Full Text for CTM Miscellanea 21-8 (Text)

ConcoJl~i(] Theological Monthly AUGUST • 1950 CHIVE BRIEF STUDIES THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE LUTHERAN REJECTION OF CONSUBSTANTIATION It is well known that the Lutherans vigorously deny the charge pre­ferred against them by the Reformed, that in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper they teach a sort of modified Romanism, called consubstantia­tion. But less known perhaps is the issue involved in the Lutheran repudiation of consubstantiation and the weighty significance that at­taches to the issue. Lutherans of course have never objected to the term "consubstantia­tion" per se, though they have not regarded it as adequate to express what more fittingly they designate by Real Presence. From medieval scholasticism Lutheran dogmaticians have borrowed many theological terms which, while not per se adequate, were used by them to set forth thoughts and doctrines clearly taught in Scripture. Thus the term aseitas, describing God's being of Himself and independent of anyone or anyth~1Jg olltsicie Himself) VTa$ eftJ.ployed to stress the Scriptural t!'1O-lth that God from all eternity is forever of and in Himself, there being no creative cause outside the divine, eternal Creative Cause. The term is subject to debate, but not the Scripture doctrine which it declares. Even the expression trinitas did not escape criticism, and none other than Luther remarked that it does not "sound good" (koestlich lauten; d. Pieper, Christl. Dogm., I, 495). Nevertheless, both Luther and the Lutheran dogmaticians used trinitas no less than the far more inadequate term Dreifaltigkeit. So also the Lutheran dogmaticians did not object to the term "consubstantiation," provided it was understood in the sense of Real Presence. The question was therefore not one of ter­minology, but of theology. The Reformed themselves have sensed this. Charles Hodge, for example, sums up the matter very nicely in his Systematic Theology. He writes: "This presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine has been generally expressed by non­Lutherans by the word consubstantiation, as distinguished from the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. The propriety of this word to express the doctrine of Luther is admitted by Philippi, if it be under­stood to mean, what in fact is meant by it when used by the Reformed (sic?}, 'das reale Zusammensein beider Substanzen,' i. e., the real coexist­ence of the two substances, the earthly and the heavenly. But Lutherans generally object to the word, because it is often used to express the 602 BRIEF STUDIES 603 idea of the mixing [of the] two substances so as to form a third, or the local inclusion of the one substance by the other." (VoL HI, 672.) Hodge obviously is wrong when he says that by the term "consub­stantiation" there was usually understood no more than the "real co­existence of the two substances." But he is right in stating that the Lutherans did not object so much to the term as rather to the implica­tion of the term, namely, that in the Holy Supper the earthly and the heavenly elements, according to Lutheran doctrine, are mingled into a new substance, or that there is a local inclusion of Christ's body in the consecrated bread (impanation). The attitude or the Lutherans to the term "consubstantiation" is well shown in Meusel's Kirchliches Handlexikon: "It would not be wrong per se to call the doctrine of the Lutheran Church regarding the presence of the body and blood of Christ and their connection with the earthly elements of the bread and wine a consubstantiation over against the Romish transubstantiation, as also Philippi (Kirchl. Glatt­beml., Bd. V, 2, S, 356) acknowledges. {lIn fact:; it [the J~, ¬aJ Prese.nce] has indeed often been so called; for while the Romish Church lets the substance of the bread and wine pass into and become transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, the Lutheran Church teaches that the substance of the earthly elements remains, and there is united with it the substance of the body and blood of Christ in a mysterious, unique manner. "Nevertheless, our older Lutheran dogmaticians deny that they af­firmed a consubstantiation in the Lord's Supper, namely, in the sense in which the Reformed understood this expression and used it in criticism of the Lutheran conception of the doctrine. They understood by it either the physical commingling of two substances into a third (in unam massam physicam coalitio) or a local inclusion of the one in the other (d. impa1zatio). "The Lutheran Church rejects both, when it teaches a real presence of the body and blood of Christ and then a distribution 'in, with, and under the bread and wine.' According to it [the Lutheran Church}, the union of the heavenly and earthly matter in the Lord's Supper is like the union of the Holy Spirit with the water of Baptism, or like the relation of the angel to a flame of fire, or that of the Holy Ghost to a dove. 'I would not know how to call it' (Luther) ... John Gerhard (Loci Theol., edid. Preuss, Vol. V, p. 66): 'We declare not an absence ( apousian) J not an inclusion (enousian) J not a mingling (syno1Jsian), not a transubstantiation (metousian) J but a presence (parousian) of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.''' 604 BRIEF STUDIES A comprehensive study of the history of the controversy on the Real Presence seems to show that originally the Reformed, when charging the Lutherans with teaching consubstantiation, accused them, directly or by implication, that they were advocating either a "commixture of substances so as to form a third" or a local inclusion of Christ's body in the consecrated host. Later Reformed writers took notice of the rejection of the term "consubstantiation" by the Lutherans and admitted that they taught neither a commingling of substances nor an impanation. But they then applied the term "consubstantiation" to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Prese~ce, and so today Reformed and some Lutheran writers often ascribe to Lutheranism the teaching of consubstantiation, this of course in the sense of the "in, with, and under." The majority of Lutherans, however, do not desire to have their doc­trine of the Real Presence represented as consubstantiation, and so they reject the term since historically it has