People can mean very different things when they talk about Halloween. One neighbor pictures children asking for candy; another thinks of graphic horror, witchcraft, or attempts to contact the dead. Before deciding what to accept or refuse, I need to know what people are actually doing. Scripture clearly forbids some practices associated with October 31. Other choices require wisdom and an honest conscience before God.
“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.” (Ephesians 5:8)
The Bible does not name Halloween, but its commands apply to whatever we do that evening. Calling everything harmless overlooks real evil. Calling every exchange of candy pagan can also lead us to judge people unfairly. I want to take occult practice and delight in wickedness seriously without inventing spiritual dangers Scripture never describes.
A plastic skeleton has no spiritual power, and giving a child candy does not initiate that child into the occult. An ordinary costume does not make someone a sorcerer. A séance, however, is an attempt to seek contact with the dead, and presenting it as a party game does not make it acceptable. We need enough discernment to recognize the difference.
Scripture Draws a Clear Line Against the Occult
Before Israel entered Canaan, the LORD warned His people not to adopt the nations’ detestable practices. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 forbids child sacrifice, divination, interpreting omens, sorcery, and spells. It also forbids consulting mediums or spiritists and calling up the dead. Divination is the pursuit of hidden knowledge through forbidden spiritual means. Israel had to refuse these practices rather than turn to them for guidance or protection:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
Leviticus 19:31 says, “Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them.” Isaiah challenged those tempted to consult mediums and wizards: “Should not a people seek their God?” (Isaiah 8:19). Isaiah’s question requires me to consider whom I trust when I want answers or feel afraid. We come to God through Christ. Seeking control of the unseen world through a charm, spell, séance, or fortune-teller turns us away from the One we should trust.
Ephesians 5:8-13 shows how belonging to Christ should shape our conduct. We were once darkness, but now we are light in the Lord. We are to learn what pleases Him and refuse fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. Exposing evil requires us to name it truthfully and direct people toward holiness and the gospel. Enjoying it while claiming that a Christian label makes it harmless does neither.
The devil is real, and 1 Peter 5:8 calls us to sober watchfulness. He is not Christ’s equal. God has delivered believers from the power of darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son (Colossians 1:13), and 1 John 3:8 says the Son appeared to destroy the devil’s works. The study Satan examines that adversary more fully. We refuse occult practice because we belong to Christ. His power does not weaken when Halloween arrives.
History Explains the Holiday but Does Not Settle Every Choice
Halloween has acquired several layers of meaning. Its name comes from All Hallows’ Eve, the evening before the Western observance of All Saints’ Day on November 1. All Souls’ Day follows on November 2. They are related observances, but they are not interchangeable: All Saints honors the saints, while All Souls is especially associated with prayers for the faithful departed. The Library of Congress describes this three-day All Hallows season and some of its regional customs.
Roman Catholic teaching distinguishes honoring the saints from the worship owed to God. It encourages asking saints in heaven to intercede and praying for the dead believed to be in purgatory, a state of purification after death. Its own explanation of devotion to saints describes those practices. I do not accept invoking departed saints or offering prayers for the dead as biblical practice. We can remember a faithful believer’s example without doing either. We should explain what we reject accurately rather than confuse every remembrance of the dead with an occult ritual.
Older Gaelic seasonal traditions also contributed to the holiday. Samhain marked the movement from harvest into winter. Later Irish and Scottish traditions connected the season with spirits and the otherworld. Customs included disguises, fires, and efforts to ward off misfortune. Those associations help explain Halloween’s imagery, but they do not prove that every modern lantern or costume continues a particular ancient religious act. Claims about universal Celtic human sacrifice, a single sun god behind the festival, or every custom appeasing spirits require evidence. Repeating them confidently does not supply it.
In the custom known as souling, people went from house to house seeking food in exchange for prayers for the dead. It is often presented as the direct origin of trick-or-treating, but that connection has not been established with certainty. Folklorist Stephen Winick’s Library of Congress discussion explains the difficulty and considers other costumed visiting traditions, including American Thanksgiving masking. Souling belongs in the historical discussion. It should not be treated as a proven, unchanged ritual behind every modern child’s request for candy.
Irish and Scottish immigrants brought seasonal customs to North America, where parties, neighborhood activities, children’s visits, costumes, and commercial entertainment developed over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Horror became a substantial part of the celebration too. Today’s activities therefore cannot all be judged as though participants shared one religious belief or purpose.
