Posts tagged ‘Spirituality’
ABC Extra – Our Plans and God’s Purpose
“Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose the prevails” (Proverbs 19:21). In Hebrew, the word for “plans” is machashabah, a word that describes the inventions of man. In Exodus 31, God sets apart certain Israelites to be the craftsmen of the country. God says, “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts – to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship” (Exodus 31:2-5). The Hebrew word for “make” in verse 4 is machashabah. Bezalel is called by God to be an inventor, or a crafter, of art.
Man loves to invent. Indeed, some of our society’s biggest technological and medical breakthroughs are thanks to irrepressible human ingenuity. But not only does man love to invent things, he also loves to invent plans for his future. He plans where he will live, how much money he will make, what kind of car he will drive, and what kind of success he will achieve. But man’s invented plans cannot stand against God’s eternal purpose. The Psalmist warns, “The LORD knows the thoughts of man; He knows that they are futile” (Psalm 94:11). The Hebrew word for “thoughts” is again machashabah. Man’s plans, no matter how grand, are futile if they do not comport to God’s purpose.
In Luke 12, Jesus tells the story of a farmer who takes in a bumper crop. In fact, his crop is so big that he doesn’t have room for his bounty, and so he has to build more grain silos to store all he has grown. And then, with his grain safely stored, he begins to make plans. He says to himself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry” (Luke 12:19). But the rich man’s fleeting and foolish plans are no match for the finality of death. God appears to his man and says to him, “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself” (Luke 12:20)? This man invented many plans. But they all fell apart.
During Easter at Concordia, we began a series titled “Living on Purpose” where we are discussing and discovering God’s eternal purpose as expressed in His Son, Jesus Christ. All too often, however, we confuse our plans with God’s purpose. It is against this mistake that Proverbs 19:21 warns. You can plan all you want. But you can’t thwart God’s purpose. Just ask the devil. His plan of sin could not thwart God’s purpose of salvation through the cross of Christ.
What are you planning? It’s great to plan, but your plans should never be at odds with God’s purpose. Why? Because God’s purpose for us is good and loving. The apostle Paul reflects on God’s purpose for us when he writes, “God has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of His own purpose and grace” (2 Timothy 1:9). God’s purpose is our salvation. And in comparison to purpose as transcendent as this, my plans seem only measly. His purpose is greater than my plans. Praise be to God!
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Resurrection, It Does a Body Good!
In his book, The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan says of Jesus’ resurrection, “Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus’ body.”[1] Crossan is well known for asserting that Jesus’ resurrection was not a bodily resurrection, but a series of mystical visions experienced by and subsequently promoted by early Christians. As for the fate of Jesus’ body after death, Crossan believes it was thrown in a shallow grave where it was quickly scavenged by wild animals.[2] And Crossan is not alone in his belief. Incredulous at the notion that a dead person can physically rise, many post-Enlightenment thinkers and theologians will speak of Christ’s resurrection as one that took place merely in the minds or hearts of His earliest followers.
The biblical account of Christ’s resurrection is not nearly so scientifically sterilized as Crossan and others make it out to be. Whatever these people may believe about Christ’s fate after His crucifixion, the biblical authors believed that Christ rose bodily. Indeed, this is Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:
Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep…So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. (1 Corinthians 15:20, 42-43)
Paul’s argues that Christ’s bodily resurrection is the first resurrection in a long line of bodily resurrections that will come on the Last Day. The bodies of believers, once perishable, will be raised imperishable. The bodies of believers, born into the dishonor of sin, will be raised into the glory of perfection. The bodies of believers, formerly weakened by the Fall, will be raised in eternal power. The resurrection, Paul says, is bodily. And not just Christ’s resurrection is bodily, our resurrections are too.
Jesus Himself speaks to the corporal nature of His resurrection when He appears to His disciples:
While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself! Touch Me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence. (Luke 24:36-43)
Jesus will not have His resurrection mistaken by His disciples for a measly apparition. This is why He invites His disciples to look at and touch His hands and His feat. This is why He eats a piece of fish. Jesus has risen bodily.
So why is this even important? Why make such hay out of whether or not Jesus rose bodily? Three reasons come to mind. First, the bodily resurrection of Christ is the linchpin of our faith. To deny this is to lose everything. As the apostle Paul writes, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). To deny the resurrection of Christ is to deny all of Christ and His work. There can be no compromise on His resurrection. Second, the bodily resurrection of Christ affirms the goodness of God’s creation. God created bodies. And He cares about bodies. Christ’s resurrection is proof of this. For God could not stand by to see His Son’s body wrecked and ruined by a cross. And God will not stand by to see our bodies and wrecked and ruined by sin. And this leads to the third reason Jesus’ bodily resurrection is so important. The bodily resurrection of Christ is a promise our bodily resurrections on the Last Day. The fact of the matter is this: our God is just getting going when it comes to resurrections. One day, graves will be emptied, death will be defeated, and the redeemed of the Lord will cry, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting” (1 Corinthians 15:55). What a glorious day this will be. And this is why I believe in the resurrection of Jesus’ body and in the resurrection of mine. For such a resurrection is the hope and promise of life everlasting.
Holy Week
Every year, I receive many questions concerning the significance of Holy Week. Because Holy Week began yesterday, I want to share with you a brief overview I wrote a couple of years ago covering the biblical basis, historical underpinnings, and common customs of this most sacred time of year. May God bless you this week as you commemorate and celebrate Christ’s life, death, and ultimate, triumphant resurrection!
In retail, it’s the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas. In college basketball, it’s the month of March. For the IRS, it’s April 15. We all have months, days, and moments which are especially poignant to us and fill our hearts with anticipation and excitement. For Christians, Holy Week is just such a time.
