# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 09 29_S22
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

*

proof of his body given for us and his blood shed for us. We see from this that the apostles celebrated no other Lord's Supper than we do; this is a highly important point, which we should never forget, but which is completely lost from view both in the Lutheran and in the Catholic doctrine. The Savior was bodily present; consequently he could not have given them his natural body, as it was born of Mary and put to death on the cross the following day, as the Roman priests teach. Just as little can we, on the other hand, assume that the Lord gave his true but, after the resurrection, glorified body, as certain Lutheran theologians teach. For this view of the impartation of the glorified body of Christ in the Holy Lord's Supper—apart from the fact that his body was not yet glorified at the institution of the Lord's Supper—contradicts in the grossest way the manifest sense and purpose of the Holy Lord's Supper, as it is expressed in the words of institution and in other passages of the New Testament. If the holy meal is supposed to be a sacrificial meal, in which sense especially those understand it who wish the words "this is my body!" to be taken literally—then we ask: who has ever heard that the guests partook of the living flesh of the sacrifice? Does not the apostle say expressly, when he speaks of Christ as our Passover lamb, that he was sacrificed or slaughtered for us? Does not our Savior, in the words of institution, speak expressly of a body given into death for us, of blood shed [for us]? Does he hold forth his body and blood to our faith in any other relation than in relation to his sacrificial death? Has not the Church of Christ, precisely for this reason, always given the Holy Lord's Supper the character of a memorial of death? —

In the next number we intend to set forth further the purposes of the Holy Lord's Supper as a means of grace, and then to speak of the worthy partaking of it, for which we beg the prayerful attention of our readers, and hope that the Lord will place his blessing upon it."

* *

According to this essay, it is Mr. Nast's teaching—and, as we may therefore assume, the teaching of the Methodists in general—concerning the correct understanding of the words of institution of the Holy Lord's Supper, this: When Christ says, "This is my body; this is my blood," he means to say thereby: "This bread and this wine represent my body and my blood; is a sign and seal, or an outward visible proof of my body crucified for you and my blood shed for you, but not a mere symbolic token of remembrance, but rather a powerful covenant sign and seal." Mr. Nast thus maintains, in a word, that the words of institution are to be understood not properly but improperly, or that the words "This is my body; this is my blood" contain a figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic manner of speech.

Our answer to this will consist, first, in examining the grounds by which Mr. Nast wishes to prove why the words of institution are to be taken not properly but figuratively, and, second, in stating the grounds that prove irrefutably that the words of institution may not be taken figuratively, but must be understood properly.

If we gather together the grounds which Mr. Nast in the above essay only partly indicates for his view, we find six of them.

First, Mr. Nast evidently wishes, in support of his opinion, to point to the fact that Christ ordained the Holy Lord's Supper to be celebrated "in remembrance of him." Now it is indeed the case that these last words are very often set against Christ's first words, "This is my body," etc., and it is said: From this it may clearly be seen that the Holy Lord's Supper is a mere memorial meal. But that is mistaken. The Holy Lord's Supper is indeed a memorial meal, but not a mere memorial meal. At the Holy Lord's Supper, according to the words of institution of Christ, two things are to take place: first, something that Christ does, namely, that he gives us his body and blood; and something that we are to do, namely, that we partake of those pledges of his grace under the bread and wine and thereby remember Christ, or, as St. Paul says, proclaim his death. Now would it not be false to conclude thus: Since, at the Holy Lord's Supper, according to Christ's ordinance, something is to happen on the part of man, therefore something cannot also happen on the part of Christ, which he has promised to do? Here too it holds: what God has joined together, man should not separate. Both belong to the Holy Lord's Supper: Christ gives therein what he promises, namely his body and his blood, and man is to do what Christ commands, namely to celebrate the same "in remembrance of him." Some, indeed, have said: if the Holy Lord's Supper is to be celebrated in remembrance of Christ, then he must be absent, for only of the absent does one say that one remembers them. But that too is untrue. Indeed, one does not say of present things, which one sees and hears, that one remembers them, but of invisible things one may very well say so. Is God not present everywhere? Yet can we therefore do nothing "in remembrance of him"? Does he not say himself: "In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you"? (Exodus 20:24.) Were the pillar of cloud and of fire, the mercy seat, etc., tokens of remembrance of an absent God, or rather of a God present in grace? Indeed, can I not myself remember a person who is present, when I stand before him and close my eyes? There is thus no doubt: the fact that we are to celebrate the Holy Lord's Supper in remembrance of Christ by no means abolishes the belief that he, the God-man, is himself present according to his word: "This is my body; this is my blood."*)

*) The blessed Johann Arndt therefore does the opposite of what Mr. Nast does. Arndt proves, namely, against the Reformed, precisely from Christ's command to do this, the Holy Lord's Supper, "in remembrance of him," that Christ must be present in it. He writes in the preface to his Gospel Postil: "No more powerful remembrance of the death of Christ can be instituted than through the giving of that which was given for us into death. Christ's body and blood were given for us into death; therefore, through the giving of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, the most powerful remembrance of the death of Christ is instituted. Likewise, that is given to us in the Supper which... is the most powerful remembrance of his death; Christ's body and blood are... the most powerful remembrance of his death..., therefore Christ's body and blood are also given to us in the Lord's Supper." This is the correct interpretation, which does not set one word of God against another word of God, but confirms the one by the other.

The second reason which Mr. Nast advances for his view is that the Holy Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover or the Passover lamb. He draws, namely, the following conclusion: In the Old Testament the Passover lamb represented the body and blood of Christ only in a typological way, without either being actually present; therefore the bread and the cup in the Lord's Supper, which was prefigured by the Passover, likewise represent the body and blood of Christ only figuratively. How Mr. Nast could draw this conclusion is scarcely comprehensible. He himself says, with Dr. Krehl: "The Lord's Supper is the fulfillment of the type contained in the Passover meal," and yet he maintains again that the Lord's Supper is just as much a mere image, without containing the thing imaged, as the Passover meal was. That is an obvious contradiction, for the very essence of the "fulfillment" of a type consists in this, that the type ceases and in its place there enters the substance of that which was depicted in it. Here Mr. Nast's preconceived opinion has evidently thrown him into confusion, for the very reason which Mr. Nast here adduces for his opinion confirms exactly the opposite. It is true, the Lord's Supper is the fulfillment of the type contained in the Passover meal. For thus speaks the holy apostle: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." 1 Corinthians 5:7. And it is further said generally of the Old Testament institutions: "which are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance is of Christ." Colossians 2:16. Further: "The law (the Old Testament) has a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very substance of the things themselves.... For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Therefore, when he came into the world, he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me." Hebrews 10:1,4,5. Further: "But Christ came as a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle" (namely, that of his body), "not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation" (namely, not like the Old Testament tabernacle). "Nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place" (into heaven), "having obtained eternal redemption." Hebrews 9:11,12. Finally: "Therefore it was necessary that