LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 63

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 63

_ derance of New Testament occurrences of SoxipaCetv the usage
of this word falls into the semantic domain “to try to learn the gen-
uineness of something by examination and testing, often through
actual use.”"! This obviously involves the intellect, or theological
acumen, if you will, as when the apostle John exhorts “... test
(SoxtcCete) the spirits, whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).

Second, the exegesis of | Cor. 11:28 by the advocate of infant
communion is informed merely by a systematic consideration
which—valid though it is and one to which we must fully subscribe
—establishes a meaning that is too restrictive, when the context of
this verse is taken into account. Having defined Sox1paCetv as “as-
certaining worthiness,” the author of the infant communion mater-
ial relies upon the Small Catechism to define “worthiness.” He then
paraphrases the meaning of this text: “God means a person must
ascertain that he has been given faith by God and is kept in that
faith” (Truly Worthy, 15). It should be acknowledged, at least, that
Luther in the Smali Catechism is addressing a different situation,
namely, those who because of their own sinfulness would refrain
from communion. Paul is dealing with the opposite problem in
Corinth, namely, a communion participation that is bringing the
judgment of God upon the congregation. The apostle has named
the sins that have brought the situation in Corinth to its sorry state:
despising God’s church, shaming the poor, and violating the char-
acter of the sacramental meal. Paul’s final solution for the problem
is given in 11:33, “when you come together for the purpose of eat-
ing, wait for one another.” Thus, the author of Truly Worthy, purely
on the basis of the Small Catechism, has in effect narrowed the
meaning of 5oxipaCerv to the virtual equivalent of petavoety or
motevev without recognizing that far more is in view in Paul's
words “let a man examine himself” than a bare definition of “wor-
thiness” given in the Catechism (critically important though this
definition is).

Another set of exegetical considerations must be noted in con-
nection with the interpretation of Paul’s assertion in | Cor. 11:29:
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats
and drinks judgment upon himself.” Key here is the translation of
py Staxpivev.

It is rightly noted that the traditional understanding of pn dta-
Kpivev in 1 Cor. 11:29 is an obstacle to understanding true wor-
thiness as referring only to having Christian faith. A “better way” to
interpret this participial phrase, the author proposes, is to under-
stand it as expressing attendant circumstance, rather than as hav-
ing a causal meaning. Since the author provides no exegetical evi-
dence. however, one might be immediately suspicious of this
proposal.'?

What this discussion of St. Paul’s phrase fails to see is that the
structure and parallelism of 11:31 guide the translation of un d10-
Kpivev in 11:29 and render the above interpretation untenable. Fur-
thermore, it would appear that the author of Truly Worthy has mis-
understood the grammar of 11:31, for he fails to translate it (38) as
a conditional sentence that is contrary to fact. Consider, first of all,
11:31: “But if we were discerning ourselves [but it’s not happen-
ing], we would not be being judged [but it is happening]. The pres-
ence of dv in the apodosis and the imperfect indicatives in both
clauses of the sentence make its “contrary to fact” character clear.
In the mind of Paul, the “if” clause is not true. The Corinthians are
not themselves, in fact, discerning. It follows, then, that they are, in
fact, being judged (by the Lord).

The parallelism of 11:31 with 11:29 is strong. “Eats and drinks
judgment” (xpipa, 11:29) is parallel to “being judged” (xpiveo®at,
11:31). The conditional clause “if we were discerning ourselves”
(ei Eavtovc Siexpivopev, 11:31) is parallel to the participial con-
struction, “not discerning the body” (un S:axpivov to capa,
11:29). The context, therefore, strongly supports the traditional
translation of the participle in 11:29 with a conditional or (the
closely related) causal sense."