“Holy Week” is a term used to denote the final week of Jesus’ life. It holds a special place in a Christian’s heart, especially since the New Testament gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – devote more than one-third of their pages to this single week. Indeed, the gospels have sometimes been called “Passion stories with introductions.” Their focus is unmistakably on Jesus’ final week of life.
Holy Week began to occupy a prominent place in the Church’s life very early in history. The Apostolic Constitutions (a fourth century manual of church practice for pastors and bishops) calls Holy Week the “Great Week” and calls on Christians “to fast these six days”[1] in memory of Christ’s sufferings. The six days referred to here are Monday through Saturday of Holy Week.
Holy Week is highlighted by four high holy days: Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. The Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday of Holy Week, though churches sometimes hold worship services on these days, are relatively minor in comparison to the others. Because of their significance in the life of Jesus, it is well worth it to consider each of the high holy days of this sacred week.
Palm Sunday
Palm Sunday recounts Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as He is welcomed by adoring throngs:
The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet Him, shouting, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the King of Israel!” Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, “Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” (John 12:12-15)
Palms were a symbol of Jewish nationalistic pride. In 164 BC, after the Greek tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had persecuted and murdered many Jews, was defeated, the Jews waved palms in celebration of their victory. A history book from that time recounts Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ demise: “Carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success.”[2]
When Jesus comes riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, the Jews are again being oppressed – not by Greeks, but by Romans. And so, the Jews break out their palms once more in the hope that Jesus might be the One to deliver them. Even their cry of “Hosanna” betrays their strident nationalism. “Hosanna” is from two Hebrew words: hosha, meaning “to save,” and nah, meaning “please.” Thus, the Jews cry to Jesus: “Save us please from our Roman oppressors!”
This scene of adoring crowds singing “Hosannas” captured the imagination of those in the ancient church. Dramatic reenactments of this scene were introduced in Spain, Gaul, and England, in the fifth, seventh, and eighth centuries respectively. Such reenactments continue in churches today, where congregants wave palm branches and sing, “All glory, laud, and honor, to You, Redeemer King!”
Maundy Thursday
The crowds of Palm Sunday may have loved Jesus, but the members of the religious establishment hated Him. Already on Palm Sunday, the religious leaders were plotting how they might silence Jesus. When they saw the palms and heard the crowds, they sniveled: “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after Him” (John 12:19)!
As the week progresses, the tension between Jesus and the religious leaders rises to a fever pitch. By Thursday, “Jesus knew that the time had come for Him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved His own who were in the world, He now showed them the full extent of His love”(John 13:1). Jesus, knowing that He would soon die, demonstrates His love for His disciples in two ways. First, Jesus washes His disciples’ feet in an act of service to them (cf. John 13:1-17). Second, Jesus shares with His disciples a final meal:
Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)
On Maundy Thursday, churches throughout the world share Communion as a way of both remembering Jesus’ final meal with His disciples and solemnly rejoicing in how Christ comes to us modern-day disciples with His body and blood in, with, and under simple bread and wine for the forgiveness of our sins. As Jesus washed His disciples feet, some churches also include a foot-washing rite in their Maundy Thursday services as a reminder that our Lord “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
As Jesus has shown us love through His service to us and through the sharing of His body and blood with us, we are to show God’s love to others, even as Jesus commands shortly after He washes His disciples’ feet: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). The Latin word for “command” is mandatum, from which the name “Maundy Thursday” is derived. Thus, Maundy Thursday is a day of love – the love that Christ has for us and the love in Christ that we have for each other.
Good Friday
The apostle Paul wrote, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Paul says that Christ and His cross is the very center of the Christian message. Good Friday, then, the day on which Christ hung on a cross, is a most sacred day.
Because Good Friday is both sacred and solemn, it is traditionally a day of reflection. It is called “Good Friday” not because the suffering, scourging, ridiculing, and death which Christ endured was “good” in and of itself. These things were carried out by evil men. Rather, Good Friday is called “good” because of what these terrible things accomplished – the forgiveness of our sins. As Paul writes, “In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).
Good Friday worship services take several forms. A popular late-medieval devotion known as the Way of the Cross has fourteen stations in which the events of Christ’s Passion are acted out in the streets of local communities. Worshippers proceed from one station to the next and remember Christ’s sacrifice for them. In the seventeenth century, a service spanning from noon to 3 pm, the hours during which Jesus was on the cross, became popular. This service usually focuses on the so-called “seven last words” of Jesus and includes devotions on each word. Then, in an evening service called Tenebrae, a Latin word meaning “shadows,” worshippers quietly reflect as candles are extinguished and lights are lowered over the course of the service until the sanctuary is completely blackened in remembrance of the dark day of Jesus’ death.
As somber a day as Good Friday is, it is not without a glimmer of hope. For we know that the darkness of evil and even death cannot overcome the light of hope that Christ has come to bring (cf. John 1:5).
Easter Sunday
The word “Easter” was originally a pagan word, referring to Austron, the Saxon goddess of fertility and sunrise, whose festival was celebrated in the spring. The eighth century scholar Saint Bede the Venerable explains how Saxon Christians commandeered the pagan name “Easter” and used it to refer to their celebrations of Christ’s resurrection.[3] Blessedly, the Church’s use of the word “Easter” has remained, while its pagan use has long since faded into the recesses of history. It is no surprise that Christian Easter celebrations have stood the test of time. After all, the Easter story is unforgettable and gripping:
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; He has risen!” (Luke 24:1-6)
Luke captures the excitement and unexpectedness of the scene. The women, finding Jesus’ tomb empty, wonder what could have happened. Even though Jesus had foretold His resurrection on multiple occasions (cf. Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7), the idea that a man could rise from the dead was so over-the-top, the women failed to call to mind our Lord’s words. Indeed, they thought His body had been stolen (cf. John 20:15). But then a question from two men dressed in white snaps their attention to the reality of what has happened: “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” The angels accuse the women of being walking oxymorons. Looking for the living among the dead? That’s like writing an obituary instead of a birth announcement when you have a healthy, happy child. That’s like taking your spouse to divorce court on your wedding day. It makes no sense!
