Eucharistie Themes in the

D a v id p . Sc a e r

OME YEARS AGO the student association of Concordia was a physical eating, how was it that eating ’s flesh was أم Theological Seminary sponsored two presentations of pro only a spiritual eating. For a moment she was convinced hy ٦ and con lectures on the eucharistie eharaeter of John 6. the argument, but concluded by saying that on these matters In the first series there were four presenters and in the see- disagreement was allowed. Ironically, sermons preached in the ond, two. The issue of whieh biblieal texts are eucharistie euts most conservative Lutheran Church —Missouri $ynod (LCM$) ؛.aeross the usual liberal-eonservative lines. This forum brought churches that same August said hardly anything different a disputed issue to the surfaee. Sola scriptura reeognizes the At the heart of this debate is defining what a is and $eriptures as the souree of all ehureh doetrine and proelama- whether one definition fits all. Books and courses in biblical tion, but the prineiple itself does not help resolve hermeneuti- hermeneutics set forth principles for interpreting literature, eal disputes, ineluding the eueharistie character of John 6 and including the $criptures. These rules are prolegomena in their other texts. A preaeher’s announeement that he aeeepts the in- own right and both predetermine and place limits on what will spiration and the inerraney of the text for his sermon does not be discovered in the Gospels. In some sense the Gospels, in- guarantee that he understands ft as the Evangelist intended. eluding non-eanonieal ones, presume to be lives of , but In a reeent serviee of installation, the elergy were asked if they eaeh Evangelist had his own intentions, ^rey have biographieal would interpret the $criptures according to sound principles, data, but apart from the birth and death narratives, their order but this raises the question of what these principles are and may not be ehronologieal, though this was the prevalent view who determines them. Eueharistie issues also eoneern church until reeently. Approaehing them as chronological doeuments life, sinee ’s $upper is something nearly all Christian allowed finding diserepaneies among them. Luke seems fo sug- ehurehes do. In a perfeet world, biblieal interpretation and li- gest that the events recorded in others’ writings — or was it just turgieal praetiee should influenee and be reflected in what the Matthew? —were in need of rearrangement. preaeher says. A comparison of one Gospel with the others and references In support of a non-eueharistie iffierpretation, the one side in the post-apostolic literature shows that the individual liter- had Luther and the elassieal y^fo^th-eentury Lutheran ary and theological character of each was not grasped by those theologians on its side, though their piety perpetuated what who came after. Recognizing Matthew’s Hebrew character did their hermeneutie did not allow. Historieal Lutheran tradition not mean that its difficult passages were understood. A once has not favored a eueharistie interpretation of John 6 and has commonly held view was that, at the end of the apostolic era, been eontent in letting the weight of Eueharist arguments rest the meaning of the $criptures was gradually lost until ft was ehiefly on the words of institution, theverba. Another argu- recovered by the Reformation. This self-serving defense of the ment for the non-eueharistie approaeh was that Jesus did not Rrotestant Reformation carries this grain of truth, that what and eould not have spoken about the Lord’s $upper before its m ade one Gospel unique from another was soon lost. One won- institution on the night of his betrayal. This argument arises ders if even the Gospels’ first hearers caught their intent, or if from seeing the Gospels as ehronologieally arranged biogra- the second and third Evangelists grasped the Gospels they had phies. $ueh an approaeh eliminates potential eueharistie refer- at their disposal. Being inspired does not translate into herme- enees apart from theverba. neutical correctness. Before reading John 6 at First Congregational Chureh in We should consider how a Gospel was written. The Evange- North Conway, New Hampshire, on 27 August 2006, an elder, lists came upon the materials that they incorporated into their Gerry Tilton, gave a brief homily on why John 6 had nothing Gospels from their direct experiences, their own and others’ to do with the Lord’s $upper and dealt with a spiritual mystery recollections, and reflections on these experiences, especially as only. At a light luneh that followed, I asked her if eating manna preached recollections and reflections, and written documents like other Gospels, ^ e y all had the one purpose of creating and

D a v i d p . S c a e r is the Chairman of Systematic Theology at Concor- dia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and a contributing 1. The Gospel lessons ill August 2006 according to Year B of the editor for L o g ia . Three-Year Lectionary were from John 6.

