No. 16 You know, we Lutherans always stress the real presence. But why? What is the big deal? Isn�t the really important thing that Jesus gets very close to us in the Lord�s Supper, and everything else is speculation? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Well, Eric, that is a question that comes up quite a bit if you talk to people, especially from a Protestant or Evangelical background. The Lutherans, they insist on the real presence. And they have all of these terms: In, with and under. And it seems to be very theologically -- which I don't consider actually to be a bad thing -- or dogmatically -- which I also think is a good thing. But a lot of people don't share my enthusiasm for dogmatics. But is that just the invention of some people who had far too much time on their hands or not enough burning for the Lord so they went out and not reached the unreached but stuck to their desks and tried to find out things you can't find out. Well, again, we really have to look at the basis of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper to find out is that actually something we should insist on? Or is it a speculation? That is we have to look at the institution to answer that question. When we talk about the Lord's Supper, we have to realize that the Lord's Supper originated in the meal that Christ held in the upper room in the night before he was betrayed. That's the basis and the origin. There he gave to his disciples the mandate to keep a certain meal with a promise of the presence of his body and blood. And that they would receive forgiveness of sins in the celebration of this meal. Until the rise of higher criticism, there was no question that the Lord's Supper comes from this last meal of Jesus with his disciples. Higher criticism eroded that certainty. In a lot of modern New Testament scholarship, there is a skepticism that claims that we cannot know what Jesus did in that night. John ***Royman, a theologian of the ELCA said: Scholarship in recent years has loosened our hold on the upper room as the origin for the Lord's Supper in Christianity at least as a single direct line cause. All the records agree that something occurred there. But historians cannot agree on which version is primary at certain points or on what Jesus said. Although doubts are cast on a New Testament verbatim of what his words were on the night he was betrayed, firmer links are established to other portions of Jesus' ministry. With church the supper expresses what was genuinely characteristic of Jesus in eschatology, Old Testament backgrounds and assertion of God's good news. But it does so after Friday and Easter. You see here a shift. The basis for the Lord's Supper is no longer what Jesus said and did in the night he was betrayed. But it is more the meals he had before with the disciples and the sinners. Or with his disciples after Easter. Now, there certainly are connections between the Lord's Supper and these meals. But if the meal fellowship of Jesus with the sinners or with his apostles is really the dominant theme, then of course the Lord's Supper is all about well, that Jesus is here and that he is close to me. And then our Evangelical friends would be right. That's the basis and that's the decisive point. It's not wrong, of course in the Lord's Supper. Jesus is close to us and he comes near to us. But that's not what the Words of Institution actually say. And when the Words of Institution are devalued, then you come to this view of the Lord's Supper which reduces it in a way to a personal experience. So we have to hold fast in our discussion of the Lord's Supper that the bases are the Words of Institution. This is the primary text that tells us what the Lord's Supper is. All other texts are really supportive of that. But they cannot define what the Lord's Supper is. Also, what the Lord's Supper is cannot be defined by the question: Was the Lord's Supper -- was the meal of institution the Passover meal or not? Some people get all caught up and say it's the new Passover. And you have all of these parallels. Yes, there are parallels there. But on the other hand, there is something -- and that's the decisive thing -- in the institution that you do not find in the Passover. And that is: This is my body. This is the New Testament in my blood. And that's the decisive difference. You don't find that in the Passover. So it is important to hold fast to the Words of Institution. To stick to these words. If you read Luther or ***Kemness, that's what they do over and over again. They say: Let's look at what Christ himself has said. It seems to be pretty simple actually. Not very sophisticated. But you know, sometimes you have to be very simple. And to be sophisticated is not being better but is actually some departure from the simple words. If we look at the Words of Institution, in church history there have been proposed many interpretations. But there really is no cogent reason to depart from the simple and literal meaning of the words that Christ is distributing his body and blood. In the time of the Reformation this question was extensively debated. First between Luther and Carlstadt, his former colleague. Carlstadt had a rather bizarre interpretation of the Words of Institution. Because he said, "Well, when Jesus said, 'This is my body,' his finger was pointing to his body. 