Changes in meaning do not make every activity good. A gathering can invite people to admire witchcraft, celebrate murder, or enjoy the degradation of a human body without being an ancient pagan ceremony. Philippians 4:8 directs our thoughts toward what is true, pure, lovely, and worthy of a good report. Romans 12:9 commands, “Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.” Those instructions apply to the entertainment we choose.
Scripture itself describes murder, betrayal, demonic opposition, judgment, and grief. Describing evil is not necessarily endorsing it. Likewise, a fictional depiction does not automatically become an act of occult worship. We still need to ask what the depiction invites us to admire. Does it expose cruelty and deception, or make them attractive? Does it encourage sympathy for those harmed, or invite us to enjoy their torment? A Christian should refuse entertainment that cultivates delight in what God condemns.
A child dressed as a farmer or an animal is doing something different from being taught to celebrate a murderer or admire real occult power. Calling something a game does not make it harmless if players are being invited to seek messages from spirits or practice divination. Tarot readings, spirit boards, and spells intended to engage spiritual powers must be refused. We need to examine what people are being encouraged to do and desire.
A pumpkin, an autumn meal, a costume from a book, or a kind exchange with neighbors need not have an occult meaning. We also need to consider the event in which those things appear. If they form part of an attraction built around demonic fascination, graphic violence, or sexual immorality, we have good reason to decline. One harmless feature cannot excuse everything else we are being invited to enjoy.
Conscience, Christian Liberty, and Family Decisions
Romans 14 addresses disagreements over food and days. Paul teaches believers not to despise or condemn one another in disputed questions. Each must be fully convinced before the Lord, and whatever is not from faith is sin (Romans 14:5, 23). He was not discussing Halloween, but his instruction helps us consider activities for which Scripture gives no specific prohibition. My freedom does not authorize me to pressure someone into violating conscience.
1 Corinthians 8-10 also distinguishes food from participation in idolatrous worship. An idol is nothing in the world, yet a believer must not join an idolatrous feast. “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons,” Paul says (1 Corinthians 10:21). The study Idolatry develops that warning. Liberty in Christ cannot make an occult ritual or false worship acceptable, however sincere a participant claims to be.
Rejecting what Scripture forbids does not answer every question a family will face. A costume, film, and neighborhood gathering may have very different content even though all are advertised for Halloween. Parents need to know what their children will encounter and be encouraged to admire. They should be able to thank God for participating without hiding what they are doing or suppressing a troubled conscience. The study Whether Christians Should Celebrate Valentine’s Day considers similar questions of custom and Christian liberty in another setting.
Some believers will abstain from every Halloween activity. They may have good reasons and should not be mocked as fearful or narrow-minded. Another family may avoid every dark theme while giving candy and greeting children kindly at the door. We must judge that conduct by Scripture rather than presume to know everyone’s motives. Abstaining does not by itself prove pride, and giving a neighbor a treat does not by itself prove compromise.
Parents need to explain their decisions. Ephesians 6:4 calls fathers to bring children up in the training and admonition of the Lord. A child who hears only that everything outside the door is dangerous may learn fear without understanding God’s commands. We can explain why He forbids consulting spirits and why cruelty should not entertain us, while teaching children that Christ gives them reason for courage. They need truthful instruction. Claims that a demon lurks behind every object will not help them learn discernment.
That teaching should help a family consider its actual plans. Parents need to know what a party, game, film, or costume involves. An invitation to experiment with spirits is unacceptable, as is teaching children to glorify demons, serial killers, or sexual immorality. Even where the proposed activity is innocent, a family may decide that avoiding the evening altogether is wiser for its circumstances and conscience.
One household might spend the evening visiting friends or praying together. Another might welcome visitors at the door, perhaps offering a clear gospel resource when appropriate. A daytime harvest gathering that deliberately avoids occult themes may suit another family. Parents should talk through those choices, listen to one another’s concerns, and explain the decision to their children. Neither church trends nor pressure from the neighborhood should dictate what they do against conscience.
The Church Can Love Its Neighbors Without Imitating Darkness
October 31 often brings neighbors to the door, and I want to greet them with kindness. We can give generously, pray for the neighborhood, and speak of Christ when conversation allows. Hospitality does not require approval of every costume or belief a visitor brings. A household that abstains can also treat the people walking past with courtesy rather than hostility.
A church should examine a proposed trunk-or-treat or harvest event as carefully as a family examines a party. Church property does not make an event holy, and a date does not make it sinful. If a gathering copies the occult imagery or fascination with violence it claims to replace, changing the location has solved nothing. We need to consider what children will learn and whether the content serves the church’s calling. Parents also need clear information so they can decide honestly whether their children should attend. Describing an event vaguely to avoid their objections fails to honor their responsibility.