a connotation that identifies it in a general way with Romanism. That is the issue involved in the Lutheran controversy with the F .. efotrned: the Lutheran realiJ {lraeJerltia does not mean a mingling of the body with the bread and of the wine with the blood, just as little as it means a conversion of the bread into the body and of the wine into the blood of Christ. In other words, the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is not merely a modification of the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, but it is a renunciation of that doctrine in toto, just as it is a total renunciation of Calvinistic symbolism in the Eucharist. Viewed in this way, the repudiation of con­substantiation is a shibboleth of true Lutheranism so far as the Eucharist is concerned. In his Biblical Dogmatics Prof. A. G. Voigt puts the matter very perspicuously when he writes: "In the Lord's Supper there is an earthly material, bread and wine, and a celestial material, the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation identifies these. That of con­substantiation, or impanation, confuses and mingles them. The symbolic doctrine [Calvinism} separates them. The Lutheran doctrine of the real presence unites them. The Lutheran Church holds to a sacramental union, unique in its nature, of the terrestrial and the celestial, but only in the sacramental act of eating and drinking" (p. 214 f.) . Perhaps no one has contributed more toward the rejection of con­substantiation in the Lutheran Church in America than Charles Porter­field Krauth, who, in his great polemical work The Conservative Ref­ormation and Its Theology, has treated the subject at great length and with convincing clarity and force. The Lutheran student of dogma will BRIEF STUDIES 605 do well to study his enlightening chapters on the subject, with grateful recognition of the profound theological learning which was put into this remarkable study. The value of proper theological terms is apparent. Systematic the­ology cannot do without them. Nevertheless, there lurks a danger in the very theological terminology which often proves itself so very serviceable. It is subject not only to misunderstanding, but also to abuse. Terms may be used to label a doctrine, or the teacher of a doctrine, in such a way that it is impossible to escape the charge of heresy, even if the doctrine or the teacher of a doctrine is far from heretical. If, for example, a Lutheran is branded a consubstantiationist for teaching the Real Presence, or if he is called a liberal for departing from a tradition, or if he is denominated a unionist for doing something which is interpreted as unionism, even thollgh the Christian truth is confessed, then theological terms may become terrific liabilities. Con­substantiation has proved itself a liability to Lutheranism many a time. It is also for this reason that Lutherans should disavow ito In many respects Article VII of the Formula of Concord is perhaps the grandest of all the twelve articles of that great historical and doc­trinal document. One of its undeniable virtues is the fact thtit it re-duces theological terminology to a minimum, teaching the profoundest truths in simple, lucid language. The clearest statement of the P,,-cal Presence, directed against both the Reformed and the Romanist errors, is no doubt found toward the close of the Seventh Article. In the homely, precious words with which the Epitome closes its presentation of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper there is a grandeur of expression and an inherent persuasiveness which is far more effective than all scholastic parlance that ever has been deposited in a systematic dis­quisition. We refer to the stirring, appealing words: "We maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone and revealed in the Word alone" (Art. VII, Epit., 42). In this unpretentious paragraph there is summarized the whole issue involved in the controversy between the Lutherans and the Reformed on the Real Presence, and this in language which does not only do justice to the thesis, but also does away with the antithesis. ]. T. MUELLER 606 BRIEF STUDIES 'A'A'A' IN MATTHEW 20:23 AND MARK 10:40 Almost all interoretations and translations of Matthew 20: 23 and ~ Mark 10:40 take a'A'A' as the adversative conjunction meaning "but" and as introducing an independent clause -which isn't there. Mark 10:40 (A. V.): "But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give; but it shall be given to tbem for whom it is prepared"; the italics are those of the Authorized Version. The text is broken in two by a semicolon, which also is not there and which makes the preceding statement more absolute than it was intended to be: Jesus cannot give the places of honor to anyone. If we omit everything which the translation adds, we get the opposite meaning: Jesus does assign the piaces of honor. The italics should have given us scruples long ago, however unanimous commentators and translators have been in their support of the italicized words. Can we legitimately add the words "it shall be given to them"? To answer that question, I have with the help of Hatch and Redpath's concordance checked each of the 556 cases of a'AAa. in Rahlfs' Septua­gint and with IVIoulton and Geden~s cODcordance each of the 636 cases in the New Testament. There are in the Old Testament 110 instances and in the New Testament 114 instances where aA1u, meaning "but," "however," introduces only words or phrases. But that which has to be supplied to complete the meaning in these 224 instances is regularly taken from the rest of the sentence. I could find no case where the supplementary idea is so freely added from the imagination as has been done in Matt.20:23 and Mark 10:40; the common assumption that the Father assigns the places of honor ought to be traceable to some point in the context, but at least in Mark's words the Father if not mentioned. In many of the a'AJ,.U passages some form of ELIlL has to be supplied (Is. 7:8; 5:25; 9:11,16,20; 10:4; 53:3; 63:16; Wisdom 16:12; Mark 13:7; Luke 5:38; 21:9; Rom. 5:15; 7:13; 9:16,32; 11:11; 14:20; 15:3,21; 1 Cor. 2:9; 8:7; 15:39,40,46; 2 Cor. 3:5; 5:12; 7:5; 8:13,19; Heb. 10:3), but adding EO"tLV to the words in Matthew and Mark does not solve their problem. In Mark 14: 36 we may supply YEVljO"E"taL, and in Mark 6:9 we may supply JtDQEVE