-
tural grounds. The idea of insinuating or substituting grape juice (or something
else) for wine is of sectarian background, stemming speciﬁcally from religious
bodies which pledge total abstinence from all liquids that have alcoholic content.
There is no ground for the notion that the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper con-
tributes to alcoholism or even threatens the so-called alcoholic. The sin of drunk-
enness, like adultery, homosexuality, etc., is clearly exposed in Scripture as serious
(1 Cor. 6:10); but the source of the evil in each such case of sin is man’s own de-
praved, evil heart. Even though some may argue on scientiﬁc grounds that certain
individuals are naturally and constitutionally more inclined to alcoholism, for ex-
ample, than others, this still would not remove the onus of sin. By virtue of his
sinful nature man is prone to all manner of sin, but Scripture nowhere allows us
to teach that man is, as it were, biologically programmed by God to be so and so.
This would virtually remove from man the responsibility for his sin and place it
on God, something totally repugnant to Scriptural teaching. We may be sure that
Christ, who knew perfectly what was in man (John 2:25), would not have instituted
anything, including the Lord’s Supper and the use of wine, if it in any way would
contribute to man’s delinquency. The Apostle Paul’s pastoral practice also under-
scores this fact (l Cor. 11). The wine in the Lord’s Supper threatens no sinner who
comes in repentance and faith, but consoles and lifts him up with the precious gift
of the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and gives him strength for godly
living. This is the only teaching Scripture supports.
Those who simply “prefer” to receive grape juice instead of wine should be led to
see that their “preference” is in violation of Scripture’s own clear teaching and that
they are thereby making the Sacrament an uncertain matter, if in fact not invalid.
Moreover, it is to be feared that such tampering with the Sacrament may in the
ﬁnal analysis involve a deeper error, the relegating of the Lord’s Supper to a mere
memorial meal instead of the blessed means of grace that Christ has constituted it
/four.lnum/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins.
Any substitution for the Scripturally stated elements is especially oﬀensive be-
cause it yields to the intrusion of Reformed theology and practice into the Lutheran
Church. It is to be expected that those who hold the Lord’s Supper to be a sym-
bolical eating and drinking will have little diﬃculty substituting other elements
for the bread and wine. This has been true in some Reformed circles. Needless to
say, the strength, or alcoholic content of the wine, is not the issue, as long as natural
grape wine is used. This, therefore, rules out some bizarre concoctions, or mix-
tures, which are sometimes sold as wine, such as grape juice mixed with alcoholic
spirits distilled from grain.
We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied, oﬀense be given, con-
sciences and peace within the church be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and
people continue a consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated
elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use of wine, “the fruit of
the vine,” which Christ instituted when He gave to His church this new testament
in His blood.