A welcoming gathering can include Scripture, gratitude, conversation, and a clear explanation of the gospel. Providing candy is not the same as teaching Christ, but neither must every act of hospitality become an elaborate production. A meal, a patient conversation, and faithful prayer can serve people well. The church already has news of forgiveness and eternal life to offer; it does not need to make evil attractive to gain a hearing.
If someone is persuaded participation would be sinful, urging that person to join merely to fit in encourages disobedience to conscience. Someone who abstains also needs to examine the temptation to display spiritual superiority. Our conduct should help people understand and obey Scripture. Pressuring them to take our side in an argument does not accomplish that.
Paul’s command applies to these decisions: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Winning a dispute about Halloween accomplishes little if we dishonor Christ, misrepresent history, or treat our neighbors with contempt. We can uphold the prohibition against occult practice, give patient instruction, and respect conscientious decisions about activities God has not forbidden.
The Light of Christ Is Greater Than Fear
Death remains an enemy, whatever use a holiday makes of its imagery. A costume, a joke, or a frightening attraction cannot overcome it. We also remain accountable to God, whose judgment cannot be evaded through superstition. The study The Doctrine of Hell examines that final accountability. Our need reaches much deeper than deciding how to spend one evening: we need forgiveness and life through Christ.
Jesus is the eternal Son of God, fully God and fully man. His atonement rests on His sinless perfection and His voluntary giving of Himself to be slain as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Wicked men inflicted real torture and punishment on His innocent body. His shed blood and death completed His saving sacrifice for the whole world before His burial and bodily resurrection. The Father did not punish, curse, abandon, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on Jesus. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were united in providing salvation.
Paul explains in Hebrews 2:14-15 that through death Christ defeated the devil’s power and released those held in bondage by fear of death. Scripture still warns us to resist the devil; he has not ceased to exist. Yet he cannot overturn Christ’s victory. A charm, spell, or ritual cannot supply the deliverance the crucified and risen Lord provides.
God genuinely offers salvation to everyone. People may resist His grace, but everyone who turns to Christ in repentance and faith receives forgiveness and eternal life. He gives them new birth, bringing them out of darkness into His kingdom. The Holy Spirit indwells every genuinely born-again believer and permanently seals him as God’s own. Jesus rose bodily and will return. Our hope rests in Him rather than our ability to keep every frightening thing at a distance.
That confidence should shape both our refusals and our kindness. We refuse occult practice because we belong to the Lord who conquered sin and death. We speak truthfully to our neighbors because they need the mercy we have received. This obedience is the fruit of new life; it neither earns salvation nor keeps us saved. Boasting about our freedom or taking pride in our separation cannot replace that obedience.
My Final Thoughts
I cannot reconcile occult practice, false worship, or delight in evil with following Christ. I also cannot assign spiritual power to candy or condemn a family without considering what it is doing. Halloween’s mixed history calls for truthful explanation, and its varied activities require discernment. Some believers will abstain entirely; others may welcome neighbors without participating in a dark theme. I want either decision to arise from faith and a clear conscience, with love for others and confidence in the Savior who has conquered death.
A couple considering IVF may have spent years hoping for a child and wondering how much more disappointment they can endure. I do not want to add a careless accusation to that grief. But I also cannot tell them that wanting a child makes every way of pursuing parenthood right. Scripture does not mention in vitro fertilization, so we need to examine the proposed treatment in light of what it teaches about human life and marriage.
Psalm 127 speaks about our dependence on the Lord when we build a house or guard a city. We have work to do, but careful planning cannot give us complete control over the outcome. In that setting, the psalm describes children this way:
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Psalm 127:3
A heritage is an inheritance or portion received. God entrusts children to parents, so I cannot treat a child as something we have earned or as proof that we have pleased Him more than someone else. The verse does not rank parents above couples who cannot conceive. Telling a couple that infertility proves a deficiency in their faith is a cruel accusation that this psalm does not support.
Receiving a child as God’s gift also means accepting responsibility for how we pursue that gift. We may seek medical help and grieve honestly when treatment fails. Neither response requires us to agree to a procedure that mistreats another human life.
Life in the Womb
Although Scripture does not describe modern embryology, it does speak personally about human life before birth. In Psalm 139, David looks back to his life in his mother’s womb and praises God for forming him there.
For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Psalm 139:13-14
David speaks of the life God formed as his own, even when he was still developing and entirely dependent on his mother. The child in the womb and the man offering this praise were the same person, whose weakness had never made him insignificant to God.
