Mid-January, 1528 (Part 22)

Professor Martin Luther resumes work on his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper. In Part Two, he first provided a detailed analysis of four passages of Scripture relevant to understanding the Lord’s Supper. [1] Today’s Quotation is taken from the beginning of Luther’s analysis of a fifth important text, 1 Cor. 10:16 ff. in which he will deal with the meaning of “communion” (paragraphs 474-477 of the treatise).

Quotation:

[continued from the previous post] Now let us also examine the text of St. Paul in the tenth chapter, where he says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of [2] the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of [2] the body of Christ?” [1 Cor. 10:16]

I have extolled this text, and still extol it, as the joy and crown of my heart. For it not only says, “This is the body of Christ,” as expressed in the institution of the Supper, but mentions the bread which was so broken, and says, “This bread is Christ’s body” — indeed, this bread, which we break, is not only the body of Christ, but the distributed body of Christ. Here, now, is a text so lucid and perspicuous that the Enthusiasts and all the world could not desire or demand anything more. Yet it seems to have no effect on them! On this text they give me no further answer than to show that they are in disagreement among themselves. Some say that Paul speaks of a representative or figurative communion [participation], but some say he speaks of a spiritual communion, introducing here what immediately follows concerning participation in the altar and partnership with devils. [1 Cor. 10:18 ff.] With this, they slink away, ignoring us and acting as if they had proved it or deduced it from the text. Here I am supposed to be satisfied in their unsubstantiated words and glosses. They act exactly like a person who, as I was about to greet him, would turn around and thunder with his backside, [3], and so walk away. Well, they will not run off so insolently, and leave their stench behind them [4], if it be God’s will.

In the first place, there is no doubt that St. Paul speaks here also of the Supper, because he speaks of bread, cup, the body and blood of Christ. He must certainly be speaking concerning the same body and blood, bread and cup, of which the Supper speaks. If not, then this text is not relevant to our subject; and whoever pleases might regard it as speaking merely of ordinary eating. Hence it follows that the text before us, according to the method of Oecolampadius, [5] must read: “This bread, which we break, is a participation in bread, which is a sign of the body of Christ. The cup of blessing, which we bless, is a participation in wine, which is a sign of the blood of Christ.” Is not this a marvelous text? Bread is a participation in bread; cup is a participation in wine! What does this amount to but saying that the broken bread is a participation or sharing of bread; that is, the broken bread is an ordinary, shared bread? Can Paul teach us nothing more here than that distributed bread is distributed bread? Or does he feel such great solicitude, lest we might mistake distributed bread for distributed sausages, or distributed wine for distributed water? These are actually their own words, that “body” should mean the sign of body, that is, bread; “blood,” the sign of blood, that is, wine, as we have heard sufficiently, since they have all their books full of such things.

But if the trope is supposed to depend on the word “participation,” [6] and to mean “a sign of participation,” or, a figurative participation, through which the spiritual participation is represented; then Oecolampadius’s text, according to this contorted and awkward trope, must read as follows: “The bread which we break is a figurative participation in the figurative body of Christ, which is bread.” Dear friend, what in the world does this mean: “Bread is the figurative participation in bread”? But this is the way they must speak, if their tropes are to stand. Now, is one loaf of bread to be a sign or figure of another, as it is distributed and shared? Yet both loaves naturally and materially must be bread; the first, because it is broken; the second, because it is a sign of the body of Christ. [to be continued in the next post]

Notes

[1] The passages were: Matt. 26:26 ff.; Mark 14:22 ff.; Luke 22:19 f.; and 1 Cor. 11:23-25. These texts had been analyzed by Oecolampadius in his Apologetics and by Zwingli in his Friendly Exposition.

[2] Luther Bible (1534): “die gemeinschafft des.” ESV, RSV, LW: “a participation in.” KJV, RSV mg.: “the communion of.”

[3] Salyards translates more genteelly: “with a contemptuous movement.”

[4] Salyards: “act with so much indecency.”

[5] Johann Oecolampadius (the Humanistic name of John Hussgen or Hausschein) of Weinsberg/Palatinate (1482–1531) studied law at Bologna and theology at Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Basel. In 1515/16 he was in Basel assisting Erasmus in editing the Greek text of the New Testament. He was called to Augsburg as cathedral preacher in 1518 and became acquainted with Luther during the latter’s visit to that city in the fall of 1518. In order to have quiet to sort out the various streams of thought he had encountered, Oecolampadius withdrew from Augsburg and went to St. Brigit’s monastery in Altomünster. Here he wrote That Confession Is No Burden for Christian, in which he endorsed the Reformation. As a result, he was forced to leave Altomünster. He went to Basel in 1522 and found work there in the publishing house of Cratander which was then engaged in a large project of editing patristic texts. From April, 1523, he gave public lectures on Isaiah. He also became a loyal friend and ally of Zwingli. This did not immediately damage his relationship with Melanchthon and Luther, but did lead to a break with Erasmus by 1525. By 1525, Oecolampadius had adopted a symbolic view of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and felt compelled to criticize the Wittenberg position (the “real presence”) in print. In March 1527, Luther published That the Words, “This is my Body,” Still Stand Fast Against the Fanatics, defending the Wittenberg understanding of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Oecolampadius immediately replied with That Dr. Martin Luther’s Misunderstanding of the Everlasting Words, “This Is My Body,” Is Untenable: The Second Reasonable Answer of Johann Oecolampadius. Luther critiques this treatise (along with works of Zwingli and other sacramentarians) throughout the first two parts of the Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper.

[6] Salyards translates gemeinschafft “communion” here and throughout this paragraph.