Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Direct Answer

Taking the phrases at face value, Bercot says communion involves a real communion with Christ’s body and blood—not merely a reminder—so unworthy participation is spiritually dangerous because it treats something sacred as common. He argues the “symbolic only” idea is something we import into the text, since the passages themselves don’t say “symbol.”

Support from Transcript:

• In Matthew 26, Jesus’ own explanation is simple: “This is my body…this is my blood of the new covenant.”
• Bercot contrasts that with what many were taught to hear: adding “symbolizes” and “figuratively speaking,” even though “the verses don’t say that.”
• In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul calls it “the communion of the blood of Christ” and “the communion of the body of Christ.”
• In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul warns unworthy participation makes someone “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” which Bercot treats as weighty, not casual.
• He later ties seriousness to consequences: Paul says “some of you are sick and are dying because you don’t perceive the body.”

If Scripture doesn’t explicitly label communion “symbolic,” what would justify treating it as merely symbolic? What changes if you approach it as something you can profane, not just misunderstand?