A Clear Instruction on the Lord’s Supper of Christ (23 February, 1526)
Context
Zwingli’s A Clear Instruction was published in early 1526, less than a year after Zurich formally embraced the Reformation at Easter 1525. It appeared during a period of intense pressure and deepening isolation for Zwingli. He was under attack on multiple fronts: his theological dispute with Luther over the Lord’s Supper was escalating, leading Catholic figures in Zurich were publicly challenging his reforms, and the Anabaptist movement was gaining momentum.
The adoption of the Reformation in Zurich in 1525 had not led to a mass departure of Catholics from the city. On the contrary, many influential members of Zurich’s old families remained, continuing to exert power and voicing strong opposition. Beyond his close circle, Zwingli had few allies. In the Catholic cantons, his writings were banned and burned, and he was denounced as a heretic. Increasingly isolated, Zurich faced the very real threat of war from the rest of the Swiss Confederation over what was perceived as its apostasy. 1526 was a difficult year for Zwingli as he experienced his first major defeat at the hands of his opponents. In response to the reformation, Swiss Catholics summoned a disputation at Baden (which was in Catholic lands). The hope was for the great Catholic theologian Johann Eck to face the arch-heretic Zwingli. The Zurich reformer prevaricated, havering between taking on the opportunity to face his most influential opponent and the very real fear he might be put to the flames. In the end, he did not attend and the staged event was a great triumph for the Catholics. The future of the Zurich reformation in 1526 was not clear.
Zwingli composed A Clear Instruction in German to reach a broader audience, especially in the Swiss cities and southern Germany, where his views on the Eucharist were finding growing support. This was his first major German-language treatise on the sacrament, an effort to move the theological debate beyond the realm of Latin academic discourse and into the public sphere. He was fighting a two-front war: against the Catholic establishment in Zurich, most notably the canon Joachim von Griüt, and against the Lutheran camp. The text also marks a significant departure from his former admiration for Erasmus, whose influence on Zwingli’s early sacramental theology had been considerable. By explaining his views in the vernacular, Zwingli aimed not only to persuade educated readers but also to instruct clergy in towns and rural parishes, many of whom had little grasp of the new theology.
The work is characteristic of Zwingli’s writing: rooted in specific historical circumstances, it combines elements of sermon, pastoral exhortation, and sharp polemic. Although it served as a public defense of his Eucharistic theology, it played no role in his dispute with Luther. There is no evidence Luther ever read it, and it was never cited in their exchanges, which were conducted exclusively in Latin.
Argument
Zwingli’s Ein klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi (1526) presents a thorough and polemical defence of the symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, opposing both the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and Martin Luther’s teaching of the real bodily presence of Christ “in, with, and under” the elements. The central claim of Zwingli’s treatise is that Christ’s words, “This is my body,” must be interpreted figuratively: the bread signifies Christ’s body, given once for all on the cross, but is not literally or substantially his body.
Zwingli builds his case through detailed scriptural analysis, philological reasoning, and appeals to early Church Fathers. He argues that Christ’s body, having ascended to heaven, cannot be physically present in the sacrament without violating the doctrine of his exaltation and the integrity of the Apostles’ Creed. He draws a sharp distinction between the sign (bread and wine) and the thing signified (Christ’s sacrificial death), insisting that the sacrament functions as a memorial, not a repetition, of the crucifixion.
The reformer invokes patristic authorities such as Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, emphasizing their figurative interpretations of the Eucharist. Zwingli also stresses the ecclesial implications of the sacrament: it is not a metaphysical mystery but a communal act of thanksgiving and unity, in which believers proclaim the Lord’s death and reaffirm their membership in Christ’s body, the Church. He closes with pastoral and polemical urgency, warning readers not to be misled by learned authorities who conceal error under the guise of tradition. He affirms that his teaching upholds both the plain sense of Scripture and the essential truths of the Christian faith.
Source
Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 4 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927) (Corpus Reformatorum 91)
A Clear Instruction on the Lord’s Supper of Christ
23 February, 1526
Contents
Text
A Clear Instruction on the Lord’s Supper of Christ by Huldrych Zwingli, in German (as never before), written for the sake of the simple, so that they may not be misled by anyone’s subtlety. Christ, Matthew 11:28: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” To all faithful Christians,
Huldrych Zwingli offers grace and peace from God and from our Lord Jesus Christ.
God, who sent into this world his only-begotten Son. the true light that pierces all darkness (cf. John 1:5, 9). grant us such truth and light that we may speak nothing except what serves his glory, the clarification of truth, and the good of our neighbor. This we ask of him in the faith which we hold firmly, in view of the strict judgment he will pass upon all humankind. He has promised that if we ask, he will hear us; and he will indeed fulfill this promise (cf. John 15:7; Matthew 7:7–8; Luke 11:9–10).
I have, dear Christian believers, written three or four times in the past year about the sacrament of the body of Christ. but only in Latin. I have not previously published anything in German, since the circumstances of our country, especially with regard to the French-speaking regions, required Latin. But now, as I see some who complain that my writings do not reach their cities and are not read there. how they can do this in good conscience, I do not know, especially since they have previously cited Paul’s words with such seriousness: “Test all things, and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). I leave that to their judgment.
Some of these people publicly declare that we are heretical, and they call upon God through their writings to lead us out of error. Others say that we, who deny that the literal flesh and blood of Christ are received in this sacrament according to God’s Word, are not yet certain, and they loudly proclaim this as a great error. Yet they refuse to be taught and grow angry at every single word.
Because of this, I felt compelled to gather together the most essential words and sayings of God which give a clear understanding of this sacrament, along with selected teachings from the ancient Church and papal canons or laws. In this way, the ordinary Christian may learn the truth for themselves. especially when they see that even those who wish to preach the gospel either conceal or misunderstand it. For they have sunk deep into their errors and refuse to see that it is better to retrace one’s steps than to continue plunging ever deeper into darkness and confusion. For what could be called darkness, if not the idea that in this matter the bread becomes flesh, the wine becomes blood, and that both are consumed physically? If that is not darkness, then what is? Some have long argued that the bread is not changed into the substance of Christ’s flesh. Others claim that one eats the flesh and blood of Christ just as it hung on the cross. Still others say it is the risen body of Christ that is eaten. Yet all these views, when tested by God’s Word, are found to be erroneous and misleading. Nevertheless, these misguided people tell faithful Christians that we are in error and that we do not agree among ourselves. although that is not the case at all, as will become as clear as daylight in what follows.
Therefore, for God’s sake, I urge all high officials, princes, lords, rulers, and authorities above all not to let themselves be embittered against the truth. Instead, as is fitting for those in power, let them handle all matters with reflection and without coercion. indeed, let them avoid violence and injustice altogether. and carefully consider this issue with serious and mature judgment. For the matter touches on the three articles of the Christian faith: “He ascended into heaven,”; “He sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty,”; and, “From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.”
Accordingly, either the erroneous view of the real bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament must be abandoned, or else these three articles must be broken all together. which God forbid anyone should even think! Therefore, it is only right that no action be taken out of papal arrogance, which tells rulers they are defending the Christian faith by protecting the physical body and blood. For anyone who thinks they are defending the faith in that way is actually attacking it. as will be evident in time.
Accordingly, I also strongly urge all scholars: do not act from personal ambition or cunning, but step forward openly if you wish to dispute. For we are determined to dispense with all sophistry, philosophy, and rhetorical tricks. except to the extent that we are compelled to respond in kind. Nor do we wish to return insults or to answer abuse with heavy words, as others do to us. It is not that I fear the winds of verbal assault. I am used to them, thank God, and I stand on a rock that does not shake beneath me and will not allow me to be torn from it. Rather, it is because I would prefer to see the truth walk forward simply, in person and plainly, than to have it distorted by excessive language that cannot help but reek of pride. I know well what moderation means. I know how Christ spoke and when he spoke sharply or rebuked. But I am speaking only about those people who, at the very first sight of truth. before they even examine its foundation. immediately lash out with turbulent mockery and shout it down, attacking and blinding the simple by saying things like: “These are rebels!” (We are just as loyal to them as we are to Lucifer! And if it ever came to light, it would be found who the real instigators of past rebellions were.) “They twist Scripture from malice and prideful desire for glory!” (If we were seeking glory, we would go about it very differently.) “They have no faith!” (And if we had no faith, we never would have learned that the flesh is of no avail.) And other such sayings, which only drive the simple people away from the truth. often before they have even heard it, let alone weighed it.
I also know that ordinary faithful Christians are far more glad to hear the truth when it comes in its own plain clothing, rather than when it is dressed up too finely or adorned with arrogant gestures. I know too that the rough, slanderous speech that now happens throughout the world is no small reason why the writings of some theologians appear so full of rage and abuse. Even if I were reproached and blamed for this, and the blame were rightly placed, I could not complain. If people want to stir up strife over this matter (though I do not believe that God or true believers would approve of such quarreling), then the argument will not end in a single day. If this dispute is then carried out with clumsy and inappropriate words, the confusion will grow so great that the truth will be lost. just as the old saying goes: “Excessive wrangling leads to the loss of truth.” That is why I ask scholars not to burden this matter with unfriendly shouting matches, but to proceed reasonably. so that less harm arises from verbal mischief and better may come from sound meaning and intent.
Since all of this dispute has arisen from a misunderstanding of the words “This is my body,” let us first examine those words according to the mistaken interpretations they have been given and expose the errors that result from them.
Second, we will demonstrate through Scripture and the articles of faith that these words cannot carry the meaning they have long been forced to bear.
Third, we will defend their true and natural sense using clearer scriptural passages.
Fourth, we will respond to some apparent counterarguments.
First Article
Among those who believe that in this sacrament the real flesh and blood of Christ are eaten, there are some who say that Christ’s flesh and blood are consumed just as they hung on the cross. that is, that the physical substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the actual substance of Christ’s flesh and blood. Others say that Christ’s body is eaten in or under the bread, but that the bread remains bread. and that no one should ask how he is eaten, only believe that he is eaten. For, they say, Christ said, “This is my body”. so, it must be so. A third group claims that the body of Christ is eaten as it was after the resurrection, when he came to the disciples through locked doors. Before we address and refute their views, we want to explain, for the benefit of the simple reader, what the word sacrament means.
A sacrament is nothing other than a sign of a holy thing. So, when I say “the sacrament of the body of Christ,” I mean nothing other than the bread, which is a symbol of Christ’s body, which was given for us in death. The priests have long known that the word sacrament means nothing else (as it has always been used in this sense by Christian teachers) than a sign. Yet they have still led the simple people to think that it means something else. something higher or more mysterious. which the simple cannot understand. So they fall into thinking that the sacrament is God himself. But sacrament means only “a sign of a holy thing.” Thus, Christ’s true body is the one that sits at the right hand of God the Father. The sign of his body is the bread. The sign of his blood is the wine, which are used in the thanksgiving meal (Eucharist). Now a sign and the thing signified cannot be the same thing. Therefore, the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be the body of Christ itself.
Now let us return to those who say: “In this sacrament, the substance of the bread is transformed into the substance of the real flesh of Christ, as it lay in the manger or as it hung on the cross.” They defend their view like this: “The power of God’s word is so mighty, so present, so living, that whatever he says, that is what it becomes. Heaven and earth must pass away before a single one of his words fails. even a single letter,” (Luke 16:17).
For example, in the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:3), God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Behold, they say, God’s word is so living and powerful that it brings things that do not exist into being, instantly. How much more, then, they argue, when Christ says “This is my body,” must the substance of the bread be changed into the substance of Christ’s flesh. For it is easier to change one substance into another than to create something from nothing. So if Christ says “This is my body,” then it must be his body. All things in this world must give way, and the bread must become the real, essential flesh of Christ. For if he says “is,” then it is. Similarly, they say, when Christ said to the leper in Matthew 8:3, “Be clean,” he was immediately cleansed. Or when he said to the blind man in Luke 18:42, “Receive your sight,” he saw at once. So likewise, they argue, when Christ said “This is my body,” then the bread became flesh and the wine became blood.
Response:
Look, faithful Christian. See how quickly a grand illusion is placed before the eyes of the simple, so that they are led to believe error. And yet it is no harder to open one’s eyes to the truth than it is to fall for such illusions. That is what we will now clearly show. We will not look for arguments outside these false conclusions but will answer directly from their own claims. Now, I do not deny the power that comes from the true Word of God. I fully acknowledge that when God speaks, it is just as he says. His Word is a living command (cf. Hebrews 4:12). But notice this: there are two serious flaws in their reasoning.