41 4 2 LOGIA

-deal with. Their confessional affir ه:ا confirming faith, and doing what the oral tradition or other Epistles were easier documents had not done. Our discovery of each Evangelist’s mations about Jesus were not encumbered with the historical unique and perhaps previously unrecognized themes serves the details of the Gospels and an attempt to put them in the right homiletical task. We can actually preach something that we or order. Death and resurrection, humiliation and exaltation set someone else has not preached before. the patterns for Christ’s life, ?aul replaced Jesus as the church’s In the earliest church was challenged as a mor- chief theologian. Jesus is center stage and ?aul provides the li- allyinferior and historically suspect religion. Matthewrespond- bretto, so we really know what Jesus wants to say. The habit of ed to the Jewish accusations about the illegitimacy of Jesus and attributing the history of Jesus to the Gospels and the theology the disciples’ stealing his body. Further fuel for discrediting to ?aul’s Epistles has persisted to this day. Even without any Christianity came about with the church’s allegiance to four awareness of what a Gospel harmony is, we all naturally com- Gospels, which allowed the opponents to poiffl out discrepan- bine the events of Jesus’ life and his words to create our own cies in the accounts. Religions with one authoritative book like harmonies. $hepherds and magi are placed in one Christmas Islam and Mormonism do not have to face the problem of au- tableau. Easter events are not sorted out. The four Gospels are thority that Christianity does with four books. Apologetic con- shuffled like suits — diamonds, hearts, spades, and clubs — into cerns belonged to the oral tradition and were taken over into one deck. the Gospels, especially Matthew; however, Luke’s precise refer- Not that long ago a course on the harmony of the Gospels ence to Roman imperial rulers shows that this was an issue for was offered at the Fort Wayne seminary. William Beck wrote him also. This apologetic was more of a defense ofthe Christian a harmony of the Gospels under the title ofLife of Christ. The message than ff was a frontal attack on secular views. Lutheran Lectionary (1941) provided a harmony of the passion story for Wednesday Lenten services. But Gospel harmonies are not without problems. The is placed by John at the beginning and by the $ynoptic Evangelists at the end of Jesus’ ministry, ?ositing two cleansings resolves We are allowed tofollow the this. A three-year ministry may be constructed from the four ?assovers in John, but ff cannot be deduced from the $ynoptic Evangelists’ own clues that they Gospels, which are agreed only on John’s ministry at the begin- arranged what they knew about ning and the death and resurrection at the end. No time frame can be determined for the events that fall between these book- Jesus to suit their purposes. ends. As an introduction to his Gospel, the Apostle Matthew suggests that throughout Jesus’ ministry, he repeated (؟4:23-2) his teachings and performed the same kinds of deeds over and over again. We are allowed to follow the Evangelists’ own clues that they arranged what they knew about Jesus to suit their Most of us became acquainted with apologetics in connec- purposes. $ome events may have been preserved because they tion w ith the fight over inerrancy, which is less of an issue in the were seen as more clearly characteristic ofwho Jesus was. Other ECM$ than ff was in the 1960s and 1970s. In the early church, events like miraculous feedings and those composing the final external assaults on Christianity forced the earliest interpreters week occurred only once. Jesus informs that to begin seeing the Gospels as chronologically ordered and ar- the dead are raised up, but Matthew reports only the raising ranged historical narratives. When this happened, the unique of Jairus’s daughter. There must have been more. Harmonizing theological and literary aspects of each was lost. For example, the Gospels comes from a good motive in answering the oppo- since Mark only duplicated materials found in Matthew and nents’ claims that the Gospels contain historical discrepancies, Euke, ff was ignored, beeing the Gospels as history was nec- but a Gospel harmony provides for a unified account, fitting essary to respond to Gnosticism, which denied that God had for documents received as one inspired word of God. Unstated come in the flesh, but this came at the price of losing each is that the production of Gospel harmonies makes historical Gospel’s unique character. With the opponents of Christianity origins, their unique character, and theological approaches of ,traditionally ٠ $ أ.citing one Gospel against another, created hisDiates- secondary, and perhaps, no importance at all seron, a composite life of Jesus, a Gospel harmony, for which dogmatics approaches the Gospels as an absolute word of God, Matthew was taken as the chronological standard for ordering that is, a harmony, not taking into consideration their historical the accounts of the other GospelsT Tatian brought to a logical origins and the Evangelists’ intents. conclusion that if there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Questions about the origins of the Gospels are customar- God and Father of us all, there should be one Gospel for all. ily answered by citing post-apostolic fathers and ignoring the documents themselves. We come face to face with a c anon

2. For a fuller discussion see David Laird Dungan, A History o f the -Dungan, Synoptic Problem, 112-141. Ill his debate with the Mani . و :Synoptic Problem, Anchor Reference Library (New York Doubleday, 1999), 33-44. cheans, St. Augustine developed this line of thinking. e u c h a r :s t :c t h e m e s :n t h e g o sp e l s 43

