The Presence of Christ's Body and Blood tn the Sacrament of the Altar According to Luther

13 Pages·2014·1.21 MB·English

CO:l\ CORDIA
THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY
The Presence of Christ's Body and Blood
in the Sacrament of rhe Altar According to Luther
NORMAN NAGEL
The Theology of Communism
MARTIN H. SCHARLEMANN
Thomas More and the Wittenberg Lutherans
CARL S. MEYER
Pietism: Classical and Modem - A Comparison
of Two Representative Descriptions
EGON W. GERDES
Homiletics
Brief Studies
Book Review
VolXXXIX April 1968 No.4
The Presence of Christ's Body and Blood
tn the Sacrament of the Altar
According to Luther
NORMAN NAGEL
T
he great feature of the 450th celebra ters has been made clear by Sasse and
tion of the Reformation is the extent Sommerlath.1 They are of very consider
of ecumenical participation. It might al able ecumenical importance. Misunder
most be said that our Roman Catholic standings here may obscure the doctrine
brethren have taken over the show. Lu of the presence of Christ's body and blood
ther studies provide an index of the and have it appear as entangled in a by
growth in mutual understanding, but what gone system of thought. This is ecumeni
help is Luther at the heart of Christian cally most harmful, for the presence of the
unity, the doctrine of the Lord's Supper? body and blood of Christ in the Sacra
Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, ment of the Altar is the place where the
it is said, is so enmeshed in the philosophy divisions of Christendom can alone be
and scholasticism of the late Middle Ages finally healed.
that it is no longer viable in our day. To The apostolic and catholic doctrine of
test this assertion, we shall go to what the presence of Christ's body and blood
some regard as the worst incident of this Luther never questioned, although he ad
enmeshedness: Luther's use of the Nom mits that he once thought of the practical
inalist categories of presence - circum advantage of making a common front
scriptive, definitive, and repletive. These against the pope with those who, as some
are adduced in the Large Confession of thing of a novelty in Christian tradition,2
1528. We shall note where they are raised
and the function they are intended to 1 Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body (Minne
serve and shall ask to what extent they apolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1959),
pp. 134 ft. Ernst Sommerlath, "Luthers Lehre
are necessary for his doctrine of the Lord's
von der Realprasenz im Abendmahl im Zu
Supper. This may also shed some light on sammenhang mit seiner Gottesanschauung (nach
the question whether the presence of den Abendmahlsschriften von 1527-1528),"
Das Erbe Martin Luthers, Festschrift fiir Ludwig
Christ's body and blood rests on the ubiq
lhmels, ed. R. Jelke (Leipzig: Diirffiing &
uity of Christ's human nature. Franke, 1928), pp. 320-38.
That these are no mere academic mat- 2 Martin Luther, "Das diese WaIt Christi
'Das ist mein leib' noch fest stehen, wider die
Schwarmgeister" [1527]. D. Martin Luthers
Norman Nagel is preceptor of Westfield
Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar:
House, Cambridge. He served as guest pro
Hermann Biihlaus N achfolger, 1901 ), XXIII,
fessor at Valparaiso University, Valparaiso,
129, 4. Hereafter cited as WA. Cpo Luther's
Ind., during part of the 1967-68 academic Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961),
year. As this article was being put into gal 38, 54. Hereafter cited as AE. Cf. Ernst Kin
leys, word was received that Dr. Nagel had der, "Zur Sakramentslehre," Neue Zeitschri/t
accepted the appointment as Dean of the fUr Systematische Theologie, III (1961), 165,
Chapel at Valparaiso University. n.41.
