How is Christ There - Scribd

8/7/2019 How is Christ There - Scribd

1/96


2/96

Publication made possible by the


3/96

Howis CHrist tHere?

FROM MARIN LUHERSSermon on the Sacrament o Christs Body

and Blood against the Fanatics

ranslated byHolger Sonntag

Edited and Arranged byPaul Strawn


4/96

Funding or this project provided by:Te Conessional Lutheran Education Foundation (Te CLEF)PO Box 43844Minneapolis, MN 55443-0844

[email protected] & www.TeCLEF.org

All International translation rights are the property o Te CLEF.

Lutheran Press, Minneapolis 55432 2011 by Lutheran Press

All rights reserved.Printed in the United States o America.

1st Edition

ISBN 978-0-9845351-1-8

Library o Congress Control Number: 2011925033

Swan logo is a LieAR image 2011 Lippincott Williams &Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Book design by Scott KriegerCover design by Roxanne Nelson


5/96

tableof Contents

Foreword

1 IntroductIon2 readIng wIthtInted glasses

3 lIketheIncarnatIon?4 lIkehedwellsInour hearts?

5 lIketheannuncIatIon?6 allbytheword!

7 whatreallyIs necessary?8 whatIs thatto you?

9 useand enjoythesacrament!10 morethana commonsermon

11 a Personal gIFt12 healIngour brokenness

13 theFruItoFthesacrament14 conFessIng beForegod

15 conFessIng beForeour neIghbor16 PrIvateconFessIon?

aFterword

7

9

13

17

23

27

33

35

39

43

47

51

55

5965

69

75

81


6/96


7/96

7

foreword

Foreword

What more is there to be said about the Lords Supper?It is not that the more needs to be said, but the essence

o the Lords Supper, the heart o the matter, needs to beunderstood. Unortunately, in the plethora o writings onthe sacrament that have appeared among Lutherans sincethe end o World War II, such understanding has beenlost, both among Christian academics as well as the basicperson in the pew.

Tis work rom Martin Luther, originally appearingin 1526, remedies this situation by providing a clear andprecise explanation o not only the Lords Supper, but alsoconession, both public and private. Here is ound not atome o ethereal theological ruminations, but a bookletusing simple, down to earth examples, as tools or under-standing how Christ can truly be present in the Lords Sup-

per with His body and blood or us Christians to eat anddrink wherever and whenever it is celebrated throughoutthe Church.

More need not be said. Te work speaks or itsel.Te greater historical and current theological context othe original work are provided by the translator, Holger

Sonntag, in an extensive Aterword.Tanks are grateully expressed to Roxanne Nelson or

an update o the cover design, and Michelle Hoppe or


8/96

8 howIs chrIstthere?

copy editing. Special thanks are due to the ConessionalLutheran Education Foundation or unding the printing

o this edition.

Paul Strawn


9/96

9

1

IntroductIon

introduCtion

Tere are two aspects o the Lords Supper which shouldbe understood and taught. Te rst is what is believed about

it. Tis is called the object o aith (in Latin: objectum fdei).Te object o aith is that which is believed. It is that towhich we are to cling in aith.

Te second aspect o the Lords Supper to be understoodand taught is aith itsel. In other words: How is that whichis believed used as it should be?

Te object o aith is something outside o man, some-thing man sees, namely, the Lords Supper itsel. We believethat there Christs body and blood are truly in the bread


10/96


and wine.Faith, however, is inside o man. It cannot leave mans

heart. Faith consists in how the heart considers the LordsSupper which is outside o man.Up until now, I have not said much about aiths object,

the Lords Supper. I have instead written much about aith,which is certainly no bad thing!

Currently, however, many are maligning the Lords Sup-per itsel. Highly respected preachers are o various opinionsconcerning it. As a result, a large number o people havebecome utterly convinced that Christs body and blood arenot in the bread and wine. So it is this aspect o the LordsSupper which must now be addressed.

From the outset it should be said: I a person is caught inthis error, I would advise him not to take part in the Lords

Supper until he strongly believes Christ is present therewith his body and blood. Ater all, the Words o Christare simple and clear: ake, eat; this is my body which is

given or you. Drink o it all oyou; this is my blood that is shedor you or the orgiveness o sins.

Do this in remembrance o me(Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25;Luke 22:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25).

We must insist on these words. Tey are spoken simplyand clearly. Denying such simplicity and clarity takes greateort, as those who do readily admit.

Still they abandon clear words and ollow their ownideas. Tey thereby turn light into darkness.

Te person who wants to do the right thing and avoid

They abandon clear

words and ollowtheir own ideas.


11/96

11

trouble beware! Te devil has aroused much hairsplittingin the world concerning this subject. He would like noth-

ing better than to suck the egg empty and leave us withonly a shell. In other words, the devil would like nothingbetter than to remove the body and blood o Christ romthe Lords Supper, so that all that we receive is commonbread and wine like what we have at home.

Tose who reject the presence o the body and blood oChrist in the bread and wine call us cannibals and vampires.

Tey even call us worshipers o a baked god.In this they are like the Arab philosopher Averroes

(1126-1198). At one point he had been a Christian, butcame to ridicule and blaspheme believers in Christ saying:Tere is no people on earth that is more wretched thanthe Christians. Tey devour their god. No other people

have ever done such a thing.Admittedly this would be an excellent argument. It is

this very argument the devil now advances everywhereagainst us

But God delights in doingwhat the world considers oolish

and oensive. So Paul in 1 Cor.1:23: We preach the cruciedChrist, an oense to the Jews, aoolishness to the Pagans and in verse 21: Because the

world did not recognize by its wisdom God in his wisdom,God was well pleased to save by means o oolish preaching

all who believe in it.So let anyone who does not believe the body o Christ

to be present in the bread o the Lords Supper believe it is

God delights in doing

what the world

considers oolish

IntroductIon


12/96


simply bread or even something else. It doesnt really mat-ter what such a person believes. Like a person who drowns,

whether it occurs in a creek or a river the result is the same.So such people: I they abandon the Word concerningthe Lords Supper let them believe whatever they want andsplit into smaller actions whenever they wish. Already sixor seven sects have ormed on account o the Lords Supper.

Tey agree only that Christs esh and blood are not there.

1. What are the two aspects o the Lords Supper that

should be understood and taught?

2. What is the dierence between the object o aith, and

aith itsel?

3. Which one is outside o man? Which one is inside o

man?

4. Which object o aith does Luther address in this book?

5. What were some in Luthers day teaching about the

Lords Supper?

6. Which o the words o Christ are simple and clear?

7. What did the Arab philosopher Averroes say about

Christians?

8. What is it that God delights in doing in the world?

9. So what really is the heart o the matter?


13/96

13readIng wIthtInted glasses

2reading witH tinted glasses

Tose who deny that the body and blood o Christ arein the Lords Supper have not remained with the words o

Christ. Tey have instead thought it over and come up withthis line o reasoning: Should Christ really be in bread and

wine? Would he not be spread all over the world? Shouldeach Christian actually eat Christ? Tis would truly bestrange!

So their presuppositions. From the outset they are wear-

ing a pair o tinted glasses which cause the words o Christto mean what they want them to mean.

But this is what all actious people do! First they come


14/96


up with an idea. Ten i they like it, they brazenly conormScripture to it.

Whoever would receive the true aith rom the Word oGod, however, believes in this way: May God grant thatChrist crawl into the bread or the wine or wherever he

wants to be. I I have the Word Iwill look or think no arther. I willstick with what Christ says. Tis ishow a person wraps himsel in the

Word, is not diverted rom it, andis preserved by it.

Tese words o Christ are not, ater all, hard to under-stand. I these words are not clear, then I do not know howone can speak clearly.

Would I be conused i someone were to place a roll in

ront o me, saying: ake, eat; this is bread? Likewise:ake and drink; this is a glass o wine? Accordingly, whenChrist says, ake, eat; this is my body, even a child clearlyunderstands that Christ speaks about what he is oering.

It is common or someone to point to something whilespeaking, so that another person knows what he is saying.

I I now am to throw such words into question, and inventsome sort o subtlety, I am simply ooling mysel.

All these words are clear and simple: ake bread; givethanks; break; give; eat and drink; this is my body;this is my blood. Yet all that our opponents with all theireorts can do is come up with their own ideas and conse-

quently split into actions. Apparently these words meanwhatever each o them has decided they mean.

Tis is why we simply stick with the words and close our

I I have the Word

I will look or think

no arther.


15/96

15

eyes and ignore our senses.For everyone knows what

this means: Tis is my body,especially when he adds, that is given or you. Wesurely know what Christs body is, namely, that which wasborn o Mary, suered, died, and rose.

