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

The Sacramental Union |
173 Chemnitz then goes beyond the immediate context of the passage
to the more distant, Scripture as a whole. Since Christ has now been
exalted beyond all limitations, “Therefore what Peter says, that it is
necessary for Christ to receive heaven until the time of the restitution,
is exactly the same as what David says: ‘Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool’ [Psalm 110:1], and what St.
Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:25,26: ‘He must reign until . . . the last enemy
namely death is destroyed’” (LS 218). Once again, it is certain that
the doctrine of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Sacrament does not conflict with any part of Scripture or article
of faith. The glorified “Christ can be present with His body wherever
He wills and do whatever He wills” (Ex 2,223).
174 None of the texts speaking of Christ’s departure from the world
can destroy the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as Christ gave it in the
Words of Institution. Such passages as Matt. 26:11 (“The poor you
have always with you, but me you do not have always”) and John 113:33,
spoken after the institution (“Little children, I am still with you for a
little while”), cannot negate the words of the first institution, because
Christ was still with them in His circumscribed presence when He
instituted the Supper. Chemnitz there fore puts a direct question to
the adversaries, “Now I ask of our adversaries whether they concede
that the Words of Institution in that first Supper had and retained
their proper and natural meaning?” (LS 225; emphasis added).
175 Chemnitz supplies the answer which they must give in view of
their rejection of the sacramental union and, more particularly, of
their rejection of the communicatio majestatis, “I know they will answer
no. For it would be absolutely absurd to imagine that there is
now a different meaning and interpretation for the words of Christ’s
last will and testament, as far as its substance is concerned than
there was for the first observance of it. For there is nothing different
which is offered and received in the Lord’s Supper now than the
Apostles received at that first celebration” (LS 225). 43
176 Chemnitz has now demonstrated exegetically that the sacramental
union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and
the wine obtains in the Lord’s Supper as Christ instituted it in the
Upper Room. The question however remains whether the church
(more specifically, the Lutheran Church) today can be certain that
it has the same Supper which the Lord instituted. This is an episte-