228 THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD
denied the presence of Christ's body and establish the sacramental presence. Christ's
blood. It is from this body that the church presence everywhere is not yet His gra
is the body of Christ and hence arises the cious bestowing presence "for you" ( dir
crucial ecumenical importance of this doc da}.5 Luther expounds the Right Hand
trine.3 to demolish Zwingli's insistence on only
Luther's great service to Christendom a circumscriptive presence as possible for
here was to confess the fact and revere the the body of Christ. He is in fine fettle
mystery of the presence of the body and when he depicts the enthusiasts with lan
blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the tern and skeleton key climbing stealthily
Altar and to resist any categories and prin at midnight into heaven and there hunt
ciples under and into which that fact ing through all the drawers and cupboards
and mystery might be squashed. Yet is where God keeps His power, but finding
he not guilty of this very thing when he none that weighs heavy enough on their
adduces the Occamist categories of pres precise little scales to manage a body simul
ence? taneously in heaven and the Supper.6 His
To be fair, however, we ought not to major omnipresence excursion he, how
begin at that place but approach it by way ever, calls uberfitts.7 The dam is full and
Jf w~~__ went :_ _ ~Jre. ::. ... ~ler v. ., _ ~lot a the water that flows ove ~_ not ~ ____ ssary
man contbH co say ,hings once - he was to keep it full, and yet this water plainly
too much the preacher and pastor for that flows from the dam.
- and least of all in what Sasse calls the The case against Zwingli's "right hand"
Great Controversy, even though his first is drawn from what Scripture says about
statement is often his best. Peters points God's right hand. God's power is every
to the Sermon 01Z the Body and Blood of where creating and preserving. Where
Christ against the Enthusiasts (1526) as His right hand is at work, He must be
the example of this in the great contro present, and where He is, Christ is, and
versy.4 Here omnipresence comes as the apart from Christ there is no God. Luther
last of seven points, and Luther is not in quotes "Heaven is my throne and the earth
the habit of leaving his best point until is my footstool" and mocks the Zwinglian
last. spatial limitation and expansion: "Come
In That These Words (1527) the argu on, guess what happens to his head, arms,
ment revolves around the Verba and the chest, and body when he :fills the earth
Right Hand. The Right Hand does not with his feet and heaven with his legs?" 8
"Wherever and whatever God's right
3 Cf. The discussion of Chrysostom, Cyril
of Jerusalem, and Cyril of Alexandria in Werner 5 WA XXIII, 151, 14; AE 37, 68.
Elert, Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in
der alten Kirche hauptsachlich des Ostens (Ber 6 WA XXIII, 119, 1; AE 37, 48.
lin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1954), pp.27 to 7 WA XXIII, 139,24; AE 37, 61.
30; also Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the
8 WA XXIII, 131, 18-135,33; d. AE 37,
First Four Centuries (St. Louis: Concordia,
56-59. Occam would seem to qualify for simi
1966), pp.27-30.
lar mockery. Cf. Erwin Iserloh, Gnade und Eu
4 Albrecht Peters, "Luthers Turmerlebnis," charistie in der philosophischen T heologie des
Neue Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Theologie, III Wilhelm von Ockham (Wiesbaden: Steiner,
(1961),212. 1956), p.206.
THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD 229
hand is and is called, there is Christ, the the Real Presence. It posits too much and
Son of man." 9 Luther, however, is not con has in it indeed the danger of flattening
tending for infinite attributes. His op the peculiar character of the presence of
ponents draw him into discussion of omni the body and blood of Christ. Luther flows
presence, but his soteriology pulls him back on so voluminously beyond what might be
home to the certain and specific place as thought necessary to establish the sacra
sured by Christ's words. mental presence that this is quite dearly
Though he is in your bread, you will not not the point for which he is seeking a
grasp him there unless he binds himself foundation. This stands whether Zwingli
there for you and appoints a particular can demolish ubiquity or not,u His home
table with his word where you are to eat ground is the Verba, and here he feels con
him. This he has done in the Sacrament fident no attack can score against him, but
saying, "This is my body," as if to say,
he does go off to rout his opponents on
"You may also eat bread at home where
their ground. He borrows their bat to pun
I am indeed present enough, but this is
ish them with,12 but it is not really their
the true 'touto,' "This is my body." When
kind of cricket at all, nor his either.
