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

The Sacramental Union |
We should not, on the basis of the judgment of our smart-aleck
reason, which Scripture declares is not only blind, but blindness itself,
in divine things, take the testament of the Son of God to ourselves to
reform and change [it], as though in the night in which He was betrayed
and instituted His Supper, He was not rational enough to know that
a living body does not exist without blood; but we should rather take
our foolish reason captive to the obedience of His infinite wisdom, and
in simple obedient faith we should believe His Word and obey [His]
command. He does not say and command that we should eat His blood,
but that we should eat His body, but drink His blood from the cup of
blessing; if we very simply obey that command, there is no danger of any
error to fear. (MWS 122 f.).
the entire Person of christ According to Both
natures is Present in the sacrament
78 Despite the clear and simple words of the Savior, there are some,
Chemnitz asserts, who “teach that only the divine nature in Christ is
present and communicated in the Supper” (LS 40). Calvin, in particular,
“spoke emphatically to his followers and said that he understood
the Words of Institution to refer to the very substance of Christ’s
body” (LS 41). Chemnitz, however, knowing Calvin’s Christology, is
skeptical. He warns, “But beware of traps. You hear the terms and
you hear the agreements that there is a substantial presence of the
body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But then the deception is immediately
added, namely, that the body of Christ is present in the
Supper, that is, in the fiery heaven outside this world. In this way they
alter the Supper and its observance (actio).” (LS 41 f.).
79 This necessitates a careful scrutiny of the Person of Christ as Scripture
has revealed it. But before doing that, one should, first of all, note
that Luther did not build his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on Christological
arguments, as is sometimes suggested. He took it from the clear
Words of Institution. By 1525 he realizes that Carlstadt “objects that
Christ would have to leave the place where He sat in order to creep into
the bread, and would have to leave heaven, were He to come into the
bread” (LW 40, 216). Luther rightly prognosticates that “all the ridicule
that Carlstadt heaps on the Sacrament, he has to direct also to the deity
of Christ in the flesh, as he will also surely do in time” (LW 40, 216).
And sure enough, Zwingli picked up this argument from Carlstadt, so
that by 1527 Luther was forced to reckon with it. This is why Luther
studied the Biblical Christology in connection with the Sacramentar-