The resurrection of Christ was central to early Christian preaching and teaching. The apostle Paul explains:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 17-19)
Paul is crystal clear in his estimation of Christ’s resurrection. It is “of first importance.” It is so important, that if it is not true, all of Christianity is a ruse and we have no hope for eternity. Thus, on Easter, the Church both defends the historicity of Christ’s resurrection and celebrates its significance. For Christ’s resurrection is an historical guarantee of the promise that when Christ returns, we too will rise from the dead to share in eternity with our Lord.
The Church, over the centuries, has gloriously celebrated Easter. Many churches hold “Easter sunrise services” commonly beginning shortly before sunrise at approximately the time the women would have come to Christ’s empty tomb. Although not practiced by the early church, a tradition developed called an “Easter Vigil service.” This service takes place Saturday night and anticipates the coming resurrection of Christ.[4]
Traditionally, the worship services for Easter are the largest and loudest of the year. This is surely appropriate. For “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep…So in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:20, 22). Christ’s resurrection is the hope of our resurrections!
ABC Extra – By Scripture Alone
Luther Bible from 1720
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we looked at the life and times of King Josiah. Following the reigns of two exceedingly wicked kings, his father Amon and his grandfather Manasseh, Josiah was a much-needed breath of fresh air. The author of Kings can barely contain his delight when he writes, “He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD” (2 Kings 22:2). What was it that made Josiah such a noble king? Succinctly put, Josiah was a man who followed God’s Word. To cast Josiah’s piety in Reformation-era lingo, Josiah was a man committed to the principle of sola Scriptura – that Scripture alone should be the norm and guide for righteousness before God in faith and life. This guiding principle comes out especially clearly when the high priest of Israel at this time, Hilkiah, discovers the Book of the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible) tucked away in the dusty recesses of the temple. Heretofore, this book, with all of its guidelines for righteousness, has been lost to Israel. When Josiah hears what the Book of the Law teaches, he immediately recognizes it as the word of the Lord and tears his robes in repentance over all the ways in which he and Israel have disobeyed God’s commands in this book. For Josiah knows that Scripture alone should guide Israel’s life and his life.
Though the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly embraced by Josiah, it is not so eagerly welcomed by many in our day, even by those who claim the name of Christ. A couple of weeks ago, I came across a quote on Facebook rejecting the principle of sola Scriptura, and one of its creedal texts, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The quote commented:
The fact is that this passage does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary – a rule of faith – but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.
This quote was written as part of an article by the Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples and argues that along with Scripture, Church tradition and the ecclesial Magisterium should hold pride of place as sources and norms of doctrine. A couple of points are necessary.
First, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes an explicit claim to sufficiency which, by default, is an implicit claim to sole primacy. Paul, when describing the benefits of Scripture, notes that it thoroughly equips the Christian for every good work. Words such as “thoroughly” and “every” leave no remainder. Thus, Scripture is solely sufficient for teaching us all we need to know about righteousness before God in faith and life. Second, Scripture is replete with warnings against adding to or subtracting from Holy Writ (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19). Such warnings, especially those against adding to Scripture, leave no doubt that Scripture considers itself a sufficient and sole source.
Finally, the difficulty with rejecting the principle of sola Scriptura is one of authority. If Scripture is not the sole and supreme authority in one’s life, something else will be – whether that “something else” is tradition, another human, or one’s own sensibilities and desires. And these other things, as authorities, will inevitably trump Scriptural authority in some fashion. For when one has multiple authorities, these authorities inexorably wrestle for primacy. Thus, to hold to the principle of sola Scriptura is to hold to biblical authority over and against all other sources of authority. And to hold to biblical authority is to hold to the doctrine of divine inspiration, for the reason Christians believe the Bible is supremely authoritative is because of its supreme and divine author. And to hold to the doctrine of divine author is to trust in God – in this life…and for the next.
I can’t think of any one and any words I’d rather trust. How about you?
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
The Whole Christ
"The Crucifixion of Christ" by Gerhard Remisch
The other morning, I was reading 2 John as part of my devotions, when I once again came across a verse I have reflected on many times: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). Though these words may strike us as harsh, they are true and necessary. For theology – the study of God – and Christology – the study of Christ – are inextricably connected. If one has an errant view of Christ, he will inevitably have an errant view of God, for it is precisely through Christ that God is revealed. This is why, especially in the early centuries of the Christian Church, there were so many creedal formulations concerning Christ. The early Christians wanted to make sure they accurately and faithfully confessed their Lord and Savior. Alister McGrath notes, “The history of early Christian doctrine is the basically the emergence of the Christological.”[1]
Martin Luther offers three ways in which Christology can go askew:
The devil has work to do and attacks Christ in three lines of battle. One will not let Him be God, another will not let Him be man, and the third will not let Him do what He has done. Each of the three wants to reduce Christ to nothing. For what does it profit you to confess that He is God, if you do not also believe that He is man? Then you do not have the whole, real Christ with that, but only a phantom of the devil’s. What does it profit you to confess that He is man, if you do not also believe that He is God? What does it profit you to confess that He is God and man, if you do not also believe that He has become everything and done everything for you?[2]
Luther’s insists that, in order to believe in Christ, we must believe in His humanity, His divinity, and His work on the cross. If we deny one part of this confession, we deny the whole Christ. Why? Because the person of Christ as true God and true man cannot be separated from the work of Christ, which is salvation. Notice how the Nicene Creed confesses Christ’s person and work all together in one eloquently integrated sweep: “For us men and for our salvation, [Christ] came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.” Here we read that Christ “came down from heaven,” a reference to His divinity, He was “incarnate,” a reference to His humanity, and “was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,” a reference to His salvific work. This is Christ. He can be nothing less and He can do nothing less.
