The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia

0 | The Lord’s Supper
415 Since Christ is present in the bread, or more precisely, the bread is
the body of Christ, Chemnitz explains that there is no transubstantiation,
but that “two distinct things or substances, which joined by the
sacramental union make one complete sacrament, even as in the one
person of Christ there are two complete and distinct natures” (MWS
120). There is no transubstantiation because the “this” in the Verba
refer to the bread and the wine. Even after the consecration (1 Cor. 10:
16) Paul calls it bread, and he does this several times (p. 45 ff.).
416 Next, it is certain that the word “is” must retain its proper meaning
even though the words of Christ come into conflict with human
reason. Just as in Christology, we are here dealing with mysteries beyond
our human reason but which express divine wisdom and power.
We must refuse to introduce figures of speech into the Words of
Institution, just as the orthodox refused to permit this in the Arian
Controversy with such statements that “Son of Man is the Son of
God.” The word “is” denotes what obtains, is present, distributed
and received. Similarly, the words “body” and “blood” are to be retained
in their natural sense, because it is the body given for us and
the blood shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. In addition, it is a
hermeneutical principle recognized even in the secular world, that
in a person’s last will and testament it is imperative that the text be
construed in its proper and natural sense. In the sacrament the bread
and the wine are the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be
bread and wine (p. 19–21; 47 f.).
417 Since it is an unusual union it is called a sacramental union
(SD VII, 38). The Early Church used the personal union of the
two natures of Christ as an analogy of the sacramental union of
the earthly elements and the body and blood of Christ. Christ says,
“This is my body.” Scripture uses similar language to express the
personal union of the two natures in Christ (John 1:14, Col. 2:9;
(Acts 10:38). But this is only an analogy which helps to shed some
light on the mystery. And an analogy is never perfect in every respect.
There is a difference. In the person of Christ the union of the
two natures is inseparable, personal and enduring. God, however,
is not inseparably in the elements because they are not sacramental
apart from their use. The union obtains only in the prescribed action
of consecrating, distributing, and receiving what is consecrated. In
view of this difference, Chemnitz and his fellow Lutherans have “at