First, their argument proves nothing about what happens when a priest or man says, “This is my body.” If you say, “He said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ and therefore his body must be there,” it doesn’t follow. For the priest does not say “This is the body of Christ,” but “This is my body.” Then would it be the priest’s body? Though there’s much empty chatter in their defense, we will ignore those distractions and not base our answer on them, even though they are often repeated.
The second flaw is that they fail to see that before anything can be proven from Scripture, one must first grasp the true meaning of God’s words. For example, when Christ says in John 15:5, “I am the vine,” you must first understand that this is a figurative expression. that he is like a vine, in that just as a vine bears fruit only through its branches, so all his believers remain in him, and without him can do nothing. Now, if you ignore this and say, “He said, ‘I am the vine,’ therefore he must be a literal vine,” you turn him into a grapevine.
The same applies to the words “This is my body.” You must first prove that Christ intended to give his literal flesh and blood, or else it is useless to say, “He said it, so it must be true,” since it must be as he meant it, not as you misunderstand it. How will you prove from Scripture that he literally gave his flesh and blood here, when in John 6:63 he says: “The flesh is of no use” (with respect to eating)? This will be taken up again in the second article. For now, consider the foundation of this teaching: If in Christ’s words “This is my body,” the word “is” is taken to mean literally is, that is, essentially exists, then you must conclude that the substance of Christ’s flesh is essentially present in the bread.
From this, two obvious errors are exposed.
First error is that If Christ’s body were truly and physically present in substance, then it would also have to be physically and bodily chewed by the teeth and tangibly broken in the mouths of those who eat it. One cannot simply dismiss this by saying, “With God all things are possible.” As you argued earlier, the light that God created by his word was not some invisible or intangible light, but a real, substantial, and visible light. just as it still is today.
So likewise here: if the word “is” is taken to mean literal substance, then Christ’s flesh must also be physically present and sensible. For the light God made was not invisible. Likewise, the healing of the leper and the restoration of the blind man’s sight were not invisible events. they felt the reality of their healing in their own bodies. But if in this sacrament no one has ever sensibly eaten real, physical flesh, then it is clear that real bodily flesh is not present. (The tales and fables that have sometimes been preached cannot serve as evidence; even if some fraud occurred in one place, that would not suffice. it would have to be universally experienced, since the words and the rite are the same everywhere.)
So if real flesh were present, it would have to be physically experienced. chewed and broken by the teeth. In short: it would have to be present as truly and bodily as the firmament and light were, when God declared them into being. for they are not intangible, but visible. Therefore, if “is” were to be taken substantively, then the body of Christ would have to be visible, real, bodily, and tangible in the sacrament. This alone proves that the words cannot mean that literal flesh and blood are eaten. For if God had said, “This is my body,” in a literal, physical sense, then the flesh would have to be as really present as the light was when God spoke it into being. But since that is clearly not experienced or perceived, it follows that Christ’s words do not carry the sense of literal, physical flesh and blood. For if they did, they would have to be experienced. because God does not lie (cf. Numbers 23:19). See, then, how the defense of this error is its own undoing.
The second error is closely related to the first: it is the claim (mentioned earlier) that “one eats the body of Christ in or under the bread, though the bread remains bread.” If the word “is” is taken substantively. that is, as indicating actual being. then it is a blatant contradiction to say that the bread remains bread, while denying transubstantiation (the transformation of the substance of bread into flesh). Here’s why: As the first error puts it, “God’s Word is living. He said ‘this is,’ therefore it is his body.” If the “is” is taken substantively, as the second error also insists, then the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of flesh. In that case, the bread cannot remain bread, and the claim that “the bread remains bread, but under it one eats flesh” collapses.
See how confused this second error is! It refuses to accept that Christ’s words “This is my body” could be figurative or metaphorical, and insists that “is” must be taken literally. But then it turns around and acts as if the “is” were not literal, by saying, “in this bread, Christ’s body is eaten.” Yet Christ did not say, “Take, eat; in this bread you eat my body,” but rather, “This is my body.” See how they twist Christ’s words! If I were to distort Christ’s words like that, I’d be thundered against by all sides. So now this second error exposes itself, and if one doesn’t oppose it to the first, they destroy each other.
The first claims that flesh and blood are present because of the word “is”; and if “is” is taken substantively, then it contradicts the second error, which says the bread remains bread. For if “is” means literally “is,” then bread cannot remain bread. it must become flesh. But if the second error acknowledges and feels that the substance of the bread is not transformed into flesh, then it itself proves that “is” cannot be taken substantively. Because if it were, the flesh would have to be just as physically experienced as the bread is. If, before consecration (as they call it), the bread is sensibly recognized as bread, then after consecration it would also have to be sensibly recognized as flesh. Thus, the second opinion refutes the first. From this it is clear that both positions are plainly in error. But the defenders of the view that “is” must be taken substantively say this only because they cannot otherwise deny that “is” might be a figurative expression. When one points out how absurd their position is and how baseless their escape routes are, they shout: “I will stick to the simple words of Christ! I believe that whoever clings to the plain words of Christ cannot be in error.”
Response:
That would be good if only you didn’t call the most confused, obscure, and irrational interpretation the “simple meaning.” If we were to protect the literal sense of words by misunderstanding the letter of Scripture, then Christ would be a grapevine, a door, or even a foolish sheep, and Peter would be the rock of the Church, etc. Therefore, let us retain the true simple sense of Christ’s words. one that can harmonize with the rest of Scripture, one that is intelligible to all believers, one that does not contradict the truth. For the previous two interpretations cannot stand: The first cannot prove that flesh is truly present. for if it were, it would be seen and felt like all other created things. The second cannot prove that flesh is hidden under the bread. because Christ never said, “You eat my flesh under the bread.”
This is the true “simple” sense of Scripture: the one that has its basis and grounding in the truth of God’s Word, without contradiction. Otherwise, the pope might complain that people do not stick to the “simple” words: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). According to a literal reading, the church would be built on Peter. And anyone who interpreted it that way would be said not to err. But not so! For we find that Christ alone is the rock, the head, the vine. in him alone are we saved. So he is the rock on which the Church is built. That is the true “simple” sense of those words. And the pope’s interpretation is not “simple,” but faithless, irrational, and intolerable to the believing heart. So likewise, the claim that “This is my body” refers to literal flesh is not the simple sense. Rather, it is the most irrational, the most offensive to believing hearts, and cannot be upheld by God’s Word. as will become even clearer.
The third false opinion, which says: “One eats the body of Christ as it was after the resurrection,” will be addressed in a later section.
For now, let us show from papal canon law that the view that we eat the physical flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament cannot be derived from Christ’s words. Now, I do not cite canon law in order to convince the faithful by papal authority. Rather, I use it to show those who cling to the papacy that even within their own laws, the truth can be found. God has so arranged it that even in the writings that reveal the Antichrist, evidence is found that can be used to defeat his error.
In the De Consecratione, Distinction 2, chapter Ego [Corpus Iuris Canonici, c. 42, Dist. II, de consecratione], it states:
“I, Berengarius, unworthy servant of the Church of St. Maurice in Angers, confessing the true, universal, and apostolic faith, reject every heresy, especially that in which I was once entangled, which held that the wine and bread placed on the altar, after consecration, are only a sacrament. that is, a sign (see how even the popes themselves use the word sacrament to mean sign). and are not the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That this body cannot be tangibly handled, but only symbolically, and cannot be broken by the hands of the priest or chewed by the teeth of believers. I now agree with the holy Roman Church and apostolic see, and I confess with heart and mouth that I believe concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s table exactly what the venerable pope Nicholas and this holy council have taught and confirmed from the authority of the gospel and apostles. that the wine and bread on the altar, after consecration, are not only a sacrament (i.e., a sign), but truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are tangibly handled, not just as a sacrament, but really broken by the hands of the priest and chewed or ground by the teeth of the faithful,” etc.
Take note, dear thoughtful Christian, how the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14). This Berengarius lived sometime after the year 1080 and recognized that great error had crept into the sacrament. as indeed there have always been some who discerned this error. But then the pope intervened to make sure that this window would never be opened and forced Berengarius into a ridiculous and public retraction. one in which it is crystal clear that what is being confessed is false, namely, that the literal body of Christ is eaten in the sacrament. Although other historians report that Berengarius was such a devout man that after his death certain princes said they would rather be found in his company than with the pope. even though during his life many had suspected him of heresy, as if he had never in his heart renounced the belief expressed in the first part of his recantation. he nevertheless made a public retraction, one clearly false and fabricated, done against his own conscience and that of all others.
Now let us consider what his retraction actually entails. It asserts that he believed with both mouth and heart that the body of Christ is tangibly handled by the hands of priests, tangibly broken, and tangibly chewed or crushed by the teeth of believers. All three of these claims are as blatant a lie as when the devil said to Eve (Genesis 3:4–5): “You shall not surely die, but you will be like God.” For what priest has ever tangibly handled Christ’s actual body? If Christ were tangibly present, how could they elevate him? And would it not be a disgrace to Christ for his body to be shut away in some grimy, dark cupboard? If he were truly tangible to the priest, he would also be tangible to himself. and then he would have to endure cold, discomfort, and exposure.
Now, they respond:
“You shouldn’t take the word ‘tangible’ so crudely. Read the gloss.”
To which I reply:
“Then tell me. how, exactly, should we understand ‘tangible’?”
If you say:
“As the gloss explains.”
Then the gloss simply says the same as you:
“We must understand the words properly,” etc.. and claims that one must consider the forms (or appearances) of wine and bread.
But what else did Berengarius say when he stated that the body is sacramentally broken? Was he not also referring only to the appearances of bread and wine? Yet he was forced to declare that the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ is really handled, broken, and chewed with teeth. Do these words not clearly show what they meant by “tangible”? Moreover, it is obvious: if they take the word “is” in Christ’s statement “This is my body” to mean literal substance, then they must also say, “If he is substantially present, then he must also be tangibly broken and chewed.” And although every sense and thought rebels against this idea, they were still forced to affirm it. because they took “is” to mean literal substance, as we have already shown clearly. Therefore, they should have recognized through this very fact that “is” cannot be taken in a literal, substantial sense.
Can we read the signs of the morning sky and say, “It will storm by evening,” and read the evening sky and say, “It will be fair in the morning” (cf. Matthew 16:2–3), and yet fail to understand that if Christ were truly present bodily in the bread, we would surely experience the presence of his flesh? Or if we say that the bread is flesh and is literally eaten, but miraculously so, and yet no one ever perceives either flesh or blood. who would not say we are lying to ourselves? When has God ever worked a miracle or offered one to the world that could in no way be seen, felt, or perceived? Furthermore, Berengarius’s retraction states: “The body of Christ is also tangibly broken by the hands of the priests.” So how is it broken? They will no doubt say: “Just as it was broken on the cross,” meaning it was put to death. For they base their concept of sacrifice on this.
But how does that hold, when Scripture says that Christ can die no more (Romans 6:9)? Or do they respond: “It is not Christ, but the bread or the appearance (species) that is broken”? Then thanks be to God! For in that case, Berengarius spoke rightly when he said that Christ’s body is not physically broken here, but only the sign. So the phrase “tangibly broken” is just as nonsensical as the earlier phrase “tangibly handled.” Berengarius’s retraction also says: “The body of Christ is tangibly chewed or crushed by the teeth of the believers.”
Ah, Lord God in heaven! What believer has ever experienced such a thing? Or who would not recoil in horror if they did? Is Christ’s word no longer true. “Whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and is expelled” (Matthew 15:17)? What kind of blasphemous madness is it to imagine such things. thoughts that ought to be far removed from all believing hearts?
Some teachers have had to give evasive or uncertain answers in this matter as well. for example, Rabanus. This confusion has only arisen because of a muddled understanding. “Yes,” they say, “it happens miraculously,” and they want to shift everything with that word, as if God were performing a miracle that no one can perceive. But what kind of miracle would that be, if in such a small piece of bread and sip of wine we were to experience it as flesh and blood? The manna. the “bread from heaven”. had the shape and size of coriander seed, but it had a different taste (cf. Exodus 16:31). But here, we do not find that. Rather, we taste and experience bread and wine. So why do we say it is flesh, if we do not experience it as such? If flesh were present miraculously, the bread would have to be experienced as flesh, not as bread. But since it is still seen and experienced as bread, it is evident that we are attributing a miracle to God which he does not will, and which is unworthy of him. for God does not perform miracles that no one can experience or detect.