determined by the post-apostolic church, from which various motives. Gospels may be described as homiletical, catecheti- passages are cited to demonstrate its character and that of the cal, authoritative, and biographical. In being written to be read individual books. However, introducing extracanonical refer- publicly, they are lectionaries. As inspired by the Spirit of the enees eompromises sola scriptura. Rather eaeh book’s elaims Father and containing the words and deeds of Jesus as pre- should be aeeepted on their own merits and then, having been served by the apostles, they surpass all other biblical books in honor. Michael Goulder attempted to find a lectionary system ٠$ .reeognized as Seripture, each is added fo the existing eanon the is built from the bottom up and not the re- in Matthew. Others may have done this with other New Testa- verse. A bifureated approaeh that regarded the Synoptie Gospels ment books. Tomesch has done this with Hebrews. Attempts as history and Raul's Epistles as theology hindered the discovery to uncover a lectionary series in any of the Gospels and then to of eucharistie themes in the Gospels apart from theverba. set it in place in church life cannot be accomplished as long as Allegory, whieh has been offieially maligned in Rrotestant we are determined to keep our present church year in place. In eireles sinee the Reformation, may have risen from the frus- other words, our intent to keep the Advnb^ristm as-Epipha- tration of having fo preaeh on the Gospels, which were seen ny-Eenten-Easter cycle does not neatly fit into what we have in ehiefly as hisforieal narratives. Allegorieal preaehing was a hit- any of the Gospels. Entire Gospels were the lectionary for one and-miss operation, often faneiful, but ft attempted to reaeh $unday and then for all $undays after that. beneath the historical surface searching for an undergirding In Discourses in Matthew I argued that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 theology. Denial of the Gospel's historical materials during presupposes that this church knew Matthew and Luke.4 Ap- the Missouri Synod controversy of the 1970s accentuated their pearances of a second and third Gospel made reading two Gos- importance for faith, but ft did not change the common view pels each in its entirety impossible. From this frustration our that the Gospels were chiefly historic, while Paul remained the system of a series of pericopes for each $unday may have come church’s chief theologian. For all of its weaknesses, allegory into being. Evidence indicates that in spite of its often unintelli- was an incarnational method, recognizing that embedded in gible Hebrew idioms, Matthew had the lion’s share of the atten- the shell of the historical report was the core of what God in- tion given the Gospels for the first two or three centuries. When tended for Christians fo bplipyp. congregations put the four Gospels into what is liturgically Sola scriptura, in its pure form, requires returning to the called “The Book of Gospels,” selections were chosen for each original documents to discover their intent, but this is easier $unday. In the traditional series Matthew predominates with said than done. The original hearers of the Gospels may have Euke as a close second. John takes the post-Easter season and been like the disciples, who did not understand the words of surprisingly Mark is given Easter. This may reflect the promi- Jesus the first time they heard them. Why should we expect a nence of Matthew and Luke in the first- and second-century more informed response fo the apostolic writings than Jesus’ church w ith the church’s little regard for M ark, which has never audiences gave to him? Paul's Epistles created their own con- been regularly read in its entirety. John, with the most post-res- fusion, as do our sermons. It comes with the turf, ?reaching urrection appearances, predominated the post-Easter season. remains a necessary corrective for not folly formed under- When the three-year lectionary series forLutheran Worship standings ofthe bcriptures and previous sermons. Each biblical was proposed nearly thirty years ago, a former colleague sug- author said or clarified what he or someone else had previously gested my analyzing it to detect a liberal plot. He was right in said or written. The Evangelists were moved by a sense of dis- recognizing that pericopic series are open to analysis. This ap- satisfaction over what they thought was available fo their hear- plies to the traditional one-year series and the ones now found ers. ?reachers are no different than the writers ofthe apostolic in Lutheran Worship and the Lutheran Service Book. Dr. Dan- -Semi ووperiod in focusing and refocusing the apostolic proclamation iel G. Reuning could be asked why he chose for the 1 7 Swedish Hymnal and وon today’s hearers, but this is not so easily done. I hesitate to de- nary Prayerbook lectionaries of the 137 scribe the bcriptures and preaching as correctives; rather they the 1982 Evangelisch-Katholisches Studienbuch, an ecumenical bring to fuller expression what is «/ready believed. endeavor of Eutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic Ger- Creation of a pericope system is the ؛.Between us and the apostolic age, layers upon layers oftradi- man territorial churches tion, that is, the early church and the Lutheran fathers, have creation of another Gospel along side not only other series but ­Like the Evangelists, orga ﺀ.accumulated, and we have added our own reflections on the the canonical Gospels themselves apostolic word and the earlier traditions. They stand as angels with fiery swords preventing our return to the pristine mes- sage. Even if we could push tradition aside, no one manuscript 4. David P. Scaer, Discourses in Matthew: Jesus Teaches the Church emerges as the authentic original one. bcribes and then transía- (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), 136-142. tors adjusted the texts. $ome variants were ordinary mistakes, 5. Normand Bonneau claims that lectionaries appeared in the sec- but others were attempts by the scribes fo improve the sacred O lid century to correspond with the annual celebration of Christ’s texts. Rare is the preacher who has not adjusted a word in read- death and resurrection and points to previous evidences of old ing the $criptures here and there or introduced and interrupted Testament ones (The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape [Collegeville, MN:Liturgical Press, 1998], 4-11). Also seeThe the reading to offer a comment. Revised Common Lectionary: Includes Complete List ofLectionsfor The production of the Gospels and of pericopic systems Years A, B, andc (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992). consisting of selections from the Gospels was done for similar 6. See Bonneau, Sunday Lectionary, 3-4. 44 LOGIA