John’s tirade against those who deny “the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” is due to the fact that he cannot bear to think that someone would miss out on all that Christ is and all that He has done. After all, why would we want something or someone less than the whole Christ? For the whole Christ is one with God and, at the same time, in solidarity with us. And whole Christ saves us wholly, without any worth or merit on our parts. John can’t dream of settling for anyone or anything less. I can’t either. How about you?
Common Question: What’s up with Lutheran worship?
One of the highlights of my week is weekend worship at Concordia. It is very moving for me to gather with the people of God and sing praises to God, hear God’s Word, witness a baptism, and receive Christ’s body and blood in Communion. Lutherans worship in a unique, yet thoroughly theological, way. In fact, more than one person has asked me, “Why do Lutherans worship the way in which they do?” It is with this question in mind that I write today’s blog.
First, it is important to understand there are two definitions of worship – one that is broad and one that is narrow. Worship in the broad sense includes any way which we hail something or someone as god, either implicitly or explicitly. This definition of worship is part and parcel of the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exodus 20:3-5). According to this definition of worship, we are all worshipers, whether or not we worship the true God, for we all worship a god. Everyone has something or someone which holds prime place in their life and, as such, they worship this something or someone, for they hail it as god.
Worship in the narrow sense describes an activity that is distinctly Christian. Perhaps my favorite definition of worship in this sense comes via the introduction to the hymnal, Lutheran Worship:
Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word bestows what it says. Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts received with eager thankfulness and praise…The rhythm of our worship is from Him to us, and then from us back to Him. He gifts His gifts, and together we receive and extol them.[1]
With this definition of worship, we learn three important things. First, we learn that worship begins with what God gives to us and not with what we bring to God. This is why, for instance, the highest holy day of worship in Israel was the Day of Atonement – a day not about what Israel brought to God, but about the forgiveness God gave to Israel (cf. Leviticus 16). Second, we learn that after and only after God gives to us His gifts, can we respond to God with thankfulness and praise. This is why, for instance, psalm after psalm celebrates and extols what God has done for His people (e.g., Psalms 107, 118, 136). Third, we come to realize that worship can happen anywhere and at any time. For God continuously bestows His gifts of grace and, as such, we can continuously say, “Thank you.” Martin Luther colorfully quips:
The worship of God is the praise of God. This should be free at the table, in private rooms, downstairs, upstairs, at home, abroad, in all places, by all people, at all times. Whoever tells you anything else is lying as badly as the pope and the devil himself.[2]
The heart and soul of worship, then, is this: God meets us with His gifts at all times and places and we respond in turn with thanksgiving at all times and places.
The above theology of worship is what guides and informs weekend worship at Concordia Lutheran Church. It is worth it to briefly outline the shape and scope of a worship service at Concordia and consider how each element in one of our services reflects this broader theology of worship.
Invocation
Each service opens with the name of God: “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This Invocation is meant to orient us around the reality that worship does not begin with us, but with God. Indeed, our whole life in Christ begins with God, for the same name that marks the beginning of worship also marked us in our baptisms. This is why we baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Further, this name reminds us that we are bound together in Christ, for we call upon “one Lord” and share together “one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5-6). Luther Reed sums up the beauty of the Invocation nicely when he writes:
[With the Invocation], we formally express our “awareness” of the Presence of God, we place ourselves in that Presence, and invoke the Divine blessing upon the service which is to follow. We confess our faith in the Holy Trinity, for whose worship we are assembled. We solemnly call God to witness that we are “gathered together” in His name (Matthew 18:20) and in that name offer all our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving (John 16:23).[3]
Confession and Absolution
Part of the reason worship must begin with God is because we would be hopelessly lost if worship began with us, for we are sinners, completely unworthy to somehow storm the gates of God’s presence. Confession reminds us of this. It calls us to believe that, in light of the sin which we admit to in Confession, if we are to be in God’s presence in worship, God must come to us! We cannot go to God. Absolution, then, provides us with the assurance that God has indeed come to us in the person and work of Christ and still dwells with us according to His promise: “Surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).
Music
Luther famously says of music:
I am not satisfied with him who despised music, as all fanatics do; for music is an endowment and a gift of God, not a gift of men. It also drives away the devil and makes people cheerful; one forgets all anger, unchasteness, pride, and other vices. I place music next to theology and give it the highest praise.[4]
Throughout a worship service, we sing. We sing because we believe music is a gift from God. We sing because many fine hymns and songs have been written which confess the gospel of God and express our praise and thanksgiving. In these ways, God gives to us through music.
Scripture Reading
As the Introduction to Lutheran Worship says, “Our Lord speaks and we listen.” Worship would be void and tragic if we did not hear from God! Because Scripture is God’s Word, we can be fully assured that when we hear Scripture, we hear God. This is why, at Concordia, we place such an emphasis on being in God’s Word. From our Word for Today Bible reading program to our Memorize His Word Bible memory program, we want people to listen to the Lord! And we know people can and will hear from God wherever and whenever Scripture is read.
