Download Document

Contents
I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 1
II. Views of the Eucharist ………………………..………………………………… 1
A. Catholic and Reformed View …………………………………………….....… 1
B. Luther’s view ………...………………………………………………….……. 2
III. Luther’s Logic Behind ‘Real Presence’ …………………………….………….. 3
IV. Opposition from the “Fanatics” ……………………………..………..………... 6
A. Metaphysical Objection ……………………………………………………..... 6
B. Exegetical Objections …………………………………………………………. 6
C. Ubiquity Contrived? ………………………………………………...………… 8
V. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..…….. 8
Introduction
During the Reformation era, many reformers were of the same mind on many issues,
including justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the decentralization of
religious authority. However, there was one particular issue on which reformation opinion was
not quite as synchronized – the Lord’s Supper. The reformers all believed that the Lord’s Supper
was a biblically instituted practice, but they did not agree on what actually happens when one
takes the bread and wine. Many reformers believed that the Eucharistic elements were merely
symbolic for Christ’s body and blood. However, Martin Luther rejected this notion and argued
for the “real presence” of Christ’s body in the bread and wine. Although his position is quite
nuanced, this paper will seek to demonstrate that Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper was
ultimately reinforced by his doctrine of the Incarnation.
Views of the Eucharist
Catholic and Reformed Views
Prior to the reformation the widely accepted view of the Lord’s Supper was the current
Catholic view, known as “transubstantiation.” This is the doctrine that, as the priest consecrates
the Eucharistic elements, a metaphysical change takes place in which the substance of the bread
and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ while the appearance, taste,
touch, and smell (the “accidents”) remain unchanged.12 Thus, the mass was seen as propitiatory
as the priest was actually offering the body of Christ to the Father.3
The reformers on the other hand, believed that the doctrine of transubstantiation was
1
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 1124.
2
Walter A Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), s.v. “Lord’s
Supper, Views of.”
3
Ibid.
1
contrary to reason, as well as Scripture.4 Many reformers including Zwingli, Karlstadt, and
Bucer argued for a more symbolic understanding of the incarnation in which the bread and wine
do not endure any metaphysical change during the Lord’s Supper, but merely represent the body
and blood of Christ. On this view, the Lord’s Supper is not a means of grace, but a
commemoration of Christ’s death.5
Luther’s View
In step with his reformation ideals, Martin Luther wanted t distance himself from the
Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. However, in doing so, he did not want to drift anywhere
near the teaching of other reformers whom he referred to as “fanatics.”6 Concerning this, Luther
wrote, “Now that [Satan] sees he cannot subdue us from the left side, he rushes over to the right
side. Formerly he made us too papistic; now he wants to make us too evangelical. But God
commanded us many times in the Scriptures to keep on the straight path and not to turn either to
the right or to the left.”7
While Luther did not believe that the Eucharistic elements were transubstantiated in any way,
he did believe that the bread and wine held more than just symbolic significance. Luther argued
for a unique, almost mediatory position, in which the body of Christ was really present “in, with
and under” the bread and wine.8 This view, known as “consubstantiation,” differs from
transubstantiation in that no metaphysical change takes place in the Eucharistic elements - the
4
Ibid.
5
Erickson, Christian Theology, 1128.
Richard Strier, “Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern
Studies 37, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 285.
6
7
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 36:237.
8
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1994), 994.
2
bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. However, consubstantiation is also distinct from
the symbolic view because the physical body of Christ is understood to be a genuine aspect of
the Lord’s Supper. Wayne Grudem gives a popular analogy of Luther’s view; “The example
sometimes given [for consubstantiation] is to say that Christ’s body is present in the bread as
water is present in a sponge – the water is not the sponge, but is present ‘in, with, and under’ a
sponge, and is present wherever the sponge is present.”9
Although Luther’s view was distinct from the Catholic view and from the other reformers,
consubstantiation is much closer to transubstantiation in the spectrum of Eucharistic doctrine.
Richard Strier points out that, “Although rejecting the Catholic view of transubstantiation, Luther
defended a ‘materialistic understanding of Christ’s presence’ and thus, he found himself much
closer to the Catholic side with regard to Christ’s Eucharistic presence than he did to his fellow
reformers.”10
Luther’s Logic Behind ‘Real Presence’
Concerning Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper, the question must be asked; “In what way
was Christ’s physical body present in the bread and wine?” That is, if the bread and wine do not
actually undergo a substantive change, as the Catholic’s believed, then how could Luther say that
Christ’s physical body was present “in, with and under” the bread and wine?