1. Do those who deny that Christ is present with his body

and blood in the Lords Supper do so on the basis o

Christs words?

2. What reasons are given or such a denial?

3. Is it possible or a person to conorm Scripture to his

own ideas?

4. How does a person Wrap himsel in the Word?

5. Are Christs words concerning his supper complex or

simple?

6. Why were the opponents o Luther splitting into ac-tions?

readIng wIthtInted glasses

We simply stick with the

words and close our eyes

and ignore our senses


16/96


17/96

17

3liketHe inCarnation?

lIketheIncarnatIon?

wo objections are raised to the presence o Christs bodyand blood in the bread and wine o the Lords Supper. First

and oremost: It does not make sense that Christs bodyand blood should be in bread and wine. Second: It is notnecessary or his body and blood to be there.

In response to the rst objection, I might as well say:It also does not make any sense that God should descendrom heaven and enter a womb. How is it that he, who

eeds, sustains and understands the entire world, shouldbe ed and understood by Mary?

Likewise, it also does not make sense that Christ a


18/96


King o glory beore whose eet all the angels all down (Ps.97:7; Heb. 1:6; Phil. 2:10) and beore whom all creatures

tremble subjects himsel to mankind. He lets himsel benailed to a cross as the worst o criminals. He even allowsit to be done by the most desperate o all men. I might as

well conclude rom this contradiction alone that God didnot become man. Or that the crucied Christ was not God.

In just such a way it is asserted that it makes no sensethat God should do more miracles in the Lords Supperthan anywhere else. Tey deem as nonsense the act that

we believe the one body o Christ to be in as many placesas the bread is broken. And in that no one sees or noticesthe broken legs o the crucied Christ in that bread, theyassert that a great miracle must have occurred!

Tey ail to see that all such lines o reasoning are use-

less. I such a standard would be applied consistently, nocreated thing could exist. I Icould and even would measurecreated things, describing them

with words, then miracles thatare as big as, or even bigger than

what you nd in the Lords Sup-per, would be discovered.

ake, or instance, the soul. It is only one created thing,yet it is present throughout the entire human body, even inthe smallest toe. I I would prick the smallest member othe body with a needle, I would hit the entire soul causing

the whole person to twitch. Now, i a soul can be in all theparts o the body at once, should not Christ, then, be ableto be in the Lords Supper in all places?

They ail to see that

all such lines o

reasoning are useless.


19/96

19

What is more, my soul can both think and speak at thesame time. It can see, hear and eel while speaking. While

doing all this, it can also digest ood and make it into blood,esh, bone, urine, and dung.No one considers this to be a miracle because we see it

daily and we are used to it. Tese people have never closelylooked at any creature, as we will see below.

Look also at the wheat growing in the eld and tell me:How it can be that the stalk grows out o the soil? Howis it that a single kernel bears somany little kernels in the headand gives each its proper orm?

Tere are many, many miraculousworks in a single little kernel owheat! Tey neither notice nor

appreciate any o them.Moreover, how can it be that I have only two eyes, yet am

able to see thousands o kernels o wheat at once? In act,I can do this just as well with one eye! Tereore, a singleeye can ocus upon a thousand little kernels o wheat, andagain, a thousand eyes can ocus upon a single little kernel.

And take an example rom the word that I speak. It is apoor, miserable voice and, considered this way, the lowliesto all created things, no more than the wind. As soon as themouth is closed, the word ceases. Tere is nothing weakernor more ragile. And yet, the spoken word is so powerulthat I could rule an entire country by the voice!

And how is it that I can capture so many hearts byspeaking? I have a little voice, and there are hundreds orthousands o ears. And yet, each ear captures my entire,

lIketheIncarnatIon?

There are many,

many miraculous

works in a single little

kernel o wheat!


20/96


complete voice.I do not distribute my voice so that each ear gets only a

small part o it. Each ear hears the entire voice.My opponents see this and donot consider it to be a miracle.And admittedly, i we ourselveshad never seen this, it wouldbe deemed the greatest o allmiracles!

Now, i my voice is able to ll every ear, and every earreceives as much as the other, and the word spreads so ar,should then not Christ be able to do more than this withhis body? How much more splendid a thing is a gloriedbody than the human voice?

Many more such miracles are ound in creatures. Who-

ever properly considers a creature will thereore not beconused in this article o aith.

1. Which two objections are raised to the presence o the

body and blood o Christ in the bread and wine o the

Lords Supper?

2. Does it make sense that God should enter the womb o

Mary?

3. Does it make sense that the King o Creation should

become a subject to mankind?

4. How is the presence o the body and blood o Christ in

the bread and wine o the Lords Supper miraculous?

How is it not?

How is it that I can

capture so many

hearts by speaking?


21/96

21

5. How are the workings o the human soul miraculous?

6. What about a kernel o wheat?

7. Or the human eye or ear?

8. How is the power o the human voice miraculous?

9. So again: Compared to what is ound in creation itsel,

how miraculous is the presence o the body and blood

o Christ in the bread and wine o the Lords Supper?

lIketheIncarnatIon?


22/96


23/96

23

4

lIkehedwellsInour heart?

like He dwellsin our Heart?

And consider this: I preach the gospel concerning Christ,and with the bodily voice I bring Christ into your heart so

that you orm him within you (c. Gal. 4:19). I you believerightly, so that your heart grasps that Word and the voicedwelling within it, then tell me: What do you have within

your heart? You must admit that you have the true Christ(c. Eph. 3:17).

O course, Christ does not sit in your heart as someone

sits in a chair. Since Christ is at the right hand o the Father,you simply cannot comprehend how this occurs. By theexperience o aith, however, your heart truly experiences


24/96


the presence o Christ.Now, i by a spoken word I can occasion the entrance o

the one Christ into so many hearts, so that all who hear andreceive the sermon comprehendhim whole in the heart, then wemust coness that this is a dailymiracle. It is as great as the onein the Lords Supper. So howshould it not make sense that

Christ distributes himsel also in bread?So what happens when I bring Christ into the heart?

Does he, as they imagine, descend on a ladder?Te one Christ who lls heaven and earth remains seated

at the right hand o the Fatherand is also in your heart.I preach that Christ sits at Gods right hand and rules over

all creatures, sin, death, lie, world, devil, and angels. Assoon as you believe this, you already have him in your heart.

Tis is why your heart is also in heaven (c. Eph. 2:6).Not apparently, as in a dream, but truly. Where Christ is,there you are as well.

Tis is how Christ dwells in your heart ( John 17:23).

And he still does not leave the right hand o God.Christians openly eel and experience this. Yet our oppo-

nents do not grasp any o these things. Tey do not athomthe wonder that Christ dwells in the heart o the Christian,that he imparts himsel there whole, and is spread aboutby the Word.

Whoever can believe this about Christ can thereore,without diculty, believe that his body and blood are in theLords Supper. I the same reasoning or rejecting the pres-

Your heart truly

experiences the

presence o Christ.


25/96

25

ence o the body and blood o Christ in the Lords Supperwould be applied here, however, then it must be concluded

that Christ also does not dwell in the hearts o believers.I the weak bodily voice is able to bring the whole Christrst into the ear, then into the heart o all who hear and be-lieve, should it not be so miraculous that Christ is ound inbread and wine? Is the heart not more delicate than bread?

You do well to leave such athing alone and not to try toathom how this is possible. So

just as you are unable to say howit can be that Christ is in so manythousands o hearts, dwellingthere as he died and rose, so no one can understand howthis happens in the case o the Lords Supper.

But I do know that this word is here: ake, eat; this ismy body, given or you; do this in remembrance o me.Even though it is a mere word and voice you hear,when

we speak the words over the bread, then Christ is trulypresent. As he enters into the heart without making ahole, but is only comprehended in the word and hearing,

so Christ also enters into the bread. He need not rst makea hole into it either.

1. What created thing is used to bring Christ into our

hearts?

2. Does Christ dwell in our hearts as someone sits in a

chair?

lIkehedwellsInour heart?

This is why yourheart is also in

heaven.


26/96


3. Besides our hearts, where also is Christ?

4. By what does our heart truly experience the presence o

Christ?

5. Do we receive Christ into our hearts only partially?

6. I Christ is dwelling in our hearts, where also are our

hearts?

7. So how is the dwelling o Christ in our hearts, and the

presence o Christ in the Lords Supper related?


27/96

27

5liketHe annunCiation?

lIketheannuncIatIon?

