|
|
I have three points that I would like to cover in this address and these points consist of arguments flowing from the words of institution, from parallel passages of scripture and from various heads of doctrine.
The Words of Institution
Sacrament involves both a sign and a thing signified (such as
in Rom 4:11; outwardly circumcision is the cutting of flesh, and
inwardly or Spiritually, it is the seal of righteousness by faith).
In fact, such a close sacramental union takes place that the sign
can actually be called the thing signified: Circumcision is the
covenant, the lamb is the Passover, the rock was Christ, baptism
is the washing of regeneration. Therefore it is my argument that
the very nature of a sacrament is to use figurative language and
to involve some kind of linguistic metyonomy.
In the case of the words of institution we have a clear warrant to proceed sacramentally, for the context itself was that of a Passover ceremony, a meal in which the very food served was understood to be symbolic. The bitter herbs and the bread of affliction symbolized the sufferings of Israel in the land of Egypt. So Christ, when he institutes the Lord's supper is in effect re-instituting or re-interpreting the Passover signs. The bread of affliction, is no longer the sufferings of Israel under Pharaoh, but now signifies the sufferings of the true Israel, Jesus Christ, at the hands of his own people. Because of the context, the simple truth of the matter is that the disciples would have expected figures of speech. Another point that should be made is the fact that the disciples did not react with astonishment (as they were oft to do) nor question how, for example, Jesus could be in two places at once, or how it was that they were to swallow their Lord with him standing right there. Based on the information we have, it appears that they interpreted his words according to the figurative nature of the meal itself.
Therefore, when we interpret the words, "This is my body," we are arguing that the figure is in the copulative verb. The metonymy is that the bread is called his body. Because we affirm the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, not in the substance of the bread as the Lutherans teach, we can sacramentally speak of the bread as if it were truly Christ's body. Our Lutheran friends do not allow this approach. Martin Chemnitz denies the very possibility of a "metonymy in the copula." Likewises, C.P. Krauth states, "Language itself would commit suicide if it could tolerate the idea that the verb is shall express not substance but symbol." And J.T. Mueller comments, "Estin never means anything else than est; never does it mean sigificat. I'll deal with these assertions in a minute, but what I would like to do now is argue the impossibility of the contrary. That is, I will attempt to show that the Lutherans, when you get right down to it, cannot make good on their promise to interpret the words of Christ in a strictly literal and non-figurative way.
1. In the Lutheran view, This refers not to bread alone but to what some of their domaticians refer to as "the sacramental complex" (both bread and body). But this is not warranted from the grammar of the text. Touto is a demonstrative pronoun which has reference to that which is demonstratively present, "Jesus took bread...broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Grammatically speaking, the word this has exclusive reference bread.
2. The word is is explained by Lutherans to mean "in" or "contains. Thus, "This is my body" becomes "My body is in with and under this bread." But this is not literal. The question is not where is Christ's body, but what is it?
3. The word body has reference to a visible, physical, and finite thing, but the Lutheran interpretation forces the text to refer to an invisible, illocal but nevertheless substantial supernatural body. This is not a face value reading of the text; this is not a "literal" body.
4. The word cup is used figuratively for wine. If the Lutheran does not want to admit any figures of speech he will be forced to admit that the material of the cup is his blood. Interestingly enough, if his blood is ubiquitous, and the cup is his blood, this forever ends the quest for the holy grail. Why...it was right under our noses all the time!
5. In Matt and Mark's gospel, Jesus says of the cup: This is my blood of the covenant," but in Luke's account he says: This cup is the NT in my blood. Literally speaking the two predicates don't match up. In the first case he predicates that the cup is his blood, in the second, the cup is the NT. Sacramentally, one can refer to the cup as the blood, or as the NT, but if you do not allow the use figures, the result is a contradiction.
6. "Is shed" is used figuratively for "will be shed," as Christ did not atone for sin by the pouring of wine into a cup, but by pouring out his blood unto death at Mt. Calvary (Heb. 9:16-28 makes this clear by pointing out that a testament is not put into effect until the death of the testator has occurred).
Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gives us a fitting conclusion to this section by noting that a well recognized orthodox Lutheran theologian by the name of Kahnis, came to the conclusion [in his Lutheran Dogmatik of 1861] that 'the literal interpretation of the words of institution is an impossibility, and must be given up.'"
Parallel passages
The Reformed view of the supper is in complete alignment with
other texts of Scripture. The fact that in the sacrament we are
truly nourished by Christ's body and blood, by faith, not the
mouth, bears a close resemblance to the many texts that describe
our Lord's relationship to his church, such as those of the vine
and branches, the head and body, and Christ's words about abiding
in him. Likewise, it is in accordance with Christ's sending of
the Holy Spirit in John 16: "I am going to the Father, where
you can see me no longer...But when the Spirit of truth, comes...He
will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making
it known to you." Therefore, though Christ is not bodily
present with us, we nevertheless have access to him and all his
benefits because of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why the
author to the Hebrews can describe those who have been baptized
and have "tasted of the heavenly gift," as those "who
have shared in the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6:4). It is also why
Jesus can refer to himself as "the bread of life" (John
6:48), while also acknowledging that "it is the Spirit who
gives life" (John 6:63). It is the Holy Spirit that unites
us to Christ and all his benefits.
But the most important text for us this evening, outside the words of institution is found in 1 Cor 10:2-4. The Apostle Paul explains that the Israelites "were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." Here we see that the believing Israelites truly received Christ in the manna and the water from the rock, just as the Corinthians receive him in the supper. But how did the OT saints receive him? Or in other words, what was the mode of reception? Was Christ, in, with and under the rock? It is interesting to note that Luther himself comments on this text saying, "here faith compels me to understand the word 'is' as signifies, so that it means: Christ is signified by the physical rock of Moses." Is means signifies? Recall once again the Lutherans I quoted earlier who denied the very possibility of a figure in a copula. After reading such assertions I kept saying to myself, but what about 1 Cor. 10:4! "That rock was Christ." But in my research I discovered that many of Lutheran dogmaticians, Chemnitz and Mueller included, never even cited this passage, even though it has been a standard Reformed prooftext for centuries. Luther however did deal with this text and he came to the correct conclusion that is means signifies, "For faith," Luther continued, "does not permit us to hold that Christ, who is a person, is a natural stone." (Works, Vol. II, 282). To this we would heartily agree and also throw in (for whatever it's worth) that faith does not allow us to hold that Christ, who is a person, is a piece of baked flour. Maybe it was after reflecting on texts such as this passage in 1 Cor. that Lutheran theologian I.A. Dorner finally concluded, "That estin may be understood figuratively is beyond all doubt, and should never have been denied."
It must be conceded then that Luther was not entirely consistent. Regarding the words of institution, he commands a strict literalism yet with the words of Paul in the exact same grammatical structure he argues for a figure of speech. What is significant at this point for us, is how this separates the Lutheran sacraments from those of the OT. The Lutherans admit that the OT saints received Christ, according to Paul, Spiritually, not substantially. But this actually proves the Reformed view. For if the mode of reception was through the Spirit, not oral mandication, then the Lutherans have at least conceded the possibility of our position. Yet for them, things are entirely different in the New Covenant. Now they argue that we cannot truly feed on Christ unless it is by way of the physical mouth. But we cannot accept this assertion. They are the ones insisting on a change, therefore the burden of proof is on them to show that a change has been made. For us, we believe the NT saints receive Christ in the same way that they did in the time of Moses, for just two chapters later Paul tells the Corinthians that they too, "were all baptized by one Spirit into one body" and "were all given the one Spirit to drink" (12:13). Paul's point is striking: Just as Israel was baptized, so too were the Corinthians. Israel drank the spiritual drink from the rock, and the Corinthians drank from the one Spirit. This is a clear cut case of continuity between both covenants, and both sacraments. Both OT and NT saints are united to Christ the same way in baptism as in the supper, through the Spirit. The Lutheran doctrine of the corporeal presence is at odds with the old covenant and with their own doctrine of baptism.
