Mid-January, 1528 (Part 2)

Professor Martin Luther resumes work on his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper. Having replied point-by-point to treatises by the “sacramentarians,” [1] Luther, in Part Two, turns to a detailed analysis of four passages of Scripture relevant to understanding the Lord’s Supper. In today’s Quotation, taken from the beginning of Part Two (paragraphs 360 – 362 of the treatise), Luther summarizes his argument thus far.

Quotation:

[continued from the previous post] Fifthly, even supposing that our text and interpretation were uncertain or obscure — which is not the case — as well as their text and interpretation, you still have, however, this one glorious provision: that you are able to abide by our text with a good conscience, and say: “If I must, then, have an uncertain and obscure text and interpretation, I would rather have the one spoken from the lips of God himself, rather than have one which has been spoken from the mouth of men. And if I am deceived, I would rather be deceived by God — were that possible — than by men. For if God deceives me, he will take responsibility and restore me to the path of truth. But men will never restore me, if they have deceived and led me to hell.” The Enthusiasts can never possess this confidence. For they are not able to say: “I would rather depend on the text which Zwingli and Oecolampadius discordantly express than upon that which Christ himself concordantly proclaims.” 

Accordingly, you will be able to boldly address Christ, both in the hour of death and at the Last Judgment and say:

“My beloved Lord Jesus Christ, there has arisen a great controversy about your words in the Last Supper. Some wish them to be understood differently from their natural sense. But since those people teach me nothing with certainty, but only lead to confusion and uncertainty; and since they are they are neither able nor willing to prove their text in any way, I determined to rest satisfied with your text, as the words read. If there is anything obscure in them, it is because it was your intent to leave it obscure; for you have given no other explanation of them, nor commanded any to be given. No one can find in the Scripture, nor in any language, that ‘is’ should mean ‘signifies’ or ‘my body’ should mean ‘sign of my body‘.

“Now, if there should be any obscurity in the words, you will readily excuse me for missing their true intent, as you forgave your disciples when they did not fully understand you on many points — for example, when you announced your suffering and resurrection. [2] Although they failed to understand the significance of your words, they nevertheless kept them just as they were spoken and did not alter them. Your beloved mother also did not understand, when you said to her, “I must be about my Father’s business,” [Luke 2:49] yet with simplicity she kept these words in her heart and did not alter them. So I have also kept these words of yours — “This is my body” — and neither altered them, nor permitted others to alter them, but have committed and commended anything obscure in them them to you. I have kept them just as they read, especially since I find that they do not conflict with any article of faith.”

Behold, no Enthusiast will dare to speak with Christ in this way, as I know perfectly well; for they are uncertain and at odds over their text. [to be continued in the next post]

Notes

[1] In particular, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Schwenkfeld, Krautwald, and Wycliffe.

[2] Cf. Luke 9:45.