Furthermore, the unlearned should not put any stock in the gloss (commentary) on this text, because it consists of mere words without meaning. The same glossator, in De consecratione, Distinction 1, chapter 1, even says that it is dangerous or harmful to speak the truth about the sacraments. He makes it clear. as if Gratian, the compiler of the Decretum, had not wanted to state the truth himself but only to refer to the Fathers, and not to present or establish it directly as he did in other places.
Look, faithful Christian, this is how a papal glossator speaks. He acknowledges that it is dangerous before the pope to speak the truth about the sacraments. Now, what was not dangerous to say? That flesh and blood were present. because the pope demanded that. So clearly it was dangerous to speak as we are speaking. Therefore, that must be the truth, since it was dangerous to proclaim it. This glossator, then, knew what the truth was, for he said it was dangerous to speak the truth about the sacraments. Had he said, “It is dangerous to speak about them,” that might be something different. But since he says it is dangerous to speak the truth, he openly indicates that the truth was not being said in his time. I have had to say this much about the gloss for the sake of the unlearned. The glossators should have been dealt with quite differently. reined in properly. if we were not sparing them for God’s sake.
Now some say: “I do not believe that we eat physical flesh here with mouth and teeth, but rather non-physically.” To such people I have great hope. they will soon come to know the truth with joy. For if they speak this way, they are already in practice rejecting the papacy, even if they do not wish to recognize it. Because the pope says that Christ’s body is “tangibly crushed or chewed by the teeth.” They are, in fact, clearly showing with these words that they do not take the phrase “This is” in a literal, substantial sense. though they still claim to argue that they do. Because if they really understood it as substantial, then they could not deny that the flesh of Christ must be substantially present.
It is also fitting here to say something about the Decretum of Gratian, called the “papal decretals”. so named because the popes confirmed the book and allowed it to be widely used for many years. As we saw already from the glossator, it becomes evident that Gratian did not hold the papal view, even though he lived around the year 1160, when the darkness of ignorance still largely prevailed. Gratian includes, as the sixth canon after Berengarius’s retraction, the words of Augustine, which the pope himself had confirmed. They are as follows (Corpus Iuris Canonici, c. 47, Dist. II, De consecratione): “Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten. For in believing, that is: in faith, one eats the bread and the wine. Whoever believes in him, eats him.” That is the extent of Augustine’s words. But they directly contradict what was asserted in Berengarius’s recantation. There it said: “The body and blood of Christ are tangibly chewed by the teeth.” But here it says: “Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach?” There, teeth are required; here, teeth are of no use. Thus, Gratian did not want to suppress the truth. In Augustine’s words lies the entire foundation of the sacrament.
When Augustine says, “Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach?”, he is making it clear that nothing physical is being eaten here. because if something physical were being eaten, one would need teeth and a stomach. But then Augustine adds: “Believe, and you have eaten.” This makes completely clear that “eating Christ” means nothing other than to entrust oneself to him in faith. Now the opponents object: “One should understand Augustine’s words this way: ‘Believe or trust that flesh and blood are present. then you have eaten flesh and blood. Whoever believes this, eats; whoever doesn’t believe, does not eat.’” To which I would gladly ask: how many people have you seen who actually felt they were eating flesh and blood? And since you cannot point to a single person since Christ instituted the Supper who has experienced this, you must admit that no one has ever truly believed it. That’s how easily they are caught in their own words. They do not really believe they are eating flesh and blood.
But I do not wish to provoke them. Instead, I offer this reply: Augustine’s follow-up sentence. “For in believing, that is: eating the bread and wine”. clearly explains the previous one. He first says: “Believe in him,” and then teaches that believing is itself eating Christ. From this, we learn that the words “believe” or “trust” cannot be directed toward the bread or the flesh but must be directed only toward Christ. Then Augustine says, “Believing in Christ is to eat the bread and the wine.” But how can that be? These are difficult words. Who can understand them? After all, there are many who continually believe in Christ and yet rarely partake of the sacrament, the bread and wine. Furthermore, Augustine speaks of it in such a way that even believers eat bread and wine. So take note: what Augustine means with these words is simply this. whoever believes in Christ properly belongs to the community that eats the bread and wine together; that person receives the sacrament rightly.
For Augustine immediately adds: “Whoever believes in him, eats him.” Therefore, to “eat Christ bodily” is nothing other than: to trust in the Son of God, whose body was given for us into death. But those who misunderstand say: “Whoever believes in him eats his flesh and blood. so that’s how Augustine should be understood.”
Response:
The sentence that comes just before. “Believing in him, that is to eat the bread and the wine”. makes it clear that Augustine does not mean: “Whoever trusts in him eats his actual flesh and blood,” since he had just said that it is in believing that we eat, and that such belief is what matters. Moreover, he begins by saying: “Believe, and you have already eaten him.” And still, he acknowledges that what is physically eaten is bread and wine. which Christ called his body and blood because they are symbols of his body and blood in the thanksgiving (Eucharist), as Paul also calls them (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16). The whole meaning of Augustine’s words can be summed up this way: When you come to this thanksgiving meal, you do not need teeth to chew Christ’s body, or a stomach to digest it. Rather, believe in him, and you have already eaten him. For when you join the community in eating the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper, you are doing nothing other than openly declaring that you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. So believing in Christ must always be the foundation we look to when we eat the symbolic bread and wine. For, “Whoever believes in him, eats him.” To “eat Christ” means nothing other than: to believe in him.
The papists, however, have twisted this meaning and done violence to the holy words. which are nothing less than God’s own Word (cf. John 6). as we will soon see in De consecratione, Distinction 2, chapter Credere [Corpus iuris canonici, c. 59, Dist. II de consecratione]. There it also says. taken from Augustine: “To trust in Jesus Christ is to eat the living bread. Whoever trusts, eats.”
So much for the first article, in which we have explored what great absurdities and contradictions result when one tries to understand Christ’s words “This is my body” in a literal, substantial sense, and how these very words show that they must instead be figurative and understood differently. not in a literal, bodily way. For if “is” were to be taken literally, then we would have to eat his body with flesh, bones, veins, sinews, marrow, and other parts that I prefer not to name. because God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). If Christ had spoken literally and not symbolically, then his body would have to be eaten literally and tangibly. just as Berengarius was forced to confess. though all believers know full well that they have never eaten the body of Christ in this way.
From this, it follows that, based on the nature and truth of the matter, these words cannot be taken literally. And by “nature and truth,” I do not mean merely the limits of human understanding, but the very nature of God’s Word. which is such that, when God speaks literally, then what he speaks is really present: it can be seen, touched, felt. it becomes reality when God speaks it. But since that is not the case here, it follows from the reality itself that God did not speak literally. For God does not deceive. If he had spoken literally, the body would be perceptible. Therefore, it is now plainly proven that these words “This is my body” must not be understood in a literal, substantial sense.
The Second Article
Since, in the first article, we have (I hope) clearly seen from the nature and character of God’s Word that Christ’s saying “This is my body” cannot bear a literal meaning, we now intend in this second article. by means of the clear teaching of God’s Word and the articles of the faith, as mentioned earlier. to demonstrate and establish that these words cannot have the literal sense assigned to them.
It has already been sufficiently shown by the early Christian teachers, by many in our own time, and also by us in our Commentary and in the Subsequent Reflections, that in the teaching of John 6 (John 6:53–63), where Christ speaks of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood,” he means nothing other than that we should believe in him. the one who gave his flesh and blood for our redemption and the washing away of our sins. And it is clear that he is not speaking there of the sacrament, but rather of the gospel, proclaimed under the figurative expression of eating and drinking his flesh and blood.
But if anyone is still uncertain on this point, I will briefly summarize the whole passage and point out clear signs by which one can recognize that Christ, throughout this teaching, is doing nothing but proclaiming the gospel, which is the salvation freely given by God to humankind through him. Christ often began his teachings with physical matters, then built upon them spiritual and heavenly meanings by way of analogy or parable. For example, when someone said to him, “Your mother and brothers are outside, wanting to speak with you” (Matthew 12:47), he used that occasion to teach that all believers are his members and siblings, saying (Matthew 12:48–50): “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Then stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Behold, my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother.” He does the same in Matthew 16:5–12. When the disciples forgot to bring bread across the lake, he used that as an occasion to warn them about the leaven of the Pharisees.
So too in John 6 (vv. 22–64): After feeding the people so abundantly that the disciples collected twelve baskets of leftovers, the crowd followed him. But when he saw that they were not following out of wonder at the signs or a thirst for salvation, he exposed their motives. Since they were following him for physical food, he taught them about the food of the soul, which is he himself. He takes the occasion from their physical hunger and says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are not seeking me because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. for on him God the Father has set his seal” (that is, he has given him as an infallible guarantee). So they ask him (because he has told them to seek eternal, physical food): “What must we do to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answers: “This is the work of God. that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Look! That is clear proof that everything Christ says afterward about eating is intended only to lead people to believe in him, for that is the true nourishment of the soul. Then they say to him: “What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?”
(Notice how it goes among the crowd: some understand, others do not. Each person speaks out of their own temptation or understanding. Therefore, those who recognized that he was teaching faith in himself, but still rejected him, shouted at him to prove himself with great signs, so they could justify believing in him. They pointed to a great work, saying:)
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness…” Jesus replied: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” See how he keeps building upon the occasion of bread, but teaches, under the name “bread from heaven,” that he himself has come down from heaven to bring the world to life again. This one sentence: “The bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” this sentence alone is strong enough, even if we had no clearer words, to prove that Christ is called bread because he gives life to the world. which he did by his death.
So if you cling to Christ, you are already fed and alive. But you do not cling to him by eating him, but by trusting in him as the one crucified for you. for that alone is what gives life. Thus, eating Christ physically serves no purpose for life. Upon hearing this, they say to him: “Lord, give us this bread always!” for he had said the bread gives life to the world. Then Jesus says: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (So in what way is Christ the life-giving bread? As crucified, or as eaten? As crucified. as will become clear.) See how beautifully his words play upon the image at hand: “I am the bread of life”. that is, “I am the nourishment that alone feeds and gives life to the weary soul. Whoever comes to me will not hunger.” So coming to him feeds; not physically eating him.
To come to him is nothing else than to trust in him, as he later teaches when he says immediately: “And whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Here the word “and” is used, following Hebrew style, as an explanatory marker. meaning that “coming to him” is the same as believing in him. Why, then, do those who insist on eating flesh and blood in the sacrament act as though faith also requires physical hunger and thirst for Christ’s bodily flesh and blood? Yet Christ says: “Whoever comes to me”. that is, whoever believes in me. “shall never hunger or thirst for any other thing, hope, or comfort.” This is confirmed by Christ’s following words: “But I say to you, you have seen me and yet do not believe.” We see here clearly that Christ requires no other eating than faith, and he rejects external, physical seeing or eating, when he says: “You have seen me, yet do not believe.” This rebukes the childish reasoning of those who say, “I believe, but I still want to eat him bodily. I want to have both faith and the thing I believe in together.” That reasoning is rejected here. For the Jews saw him, but seeing was of no benefit. Likewise, eating is of no benefit, because eating and seeing are in the same category. they are physical sensations.
Therefore, Christ teaches that no one believes in him unless the Father draws him. which also means that the flesh accomplishes nothing, whether by eating or seeing. He says: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (This means: if anyone comes to him in faith, it is because the Father has drawn them, as will be explained further.) “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” (Concerning the two wills in Christ. the divine and the human. we will say more in this article.) “And this is the will of the Father who sent me: that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up again on the last day.” This means nothing else than: “This is the will of the one who sent me: that everyone who sees the Son”. that is, recognizes him (since in all three biblical languages the word ‘see’ is often used to mean know, understand, or recognize; for we’ve already heard enough to know that physical seeing brings nothing). “And [who] believes in him shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
See first how Christ explains his own words, when he says: “This is the will of the one who sent me.” But elsewhere, he speaks more clearly.
Secondly, note that the words resurrection, rising, and similar expressions in Scripture are not always used only for the general resurrection of the dead, but also for the life of the soul after this time, as is evident in 1 Corinthians 15 and here too. But this is not the place to go into detail on that. Also, the last day is not used only to refer to the Day of Judgment, but also to the departure of a person from this life. Therefore, Christ’s words in John 6:40 and 54. “I will raise him up on the last day”. are not to be understood only as referring to the Last Judgment, but also: “I will place him in eternal life when he departs from this world,” as is stated clearly earlier in John 5:24.