you eat this, you eat my body and no
The Swiss would allow only one way
where else. Why? Because here I would
fasten myself with my word so that you for Christ's body to be present. This would
are not to flutter about and desire to seek permit it to be in only one circumscribed
me all over the place - where I am. That place13 and so would catastrophically sun
would be too much for you. You are too der the Personal Union. Their local Right
small for grasping me there without my Hand Luther rejects for an omnipresent
word.lO one of God's power that is at work every
That Word and that bestowing presence where, creating and sustaining all things.H
are what matter. God binds Himself to He insists that Christ has more than one
our humanity, wine and bread through His way of being present. He gives examples
Word and words to give Himself and His zum uberflus, and if these are disallowed,
salvation into our grasp. Luther's basis God doubtless has yet other ways.15 He is
for this is simply the fact that this is what not to be fenced in.16
God has done and does. He will therefore However, Zwingli was not intent on
allow nothing that He sees as a diminution fencing God in but rather Christ's human
or disruption of this. The heart of His
concern is not some notional omnipresence, 11 WA XXVI, 319, 4; AE 37,208 f.
but what God has said, done, and gives. 12 Actually Goliath's sword. W A XXIII,
143,25; AE 37, 62.
Here is the contingency of what God does
and says which cannot survive in any 13 WA XXIII, 133,23; AE 37, 57.
philosophical system. 14 WA XXIII, 133, 21; 135, 12; 143, 10;
XXVI, 339, 25; 333, 20; AE 37, 57, 58, 63,
Why then ubiquity? The Real Presence 227 f., 219.
does not need it, nor is it Luther's basis for 15 W A XXIII, 139, 4; 145, 33; XXVI, 319,
7; 329, 34; 331, 30; 336, 28; 338, 9; AE 37,
9 WA XXIII, 145,1; d. AE 37, 64. 61,65,208 f., 216, 217, 223, 226.
10 WA XXIII, 151,29; AE 37, 69. Cf. WA 16 W A XXIII, 152, 15; XXVI, 339, 36; AE
XX, 400, 25; XXXI/I, 223, 28. 37,69 f., 228.
230 THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD
body. The whole crux is that he could Fourth, God has many a way and manner
think of this separately while Luther could of being in a place, and not only that
not. It is impossible, Zwingli affirmed, for single way which the enthusiasts pullout
this body to be in more than one place. of their hats and which the philosophers
Luther expends much hot ink to show this term "local." The sophists22 are justified
possibility. But this does not provide a in speaking of three ways of being in a
foundation for the positive affirmation. place: local or circumscriptive, definitive,
For this Luther has to return home to the and repletive. Local presence is as wine
Verba. To them every notion and category in a barrel or straw in a sack or Jesus of
of ours must be brought into subjection. Nazareth in a boat. Here a body displaces
In the Large Confession the battle the amount of air required by its mass.
thunders over much the same country, and This can be measured and grasped. Defini
Luther, who is a poor strategist, allows his tive presence is when something is in a
opponents to choose the ground. Instead place but where there is no congruence
of staying dug in in the Verba he charges between it and the limits of space, as an
out against their various positions throw angel in a room, house, town, or even a
ing at them whatever he can lay his hands nutshell. Thus Christ rose through the
on. ! r lent bombardment .of their stone and passed through a door without
local Right dand he confesses that his
aim is not to prove Christ everywhere but 22 Occam, Super q1tat?!Or libros sententiamm
quaestiones, IV, q. 4C (London: Gregg, 1962).
in the Supper.17 The former does not
Quodlibet I, q. 4. De Sacramento Attmis, ed. T.
really belong here.1S We are now, at last, Bruce Birch (Burlington: Lutheran Literary
nearing the point where he picks up Board, 1930), pp.188-97.
Occam and throws him in, too. Biel, who is in substantial agreement with
Occam, quotes at length from this chapter.
He has just said for the umpteenth
Canonis Misse Expositio, ed. H. A. Oberman and
time that the words "This is my body" W. J. Courtenay (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1965),
say what they say.19 He will give ground II, 146. Collectorium, IB, d, x, q. 1, art. 2,
to no alloeosis, synecdoche, or trope.20 concl. 2. Biel clarifies his logic by establishing
the third category of repletive presence and so
Then he defines the position on which he has a definitive presence that, in contrast with
stands, and the order is significant.21 The Occam, is demarcated against repleti ve suffusion.