Another example? How did Christs mother, Mary, be-come pregnant? Tat a woman becomes pregnant by a man

is miraculous in itsel. But God himsel was born o a virgin. Yet how does this happen? Mary did not know any

man. Her entire body was inviolate. And yet, she becamepregnant with a true, natural child, with esh and blood,in her body.

Is this not a greater miracle than bread and wine? How

did it happen?Te angel Gabriel brought the Word (Luke 1:31): Be-

hold, you will become pregnant and give birth to a Son,


28/96


etc. With these words, Christ not only enters her heart,but also her body, as she hears, grasps, and believes them.

Here no one can deny that the power comes throughthe Word. So just as you cannot deny that Mary becamepregnant by the Word, and no one knows how this can be,so also the same occurs in the Lords Supper. For as soonas Christ speaks: Tis is my body, his body is present bythe Word and power o the Holy Spirit, Ps. 33:9.

I the Word is not there, it is plain bread. But when theWord is added, it accomplishes what it declares.

What is more: We believe that Jesus Christ, insoar ashe is man, has been placed above all creatures, Eph. 1:20.,and lls all things, as Paul says in Eph. 4:6. Christ is Lordover all things, sustains all things, and is present everywhere,not only insoar as he is God, but also insoar as he is man.

I I would believe those who say Tat doesnt makesense! I would deny Christ. We read that Stephen said inActs 7:55: I see the heavens open and Jesus standing at theright hand o the Father. How does Stephen see Christ?

Tere was no need or Stephen to lit his eyes heavenward:Christ surrounds us and is in us, in all places.

Our opponents do not understand this. Tey believe thatChrist has ascended and sits at Godsright hand. But they do not know

what it means. It assuredly is not likeclimbing into a house with a ladder.Rather Christs ascending and sitting

means that he is above, inside andoutside o all creatures. His bodily ascension signied this.

He now has all things beore his eyes, even more than

Christ surrounds

us and is in us, in

all places.


29/96

29

I have you beore my eyes. Christ is closer to us than anycreature is to another.

It is speculated, however, that Christ ascends and de-scends rom heaven through the air. Moreover, he allowshimsel to be pulled down into bread when we eat his body.

Te source o such thoughts is none other than oolishreason and the esh.

Te words we speak neednot pull Christ down romheaven. Tey are there to assureus that we know or certain

where to nd him.Even though Christ is present throughout creation, and

I might nd him in re, in water, or even in a rope, he doesnot want me without the Word to seek him in such created

things by throwing mysel into re or water, or clinging toa rope. He is present everywhere, but he does not want meto grope or him everywhere.

Rather, where the Word is, there grope or him! Tenyou grasp Christ properly. Otherwise, you only tempt Godand practice idolatry.

Tis is why Christ has instituted or us specically howand where we are to seek and nd him. And this manneris the Word (c. Acts 17:26-31).

Tose who say that Christs presence in the bread andwine does not make sense do not understand or compre-hend this at all. Tey also do not grasp the meaning o

Christs kingdom or the sitting at Gods right hand.I Christ were not with me in a dungeon, in suering

and death, where would that leave me? He is present there


The words we speak

need not pull Christdown rom heaven.


30/96


with the Word, though not in the same way as he is presentin the Lords Supper. In the Lords Supper, Christ by the

Word, unites his body and blood to bread and wine to bereceived also bodily.When we believe this, then this is also easily compre-

hended and believed. Heaven and earth are Christs sack.As wheat lls the sack, so he llsall things. And as a single kernelo wheat produces stalk, ears, andmany little grains; as a single pit o

a cherry, planted in the soil, produces a tree with so manyblossoms, leaves, bark, ber, and cherries; and as my voiceenters so many ears: In just such a way Christ can distributehimsel whole and undivided in so many little pieces.

Our opponents use human reason to determine what

truly matters to God in all o this. Well, just let them deceivethemselves. You remain with the act that Christ does allthis by the Word.

1. How did Mary become pregnant?

2. Was that pregnancy a miracle?

3. Can anyone explain how it happened?

4. What does it mean that Christ, insoar as he is man, is

placed above all creatures?

5. Is the ascension o Christ like someone climbing into ahouse with a ladder?

Heaven and earth

are Christs sack.


31/96

31

6. What is the right hand o God?

7. Is Christ then, present in all o creation?

8. Where does Christ want to be ound in his body and

blood?

9. What did the opponents o Luther use to determine

what matters to God?



32/96


33/96

33

6allbytHe word!

allbytheword!

Tere are countless miracles which Christ does everyday by the Word. Shouldnt he then know how to do such

a thing by that same power in the Lords Supper? Christis comprehended in the Word, and by means o the Word,Christ is also comprehended in the bread.

I Christ can enter the heart and spirit and dwell in thesoul, then it should be much easier or him to enter intoeven less delicate created things. Yet he retains the smaller

miracles so that he might remind us thereby o the greatermiracles. For it is a much greater miracle that Christ entersinto the heart through aith than that he is present in the


34/96


bread. In act, Christ uses the bread o the Lords Supperor the sake o aith.

I we wanted to think about this in the right way, weshould reconsider what truly is miraculous. However, i aperson wants to ollow Christby means o reason and humanthinking, then we also must sayo aith itsel that no one canbelieve. For aith too goes arbeyond all reason.

In summary, it is asserted repeatedly that the presenceo the body and blood o Christ in the Lords Supper doesnot make sense and on the basis o reason, simply cannotbe true. We want to turn this around and say: Gods Wordis true. Your ideas, thereore, must be alse.

Should it make no sense simply because you think itdoesnt? And because you believe that the Word cannot beright? And that your ideas are ar greater than the Word?

1. How many miracles does Christ do every day through

his Word?

2. How is Christ comprehended?

3. How is Christ comprehended in the bread?

4. Which is the greater miracle: The entry o Christ into the

heart through aith, or his presence in the bread o the

Lords Supper?

5. Is aith in Christ truly reasonable?

Gods Word is true.

Your ideas, thereore,

must be alse.


35/96

35

7wHat reallyis neCessary?

whatreallyIs necessary?

Another reason given or rejecting the presence o thebody and blood o Christ in the bread and wine o the

Lords Supper is this: It is not necessary. (Here Christmust allow himsel to become a student and be taughtcorrectly. Te Holy Spirit has apparently not expressedhimsel clearly.)

Why? I I believe in Christ who has died or me, whatneed is there or me to believe in the baked god? (A baking

will indeed one day take place and it is the crust o thosewho assert such things that will burn!)

Who raises such an objection? God? Or man? It is man!


36/96


Why? Tey have become possessed by Satan! Havinglearned nothing more than to recite and preach that Christ

has died or us, they eel nothing o this in their hearts!Do you really want to instruct God, teaching him whatis necessary and what is not, deciding this question on thebasis o your own ideas? It certainly would be more just toturn this around and say: God wants to have it this way;this is why your ideas are wrong.

Who are you that you are allowed to question whatGod considers to be necessary? You are a liar, and so Godis truthul (c. Rom. 3:4).

It could also then be asserted: Because aith justies,Christ himsel is not necessary. So lets tell God this: Youhad sin, death, the devil, and all things in your power!

Why was it necessary or you to send your Son, allowing

him to be treated and die so cruelly? You could just as wellhave let him in heaven! It would not have taken you morethan a word, and sin, death and the devil would have beendestroyed. For you are almighty

Similarly we might then want to conclude that Christwas not born o a virgin. Ater all, was that really neces-

sary? Couldnt God have let Christ be athered by a manwhile creating him so that he would have been conceivedwithout sin and remained innocent?

We could go even urtherand say: It is not necessarythat Christ be God. He could

have risen rom the dead by thepower o God and redeemed usas a mere man.

This is how the devil

blinds people so that

they cannot rightlysee Gods work.


37/96

37

Tis is how the devil blinds people so that they cannotrightly see Gods work. Tey ignore the Word and use only

their heads to gure out everything.But i you would ever ully comprehend even a littlegrain in the eld, you would be so amazed you would die.Gods works are unlike our works.

So this is why you should say in response: Why should Icare whether the presence o the body and blood o Christin the bread and the wine o theLords Supper is necessary ornot? God knows how or whyit should and must be this way.

When God says that it is neces-sary, then all creatures are silent.

Now, because Christ says here

in clear words: ake, eat; this is my body, etc., it is mypart to believe these words as rmly as I must believe allthe words o Christ. Even i Christ handed me a straw ashe spoke these words, I should believe it. Tis is why onemust close mouth, eyes, and all senses and say: Lord, youknow better than I!