Then the Jews murmured about him, because he had said: “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them: “Do not murmur among yourselves.” (See how gently he forbids them from going astray in ignorance.) “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (That is: I will keep him in eternal life from the last hour of this life.) “It is written in the prophets: ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” (See here what the earlier phrases. “All that the Father gives me” and “the Father draws him”. mean. Nothing other than what Christ now openly says: that the heavenly Father teaches people inwardly by his Spirit, to recognize Christ and trust in him. those whom he intends to save through him.) “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.” (Here, he refers to himself.) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me has eternal life.” This is one of the clearest passages teaching that, in this discourse, Christ means nothing else by “eating his flesh and blood” than “believing in him,” who gave his flesh and blood for our life. Faith in him brings salvation. not eating, seeing, or feeling him physically. Here it is also plainly revealed what Christ meant earlier when he said, “Come to me”. namely, that coming to him means nothing else than believing in him.
From this point on, Christ begins to reveal the mystery of his suffering, and to respond to the objection raised by the people when they said: “Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness.” He says: “I am the bread of life” without doubt, the nourishment of eternal life, of which he had just said: “Whoever believes in me has eternal life.” So it follows that bread and flesh here mean nothing other than “faith in him,” because faith brings eternal life. If he is the bread of eternal life, then believing in him gives life. But he gives life as the crucified one, not as one eaten with teeth. For he says not: “The bread is my flesh, which I will give you to eat bodily,” but rather: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” This feeds the soul, just as bread nourishes the body. From this we learn, first, that “flesh” here does not mean a price or offering, but rather refers to his death. The death and suffering that Christ endured in the body. that is our redemption.
Thus, we also learn to understand Christ’s words: “This is my body, which is given for you” so that body here means “the suffering endured in the body,” as the phrase “given for you” makes clear. It is Christ’s body, given into death, that is beneficial. not the body physically eaten. Therefore, we should not pursue physical eating. Then the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They argued because their eyes and ears did not perceive, and their hearts did not understand. Christ had often spoken to them of food and bread, and soon after he showed them clearly that this food was nothing other than his death for the world, saying: “The food, or the bread, of which I speak to you, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” But they focused only on part of his statement: “The bread that I will give is my flesh,” and ignored the following words: “which I will give for the life of the world.” This is why they argued. because they failed to realize that Christ is teaching that his death is the only comfort and nourishment for the faithful soul. Then Jesus said to them: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”
(It is not necessary to argue here against those who claim that Christ now introduces a new discourse that refers to the sacrament. If they rightly observed the words that link the passage together. such as “so,” “and,” “therefore”. they would learn that Christ’s speech is connected to the preceding, and that he has consistently meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood nothing other than trusting in the merit of his suffering, which he bore for us. For if he now says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” and just before said plainly, “Whoever believes in me has eternal life,” then “eating his flesh” and “believing in him” must be the same thing unless there are two different ways to salvation: one, by eating Christ’s flesh and blood; the other, by believing in him. And in that case, there would have been no need for the crucifixion, for the disciples would already have been children of eternal life from the beginning, since they ate his flesh and blood after the Supper. See what shame misunderstanding of Scripture brings upon the truth!
But Christ wishes to teach nothing else than that he is our comfort and salvation, who gave his flesh and blood for us into death. Now follows: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.” (This is also one of the clear passages showing that he is speaking here of faith in himself; for that is what makes the soul alive. living through him.) “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread your fathers ate and died. Whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (Notice how what he previously called flesh and blood, he now again calls bread, for two reasons: First, because he remains throughout in the metaphor and example of bread, with which he began the discourse. Second, because he wants to make it clear that by bread, flesh, and blood, he means nothing other than that he is spiritual food, nourishment, refreshment, and life for the soul, for those who know that God gave his Son into death for their sake in the flesh. that is, in true human nature.
In short: bread, flesh, and faith are all one thing here, as anyone can see who has eyes.) Jesus spoke these things while teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. Then many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about it, said to them: “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no benefit at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (See what ignorance does: the less they understand, the more defiantly they distance themselves and fall away. That’s why Christ says,
“Does this offend you?” That is: “Do you insist on taking offense when I have explained myself so clearly? You hear plainly that I am not requiring you to eat my bodily flesh, but that I am teaching you to believe in me. And since you will not do this, you seize upon the physical eating of my flesh as a pretext for your unbelief, hoping that your offense might somehow be blamed on me. But when you see me ascend to heaven where I was before, then your unbelief, which refused to accept me, will be publicly exposed. My ascension will clearly show you that I am the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and the way to life. Then the hidden sin of your unbelief. masked under the pretense of being horrified at eating flesh. will be revealed,” as John 16 also says.
Moreover, when you see me ascend to heaven, you will know very well that you did not eat me, and that I cannot be eaten. “It is the Spirit who gives life. I speak of the life of the spirit, of the soul. And surely no one can make the soul live except the Spirit. How then can bodily flesh nourish or give life to the soul? The flesh is of no benefit, as you suppose, for giving life to the soul. But the words I have spoken to you. ‘Whoever believes in me has eternal life’ and ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life’ are not to be understood any other way than this: that I, who was put to death for the world and not eaten with the mouth, am the comfort and nourishment of the soul. Understood in this spiritual way, they are life.” Note here, dear scholar, that when the early teachers spoke of spiritual and fleshly understanding, they did not mean, as some disputants wrongly suppose, the sinful nature of the flesh, nor by spiritual understanding something like how Matthew 13 describes the devil as a bird stealing the seed. which some mistakenly call spiritual sense. No, when they spoke of fleshly understanding, they meant the view of those who suppose they are literally eating flesh and blood; by spiritual understanding, they meant Christ’s own meaning: that our souls believe in him.
This would take too long to prove here with full citations. But Christ himself teaches us, with his own words, that all his talk about eating flesh and bread is meant solely to refer to faith. And some people, with false piety, took offense at the idea of eating flesh so they could justify their departure from him, as he says: “There are some of you who do not believe.” See how helpful these words are: “There are some among you who do not believe or trust in me. And these are the ones who claim they are repelled by my flesh. that I do not give it to be eaten physically. But their unbelief is what drives them away from me; that is the true reason for their departure.” It is thus clearly shown that he would have been pleased with them if they had believed in him. As Peter later says on behalf of all the disciples (to conclude this teaching): “We believe and know that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He does not say: “We believe that we eat your flesh and blood,” but rather: They believe that he is the Christ, the Savior, the Son of the living God. That was salvific. So all Christ’s words must be directed solely toward this: that he wanted to reveal why he became human, and why his death was good. This is the sum of the gospel.
So much seemed necessary to me, to explain the true meaning of Christ’s words in John 6 [John 6:22–64], so that the simple would not be misled by the papists into misunderstanding. I also hope that the real meaning of the passage has by now been sufficiently established from the words themselves, so that no one can object. Still, let us examine whether this is also the proper interpretation according to papal canon law. not as if we need to confirm the faith of believers from such a source, but so that we can confront the papacy with its own laws, in which the same meaning is affirmed for which they now slander us as heretics. You may ask: “Then why do they not abide by their own laws?”
Answer: That is indeed the complaint of all believers. Alongside the Word of truth, they speak the words: “Truth has been overthrown; no one upholds it anymore.” [cf. Ps. 12:1ff] You can see for yourself how impudent and unbearable this is for the Christian people. And now, here are the words from the canon law or papal decree, taken from Augustine. which have been made into an official statute or chapter: De consecratione, Dist. II, cap. Prima “The first heresy (that is, stubborn error) arose among the disciples of Christ” (meaning not the Twelve, but the broader crowd), “as if it came from the difficulty of his teaching. For when he said: ‘Unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he will not have eternal life,’ and they did not understand this, they said among themselves: ‘This is a hard saying; who can accept it?’ And in saying so, they departed from him; and he remained with the Twelve.
But after the others had gone, he taught those who remained: ‘It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no benefit. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. ‘If you had understood them spiritually, they would be Spirit and life to you. (Note: “spiritually” here refers to the sense Christ intended. namely, that one should trust in him, who gave his flesh and blood for us into death.) If you had understood them carnally, they would still be Spirit and life. but not for you, because you did not understand them spiritually. (Now observe that “fleshly understanding” here means the interpretation held by those who departed or have aligned themselves with them.
So Augustine says that Christ’s words are nonetheless Spirit and life, even if the apostates refuse to understand them spiritually; but for them, they are not Spirit and life which clearly shows that a literal, physical understanding of flesh and blood does not bring life.) Now Augustine. or the pope, speaking in Christ’s person. continues: “You must understand what I have said to you spiritually. You will not eat the body that you see, nor drink the blood that is to be shed by those who will crucify me. I have given you a sacrament (that is, a sign or symbolic act), which, if understood spiritually, will give you life. But the flesh is of no benefit.” As they understood it, so they responded. for they imagined the flesh in the way that meat is bought and chopped up in a butcher’s shop.
At this point, dear Christian, do not let yourself be deceived or led astray by the papists, as if Augustine either spoke too crudely or confirmed their position. Rather, Augustine is here treating the consequences as if they were the intended meaning. The actual meaning is this: the Jews misunderstood Christ to be speaking of bodily flesh, whereas Christ was speaking only of his suffering. The implication is: where there is bodily flesh, it must be seen, touched, and handled. So, if bodily flesh were truly present here, it would necessarily be perceptible. That’s why Augustine interprets the words to mean: “bodily flesh.”) Now the passage continues: “When Jesus noticed this, he said: ‘Does this offend you, that I said to you: I give you my flesh to eat and my blood to drink? What then if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?’”
What does this mean?
He opens up to them what had confused them; he reveals the cause of their offense, so that they might rightly understand him. They had thought he would give them his body literally, but he now says that he will ascend into heaven, body and all. So he says: “When you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before, then you will clearly see that he does not give you his body to eat, as you thought. Then you will understand that his grace is not to be consumed by eating.”
Look here, dear Christian, how the ancient Christians understood the body of Christ. Why then do they cry: “Heretic! Heretic!” when one says nothing other than what they themselves have written in their own laws? How could anyone speak more plainly than this: “You shall not eat the body that you see, nor drink the blood that will be shed by those who will crucify me”? Where now are the papists who have said: “One eats him just as he was in the manger, at the wedding feast, or hanging on the cross”? Was this not said in such a way that. just as Augustine himself noted, it could only be understood as literal flesh-eating, like eating any other kind of meat? This is exactly what Berengar was forced to admit. And they would not have been wrong. if the word “is” had to be taken substantially or essentially, as we’ve often heard. But that’s not the case.
The passage “the flesh is of no use” (John 6:63). understood in terms of eating (for crucified, it is useful for the whole world). is strong enough on its own to prove that the words of Christ “This is my body” cannot possibly be understood of literal, substantial flesh. For if that flesh were beneficial to eat, Christ would not have said otherwise. Now, some people. whom no one would have expected it from. argue: “Where Christ says, ‘the flesh is of no use,’ we should not think he is speaking of his own flesh, but of the carnal nature, as Isaiah says: ‘All flesh is like grass’ (Isaiah 40:6). So here too Christ supposedly means: ‘a fleshly understanding is of no use.’ For he doesn’t say: ‘My flesh is of no use’. how could he, when it is by that flesh that we are redeemed?”
Answer:
This objection brings with it many others that, since they have no firm foundation in God’s Word, could rightly be left unanswered. For why should we answer such childish objections, which are put forward without Scripture, when they refuse to hear the strong, invincible word \ “the flesh is of no use” and cannot explain how that fits with the words “This is my body”? And both cannot stand together, so long as you insist on a literal, substantial meaning. Still, in the spirit of Christian decorum, I will answer all these objections.
First, it is certainly true: “A fleshly understanding is of no use”. indeed, it is harmful. But Christ is not speaking here about a carnal understanding, as you claim. For had he begun to speak about fleshly or sinful understanding, that would not have addressed the disciples’ confusion. Since their offense was about the bodily eating of his flesh. So, Christ’s answer must address the bodily flesh directly. otherwise, he would have failed to correct their error and instead changed the subject to something unrelated. But that is not Christ’s custom; rather, he always explains what is hidden. Moreover, Christ’s own words show clearly that he is answering their complaint about bodily flesh. For it says: “When Jesus knew within himself that they were grumbling about this, he said to them…” These words plainly indicate that he means to resolve what had offended them. Again, he continues in the same line of thought, as is evident from what follows, especially where he says: “That is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father”. a statement he makes here for the third time. In short: the dispute was about bodily flesh, and so Christ’s instruction addresses bodily flesh. What he says is: bodily eating of the flesh is of no use. which is how they had understood it.
Secondly, the fact that Christ does not say: “My flesh is of no use” is no cause for confusion, since the dispute was about a kind of flesh other than his own. He also does not say: “My Spirit is what gives life” but simply: “The Spirit”. yet every believer rightly understands that he means his Spirit, even if he does not say the word “my.”