Friedrich Loofs finds in Occam a bent toward
first is this article of our faith that Jesus
a virtual presence. Leit/aden z?!m St?!dium de,.
Christ is essentially, naturally, truly, and Dogmengescbichte, 4th ed. (Halle: Niemeyer,
completely God and man in one insepa 1906), p.619. Cf. Heiko Oberman, The Har
vest 0/ Medieval Theology (Cambridge, Mass:
rable and undivided person. Second,
Harvard University Press, 1963), p.276. Ober
God's right hand is everywhere. Third, man and Courtenay, p. 158. Reinhold Seeberg,
there is no falsehood or lie in God's word. Lehrb?!ch der Dogmengeschichte, 5th ed.
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgemein
schaft, 1953), III, 789 f., IV/I, 471-75. Ru
17 WA XXVI, 318, 1; 329,34; AE 37, 207,
dolf Damerau, Die Abendmahlslehre des Nomi
216.
nalism?!s insbesondere die des Gabriel Biel
18 WA XXVI, 320,25; AE 37,210 (Giessen: Schmitz, 1963), pp.179-97. Al
19 WA XXVI, 325, 22; AE 37, 213. brecht Peters, Realprasenz (Berlin: Lutherisches
Verlagshaus, 1960), pp. 79-86. Sasse, pp. 155
20 WA XXVI, 326,26; AE 37, 214.
to 158. For Usingen see Otto Scheel, Martin Lu
21 WA XXVI, 326,29; AE 37, 214f. ther (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1917), I, 194 f.
THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD 231
displacing any stone or door.n This can are not changed from bread and wine
not be measured or grasped. This is the when Christ's body is in them. They are
way Christ's body is and can be in the measurably long and wide, but not He.
bread (WA XXVI, 329, 2), and yet He can The repletive presence can only be as
also show Himself tangibly wherever He cribed to God who fills all in all. This
wishes. The Easter stone and door re must be held by faith alone in the word.
mained stone and wood. Bread and wine Then a sort of analogy comes to Lu
ther's mind, and unfortunately it is not
23 Luther does not follow Occam's definition
the last. The sight of our eyes is present
of definitive presence. Quando aliquid est in loco
sic quod tatum est in toto et tatum est in quali to all places up to 20 miles and more.
bet parte, tunc per se et vere in loco diffmitive, H this is so, cannot God's power find a
sic est de quantitate corporis Christi sub illis
specie bus, igitur non est ibi per concomitantiam
personal union and excuses passages that sound
naturalem. Quoted by Iserloh, p.174, n. 1. Lu
like separation as due to merely logical distinc
ther follows a more general use of the term. E. g.
tions. While we must be as fair to Biel as to
Aquinas, Summa I, 52, 2c. Cf. Ludwig Schutz,
Luther and acknowledge that he also works as
Thomas-Lexikon (Paderborn: Schiiningh,
a devout servant of the church, this plea of
1881), p.91; 2d ed. (1895), p.450.
Damerau does not quite cover Lectio 46P, where
Occam's definition is vital to his argument,
the extra Calvinistiwm is stated. Oberman and
which intends to demonstrate a metaphysical
miracle. L111'1,,,,,,"'(' ~l1("~r\C'Pc nn thp nthPr hand, is Cis onuortte nwahyi,t ep .w2i0ll6 .n oAt nrdea lmlyi lkw atshha.t has color but
to remove obstacles from taking Christ's words
as saying what they say. It is also worth noting that when Luther
Bie! is dominated by Occam's definition. He speaks of the bread and the presence of Christ's
also would use the rules of logic to furnish body there, he says, "is and can," (WA XXVI,
proof, and adduces Occam's examples from De 329, 2; 332, 21; AE 37, 216, 218) and not
Sacramento, vi [Birch], p. 193, plus the Easter with Occam, "can and is." When Luther says
stone. Oberman and Courtenay, p.147. only "can" we may well suspect that he is
Occam there lists soul, angels, Easter door, ploughing with Occam's heifer of the poten
the Virgin's closed womb and the ascension. This tia absol1tta, as when with Scotist voluntar
last is significantly not used by Luther. For Oc ism he mentions in passing the possibility of
cam the ascension is definitive and the session a multiple circumscriptive presence. This last
circumscriptive with uhiquitarian possibilities. is unequivocally expressed in a section (WA
To put it no stronger, Occam (for Occam's al XXVI, 336, 28; AE 37, 2235.) following
loeosis see Iserloh, pp. 32-35), Biel, and Zwin meine sachen. Not content with that he goes
gli accept at least theoretically a presence of over the three modes again and then charges
Christ apart from His human nature. This is off, throwing anything he can lay his hands on.