2026 Convention Workbook
261
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/four.lnum/five.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
APPENDIX C
To Aﬃrm In-Person Communion
RESOLUTION 5-08A61
Overtures 5-11–20 (CW, 293–300)
WHEREAS, In the wake of the pandemic, congregations throughout the
Synod sought to provide spiritual care to their congregations when public health
measures prohibited gathering for corporate worship services; and
WHEREAS, The Lord Jesus, with words and actions spoken and carried out by
Him in the direct and physical presence of His disciples, instituted Holy Commu-
nion as a communal meal through which His body and blood are distributed under
the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Matt. 26:26–28);
and
WHEREAS, In speaking of the Lord’s Supper, Holy Scripture does not en-
dorse a spiritual or virtual fellowship, but rather a physical, communal gathering
as the apostle Paul describes when he writes to the church in Corinth, “So then,
my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is
hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for
your judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34a); and
WHEREAS, The Epistle to the Hebrews states, “And let us consider how to
stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is
the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the
Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24–25); and
61 2023 Convention Proceedings, 152–53.
/four.lnum/six.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
WHEREAS, The Augsburg Confession describes the administration of the
Lord’s Supper in the context of a physically gathered assembly (Augsburg Confes-
sion [AC] VII 1; XXIV 36–39); and
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations and the sys-
tematic theology departments of both seminaries issued opinions that unequivo-
cally and unanimously argued against the practice of online or virtual Communion
and aﬃrmed the administration of Holy Communion in person by the pastor; and
WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions (Formula of Concord [FC] Solid Dec-
laration [SD] VII) indicate that the proper use of the Sacrament includes a uniﬁed
consecration, distribution, and reception, none of which are to be severed from
the other:
However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words of
Christ’s institution alone, does not make a Sacrament if the
entire action of the Lord’s Supper, as it was instituted by
Christ, is not kept. (For example, it is not kept when the con-
secrated bread is not distributed, received, and partaken of,
but is enclosed, sacriﬁced, or carried about.) Christ’s com-
mand “This do” must be observed unseparated and inviolate.
(This embraces the entire action or administration in this
Sacrament. In an assembly of Christians, bread and wine are
taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and
the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time.) St. Paul
also places before our eyes this entire action of the breaking
of bread or of distribution and reception (1 Cor. 10:16).
yet the practice of online or virtual Communion would interject a spatial, tem-
poral, and technological gap between the consecration and the distribution and
reception; and
WHEREAS, The pastoral oﬃce is responsible for oversight of the administra-
tion of the Sacrament in accordance with the keys conferred upon the pastor by
virtue of his call (AC XIV; Walther’s Theses on the Ministry V and VII); and
/four.lnum/seven.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
WHEREAS, The Sacrament of the Altar has been established by our Lord ac-
cording to His Words of Institution, commanding literally “This keep on doing”
(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), which indicates that this use of the Sacrament should
be kept according to His institution, and that “nothing is a sacrament without the
appointed use” as set forth by those same Words of Institution (FC SD VII 73) and
these texts (and all related) require serious study by the church; and
WHEREAS, No theological justiﬁcation for the novel practice of online or vir-
tual Communion has existed within the Synod or in the Lutheran tradition nor has
been advanced in the circles advocating for it on the basis of the principally rele-
vant texts (sedes doctrinae) of Holy Scripture or of the Lutheran Confessions; and
WHEREAS, The Synod has historically recognized the need for collegial de-
bate, collaborative decision-making, and consensus-building, enshrining “[t]he
example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1–31)” in the Preamble of its Constitution
and by adopting a process whereby those principles may be observed with respect
to the adoption of doctrinal statements in Bylaw 1.6.2 (b); and
WHEREAS, The practice of online Communion has created confusion and
concern whether such observance of Holy Communion is pleasing to God and in
accordance with His Word; and
WHEREAS, The uniformity in practice from the foundation of the Synod has
long been considered desirable (1847 Constitution Articles I 3, II 4, IV 5, V 14) and
remains an endeavor toward which congregations are encouraged to strive (Const.
Art. II 7); therefore be it
Resolved, That we commend the desires of faithful pastors to care for their
ﬂocks in a time of pandemic, granting charity and latitude to our brothers in the
oﬃce due to the emergency nature of the situation confronting us all; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Synod’s district presidents and those who assist them be
counseled and urged to instruct our pastors and congregations on the basis of Holy
Scripture’s exhortation to gather in person to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and on
the basis of the examples of the Augsburg Confession Articles VII and XXIV, to
refrain from the practice of online Communion, ensuring that those pastors and
/four.lnum/eight.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
congregations who continue to practice online Communion after due fraternal
admonition be subject to appropriate ecclesiastical supervision; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod in convention clearly and unequivocally reject and
condemn the practice of virtual (online) Communion; and be it ﬁnally
Resolved, That those who are hindered for a time from bodily participation
in Holy Communion be encouraged to content themselves with the power of
the Word, remembrance of their Baptism, and the exercise of faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Action: Adopted (8)
It was moved but failed to strike the ﬁnal resolve. Upon closure of debate, as suggest-
ed by the chair, the resolution was adopted [Yes: 842; No: 140]. Paciﬁc Southwest District
President Michael Gibson addressed the convention, requesting patience for district presi-
dents as they continue to work with perhaps a dozen churches remaining in the practice of
online communion.