The first key to understanding Luther’s position is to appreciate his strong doctrine of God’s
omnipresence. Luther did not understand the doctrine of omnipresence as merely God’s causal
activity throughout universe. Rather, he understood it in a very literal sense, such that God is
truly present at every point in space. In one of his sermons, Luther said, "[God] is present in all
9
Ibid.
10
Kurt K Hendel, “Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective,” Currents in
Theology and Mission 35, no. 2 (December 1 2008): 421.
3
creatures, and I might find Him in stone, in fire, in water, or even in a rope, for He is certainly
there. . . . He is present everywhere…”11 Luther is not proposing a pantheistic view of Gos, bur
simply affirming that God is truly omnipresent.12
Now, the second and most pivotal key to understanding Luther’s position on the Lord’s
Supper is to understand his view of the Incarnation. For the most part, Luther held to
Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which affirmed that Christ is one Person with two distinct natures. That
is, the Logos, who already possessed a complete divine nature, added to Himself a complete
human nature at the Incarnation. Thus, although he affirmed orthodoxy on this front, Luther’s
Christology contained one rather creative element. Luther held to the doctrine of “communicato
idiomatum” (communication of the attributes), which meant that the properties of each nature in
Christ were communicated to one another. 13 Thus, as Strier indicates, “…what is said of one of
Christ’s natures is equally true of the other.”14 This means that with Christ’s human nature, His
divine nature was ignorant (Mark 13:32), weak (Matthew 4:2; John 4:6; 19:28), endured
suffering (Matthew 27: 26) and even died (Luke 23:46).15 However, the reverse is also true. That
is, the divine properties in Christ were also communicated to the human nature.16 Therefore, the
human nature shared in all the divine properties such as omnipotence, omniscience and
omnipresence.
11
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 36:342.
12
Hendel, “Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective,” 22.
13
Strier, “Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature,” 291.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
4
Luther understood that an essential property of a human nature is the flesh. Therefore,
inasmuch as omnipresence was communicated to the flesh (according to communicato
idiomatum), Luther believed that the flesh of Christ is truly present at every point in space.17 This
is what Luther referred to as the “ubiquity” of Christ’s body.18 The Eucharistic implications of
this are clear: since the flesh of Christ is ubiquitous (omnipresent) then the body of Christ is truly
“in, with and under” the bread and wine.
However, since Christ’s body is omnipresent, according to Luther, there is nothing unique
about the Eucharistic elements themselves; for Christ’s body permeates all matter. Indeed, Christ
could have instituted an apple or a piece of straw to be the sign of his presence.19 As Strier puts
it, “…for him [Luther] it meant not that there was no miracle in the Eucharist but rather that there
were miracles of comparable magnitude elsewhere - indeed, everywhere.20 Thus, the
significance of the Eucharistic elements is not found in themselves, but in their institution by
Christ.
Luther’s logic, as traced in this section, can be summarized in five steps: 1) God is
omniscient 2) God added a human nature to His divine nature 3) The omnipresence of the divine
nature was communicated to the human nature 4) A property of the human nature is flesh 5)
Therefore, the flesh of Christ is omnipresent. Accordingly, Allen Jorgenson concludes, “As I
17
Ibid.
18
J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2003), 602.
19
Strier, “Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature,” 292.
20
Ibid., 290-291
5
consider Luther’s sacramental theology…it needs to be affirmed that Luther’s is a thoroughly
christocentric approach.”21
Opposition from the “Fanatics”
Metaphysical Objection
Many of Luther’s contemporaries, and fellow reformers, opposed his view of the Lord’s
Supper. Karlstadt seemed to have offered a metaphysical objection when he argued that Christ is
at the “right hand of the Father” (Romans 8:34); and therefore, in order for Christ to “creep into”
the bread He must leave His heavenly estate, which is absurd. Luther was not impressed with
such challenges, and he indicated that these sorts of objections stem from a very childish view of
God. Luther writes, “If we ask how they interpret God’s ‘right hand’ where Christ sits, they will
dream up for us, as one does for children, an imaginary heaven in which a golden throne stands,
and Christ sits beside the Father in a cowl and golden crown.”22 Here Luther is making the point
that “the right hand of God” is a locution, not a location. And so, Luther remained true to his
strong view of omnipresence as he argued that, “God Himself must be present in every single
creature in its innermost and outermost being.”23
Exegetical Objections
Much of the controversy between Luther and the other reformers however, was exegetical in
nature. Luther, on the one hand, operated under a specific overriding principle - “the primacy and
sufficiency of the literal sense of scripture.”24 Luther writes, “…when through the Epistle to the
21
Allen G Jorgenson, “Luther On Ubiquity and a Theology of the Public,” International Journal Of
Systematic Theology 6, no. 4 (October 2004): 351-68.