Apostles’ Creed
The Introduction to Lutheran Worship says, “Saying back to God what He has said to us, we repeat what is most true and sure.” The recitation of the Apostles’ Creed allows us an opportunity to do just this. Because this creed is thoroughly biblical, we can be assured that we are confessing what God has first said to us. Because this creed is blessedly universal and historical, we can revel in the fact that we join a chorus of Christians all over the world and throughout the ages who confess this same true, holy Christian and apostolic faith.
Children’s Message
The Scriptures are clear on the responsibility we have to share with the next generation the works of the Lord: “We will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, His power, and the wonders He has done” (Psalm 78:4). In one of Israel’s creedal biblical chapters, we read, “These commandments…are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children.” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). The goal of a children’s message is to take seriously Scripture’s call to share the gospel with all – old and young alike. The children’s message, then, is catechetical in nature, teaching children the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Offering
One of my favorite hymns declares:
We give Thee but Thine own,
Whate’er the gift may be;
All that we have is Thine alone,
A trust, O Lord, from Thee.[5]
This is a wonderfully succinct synopsis of the Christian doctrine of stewardship. God is the owner of everything, even as the Psalmist declares, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1). Out of His grace, however, God graciously shares what is His with us. The Offering, therefore, is a time to give thanks to God for what He has given us by offering it to Him, for it belongs to Him in the first place.
Prayers and Lord’s Prayer
From the earliest days of the Church, Christians prayed. Talking to God is part and parcel of being a Christian. At Concordia, we include with our prayers the Lord’s Prayer because we believe it to be the perfect prayer. After all, it was taught by our perfect Lord! One of the beauties of the Lord’s Prayer is that it is a prayer God is guaranteed to answer with a “Yes!” for the prayer is based on God’s promises. For instance, when we pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” we know that Scripture promises, “God does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). Thus, we know God will gladly not lead us into temptation, for this is His very promise!
Communion
The Lord’s Supper is a weighty moment. Indeed, it is so weighty that Paul rails against the Church at Corinth when they misuse and abuse this precious meal from God (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Communion calls for both repentance and faith. As Scripture directs, we are to “examine ourselves” (1 Corinthians 11:28) before partaking of the Lord’s Supper and repent of our sins. We are also to believe that, in the Supper, Christ offers the remedy for our sins as He gives to us His own body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of our sins (cf. Matthew 26:26-28). Christ’s presence in this meal is His simple, yet profound, promise.
Sermon
The sermon serves four main functions: to convict, to comfort, to call, and to catechize. In a sermon, first and foremost, we ought to be convicted of our sins and comforted by the gospel. The sermon also ought to call us to walk according to God’s way of righteousness as well as catechize us in, or teach to us, Christian doctrine and biblical theology. In this way, we can “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
Benediction
Just as the service begins with the name of God, the service ends with the blessing of God. After all, after being forgiven for our sins, hearing God’s Word in Scripture and sermon, approaching God through prayer, thanking God for what He has given us, and receiving Christ’s body and blood in Communion, how could we not be blessed? The Benediction, then, is an affirmation of everything that has taken place in the worship service. We have been blessed by the Lord, and as we go forth from weekend worship, we will continue to be blessed by the Lord. At Concordia, we include with the Benediction a Commissioning, drawn from Philippians 2:15-16, where we exhort worshipers to “shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life.” As we have been blessed in worship by God’s gifts, our call is to be a blessing to others by sharing with them these same gifts. As God says to Abraham: “I will bless you…and you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2).
So there it is. This is the shape and scope of a worship service at Concordia. As the service moves from element to element, two things are clear. First, it is clear that God is meeting His people with His gifts. Second, the only appropriate response to such a monumental meeting is, “Thank you!” May you offer God a “thank you” today – and every day – in worship!
[1] Lutheran Worship, Prepared by the Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982) 6.
[2] What Luther Says, Ewald Plass, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) 1546.
[3] Luther Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1947) 241.
[4] What Luther Says, 980.
[5] Lutheran Service Book, Prepared by the Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006) 781.
ABC Extra – Hey, Jealousy!
One of the things I’ve always wished for is more hand-eye coordination. From the time I was a child, I have never been particularly adept at doing anything that required my hands and eyes to work coordinately. This comes out especially in the arena of sports. A baseball – I cannot hit it. A basketball – I cannot dribble it. A football – I cannot catch it. This is why, to stay fit, I run and lift weights. There is no hand eye coordination required.
I have always marveled at those who could crush a baseball or swish a basketball or catch a football. After all, these athletes can do things I could never hope to do. Honestly, I am more than a little jealous of some of these folks.
Jealousy is a strange emotion. We usually think of jealousy as a strident yearning of the heart after something someone else has. We can be jealous of someone else’s talent. Or we can be jealous of someone else’s wealth. We can even be jealous of someone else’s piety – his self-control, her gentle spirit, his ability to be content rather than jealous!
In the Bible, the word “jealousy” has both a positive and a negative use. In its negative sense, it describes “envy.” Solomon warns, “A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones” (Proverbs 14:30). In its positive sense, jealousy describes “zeal.” As Isaiah famously prophesies concerning the birth of the Messiah: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over His kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:6-7). So what is the difference between sinful envy and holy zeal? Envy is jealousy of someone while zeal is jealousy for someone.
Envy sees something someone else has and says, “I want it,” and either seethes with resentment because what is desired cannot be had, or uses dishonest or even diabolical means to attain what is desired. King Ahab is the poster child for this kind of jealousy. When the king tries to cut a deal with one of his subjects, Naboth, to purchase from him a vineyard, Naboth refuses. When he is turned down, the story says Ahab “lay on his bed sulking” (1 Kings 21:5). So Ahab hatches a plan. He has Naboth stoned and commandeers his vineyard. Ahab’s envy knows no bounds.