It is the same way with baptism: Te water is in baptism,and in baptism is the Holy Spirit. Tere you also mightsay: Why is it necessary to baptize with water? Yet theSpirit says: Listen! Here is Gods will and word! Stick toit and orget your ideas!

1. Is it necessary or the body and blood o Christ to be

present in the bread and wine o the Lords Supper?

whatreallyIs necessary?

Why should I care

whether the presence

o the body and blood

... is necessary or not?


38/96


2. Who objects to such a presence: God or man?

3. Was it necessary or Christ to die on the cross?

4. Was it necessary or Christ to be born o a virgin?

5. Was it necessary or Christ to be God as well as man?

6. Who really is behind such questions o necessity?

7. What should be the Christians response?

8. What are we to do with the words o Christ?


39/96

39

8wHatis tHatto you?

whatIs thatto you?

wo reasons are given or not believing that the bodyand blood o Christ are present in the Lords Supper. Te

second, that o a lack o necessity, is emphasized.Now these reasons may indeed move pious hearts. Tey

have done so in the past. I mysel was preoccupied or atime by the question o necessity.

I also questioned how a ull-sized human body couldbe present in such a small piece o bread. And how it also

could remain undivided yet present in every piece.Yet i a kernel o wheat or the pit o a cherry is properly

considered, a lesson is learned.


40/96


For why does God eed us by bread or under the bread?He could as well do it by the mere Word, without any

bread at all.Why doesnt God today create man instantly as he madeAdam and Eve in paradise? Whydoes it take so long? Why doman and woman have to cometogether? Why must they raisea child with so much toil andlabor?

Yet Christ says ( John 21:22): What is that to you? Inthe beginning, I made Adam and Eve one way. Now I wantto do it dierently. I let a Son be born o a virgin one time.

Tis I also do not want to do again.But this is how people want to subject God to their laws.

It is just the same as i I would say: Why have you giventhat person a big body and me a small body? Why do yougive black hair to one person, blond hair to another? Whybrown eyes to this, gray eyes to that?

So in summary: See to it that you pay attention only toGods Word! Remain in it as a child in a cradle! I you let

it slip or a moment, then you have allen away rom it. Itis the exclusive business o the devil to tear people awayrom Gods Word. Gods will and work are then measuredonly by reason.

At the least, however, the hearts preoccupied with thesetwo questions possess reason. Tey are still open to advice.

Others, however, are total anatics. Tey go so ar as tochop up and stretch out Christs words. In act, they are truehyper-anatics who have nothing to support their position.

For why does God

eed us by bread or

under the bread?


41/96

41

Te ormer, at least, still have reason in their avor. Yetwhen considering how the latter tear apart the words o

Christ and orce their own ideas upon those words, theneven reason can see that they are ools.Tere are only our words in the sentence: Tis is my

body. Yet one o these hyper-anatics changes the mean-ing o the word this, tearing it away rom the bread, sothat one should interpret it to mean: ake, eat. Tis is mybody. It is as i I said: ake and eat, and then said: Heresits John wearing a red jacket.

Another anatic concentrates upon the word is. Forhim, is means signies.

A third says that the phrase, Tis is my body, meanssomething like: Tis is a symbol o my body.

In such a way they all posit such dreams o theirs with-

out any oundation in Scripture. But these hyper-anaticsdo not cause me any trouble. Tey are also not worth theargument. Tey are coarse, grammatical anatics. Te othersat least are subtle philosophical anatics.

Let them go their way. And let us remain with the wordsas they read: Christs body is truly in the bread and Christs

blood is truly in the wine.Tis is not to say that he is not also

elsewhere with his body and blood.Christ is, ater all, present in a com-plete way with esh and blood in thehearts o all believers.

But Christ wants to make us certain where and how weare to lay hold o him. Tere is the Word that says: When

you eat the bread, then you eat his body that is given or

whatIs thatto you?

Let us remain

with the words as

they read.


42/96


you. I it were not or the Word, I would not regard thebread as something special either.

Let this be enough concerning the rst part.

1. Must God use bread to eed us?

2. Why doesnt God create us as he created Adam and

Eve?

3. What is the point Luther makes by asking these ques-

tions?

4. How do people want to subject God to their laws?

5. Why do we need to remain in Gods Word?

6. What are the three arguments o the hyper-anatics?

7. How is Christ present in the heart o all believers?


43/96

43

9useand enjoytHe saCrament!

useand enjoythesacrament!

Te question now is how the Lords Supper should beused and enjoyed. It is, ater all, not enough simply to know

what the Lords Supper is, namely, that Christs body andblood are truly present there. It is also necessary to knowwhy Christ is there andor what reason oror what purposehe is given there to be received by us.

Here, however, heartache abounds. Te devil cannot leavethe Lords Supper alone. He must twist what God says

and does. And i the devil cannot completely destroy theworkings o God, he simply makes o them a hollow shell.

Unlike the pope, who has taken away rom us the cup,


44/96


these anatics leave us with both the bread and the wine. Butthey drill a hole in the shell so that the body and blood o

Christ are lost. Neither the pope nor the anatics, thereore,properly use the Lords Supper.Tinking back I must plainly admit that when it came

to the use o the Lords Supper, weused to torture ourselves and earedthat we would not go to this sacra-ment worthily. (Going to the sacra-ment worthily is what we now callthe use o the Lords Supper.)

Back then, we were taught to beat ourselves up withmany dicult tasks, asting, and conession. We preparedourselves to use the Lords Supper only as a work. Tepapists had pushed matters to this point. However, the

gospel, Scripture, baptism, and the Lords Supper remainedunchanged as to what they are in themselves. It was justthat the proper use was destroyed and taken away rom us.

We must reestablish the proper use and preserve it, aswe have done up to this point. For when I preached againstabuse, I did not anticipate the heresy o the anatics that

is now overtaking the world. I only battled the papistsregarding the proper use.

So ar, I have taught that the sacrament should not beused as a good work. Te papists taught that the person

who went to the sacrament, having conessed properly andbeing unaware o a mortal sin did a precious, holy work by

which he earned heaven.However, the person who wants to use the Lords Sup-

per properly must not receive it in such a way that he says

It is also necessary

to know why

Christ is there.


45/96

45

I have done this, as i he had done some other work likeasting or attending a vigil. Rather, you should believe not

only that Christ with his body and blood is there, but alsothat there he is given to you, always relying on the words:ake, eat; this is my body which is given or you; drink,this is my blood which is shed or you; do this in remem-brance o me.

In these words Christs body and blood are given tous as a git. Tere are, thus, two parts to be believed here:

Tat Christs body and blood are truly present (which thepapists believe as well) and that they are given to us as agit (which they do not believe).

Te Lords Supper is thereore to be used as a git. Youhear it spoken clearly and plainly: Christ tells you to takehis body and blood. But why? And or what purpose? So

that the body is givenor you and the blood is shedor you.Tere our new preachers must

cause trouble. Tey want to takethis away rom us. Tey treat thesacrament so cruelly that thismakes me think that the devil here

tries his best and the Last Day isnot ar away.

I would rather be dead than hear how Christ is blas-phemed among them.

1. Is it enough to know that Christs body and blood aretruly present in the Lords Supper?

2. What also is necessary?

useand enjoythesacrament!

In these words

Christs body and

blood are given to

us as a git.


46/96


3. What does the devil do i he cannot destroy what God

says and does?

4. How had Luther been taught to view the use o theLords Supper?

5. Does the improper use o a thing change the thing

itsel?

6. What are the two parts o the Lords Supper which are

to be believed?


47/96

47

10more tHana Common sermon

morethana commonsermon

Some say that the Lords Supper is only meant to be asign. It is celebrated in order to know who are Christians

and who are not. But nothing is received rom such a cel-ebration but the hollow shell o the sacrament.

Such people come together and eat and drink simplyin order to think about Christs death. In such thinking issupposed to lie great power. Consequently the bread and

wine become no more than a standard or ag by which

others can tell that we are Christians.Why do they do this? Because they reject these words

out o hand: Eat, this is my body which is given or you.


48/96


Tese words mean nothing tothem. Tey utterly ignore them.

Te celebration o the Lords Sup-per or them is to be nothing morethan the proclamation and preach-

ing o the death o Christ.o be sure, the death o Christ is to be proclaimed. We

have indeed preached it, and have done so more boldlythan they ever did. Indeed, i the anatics had not learnedit rom us, they would not know anything about it, or thepapists never talked about it.

Te anatics, thereore, have no need to teach us thesethings and boast about them as i they had come up withsomething new. We also preach the death o Christ, ac-cording to these words: Do this in remembrance o me.