22
LW 37:55.
23
LW 37:58
24
Strier, “Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature,” 275.
6
Romans I had come a little to the knowledge of Christ, I saw that all allegories were vain.”25 So,
when Jesus said “take eat, this is my body,”26 Luther believed He was making an actual
ontological assertion - “this is my body.”27 However, other reforms such as Zwingli, argued that
the word “is” in Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper should be understood to mean
“signifies” or “represents.” That is, Christ was by no means making an ontological assertion;
rather, He was offering a non-physical correlation between His body and the bread – an analogy
of His passion.
Zwingli also supported his position from Jesus’ words in John 6:63; “It is the Spirit who
gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” Since Jesus’ Himself said that “the flesh profits nothing,”
then as Hendel writes, “Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist was neither necessary nor
beneficial.”28 According Zwingli, it was the Spirit of Christ that profits man, not the flesh.
On this point, Luther highlighted that Jesus simply said “flesh profits nothing,” not “my flesh
profits nothing.” That is, Christ was not referring to His own flesh in this passage, for Christ’s
flesh was certainly beneficial as a sacrifice for mankind. Luther ultimately concluded that if
Christ’s flesh was not beneficial in the Lord’s Supper, then it was not beneficial on the cross.
Luther writes,
If the flesh of Christ is not spirit and therefore of no avail since only the Spirit is
profitable, how can it be profitable when it was given for us? How can it be useful if it is
in heaven and we believe in it? If the reasoning is correct and adequate, that because
Christ’s flesh is not spirit it must be of no avail, then it can be of no avail on the cross or
in heaven either!29
25
LW 54:46-47
26
Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19
27
Strier, “Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature,” 288.
28
Hendel, “Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective,” 23.
29
LW 37: 246-246
7
For Luther, Christ’s flesh must be profitable on the cross as well as in the Eucharist, if it is to be
profitable at all. But here, Zwingli simply argued that Christ’s flesh was indeed profitable, but it
was profitable by being slain, not eaten!30
Ubiquity Contrived?
In the end, Luther was unconvinced by his opponents. He held to a very literal reading of
Scripture, and so when the Bible affirms that God is everywhere, then one must believe that God
is indeed everywhere. Likewise, when Jesus says “this is my body” (John 6:63), then one must
affirm that Christ’s body is “really present” in the bread. It has been speculated however, that
Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s body was actually contrived to explain his view
consubstantiation.31 This is a possibility. However, it seems that Luther’s view does follow
logically from one point to the other. That is, if Luther believed that the divine properties were
truly communicated to the human nature, then the ubiquity of Christ’s body seems to be an
accurate implication.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but by no means
did he embrace the symbolic interpretation that was popular among his contemporary reformers.
Thus among the varying views of the Lord’s Supper during the reformation era, Luther’s view
was perhaps the most creative. Beginning with a strong view of divine omnipresence Luther
proposed that at the Incarnation, all of the divine attributes were communicated to the human
nature – including omnipresence. Therefore, he reasoned that Christ’s flesh was ubiquitous,
30
Quoted in Hendel, “Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective,” 23.
31
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 995.
8
throughout all creation, and so the flesh of Christ is “really present” in the Eucharistic elements.
The pivotal point in Luther’s entire scheme was the Incarnation, at which point the infinite
became a vehicle for the finite.32 Thus it can be said with Jorgenson that, “Luther’s is a
thoroughly Christocentric approach.”
32
Hendel, “Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective,” 420-433.
9
Bibliography
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.
Hendel, Kurt K. "Finitum Capax Infiniti: Luther's Radical Incarnational Perspective." Currents
in Theology and Mission 35, no. 2 (December 1 2008): 421.
Jorgenson, Allen G. "Luther On Ubiquity and a Theology of the Public." International
Journal Of Systematic Theology 6, no. 4 (October 2004): 351-68.
Moreland, J.P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Nagel, Norman E. "The Incarnation and the Lord's Supper in Luther." Concordia Theological
Monthly 24, no. 9 (September 1, 1953): 625-652.
Santmire, H. Paul. "Toward a Cosmic Christology: A Kerygmatic Proposal." Theology &
Science 9, no. 3 (August 2011): 287-305.
Strier, Richard. "Martin Luther and the Real Presence in Nature." Journal of Medieval and Early
Modern Studies 37, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 285.
10