Jeremiah’s appointment as a prophet likewise began before his birth:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
God was commissioning Jeremiah for a particular work, so I would not claim that every unborn child has been appointed a prophet to the nations. But notice how personally He speaks to Jeremiah as someone He knew before forming him in the womb. God’s words concern a person whose life and calling were known to Him before anyone else could see that child.
Luke 1 also describes unborn children personally. Elizabeth called Mary the mother of her Lord while Jesus was still in Mary’s womb, and the unborn John leaped within Elizabeth. Luke uses brephos for John there and for the newborn Jesus in Luke 2. The word can describe a child on either side of birth. It does not answer every question about an embryo in a laboratory, but its use gives us no reason to make birth the point at which a child first deserves our care.
IVF requires us to apply our understanding of human life to its earliest development. An embryo is a human being at the beginning of life; the term names a stage of development, not a disposable product of treatment. Scripture does not directly discuss embryos outside the womb. I conclude from its teaching about human life that small size, dependence, and location do not remove our obligation to protect that person.
Once an embryo exists, the couple’s responsibility extends beyond deciding how to pursue the pregnancy they hope for. They must also decide how to care for a human life that has already begun. The medical terms on a consent form may sound impersonal, but the decisions they authorize concern that life.
Medicine and Moral Limits
Seeking treatment for infertility is not itself a failure to trust God. Luke was a physician, and care for the body can include obtaining a diagnosis and appropriate medical help. A couple should not have to defend their faith merely because they asked a doctor why they have been unable to conceive.
That does not settle whether every proposed treatment is right. Treating an underlying condition and creating embryos outside the body involve different actions and responsibilities. We need to understand the actual proposal rather than give all fertility treatments the same approval or condemnation.
I would want the whole proposed course of treatment explained before consenting, including decisions that could arise after the hoped-for pregnancy. A fertility specialist can explain the procedures and medical risks, while mature Christians can help the couple examine their choices under Scripture. The couple needs both kinds of counsel: medical expertise does not settle whether an action is right before God, and pastoral counsel cannot replace a qualified medical assessment.
Where IVF Raises Moral Pressure
IVF means fertilization outside the body. Treatment commonly includes medication to stimulate the ovaries, egg collection, and attempted fertilization in a laboratory. Embryos that develop may be transferred into the uterus or frozen for later treatment. The details vary, so a couple needs an explanation of the procedure proposed for them.
Transferring one embryo can reduce the risks associated with a multiple pregnancy. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority explains that a single transfer may be accompanied by freezing other embryos for later use. Agreeing to one transfer does not necessarily mean that only one embryo has been created.
Before fertilization, a couple needs to understand how many embryos may be created and what caring for every one could require. A successful first transfer would not remove their responsibility for embryos still in storage. Their plan must account for those lives even after they have received the child they hoped for. That commitment does not mean transferring every embryo at once; the number and timing of transfers require individual medical advice.
We also need to distinguish deliberate disposal from a loss that occurs despite care. Some embryos stop developing, and a transfer cannot guarantee pregnancy or birth. A couple whose treatment fails or who suffers a miscarriage must not be accused of choosing to destroy a life simply because the child did not survive.
The responsibility to care for every embryo also governs how we use grading and genetic testing. A clinical assessment can give information about development or a genetic condition, but it cannot determine a person’s worth. A poorer prognosis does not make a human life disposable, so we need to ask what the clinic intends to do with the information it obtains.
I understand why parents want to spare a child suffering, especially when they know a serious inherited condition could be involved. They deserve a patient answer that takes that concern seriously. Even so, I do not believe we protect a child by deciding that the child should be destroyed. Disability or an unwanted trait cannot cancel our obligation to care for that life.
The medical meaning of a test result also needs careful explanation. The HFEA notes that PGT-A, a test examining chromosome numbers, can lead to potentially viable embryos being discarded. It examines a sample of cells, and the results may not accurately represent the embryo as a whole. Couples need to understand those limitations and ask what the clinic proposes to do after each possible result.
A couple may freeze embryos with the sincere intention of preserving them for future transfers, only to have illness, the death of a spouse, or financial hardship interrupt that plan. Such changes may leave embryos in storage without an agreed path toward transfer. Embryo storage can therefore involve responsibilities extending well beyond the treatment the couple is now considering.
The consent agreement needs to address those possibilities before a crisis occurs. A couple should establish what the clinic will do if they cannot continue treatment or keep paying for storage, and what they have authorized if one spouse dies. If the written agreement permits disposal or destructive research, a reassuring conversation has not settled the problem. What they sign must agree with their commitment to protect the embryos.
