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

The Consecration |
consecration in such a way that they imagined the Lord’s Supper
could also be celebrated without the Words of Institution.” Chemnitz
answers that “this is manifestly false. For it is most certain that
there is no sacrament without the Word, as Paul calls baptism ‘the
washing of water with the Word’ (Eph. 5:26). The saying of Augustine
has it correctly: ‘Let the Word come to the element, and it becomes
a sacrament’” (Ex. 2, 225).
188 It is of the highest importance that one determines precisely what
Chemnitz means with the term “consecration.” The usual present–
day discussions of the sacrament lightly pass over the analysis of what
it meant to the sixteenth century Lutheran theologians. 50 To clear up
any confusion that may rise in understanding Chemnitz’s doctrine of
the consecration, one should note the synonyms which he employs
for the term “consecration” in the context of the Sacrament of the Altar.
First, he uses the term “consecration”; quoting Augustine he says,
“Our bread and cup become sacramental by a certain consecration; it
does not grow that way” (Ex. 2, 225; emphasis added). He observes
that the “ancients” called it “sanctification” and “the common people
called it ‘consecration’” (Ex. 2, 225). He notes, further, that “Paul, following
the description of Mark, calls it ‘blessing’ when he says: ‘The
cup of blessing which we bless’ (1 Cor. 10:16)” (Ex. 2, 225). This latter
observation of Chemnitz is extremely important for understanding
the Lord’s Supper in the theology of Chemnitz, for he understands
this to mean the necessity of the “very repetition of the Words of Institution
of the Supper” (LS 104). In analyzing Mark’s account of the
institution of the Supper, Chemnitz notes that where “Matthew has
the words ‘After he had given thanks’ (eucharisteesas), Mark uses the
term’ After he had blessed’ (eulogeesas), an expression which found
such favor with Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 that he followed Mark at this
point. He was trying to indicate that this was not the kind of thanksgiving
(eucharistia) that people give when they are blessing ordinary
food, as in 1 Tim. 4:3, or as in Luke 22:17, where Christ Himself,
when he had completed the observance of the Passover, took the cup
and gave thanks” (LS 104). This excludes the possibility of understanding
Chemnitz’s doctrine of the consecration as a kind of preparatory
prayer that sets the elements apart and blesses them for a holy
purpose, as say, a Bible or a baptismal font is dedicated for holy use
in a church. 51