nizers of pericopic systems are rearranging prior materials for A quantitative apprnaeh by whieh the importance of a sub- purposes that they have determined are not being adequately ject is determined by the amount ofits space in the Bible would met by current series. support those who see the hord’s $upper as secondary or even $ome have called the traditional pericopic system “the peo- unnecessary. For them church cannot be church without faith, pie’s Bible.” But this is how each Evangelist saw his Gospel. He but it can be church without the $upper. Parallel to measuring attempted to say things differently and to add fo or subtract the biblical space devoted to the hord’s $upper is a reluctance from the tradition or the Gospel(s) at his disposal and fo inter- to read the Gospels from a eucharistie perspeetive. For many pret them. Our traditional pericopes cannot carry the meaning the eommand of Jesus to “do this” in theverba provides a suffi- that only those sections chosen as pericopes are intelligible, or eient reason for a frequent eelebration ofthe hord’s $upper, and are superior fo portions not chosen, and that the people can the verba exhaust the biblieal support for the saerament and understand only those sections deemed suitable for them and its celebration. It is amazing that the Diseiples of Christ, with so are in need of a pared down Readers’ Digest version. As in- a Reformed doetrine of the $upper, in which the earthly ele- dicated, analyses of any pericopic system are necessary. $hould ments are not identified with divine things, see this requiring an analysis come up cold on meaningful results, then any ran- a weekly celebration, hooking beyond the verba for references dom selections can be used. Whether any series catches and to the sacrament in other parts ofthe Gospels is seen by some preserves the intentions of any or all ofthe Evangelists is anoth- as both unnecessary and an offense against the sensus literalis er matter. By mixing and matching Gospels in the traditional unus est. Hence the opposition fo a eucharistie interpretation one-year series, a disjointed harmony is created. It is like tak- of John 6. Unsatisfaetory is the argument that without John 6 ing parts from Ford, GM, Toyota, Hyundai, and Volkswagen to the verba provide suffieient support for the Lutheran position, create a hybrid car. simply beeause John 6 has a superior deseription of bodily eat- ing and drinking, fo use Luther’s terms. While affirming that eueharistie theology ean ehiefly be drawn from theverba, we should see that ff can also be draw n from other New Testam ent citations. -If apart from theverba the Gospels are silent on the Eucha /٠ It is amazing that the Disciples rist, then ff follows that the consecration ofthe elements fo the Christ, with a Reformed doctrine exclusion of other parts ofthe $unday morning service should ofthe Supper, see this requiring be the sole focus of our eueharistie attention. $hould references to the Eueharist be identified throughout the Gospels, then a weekly celebration. other parts ofthe serviee serve eueharistie devotion. In the rites of baptism and the Lord’s $upper, the full meaning ofthe life, death, and resurreetion of Jesus come fo expression for the be- liever. Reeognition of saeramental themes in the Gospel narra- tives would provide a basis for saeramental sermons. Then the Each pericope is impressed with the “rule of faith” of those reading ofthe Gospel and its exposition would be the means of who created ff. An ecumenically constructed system might em- graee in a fullest sense. Reading of the $eriptures, preaehing, phasize common elements and avoid divisive ones. Churches and the saeramental rites eonstitute an integrated totality. They ordaining women or homosexuals will omit certain Rauline are not parts brought together fo ereate the whole. Holding that passages. Apart from what might be thought of selections in the reading and the exposition ofthe $eriptures and the Eueha- the two- and three-year series, they come closer to the earliest rist eelebration eonstitute one reality is, after all, what is intend- practice ofreading an entire Gospel. These series are modifica- ed by the frequent Lutheran referenee foword and sacrament. tions ofthe lectio continua, allowing for intrusive exceptions to When ff is held that theand suggests that the saeraments add fit our liturgical calendar. something that is not inherently in the word, the phraseword Monasteries followed lectio continua long before Rhilip and sacrament is misunderstood. $hould we be able fo elarify $pener made ff a part ofthe Rietistic movement. He did not call this in our thinking, we would no longer hear that while Zwingli for an abandonment of the regular $unday services, but their had the word, Luther had the w ord and sacram ent.W ithout the pericope readings were for him only bits and pieces of what the sacraments one does not have what the word promises, or bet- Bible had to offer. Reading the entire Bible was assigned to the ter still, one has not understood the word. Luther read Genesis home on $unday afternoons. Knowing more ofthe Bible would sacramentally and his lectures on this book provide a model increase the people’s spirituality, so he reasoned. For ?ietism, for us. Rather than referencing Luther, especially his $mall Cat- the Bible provided regulations of Christian living, and so ff fol- echism, in our sermons, we would do better to learn from his lowed that as one knew more ofthe Bible, one knew more ofits method. Catechism quotations are nostalgic for the people, but regulations. This distorted the fundamental Eutheran under- they do not qualify as “thus saith the Lord.” standing that any section ofthe Bible has the same message of It seems that the seminary graduates in the last twenty years God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. This may have been what the or so are more likely to give attention to the sacramental life “all theology is ” controversy was all about. of their congregations. Rom anizing is a shorthand pejorative e u c h a r :s t :c t h e m e s :n t h e g o sp e l s 45