'This is my body.' And also this is -- 'this is the New Testament in my blood.'" So it has nothing to do with the elements. Now, Carlstadt's interpretation was not repeated by anybody I know of in later years. It was just too bizarre. How do you know that? I mean, that's just conjecture. There are more followers of other opponents, especially Zwingli. Zwingli said, "Well, this is my body. This is the New Testament in my blood." That goes against all logic and reason. And therefore we have to interpret it in a non-literal way. We have to say: This signifies my body. This signifies the New Testament in my cup. So this is -- that the New Testament becomes a symbolic reminder of Christ's body and blood. Zwingli then really changed the character of the Lord's Supper. That the Lord's Supper is not a sacrament. It is not something which God does and through which God imparts something to us. But it is kind of an object lesson. That's what it really is. We take these things. We eat and drink them. And thereby we remind ourselves and we show thereby that we are Christians. It becomes a confession of faith. It's like the flag. The Lord's Supper is the flag of the Christian people. By attending the Lord's Supper, it's like rallying around the flag to show that you belong to it. You find this kind of a Zwinglian understanding in quite a few Evangelical or Baptist churches where the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a remembrance meal. After Luther's death, the main opponent on the question of the Lord's Supper was John Calvin. Calvin had a different doctrine on the Lord's Supper. He tried to mediate between Luther and Zwingli. Calvin said: In a way you can call bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. They are the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, that is in that celebration. They serve as kind of tokens or signs of the body and blood of Christ. But the body and blood of Christ are not on earth. They are up in heaven. Because Christ ascended into heaven. And he sits at the right hand of God the Father. So he is up there. Now, in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, what happens is that everybody eats bread and wine. And those who believe, they, in faith, through the Holy Spirit, their soul, so to speak, goes up into heaven and there in a spiritual way eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ. So you have this parallelism. You have an earthly eating and drinking of the elements. And connected with that or parallel to it is a spiritual eating up in heaven through the Holy Spirit in faith. So some Calvinists can use language that reminds us pretty much of Lutheranism. But they will strongly deny that this bread and this wine are the body and blood of Christ. Against all of these attempts of a non-literal understanding of the Words of Institution, the Lutherans maintained there is no necessity to depart from the literal understanding of the Words of Institution. There is no necessity because it is against reason. That's one of the arguments. Zwingli and Calvin and later Calvinists said: The body of Christ is a circumscript entity. If you look at the human body, it is circumscripta. It has a place in space. In German we say you can't dance at two wedding receptions at the same time. And sometimes of course you would like to be at two places at the same time. But unfortunately we can't because we are bodily creatures. So Calvin and before him Zwingli say it's the same thing with Jesus. He ascended. That is he went away according to his humanity. He's now at the right hand of God. And if he's at the right hand of God, he can't be at the celebration of the Lord's Supper in his body. Against that the Lutherans say: No. What you say is not right. Because Christ's humanity and his divinity are so united that wherever there is Jesus in his divine nature, there also is Jesus in his human nature. So when Jesus says, "Lo, I am with you at all times," it doesn't mean "Oh, I'm only here according to my divine nature but I have to part my human nature up at the right hand of God because unfortunately I can't bring it with me." They would have a separation of the two natures. But rather the human nature is beyond the limits of space and time due to the fact that it is united with the divine nature. So the Lutherans spoke about the omnipresence of the human nature. And the opponents called that ubiquity, which the Lutherans did not like that term. But sometimes it's also used by Lutherans. So the Lutherans said it is not against an article of faith, the ascension. And it is not against reason to say that Christ is present here. Of course it's a miracle. And we don't understand how it can be. But well, lo and behold, there are many things we don't understand how they can be. But nevertheless, we believe that they are. So also in the Lord's Supper that we can figure out how is that possible just shows the limitations of our human understanding. But not limitation of God's power. Another thing that was debated between Lutherans and Reformed at the time of the Reformation is the question: Who receives the body and blood of the Lord? As said before, Calvin would say: Well, the believers go up into heaven through the Holy Spirit and they sacramentally or spiritually eat the body and blood of Christ. But the unbelievers get only bread and wine. Now, the Lutherans said: No. Christ makes himself accessible. It's like with the Word of God. If you open the Word of God, if you hear the Word of God, there the Spirit is. It's not that maybe the Spirit is there, hopefully the Spirit is there. And the same thing in the Lord's Supper. Bread and wine are the body and blood for Christ for everybody. So everybody receives the body and blood of Christ. Now, if you don't believe, you have no benefit of it. Actually you receive it to your damnation. That's why it does matter who receives the body and blood of Christ. You can't simply throw it out and hope that "Well, it will work." No. It's a matter of life and death. If you encounter God in unbelief, then it will serve to your damnation. So everybody receives the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But the reception of the body and blood of Christ is not always salvific. It is not always beneficial. Only in faith. Therefore, again, the real presence stands on its own. Lutherans like the term real presence. It's a good term. On the other hand, it can be misunderstood. Because when you talk about the real presence, many people understand that in a sense is: Well, Jesus is really present. Well, real presence when Lutherans use it is really shorthand for the real presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. That's pretty