Eckhardt's Homiletisches Reallexikon, 1907–1917

AI translation · machine

Note b. The Reformed base their doctrine partly on John 6:63: The flesh profits nothing, which they refer to Christ's flesh. Note c. Modern writers too, e.g., Olshausen, want to explain the words of institution from this and other passages. Note e. Falsification of the doctrine of Scripture always results in falsification of the scriptural principle. The opponents must prove their doctrine either from passages that do not deal with the Lord's Supper, John 6, or else from the so-called whole of Scripture — the doctrine of Christ's ascension, etc. b. Rather, the words of institution. Matt. 26:26—28. Mark 14:22—24. Luke 22:19, 20. 1 Cor. 11:23—25. Note. We do not prove the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper from the doctrine of the person of Christ, from the omnipresence of his human nature. Objection a. The words of institution cannot be taken into consideration because they are in dispute. — Then one could never cite a Bible passage as proof, since they are all in dispute. Objection b. The words of institution come into consideration only secondarily, after the doctrine has been established from other passages (which do not deal with the Lord's Supper?). — That means constructing a doctrine and then reading it into Scripture. Objection c. Only Paul would furnish the proof for the correctness of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

AI translation · machine

6. Words of institution. a. They stand four times in Scripture. This makes them all the more certain for us. Note a. Paul has the doctrine of the Lord's Supper by divine revelation. Christ himself gives him an authentic account of the first celebration of the Lord's Supper. Antithesis: The apostles told Paul everything. Hofmann, Kahnis, Nebe. Note b. John alludes to the Lord's Supper in 1 John 5:8: Spirit, water, blood. b. They are clear and plain. Even Zwingli and Calvin admit this. Mit. 88, 21. Note. As soon as one takes them figuratively, they become obscure. c. They do not agree word for word in the different accounts. Note a. Since Christ went around the circle of his disciples, he may have used one formula at one point and another at another. Note b. Despite all the variation, we nevertheless always arrive at the same doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Objection. Because the words are so varied, not so much weight can be placed on the wording.

AI translation · machine

7. Explanation of the words. a. Our Lord Jesus Christ. Note a. The founder is the almighty, true Lord. Note b. The motive, causa impulsiva, is his love. b. In the night in which he was betrayed. Note a. The time of the institution is Maundy Thursday evening, immediately before his death. § 1. Note b. “Green” [Gründonnerstag], because Jesus, according to the prescription of Exod. 12:8 and Num. 9:11, ate green herbs. Note c. This day has almost fallen into oblivion; as often as it recurs, we should take stock of how we stand with regard to the Lord's Supper. c. Took the bread. Without doubt unleavened, as the Jews ate at the Passover. d. Gave thanks. e. Broke it. f. Gave it to his disciples. g. Take and eat. h. This (what I here hand to you) is my body. Note. An ordinary manner of speech. Synecdoche. One can, handing over a purse, say: Take this, it is money. John could have said of the dove: This is the Holy Spirit. i. Which is given for you. Note. Present tense. Now, here in the Lord's Supper, Christ's body is broken for us. § 18e. k. Do this. Note. The Lord's Supper is to be celebrated until he comes. It is instituted for all Christians. Antithesis: that it was merely a farewell meal for his disciples. l. In remembrance of me. Note a. The Lord's Supper itself reminds us of Christ. Note b. We are to remember him when we go to

AI translation · machine

Note a. How the fathers held to the letter: Abraham, sacrifice your son. Note b. By departing from the letter, the devil has brought all misery into the world.

