Francis Chan, once a Master’s Seminary grad and now a spiritually squirrely scoundrel who was last seen healing an entire village without the Holy Spirit, butchering church history, speaking at a Roman Catholic conference, and praising false teachers like Todd White and Benny Hinn,
Speaking at Preston Sprinkle’s 2022 ‘Exiles in Babylon’ Conference, he seeks to explain the nature of what communion is, and as Francis gets closer and closer to believing in transubstantiation, he offers up a bizarre analogy and description of it, framing it as a form of ‘intercourse’ with Jesus.
The cup of blessing that we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there’s one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake the one bread.
So he says this cup that we partake of, it is not a Koinonia, a participation in the blood of Christ? There’s some sort of Koinonia if you look up Koinonia in a lexicon, actually the first thing that comes up is ‘intercourse.’
There’s somehow, there’s this, this this with the blood and my blood, that somehow there’s Koinonia going on with me and Almighty Jesus. That somehow this bread that I take of, like I can eat it, and somehow there’s some sort of flesh that connects with his. I can’t explain it. I’m just reading it going ‘okay, that this one table was supposed to bring us together and it’s crazy now.’
Chan previously said of transubstantiation and the ‘Real Prescence as practiecd by Roman Catholics’
I was always just told it is just a symbol, and so if you believe it’s anything other than that it’s wrong and you’re Catholic. Now I just assumed that’s what even Protestants have always believed…I really didn’t understand my church history, I didn’t understand… I never studied the first 300 years of church history deeply and that’s what I was challenged to do. And I started reading more and more of the ancient fathers. And again, I’m not a brilliant scholar, I’m just reading going wow, this seemed like the common view. It seemed like no one really saw it as just a symbol with no Real Presence until about 500 years ago, so I’m like gosh you know, the best I can there’s something. Now does that mean it turns into the literal body and blood of Jesus at this time, I don’t…I don’t think so, but it’s…it’s, to me my best understanding is there’s more to it than just anything…
Where I land specifically I’m still not sure. I just know I have a much higher reverence for it.
Yet the primary understanding of Koinonia is not ‘intercourse’ at all, but “fellowship.” ‘Intercourse’ as a usage is barely even a thing.
Chan, because he is being tossed and fro by every wind of doctrine and is slowly being transmogrified into a charismatic Papist, fails to offer a normal reading of this verse or one that seeks to clarify the nature of communion. Instead, he offers a bizarre take, using the same imaginative and speculative exegesis his charismatic contemporaries employ and has come up with a novel interpretation that would surely make them proud.