A second exegetical point is this. Paul’s contrary to fact condi-
tional sentence in 11:31 shows that the Corinthians, whom Paul
does not regard as unbelievers, are in fact being judged by the Lord
because they are communing unworthily, and thus experiencing the
judgment, though not the condemnation, of the Lord. We must
therefore draw the conclusion that a person may have saving faith
in Christ, be a “true” Christian, and still be able to commune un-

worthily. This would seem to oppose what appears to be a funda-
mental assumption of the argument presented in favor of com-
muning infants, viz., that only the absence of faith should keep
someone from receiving the sacrament. This leads to a final obser-
vation.

The argument for infant communion collapses all cognitive ele-
ments of believing into a “repentant faith” of the heart. For in-
stance, it is stated, “To make self-examination anything more than
repentant faith is to turn it into a work done by us, and to be as
guilty as the papists of blindness”(35).

In this statement, as well as in many others, the author of Truly
Worthy seems to object to anything “intellectual” as a component
of communing worthily. Yet, St. Paul’s counsel to “examine one-
self’ and “discern” the body, which is the basis for withholding the
sacrament from infants, does not impose a “law” or look only to
an “intellectual works righteousness.” It is a commonplace in
Lutheran practice that it is not enough for an older child or adult
merely to “understand” the sacramental teaching.'* He or she is
both to “understand” and “believe,” and such faith, even though it
possesses an intellectual component, is utterly the gift of God and
not a meritorious human work. Given this understanding of what
the Scriptures teach concerning preparation for the reception of the
sacrament, we categorically reject the author’s claim that “to make
self-examination anything more than repentant faith is to turn it
into a work done by us, and to be guilty as the papists of blindness”
(Truly Worthy, 35).

No less than Soxipaterv, Siaxpiverv also involves the use of
the intellect. For example, in the parallel texts Matt. 16:3 (61a-
Kpivetv) and Luke 12:56 (SoxtpaCerv) cited by Truly Worthy,
Jesus admonishes the Pharisees and Sadducees for being able to
make an informed judgment regarding the weathey based on an
analysis of the sky; but being unable to discern the signs of the
times."

The exegetical case for infant communion presented to Circuits
18 and 19 is summarized in the following “Scriptural Syllogism”:

Major Premise: Communicants must ascertain that they are
worthy to commune, that is, that they have repentant faith
(1 Corinthians 1 1:28,29).

Minor Premise: Infants have been given repentant faith by
Christ in Baptism and are sure of His salvation (Matthew 18:6
et.al.).

Conclusion: Infants may commune.

A number of serious problems with this syllogism are immedi-
ately apparent (e.g., unproven definitions of certain terms are as-
sumed ["ascertain,” “repentant faith”]; the major premise begs the
question by assuming that the sole qualification for worthiness to
commune is “repentant faith”). The syllogism can be shown to be
invalid, however, simply for the following reason. The conclusion
that infants may commune could only be drawn logically if the
minor premise asserted that infants have the ability to ascertain
(and in the sense of their being sure of their salvation) that they are
worthy to commune. The syllogism collapses as it stands because
of this error in logic (non-sequitur). It is the meaning of “ascertain”
that is precisely at issue.

c. The Lutheran Confessions.

The Formula of Concord’s assertion that “there is only one kind
of unworthy guest, namely, those who do not believe” is regarded
as providing clear and unequivocal proof“that the Lutheran teach-
ing on this matter is that there is no preparation or, requirement for
the Lord’s Supper outside of faith in Christ” (Truly Worthy, 20).

This interpretation of the Formula fails to take into account an
important distinction between being worthy to receive the sacra-
ment, and a worthy use of the sacrament. In the above-mentioned
citation the confessors affirm nothing more than what was already
confessed in the Small Catechism concerning personal “worthi-
ness”: “He is truly worthy and well prepared who believes these
words: ‘for you’ and ‘for the forgiveness of sins.’ On the other
hand, he who does not believe these words, or doubts them, is un-
worthy and unprepared, for the words “for you,’ require truly be-
lieving hearts.”’"* To define true worthiness for a salutary reception
of the sacrament, however, is not to say everything that needs to
be said on the basis of the Scriptures about preparation for receiv-