utterly repugnant to Luther, for it threatens his These missiles, however, are leftovers from the
Christology, soteriology, and theology. For Oc time before gunpowder. There are broken pieces
cam's extra Calvinisticum see Super IV libros of mirror and a crystal. Angels and spirits re
sententiarum IV, q. 4N. The relation of the two appear together with other odds and ends. But
natures is said to be that of subject and accident, then like a naughty boy who has rather enjoyed
and hence potest natura divina et verbum esse clouting the other boy, who was not nice to him,
et est alicubi ubi non est natura assumpta. When he feels somewhat ashamed - though not too
such a Christ was commended to Luther by much - and so we then get the usual excuses:
Oecolampadius, he recoiled from it. He started it, so I can speculate too. I am not
Oberman, pp. 264 f., finds extra Calvinisticum now speaking from Scripture. I do not hold this
in Biel and keno sis as well, but his evidence is idea as certainly so, but such things are not im
not compelling. Kenosis is far from Biel, for the possible, and they do help to show what a fool
divine nature is for him of predominant import he is.
ance. Extra Calvinisticum, on the other hand, is On this potentia absoluta line it is indeed
inimical to the human nature. Damerau, p. impossible to disprove that God has bacon and
165 f., presents Biel as orthodox regarding the eggs for breakfast every morning.
232 THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD
way by which all creatures can be present such a man who is supernaturally one per
and permeable to Christ's body? Sensing son with God and outside of this man
the weakness of his argument here, Lu there is no God, it must follow that he
also is and may be everywhere where God
ther has his opponents interpose the ob
is according to the third supernatural way.
jection that nothing is proved in this way.
. . . Where you can say, "Here is God,"
He has no better rejoinder than that they
there you must also say, "Then Christ the
cannot prove such a thing impossible to man is also there." If you would point to
God's power.24 Occam would do no worse. a place where God is and not the man,
However, he does return to what matters then the person would already be divided.
to him (meine sachen). Then I could in truth say, "Here is God
Our faith holds that Christ is God and who is not man and never became man."
man. The two natures is [I} one person. None of that God for me please! From
. . _ He can indeed show himself in the this it would follow that space and place
bodily apprehensible way in whatever sundered the two natures from one another
place he wishes as he did after the Resur and divided the person, which indeed
rection and will do at the Last Day . . . death and all devils could not part or tear
but he can also use the second way that asunder. That would leave me a sorry
cannot be grasped as we have proved from Christ. . . . He has become one person
the Gospel as he did at the grave and the and does not separate the humanity from
himself.26
locked door.25 . . . Since, however, he is
Only in this humanity is God graciously
24 Unfortunately Elert's telling observation there for us, and this saving fact may
does not apply here. Es steht hier nicht die
W underbarkeit, S01zdern die Tatsacblichkeit never be put in doubt by any question of
eines Geschebens in Frage. (It is not the mar "how" which can think only of extension
vellous character of the event but its factuality and circumscriptively. It is nonsense to
that is at issue.) Werner Elert, Der Christliche
talk of Christ as high up there or way
Glaube Od ed., Hamburg: Furche-Verlag,
1956), p. 383. When it does apply, Luther is down here,27 as up and down or hither
back at home with the Verba. See n. 46. and thither,28 or as small or big.29 He is
25 Here Luther has no weapon of a definition not subject to any such dimension, cate
and the only examples are two Scriptural in
gory, or criterion.so Luther repudiates the
stances which serve to demonstrate that Christ
can be present in a way that cannot be rationally
grasped. This last is just what Occam would 26 W A XXVI, 332, 12; see also trans. in AE
demonstrate. He is certain that by using the 37,218-19.
rules of logic he can furnish a proof. Birch, p. 27 WA XXIII, 115, 36; AE 37, 46 f.