Third, the flesh of Christ is very useful. indeed, it was slain for us. But the Jews and the disciples here refused to accept that; they understood it as literal eating. So Christ says it is not useful to eat, but that it is most useful to be slain. indeed, the greatest benefit the poor human race has ever received or experienced.
Thanks be to God that the dissenters have no better arguments than such weak and foolish ones! Still, they raise one more objection, saying: “If John 6 has nothing to do with the sacrament, then why do you bring it into this discussion?” Answer:
Because you have dragged literal flesh and blood into the sacrament. Now, since this passage explicitly declares that the literal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood is of no use, and yet you have inserted it into the sacrament, how could I better answer your error than with the very words of Christ, with which he himself answered this very same error? It’s true: in that passage, Christ is teaching the Gospel. But the Jews and the disciples misunderstood. and fell into the error of literal flesh-eating. So now, if the same error arises in the sacrament, we must apply the remedy at the very place where the disease first took root. Thus far the first and clear witness of Scripture, which strongly forbids us to understand Christ’s words “This is my body” in a literal or substantial manner. The second clear testimony is found in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4, where it says: “I do not want you to be unaware, dear brothers, that our ancestors… all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.”
This passage is interpreted in different ways by different people, each pulling it in their preferred direction, but few pay close attention to what Paul is actually intending. For Paul’s aim here is to teach that the people of old were just as much God’s people as we are, that they served the same God we serve, and that they had the same Christ whom we have. though they hoped in the one who was to come, while we trust in the one who has already come. Nevertheless, they displeased God when they were disobedient. And so Paul recounts, among other things that they possessed no less than we do, that they too ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink as we do. Now it is undeniably true that they did not eat the bodily flesh or drink the blood of Christ, for Christ became man only about sixteen hundred years later. So their “eating” must have been nothing other than this: that they trusted in Christ, who would give his body and blood unto death. In the same way, our “bodily eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ” can be nothing else than to trust in him who has already given his flesh and blood for us. For the text says to auto (τὸ αὐτό). that is, “the same food” or “the very same nourishment.” This is a strong and clear testimony, sufficient to teach the simple that to “eat Christ spiritually” is nothing else than to trust in him who has given his body and blood for us.
We do not need to worry about the scoffers who misunderstand this passage. some of whom are by no means insignificant figures in the Christian faith. for even those before Christ shared the same faith as we do, since they shared the same God. That Christ had not yet been revealed in the flesh, and was thus the object of their future hope, makes no difference in the faith itself, for we have the same “spirit of faith” as they did (2 Cor. 4:13; Gal. 3:26ff). This is also how Augustine interprets this passage in Tractate 45 on John, explaining clearly: “Although we have different signs, they still ate the very Christ whom we eat.” So it must mean nothing else than “to trust in him.”
The third clear testimony is found in the three articles of the faith, which are grounded in God’s Word. otherwise they would not be articles of the faith. And these three are: “He ascended into heaven,” “He sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,” and “From there he will come again to judge the living and the dead.”
Of the first two, Mark 16:19 says: “After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.” And he is truly there. for the holy Stephen saw him there (Acts 7:56). Yet some are so confident in their own position that they make a mockery of this and say: “Didn’t he also say in Matthew 28:20, ‘Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world’?” They want to apply this to Christ’s bodily presence, which cannot be the case, as will be shown clearly below.
Take note here, devout Christian: In Christ there are two distinct natures. the divine and the human. yet both are one Christ. In his divine nature, Christ has never left the right hand of the Father, for he is one God with the Father. That is why he says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and again: “No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13). According to this divine nature, he did not need to ascend into heaven, for he is present everywhere. Wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is in their midst (Matt. 18:20). Thus, in this nature, he is always at the right hand of the Father. for he says he is in heaven even while still bodily present on earth (John 3:13). That must refer only to his divine nature.
The other nature of Christ is his human nature, which he assumed for our sake in the pure womb of Mary through the conception and revelation of the Holy Spirit. He truly bore this flesh and lived in it in time. According to this nature he grew in stature and wisdom (cf. Luke 2:52), suffered hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and other blameless afflictions. According to this nature he was nailed to the cross and with it he ascended into heaven. His humanity was a guest in heaven. for no flesh had ever entered there before. Therefore, when Mark 16 describes Christ ascending into heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father, it must and can only refer to his human nature. For according to his divine nature, he is eternally present everywhere.
The passage in Matthew 28:20, “I am with you always, to the end of the world,” must therefore be understood only of his divine nature, for in that nature he is everywhere present and offers special grace and comfort to his believers. But if one were to confuse the two and apply what pertains to the divine nature to the human, or what belongs to the human nature to the divine, without distinction, one would ruin all of Scripture. and even the faith itself. For how could it then be said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:2; Matt. 27:46), if we applied it to the divine nature? And so with countless other passages. True, I know that on account of the unity of the two natures. now one Christ. Scripture often speaks of the whole when referring to one. But even so, the distinctive properties of each nature must remain intact, and each must be applied properly to what is its own.
So, when we say “God suffered for us,” this has always been accepted by Christians, and it does not trouble me. though not because the Godhead can suffer, but because the one who suffered in his humanity was also God as well as man. Yet, strictly speaking, the suffering belongs to the human nature alone. In the same way, the ascension into heaven pertains properly to the human nature alone. Do not make a mockery of this. Christ needed to ascend no more according to his divine nature than he needed to suffer according to it. For John 1:18 says: “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father…” And yet Christ was at that moment bodily on earth, and not bodily at the right hand of the Father. Thus, he did not need to ascend according to the divine nature. Still, it is not incorrect to say, “The Son of God ascended into heaven,” for the one who ascended is God. But to speak precisely, the ascension belongs to the human nature alone. So remain steadfast, simple Christian, and do not puff yourself up with irreverent speculation. Much contention has already been stirred up on this matter, and yet it all leads back to what I have just explained about the two natures.
Therefore, the proper understanding of both passages must remain unmixed and distinct: everything said about the ascension into heaven must be understood as referring to the human nature. such as Mark 16:19, “He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.” And everything that pertains only to the divine nature must be understood accordingly. such as “being everywhere,” “always being with us,” “dwelling in every heart,” “holding all things in himself,” etc. All of Scripture depends on this distinction.
So if Christ sits at the right hand of God and will remain there until the last day, how can he be eaten bodily in the sacrament here on earth? You say: “He is God. He can be everywhere.” Look how neatly you trap yourself! You say, “He is God”. thus you admit that omnipresence belongs to the divine nature. But it does not belong to the body. Let me make it even clearer: in John 16:28 Christ says: “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” See how this directly contradicts Matthew 28:20. “I am with you always, to the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). and yet he says in John 16:28: “Therefore I leave the world.” How does he leave the world? With his divine presence, care, grace, goodness, or mercy? God forbid! No creature should say such a thing. Yet he must have left us. he said it himself, and he cannot lie. He must have gone away from us. Therefore, it necessarily follows that he left us bodily, and is no longer with us bodily. And this is not strange at all, for he says it even more plainly in Matthew 26:11: “The poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always have.”
So if the statement “I am with you always, to the end of the world” were to refer to the body of Christ, it would follow that he is with us bodily, and not with us in divine grace and power. for he said, “You will not always have me.” If it were heretical or unbelieving to interpret this as applying to the divine nature, then one must surely recognize that when he says, “I leave the world,” and “you will not always have me,” he is speaking only of the departure and absence of his human nature. So if he has gone away, left the world, and is no longer with us, then either Christ’s own clear words must be false (which cannot be), or else his body and blood are not present in the sacrament. And let all flesh rage against this as it will. still, it will be found that Christ’s words remain firm: that he sits at the right hand of the Father, that he has left the world, and that he is no longer bodily with us. and these statements cannot stand alongside the claim that his flesh and blood are in the sacrament. Therefore, these three Scriptural passages are sufficient to establish the articles of faith and to disprove the false idea of Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament. But so that we may also address the contentious and combative, we will go on to speak further.
Some now respond with objections such as: “Look, how they dishonor God by claiming that he cannot send the body of his Son down from heaven. Is this not an insult to God’s omnipotence?” Others. as we noted above. say: “The nature of the risen body is such that it can be wherever it wills; and for that reason, Christ’s body is in heaven and in the sacrament at the same time, and everywhere else as well.”
To this we give threefold answer:
First, they dishonor God by making him out to be a liar. for the highest Good cannot lie. But if God were to act contrary to his own word, then he would indeed be a liar. and so no longer God. But this is not the case. For God has said, “What goes out of my mouth I will not make powerless” (Ps. 89:35). So when he said, “I leave the world,” and, “You will not always have me,” and since. as we have shown. this must be understood bodily, then those who claim he is still bodily here until the end of the world are making God out to be a liar. And even if they say: “But we too have a clear word: ‘This is my body,’” that does not help. For if that word is dark or unclear and contradicts the clearer words we have shown, then it must not be interpreted to mean what they claim. For God’s Word does not contradict itself; rather, all the context and meaning of Scripture and the teaching of faith make clear that it cannot have the crude, fleshly meaning they assign to it.
And yet with their view, it is not so. For all the context and sense of Scripture teaches us that Christ meant to show that he would ascend bodily to heaven and remain at the right hand of the Father until the last day. God’s omnipotence always does what he has said. but it cannot do anything contrary to his Word. Therefore, what they say is not possible. because it contradicts his Word. And that is not a limitation on God, but true omnipotence. They say: “It is possible for God, therefore it must be so.” But no. it was possible for God to make the seven barren women fruitful too, yet they did not all become fruitful. As we have shown in our Afterword (“Nachhuot”).
Second, we point out that it is not possible for Christ, until the last day, to be anywhere other than at the right hand of God the Father. Psalm 110:1 says: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Paul takes this up in 1 Corinthians 15, where he too teaches that Christ will remain at the right hand of the Father until the last day. So if he is seated there above, then he is not here below. Or else, if he were here below, there would be no need to speak of his coming. since he would already be here. This is made clear in Matthew 26:64: “I tell you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven.” What could be stated more clearly? The phrase ap’ arti (“from now on”) is sufficient for us, so that from this moment forward we seek him at the right hand of God until he comes in the clouds to judgment. This from now on does not expire before the last day. In this way the third article of the faith is grounded: “From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.” This also means that he does not come from there until he comes to judge. for it says: “He will come from there to judge,” not “He will come from there into the bread.” So it follows that he does not come from the right hand until he comes to judge.
David said so in Psalm 110, as Christ himself now shows and as the article of faith makes clear. To deny this would be heretical. Therefore, Christ himself says in Matthew 25:31ff: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all his holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory, and all nations will be gathered before him,” etc. So if he is now in the bread. or if the bread is the body of Christ. then the Last Judgment is already happening, and he is already seated on his throne and present here. But if the Last Judgment is not yet happening, then Christ is not bodily here either. for when he comes bodily, he will sit in judgment. I know well the excuse the ignorant seek here: “Yes, but the judgment and verdicts of God happen daily; therefore Christ’s body is present daily.” Response: One must not be so foolish. It is clear that here Christ speaks only of the Last Judgment, when the whole world, from Adam to the last person, will come before him. He is not speaking of daily judgments. for those do not require his bodily presence, nor has he promised it bodily.
Third, it is not possible for Christ to come again in any other way than visibly. Acts 1:9–11 states: “While they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. And as they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them and said: ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.’” This word will not fail us simple believers. If he descends into the bread as visibly as the disciples saw him ascend into heaven, then we will believe that he is present there. for the angels said he would come just as they saw him go. But if he does not come openly and visibly, then we will renounce any claim of his bodily presence until he comes in the way he promised through the angel. and in the meantime, we will not believe any angel from heaven, nor man, nor devil, no matter what they say about Christ’s bodily presence, unless we see him as visibly as the disciples saw him ascend.
Therefore, the holy Paul also speaks in 1 Corinthians 11:26, saying: “You proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Had Paul meant that the body of Christ is eaten here, he would not have said, “until he comes,” for he knew well that Christ, in his divine nature, is always with us. Therefore, these words can only refer to Christ’s human nature. Moreover, Christ himself says in Matthew 24:27: “As lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” If we see him as clearly as lightning, then we may rightly believe he is here. But if we do not see him, then we are not believers if we believe something other than what the clear word teaches. And in Luke 17:37, when the disciples asked where the final judgment would take place, Jesus replied: “Where the corpse is, there the eagles will gather.”
