# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 03 07_S111
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

…must. That would not be "interpreting in proportion to faith," but wanting to correct one Bible passage by means of another. If that were right, then Scripture would be a reed that would have to bend with every wind of human rational thought; for then everyone would have the choice of correcting the first passage by the second, or the second by the first; then not only could the Reformed say that Christ is not in the holy Lord's Supper, because it is written that Christ had a true body, but others could, with the same right, say that Christ could not have had a true body, because it is written that his body is present everywhere the holy Lord's Supper is celebrated. This is indeed how the heretical Manichaeans and Marcionites once actually proceeded: they refused to take in their literal sense the passages dealing with Christ's true humanity, and denied them, appealing instead to the passages which teach that Christ walked with his body upon the surface of the water, made himself invisible, and was present in several places at the same time. But what is such an interpretation of Scripture other than a mockery of Scripture?

No — when it is said that prophecy should be in proportion to faith, this means as much as: if someone interprets an obscure passage whose meaning is doubtful — say, a prophecy, a parable, a type, etc. — in which no interpreter can say, "This and nothing else is the true sense of the Holy Spirit in this passage," where it is rather always conceivable that the passage might perhaps be understood otherwise — then an interpreter has only ever to see to it that his interpretation at least does not offend against "the faith"; if he does that, then the interpreter is nevertheless no false prophet, even granted that he had not hit precisely upon the sense lying in that passage; he would not be one, because the sense which he set forth, although he mistakenly supposed he found it in a certain Bible passage, is nevertheless to be found in other Bible passages.

By that principle, then, it is by no means meant that one must or may depart from the literal sense of a passage of Scripture when our reason cannot see how this literal sense can be reconciled with that of another passage of Scripture. Far be it! No — if our interpretation of an obscure passage on a point of faith contains a Yes, while Scripture at another, clear passage says No to it, that and only that is the case in which the analogy of faith can compel the interpreter to abandon the literal sense of a Bible saying; thus, for example, all the passages in which something corporeal is ascribed to God are to be explained figuratively, since it is a clear article of faith that God is a spirit. In this case an absolute contradiction would occur; in this case the result of our interpretation would be that a thing is affirmed in one place and denied in the other.

By no means, however, is the literal sense to be abandoned, for example, in the passages where deity is ascribed to the Son and the Holy Spirit, although it is an equally clear article of the Christian faith that God is one God. Even though reason can never reconcile the passages of Scripture that speak of the unity of the essence with those that speak of the three Persons, there is nevertheless no absolute contradiction here; Scripture does not contradict itself in this, but only our unregenerate reason. But if one wished, in every case where Scripture contradicts our unenlightened reason, to abandon the literal meaning of the words of the Bible, then one would have to take as figures of speech all the statements in which any mystery, miracle, or the like is expressed. But what then would the Bible be? — A fable!

If we now apply this to our present case, it is indeed true that it contradicts our blind reason that a human body should be in several places at once, but for that reason it does not contradict Holy Scripture. Scripture rather teaches both: first, that Christ has a true body, which is, of course, in the natural way spatially limited; but it also teaches that Christ's body, because it, together with his entire humanity, has been taken up into the unity of the person of the eternal Son of God, can be present everywhere, and truly is present wherever the holy Lord's Supper is celebrated according to its institution. Both of these are therefore to be accepted in simple faith; for here there is no contradiction, but the most glorious agreement.

