THAT THESE WORDS OF CHRIST, “THIS IS MY BODY,” ETC., STILL STAND FIRM AGAINST THE FANATICS 1527
The sum and substance of all this is that we have on our side the clear, distinct Scripture which reads, “Take, eat; this is my body,” and we are not under obligation nor will we be pressed to cite Scripture beyond this text—though we could do so abundantly. On the contrary, they should produce Scripture which reads, “This represents my body,” or, “This is a sign of my body.” -Martin Luther
posted by Wartburg | Saturday, April 29, 2006
4 Comments:
I find that a great many of the debates in christendom exist because one or the other side is not taking this or that passage at face value. In regards to this issue in particular, I think it's also a combination of misunderstanding what is actually being taught (is it a foot? a hand? ect. which is being consumed) and just plain repulsion or an inability to simply believe on faith (ie if it taste like bread and looks like bread it must be mere bread).
Hi Cheryl,
Greetings to you.
This teaching affects, effects a lot of “things”.
I love and read anything I can get my hands on concerning the THE MARBURG COLLOQUY. It’s amazing how those few days are interpreted by who takes up the pen and comments while writing the history of that time. Last night I was reading behind one who said, “But alas! what is man — fallen, self-seeking man! Where is now the Luther of the early days of the Reformation? Why has the heart that was so large, liberal, and considerate of all, so soon degenerated into the most undisguised and intolerant bigotry? The answer is plain — then he stood for God by faith; now he stood in pride as the head of a party. And this explains not only the wonderful change that had come over the spirit of Luther, but the ignoble failure of many distinguished men from that day until now. At the Diet of Worms and other places, Luther, almost alone, fought for the truth of God against the lie of Satan, but at Marburg he fought for the lie of Satan, in the form of his new dogma against the truth of God. Some may be ready to say that he was fighting for the truth according to his conscience; so far it may have been so. But it will be remembered that he resisted all peaceful investigation of the truth, all reasonable means for arriving at a proper understanding of those "four words" — This is my body — and seemed only to care for the maintenance of his own authority and power as the chief of his party. There was no concern manifested by either Luther or any of the Saxons for the general interest of the gospel, or for the triumph of the Reformation. Thus was the great and blessed work of Luther marred and vitiated by the most absurd and foolish dogma ever proposed to the credulity of man.
The position and danger of a party leader in the things of God, are clearly expressed in the following opinion of Luther. "At Marburg, Luther was pope. By general acclamation the chief of the evangelical party, he assumed the character of a despot; and to sustain that part in spiritual matters, it is necessary to create the prejudice of infallibility. If he once yielded any point of doctrine — if he once admitted that he had fallen into error — the illusion would cease, and with it the authority that was founded on it. It was thus at least with the multitude. He was obliged by the very position which he believed he occupied, or which he wished to occupy, to defend in the loftiest tone every tenet that he had once proclaimed to the people . . . .”
Let Us put down now some of what Our Dear Brother had to say during those few days…
…it is not ordinary or common but a sublime eating because man can believe those words that the body of Christ is there.
When God adds his word and sign to something it becomes a totally spiritual food and drink, no matter how external and physical it may be. If God would command me to elevate a piece of straw, there would immediately be spiritual food and drink connected with the piece of straw—not because of the piece of straw, but because of the divine truth and presence in the word and sign.”]
Luther’s emphasis is on Christ’s word or command. We cannot question or debate what he has ordained. He has commanded the use of water in baptism and the use of the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper. By faith these external matters become vehicles of Christ’s saving power. Thus the outward (e.g., the spoken word, the water, and the bodily eating) is inextricably tied to the inward (e.g., the divine gifts received in faith).] Christ gives himself to us in many ways: first, in preaching; second, in baptism; [third,] in brotherly consolation; fourth, in the sacrament, as often as the body of Christ is eaten, because he himself commands us to do so.
If he should command me to eat dung, I would do it. The servant should not inquire about the will of his lord. We ought to close our eyes.
I would eat rotten apples or dried-up pears if God would place them before me. Where the word of God is, there is spiritual eating. Whenever God speaks to us, faith is required, and such faith means “eating.” If, however, he adds bodily eating, we are bound to obey. In faith we eat this body which is given for us. The mouth receives the body of Christ, the soul believes the words when eating the body. If I receive the body of Christ into my arms, this would be for the purpose of embracing it.
when you say that God does not propose to us anything incomprehensible, I could not admit this. [Consider] the virginity of Mary, the forgiveness of sins, and many similar matters. So also, “This is my body” [is incomprehensible]. “Thy path was through the great waters, yet thy footprints were unseen” [Psalm 77:19]. If we knew his ways, he who is marvelous would not be incomprehensible.
We do not say that the body is produced by our own words; rather, we are speaking of the institution by Christ; they are not our words but the Lord’s.
The body is present bodily in the word.
Zwingli: This passage is going to break your neck.