Yet there is a dierence. When I preach Christs death,then this is in a public sermon in the congregation whereI do not direct it to anyone in particular. He who graspsit grasps it.

However, when I distribute the sacrament, then I give itto a specic person who takes it. I give to that one person

the body and blood o Christ so that he might have the or-giveness o sins acquired by Christs death and proclaimedin the congregation.

Tis is something more than a common sermon. Cer-tainly the same git is given in the sermon and in the sac-rament. And yet, in the sacrament there is the advantage

that it there is given to a specic person.In the sermon, one does not aim at one person in par-

ticular. But in the sacrament, the git is given to you and

In such thinking

is supposed to lie

great power.


49/96

49

me in particular, so that the sermon is driven home to us.For when I say: Tis is the body which is given or you;

this is the blood which is shedor you or the orgiveness osins, then I remember Christand speak o his death not to allpeople in common, but apply itto you alone.

Tus, Christ has ordained that when we come togetheras a group, each is to take o the bread and cup, and thenpreach about him. Why? Because the sacrament is not to begiven to anyone but to Christians who have already heardthe preaching o Christ.

Te sermon or proclamation is or all in common, evenor those who are not yet Christians. But the Christians

are the only ones who are to enjoy the sacrament. Yet at thesame time, they are also to remember Christ in preachingso that they may increase in number.

Te reason that Christ is to be proclaimed and remem-bered publicly is so that those who do not know him mightalso eventually take part in the Lords Supper. Te oppo-

nents hold such remembrance only in private. But this isuseless. It is to happen publicly beore the congregation.And there is always to be preaching with the celebrationo the Lords Supper.

Tis is why the phrase, Do this in remembrance o me,means as much as: As oten as you do it, preach about me.

Tis is how Paul interprets it in 1 Cor. 11:26, where hecalls it: Proclaim the death o Christ. He uses the wordproclaim in order to indicate that it is not to take place

morethana commonsermon

In the sacrament the

git is given to you

and me in particular.


50/96


51/96

51

11a Personal gift

a Personal gIFt

Tose who participate in Lords Supper should believeand be certain they receive Christs true body and blood

in the bread and wine. Also that it is given to them as agit to be their own.

Why? Not or the sake o money or merit, as a work, asthe monks and priests hold the mass. But it is or us, orthe orgiveness o sins.

We know what orgiveness o sins means. When God

orgives, then he utterly orgives everything. Nothing islet unorgiven.

Now, when I am rid o sin, then I am also rid o death,


52/96


devil, and hell. Ten I am a son o God, a lord o heavenand earth.

Especially when plagued byafiction and suering persecu-tion, I should be able to respondby saying: I understand these

words to mean that in theLords Supper Christs body

and blood are given me as a git or the orgiveness o sins.Tis is why every Christian must know these words

verbatim:

Tere my Lord has given me his body and blood inbread and wine which I should eat and drink and whichshould be mine, so that I am certain that my sins are

orgiven me and that I am to be rid o death and helland that I have eternal lie and am Gods child and anheir o heaven. I go to the sacrament to seek these gits.I am a poor sinner. I have death beore me and mustsuer death. Te devil attacks me. I nd mysel in allsorts o trouble and danger. I am in sin, a captive o the

devil and death. I eel that I am weak in aith, cold inlove, strange, impatient, envious, sin encompassing meconstantly. Tis is why I come to where I nd Christs

Word and hear that the orgiveness o sins is to be givento me on account o his blood and death.

Having received this git in this way, we are then alsoto proclaim it so that we might bring other people to itas well. Tis is how one should instruct children and the

When God orgives,

then he utterly

orgives everthing.


53/96

53

simpleminded concerning the sacrament so that they mightknow what they are to nd there.

Tis is what we now call the right use. Te right useis not simply to participate in the Lords Supper out oobedience to the church. I this were so, then a sow mightalso come to the sacrament.

Te Lords Supper is not about the mere perormance othe work o going to the sacrament. Te main point is thestrengthening o the heart, as the words proclaim: Whichis given or you; which is shed or you.

And even i these words were not written there Paulleaves them out the body which has died or your sinsand the blood which is shed or this purpose is still there.

Yet when Christ is given as a git, then also the orgive-ness o sins is given as a git, and everything that has been

acquired by that treasure.Once it is grasped by the heartas it cannot be grasped

in any other wayand believed, then it must be said: Nowork, no deed, helps me to get rid o my sins. I have a di-erent treasure, my Lords bodyand blood, given or me or the

orgiveness o sins. Tis is theone treasure and orgiveness andthere is no other in heaven or onearth, Acts 4:12.

1. What should those who participate in the Lords Supperbelieve?

2. What is the meaning o the orgiveness o sins?

a Personal gIFt

I have a dierent

treasure, my Lordsbody and blood.


54/96


3. I we are rid o sin, what else ollows?

4. For what reason should we go to the Lords Supper?

5. Being in sin, to whom are we captive?

6. What is the result?

7. What is the right use o the sacrament?

8. Can any work help us to get rid o sin?

9. What then is the Christians treasure?


55/96

55

12Healing our brokenness

healIng our brokenness

So or some people the Lords Supper is a useless re-membrance. It is useul neither or you nor or anybody else.

Tereore, beware! May God protect us as he has so ar.Te devil has nothing else to do than to hack and slashwhere the gospel has taken root.

Tis is why we must have a good oundation in the wordso Christ and insist on them. Ten we can give a goodanswer to those who teach alsely about him.

For the words are clear and plain enough. Tey mean, insummary, rst, that in the Lords Supper we receive or-giveness o sins as a git. Second, that we then preach and


56/96


proclaim the same. Tat is the distinction between whatthe remembrance is and how we are to use and enjoy it.

Tis is done in no other way than by healing our broken-ness and ailures. We share certain kinds o brokenness withother people. And certain kinds o brokenness are peculiarto each individually.

Our brokenness is the reasonwhy we come to the sacrament. We seek strength there. hisis why this sacrament is calleda ood or hungry and thirstysouls who eel their misery and

would gladly be helped out o death and all misortune.O course the papists used to teach: Be careul! Do not

go unless you are pure and have no evil conscience! Christ

must have a pure dwelling!By this teaching they made poor souls timid and araid!

Tose souls ed the sacrament which they were orced totake. Tey took it with such trembling that some wouldhave rather entered a ery urnace!

We are indeed to be pure, but in such a way that we are

sorry or our sins and would like to be rid o them. We areto be aggrieved by the act that we are such poor people aslong as such grie is real, without any alse pretense. How-ever, no one will get to the point that he is utterly ree romsin. I this were our condition, we would not need to go.

Te Lords Supper has been instituted or the sake o the

weak. Tis has been said about the use o the sacrament tostrengthen the conscience against all trouble and afiction.

Our brokenness is the

reason why we cometo the sacrament.


57/96

57

1. What does the devil do when the gospel takes root?

2. How can the devils actions be countered?

3. How many kinds o brokenness are there?

4. What kinds o brokenness do we share with others?

5. What kinds o brokenness may be unique to individu-

als?

6. For what reason do we go to the sacrament?

7. How are we to be pure?

8. Will we ever be utterly ree rom sin?

9. For whom has the Lords Supper been instituted?

healIng our brokenness


58/96


59/96

59

13tHe fruitoftHe saCrament

theFruItoFthesacrament

What is the ruit o the Lords Supper? Tis ruit isnothing else than love.

Te ancient church athers repeatedly emphasized thisruit. Tis is why they called the sacrament communio, thatis, ellowship. Te ruit o ellowship is presented to us inthis sacrament in two ways.

First, by way o an example. Te bread and wine are likea marker or sign so that every Christian, no matter how

crude he might be, can grasp in the sacrament Christiandoctrine in its entirety, both what is to be believed and whatis to be done by aith.


60/96


For everyone needs to know that Christ has given hisbody, his esh and blood on the cross. What also needs to

be known is that this is a treasure or us. It is vital or theorgiveness o sins, that is, or our salvation, and so ourredemption rom death and hell.

Tis is the rst chie part o Christian doctrine, whichis presented to us in Christs words. And as a marker andor saetys sake he has also given us his body and blood tobe received bodily.

o be sure, Christ accomplished and acquired the or-giveness o sins on the cross. But Christ lets it daily be o-ered, distributed, and ullled by preaching. He commandsthat we should remember him always and not orget him.