That commitment rules out research that destroys embryos. Seeking treatments for disease is a worthwhile purpose, but I cannot justify destroying one human life for another person’s possible benefit. Adults who authorize destructive research remain responsible for that decision, even when the proposed research has an admirable aim.
A multiple pregnancy may bring a recommendation for selective reduction, a procedure that intentionally ends one or more fetal lives while the pregnancy continues. ASRM’s patient information explains the risks of multiple pregnancies and why reduction may be proposed. Those risks to the mother and babies are serious; they should not be brushed aside in a discussion of Christian ethics.
A dangerous pregnancy requires prompt, qualified medical care, and a pastor should not pretend to diagnose an emergency or assess its treatment from a distance. Families need an honest explanation of the proposed action and the available alternatives. I object to treating the intentional killing of one child for the hoped-for benefit of another as a routine solution. The risks deserve serious attention, and so does the life that the proposed procedure would end.
Marriage and Third Parties
Protecting embryos is not the only issue. Donor sperm or eggs mean that a child is conceived using reproductive cells from someone outside the marriage. I examine that arrangement in light of the marriage covenant Jesus affirmed when He directed His hearers back to creation.
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?”
Matthew 19:4
Jesus was answering a question about divorce, and in the following verses He explains that husband and wife become one flesh. I am applying that teaching when I conclude that procreation belongs within the covenant union of husband and wife. Deliberately bringing another person’s sperm or egg into that union departs from the design He affirmed.
The adults must also consider what the arrangement will mean for the child’s understanding of biological parentage and family relationships. Wanting a pregnancy does not answer what the child will need to know or how those relationships will be handled over a lifetime. We ought to consider the child’s interests before entering the arrangement, rather than leave those questions for him to untangle later.
In a gestational-carrier arrangement, another woman carries the pregnancy in place of the wife, sometimes under contract. I object to separating pregnancy from marriage’s one-flesh union in this way. I also do not believe we should treat that woman’s body as a service to which the intended parents are entitled, or the child as something a contract obliges her to deliver. The woman and child must both be treated as people whose lives belong to God.
These objections concern the adults’ decisions and must never become contempt for a child conceived through IVF or donation. That child bears God’s image and deserves the same love and care as any other child. The circumstances of his conception cannot diminish his worth.
Before embryos are created, the couple needs to discuss these convictions with the clinic and find out whether the proposed treatment can honor them. Ask whether fertilization will occur outside the body, how many embryos may be created, and what the agreement permits if treatment ends. The written terms must protect every embryo from deliberate destruction and destructive research.
The couple should also make clear that they will not agree to selective reduction, donor sperm or eggs, or a gestational carrier. Those commitments need to be understood before treatment begins. Bring the actual proposal to mature believers who can examine it under Scripture, and ask the physician to explain the medical consequences of any proposed limits. Everyone involved needs to know what the couple has agreed to and what they have refused.
Success rates and expense can exert tremendous pressure after years of disappointment. But a higher chance of pregnancy does not justify giving up protection for another life. If the treatment cannot be pursued consistently with these commitments, I believe Christians should refuse it, however costly that refusal feels.
Romans 14:23 warns that whatever is not from faith is sin. Paul was addressing doubts about food, and I apply his warning here to proceeding while our conscience tells us the action is wrong. That is different from feeling sorrow over a difficult decision we understand to be right. If the moral questions remain unresolved, pause and seek clarity before embryos are created.
When Embryos Already Exist
For readers who already have embryos in storage, these questions concern human lives entrusted to their care. They may now recognize problems they did not understand when treatment began. They need help accepting the responsibility before them, and treating them as unwelcome or hopeless will do nothing to protect those lives.
The first commitment must be to protect the embryos already created. They must not be destroyed, donated for destructive research, or treated as abandoned property. Qualified medical professionals and mature Christian counsel can help the couple understand the available options and the responsibilities each would involve. Postponing the decision indefinitely leaves those responsibilities unresolved, but pressure to settle everything quickly can push a couple into a choice they have not understood.
Some Christians consider embryo adoption, in which a couple receives embryos created by others for transfer intended to result in pregnancy and birth. I recognize the desire to rescue lives that already exist. That circumstance differs from deliberately creating a child through a donor arrangement, although it does not by itself settle the questions about marriage, parentage, or medical risk. Scripture gives no direct instruction for this circumstance, so couples considering it need medical and pastoral counsel as they seek agreement before the Lord.