2026 Convention Workbook
262
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
RELIGION / Christianity / Lutheran
092635
At its 2023 convention, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
adopted Resolution 5-15, “To Uphold Proper Elements and Reverential
Administration of the Lord’s Supper,” addressing concerns about the
practice of the Lord’s Supper. This report by the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations seeks to address the three speciﬁc “concerns” about
the practice of the Lord’s Supper identiﬁed therein: ﬁrst, the substitution
of grape juice for wine; second, the use of preﬁlled communion cup and
wafer sets; and third, the substitution of non-wheat for wheat hosts.
In this report, the CTCR addresses each of these practices from a
confessional Lutheran theological and pastoral perspective so that our
practice would fully align with our confession of the Lord’s Supper as
instituted by our Lord Jesus. It searches the Scriptures and traces the
practices of the church through the ages, taking heed of Martin Luther’s
words: “No one is to command or prohibit anything which [Christ] has
neither commanded nor forbidden” (AE 40:133).

2026 Convention Workbook
263
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Deacons, Evangelists and the Office of the Holy Ministry
in the New Testament

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
December 2025

The Augsburg Confession clearly sets forth the Lutheran understanding of the Office of the Holy
Ministry that is revealed in the Scriptures: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching,
giving the gospel and the sacraments” (AC V 1).1 The primary and divinely given responsibilities of this
office are “to preach the gospel, to forgive or retain sin, and to administer and distribute the sacraments”
(AC XXVIII 5–6). A challenging factor in any discussion of the Office of the Holy Ministry as presented
in the Scriptures, however, is the variety of terms used within the New Testament for this one office. This
variety should not be interpreted as either the lack of a clear institution of this office or the absence of a
widespread recognition of this office among first-century Christians.
2 This variety in terminology should
rather be understood as reflecting the historical fact that with Jesus and the establishment of His church,
some terminology for the office was used that had links to past revelation during the history of Israel
(e.g., shepherd, prophet, teacher, elder) and other terminology began to be used that was new and
descriptive of the office (e.g., apostle and overseer, although even these have roots in the Old Testament
usage).

This study
3 will proceed in three parts. First, the various terms used for the Office of the Holy
Ministry in the New Testament (including “deacon,” about which there is not full consensus among

1 Although various terms are used for this office (e.g., pastoral office or Office of the Public Ministry), this
document will consistently use the term “Office of the Holy Ministry.” For broader examinations of the Office of the
Holy Ministry in the Scriptures as taught and practiced in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, see the following
publications: C.F.W. Walther, The Church and the Office of the Ministry, ed. Matthew C. Harrison (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 2012); Commission on Theology and Church Relations , The Ministry: Offices,
Procedures, and Nomenclature (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod , 1981) [hereafter CTCR, The
Ministry]; Joel P. Okamoto, “The Office of the Holy Ministry,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April
2006): 97–111; David P. Scaer, “The Office of the Holy Ministry According to the Gospels and the Augsburg
Confession,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2006): 113–121; and John C. Wohlrabe Jr., Ministry
in Missouri until 1962 (self-published, 1992). For an examination of this office in the writings of Luther and
Melanchthon, see Hellmut Lieberg, Office and Ordination in Luther and Melanchthon, trans. Matthew Carver (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2020).

2 The institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry by our Lord Jesus is explicitly recorded at the end of the Gospels
in passages such as John 20:20–22 and Matthew 28:16–20. These are the primary passages from which the Book of
Concord draws its confession of the Office of the Holy Ministry (see, e.g., AC XXVIII 6 –7; Tr 9, 23, 31). “We have
a sure doctrine that the Office of the Holy Ministry derives from the common call of the Apostles” (Tr 10
[German]). The reference here to the “common call” comes from John 20:20–22.
3 This study is a response to 2023 Ov. 5-48, “To Distinguish Terms for Pastoral Office from Those for Auxiliary or
Helping Offices” (see appendix). This overture was referred to the CTCR in 2023 Omnibus Resolution A, and the
CTCR chose to add it to its agenda as a formal assignment. The final two resolves of this overture read:
Lutheran theologians, past or present) will be discussed briefly, with a focus on how each term has
significant overlap with one or more of the other terms. Because the Scriptures are the source of all
Christian doctrine, the theology of the Office of the Holy Ministry in the New Testament must always
serve as the basis for understandings and titles of the office in the church today. Second, various terms for
auxiliary offices currently recognized by the LCMS (according to its official Bylaws), some of which are
found in the New Testament as titles for the Office of the Holy Ministry, will be discussed.
4 Because the
terms “deacon” and “evangelist” have been and continue to be used in various ways and contexts within
the LCMS but do not designate offices officially approved or recognized by the Synod in convention,
more attention will be given to them. Third, on the basis of these exegetical considerations and current
Synod polity and practice, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) will offer four
concluding proposals to address and seek to limit the confusion unintentionally created by the use of
certain biblical terms for important, mission-focused work being carried out by laypeople.