Arguments from Articles of Faith
1. Lutheran Doctrine Threatens the Significance of the Incarnation:
Classical Christology insists that Jesus is true God and true
man, but the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity makes us question whether
or not he really is truly human? For they assert that Christ's
human nature, according to his repletive presence (a medieval
scholastic category by the way) is invisible, insensible, but
nevertheless substantially ever-present. But ask yourselves whether
or not this resembles anything you know about human nature? In
short, by asserting that Jesus is bodily present everywhere, they
ask us to redefine the very nature of a body. Followed to its
logical conclusions this moves beyond Chalcedonian Orthodoxy into
formal Eutychianism. Now, in opposing the Eutychian heresy, J.T.
Mueller correctly observes that "the two natures [of Christ]
are not mingled into a third object." This is why we don't
believe Lutherans are heretics. But we are asserting that the
doctrine of ubiquity is in conflict with their own Christology,
for what could be a better example of a mingling of natures than
this: The divine nature has omnipresence, the human nature is
finite. These two natures communicate abstractly creating a mingled
third thing: an omnipresent human nature and body according to
an illocal mode of presence. In sum, the Lutherans here deny what
Chalecedon affirmed, that "the characteristic property of
each nature is preserved."
2. Lutheran Doctrine Confuses the Sufferings of Christ: If Christ is bodily present in the bread, the primary sacrifice in the Lutheran view would have to be in the upper room, and then secondarily on Mt. Calvary. And Christ is in this view substantially torn apart each Lord's day.
3. Our opponents view Threatens the Doctrine of the Ascension: Think about Paul's instructions to the Colossians, "Set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." Where is Christ? he is seated above and is not to be confused with earthly elements. In Romans 10:16 Paul warns us not to say in our hearts, "'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down)." We could invert this for our Lutheran friends by warning them not to teach that Christ is bodily present down here, that is to say he did not ascend into heaven!
4. Lutheran teaching Confuses the Return to Judgement: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command" ( 1Th. 4:16). The Lutherans teach that he has already come down bodily, to save some, and to judge others, and continues to do so each Lord's day. This is an over-realized eschatology; some might even be tempted to call it a confusion of law and gospel.
5. Lutheran Doctrine Obscures the Communion of Saints: Our opponents deny that the OT saints fed on Christ the same way we do today. But this is to tear the fabric of the universal church in two. Maybe instead of calling them Lutherans over the years we should have called them proto-dispensationalists.
Conclusion
If we have we have made the case that sacraments by nature use
metonymical language, then you must conclude that the Lord's Supper
is one such example of sacramental metonymy. If we have made the
case that covenants and testaments can and often do contain figures
of speech, then you must pay no attention to the Lutheran objection
that words of a testament must be proper and natural. If we have
established that the Lutheran interpretation of the words of institution
cannot in themselves be shown to be literal, then you must realize
that they fall by their own sword. If we have established that
the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity is in conflict with various
articles of the Christian creed, then it should be given up. Most
of our doctrinal objections to the Lutheran position has been
on this controversial point of ubiquity, Ultimately I think, this
doctrine proves too much. Yes it establishes his presence in the
bread but also in algae, bubble-gum and stale beer. And unfortunately
for our opponents it places Christ in punch and cookies too, validating
as true sacraments the trivialized attempts at communion in countless
sectarian junior high-school groups. The point of it all is this:
we believe that the Lutheran approach is filled with significant
errors, contradictions, and conflicts with Scripture. We believe
that their unyeilding insistence on oral mandication is based
more on their dependence to medieval scholastic philosophy than
to holy writ. In contrast, we have shown that the Reformed view
has the most Scriptural warrant, is more consonent with the nature
of a sacrament, deals more adequately with the context and nature
of the words of institution, and is in harmony with the chief
articles of faith. Here we stand.
This article was made available on the
internet via REFORMATION INK
(www.markers.com/ink).
Refer any correspondence to Shane Rosenthal: ReformationInk at mac.com (connect and write as @mac.com -- when I connect them I get a lot of junk mail).