Another arrangement sometimes called compassionate transfer has a different purpose. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine describes it as transferring embryos when pregnancy is not intended and the timing or location makes pregnancy unlikely. I object to a plan intended to dispose of embryos, even if the method feels less distressing than laboratory disposal. A transfer intended to establish pregnancy despite a poor prognosis raises a different question; the purpose and medical facts need to be understood accurately.
The church should help couples work through these decisions without making every conversation feel like an interrogation. We can listen, pray with them, and offer practical help when appointments or ongoing responsibilities are difficult to manage. Childlessness is not evidence that God loves them less. We should be especially careful with breezy advice that asks them to put aside years of disappointment as though the grief ought to be easy to resolve.
We also need to speak honestly when embryos have been deliberately discarded or destroyed. Compassion does not require pretending those decisions were harmless. It means helping people face what was wrong and seek Christ’s forgiveness, instead of leaving them to defend the past or despair over something they cannot undo.
Jesus is the eternal Son, fully God and fully man, who lived in perfect obedience to the Father. He voluntarily gave Himself to be slain as the sinless sacrifice for our sins. Wicked men inflicted His bodily suffering and crucified Him, but the Father did not punish or abandon the Son. Father and Son were united in providing our salvation, and His shed blood and death completed the saving sacrifice before His burial and bodily resurrection. God offers forgiveness to every person who turns to Christ in repentance and faith, even when the consequences of earlier decisions remain.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9
Repentance means we stop defending what was wrong and turn to God, seeking to obey Him with the choices still before us. His forgiveness is a gift, and our obedience neither earns nor keeps our salvation. Those who trust Christ receive new life through the Holy Spirit; that new life calls for a changed response to sin. Where embryos remain in our care, we need to protect them and seek wise help. Christ does not require us to repair the past through self-punishment. We can face it honestly and take responsibility for what can still be done.
My Final Thoughts
I cannot endorse IVF without examining the process a couple is being asked to accept. Protection for every embryo and respect for the marriage covenant must govern that decision. I believe Christians should refuse embryo destruction and destructive research, as well as arrangements involving donor sperm or eggs or a gestational carrier. Couples who make that costly decision deserve the church’s support, as do those seeking a faithful way to care for embryos already created.
Jesus gave the Lord’s Supper to disciples who would soon see Him arrested and crucified. He told them to remember Him through the bread and cup, and Paul later instructed the church to proclaim His death until He comes. I want to receive Communion with that purpose in mind. Taking the elements should direct us to Christ and make us consider whether the way we treat His people agrees with what we claim to believe.
Bread, Wine, and the New Covenant
Communion, also called the Lord’s Supper, is an ordinance, a practice Jesus commanded His church to observe. We share bread and a cup to remember His body given for us and His blood shed for us. The meal also expresses our fellowship as people who belong to the same Savior.
I don’t believe receiving the elements can save us or supply forgiveness. But dismissing the Lord’s Supper as an insignificant ritual disregards a command Jesus gave His church. We need to understand what He intended us to remember and how He wants His people to receive it.
Bread and wine appear together much earlier in Scripture, when Abram returned from rescuing Lot and defeating the kings who had carried him away. The king of Sodom came out to meet him, along with Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High.
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Genesis 14:18-20
Melchizedek blessed Abram and credited God with the victory. Abram then refused Sodom’s offer because he would not let its king claim to have made him rich. The bread and wine accompanied a priestly blessing, but Genesis does not describe the institution of Communion. The encounter introduces Melchizedek serving as both king and priest before the Law was given, combining offices that would later be separated in Israel. Hebrews returns to his priesthood when explaining Christ’s.
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God… first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
Hebrews 7:1-3
I believe Melchizedek is the preincarnate Son of God. His encounter with Abram was a Christophany, meaning Christ appeared before He became man. The description of a priest without beginning or end, who remains continually, leads me to that conclusion. Some read it as a description of how a human priest is presented in Genesis, without a recorded genealogy. The study on Melchizedek explains why I believe Hebrews points beyond an ordinary human priest.
The more immediate background to the Lord’s Supper is Passover, which God instituted when He delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt. The Israelites killed unblemished lambs and marked their doorposts and lintels, the beams above their doorways, with blood. When judgment struck Egypt’s firstborn, the LORD passed over the homes marked by blood. Israel’s protection depended on receiving God’s provision in trust and obedience, rather than on being better people than the Egyptians.
God commanded Israel to remember that deliverance through an annual meal. When Jesus shared Passover with His disciples, He explained the bread and cup in relation to the death He was about to suffer.