bandied about by those who do not see the sacraments as be- it was developed over against the Anabaptists, provided him longing fo the core of Eutheran theology and practice. Sacra- with the foundation for faith and a safe haven for troubled be- mentally orientated ministers may not constitute the majority, lievers. Christians were always going baek fo square one, and but there are more of them than there were two generations or for him that was baptism. Every day the believer reverted back so ago. Renewed sacramental practice may not have resulted to where he started before he became a Christian. Rebaptism from a sacramentally conscious hermeneutic, so ff seems to was not a possibility for Euther, but absent the water Christians me, but largely from an historical revival and appreciation of are continually baptized. The road between faith and unfaith Eutheran traditions. This cannot be equated with recognizing was not lineal but circular. Any concept of internal moral im- the sacramental character of the biblical texts, because ff feeds provement has fo incorporate Luther’s view that the sinful self on Lutheran history. Undefined is which period qualifies as the drowned in the morning came to life during the daylight and perfect Eutheran era. Recovery of a golden age is the goal, but night hours, so that the miserable follow had fo be suffocated the crusaders never reach ff. Yes, Euther’s 1526 baptism al rite has each dawn in baptism. been reintroduced, but with adjustments like giving a role to the parents and by adding parts ofthe Creed that he excluded. Eiturgy preserves the historic faith ofthe church, but a pure res- -toration is rare and in some cases artificial. Restorative changes Restorative changes seem٠be moti ؛ seem to be m otivated by a desire to m ake things m ore orthodox make things more ٠؛ than they originally were. Here at work is the principle that only vated by a desire those sons who surpass their fathers are successful. orthodox than they originally were. In everyperiod, a church absorbs the cultures ofother church- es with that ofthe world. Culture has to do with worship, and cross pollination among liturgies is inevitable and sometimes deliberate. Since culture is the atmosphere we breathe, sermons about its dangers soon ring hollow. Cultures are diverse and so Baptism provides the birth and death parameters of life. the liturgy of one communion of churches differs from others. The Eord’s $upper is the nourishment for its substance. What W ithin our own fellowship liturgy differs from congregation to is born from the grave of Christ is fed from the cross. A new congregation, ?astors who see themselves as liturgically tradi- tactic taken by Arthur A. Just sees the Eucharist embedded tional borrow from Rome, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, Evan- throughout Euke in Jesus’ table fellowship with his disciples. gelicals, and general ?rotestantism. Though we deplore creative The eucharistie life of the saints in heaven has already begun worship, we all do No it. one is immune to external infection. on earth. He has introdueed the phrasethe never-endingfeast, My favorite viruses are singing Reformed hymns on Thanks- whieh is so often used that for some ff has been canonized giving Day and having sacramental elements being brought to as eliehé. In a preliminary and totally ineomplete way I have the Mount: The »٥ the altar with the financial gifts. TheLutheran Service Book is attempted this with John.7 In mySermon an attempt fo bring some unity out of this array of Rube Gold- Church’s First Statement of the Gospel, I have argued that the berg creations. Eourth Retition is eueharistie. InDiscourses in M atthew: Je- $ince the Roman Catholic Church belongs to the Western sus Teaches the Church, I have argued that the Lord’s $upper tradition, as Eutheran churches do, its practices will influence is the pinnacle of the Gospel, a summit to which the Evange- ours. Roman Catholic liturgy and doctrine are thoroughly eu- list is leading his hearers. Eucharistie thought is already found eharistie and so a eommon ground with Eutherans emerges. in Jesus’ eoming out of Egypt, which eould only evoke in the Eiturgy ean do only so mueh. If polls are fo be taken seriously, memory of the first hearers the ?assover Meal, which for the elaborate eueharistie worship has had little influenee on Rome’s Jews had redemptive signifieanee. Essential fo Matthew’s eu- rank and file, whose views on the Lord’s $upper are Reformed. eharistie progress are the two miraeulous feedings in which Whereas Roman Catholies make the Eueharist eentral,T.iitbpr the formulas are first introduced, which are separated by the gave this plaee of honor to baptism, but this did not prevent crumbs in the pericope of the Canaanite woman. him from preserving mueh —perhaps foo much for some —of This exegesis presents a challenge fo those limiting sacra- pre-Reformation eueharistie devotion. Euther drew a line in the mental references fo the sedes doctrinae.8 Rom anizing does not sand with the Reformed over the Lord’s $upper, but his unique saeramental eontribution was reformulating the doetrine of baptism, whose place in obtaining salvation in the medieval 7. David P. Scaer, “Once More to John 6,” inTeach Me Thy Way,o Lord: -the Occasion ofHis Sixty-fifth Birth »٠ system had been diminished by the aseendaney of eonfirma- Essays in Honor ofGlen Zweck . وو7-2 ا tion, penanee, and extreme unction. $trange that the one word day (Houston, TX: Zweck Festschrift Committee, 2000), 2 baptism can mean birth and death. By one act we die and are 8. Dale Allison, who may be considered the foremost Matthean born, a continual process that far outpaces the death and re- scholar in the English-speaking world, recognized what I was at- birth cycles of Eastern religions. tempting and said that theDiscourses “argues at length that the First Gospel embodies a liturgically regulated faith.... Particular- Euther’s differences with Zwingli over the Lord’s $upper ly provocative (and largely convincing) in his eucharistie exegesis were the major cause for ?rotestant division, but baptism, as of large portions ofthe First Gospel.” 4 6 LOGIA