With this figurative answer, he meant to teach that just as eagles gather wherever the carcass is, so too we will be where his body is. If we are now near his body as clearly and undeniably as eagles are to their prey, then he is truly here. But if not, then we must wait for his coming until we see him clearly and directly, as he has taught. As for those who say: “The body of Christ is now, after the resurrection, wherever he wills. Therefore he sits at the right hand of the Father and is also eaten by us here. If he is where he wills, then he is everywhere, even if we do not understand the reason, method, or measure by which he is present everywhere. He was born of the Virgin Mary without violating her virginity. He entered through locked doors. He made himself invisible and vanished from their sight.” All this, they say, is incomprehensible. yet they firmly believe that his body has thus been transformed.
To them we reply:
First: All this is said without any word of God. The entire argument is built on a theological inference, namely: “The nature of the risen body is that it is wherever the person wills it to be.” But this is a presumptuous statement, without any foundation in God’s Word. even if they try to salvage it by saying: “Only the risen bodies of the elect are like this, not the damned.” But then it follows that such omnipresence is not a property of all resurrected bodies. Otherwise, all the risen would be wherever they wished. They add another caveat: “But the elect wish to be only where God wills.” I do not doubt that. But then it follows simply that Christ, too, is only where his heavenly Father wills him to be. And the Father has said. as David testifies in Psalm 110:1. that Christ shall sit at his right hand until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet, that is, until the Last Day, as Paul also teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:25 and as has already been clearly shown. Therefore, Christ is nowhere else, for the word “until”. which theologians have long failed to interpret correctly. now shines before our eyes, showing us that Christ will sit above and not be seen until the Last Day. And although this opinion rests only on human reasoning, which we are not compelled to answer, we will still offer a gentle and truthful response to show that these evasions cannot stand.
Note, then: although Christ was born of the untouched virgin Mary, that does not mean his body is present everywhere, as some would now like to assert. He did not pass through all doors. In short: he is still now in one place, as we will soon hear from God’s Word. Therefore it does not follow: “He is wherever he wills to be; therefore, he is everywhere at once.” For he wills to be bodily only at the right hand of the Father.
Second: Only the divine nature possesses omnipresence. Otherwise, Christ could not have bodily ascended into heaven, as we have already heard. for then he would have already been there beforehand. Now take note: at the beginning of Christianity, a stubborn heretic named Marcion refused to believe that Christ was truly human. He defended himself with texts about the virgin birth, Christ’s making himself invisible, walking on water without support, and appearing to the disciples in a transfigured form. He even misused the phrase “This is my body” to claim it was impossible that Christ’s body was truly eaten. Therefore, he argued, Christ had never borne a real, natural body. otherwise, it could not have been eaten. and thus it must have been a phantom or ghostly body. In response, the true and godly teachers and evangelists answered that Christ did not give his bodily flesh to be eaten, but instituted in bread and wine a sign of his true body and blood, which he indeed gave and delivered unto death. That I only mention in passing.
Now to return to the objection: If we now say that the body of Christ is in the bread in the same way it was when he was born of the Virgin Mary, or when he passed through closed doors, etc., then we must either say that his suffering caused him no pain, or else we fall into the error of Marcion. Why? Because if we eat his body through a miraculous act, just as he was born miraculously of Mary without damaging her virginity, then he must have also died miraculously without harm. just as he left her womb unharmed, he must have remained unharmed in death. Yet he himself said: “This is my body, which is broken for you,” that is, given into death. If we now eat his body. and eat it as it was when he died. and eat it in the same way as he was born of the Virgin or entered through closed doors, then it follows that his suffering was painless, or, as Marcion claimed, that his body was ghostly. But that would be the greatest and most shameful insult to Christ, who suffered so bitterly for us poor sinners.
See, then, where one ends up when one relies on human reason, words, and clever inventions against the clear truth! But no. let us look plainly to the truth, and we will understand the words rightly and clearly recognize that those who say, “The body of Christ is eaten invisibly and without sensation,” and who still want to claim, “we eat him bodily, modo quodam ineffabili. that is, in a way that cannot be expressed”. these people are simply speaking error. Why? Because if they insist on understanding the words “This is my body” bodily, then they must also reckon with what follows: “which is broken for you,” that is, given into death.
If he suffered not invisibly but visibly, not painlessly but with feeling, and if he gave himself to be eaten in the same way that he gave himself over to suffering, then he must be eaten visibly, tangibly, and substantially with the teeth. for so he was painfully pierced with thorns, scourges, nails, and spear, so grievously that neither sun nor earth nor stone could remain unmoved. Therefore, it is rightly answered that those who say, “One eats his flesh invisibly, painlessly, or as it was after the resurrection,” must either admit that he did not suffer with feeling, or that the disciples ate him differently than we do. since he had not yet risen when he instituted this thanksgiving meal.
Moreover, he does not say, “This is my body, which will rise from the dead,” but: “which is given for you into death.” Now to the present point. The second answer has already been outlined. namely, that those who claim we eat the body of Christ as it is after the resurrection from the dead are already refuted by Christ’s own words: “which is broken for you,” that is, “given to death.” As has already been said, if they want to understand the words “This is my body” to refer to the physical flesh, as if he gave it to be eaten in that very way, then what follows. “which is broken for you, that is, given to death”. must also be understood literally. So they would have to eat him as he was given into death, not as he was after the resurrection.
Thus, it is clear that such claims are vain, indeed presumptuous, and obscure and distort the Word of God. But so that they may be fully refuted, we will now demonstrate from Scripture that it is not possible for the body of Christ. even after the resurrection. to be present in multiple places or everywhere at once, but only in one place. This will address their talk of ubi or locus, taken from philosophy. We have already sufficiently shown that even though Christ was born of the virgin Mary without violating her virginity, his body was still not present in more than one place at a time. it was in one location, not in many. Now we will show that even after the resurrection, his body cannot be present in multiple places at once.
First, the ability to be in many places or to be everywhere is something that belongs only to the divine nature. So let us listen to what the angel says in Matthew 28:5–6 to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who were seeking Jesus: “I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here.” If Christ’s body were everywhere, then the angel would have been lying. because he would have been there. But since he was not there, it is certain that he could only be in one place. He was not in the place where the women were looking. And Christ himself says in Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Since he was not present in the place the women searched, it follows that he is present everywhere only according to his divine nature, not according to his human nature. Again, in Matthew 24:24–26 Christ says: “False Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders… If they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. Or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.” These, together with other sayings we have heard, clearly show that we are not to seek Christ’s bodily presence in some secret place.
But how do those speak who say: “I have seen our Lord here,” or “he was eaten there”? If he is in many places at once, then he is everywhere at once. Yet Christ never taught us this. Instead, he taught us not to believe those who point him out here or there. If some interpret this passage differently, do not let that trouble you, dear Christian. for Christ wants to teach clearly here that we are not to let ourselves be led astray when people claim that he has appeared here or there. Read Luke 17:21–23 alongside this, and you will understand it clearly. In John 12:26 Christ says: “Where I am, there will my servant be also.” Although this applies to both natures, it refers primarily to the human nature. This is what caused the disciples grief. that he would depart from them in the flesh. He comforted them by promising that they would be with him. Now if they are to be where he is. namely in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. it follows that he is in one place bodily. Otherwise, the disciples would also have to be in multiple places at once. since they are to be with him. Likewise in John 14:3 he says: “I will take you to myself, that where I am, you may be also.” This must refer to the human nature, because a creature cannot be where the Creator is unless it shares the omnipresence of God. which would be heresy.
So, if the disciples are to be where he is, then he must be in one place bodily. otherwise, they too would have to be everywhere, even in the Host, as some claim. And again in John 17:24 he says: “Father, I desire that those you have given me may be with me where I am.” This must teach that even after the resurrection, Christ’s human nature can be in only one place. For at that moment, he was speaking about his ascension into heaven and about leaving his disciples bodily in the world. So if someone twists this Scripture and says we do violence to it, do not be troubled, no matter who he may be. Let his interpretation be cast out if it does not conform to Scripture. for we want to hold fast to the truth and keep the word of truth within us. Now we will even show from the pope’s own canon law that the risen body of Christ cannot be in more than one place at the same time. In De consecratione, dist. 2, cap. Prima, final paragraph, it says: “The Lord is above, until the world ends; yet the truth of the Lord is also with us. For the body that has risen must be in one place; but his truth or grace is poured out everywhere.” (Corpus Iuris Canonici, c. 44, Dist. II de consecratione) So far from the pope’s own book. What could be said more clearly?
By “the Lord,” you clearly understand that Christ is meant. Therefore: if the risen body of Christ must now be in one place, then it is without a doubt at the right hand of the Father. How then can he be bodily present here in the bread? And if the papists try to persuade you otherwise, contrary to what we have just shown, do not let yourself be misled, but hold fast to these words: “The body that has risen must be in one place”. and you will be able to refute all their objections. Now, as God wills, every devout person can see how dishonest are those who accuse us, saying: “We want to throw down the Lord Christ Jesus, the true Son of God, our Redeemer, from heaven, deny him, and so forth.” When it is plain that we understand the meaning of eating his flesh in light of the fact that he remains unchanged at the right hand of divine majesty until the Last Day. and therefore eternally. To him be praise and glory forever and ever. Amen.
The Third Article
We have now shown in the first article, if God wills, from the very words of Christ themselves, that the statement “This is my body” cannot be understood essentially. otherwise, we would have to believe that Christ’s flesh is literally pierced by our teeth, just as it was pierced by nails and spear. In the second article, we examined those places in Holy Scripture which cannot bear the notion that flesh and blood are essentially present in the sacrament. It is only right that Scripture not be interpreted hastily and according to the letter alone, but that one should always consider what Scripture can rightly bear. For if Scripture is spoken by God, as Peter and Paul teach (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19–21), then it cannot contradict itself. And where we think it does, it is due to our misunderstanding or faulty comparison of one passage with another. We also clearly showed that the three articles of the faith. “He ascended into heaven,” “He sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty,” and “From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead”. cannot stand alongside the claim that he is bodily eaten here on earth.
Now it remains for us to show what the proper meaning of Christ’s words “This is my body” is, in a way that accords with both other Scripture and with the articles of faith. This we now intend, with God’s help, to demonstrate just as strongly in the third article. Enlighten our eyes, O Lord! To that end, we must recognize that Scripture is full of figurative speech, which in Greek is called tropos. that is, speech which must be understood differently or otherwise. For example, when Christ says in John 15:1, “I am the vine,” it clearly has another meaning: that he is like a vine in relation to us, who are nourished and grow in him like branches in a vine (John 15:1–11). In the same place he says, “You are the branches”. which also must be understood figuratively: we are like branches, as explained. Again, in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” The first part. “the Lamb”. is a figure, since Christ is not a literal lamb. It means rather that he is the pure sacrifice who takes away the sin of the whole world. Again, in John 6:35, “I am the bread of life”. here, “bread” is to be understood figuratively: “I am the living nourishment, the food and comfort of the soul.”
Likewise, in Matthew 21:44, Christ refers to himself as a “stone” and says: “Whoever falls on this stone will be broken.” This is a twofold figure: “stone” signifies Christ because of his unshakable firmness, and “falling” refers to one who resists or exerts force against him. Thus, the word “is” is often used in Scripture tropically. that is, with a figurative meaning. For instance, in Luke 8:11 Christ says: “The seed is the word of God.” This must be understood as: “The seed represents the word of God.” So here “is” means “signifies.” Likewise in Matthew 13:37–39, where Christ explains the parable of the good and bad seed: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man” means: he represents the Son of Man: “The field is the world” means: it signifies the world: “The good seed are the sons of the kingdom” means: the sons of the kingdom are symbolized by the good seed: “The weeds are the sons of the evil one” means: the weeds symbolize them: “The enemy who sowed them is the devil” means: he is signified by the enemy: “The harvest is the end of the world” and “The reapers are the angels”. both “is” and “are” are used to mean “signifies.”
Some object: “Yes, but ‘is’ appears here in a parable.” Answer: No, it appears in the interpretation of the parable, where the language must be clearest of all. Moreover, it doesn’t matter where it appears. We are simply showing that the word “is” is used countless times in Scripture to mean “signifies.” Some have briefly objected to this. but in Latin. I intend, God willing, to respond to them further, since they have not properly understood either grammar or logic. Likewise, in the Old Testament, Genesis 41:26–27, Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream: “The seven good cows are seven good years, and the seven good ears of grain are seven good years.” “The seven lean cows and the seven empty ears are seven years of famine.” In both cases, “are” means “signify” by the power of the figure of speech (tropos).