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
Luke 22:19-20
The earlier Passover lamb pointed forward to Him. The bread now directed the disciples to His body given for them, and the cup to His blood shed for them.
Jesus also identified the cup with the new covenant in His blood. A covenant is a binding commitment. Jeremiah had announced God’s promise to forgive sin and write His law on His people’s hearts. Jesus identified His blood as the basis of that covenant, and the church remembers the death by which He established it. We aren’t establishing a new covenant each time we receive Communion.
Calling these elements symbols doesn’t make the suffering they represent symbolic. Jesus is the eternal Son, fully God, who became fully man and lived without sin. Wicked men tortured and crucified Him, but He willingly gave Himself to be slain as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. His sinlessness and His sacrificial death are the basis of our forgiveness. His innocent blood was physically shed, and He died.
The Father and Son were united in providing our redemption. The Father did not punish, curse, abandon, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on Jesus. Christ completed His saving sacrifice through His shed blood and death before He was buried and rose bodily from the grave. He died for the whole world, and salvation is received through repentance and faith. The bread and cup add nothing to what He accomplished. The study on life being in the blood explains the significance of His shed blood further.
Remember the Lord’s Death Until He Comes
The Greek word translated remembrance is anamnesis. Jesus calls us to remember Him deliberately, giving attention to what He did rather than allowing the familiar act of eating and drinking to pass without thought. Paul handed on the instruction he had received about the Supper, then explained what the church announces by observing it.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:26
By receiving the meal together, we confess that Christ died for sinners and established the new covenant through His blood. We also confess our expectation that He will return. The Supper keeps His death before the church while we wait for the risen Savior. Because we share it as His people, examining ourselves includes considering how we treat one another.
That confession belongs to believers. Eating bread or drinking from a cup cannot create saving faith, forgive sin, or bring about regeneration. By regeneration, I mean genuine new birth, through which God makes the believer a new creation. The Holy Spirit indwells and seals that person for the day of redemption, and genuine salvation is eternally secure. A Christian label or a long record of taking Communion cannot demonstrate that new life on its own. Nor can I appeal to eternal security to excuse lawlessness.
We need to explain the meal from Scripture because the elements don’t explain themselves. People can leave an elaborate service admiring the ceremony without understanding why Christ died. A simple gathering can honor Him when His words are explained and the church receives the bread and cup in faith. If we have neglected that explanation, making the service more impressive won’t correct the problem.
His command, “in remembrance of Me,” should also correct anyone who wants to make himself the center of the service. A pastor, priest, or worship leader is there to direct attention to Christ. Personal performance, inherited traditions, and the emotional atmosphere cannot be allowed to obscure the One we are remembering.
When Paul says “as often as” we eat and drink, he assumes the church will continue observing the Supper. His wording doesn’t require every church to adopt the same weekly or monthly schedule. We should receive Communion regularly as part of obedient worship, taking care to explain what we are doing. Increasing its frequency won’t correct irreverence if we continue taking it without understanding.
One Sacrifice and the Meaning of John 6
What we believe about Christ’s sacrifice determines what we should expect from the Supper. Hebrews describes old covenant priests standing at their work day after day because their offerings could not finally remove sin. Christ offered Himself once.
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:10
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 10:12
Christ sat down because His offering was complete. A church ceremony cannot continue His sacrificial work or provide another propitiatory offering, meaning an offering to atone for sin. His blood has already been shed, and the Father accepted His sacrifice. The church remembers and proclaims what He accomplished; Communion doesn’t make the cross effective again whenever we gather.
I reject transubstantiation, the teaching that the substance of the bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood while their outward appearances remain. The Catholic Catechism also describes the Mass as making Christ’s one sacrifice present and offering it sacramentally. It does not teach that He undergoes another bloody death at every Mass. I still disagree with giving Communion that sacrificial role. I understand Christ’s command as remembrance and proclamation of His completed offering, not a sacramental offering of His body and blood.
John 6 is often used to support receiving His body and blood through the elements. Jesus gave that public teaching after feeding the five thousand, before the institution of the Supper in the upper room. He was confronting people who wanted bread but would not truly believe in Him. His own explanation helps us understand the language He used.
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”
John 6:35
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:47
In verse 47, Jesus promises everlasting life to the person who believes in Him. Together with His explanation about coming and believing in verse 35, that promise guides how I read His words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He calls sinners to receive Him by faith as their only source of life. He isn’t commanding cannibalism or instituting Communion in this discourse. Later He says:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63
Jesus isn’t denying the value of the body He would give for the world. He is explaining that life comes through the Spirit and that His words communicate spiritual truth. John had already recorded His conversation with Nicodemus about new birth and His offer of living water to the Samaritan woman. Later Jesus would describe Himself as the door for the sheep, their Shepherd, and the true Vine. His language about eating and drinking likewise directs us to faith in Him. That reading agrees with the finished sacrifice in Hebrews and the remembrance commanded in Luke and 1 Corinthians.