fit this approach, because ft works with the texts themselves sible, living with what resists adjustment. Christ enmes in eaeh and often contradicts traditional exegetical conclusions. It is means nf graee and each cnming is cnncentric with and within also an exegesis not known in the Confessions, but which can the others. One is not before or after another, but each exists look to Luther and the Eutheran fathers for support. This ex- and functions within the two others, embraces them, and is egesis is not exclusively eucharistie, beeause what is eueharistie embraced by them. In each coming Christ is present in a unique is ehristologieal. Those who hold that theverba are everything way anticipating his coming in the other two. The hord’s $up- that an Evangelist has to say about the Eueharist will not wel- per is sequential to the gospel proclamation and baptism, but its eome this approaeh. Whatever a perieope has fo say about the reception requires a return to the proclamation for the mean- Eueharist will have to be imported from outside, most prob- ing of the $upper and fo baptism as foundation of faith, ?roc- ably from hymns and Euther eitations. A eueharistie reading lamation in its purest and highest form is found in theverba, of the texts does not detraet from the verba but makes th^m because for the $ynoptic Evangelists no other passage sets forth the goal and foeus of a Gospel’s previous perieopes. $ome have the atonement doctrine as successfully as the words of con- secration. Customarily word and sacrament are spoken of as ؟.rightly pointed out that theDiscourses is defieient on baptism It is also defieient in aligning some perieopes in Matthew to- means, instruments, or vehicles of grace, but they are, as John wards a eueharistie goal, ?erieopes on the wheat, vineyard, and Kleinig suggested, means of the Holy $pirit or better, Christ’s unforgiving steward parables need to be blended into the eu- covering. Thus the word that is proclaimed and comes to the eharistie presentation. $ome of our ministers may have already elements to make them sacraments is not merely an oral word done this in their sermons. Our inability to exhaust the biblieal but Christ himself. Trigg notes that in speaking of the word, it texts in regard to any topie, ineluding the Eord’s bupper, may is difficult to determine whether Luther is speaking of the oral attest fo their divine origin. proclamation of the Gospel, the $criptures, or Christ himself. One pereeived danger of saeramental exegesis and preaeh- In the means of grace he gives us himself. ing is that the saeraments and not Christ beeome the objeets $peaking of the word coming to elements to make them sac- of faith. Jonathan Trigg notes that Euther in his Genesis lec- ram ents, verbum accedat ad elementum fit sacramentum, may turps held that God allowed himself fo be found in rituals and allow for the Reformed view of a spatial universe in which the historical and natural events. The biblical world was for T.uthpr distance between Christ and the elements is overcome by a spo- saeramentally alive. This ean be earried over to the New Testa- ken word delivered over a near infinite space by the Holy Sphft ment. Jesus who came in water by being baptized by John, and to created things. The Reformed have ft right about the Sphft by blood in his death, is still coming by water and the blood in as the agent of the sacramental action, but the $pirit is present the sacraments. Incarnation and atonement are not replaced by with Jesus, who is given in the Eucharist and with the Father to the Eucharist but continued in ft. In going to the Father’s right whom the thanksgiving, that is, the Eucharist, is offered. The hand, Jesus did not discard his humanity but further clothed gospel proclamation is not a message from a distant place, no ft in the earthly elements that grew from the same soil out of matter how good this news is, but is from Christ himself, who As deity was once hidden in hu- is as much the content of the proclamation as he is the one who ؟?which Adam was created manity, so the glorified humanity is hidden in earthly elements. proclaims ft. $acramental reality takes its life from the incarna- As Christ’s glory was made transparent by the exaltation of his tional reality, and one mystery helps to comprehend the other. humanity, so bread and wine will become translucent so that Just as the divine nature takes the human nature into itself, so we will see in them the sacrificial lamb. In the sacrament we Jesus, the incarnate God, clothes himself in water, bread, and now see him in a mirror dimly, but then face fo face. Even now wine and identifies himself with them. Baptism is the entrance, that glory in the sacrament is being revealed to faith.11 foundation and conclusion of Christian life because Christ is The proclaimed word, that is, the gospel proclamation, bap- present in the water and before, during, and after the rite, so that tism, and the Eord’s $upper, follow each in a divinely prede- he is its content and administrator. The ministers are included termined order, what Lutherans call word and sacrament. In in the proclamation and sacramental administration, but their the Roman system one supplements or is superior or inferior to deaths show that they are expendable. Martyrdom is the proper the other. Ideally the one who hears the gospel and believes, is conclusion fo the sacramental life, not only for one who receives baptized and participates in the Eucharist. What is ideal with the sacraments, but for the one who administers them.12 God more often than not fails fo translate into reality. For this Those who are committed fo sacramental practice based on systemic imperfection the ministry has been established. Our a corresponding sacramental reading ofthe $criptures have the ministry is adjusting the discrepancies, and as much as pos- example of Euther, but the ?rotestant American climate will frustrate a complete restoration. We are however more of a

9. If more had been said, it would have repeated things said inBap- tism in the Confessional Lutheran Hogmatics series. 12. Those with a developed eucharistie theology are under suspicion 10. See Havid p. Scaer, “Sacraments as an Affirmation of Creation” as followers of Wilhelm Löhe, Bertholdt voll Sehenek, andArthur Carl Piepkorn. Historieal inquiry will have to deeide how these . و-26 ا 3:) 24 ووConcordia Theological Quarterly 57 (1 -συμπρεσβύτερος και men have influenced current movements, if at all. It is my impres ه Πρεσβυτέρους ουν έν ύμΐν παρακαλώ .11 κα'ι τής μελλούσης sion that earlier liturgical movements were isolated and were not ه ,μάρτυς τών του Χριστού παθημάτων άποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός· fueled by a more sacramental reading ofthe biblical texts. e u c h a r :s t :c t h e m e s :n t h e g o sp e l s 47