191. 2.8 W A XXIII, 147, 25; XVIII, 206, 17;
The disappearance of the angels is significant. XIX, 489, 24; 492, 1; AE 37, 66.
Biel could not so easily do without them. For Cf. Biel's exhaustive treatment of the question
him they show the kind of presence which Christ utrum corpus Christi loealiter mutetur. Oberman
uses in the Eucharist. It is not a mediate pres and Courtenay, pp.206-10; Damerau, pp.
ence. Zwingli could agree with this but certainly 193 f. He decides for a 'lnutatio localis and
not Luther. Lectio 46Q: Unio corporis Christi against a motus 10 calis. His general presupposi
non est specialis ad species panis, non enim est tions are also those of Zwingli.
alia quam angeli ad corpus el1i assistit. Oberman
and Courtenay, p.107. Here Luther is more 29 WA XXIII, 137,8; XXVI, 339, 33; AE
37,59.
Thomist than Nominalist. Cf. Leif Grane, Con
tra Gabrielem (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1962), so WA XXIII, 137, 25; XXVI, 333, 22;
p.76. AE 37, 60, 219.
THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD 233
imposition of these categories, which are lowly Christ who suffers Himself to be re
the preoccupation of Occam, Biel, and jected, there for us upon the arms of Mary
Zwingli. and the cross and on the altar.32
We need not follow the argument This last Luther here passionately af
farther. Luther finds his opponents cap firms, but this positive affirmation has to
tive to their terms and categories in which be seen through the dust of his negative
they would confine Christ. This he will attack upon Swiss obstructions. An alli
not allow, but is he not compromised by ance between potentia absoluta and po
the way he puts the case against them? tentia ordinata offers him doubtful ad
He cannot do without words, and some of vantage. For Biel they are in cordial
the words he uses certainly do arouse entente.33 For Luther, however, their
suspicion. The critical question is whether equipment has changed. These terms are
they have more than a negative function indeed not formally used here but their
for him. Nominalist content lies behind what Lu
The infinite attributes of omnipotence ther says in the passages where he speaks
and omnipresence that he contends with about "possibility." Yet what appears is
against the Swiss are more theirs than not quite that content either, but that
his, more of the kingdom of power than content transformed by his prior given
the kingdom of grace. He fights desper understanding of Christ and the Gospel
ately for them for the kingdom of grace, - a transformation that is hete at times
but Saul's armor does not make it easier rather blurred.
for him, and one can only regret that he In Luther's defense it must be acknowl
did not stay with the shepherd's lowly edged that he points out his excursions, but
sling. not always. A book or two would be
needed to deal with this potentia absohtta
When Luther uses potentia absoluta
and ordinata and also the Scotist-sounding
against the Swiss, he is not sufficiently
voluntarism which enables Luther to as
aware of his proximity then to the deus
sert the absurdity of Biel's multiple cir
absconditus. There he is not at home, and
cumscriptive presence.34 If the absurdity
the potentia ordinata has been clarified for
is God's, it must stand, but this is sheer
him by the distinction between the Law
speculation. The best that can be said for
and the Gospel. God's potentia is then no
Luther is that this is an excursion to harass
longer the ultimate reference that it is in
his opponents.
Augustine and his disciples.31 Potentia
ordinata belongs rather under the heading
32 WA IV, 649, 6; XXV, 107,5; XXVIII,
of the Law and the opus alienum. The 136, 19; XXXIII, 160, 32; XXXVII, 42, 33;
Gospel and opus proprium proclaim the XL/I, 76, 9.