Te second chie part o Christian doctrine is love. Itis indicated primarily by the example Christ let us. As

he gave himsel or us with his body and blood in orderto redeem us rom every danger, so we also should giveourselves to our neighbor in whatever way we can with

whatever we can do.He who knows this and lives accordingly is holy. He

does not need to learn much more. And he will also not

nd anything more throughoutthe entire Bible than the twochie parts that are here oundin one place. Just as i they werepainted on a table, that theyshould always be kept beore our

eyes and be our daily practice.Te second way the ruit o ellowship is presented to

us in the Lords Supper is as a gure or symbol. Tis also

He who knows this

and lives accordingly

is holy.


61/96

61

has been noted requently. Christ wanted to give his bodyand blood under the orm o that which consists o many

individual ingredients that have come together to ormone single thing.For example, a loa o bread consists o many little grains

rom which dough is made. A loa o bread is called noth-ing else than many little grainsbaked together: Tus, also we

who are many (says Paul in 1Cor. 10:17) are nonethelessone bread and one body. So aseach individual grain loses itsorm and becomes part o theone ormto the point that

you cannot see or separate one grain rom another, all be-

ing the same and yet all individually part o the wholesoalso Christendom is to be one without any sects. Tis is soall things may be in common, as are aith, gospel, baptism,heart, mind, and will, Eph. 4:5.

Tis is what a Christian does. He knows nothing butthat the goods that belong to him are given to his neighbor.

Tere is no distinction. Everyone helps as he is able withhis body, lie, goods and reputation.

Te same image is also depicted by the wine: Tere aremany grapes crushed together which become one juice sothat each grape individually loses its orm. o be sure, allthe grapes are in the wine. But there is no way one could

be distinguished rom another. Tey have all come togetherinto one liquid and have become one juice and drink.

In this way, then, Christ has given us a lovely picture


There is no distinction.

Everyone helps as he isable with his body, lie,

goods, and reputation.


62/96


and image o the entire Christian lie. No more books areneeded except those which emphasize this act so that

everyone hears and grasps it well. It is a lesson a wholelietime would be needed to study. Dont worry about whatothers dont know. Te sects o the anatics are, ater all,constantly inventing something new.

Here you have it all: Nomatter how long you learn, youalways will remain lesh andblood. You will never be perectin aith, love, and patience. Tisis how the Lords Supper is a

disciplinarian by which we direct our lives and throughwhich we learn or as long as we live.

Why is it that people strive to be the rst to know

something unique, while the most important thing remainsunknown? He who knows this thing knows everything heneeds to know.

Without this thing every other bit o knowledge isnothing, 1 Cor. 13:2: I I could prophesy and knew allthe secrets and all knowledge, etc., and did not have love,

I would be nothing.But this is how the devil misleads people so that they

ignore the chie part. Instead, they want to nd somethingbetter and produce something unique. In so doing, theylose the highest and only treasure.

1. What is the ruit o the Lords Supper?

You will never be

perect in aith, love,and patience.


63/96

63

2. What did the ancient church athers call the Lords Sup-

per?

3. In how many ways is the ruit o ellowship pictured orus in the Lords Supper?

4. What does everyone need to know?

5. How was the orgiveness o sins won once? How is it

daily oered, distributed and ullled?

6. What does the gure or symbol o the bread o the sac-

rament represent?

7. No matter how long we learn, what will we remain?

8. Will we ever be perect in aith, love or patience?

9. Without the knowledge o aith and love, what does allother knowledge remain?



64/96


65/96

65

14Confessing before god

conFessIng beForegod

In addition to the proper understanding and use o theLords Supper, something must be said about conession.

We ourselves were ormerly tortured and tormented by itspractice to the extent that there truly had not been a moredicult command since the creation o the world.

Tere are three kinds o conession. One kind o cones-sion takes place beore God. It is ater all necessary romthe outset that I recognize that I am a sinner beore God.

So the gospel concludes, Rom. 3:23 and John 3:5: Unlesssomeone is born again he cannot see the kingdom o God.

Now, he who conesses that he is born o a woman must


66/96


give glory to God and say: I am nothing but a sinner. Tisis what David sings in Ps. 51:5: Behold, I was brought

orth in sin, and in sin my mother conceived me, as i hewanted to say: I surely must be a sinner; I have been bornthis way.

As soon as I was conceived in my mothers womb, I wasa sinner. Te esh and blood rom which I was made wassin. As it is said: Bad skin and ur do not make or a goodpelt. Accordingly, the clay rom which we are made is notgood. What mother and ather add to it is already sin.

Whoever does not want to admit this, whoever does notwant to be a sinner, whoever still wants to have his reewill, whoever still thinks something good is within him,blasphemes God and calls him a liar. Tat person simply

wants to be right and will not accept Gods judgment.

Tis is why the prophet says again (Ps. 51:4): Againstyou only have I sinned and done what is evil beore you.Tis is why you will be right in your words and will be oundinnocent when you are judged. It is just as i he wanted tosay: I will not argue with you, God, but accept your wordas right. I coness mysel to be in the wrong, so that you

are truthul. Yet those who judge you want to have a lightrom reason. Tey want something by which to earn yourgrace. Beore them you will surely remain innocent.

his kind o conession wemust practice or as long as welive. We must always say: Lord,

beore you I am a scoundrel inhuman skin.

Admittedly this can be con-

Lord, beore you I

am a scoundrel in

human skin.


67/96

67

essed by a pagan, all the while being denied in the heart.No one makes such a conession rom the heart except a

true Christian, as it says in Ps. 32:5-6: I said: I will conessmy transgressions to the Lord; then you orgave the evildeed o my sin; thereore, all the saints will pray beore youat the proper time.

All the saints, however many there are, have this virtuethat they coness their sin to God and pray or it. Tis is

why no one makes this conession except those who areChristians and holy.

It truly is strange that he whois pious beore God and has theHoly Spirit should declare thathe is a sinner. Yet such a person isright. He conesses what he once

was and what he still is. He has the Holy Spirit, but onaccount o the esh, he remains a sinner.

Tis is why all the saints complain about the esh.What is more, the devil is not ar away. He sees to it thathe leads the esh into sin. Tis is why this is a loty andgreat conession.

Others say that they are sinners. But when they actuallyare called sinners, they do not want to hear it. Yet the saints,

when they are told that they are sinners, or when Godpunishes them on account o their sin, say simply: Indeed,it is true. Hypocrites are quite able to beat themselves up.But they stop whenever they please. And they certainly

do not want to be reproved and taught by others.Tis is what the priests and monks do. Tey say that

they are sinners, but when anyone else says it they do not

conFessIng beForegod

This is why all the

saints complain

about the fesh.


68/96


want to hear it. Tis is why God does not care or suchsupercial conessing.

But conession to God is commanded and remains nec-essary. And while the whole world ought to make it, noone but Christians makes it.

1. How many types o conession are there?

2. What is the rst type?

3. What should be the content o that conession?

4. When a person reuses to admit he is a sinner, what is

he doing?

5. Must we practice this type o conession our entire

lives?

6. Who is the only one who makes a true conession rom

the heart?

7. Why do all the saints complain about the fesh?

8. What does Luther note as being truly strange?

9. Is it right or God to punish Christians?


69/96

69

15Confessing before our neigHbor

Te second kind o conession is that which is madebeore our neighbor. Christ speaks about this type o con-

ession in Matthew 5 and 6. James also writes about it inhis letter, James 5:16: Coness your sins to one another.

Tis is to say, behave in such a way that i one o you hasoended another, humble yoursel beore that person andconess your guilt.

Tere are two kinds o oending: Te common and the

individual. Te common kind o oending, I am araid, isshared by all o us. Te Lords Prayer casts us into it. Tiscommon oending is that we do not help our neighbor as

conFessIng beForeour neIghbor


70/96


we are obligated to help him with counsel, preaching, ad-vising, comorting, money, goods, honor, our body, and lie.

Such a standard is so high that no one is holy enoughto attain it. Tis is why we all must say to one another: Iam indebted to you. You are indebted to me.

And it is especially true that he to whom God has givenmuch is indebted to many. I mysel am indebted to morethan twenty or even a hundred other men. God will demand

it rom me. It can be no other way.He will ask or an account to thelast penny, how I have invested itand used it.

Tis guilt is so common that it aects no one in par-ticular. I owe everyone. Everyone owes me comort andassistance when I am in trouble and need help.

Yet we are not eager enough to seek out the people whoneed us. And to oer our service is also too much or us.

So when we look at the ledger and see how much we owe,we must shudder and lament. Tere is no better advice herethan to say: People do owe me. I have to settle accounts

with others as well. But I will orgive them their debts. I

thereore ask you, Lord, that you would also orgive me.Tis is how it is crossed out and erased. I we did not

have this advice, then we would be in a bad situation.Tis is why the Lords Prayer must remain in use. Tis

is why it is necessary that we should orgive our debtors iour debt is to be orgiven, as Christ teaches in the gospel,

Matth. 18:22.Tis is, then, the one kind o conession which must be

made in public with guilt reely admitted. Beore God I

I owe everyone.Everyone owes me.