I. New Testament Nomenclature for the Ministry

A. Shepherd/Pastor

The title “shepherd” has a long-standing historical use for one who cares for God’s people. The
Hebrew Old Testament uses the term ro‘eh (“shepherd”) as a title for Yahweh who cares for His flock,
Israel, both spiritually and physically (e.g., Gen. 48:15 and Psalm 80:1). One thinks especially of David’s
use of “shepherd” as a title for Yahweh in Psalm 23. David as king was also seen as a shepherd of Israel,
due in part to shepherding sheep in his youth (1 Sam. 16:11, 19; 17:15, 20, 34–35). As king of Israel,
David was to reflect the shepherding of Yahweh Himself, who was the ultimate king and shepherd of
Israel. His role as shepherd was not only administrative for the people of Israel (i.e., political), but also
spiritual by cultivating his people’s faithfulness to Yahweh. Thus, David serves as a type — a prophetic
pattern — of the future messianic shepherd (e.g., Ezek. 34:23). The speech of Yahweh in Ezekiel 34 also
uses “shepherd” to refer to spiritual leaders in Judea, especially the temple priests, but offers a blistering

Resolved, That the CTCR be directed to produce a report that defines and distinguishes the New Testament
terms used for the Office of the Public Ministry and its auxiliary offices, including special discussion of the offices
of deacon and evangelist, in preparation for the 2026 convention; and be it finally
Resolved, That the Council of Presidents take this report under consideration as it seeks to formalize the
functions and requirements of these auxiliary and helping offices in their respective districts in keeping with 2016
Res. 13-02A.
4 An auxiliary office has been defined within the LCMS as “an office that is auxiliary to the office of the public
ministry and specifically to the uniquely ministerial functions of that office”; see CTCR, The Ministry, 34; cf. pp.
12, 25–31.
rebuke of them because of their unfaithful shepherding. Yahweh then promises that He Himself, the true
and ultimate shepherd of Israel, will come to gather His scattered flock and shepherd them (Ezek. 34:11–
16).

This understanding of Yahweh as “the chief Shepherd” who has undershepherds that spiritually care for
His people continues in the New Testament with the language of Jesus as “the good shepherd [ho poimēn
ho kalos]” (John 10:11, 14) or “the chief Shepherd [ho archipoimēn]” (1 Peter 5:4).
5 Not only is Jesus
identified as Yahweh “the Shepherd” in light of this broad Old Testament background, but Jesus also
speaks of His apostles as spiritual “shepherds” or pastors. During His earthly ministry, He characterizes
the Jews in Galilee and Judea as “sheep without a shepherd [poimēna]” (Matt. 9:36; Mark 6:34; cf. Num.
27:17). Jesus then encourages His listeners to “pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out
workers
6 [ergatas] into his harvest” (Matt. 9:38; Luke 10:2). That the term “workers” here in Matthew
refers to “apostolic ministers” is clear from Matthew’s continuing narrative in which Jesus extended His
ministry through calling, authorizing and sending the “twelve disciples” who are now also designated as
“twelve apostles [apostoloi]” (Matt. 10:1–2; see also Luke 6:13–16).

There is, therefore, a clear connection and overlap between the “shepherd” and “apostle” titles as well
as their functions. In Jesus’ action of restoring Peter, He exhorts him as an apostolic shepherd to “feed my
lambs [boske ta arnia mou]” (John 21:15), “shepherd my sheep [poimaine ta probata mou]” (John 21:16),
“feed my sheep [boske ta probata mou]” (John 21:17), and also “follow me [akolouthei moi]” (John
21:19). Jesus speaks this way because He is the chief shepherd who is sending forth His apostolic
undershepherd. This last imperative command, “follow me [akolouthei moi],” is the same command used
for Peter’s call toward the apostolic ministry (Matt. 4:19; Mark 1:17) as well as Matthew’s call toward
that same ministry (Matt. 9:9). The use of the title “chief Shepherd [ho archipoimēn]” in 1 Peter 5:4
implies that the “elders [presbyteroi]” mentioned in that immediate context are also shepherds/pastors, as
will be discussed below.