33 Cf. Damerau, pp. 188, 90; Oberman, pp.
31 Among whom was the young Luther. Cf. 36 f.
Erich Vogelsang, Die An/ange von Luthers 34 Oberman and Courtenay, pp. 196 ft., 206;
Ch1'istologie nach der ersten Psalmenvorlesung Damerau, pp. 188, 190. See above, n.23. Cf.
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929), p.47, n.2; Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness 0/ God (Lon
Adolf Hamel, Der iunge Luther und Augustin don: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953), pp. 88 to
(Giitersloh: Evangelischer Verlag, 1934), I, 93. Unfortunately Rupp's "grateful quotations"
175, n. 5. do not include the modes of presence.
234 THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD
The remarkable thing, however, is not cam's categories of definitive or repletive
that Luther used Occamist terms of pres presence. In the Catechisms and the Smal
ence against those whom he regarded as cald Articles he has no use for them; nor
rationalists. At various points he makes in his final Short Confession. Much of the
the bluff confession that he is speculating. uberfius is indeed superflus.
The terms are those for the problem of Luther's argument about divine possi
the quantity and extension of the body of bilities does indeed sound rather Occam
Christ in the Eucharist.35 This was a pre ist, but its use is in getting at his oppo
occupation of his opponents. The really nents and is only of negative value. Omni
remarkable thing is that he uses this presence is not his point of departure and
terminology in his repudiation of any the one present in bread and wine is not
such preoccupation. This does not rest first of all the omnipresent, majestic God
on any Occamist theory about substantia but the gracious and incarnate God who
and quantitas, but on the fact that Christ appoints the place and means where He
does what He says He does, and what He is there for us, bestowing His body and
says and does is all of a piece with the blood, forgiveness, life, and salvation.
sort of person He is. Words, wine, and bread give the location
So often when Luther s0J.nds like an without ,hicl1 the God Wh8 is every
Occamist, closer examinatIon reveals a where is ~S good as nowhere. Omnipres
radical difference. In this matter Occam's ence as such fits better with the majestic
reasoning does not take him beyond pos God on a velvet cushion upon a golden
sibility - Luther is aware of this.36 It is throne, uninvolved with our condition.37
integrally bound up with his (Occam's) Luther is not at home with the merely
distinction between substantia, qua1Ztitas, omnipresent God, for He is the dread deus
and qualitas. Without this it would col nudus.38 He insists on seeing the omni-
lapse. Not so for Luther. The basis for
37 WA XXIII, 131, 12; 155, 16; 705, 25;
definitive presence is supplied for him by
AE 37, 55 f., 70 f.
instances of a noncircumscriptive pres
38 CE. WA XXV, 107,2: Neque enim coram
ence of Christ, and for them it provides Maiestate quisquam consiste1"e potest, sed in so
a label. Not the term or its philosophical lum Christum est respiciendum. XXV, 106, 30;
XL 1, 75,9; 76, 9; 77, 11; XL 2, 330, 1; IV,
presuppositions but these instances prove
649,6; VII, 369, 20; 371, 14; 358, 31; XVIII,
his point that Christ may not be restricted 684, 37; 685, 6; L, 647, 6; 628, 16; XXIX,
to a circumscriptive presence. 669 if. Theodosius Harnack, Luthe-rs Theologie
(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1927), I, 41 if.
The presence of Christ's body and blood
Somerlath, p. 326: "An den Anfang dec Aus
in the bread and wine is also an instance einandersetzung mit den "Schwarmern" fallt in
that is not proved by any theoretical ne zeitlichem Zusammentreifen die Abfassung
seiner SchrHt 'De servo arbitrio.''' Cf. Hellmut
cessity but is affirmed on the basis of the
Bandt, Luthers Lehre vom Verborgenen Gott
contingent words of Christ. This affirma (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958),