Some argue: “The Hebrew doesn’t have the word ‘are.’” Answer: Do you know why? Because Hebrew is not German. If Hebrew were German, it would include “is” and “are” wherever necessary. But in their language, they have other ways of expressing the same thing. as we have already noted. Still, I will answer the Latin critics more fully elsewhere. Now, based on all this, let us examine whether the words of Christ in Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22. “This is my body”. can also be taken figuratively or tropically. We have already shown clearly that the word “is” here cannot be understood essentially. Therefore, it must be taken figuratively or with another meaning. Thus: “This is my body”. “this” refers to the bread, and “body” means the body that was given for us. Since “is” cannot be taken essentially. for the bread is not his body and cannot be, as we have shown. it must be understood to mean: “The bread is my body,” that is, “The bread signifies my body,” or “is a representation of my body.” For immediately afterward, Christ says in Luke 22:19: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Therefore, the bread must be a symbol of his body, to recall in the Supper that he was given to death for us.
Now we will also demonstrate from the Old Testament that this tropos. this figurative meaning. properly belongs to these words. In Exodus 12:1–28, we read at length how God slew all the firstborn in Egypt, both of people and animals, in one night, but spared the children of Israel. God commanded them to slaughter a lamb or young goat and smear its blood on the doorposts and lintels. He said he would see the sign and not strike where the blood was found. They were to eat the lamb that evening, before the terrible night came, with their loins girded, shoes on their feet, and staff in hand. And God said: “You shall eat it in haste, for it is the Passover of the Lord.” See. he calls the eaten lamb “the Passover,” though the passing-over itself had not yet occurred. And a lamb cannot itself be a “passing-over,” for that was God’s act of sparing them from the plague. The lamb was flesh and bone. Yet God says: “It is the Passover.” So the word “is” must here be understood as “signifies.” The lamb signifies the passing-over which God would perform that night, and which the children of Israel were commanded to commemorate annually.
Some scholars object here. but their arguments actually strengthen our case. They cannot refute what we are about to demonstrate, especially in Latin. Since there is no clearer, more direct, or more fitting figure of Christ than the Passover lamb. indeed, Christ himself eagerly ate the Passover with his disciples before his death (Luke 22:15). then no words are more fitting than those spoken about the Passover lamb when we seek to understand the meaning of Christ’s words. Everything fits together. The Passover lamb was eaten before the actual event of sparing, yet it signified that very sparing which God would bring about. So also Christ instituted the remembrance of his death before he died, and we are to observe it until he comes again. There, in Egypt, the firstborn were struck, and the children of Israel passed over. Here, Christ was taken and killed, and Barabbas the murderer was passed over (cf. Matt. 27:26). that the innocence of Christ might take away our guilt. As I explained at greater length in the Nachthut.
Now compare the two statements: “The Passover lamb is the passing over”. that is, “The Passover lamb signifies the passing over of the angel of God.” And: “This is my body”. that is, “This signifies my body.” Thus, “eating this bread” is a sign and symbol that Christ, the true comfort and nourishment of the soul, was given to death for us. But some object here and say: “In the words about the old Passover lamb, the word ‘this’ does not refer to the lamb, but to the festival. In other words: ‘The feast is the Passover,’ and ‘this’ refers to *‘feast.’”
We respond: First, that it is not as they claim, but rather the word “this” plainly refers to the lamb itself, as the grammar clearly shows. But even if we concede their interpretation. that “this” refers to the festival, so that the meaning would be “the feast is the Passover”. then we must ask: where did the feast come from? For every feast has an origin. They would have to answer: “From the lamb and the passing over.” Then we would already have won, since it would show that the Passover feast arose from the eating of the lamb and the passing over, and that the words “The lamb is the Passover” refer to the original lamb.
See how poorly composed some of the epistles are that are carried around in so many hands! Secondly, even if we again concede that the word “this” refers to the feast. “The feast is the Passover”. what then does the word “is” mean? A feast cannot be a passing over. Therefore “is” must again mean “signifies.” If they now want to say: “The Passover lamb is a feast,” then we must still ask: what kind of feast is it? And we are again brought back to the passing over, meaning that the lamb is a symbol of the original passing over.
And even if we grant it is a feast, and don’t press further. though one should always seek out and understand origins. then it still follows that we could interpret the words of Christ “This is my body” in just the same way as “The lamb is the Passover,” that is, “The bread is a feast,” just as “The Passover lamb is a feast.” For this too (the Supper) is nothing else than a thanksgiving feast, as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 5:7–8, and as Origen also calls it when commenting on Leviticus, following the ancient interpreters. In short, since we have proven that the words “This is my body” must be taken figuratively or tropically, we now see plainly and in full light that they carry a meaning parallel to “This is the Lord’s Passover”. namely, “This bread signifies my body, which is given for you,” just as “The lamb signifies the Lord’s passing over.” That this is the right and natural meaning is confirmed by three clear surrounding circumstances:
First, the plain words of Christ himself. After instituting the sacrament, he says (Matthew 26:29): “I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Behold: after giving them the cup and calling it his blood, he refers to it again and names it “fruit of the vine.” From this we see plainly that he did not speak literally when he said “This is my blood,” but rather figuratively: “This drink signifies my blood.” For he calls it “fruit of the vine” with his own mouth immediately afterward. He did not use the word “fruit” by accident, for it tells us clearly that the drink was truly and essentially wine by nature and kind, and came from the vine. So why should we not also call it “fruit of the vine,” just as Christ did? That Luke places the words earlier in his account is also helpful. Luke did so to prevent us from misunderstanding Christ’s words, as though the wine were literally his blood.
Second, the silence of the disciples. They show no disturbance, sorrow, or confusion. ask no questions, and do not murmur among themselves. But in other, far lesser matters, they often reacted with confusion and misunderstanding. For instance, Peter made a great fuss when Jesus wanted to wash his feet (John 13:6–8). And yet here, though the Lord utters such an astonishing statement, we do not hear Peter cry out, as he once did while in the boat with Jesus: “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” (Luke 5:8). Nor do the disciples say with the centurion (Matt. 8:8): “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under the roof of my sinful mouth.” And yet nothing of the sort happens. The disciples show no signs of awe, worship, or astonishment. Why? Because they were Jews, and as such, they were not surprised by the words “This is my body”. they had heard similar expressions every year at the Passover meal: “This lamb is the Passover.” And they had always understood it to mean: “This lamb signifies the passing over.” So they also understood that the Lord was instituting a new feast of thanksgiving, using similar words, and so they were neither surprised nor confused.
Third, none of the apostles ever taught that the bread becomes flesh or the wine becomes blood. We should expect otherwise. if the apostles had preached about the sacrament as our opponents do, there would surely have been questions and controversy, which would have required the apostles to explain themselves. But that never happened. Rather, the holy Paul continues to call it “bread” and “drink,” just as Christ himself did. Now let us examine the event, word for word, as it is described in Luke 22:19–20 and in Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29. From these we will, by God’s help, understand the words of Matthew 26:26–29 and Mark 14:22–26 just as clearly as the holy disciples themselves. Thus, Luke 22:19 reads: “He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” Here one must not separate the words “This is my body” from “which is given for you,” but keep them together: “This is my body, which is given for you”. for only together is the saying of Christ complete.
Now it follows that Christ is speaking of the body that is given over to death for us. Therefore, it also follows that the bread is not that very body. otherwise, the bread-body would have had to be given over to death for us. For the words say plainly: “This”. referring to the bread. “is my body.” If now the bread is his body, then the bread too must have been given over to death for us, since he says the bread is his body which is given for us into death. So it cannot be otherwise: if the bread is his body. specifically the one that is given over to death for us. then the bread must also have been given to death for us. But here we see how Christ’s words themselves show us how they are to be understood. namely, that we clearly see this little word “is” cannot be taken in a substantial (essential) sense between bread and body, but must be taken figuratively, that is: “The bread signifies my body, which is given for you,” or “The bread is a sign of my body.” But how can that be? How does the bread in the sacrament signify Christ’s body? Answer: As he says: “which is given for you,” Christ means to say nothing other than this: “The bread is a sign that I have given my body for you into death.” And the meaning is clearly revealed in the following words, when he says: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Here we have the reason why this symbolic bread was instituted: namely, for the remembrance of Christ. that he was given over to death for us.
So it follows again that the bread is not his body, but signifies the body of Christ. for by it we remember him. Therefore, he is also not physically present there. Paul speaks of these words in 1 Corinthians 11:24 in the same way: “This is my body, which is broken for you.” If a thing is “given for us” and “broken for us,” it means Paul is referring to the figure hidden in these words. namely: just as Christ was broken, that is, put to death for us, so we too, in remembrance of him, break and share the bread with one another. that is, we place ourselves at one another’s service, share with each other, etc., just as Christ did with us.
As for the words about the cup, Luke reports them this way (Luke 22:20): “The cup”. for he calls it “cup” or “vessel” to refer to what was in it, just as we often say “a vessel or cup of wine” even though we do not drink the vessel itself. “The cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you.” To clarify Luke’s words, listen also to 1 Corinthians 11:25, where Paul says: “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” The meaning is short and clear: “The cup is the new testament, which is in my blood. that is, my blood which is poured out for you.”
Here we see first of all that neither Luke nor Paul says that the cup is the blood of Christ. Thus, it is also clear that the other Evangelists did not mean anything different than what Luke and Paul meant. Even if they use the words: “The cup”. which was wine. “is my blood,” they mean nothing other than: “This drink is a sign, symbol, and remembrance of the blood of the new testament, which is poured out for you.” So if we find a figurative sense (tropos) in this statement about the cup, we must likewise understand the words about the bread in the same figurative way. But some say: “If the cup is the new testament, then it must also be the blood of Christ. for the blood of Christ is the new testament.”
Answer: The new testament is not the blood of Christ, but the forgiveness and gracious remission of our sins. That is the new testament, as Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:12ff. teach. But this remission has been obtained for us through the blood of Christ. The forgiveness is given to us. not to Christ. for Christ paid for it fully. And God has given it to us freely, without our merit. So it turns out that the blood of Christ is not the new testament, but rather the blood of the new testament. that is, the blood by which the new testament (the forgiveness of sins) has been obtained and secured. Similarly, in the Old Testament the blood with which the people and the book of the law were sprinkled was called “the blood of the testament”, but not the testament itself (Exodus 24:8); the testament was what was read aloud to them. So we never find that Christ’s blood is called “a testament”, but we do find it called “the blood of the testament.”
Therefore, when the drink is here called “the new testament”, we must recognize that this is the same kind of speech as in Genesis 17:13, where circumcision is called “the covenant”, though it is really only a sign of the covenant. So here the drink is called “the testament” in thanksgiving, because it is a sign of Christ’s blood, by which he secured the new testament, as we have said.
Anyone wanting to read further on this may consult my Nachhut. Moreover, the phrase “which is poured out for you” gives a sufficient response to this objection. for it was not the drink that was poured out for us, but the blood of Christ. So if that blood is not itself called the testament, then even less can that which signifies it be the testament. But since it is so named, it is not against the usage of Scripture, which often calls signs by the names of the things they signify, as we have already shown. Now Paul adds in 1 Corinthians 11:26 a passage that instructs us clearly about the nature and purpose of this remembrance: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup”. see how, even after the institution, he still calls it “bread” and “cup”; he would not have done so if he believed it had become something else. “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Here “proclaim” means nothing else than “praise, honor, and give thanks,” just as Peter says in 1 Peter 2:9, and as is often found in the Old Testament. From this we hear that Paul considers this remembrance to be an open act of thanksgiving. “Until he comes” must certainly be understood with respect to his body, for according to his divine nature he is always with us. But since Paul says he will come, that means he is not bodily here now. Paul wants to say that the Christian Church should not cease to offer thanksgiving for Christ until he comes again on the Last Day.
Other words of Paul I leave aside for brevity’s sake, except for one last verse (1 Cor. 11:29): “Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, if he does not discern the Lord’s body.” Here Paul means that each person should come properly prepared. that is, in true faith. For whoever approaches without such faith becomes guilty of the body and blood of Christ. not because he has eaten them physically, but because he has despised the true body, which Christ gave to death for us. If someone outwardly joins the Church, acting as if he were one who trusts in Christ, but lies to God in doing so, then he is guilty of the innocent blood. because he does not trust in it, though he outwardly pretends to. This is also how Augustine (in Tractate 62 on John) and Ambrose (on 1 Corinthians 11) understood these words.