That would be a contradiction if the literal meaning of the one passage amounted to saying that Christ's body has the essential property of being omnipresent; for it is true that the property of omnipresence, which belongs essentially to God alone, can never be or become an essential property of any creature; but Scripture does not teach this when it says that Christ's body is present in the holy Lord's Supper; the cause of this mysterious presence lies, according to Holy Scripture, not in the essential properties of Christ's body, but in the communion which this body has with the almighty Son of God.*) It thus remains true, on the one hand, that Christ has a true, natural body, which in the natural way cannot be in several places at once; but it is and remains equally true, on the other hand, that Christ, with this his natural body, can — by virtue of his promise and divine power — be present wherever he wills, indeed is truly present everywhere. The latter does not overthrow the former; just as little as it is overthrown that iron remains iron when one speaks of a glowing iron, although iron in itself never has the property of glowing, but can only glow and burn through the fire joined with it — just as little is the true humanity of Christ overthrown by speaking of an omnipresent body of Christ, although a body cannot be omnipresent according to its natural properties, but only by virtue of its union with the deity. It is thus established that the doctrine of Christ's true humanity by no means requires departing from the literal sense of the words of the Supper; that sense is indeed contrary to the concepts of human reason, but not contrary to any article of faith of the divine Word — rather, it is in proportion to faith. The Reformed must therefore first prove that God cannot, as Scripture says, "do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think," and that with God "nothing shall be impossible" (Matthew 19:26; Luke 1:37; Ephesians 3:20) — only then will they have proven that it is contrary to "the faith" to assume that Christ, with his body, can be everywhere.

*) Accordingly it is expressly stated in the Lutheran Formula of Concord: "Thus we believe, teach, and confess that to be almighty, eternal, infinite, present everywhere at once, naturally — that is, according to the properties of nature and its natural essence — to be present of itself, and to know all things, are essential properties of the divine nature, which will never in eternity become essential properties of the human nature." Solid Declaration, Art. 8.

According to this, it is now easy to judge also the second objection, that the literal sense of the sacramental words conflicts with the article of faith concerning Christ's ascension. It is said that Holy Scripture teaches plainly that Christ left the world and ascended into heaven, and therefore now dwells in heaven and will not return until the Last Day; that accordingly it is contrary to this article of the Christian faith to suppose that Christ, with his body, is still present now in the holy Lord's Supper.

Here too we must answer: this may indeed seem to contradict reason, for reason can conceive of no other ascension than one by which all communion of the man Christ Jesus with the world ceases; but this in no way contradicts the doctrine of Christ's ascension as it is contained in Scripture. For Scripture says that Christ "ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things" (Ephesians 4:10); further, that Christ at the same time seated himself "at the right hand of God," or "at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Mark 16:19; Hebrews 1:3). Far from the ascension being an obstacle, it is precisely an irrefutable pledge that no barrier of space can separate Christ, the exalted and glorified God-man, from his own. For if Christ has ascended above all heavens that he might fill all things, who then dares still believe that Christ has been shut up in heaven, as in a house, from that time on? If Christ has seated himself at the right hand of God, who then dares still believe that there is a corner of creation where he is not? For is not God's right hand — that is, God's power and might — everywhere? Yes, indeed: Christ's ascension, together with his consequent sitting upon the throne of majesty in heaven (Hebrews 8:1), indicates not so much a change of Christ's abode as, rather, of his condition — namely, his entrance into the full exercise of his divine majesty, his entrance into glory also as Mediator, as the Son of Man. If Christ had not ascended into heaven, one might doubt whether he is also omnipresent; but since he has taken possession of the kingdom of heaven, we can all the more confidently rejoice: He is with us always, even unto the end of the world.

Holy Scripture indeed says: "He is risen, he is not here," Matthew 28:6. "You have the poor with you always; but me you do not have always," Mark 14:7. "I am leaving the world," John 16:28, and so forth. From this some conclude that Christ therefore cannot be omnipresent; but this conclusion is false. Christ is indeed no longer so visibly, spatially, and comprehensibly present in the world as once, when he walked here in the flesh; but if the continual duration of this presence is denied in the passages cited, it is not thereby denied that Christ is nevertheless present everywhere in another, more perfect way. He himself says to his disciples after his resurrection: "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you." What? Was Christ, then, at the very moment he spoke these words, not again with his disciples? Yes indeed — but in a different way than before, no longer in the weakness of natural life, but in the state of heavenly transfiguration. From this it is evident: Christ has various…