tion does not rest on the validity of Oc- pp. 186-90. Alfred Adam seems to labor
under the equation revelatus=misericors. "Der
Begriif Deus absconditus bei Luther nach Her
35 Cf. Iserloh, pp. 174-253.
kunft und Bedeutung," Luther-Iabrbuch, XXX
36 Iserloh, p. 77. W A XXVI, 337, 23; (1963), 105 f. Cf. Bandt, p. 191.
XXIII, 267, 29; AE 37, 225, 140. The above cited statements of Luther must
THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD 235
presence of God in Christ, and there he He [Christ} must be also, otherwise our
is at home. There it does not terrify, for faith is false." 40
there is God for us. The assertion of im The presence of Christ in bread and
possibility based on the incapacity and wine comes under definitive presence and
unfitness of words, wine, bread, and hu not the repletive presence which is Chris
manity Luther rejects with the statement tologically rather than sacramentally im
of the Verba, and by allowing here noth portant.41 This terminology is, however,
ing less than Christ, God and man. Noth incapable of conveying the magnitude of
ing less may be confessed of Christ than the issue at stake just as the failure of
we confess of God, for what we confess the Marburg Colloquy was more than a
of God is above all given in Christ. Dis disagreement about the 15th point. There
parity here would disintegrate Christ and two theologies confronted each other.42
also the achievement and bestowal of sal
vation.39 40 WA XXVI, 336, 18; AE 37,223. Cf. Paul
Gennrich, Die ChristoZogie Lttthers im Abend
Luther uses the scholastic terms, but mahZsstreit 1524-1529 (Gottingcn: Vanden
they do not hold sway, and their content hoeck & Ruprecht, 1929), p, 61. But it is not
for the joy of metaphysical speculation, nor for
he finds in Scripture. What he strives to
the sake of a secondary foundation for his doc
say with' terms is trine of the LOid's Supper ,;,ar LUIl1er argued
connected with the heart of hi.s under the God-manhood of Christ with the aid of
scholastic categories; rather this followed neces
standing of Christ. He recoils from any
sarily from his religious interest in the unity
God outside of Christ. Where God is, and the separation of the two natures in Christ,
there is Christ, and He is inseparably God which provide the foundation of salvation. This
combined view of the two sides of the Redeemer
and man. Therefore this presence is not a
is crucial; everything depends on the complete
ubiquity of spatial extension but simply
Christ.
and soteriologically "Where God is, there
41 This tends to be undervalued by those
who favor a Christological and systematic foun
control the weight we attach to such statements dation for the doctrine of the Lord's Supper
as the following adduced by Peters, who seems rather than an exegetical one. Cf. Hans Grass,
at times a little too philosophically allured by Die AbendmahZsZehre bei Luther und Calvin,
Metzke, p. 169: Mihi est facile credere in pane 2d edition (Giirersloh: C. Bertelmanns Verlag,
esse, imo credo in corde omnium tyrannorum. 1934), pp. 60 f. See berg, pp. 427 f., makes a
Si est ubique et super omnes creaturas, ergo est valid distinction (p.479, n. 2) in opposition to
in vino et pane, W A XX, 383, 8. Here the Otto Ritschl, but this applies to the repletive
logic actually moves from the less to the greater. presence as well as to the definitive, and so he
The really staggering thing about God is not His does not touch Ritschl's assertion that the esse
omnipotence but His grace, as Luther knows j'epletive is not the sacramental presence for
very well. Luther. Significant also is Seeberg's observation
that "in, with, and under" are used of the defini
39 WA XXXIII, 160, 3; XL 1, 76, 13;
tive presence and not the repletive. The Nomi
XXVI, 420, 20; AE 37, 280. Cf. Georg Merz,
nalist line of argument leads to a circumscrip
"Zur Frage nach dem rechten Lutherverstand
tive presence of the body of Christ in the Sac
nis," Zwischen den Zeiten, VI (1928), 439:
rament. Cf. Damerau, p. 188.
"Dass in Christus und nur hier Gott nahe ist,
darin liegt das Pathos der lutherischen Predigt." 42 Cf. Barth's famous dictum: "Luther would
("That in Christ and only here God is near: have said it quite differently from Zwingli, even
therein lies the Pathos [emotion, solemnity?} if he had not found the problem-posing est in
of Luther's preaching.") the Bible." "Ansatz und Absicht in Luthers