Now we must demonstrate that the early Christians and teachers up to the year 500 also understood Christ’s words “This is my body” not in a literal, substantial way, but figuratively. And since the highly learned and devout Oecolampadius has already published a Christian book on this topic. where he shows in detail how the early teachers understood the words. and since that book is also available in German, I will not cite more than three of the early fathers here, namely the best-known ones for common, simple Christians: Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. Jerome comments on Christ’s words “This is my body” in Matthew 26 as follows:
“After the symbolic Passover was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the lamb with the apostles, he took bread. which strengthens the human heart. and entered into the true symbol of the Passover, which Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, had prefigured when he offered bread and wine.” Christ (Jerome continues) thus signifies or presents the reality of his body and blood. So much for Jerome’s words. And do not let yourself be misled when he speaks of Melchizedek’s offering. we have already untied that knot many times. Note, then, how clearly Jerome here calls the bread a sign of the Passover lamb. which he now understands to mean Christ. and thus a sacrament. And he plainly says that Christ intended by this to signify or present his true body and blood. Therefore, Jerome understood Christ’s words “This is my body” to mean: “This bread signifies my true body, which I will give for you.” Ambrose says, commenting on 1 Corinthians 11: “Since we are redeemed by the death of the Lord, we remember the matter; and when we eat the flesh and drink the blood, we signify the things that were offered for us.” These words of Ambrose were also taken into canon law under the name of Augustine (De consecratione, dist. 2, c. Quia morte), even though they are not by him. I have translated Ambrose’s words the way the papists want to understand them so that they cannot accuse us of misrepresenting them. Still, even in their form, Ambrose’s words can bear our meaning: “Since we are redeemed by the death of the Lord, we remember the matter; and when we eat and drink (meaning: the sacramental bread and wine of which he is speaking), we signify the flesh and blood that were offered for us.”
But if the papists wish to misuse Ambrose’s words to say: “We eat the flesh and blood of Christ in remembrance of the flesh and blood that were offered for us,” because Ambrose says, “when we eat the flesh and blood, we signify the things that were offered for us,” then this is our reply: So I hear you saying there are two kinds of flesh and blood. one that died for us and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and another that we eat in remembrance of the true flesh that died for us? But no one can deny that the flesh and blood which died for us is the very same that ascended into heaven. For Christ himself says in Luke 24:39: “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” With these words, Christ clearly wants to show that the same body that rose was the one that died. And accordingly, that very body is the one that ascended into heaven. For it says just after in Luke 24:51: “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.”
See? The very body he had just invited them to touch is the one that ascended. So we cannot say, as some do, that the risen body is used as a symbol of the crucified one. for they are the same body. Otherwise the resurrection of Christ would be worthless, which would be a terrible insult to the holy faith. Therefore, we must understand Ambrose’s words this way: when he says “when we eat the flesh and blood, we signify the things that were offered for us,” he simply means that “flesh and blood” refers to the bread and wine, and the “things signified” are the real things. This is what the Greeks call metonymy or catachresis. a naming by association or substitution. because Christ himself called the bread his body, meaning a sign of his body. That this is Ambrose’s meaning is shown by his own words: “We signify the things that were offered for us.”
But we do not eat the actual things that were offered for us if we are merely signifying them. For if we ate them, we would be eating them just as they were offered. But Christ says: “This is my body, which is given for you.” You see? “Given” and “offered” are the same idea here. But that’s not what Ambrose is saying. Rather, he wants to say: “When we eat the bread and drink the wine, which are signs of the body and blood of Christ, we thereby signify that his true body and blood were offered for us.” For he says just before those words: “It is a remembrance of our redemption.” From Ambrose’s words it is clear that he too understood “is” to mean “signifies”. that est means significat. Also, it’s worth noting: when the early teachers called the bread and wine “flesh and blood”, they spoke that way in the same manner Christ himself did. that is, as signs of the true body and blood that were given for us.
In this same way, I too have used the expression “the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ” in my Exposition of the Articles. For the true body of Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. but the sacrament, that is, the sign of the Lord’s living body, is eaten among the community of Christ as thanksgiving and remembrance that his body died for us. And because it signifies the Lord’s body, it is often called “the body and blood of Christ”, since Christ himself called it that. Augustine also says (in De consecratione, dist. 2, c. Semel Christus):
“Christ died once, the just for the unjust. We know and hold firmly, with unshaken hope, that Christ, having risen from the dead, no longer dies; death has no more dominion over him.”
These are Paul’s words (Romans 6:9f.). Augustine continues: “But so that we do not forget that this happened once, it should be remembered yearly when the Passover feast is celebrated. But is Christ killed again and again? No. Rather, the annual remembrance signifies or presents what once happened and so brings it to mind as if we were seeing the Lord present on the cross.” All these are Augustine’s words, from which we see clearly that the sacrament is a remembrance and a sign of what happened once. For he also says in the preface to Psalm 3: “Christ even admitted Judas to the meal, in which he gave and entrusted to the disciples a sign or symbol of his body and blood.”
We do not consider it necessary to cite more of the early teachers, since they can be readily found in Oecolampadius’ booklet. However, there are some who are more rash than understanding, who claim that violence is being done to the Fathers. Their hearts will be rightly judged when one examines their writings. And if someone is more diligent than bold, they will see that the early teachers agreed with what we are saying. It was common among the early teachers. as it is among us. to call the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, even though they understood them as signs and reminders of Christ’s body and blood. This is just like a devout widow who often calls the ring left to her by her departed husband, “my blessed husband,” even though it is now just a reminder of him. Likewise (as Augustine clearly states in a letter to Boniface), we say: “Today is the Ascension of the Lord,” “Today is the Resurrection of the Lord,” “Today is the Annunciation to Mary,” though all of those events happened only once. And yet we call the remembrance of those events by the same names they bore when they originally occurred or were instituted.
That is why we have left the words of Christ and Paul in our commemoration in their original form, and alongside them taught their proper meaning. Namely: that when our Lord Jesus Christ went to his death. by which he fulfilled all the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament and did away with bodily offerings. he instituted a remembrance of that death, of his goodness and redemption. And just as the deliverance from Egypt and the Exodus served as a symbol of his greater redemption, in which a lamb was killed as a sign of the Passover and its blood was painted on the doorposts, all of which was a type and prefiguration pointing to Christ Jesus, so also Christ has instituted a remembrance of his own deliverance. by which he redeemed the whole world. namely, that we should never forget that he gave his body to the shame of death for our sake. And not only should we never forget it in our hearts, but we should all together proclaim it publicly with praise and thanksgiving. And to strengthen and enhance this act, we eat and drink together the sacrament. the sign of the holy suffering. which signifies that Christ gave his body to death for us and shed his blood for us. This is what Christ meant when he said: “This is [i.e., signifies] my body,” and “This is my blood”. just as one might say, pointing to a ring: “This is my blessed husband.” And as we poor human beings begin this thanksgiving together, it follows necessarily that each one presents themselves as a member of those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And since that is required of each individual, it follows also that all who participate in this remembrance or thanksgiving form one body with all other Christians.
It is therefore necessary that we live in Christian unity with one another, since we are members of one body. Otherwise, we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ, as Paul says (1 Corinthians 11:27). If this practice and understanding of the sacrament were always followed, it would not be possible that so much unfaithfulness, blasphemy, envy, hatred, and all other uncleanness would have grown and spread among the Christian people. Yes, in Zurich we have kept the words of Christ unchanged, but we have clearly taught the meaning that Christ, the apostles, and the early Christians gave to them. as has already been sufficiently shown.
May God grant us all knowledge and love of the truth, and keep us from turning away from it! Amen.
The Fourth Article
In this section, we will respond to a few objections. only a few. because anyone who has truly understood the preceding explanation will know how to answer even the most blasphemous attacks.
First objection:
“We who know that flesh and blood are not bodily eaten in this sacrament are not united in our interpretation. One group says we should understand Christ’s words ‘This is my body’ as: ‘This signifies my body’; the other says we should understand them as: ‘This is a sign of my body.’ Since we are not united in the wording, we must not have one spirit.” Answer:
What a superficial complaint! If the meaning is united, and the words express that meaning clearly, what does it matter if one person uses different terms from another, so long as the meaning remains the same and uncorrupted? Such variations in wording are found not only between the evangelists and apostles, but even within the writings of a single author. It would take too long to show in detail, but compare Paul in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, where he speaks of baptism using different words but with the same meaning. So too, Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 say of the wine: “This is my blood, which is the blood of the new covenant.” But Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) and Luke (22:20) say: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” See? The words are not the same, but the meaning is completely consistent, as has already been shown above. So too here: What difference does it make if one says, “The bread signifies my body” and another says, “The bread is a sign of my body,” as long as we plainly see that there is no disagreement in meaning? Some people cling to such trivial details, but they themselves are neither united in words nor in meaning, as we already showed in the first objection.
Second objection:
They cite Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, and interpret it this way: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Here they think Paul is saying that we partake of the literal body and blood of Christ. But he is clearly not saying this, as a careful reading of Scripture. and even of the Pope’s own canon law. will show. First of all, they should not translate “blessing” and “bless” (which they understand as “consecrate”) but rather as “thanksgiving” and “give thanks” or “praise”. because that is what the Hebrew and Greek languages intend. And this will become clear immediately. Barach in Hebrew and eulogein in Greek mean “to give thanks” or “to praise.” This is also common in Latin: they praise or thank those who have done them great good. In Genesis 47:7, for example: “Joseph brought his father Jacob in and presented him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.” But here, those ignorant of biblical usage translate: “Jacob blessed Pharaoh,” which would be absurd if a wise, godly man began blessing an unbelieving, idolatrous king, who would only mock such a blessing. The correct meaning is: “He praised or thanked him,” specifically for all the goodness and honor Pharaoh had shown to him, Joseph, and his whole household.
Likewise, in Psalm 145:2 it should not be translated: “I will bless you daily,” but rather: “I will praise you daily” or “I will thank you daily.” So the word “communion” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 should be understood as referring to the community, the fellowship. Now consider Paul’s meaning: “The cup of thanksgiving which we praise or thank with. does it not show our fellowship in the blood of Christ? The bread we break. does it not show our fellowship in the body of Christ? For we are one bread and one body, we the many, since we all partake of the one bread.” Paul’s purpose here is to warn the Christians in Corinth against participating in idolatrous sacrifices. He says, in effect: “You belong to another fellowship, not the fellowship of idol worshipers; you are the fellowship of the blood and body of Christ. When you begin thanksgiving with the cup and bread. eating and drinking together. you are signifying that you are one bread and one body: namely, the body, the Church of Christ, which openly declares its trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave his body and blood for us.”
And Paul calls the believers “the fellowship of the blood of Christ,” which becomes clear from his next words: “For we, being many, are one bread and one body, since we all share the one bread.” See how plainly he calls us one bread and one body because we all eat of the one bread. Go back over Paul again, and you will see that we are right on this matter. Now we also wish to show the proper understanding from the Pope’s own books. In De consecratione, Distinction 2, chapter Quia passus est [Corpus iuris canonici, c. 36, Dist. II de consecratione], we find these words from Augustine: “Because the Lord suffered for us, he entrusted to us in the sacrament his blood and flesh” (that is: he entrusted to us their remembrance, that they were given into death for us), “and he entrusted them in such a way that he made us into what he gave us. For we have become his body, and through his grace we have become what we receive.”
That is: through the grace of God, we have received the Son of God in true human nature as our Redeemer. for he became man, as John 1 says: “The Word became flesh.” And we have become his body, for the Church is his body, as Colossians 1 says. Likewise, in the same distinction, chapter Commendavit [Corpus iuris canonici, c. 62, Dist. II de consecratione]: “Christ entrusted to us in the sacrament his flesh and blood, and he made us for that purpose; for we have become his body.” The other objections people raise are without God’s Word and have no authority.
So much, then, on this sacrament. in which we are as certain as we are that Christ sits bodily at the right hand of God. Therefore, he cannot be bodily present here. And I have always said this with reverence and due caution, so that I would not introduce stubborn discord into the churches of God. And I have no more doubt about this than I do about God, who created heaven and earth. or about Jesus Christ, the true Son of God: that it is simply not possible for the body of Christ to be in this sacrament, unless we are willing to weaken the articles of the faith which have already been stated. Therefore I renounce any further involvement with the learned man Dr. Martin Luther, even though someone. I do not know who. once issued a printed apology on my behalf toward him and toward [Andreas Bodenstein von] Karlstadt.
So, dear Christian, do not let yourself be wearied or led away from grace in this matter by the learned, who first erred and now protect falsehood rather than admit the truth. For either the faith must break, or our teaching is right. May God grant us grace that we yield to the truth and never defend what is against God! Amen.
Given at Zurich, on the 23rd day of February.
A question from a simple lay Christian:
Tell me, if you know, Can Father, Son, and Spirit so, Be flesh and blood, bread and wine. And still be God all at one time?