AI translation · machine

10. The Reformed interpret the words of institution figuratively. Note. In this they are not even agreed among themselves. They leave no word of the institution untouched. A. Hoc [This]. Some say that Christ, at the word “this,” pointed to his body. Karlstadt. Note a. This is no longer held by anyone. Note b. Where should Christ have pointed at the words: This is my blood? B. Figura corporis [figure of the body]. Others say the bread is a sign, an image of the body — metonymy (sign for the thing signified) or metaphor. Calvin, Zwingli, Oecolampadius. Note a. Other such metonymies are said to be: baptism, a bath of regeneration; the dove — the Holy Spirit. Note b. This interpretation, being harder to understand, never became truly established in the Reformed church. Note c. It is advocated by more recent writers: Nebe, Kahnis. Against this: a. Such a manner of speech does not occur. One never names a thing outright and means by it merely a sign, e.g., “The scepter is royal power.” b. Christ adds: Which is shed for you. The mere sign of the blood (wine), the figurative blood, is not shed. c. Nor does taking it as a metaphor work. Christ would then have had to say: This is the (true) bread. My flesh is the right food. d. In a metaphorical comparison there is always a resemblance between the image and the thing, a tertium comparationis, e.g., youth and spring. But what resemblance does bread have to Christ's body? Then Christ could better have let the Passover lamb stand. e. If one takes as the tertium comparationis: His body is the bread of life, the reply is that according to Reformed doctrine Christ's body is no food at all, either for our body or for our soul. They would then have to put, instead of “body,” the whole Christ, the God-man. f. Even if they had proven such a figure of speech elsewhere, they would still have to prove that it must be understood this way here. g. One does indeed say, pointing at a statue: That is Paul. But that means: a Paul made of stone. “This is my body” would then have to mean: a body made of bread. C. Significat. Is means signifies. Note a. Zwingli obtained this wisdom in a dream. Note b. Zwingli appeals to Exod. 12:11: For it is the Passover. — But that means: it is the Passover festival. Note c. He further appeals to Gen. 41:26: The seven cows are seven years. — “Are” does not even stand in the Bible there. Note d. Modern writers too follow in Zwingli's footsteps: Meyer, Kahnis, Neander, etc. Against this: a. The copula “is” always retains its proper sense. Is never means signifies. b. When Scripture uses figurative speech of Christ, Christ does not signify a vine, a way, etc., but is a vine in a figurative sense. The seed is the word. Note. In such cases we readily use the words “true,” “new,” “another”; e.g., a true vine, the true bread, a new Elijah, the second Adam. c. Even if one could bring forward passages where is means signifies, one would still have to prove that it must be understood so here. d. If this were permitted here, then also elsewhere: Christ signifies God's lamb. Baptism signifies the bath of regeneration. D. Summary. All the Reformed interpretations of the words of institution agree in denying the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Note a. If they took the words as they stand, it would be all over with their own work and merit. § 18. Note b. Since they departed from the proper letter in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, they have since attempted the same thing in other doctrines as well. Note c. Among the Union churches, the Moravians, etc., everyone may understand the words of institution as he pleases. Günth. 285.

AI translation · machine

11. Why must the words of institution be taken in their proper sense? a. Because there is no reason to depart from the proper meaning. 1. Scripture gives not the slightest indication that these words must be taken figuratively. 2. All four apostolic accounts agree on this point. 3. The proper sense does not violate the analogy of faith. No article of faith is thereby overturned. b. Because there are many reasons against departing from the proper meaning. They are the words 1. Of a divine command. How exactly literally the patriarchs took God's commands. § 9. 2. Of a divine testament. In drawing up a testament, all ambiguous expressions are avoided, and in interpreting it one does not depart from the wording. Gal. 3:15—17. Note a. What kind of testament would that be, in which nothing was distributed and no inheritance existed? Note b. Christ did not establish the new covenant by a mere sign of blood. Note c. In the Old Testament too the words of the testament were taken literally: Exod. 24:8: This is the blood of the covenant. There, blood was actually sprinkled. Note d. When the deceased lies in the grave, his testament takes effect; Christ lives and reigns, and yet his testament is contradicted. 3. Of an article of faith. Every article of faith must be clearly set forth at least in one place. If these words must be taken in a non-literal sense, then we have no doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 4. Of a mystery of the covenant. The sacraments belong among these mysteries. If we are to know exactly where we stand with them, they must be clearly revealed. 5. The proper meaning of these words is confirmed by other Bible passages: 1 Cor. 10:16: Communion of the body. 1 Cor. 11:27—29: Guilty of the body of Christ. § 12. Note. Life or a curse depends on partaking of the Lord's Supper: 1 Cor. 11:29; and should Christ have spoken figuratively there? 6. The Omniscient One foresaw this controversy, which has stirred millions of souls. He knew he could have prevented it with a single word: “signifies.” Would he not have done so? 7. If these words had to be taken non-literally, then a. The distinction between the Old and New Testament (shadow — body, Col. 2:17, Heb. 10:1, 8:5) would be abolished, one type done away with and another put in its place. b. Christ would either have 1. expressed himself in a misleading, unclear way, or 2. deceived us. There would have been nothing behind his words. c. All certainty of Scripture would cease. If the sense of the words no longer holds, then everything collapses. Note. Then one could prove anything from the Bible, e.g., the great light, the sun — the pope; the small light — the emperor. Or: Elijah — monks. The ravens — the laity. The flesh — everything the monks need. Or: In the beginning the cuckoo devoured the hedge-sparrow. Luther. Summary: Therefore we must take the words as they stand. “So I have remained with your text. I cannot rest my conscience on that which the adversaries stand on.” Luther.