Other Christians believe Christ’s body and blood are present with the elements without accepting transubstantiation. The Lutheran confession teaches that His true body and blood are received with the bread and wine while the bread remains bread. The word consubstantiation is sometimes used in discussions of this view, but the confession calls it a sacramental union. I disagree with that bodily reception as well. The bread remains bread and the cup remains the fruit of the vine; we receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice by faith.
Calling the elements symbols doesn’t give us permission to discard the meal or replace it with an illustration of our own choosing. Jesus chose the bread and cup and commanded this remembrance, so we honor Him by continuing it as He instructed. Those symbols direct us to Christ and the sacrifice He completed.
One Body and a Serious Warning
Paul also connects the bread and cup with our fellowship in Christ. The Greek word koinonia means sharing, fellowship, or participation and explains why we call the meal Communion.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
I understand this as believers sharing by faith in the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice and expressing that fellowship through the meal. Paul does not say that the elements change into His physical body and blood. He does say that we belong to one body. If Christ purchased these people with His blood, I cannot honor Him by treating some of them as beneath me.
The church in Corinth observed the Supper as part of a larger meal. Some went ahead with their own food while others remained hungry, and some even became drunk. People with plenty were willing to let poorer members go without at the gathering that proclaimed their fellowship in the same Savior. Paul rebuked them for humiliating those who had nothing.
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1 Corinthians 11:27-28
Paul warns against an unworthy manner of partaking. He isn’t requiring a sinless record before anyone may come. He tells them to examine themselves and then eat and drink as they should. The selfishness and irreverence in Corinth contradicted what the meal proclaimed, and calling it the Lord’s Supper didn’t excuse what they were doing.
The Lord’s discipline was severe. Some were weak or sick, and some died. Paul distinguished that chastening of believers from the condemnation of the world.
But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
1 Corinthians 11:32
God keeps the people His Spirit has sealed, but eternal security doesn’t give us permission to treat holy things carelessly. Corinth demonstrates how serious the repercussions can be. We need to confess known sin and seek peace where possible, including putting right how we treat other believers.
It would be reckless, though, to tell a sick believer he is being punished for mishandling Communion simply because he is sick. Paul identified a particular judgment in Corinth. He did not give us an explanation for every illness or death. This passage calls each of us to examine our own conduct, rather than presume to know the reason for someone else’s suffering.
How Believers Should Come
We come as people who have trusted the crucified and risen Christ. Someone who has not believed needs repentance and faith, and taking Communion cannot substitute for that conversion. The study on baptism considers another ordinance through which we publicly express faith without creating salvation.
As we receive the bread and cup, we remember that the Son of God suffered in His body, shed His blood, and died for our sins before rising bodily. Familiarity should not make us indifferent to what He endured. We are thanking Him for salvation we could not provide for ourselves.
When examination exposes sin, we can confess it honestly to the God who already knows. We aren’t bargaining for a place at His table or promising enough improvement to earn forgiveness. Our confidence rests in Christ’s blood and God’s promise to cleanse us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9
A believer with a tender conscience may hear Paul’s warning and conclude that he ought to stay away whenever he feels unworthy. But Paul tells us to examine ourselves so that we can partake properly. If I have sinned against someone, sitting out Communion won’t settle the offense. I need to confess and repent, seeking reconciliation where it is needed, then come trusting the Savior whose blood cleanses me. I cannot make myself worthy by waiting until I feel better about my record.
That examination also has to reach beyond a private moment of reflection. If I receive the cup while continuing to humiliate another believer or cultivate bitterness against him, I am ignoring the fellowship the meal declares. Sharing the table calls us to love the people Christ has made members of His body.
We also receive it with hope. Paul tells the church to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes, so we remember a Savior who lives and will return. His sacrifice remains sufficient while we wait. Continuing to share the bread and cup expresses our confidence in that completed work and His promise to come again.
My Final Thoughts
I want to receive Communion with gratitude for what Christ accomplished and a willingness to face honestly what His Word exposes in me. The bread and cup point to His body and blood; they neither save us nor become His physical body and blood. We remember His one completed sacrifice as people who belong to Him together. If I claim that fellowship at His table, I need to show it in how I treat His people while we wait for His return.