Zeal, on the other hand, is a deep desire and affection for something with which God has entrusted you. As such, you are jealous for it, desiring to protect it and keep it from harm. In Numbers 5, the law speaks of the jealousy a man has for his wife. And indeed, a man should be jealous for his wife. For God has given a man a great gift in a wife – and he should honor and protect her. As Solomon says, “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).
Jealousy is not all bad. When God prohibits all forms of idolatry in the First Commandment, He explains His reasoning thusly: “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep My commandments” (Exodus 20:5-6). God is jealous for us. Beautifully, this simply means He loves us.
What kind of jealousy marks your life – jealousy for someone or jealousy of someone? Do you seek to honor and protect those you love or do you seek to take that which you do not have? One kind of jealousy flows from love. The other flows from greed. May you, as God’s child, be jealous with a “godly jealousy” (2 Corinthians 11:2).
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message!
ABC Extra – Two Kingdoms, One Ruler
This weekend in worship and ABC, we kicked off a series called, “King Me! Life Lessons from Israel’s Lieges.” In this series, we are taking a look at some of Israel’s kings and seeking to learn from both the good and the bad of their rules and reigns. The theme verse for this series comes from Judges 8, where, after leading a valiant charge against the Midianites, the Israelites want to install their judge, Gideon, along with his family, into an Israelite royal dynasty. Gideon responds, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The LORD will rule over you” (Judges 8:23). Gideon understands that, ultimately, it is the LORD who is King over all. No earthly king can dare or deign to take God’s place. Indeed, the subtitle for this series, “Life Lessons from Israel’s Lieges,” alludes to this. A “liege” can be either one who rules or one who is ruled. Earthly kings are both. They may rule over others, but they themselves are inescapably and inexorably ruled by God. For God is King over all.
Like Gideon, Martin Luther understood that God rules and reigns over all. In his writings, Luther often spoke of two kingdoms. On the one hand, Luther explains, there is a left hand kingdom, which incorporates the world and its rules and rulers. On the other hand, there is a right hand kingdom, or a spiritual kingdom, which consists of all those who have faith in Christ and are guided by the Gospel. When teaching on these two kingdoms, I will often refer to the right hand kingdom as the Kingdom of God and the left hand kingdom as the Kingdom of Man. “Who rules the Kingdom of God?” I will ask when I teach on this topic. People quickly and confidently respond, “God.” But then I follow up, “Who rules the Kingdom of Man?” Many respond, “Man.” But the glory of the Kingdom of Man is that, despite its name, it is not ruled by man, but by God! The Lutheran Confessions explain: “It is taught among us that all government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of good order.”[1] This statement echoes the words of the apostle Paul: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1). Because God institutes and establishes the rulers in the Kingdom of Man, He is also the ultimate ruler over the Kingdom of Man. As the prophet Daniel says, “God sets up kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21). There is no kingdom – be it the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Man – where God does not reign and rule.
Though God reigns and rules over both the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man, it should be noted that God rules differently in these two kingdoms. Luther explains:
One must carefully distinguish between these two governments. Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither one is sufficient in the world without the other. No one can become righteous in the sight of God by means of the temporal government, without Christ’s spiritual government. Christ’s government does not extend over all men; rather, Christians are always a minority in the midst of non-Christians. Now where temporal government or law alone prevails, there sheer hypocrisy is inevitable, even though the commandments be God’s very own. For without the Holy Spirit in the heart no one becomes truly righteous, no matter how fine the works he does. On the other hand, where the spiritual government alone prevails over land and people, there wickedness is given free rein and the door is open for all manner of rascality, for the world as a whole cannot receive or comprehend it.[2]
Thus, God rules in the Kingdom of God by the redemption of men through the cross of Christ and He rules in the Kingdom of Man by suppressing the wickedness of men through the auspices of earthly rulers. We thank God for both kingdoms. And we thank God that He is King over both. He is King over us.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
ABC Extra – Christ and Culture
Source: http://www.gospelcoalition.org
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we wrapped up our series, “Unresolved,” looking at how we, as Christians, are called to relate to our world. This question of how a Christian interacts with the world is a longstanding quandry, and was perhaps most famously addressed in 1951, by Yale theology professor H. Richard Niebuhr in what would become the defining work of his career, Christ and Culture. In this seminal work, Niebuhr outlines five ways in which Christianity has responded to culture, or the world:
- Christ against culture. Niebuhr summarizes this response as one which “uncompromisingly affirms the sole authority of Christ over the Christian and resolutely rejects culture’s claims to loyalty” (45).[1] Thus, this response to culture eschews most encounters with culture. For instance, “political life is to be shunned…Military service is to be avoided because it involves participation in pagan religious rites and the swearing of an oath to Caesar” (54). This way of thinking, then, takes a stance of deep suspicion and antagonism toward things of the world.
- The Christ of culture. People who adhere to this system of theologizing “feel no great tension between church and world, the social laws and the gospel, the workings of divine grace and human effort, the ethics of salvation and the ethics of social conservation or progress. On the one hand they interpret culture through Christ, regarding those elements in it as most important which are most accordant with His work and person; on the other hand they understand Christ through culture, electing from His teaching and action as well as from the Christian doctrine about Him such points as seem to agree with what is best in civilization” (83). Thus, this response is liberal and affectionate to the zeitgeist of a culture.
