LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1962, Page 28

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

28 DOCTRINAL-DEVOTIONAL ESSAYS

“This do ye in remembrance of Me.” Yet this directive
of our Lord, “This do,” has suffered a great amount of
abuse, not only by the avowed opponents of Christianity
but also and especially by those who claimed and claim
that they are Christ’s own and are doing as He re-
quested.

It is our intention this morning to study the first
part of the words of institution, as they are quoted in
the Catechism and used in our administrations of the
Supper. These words, of course, are Scriptural words,
a combination of the four accounts of the institution in
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians. While basing
our study only on the first section of the words of insti-
tution, that is, that dealing with the bread and Christ’s
body, we shall observe that the same fundamental truths
apply to the second section, that concerning the wine
and Christ’s blood. May the Lord bless our again all too
brief study.

The words of institution begin: “Our Lord Jesus
Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took
bread.” Here is named the Instituter of this sacrament.
It is none other than Jesus, the Savior; Christ, our
Prophet, Priest, and King, wonderful in power and
wonderful in love, the God-man. It is the Lord, the
true, the all-wise God, who knows not only what He
says and whereof He speaks but also how He must
speak in order that men may clearly understand what
He has in mind. Being the Lord, He is also truthful
and almighty; what He says He fulfills to the letter;
with Him nothing is impossible even though man’s per-
verted reason may say it is. He is able to do exceeding
abundantly above all that we ask or think. Here is

divine authority.

, The institution took place on the night when Jesus
was betrayed by Judas, as the disciples were celebrating
the Passover with their Lord, on the night which pre-
ceded the day when Jesus, as the Lamb of God fulfilling
the Passover, died for the sins of the world. Jesus knew
His hour had come, and at this hour of parting He insti-
tuted this Supper as a last will and testament for the
strengthening and preservation of His disciples — the
disciples then and now. Here is divine love and tender
care.

Let us listen reverently and respectfully to what
God’s Word itself has to say concerning that which the
almighty, loving God-man did and said on that mem-
orable night.

He took bread. Just as little as we dare to substi-
tute some other fluid for water in Baptism, so neither
in the Lord’s Supper dare we substitute anything else
for bread and wine.

“And when He had given thanks, He brake it and
gave it to His disciples.” Matthew and Mark say: “And
blessed and brake and gave it to them.” The disciples
could plainly see that Jesus was beginning a new act,
one similar to the Passover, yet greatly different. By
this prayer of thanksgiving the bread was blessed, con-
secrated, set apart from its common use and dedicated
to the sacred purpose which it was to serve. With re-
gard to the actual contents of this prayer, Scripture

is silent; yet it remains efficacious for all time. That
same efficacious power resides also in the words of
Christ which are recorded and immediately follow.
Says the Formula of Concord: “Where His institution
is observed and His words are spoken over the bread
and cup, and the consecrated bread and cup are dis-
tributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words,
is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution,
through His Word, which He wishes to be there re-
peated.”

“When He had given thanks, He brake it,” that is,
He broke the Jarger cake or wafer in His hand into
as many pieces as were necessary in order that He
might give the bread to each disciple. The breaking
is incidental to the Sacrament. It does not symbolize
His impending death on the cross, for the Lord’s body
was not broken on the cross, not even a bone of Him,
says Scripture. Dr. Krauth in The Conservative Refor-
mation and Its Theology says, “Breaking bread is the
very symbol of quiet and peace. Who would dream
of it as an appropriate symbol of the most cruel and
ignominious death? ... and if so extraordinary a sym-
bolic use of it were made, it would require the most
explicit statement on the part of the person so using
it, that such was its intent.” The bread was broken,
then, solely for the purpose of distributing it among
the disciples, or, as the words say, “and gave it to His
disciples.”

The Lord extended the bread to them, saying, “Take,
eat.” They were to take it, not in a spiritual manner,
by faith, but in a natural manner. The disciples were
to eat the bread, not to adore, revere, worship, or idolize
it; they were to eat it, and that also not spiritually, by
faith, but orally. Accordingly, bodily or natural eating
is an essential part of the Lord’s Supper. When giving
them the cup, He said, “Drink ye all of it,” literally,
“Drink out of it, all [of you].” In this and Mark’s state-
ment, “and they all drank of it,” we find the strongest
argument against the practice of the Romanists of with-
holding the cup from the laity. Also, bodily or natural
drinking on the part of all recipients is an essential part
of the Sacrament.

What was it that the Lord gave to His disciples and
which they were to take and eat? The words (exactly
the same in all four accounts of the institution) are clear
and simple, “This is My body.” The Lord says, This,
that which I extend and give to you, that which you
are to take and eat as I give you the consecrated bread,
is My body. That He gave them bread the disciples saw
and thus knew without being told. Hence Jesus tells
them that with the bread He gave them His body.
Luther says, “It is no longer mere bread of the oven, but
bread of flesh, or bread of body, that is bread which is
sacramentally one with Christ’s body.”

How clear and plain the words are: “This is My
body.” But since this concept is so far above human
reason, men have used their perverted and conceited
reason to make the concept intelligible to human reason.
Consequently all sorts of methods have been applied
to give these simple words a figurative meaning. Some