Luther: Don’t boast too much. Necks do not break that easily here. You are in Hesse, not in Switzerland.
We do not say that the body of Christ feeds our body as other food does; but we hold that the body of Christ is an incorruptible food which is not consumed but which he [Christ] may transmit to our body. As to the power of words: words merely signify, the human word is a mere sound.
faith looks upon the body [of Christ] as present [in the sacrament] and upon the body which is in heaven.
Luther: It displeases you that I always stick to the words: “This is my body.” I am not doing this without a reason. “This is” is enough for me. You prove your point. I confess [that the body is] in heaven, I also confess [that it is] in the sacrament. Luther desires to stick to these words, that Christ is in heaven and in the Supper. He is not concerned about what is contrary to nature but only about what is contrary to faith.
Christ is in the sacrament substantially as he was born of the Virgin.
“This is my body” is an inclusive way of speaking: The body is in the bread as the sword is in the sheath. This figure [of speech] is in general use, and the text calls for it.
Christ is not in the Lord’s Supper as if he were in one place.
Luther: I have said that it can be in a place and not in a place. God can even arrange my body so that it is not in a place. In this text there is no room for mathematics. “Place” is a mathematical consideration. The sophists [I.e., Scholastic theologians. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper Luther appeals to the Occamist Scholastics in this matter. Cf. LW 37, 214 ff.] The sophists have held that one body can be in many places; he does not want to deny this. Who am I to measure the power of God? The driving force of the universe is not in one place.
If the divinity had not suffered in Christ, then it would not be Luther’s Christ.
Luther admits that the sacrament is called a sign of a holy thing. [Augustine, City of God (De civitate dei), X, 5 (MPL 41, 282).] Luther admits that the sacraments are also sacred symbols and that as such they signify and represent something which is beyond them and which transcends the intellect. It is childish if a person, on seeing the bread, says: “I have seen the Lord.” We must lift up our mind. But when a person says that it is a mere sign, this is hard for me to admit. There is a difference between natural signs and the signs instituted by God.
However carnal the words may seem to them, they are, nevertheless, as no one can deny, the words and deeds of the highest Majesty and in no way carnal or insignificant because indeed forgiveness of sins, life eternal, and the kindom of heaven are attached to these insignificant and, as it would seem, carnal things by the word of God. Therefore, they should by no means be disparaged or be held in contempt as insignificant but should be held in highest esteem and regarded as sublime and spiritual.
“Do this!”
Luther replied that he has already confessed several times that not only does he not despise or deny such spiritual eating, in fact, he both says and believes it to be particularly necessary. What he is saying, however, is that from this it does not follow that the bodily eating, instituted and commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, is useless, especially to believers who eat not only spiritually but also bodily. Still less does it follow, yes, the conclusion is quite impossible, that the true body of Christ cannot be bodily present at all in the Lord’s Supper. It is there, and it is useful. For even if the spirit itself does not eat the body of Christ in a bodily way, it nevertheless believes that it is eating it under the bread and wine in the word which the spirit itself hears.
it cannot be digested as is other bodily food by those who eat it.
when the words are spoken at the command and in the name of God, then they not only signify but also at the same time effect and offer that which they signify. Then the words are not only the sound of a man who speaks them but of God who conveys [something] to the person who eats the bread.
The word of God is efficacious and true, no matter who proclaims it…
Luther replied that he is not saying anything about the assembly of the ungodly, but only this: Since no one can be sure about the faith of ministers in the church, not even in the case of godly and faithful men, the power of God’s word must be taken into account rather than the faith of its ministers. For of the latter no one can be sure, but the former [i.e., the power of God’s word] no one can really doubt.
Luther replied that he has said so and says so even now that the flesh of Christ, eaten by unbelievers, is not only unprofitable but is both poison and death, just as the word of God or God himself is. Furthermore, as it is unprofitable and death-dealing for unbelievers, even so it is profitable for believers, a medicine and eternal life. But even if the flesh of Christ were in itself unprofitable and pernicious, as indeed it is not, it would nevertheless become salutary through the word of life connected with it.
his gracious word of promise is connected with it.
we rely on the word of God. The word says, first, that Christ has a body. This I believe. Furthermore, it says that this body ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. This I also believe. The word likewise says that this same body is in the Supper and is given to us to be eaten. This I also believe because my Lord Jesus Christ can easily do this if he desires to, and in his words he testifies that he does desire to do it. On these words I rely steadfastly until he himself by another word of his says something different.
we need the testimonies of Scripture.
Luther answered that he could hardly put up with such remarks. For he did not know or worship any God except him who was made man; nor did he want to have another God besides him. And besides him there was no other God who could save us. Therefore, we cannot suffer his humanity to be thus curtailed and minimized.
It is plain that the eating of Christ’s body is profitable because it is connected with the promise of the forgiveness of sins. Because every promise requires faith, faith is a spiritual knowledge.