- Christ above culture. This, historically, has been a majority position in the Church, and posits that “the ‘world’ as culture [cannot] be simply regarded as the realm of godlessness; since it is at least founded on the ‘world’ as nature, and cannot exist save as it is upheld by the Creator and Governor of nature” (117-118). In other words, though Christ is not opposed to culture inherently because He in some sense created it, He nevertheless reigns above it and is certainly grieved by the sin that has crept into it. As Niebuhr writes, “The fundamental issue does not lie between Christ and the world, important as that issue is, but between God and man” (117), for man is sinful.
- Christ and culture in paradox. Like the response of Christ above culture, this view sees the fundamental issue as one between God and man: “The issue lies between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of self. On the one side are we with all of our activities, our states and our churches, our pagan and our Christian works; on the other side is God in Christ and Christ in God…It is not a question about Christians and pagans, but a question about God and man” (150). How does Christ deal with men who are against Him? By means of His law and His gospel. Niebuhr says this is the position of great theological luminaries such as Augustine and Luther.
- Christ the transformer of culture. This response “is most closely akin to dualism [i.e., Christ and culture in paradox], but…what distinguishes conversionists from dualists is their more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture…[Conversionists have] a view of history that holds that to God all things are possible in a history that is fundamentally not a course of merely human events but always a dramatic interaction between God and men” (190-191, 194).
Although Niebuhr never explicitly endorses any of these five views, he offers no criticism of the fifth view. Many scholars, then, believe that this is the view to which Niebuhr gives his tacit approval.
So which view is correct? On the one hand, save the second response, all of these views have something valuable to offer to orthodox Christians. On the other hand, to simple accept each view as equally valid quickly degenerates into an anachronistic and individualistic pluralism. That is, accepting each view indiscriminately enables each individual Christians to respond anachronistically to different situations in their lives using whichever model they arbitrarily deem best at the time. This will not do. The question we must ask, then, is, “Which of these five views is normative for the other four?” The Lutheran response would be, “Christ and culture in paradox.” Why? Two reasons come to mind. First, this view understands the root of our problem, which is not culture per se, but us. The reason there is even any discussion concerning how Christ relates to culture is because the people of culture are sinful and depraved, hostile to God. Second, because this view is realistic about human sinfulness, it does not fall into self-righteousness, for it understands that “all of us are in the same boat,” as it were, and therefore encourages us to love our neighbor and serve in our respective vocations, just as Christ commands. Thus, we, as Christians, in our life’s stations, are called to proclaim the “gospel of faith in Christ working by love in the world of culture” (179). This understanding, in turn, frees us up to decry the evil not only of culture, but of ourselves, as does the view of Christ against culture. Yet, it does not fall into separatism. It allows us to herald the transcendent gospel as the solution to this world’s problems as does the view of Christ above culture. Yet, it does not fall into dualism or even a soft Deism. And it allows us to serve in our vocations for the good of our neighbors, transforming culture, as does the view of Christ the transformer of culture. Yet, it still realizes that we, as culture is transformed, are by no means able or responsible for creating a utopian society.
Perhaps the biggest strength of the view that Christ and culture are in paradox is simply this: it acknowledges and allows the tension between Christ and culture. And it admits that we can never remove this tension or relegate it to a non-issue. This, in turn, empowers us, as Christians, to engage our world thoughtfully and humbly, for we, like the rest of the world, are sinners, but we are also joyfully and freely redeemed by Christ.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
[1] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951).
Common Questions: Lutherans and the Lord’s Supper
"Last Supper" by Pascal Adolphe Dagnan-Bouveret
A couple of weeks ago, a man came into my office wanting to know what Concordia Lutheran Church was all about. My answer? “Concordia is all about the gospel – that Jesus died on a cross in our place to forgive our sins, and there is nothing we can do to earn this forgiveness. Rather, it is received only by faith.” He seemed satisfied with my answer. But he had a follow up question: “I’ve heard weird things about what Lutherans teach about the Lord’s Supper. What does Concordia teach?” I surmised that this question was the real reason he stopped by my office. And I was happy to share with him what we teach about the Lord’s Supper. After all, this is not an uncommon question. Indeed, because it is so common, I thought I would address it in the “Common Questions” feature on my blog.
What do Lutherans teach concerning the Lord’s Supper?
Martin Luther himself summarizes the nature of the Lord’s Supper when he writes: “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, instituted by Christ Himself.”[1] In other words, we believe that when Jesus breaks bread and takes a cup of wine and says to His disciples, “This is My body” and “This is My blood” (Matthew 26:26, 28), Jesus means precisely what He says – the bread and wine are His true body and blood.
The classical term for this teaching is the “sacramental union.” Again, Luther clarifies this term well:
Out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament…Therefore, it is entirely correct to say, if one points to the bread, “This is Christ’s body”…Thus also it is correct to say, “He who takes hold of this bread, takes hold of Christ’s body; and he who eats this bread, eats Christ’s body; he who crushes this bread with teeth or tongue, crushes with teeth or tongue the body of Christ.” And yet it remains absolutely true that no one sees or grasps or eats or chews Christ’s body in the way he visibly sees and chews any other flesh. What one does to the bread is rightly and properly attributed to the body of Christ by virtue of the sacramental union.[2]
Thus, the sacramental union refers to the fact that Christ’s true body is present “in the bread, under the bread, with the bread”[3] and likewise with Christ’s blood and the wine.
What the sacramental union is not…
Because so many Christians teach so many things concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper, it is important to briefly touch on some things which the sacramental union is not, lest there be any confusion.
The sacramental union is not transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper cease to be bread and wine and instead become the body and blood of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes transubstantiation:
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ Himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: His Body and His Blood, with His soul and His divinity.[4]
Central to the doctrine of transubstantiation is an Aristotelian distinction between the “substance” of a thing and its “accident.” The “substance” of a thing is its fundamental essence. It is that which, if it ceases to be, the thing loses its identity. The “accident” of a thing is an attribute which may or may not belong to a substance without affecting its core essence.