71/96

71

am not pious. Beore the world, and according to the com-mon guilt, each person has a claim on the other, and no

one does enough. Tis is why one person must ask anotherto orgive him.Yet this kind o conession is also made by no one but

Christians. Te godless cannot tolerate the idea that theirlack o service to their neighbor is sin. Tey cite canon lawthat says: o each his own.

Tey believe that they have the goods which they ownor their own sakes. Tis is why they use so many o theirpossessions only or their own glory and delight. Solomondescribed it this way in Proverbs (c. 10:16): Te godlesshas ood only or sin, but the righteous is kind.

Te godless uses his goods, intelligence, skill, and honorto derive his own delight and advantage rom it. Tis is sin.

And it is a kind o sin which the godless does not considerto be sin, but a right.

God has created us to be our neighbors steward. Butwe all certainly all short o this.

Yet we at least recognize it andare saddened by it. We strive to

do more each day. We ear God.We do as much as we can and areallowed by the old Adam.

God crosses out what we do not do beyond this, as hasbeen said. We do not dare to reimburse him. It is way toomuch. Tis is why we say: Forgive me; I will orgive in

return.Beyond this common kind o oense and indebtedness,

there is also an individual oense and indebtedness. Christ

conFessIng beForeour neIghbor

God has created us

to be our neighborssteward.


72/96


speaks about it in Matthew 5:25. When one person inparticular is oended, lied to, damaged, accused, or hurt

by rumors, then one should coness this too and say thatone has done what is not right and ask the neighbor ororgiveness.

Alas, it also hurts to break the old Adam in this way. Ithurts to humble onesel beore a poor person who is de-spised and to give to him justice and the highest honor and

consequently, to suer the greatestshame.

Tis used to be the custom inthe monasteries. Tere the monks

would be orced to do this. Yet itwas all tomoolery.

A godless person does not humble himsel to the point

o bringing shame upon himsel. He does not see that thiswould be a great glory beore God and beore pious people.

o some extent, Christians can protect themselvesagainst this kind o guilt, both or themselves and others.Let it be covered and punished where it is heard and seenin others. However, the common guilt no one can end o.

But we do not mean to dwell on these two conessionsat this point. Both are practiced throughout the year andnot used just in preparation or the sacrament.

1. What is the second type o conession Luther notes?

2. How many types o oending are there?

3. What are they?

It also hurts to

break the old

Adam in this way.


73/96

73conFessIng beForeour neIghbor

4. What is the common kind o oense?

5. Is it only committed by some and not others?

6. What is the individual kind o oense?

7. What type o conession results rom such an oense?


74/96



75/96

75

16Private Confession?

PrIvateconFessIon?

Finally, a ew words need to be said about private cones-sion. I consider private conession to have developed out

o the public conession in the ollowing way.Early Christians practiced the two kinds o conession

we have explained above together. Everyone who wanted togo to the sacrament made a public conession beore Godand man. When Christians became ewer and ewer, how-ever, each made this conession to one person in particular.

Only later did the categorization and enumeration osins become part o private conession. Yet they certainlyneed to remain uncounted. You will never be able calculate


76/96


how much you ought to do to make up or your sins justso that you can slack o when you think you have done

enough (c. Luke 17:10).About private conession we say this: When the rst twokinds o conession are practiced publicly, then this thirdkind is not needed. God certainly knows your sins well. Solong as you coness them beore him and then beore yourneighbor, your sins are orgiven.

For the sake o those who would like to make use o it,however, private conession is by no means to be rejected.

Tere remains great benet and value to private conession.First and oremost is the absolution spoken by your

neighbor in Gods stead. Tis is just as i God himsel spoketo you. Tis should indeed comort us. I I knew that God

would be at a certain place and wanted to orgive me, I

certainly would want to receive such orgiveness not justonce, or in one place, but as oten as possible. Tis is whatGod has now placed into the mouth o man. Tis is why itis comorting, especially or the burdened conscience, thereto receive such a precious thing.

Secondly, private conession serves the simple at heart.

Te common mob is a lazy crowd that always listens tosermons but learns nothing rom them. Tere is also no oneat home teaching them anything. Tereore, even i it were

good or nothing else, privateconession is good or teachingthe people and or hearing what

they actually believe, pray, learn,etc. Otherwise, they just go to

the sacrament like cattle.

Private conession is

good or teaching.


77/96

77

Tis is why I have said that one should not give thesacrament to anyone unless he is able to give an answer

concerning what he gets there and why he goes there. Now,this kind o instruction and examination can take placemost ttingly in private conession.

Tirdly, there is comort in private conession or anyonewith a troubled conscience or some other issue or problem.Anyone who seeks advice can ask or it in private cones-sion.

Tis is why we cannot despise private conession. ForGods Word is there. It comortsand strengthens us in the aith.It instructs us and teaches us

what we are lacking. It also givesgood advice in times o need.

Tis is also why no one but pious Christians practicesprivate conession properly. In private conession peoplemust be disposed toward advice and comort.

Yet the problem has been that one has paid no attentionto absolution, but only to our work. In other words, thepractice became centered around how well and how purely

sins were conessed. Sins also were counted, which is justnot possible, and extremely hard to hear.

Te best orm o making private conession would bea short orm: Dear Brother, I come and want to lamentmy sin. I am a sinner beore God and man. I am especiallyburdened by this or that matter, etc. (It is up to you whether

you want to mention specic sins or not.) Ten, in conclu-sion, simply say: Tis is why I ask you to give me goodcomort and strengthen my soul, etc. In this way, private

PrIvateconFessIon?

We cannot despise

private conession.


78/96


conession would be no eort or labor, even though it isa precious work which no one but a pious Christian does.

From all this it is seen that it actually comes rom thedevil when the pope commands everyone to make privateconession and calls it a mortal sin, damning people to hell,i it is not done. However, it is not in our power to takeaway rom Gods Word or to add to it. For the Word is agit rom heaven, Jam. 1:17.

Since God has not commanded it, let no man commandit either. Even i I orced every last person to make private

conession, how many wouldthere be who would make itgladly, making it unneces-sary to orce them? Not onein twenty thousand. As or

the others, private conessionwould be no more than mocking and horribly blasphemingGod. For there the priest speaks a judgment in Gods stead

which would ail and not become true. For the unwillingperson does not like to make a conession and does notlike to hear absolution and does not believe it either. Tis

is not the ault o the priest, but the ault o the one mak-ing the conession: He is being deceptive and does not

wholeheartedly desire absolution.Now, God does not delight when his Word is used in

vain, Ex. 20:7. I you do not want to participate in privateconession, then dont do it. In act, leave all three kinds o

conession undone. Tey only pertain to pious people. Forother people, it is better to leave them undone. It wouldnot be right but damnable.

Since God has not

commanded it, let no

man command it either.


79/96

79

Up until the present time we have made conession onlyto serve the pope, not our souls. Tis was rightly called obe-

dience to the pope or the church. He received the benetand glory rom it, the others the damnation o their souls.So here you have a brie and clear overview concerning

both the Lords Supper and conession. Both should bedone willingly and with delight. Come o your own voli-tion and present your sin, receiving comort and strength.

Ten it is benecial and blessed.ell the children and simple people to pay attention to

these things, so that they would be taught and instructed.Do so with kind words instead o coercion. For privateconession, as has been said, also serves this purpose inparticular and should be in use or this reason. Amen.

1. In Luthers view, how did private conession develop?

2. Is private conession absolutely necessary?

3. So is private conession to be rejected?

4. Can only pastors orgive our sins in private conession?

5. What are the three benets o private conession?

6. Can anyone other than a pious Christian practice pri-

vate conession?

7. Why not?

8. Should Christians be orced to make private conession?

PrIvateconFessIon?


80/96


81/96

81

afterword

aFterword

Te Argument of the Writing at Hand and Current Applications

Te work at hand by Martin Luther (1483-1546) was pub-

lished originally in 1526, being based on three sermons whichthe Reormer preached at Wittenberg during the week beoreEaster o that year. Tey dealt with the Lords Supper, conessionand absolution. Due to medieval church laws, every Christian

was obligated to go to conession and to the Lords Supper atleast once every year. Tis was to be done during that time othe church year when Christ had instituted the Lords Supperon the night beore his crucixion. Even though the Lutheranreormation did away with this unscriptural church law, it isreasonable to assume that more people than usual would at-tend private conession and the Lords Supper at that time.Luther, thereore, preached on these two important topics othe Christian aith at that time.