At this point Luther set forth the words of the Testament, Hoc est corpus meum, rendering them in German in this way: My dearest sirs, since the text of my Lord Jesus Christ reads Hoc est corpus meum, I cannot pass over it but must confess and believe that the body of Christ is there.
. The words are “This is,” not “There is my body.”
God can easily maintain bodies outside of any place.
Luther had written on his table, “This is my body,” in order that he might not allow himself to be diverted from these words.
God, however, commands: “Take, eat; this is my body.”
“This is my body” is taken to be a demonstrative sentence: for [only] a general sentence permits a metaphor. Then he asks in what way spiritual eating excludes bodily eating.
To pick up a piece of straw at the command of the Lord is a spiritual act. He explains the example of the horseshoe at length. When God says something, we poor, weak humans One must look not so much upon what is said but, rather, upon who says it. should listen. When he commands something, the world must obey, and all of us should honor his word; for there is nothing to which we should be more attentive.
If he should command me, he said, to eat dung, I should do so, knowing full well that this is salutary for me.
The mouth receives the body of Christ, the soul believes the words that it is eating the body.
The soul eats the body [of Christ]. The body is also present bodily in the word.
Luther: I do not care what we have written. Prove that “This is my body” is not his body. The body [of Christ] nourishes man’s body for eternity. When the mouth receives the body, a person acquires a kind of immortality. For the word on the basis of God’s command supplies strength. God says, “Take, do,” and so it comes to pass. He speaks and it is done. There is a difference between our speaking and God’s command.
Luther: Faith looks upon the body [of Christ] as present [in the sacrament] and upon the body which is in heaven.
Luther: I am not adhering to this passage without a reason. “This is my body” is enough for me. I confess that the body is in heaven, I also confess that it is in the sacrament. I am not concerned about what is contrary to nature but only about what is contrary to faith.
God can cause the body of Christ either not to be in a place or to be in a place. There followed a considerable controversy concerning “place.”
When Luther had conceded that the body of Christ was finite, Zwingli wanted to conclude that it was therefore in a place. If it was also in a certain place and in heaven, it could not be in the bread. Then Luther, not wanting to hear anything more about place or locality, said: I do not want this matter discussed. I do not want these expressions used.—Zwingli: Must everything then be done according to your wishes?
Supper was ready and the debate was interrupted.
Zwingli: The body of Christ is finite, therefore it is in a certain place.
Luther: The body is not in one place when it is in the sacrament. It can either be in a place or not be in a place. God can arrange my body so that it is not in one place. For the sophists66 also say that one body can be in various places; I do not reject this argument. For example, the universe is a body; nevertheless, it is not in one place.
Luther at length admitted that the body is not in the sacrament as in a place.
Luther admits that the sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; he further concedes that the symbols are sacred and as such they signify something which is beyond them and represent something that transcends the mind. They agree concerning the differences between natural signs and signs instituted by God.
Christ was not talking about the Supper there, but about faith [John 6].
They asked where God had ever put or contained a body outside of a particular place. To this Luther replied: “God maintains the very greatest body, in which all other bodies are contained, namely, the whole world, outside of a place. Therefore, the world has no place in which it is.” In the face of this statement they all were silent.
themselves confessed that the right hand of God was not in a particular place or locality but that it signified the omnipotence of God.
We ourselves consider and call it a sign and nevertheless hold that the body is there.
Our spirit is different from yours;
Luther, however, refuted the argument by saying that Christ was not talking about his flesh, or even if it could be understood as referring exclusively to his own flesh, it would nevertheless not be possible to refer it to the sacramental eating. He mentioned three kinds of eating: the spiritual kind, which is faith; the Capernaitic kind, which is described in John 6; and the sacramental kind instituted in the Supper. This sacramental kind of eating gives us the basis for saying that the body of Christ, present in the bread, is truly eaten, but not torn in pieces, as the Capernaites understood it.
. Luther: I know of no God except him who became man. Therefore, I also desire to have no other God.
Christ can keep his body outside of a place as well as in a place;
Luther, however, proved that the words of Christ give what they signify.
The body is eaten orally; the soul does not eat the body.
I think this material needs to be read, read, read and thought upon awhile.
Brother Salvatore
Wow! I'm going to save those quotes if you don't mind. Some of them I reconize, some not. Nevertheless, it will give me a starting point from which to study this matter further.
I had to laugh when I read:
Zwingli: This passage is going to break your neck.
Luther: Don’t boast too much. Necks do not break that easily here. You are in Hesse, not in Switzerland.
Having a german grandmother, makes that quote particularly amusing for me.
Thanks.
Cheryl,
Good stuff. That quote is funny that you mentioned.He's sounds like a New Jersey Italian if you ask me. When I read Dr. Luther I laugh, almost cry, think, am so invigorated... I could go on and on. See if you can get a copy of the whole Colloquy. I like setting time aside to read this. For two years in a row I read it between Christmas day and New Years day.I kind of made it my own tradition.
See ya,
Sal
Post a Comment
<< Home