# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1962_S29
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

DOCTRINAL-DEVOTIONAL ESSAYS 29

find a figure of speech in the subject “this”; others find
it in the verb, or copula, “is”; still others look for it in
the predicate noun “My body.”

It was especially Zwingli at Luther’s time who ex-
plained the words of institution by taking the verb
“Gs” in the sense of “signify” or “represent.” But cer-
tainly what Dr. Krauth says is true: “Language itself
would commit suicide if it could tolerate the idea that
the substantive verb shall express not substance but
symbol.” “Almost every doctrine of the Word of God
will melt under it... . ‘God is a spirit? would mean,
God is the symbol of a spirit... . By it Christ would
cease to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life and would
be a mere symbol of them.”

But Zwingli used Scripture to prove his point! He
pointed to such passages as “The seed is the Word of
God”; “I [Jesus] am the Door”; “I am the Vine”; “That
Rock was Christ.” It is true, these passages contain
a figure, but it is not found in the word “is.” For exam-
ple, when Christ says, “I am the Vine,” the meaning
is not that He signifies the vine; He is truly the Vine;
indeed not a natural vine such as grows in the vineyard,
but the true spiritual Vine. Similarly when Christ says,
“I am the Door”; as the door admits a person into
a house, so Christ is actually the Door that admits
a person into heaven. Consequently, the figure of speech
is not to be found in the verb “is” but in the predicate
noun (door, vine, way, etc.).

Must we not then adopt Calvin’s interpretation, who
finds the very figure of speech we have just mentioned
in the words “My body,” explaining Christ’s words as
follows, “That which I give you is the sign or symbol
of My body”? Says Dr. Mueller in his Christian Dog-
matics: “Calvin’s error is fully refuted by St. Paul, who
teaches (not that the word body is to be interpreted
as sign of body, but) that the bread is the communion
of the body and the cup (wine) the communion of the
blood of Christ . .. and who also says that ‘he that eat-
eth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh dam-
nation to himself not discerning the Lord’s body... .
This explanation, given by divine inspiration, decides
the matter once for all and establishes the truth of both
the sacramental union and the oral reception.”

When theologians, to avoid the seeming difficulty
of the Biblical doctrine, propose substitutes for Christ’s
body and blood, such as “the entire Christ” or “Christ’s
person” or “the benefits or merits of Christ,” or when
a Calvinistic theologian states, “We do not say that
Christ or His promises are physically there, but we do
say that they are really there,” and even speaks of
a sacramental union, they nevertheless deny the sub-
stantial presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament.
We must read these statements in their context. The
Lutheran Confessions, on the other hand, regard the
sacramental union as so real and intimate that in the
Supper the communicant receives Christ’s true body
and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, the
bread and wine indeed in a natural manner, but the
body and blood in a supernatural, incomprehensible
manner.

For these and other reasons defined by our fathers
in the Confessions and later writings, our Lutheran
Church takes the words of institution just as they read.
God forbid that we ever waver in our firm conviction
that the true intended meaning of the words in ques-
tion is and only can be, “This is,” is truly, “My body.”

Was, then, the bread changed into the body of
Christ? Again, on the basis of clear Scripture we must
answer most emphatically, No! No transubstantiation
took place. When the Lord said, “This is My body,”
the meaning was not: The bread is no longer bread
but has been changed into My body; no, as we heard
before, the meaning is: That which I give you in and
with the bread is My body. When one says to another
in handing him a glass of water, “This is water,” he
does not mean to say that the glass is no longer a glass
and that it has been transformed into water; but this
is what he means to say: In this glass I am giving you
water. Thus the Lord uses here a mode of speech com-
mon to every language: He names that which is not
seen while giving that which is seen. What absolutely
convinces the believing Christian, however, is the fact
that the apostle Paul expressly states that we eat bread
and drink wine even after the consecration, 1 Cor. 11:
26-28.

The simple and only meaning of these words of insti-
tution, then, is that the disciples were to take and eat,
and did take and eat, Christ’s true body in, with, and
under the bread. How that was possible at that time,
how it is possible today we shall not even attempt to
determine and explain. Let our position be that of
Luther: “Why do we not cast aside this curiosity of
what takes place here, willing to be content that the
true body of Christ is present here by virtue of His
words? Or is it necessary completely to comprehend
the manner of the divine working?”

Our Lord Jesus Christ continues, “This is My body,
which is given for you.” Very emphatically the Lord
assures His disciples that He gives them His body, that
body which was given into death for them. These words,
together with the similar words later, “shed for you for
the remission of sins,” show us, says Dr. Luther, “that
in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation
are given us through these words.” This is the foremost
gift and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, the offer, the
pledge, and the seal of the free and full remission of
sins. To this highest gift are added, as a necessary re-
sult, many other effects: strengthening of faith; union
with Christ and His body, the church; growth in sancti-
fication; furtherance in love toward God and the neigh-
bor; increase in patience and in the hope of eternal
life; greater joy in confessing Christ. What a blessed,
holy, beneficial Sacrament! Shall we not partake of the
Supper often, to secure these priceless yet free gifts,
of which we have so much need?

Our Lord concludes the first section of the words of
institution by saying, “This do in remembrance of Me.”
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession defines this
statement in this way: “To remember Christ is not the
idle celebration of a show .. . but it is to remember the