Paul also affirms the understanding that “shepherd/pastor” is one of the titles used for the Office of
the Holy Ministry when he writes in his letter to the Ephesians that Christ Himself gave
“shepherds/pastors” to His church: “And he gave … the shepherds [ kai autos edōken … tous de
poimenas]” (Eph. 4:11). When Paul speaks to the elders/overseers from the church of Ephesus in Miletus,
he uses shepherding imagery in his exhortation to them: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the
flock [kai panti tō poimniō], in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [ἐπισκόπους/episkopous
], to
shepherd [poimainein] the church of God. … Fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the
flock [mē pheidomenoi tou poimniou]” (Acts 20:28–29). The Latin term pastor, used for a shepherd who

5 Concerning Jesus as the good shepherd in the Gospel of John, including the translation “the Noble Shepherd,” see
Charles A. Gieschen, “The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Atonement for Sin?” Concordia Theological
Quarterly 72, no. 3 (July 2008): 243–261, esp. 256–258.
6 When a word in a Bible passage appears in italics, it indicates that the wording of the passage has been adjusted to
reflect the Greek more closely.
leads the animals in his care to pasture, is the basis for the English noun “pastor.” Although “pastor” was
not a widespread title used for those in the Office of the Holy Ministry until the 17
th century, it has
become the most prominent title currently used in many Lutheran churches today.7

B. Apostle

Although Jesus is specifically identified as “the apostle” (ho apostolos) only in Hebrews 3:1, the
Gospel of John contains a very clear and dominant presentation of Jesus as the Apostle sent by the Father
who in turn sends out apostles. The title “Apostle” is not explicitly applied to Jesus in John, but the
understanding of Jesus as the “the Apostle” pervades this Gospel as part of its testimony to Jesus as “the
one sent” by the Father. The noun is used once in the Gospel of John in the context of the foot washing
during the Farewell Discourse where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than
his master, nor is an apostle [apostolos] greater than the one who sent him [tou pempsantos]” (John
13:16). Although Jesus is addressing His disciples as ones whom He will send out, His self-identification
as “the Apostle” sent by the Father is clearly indicated here. That Jesus understands Himself to be the
Apostle can also be seen from an earlier saying of Jesus in this Gospel: “He who sees me sees the one who
sent me [ton pempsanta me]” (John 12:45).
8

The Gospel of John uses numerous verbal forms of apostellō and pempō (both meaning “I send”)
interchangeably to describe the Son as one who is sent by the Father. These occurrences demonstrate the
prominence of this apostle theme in the Christology of John:

• God sent [apesteilen] the Son into the world. (John 3:17)
• He whom God sent [apesteilen] speaks the words of God. (John 3:34)
• This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have
sent [apesteilas]. (John 17:3)
• Just as the Father has sent [apestalken] me, so also I am sending [pempō] you. (John 20:21)
9

This repeated emphasis on apostolic Christology (i.e., the Son is sent by the Father) is the foundation
for the climactic shift in John 20:21 to apostolic ministry (i.e., the apostles are sent by the Son). “Apostle”
was a name specifically given to the 12 disciples who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and

7 Thomas M. Winger, Ephesians, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2015), 456 n135.
8 Karl Rengstorf’s extensive study of apostolos points out that the background for its use in the New Testament is
found in Rabbinic Judaism in the function of a shaliach, namely an ambassador whose actions and speech carry all
the authority of the one sending him. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “apostolos,” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:414 –415; cf. Karl
Heinrich Rengstorf, The Apostolate and Ministry: The New Testament Doctrine of the Office of the Ministry, trans.
Paul D. Pahl (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1969), 25–28.
9 These are only four of the 18 sending references in John. Note also John 5:36; 5:37; 6:29; 6:57; 7:28; 7:29; 8:42;
10:36; 11:42; 17:8; 17:21; 17:23; and 17:25.

R62.9 Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper: Applying Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Issues (2025)

Official Workbook report source text

Pause and Pray at 3:07 p.m.