-the verba in the Didache cannot be so easily over آه sacramental church than we were a century ago. Page 5 ofThe narrative Lutheran Hymnal has given way fo page 15, which is enshrined looked, simply because this d^um ent shows manysimilari- several times in the Lutheran Service Book, and chasubles are ties with Matthew, including the trinitarian baptismal formula. ser- Some have concluded that the communities that received these س؛ﺳﺂآلآﻟﻪﺀ ,widely accepted. After years of resistance cfosely related. Also آه two d ^ u m e n ts m ay have been the same -ﻫﺂat cnferences, conventions, and synod1 ال^ألالأاؤ vices a r e lege campuses. Officially the church is located in an organized consider that the nonbaptized are not allowed fo come fo the -bound is by a par- Eucharist. This indicates a highly developed eucharistie prae ٥؛» congregation, but in practice the church the Babylo- tiee. Just how one gets around the absence of the narrative of آآﻟﻪ־ةticular form. The Eucharist has been rescued easy. It may be that theDidache community ﺳﻞnian Captivity of a particular church pffifty. On the negative the Supper is side individual cups, accmding fo Forum Letter editm Russell looked upon the entire serviee, especially the events in Jesus’ Saltzmann, are here fo stay. A return fo the common cup may life and his death, in eueharistie context. One moment was not .saddled singled out fo the exclusfon of others ﻋﺔ0 م by theological arguments but by ﺳﻞ be effected ,Ire ז .with washing the “little glasses.” Reformed and Arminian In the Small Catechism, Luther cited Matthew, M ark,11 took آه,he created س are w ith me. We and St. Paul as the ^ u rc e for theverba and ، اأا ؟hymns are favmites with our people, as0 breathe the Reformed air and many a clergy per^n has gone over, a Gospel harmony in miniature. Em him 1 Cminthians 11 rtunitiesهppه fo his doom by enforcing a clean air act. matter how tightly was the standard.W e face both p™blems and the room is sealed, external materials intrude.13 Whatever our in determining the original verba. It is unlikely that Jesus used internal differences may be, the LCM$ appears fo ffihers as a the liturgically formal Hebrew in a situatfon riddled with the socially and thefogically conservative church body. Problem- anticipatfon of his death. The wmds of derelictfon according -the des آآﻟﻪ־ة atic is that our biblical interpretatfon is not as sacramental as fo Mark were spoken in Aramaic, but they came our practice and doctrine. peration of his soul. Since Matthew and Mark pr^ide Greek translations, Aramaic did not function as church language. The verba, like the other teachings ofjesus, were in Greek, and with the spread of the church, they appeared in Latin and Syriac lit- urgies. Emating the miginal language was not an issue for Lu- the Eatin and Zwingli آآﻟﻪ־ةProclamation in its purest and high- ther. At Marburg he argued estform isfound in the verba. from the Greek. Zwingli demonstrated his academic superfor- .letting him know he was just learning Eatin آل ؛hy fo Euther This fopic provides plenty of work for textual criticism. Tex- آل؛ texts ﻋﺂآﻟﻪ$.the manuscripts for Luke آل؛ tual poblems exist mentfon of the ﻫﺘﻞ dy” w ithهEuke onclude with “This is my b آس dy. Also m issing are the verbaهthe biblieal value of eating Christ’s b آهAt the center of a thorough eueharistie reading texts are the verba themselves, but with the awareness that these the cup (Lk 22:20b-21). It is difficult fo explain their omission an existing text ﻫﺴﻞ wmds define the afonement. Pitting a eueharistie interpretatfon and easier fo explain its being intoduced which it was missing. $uch adjustments were common and آل؛ against a ehrisfofogieal one indicates a failure fo understand of the (Aspels. Lest we ﺳﻢ؛ﺗﻠﻬﺂآلآلﻗﻞthe 1 آل؛ the verba. Use of the verba in our serviees is a statement that eventually resulted -of the first eelebratfon and become too judgmental with early scribes, onsider that who آﻟﻪ 1؛:ﻗﺴﻞ؛ﺳﻠﻬﺂ our consecration is a on that account the wmds of consecration are also a narrative ever expanded Luke set a model for Euther, wlo constructed four ources. The scribe who آآﻟﻪ־ة Jesus. The victim of the cross is the agent and his rendering of the verba آهon the passion content of the saerament. Here is where wmd and sacrament made the additfon of the cup fo Luke may have been familiar Cminthians 11. Paul's آل ؛can be seen as one reality in that theverba can and slmuld be with a liturgy that Paul preserved 1 remembrance “آل؛ Jesus churches may have incmpmated the wmds آهthe Gospel narrative in which the death آه seen as part being part ﺳﻞ the verba. An argument for their ه1:آﻟﻞ ”and its benefits are proclaimed. This narrative was part of the of m e آآﻟﻪ־ةeueharistie eelebratfon in Cminth and presumably also in Je- of the miginal celebratfon is suppmted by their absence the Matthew and Mark. Cnform ity fo the liturgical celebratfon آه rusalem where ft had its origin, but note slmuld be made the b ^ k s ﻫﺴﻞsal may have been the scribe’s mffiive for insertingهpهin which this narrative is missing. One pr ,ه-1 و Didache .early Christians modeled their celebration of the the verba about the cup ، ٥١©؟ is that Eueharist on the Last $upper at a later time.14 The absenee of a