long. That's why we simply say real presence. But we have to remember it's the real presence of the body and blood of Christ. Not simply the real presence of Christ. Because of course Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. Hey, he's present everywhere. So it would be kind of strange that he decides "Well, I'm not present at the Lord's Supper." So that doesn't say much. The specific thing about the Lord's Supper is that his body and blood are present. Not only that they are present but they are present for us so that we can receive them. So real presence of the body and blood of Christ, that is not derived from any other article of faith. But it stands simply on the Words of Institution. That's why these questions "Well, is it really necessary that Christ's body and blood are there?" is idle. It's a stupid question. Because the fact is based on the word of Christ, not on some constructed reality. Now, as theologians of course afterwards we ask: What does it mean? What is the benefit? Why is that? And we can find some reasons even though the New Testament doesn't tell us exactly or a whole lot about that. But we can find good reasons why it makes sense. But these reasons are not why it is there. It is there because Christ says so. And then we say: Okay. What does that mean that Christ actually gives us his body and blood? But let's talk a little bit about another one -- one other little thing. And that is in the Words of Institution we heard that "This is the New Testament in my blood." The New Testament or the new covenant, a Greek work ***deathaca can be translated in both ways was promised in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:31. The deathaca is a covenant. But as soon as you say that, you get a little bit apprehensive. Because again that's a word the Reformed loved. They always talk about the covenant. Luther translated consistently deathaca in the New Testament as testament. Covenant has the disadvantage that it has the connotation of a mutual contract. It's kind of well, God gives the covenant as "Hey, I'll give you blessings but then you have to do something." It's almost like the covenant the Puritans made in Massachusetts. "Yeah, we will be a godly people. And then God will bless us." Even in the Old Testament, a covenant is not quite that. A covenant is something that God gives to you. Now, he expects you to live according to covenant. But it is not a contract between two partners. You are never God's partner. That's presumptuous and audacious. So when we talk about the New Testament or the new covenant, this is something that God gives to us. And the term testament brings out the fact that somebody has to die. It's an inheritance. Luther used the term testament for the Lord's Supper a lot in the years around 1520 to 1525. And he pointed that out that if the Lord's Supper is a testament, then it is something that we receive. We don't do it. That was against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. When Jesus says, "This is the New Testament," that doesn't mean "Oh, now you have to do all of these things." If you are the heir, you don't do anything. You just inherit. You just receive the inheritance that is bequeathed to you. So what happens in the Lord's Supper is that Christ bequeaths something to us. What does he bequeath? Well, what is the New Testament? It is that God forgives us our sins. That he makes us his heir. That he gives us eternal life and the kingdom of heaven. That's what we receive in the Lord's Supper. So the question "Is it really important?" Cannot be answered out of the blue. The question is: What is Jesus actually saying? And did he mean what he's saying? And before we answer that question, we cannot really talk about "Well, is it really important or should we be so insistent?" If Jesus really meant that this is his body and blood, then this is not idle speculation. And the Lutherans are not being counters by insisting on that but rather they simply follow the words that Christ said. And who can dispense us from following the Words of Institution? A lot of people who have difficulties with the Words of Institution claim for themselves that they are Bible believing Christians. Well, here is one of the test points: Do you really believe what the Bible says or do you say, "Well it can't be. I can't imagine that" instead of keeping your reason captive to the words of Christ and simply believe his words and trust that what he says, he can do? That's the real question. A symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper really empties it. And we see that in the Reformed churches and in the Evangelical churches. The Lord's Supper degenerates into an object lesson. It loses its character as a sacrament. And it's really superfluous. Whereas if it's a sacrament, that is Christ actually does something for us and gives something to use and he gives us his body and blood as a pledge for the promise of the forgiveness of sins, he comes to us verily with his bodily existence. Then the Lord's Supper is important. And unique. And it also shows that his humanity that is united with his divinity is and remains the mediator of God's grace. In Calvin the humanity of Christ has done his service after the ascension and is now part for eternity at the right hand of God. And we really deal with a disembodied Christ. The Lord's Supper makes it very clear in every celebration we confess that, that the Christ we believe in, we trust in and who has saved us is the God-man. He is true God and true man. And that as humanity is still involved in our salvation, that his humanity is the vehicle through which we receive the promise of the forgiveness of sins, the fruits of his death on the cross. So the Lord's Supper serves as a very strong preaching also of the incarnation. And it's during significance. Whereas a Christianity without the Lord's Supper tends to become somewhat Gnostic or Christ degenerates either in a disembodied Spirit or in a -- just a great teacher that lives on through his morals.