The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that, when a priest recites the Words of Institution at the Lord’s Supper, the substance of the bread and wine transform into the substance Christ’s body and blood and the bread and the wine are no longer essentially present. They are only outward, “accidental” forms. In this sense, then, the forms of the bread and wine are “faking us out,” for they are not really, essentially there. All that is there is Christ’s body and blood.
Luther responds to the doctrine of transubstantiation thusly:
The Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread[5] and blessed it, and when the Book of Acts and the Apostle Paul in turn call it bread,[6] we have to think of real bread and real wine, just as we do of a real cup…Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine”…The church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years.[7]
The sacramental union is not symbolism
There are many church bodies which teach that when Christ said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood,” what He really meant was, “This symbolizes my body” and “This symbolizes My blood.” For instance, “The Baptist Faith and Message” confesses, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”[8] Notice that this confessional statement refers to the Lord’s Supper explicitly as “a symbolic act” and does not even make mention of Christ’s body and blood.
There are some who, holding to a symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, accuse Lutherans of being anachronistic when we insist that the word “is” when Christ says “This is My body and “This is my blood” indicates that Christ’s body and blood are truly present with the bread and wine. One friend made this argument to me: “When I show you a picture of my family and say, ‘This is my family,’ I mean, ‘This is a picture of my family.’ When Jesus held up bread and wine, He meant to say the same thing: ‘This is a picture of My body and blood!’” I’ll grant that it would strain the bounds of good exegesis to base the doctrine of the sacramental union entirely on the word “is.” But Lutherans do no such thing. Rather, we take into consideration three additional factors. First, we take into account who is speaking these words. Because Christ is speaking these words, it is of no difficulty for Him to make His body and blood miraculously present in, with, and under the bread and wine. The difference between me saying, “This is a picture of my family” and Christ saying, “This is My body and blood” is the speaker! One speaker can work miracles and speak truth into existence. The other cannot. Second, we take into account how Scripture itself interprets these words. The apostle Paul indicates a lively confidence in the sacramental union when he asks, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:16)? Paul believes that when we eat the bread and drink of the cup, we are actually participating with the body and blood of Christ. This hardly leaves room for a symbolic reading. Negatively, Paul warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). Paul warns that partaking of the Lord’s Supper without self-examination and repentance (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:28) can lead to sin against Christ’s body and blood. How can such thing happen? Because in the Lord’s Supper, we actually receive Christ’s body and blood. Third, we take into account how the church has interpreted these words throughout the centuries. The Lutheran Confessions, in their defense of the sacramental union, cite the second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr:
This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation He also had flesh and blood. So we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.[9]
Taking these three factors into consideration, then, Lutherans believe that we have solid Christological, exegetical, historical, and ecclesial grounds for interpreting Jesus’ words as we do.
The sacramental union is not just a spiritual presence
Calvinists will regularly teach that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper, though only in a spiritual sense. Consider, for instance, this passage from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion:
The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes Him to the element of bread, nor encloses Him in bread, nor circumscribes Him in any way (this would obviously detract from His celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests Him of His just dimensions, nor dissevers Him by differences of place, nor assigns to Him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to His true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever He is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, let no property be assigned to His body inconsistent with His human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.[10]
Calvin’s argument for a spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper is this: Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature. His human nature is circumscribed by the normal spatial restriction that a person cannot be physically present in more than one place simultaneously. Therefore, Christ’s body, as part of His human nature, cannot be present in the Lord’s Supper, for Christ’s body is in heaven, seated at the right hand of God. Jesus can only be spiritually present according to His divine nature. Luther responds to such an argument thusly:
We merge the two distinct natures [of Christ] into one single person, and say: God is man and man is God…[You] will not and cannot prove that the two propositions, “Christ is in heaven, and His body is in the Supper,” are contradictory. So the words, “This is My body,” remain to us just as they read, for one letter of them is better and surer to us than the books of all the fanatics, even if they should fill the world with the books they write. Again, since they do not prove that the right hand of God is a particular place in heaven, the mode of existence of which I have spoken also stands firm, that Christ’s body is everywhere because it is at the right hand of God which is everywhere, although we do not know how that occurs. For we also do not know how it occurs that the right hand of God is everywhere. It is certainly not the mode by which we see with our eyes that an object is somewhere, as the fanatics regard the sacrament. But God no doubt has a mode by which it can be somewhere and that’s the way it is until the fanatics prove the contrary.[11]
For Luther, then, the sacramental union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper is a Christological issue. The question Luther would have us ask is: “Do we believe that Christ’s body can be present in more than one place simultaneously, or do we insist on circumscribing His human nature by the space-time restrictions of our world?” How you answer this question reveals what you believe about what Christ, as both God and man, can and cannot do. If Christ from rise from the dead in both His human and divine nature, it is certainly not too difficult for Him to be present in the Lord’s Supper in both His human and divine nature.
Finally, Luther would remind us of the blessing of the Lord’s Supper:
The Sacrament is given as a daily pasture and sustenance, that faith may refresh and strengthen itself…For the devil is such a furious enemy. When he sees that we oppose him…he prowls and moves about on all sides. He tries every trick and does not stop until he finally wears us out, so that we either renounce our faith or throw up our hands and put up our feet, becoming indifferent or impatient. Now to this purpose the comfort of the Sacrament is given when the heart feels that the burden is becoming too heaven, so that it may gain here new power and refreshment.[12]
May you gain such power and refreshment from the Lord’s Supper, for in it, Jesus gives His body and blood – His very self – for you!
Pastor Zach's Blog 