For I received from the ford what I also delivered“ :و-2 و Cor 11:2 ول. Mure than anyone else Lawrence Rast has traced Reformed and Ar- 1 . و1 minian intrusions into the LCMS, but diagnosis does not translate to you, that the Lord Jesus ou the uight wheu he was betrayed took into therapy. bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is this iu remembrance of me.’ In the هGerard Rouwhorst, “Hidache 9-10: A Litmus Test for the Re- my body, which is for you.0 .14 same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new ا،س search on Early Christian Liturgy Eucharist,” inM atthew -this, as ofteu as you drink it, iu remem هthe Didache, ed. Huub van de Sandt (Minneapolis: Fortress Fress, covenant iu my blood.0 ”’.brance of me 4. و,)1 و 200 4 8 LOGIA

Do the liturgieal texts eonform to biblieal ones, or is it the used them and that a liturgieal adjustment was made by the Je- other way around? One reason for Luke’s omission of the eup rusalem ehureh before ?aul’s seennd missinnary jnurney. ?aul was that by mentioning only the breaking ofthe bread, he want- took over the liturgieal forms for the Eueharist, just as he did ed fo draw a direet line to Emmaus where Jesus was known in the resurreetion doetrine, from the apostles in Jerusalem. If the the breaking ofthe bread. What began on the night before his words “in remembranee of me” belonged to the original verba, erueifixion was eompleted on the evening of his resurrection. why did M atthew om it them? M ore problem atie is M ark’s omis- Textual variants give us a window into the minds of Christians sion of them, espeeially if he knew huke and 1 Corinthians, or to show how they interpreted the biblical texts. Our version of had often partieipated in the Eueharist in the churches ?aul es- the verba is a harmony that draws lines back to the $ynoptic tablished. Where ?aul includes the words of remembrance and Evangelists and ?aul, but as a compilation it does not exactly fit excludes the saerifieial referenee, Matthew and Mark do the any of these sources or the original occasion. reverse. This poses the question of whether the remembrance Now comes the opportunity of determining how apostolic has fo do with God’s remembering Jesus’ sacrifice. The defec- writers viewed the Eucharist, ?aul and Euke call it the new cov- tive manuscripts ofEuke exclude both themes. enant, stressing that Christ by entering the world establishes a Locating eucharistie motifs throughout the Gospels is a new relationship between himself and those who receive him ehallenge. Other opportunities may be found in looking at in the sacrament; they are included in the covenant in which them from the different angles provided by the Evangelists sins are forgiven. Matthew and Mark see Christ’s death as a and ?aul. Matters may not be as simple as we onee thought. All sacrifice satisfying the demands of the old covenant, from perieopie systems need fo be scrutinized fo determine whieh which they are released by reception of Christ’s blood, ?aul best preserves the sacramental intentions of the Evangelists. In and Luke have the Eutheran element in placing forgiveness at the Matthew sequence in the older three-year series the feed- the heart and by focusing on Christ’s sacrifice with forgiveness ing of the five thousand, the Canaanite woman, and feeding of as consequence of that sacrifice. Matthew and Mark have the the four thousand are placed on sequential $undays, and give catholic element. the preacher an opportunity for eucharistie preaehing that the Agreement on which Gospel was the first written does not Evangelist apparently intended. Where the one feeding miraele mean that its account is the oldest. Matthew may be the first is isolated from the other one and the Canaanite woman, one is Gospel and may more closely preserve the words of Jesus, but more likely to hear a sermon about the ereative energies of Jesus at the time of its writing the form found in 1 Corinthians may to take care of our earthly needs. Sadly these examples do not have been in use from Jerusalem to Greece. Another possibility even scratch the surface of possibilities for eucharistie preaeh- is that Matthew preserves theverba as the earliest Christians

CORRES?ONDENCE & COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM

meeting deadlines «£ﻣﻪ;،٢»periodical, we ٥؛ respond ٥؛ readers ٥^٢ ftVe encourage the material theyfindL in o g i a — whether fo r the next issue about the time you receive reviews, or letters your current issue. Gettingyour responses ;^٤١٥٥ ,it be in the articles of other readers. While we cannot print in early will help keep them timely. ﺳﺄ'ﺳﻮﻫﺎاهﺀ ,everything that is sent Colloquium ٥٢ Send Correspondence Fratrum section will allow for longer ٥؛ Fratrum contributions response/counter-responseexchanges. Correspondence section is aplace Michael j. Albrecht ٢ « © .the Editors.” 460 w . Annapolis St ٥؛ for shorter “Letters ؟؟West St. Paul, M N 118 something in ٥؛ respond ٥؛ dfyou wish e-mail at ٥٢ after you receive « ٥ ٥^ هL o g i a ,please do 5 an issue. SinceL o g ia is a quarterly [email protected] آلﻣﺂورلم؛

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under yourrespective ATT,AS subscriberagreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission !۴ ajourna from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue٥ typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered آس work for any use by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association .٦٥ (! funding from Liiiy Endowment ؛ATLA) and received initia)

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.