1. On the Lords Supper

At the beginning o this booklet, Luther notes that a changein emphasis in his preaching and teaching on the Lords Supper

was necessary. Up to 1526, he had ocused on how to use theLords Supper properly by aith in the gospel as this sacrament

is, along with the preached gospel and baptism, a orm o thegospel. Tis was done against the teaching then held by most,namely, that the Lords Supper is a good work o the Christianand o the church which is oered to God like a sacrice in


82/96


order to reap certain benets rom it or onesel and others.Te main benet to be derived rom this sacricing o the

mass as it was called, was the orgiveness o temporal punish-

ment or the sins o onesel and others. Te idea behind this wasthat while Christs death providedorgiveness or ones guilt, thesinner himsel was responsible or atoning or the punishmentdue or his sins. Attending and paying or masses was a maintool to pay or this punishment. It could be credited even tothose believed to be in purgatory, that is, in a place where theremaining punishment or the sins o those who are heaven-bound was to be paid.

Because it was understood to be a sacrice oered to God, itwas taught that those coming to the sacrament had to be without(unconessed) sin so that their work and prayer might be accept-able to God. Yet as Luther pointed out based on Gods Word,

worthy participation in the sacrament consisted in recognizingones unworthiness and sinulness. Te sacrament, as well as theother orms o the gospel, are or the weak and sinul, not orthe sinless who do not need the physician.

All Protestant reormers o the 16th century were agreed intheir stance against the sacrice o the mass. However, as earlyas 1524, this united ront was shattered when one o Luthersormer ellow proessors in Wittenberg, Andreas Karlstadt

(1486-1541), published several treatises on the Lords Supper. Inthese writings, he denied that communicants receive more thanbread and wine in the Lords Supper. Christs body and blood

were, thus, no longer believed to be present in the consecratedbread and wine. Tis stance was embraced by the then leadingreormer o Switzerland, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531).

Because these ideas had caused some conusion among the

laity, Luther addressed this issue in the sermons at hand. Hewrites them chiey against the alse teachings o those whomhe calls anatics (German: Schwrmer or Schwarmgeister)because he puts them into the broad class o teachers who,


83/96

83

disregarding the external Word, are unable to arrive at certaintyabout anything spiritual; yet at the same time, they also wildlyutter to and ro (schwrmen) in their opinions. Tey either

expect (new) direct revelations o the Spirit or simply subjectthe interpretation o the Word to their own spirit.

However, Luther does not leave out a rearmation o hisearlier teachings against the papal theologians. Against the lat-ter he zeroes in on the hearts aith in the promise as opposedto mans own works and preparations. Against the ormer heemphasizes what is outside o man: Te object o aith that isbelieved by the heart (the presence o Christs body and bloodin the sacraments bread and wine).

Up to this point in time, the teaching o this presence hadremained largely unchallenged in the Church. Tis is why Lutherat rst did not think it necessary to deend it. Consequently, hisearly writings on the issue contain only a ew remarks about theessence o the sacrament. However, now that it was being chal-lenged, even by highly respected preachers, he was orced topick up his pen to do his duty as a pastor, doctor, and proessoro the Church in deense o Christs sacrament.

Te point o departure or Luthers argument is not the pre-vious consensus o the Church in the matter but Christs ownwords o institution, as they are recorded in Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and St. Paul. Even i, as in this case, the consensus o thepost-apostolic Church agreed with the genuine meaning o thesewords, the oundation remained Gods biblical Word. Only itcan establish articles o aith. Only it can be the touchstonethat proves what has been taught by the Church later on to betrue or alse. Tis basic approach was uncontroversial betweenLuther and his ellow Protestant reormers, with whom he would

disagree on the true meaning o Christs words.However, Luther did not regard this disagreement to be aminor matter that could be overlooked in view o some agree-ment on the inspiration o Scripture or even on the gospel itsel.

aFterword


84/96


Deviating rom the Word o God by changing the originalmeaning o Christs words is the work o the devil, as Lutherasserts. It is counter to the oolishness o the gospel willed

by Gods wisdom to humble mans allen reason and wisdom.Instead o conorming their ideas to Gods clear Word, Lutheraccuses his opponents o conorming Gods Word to the ideaso their reason because it does not make sense to them howChrists real body and blood can possibly be in the sacramentsbread and wine.

Luther identies and answers the ollowing as the two maincounterarguments o the opposing party to the presence oChrists true body and blood in the sacrament: First, it is absurdthat Christs body and blood should be in the consecrated breadand wine o the Lords Supper. Second, it is not necessary thatChrists body and blood are in the consecrated bread and wineo the Lords Supper.

In response to the rst argument, Luther points out thatmaking mans reason the chie criterion in this way not onlydestroys the incarnation o Gods Son but also all creation,

wonder-lled as it is. What is more, clinging to a rationalisticunderstanding o both the ascension o Christ and his sitting atthe right hand o the Father which locks Christ up in a locallyunderstood heaven, the opponents ail to grasp the true scrip-

tural meaning o these realities and the power o Gods Word:As the gospel-word preaches the true Christ in his two naturesinto the believers heart, so the words o institution consecrateChrists true body and blood into the sacraments bread and

wine. For, as Luther careully distinguishes the various modeso presence applicable to the divine-human Savior, Christ, evenas he is present everywhere with both o his natures, has made

himsel available or us in his Word and sacraments, to be inthe hearts o believers even in dungeons and death.In response to the second argument, Luther again demon-

strates that little i anything o the biblical gospel will remain


85/96

85

i it is applied consistently: Was it really necessary that GodsSon became man, was born o a virgin, and died on the cross?Could God not have saved the world by some almighty decree,

without the shedding o his Sons blood? Arent we justied byaith alone? Why does God sustain our bodies by bread, whynot with his mere Word? Why the Lords Supper, why not theLords Straw?

In reply to these probing questions, Luther does not developa grand theory that explains the true reasons behind all this.He simply directs all Christians to Gods plain Word as theirsae cradle: It tells them what God did and does. Childlike aithbelieves that it is necessary that God did that and does this, eveni it does not understand. God knows best. Tis is true or theLords Supper as well as or the other deeds o God. Tereore,the plain words o institution occupy the central place in Lu-thers writings on the Lords Supper, which is true also or histwo catechisms.

Luther goes on to uncover that the papal theologians andthe new deniers o the presence o Christs body and blood inthe sacraments bread and wine have something in common:Both deny the proper use and benet o the sacrament. Whilethe ormer teach that it is mans work contributing to manssalvation, the latter teach that it oers no more than a preach-

ing o the gospel. Yet Luther also oering a basic rationaleor the practice o closed communion points out: Preachingis a remembrance and proclamation o Christ s death or all incommon, believers and unbelievers alike; but the Lords Supperoers the gospels key git o orgiveness and with it, also lieand eternal salvation to the individual who is a well-instructedChristian already.

Luther concludes his discussion o the sacrament by pointingto the ruit o the sacrament in the lie o the Christian. Tesacrament is nothing other than the sum o the whole lie o theChristian: Faith believes the gospel the cross acquired and the

aFterword


86/96


sacrament today distributes and love serves ones neighbor inhumility. As the grains and grapes are crushed to orm a singleloa o bread or make a single batch o wine, so the believers and

their possessions lose their individuality and come together tohelp one another. Te Supper is or individuals so they cease to beindividuals: One in Christ and one with each other (Acts 4:32).

2. On Confession

Te concluding section discusses conession. Luther theredistinguishes three kinds o conession, two o which are com-manded by God, one o which is a human regulation. Te rsttwo are conessing ones sins to God and to the neighbor. Terst deals mostly with our original sin, our sinul nature, becauseo which there is nothing good in us; we deserve only Godspunishment. Te second deals with our actual sins, our sinulactions by which we oend against our neighbors.

Tese are twoold: First, everyone oends his or her neigh-bors by ailing to help them as we ought to do. As this ailureis shared by all Christians, the Lords Prayer contains a public,common conession o it beore one another. Second, we oendagainst our neighbor by particular sins. Here it is necessary tohumble onesel beore the oended neighbor and coness ones

sin, asking or orgiveness. Luther notes that it is so easy to speakthe right words that even hypocrites can recite them; but onlyChristians say the right words rom a right heart.

Te third kind o conession is private conession. Lutherregarded it as having developed later as a church custom outo the original two mandatory orms o conession. While it isthereore clearly not obligatory, it is n

How is Christ There - Scribd

Documents

Transcript of How is Christ There - Scribd