Posts Tagged ‘Lord’s Supper’

Comforting Reassurance of the Holy Supper. Ev. Luth. Gebets-Schatz

Comforting Reassurance of the Holy Supper (322)

Martin Luther, 1483-1546


Be gracious to me, O merciful God.  I am indeed a poor, sinful person and have merited nothing besides wrath.   But even though I have lived however I wanted, I hold on to this: that I know, and will not doubt it, that I am baptized for the forgiveness of my sins and am called as a Christian, and that my Lord Jesus Christ was born, suffered, died, and rose again for me.  His body and blood has been given to me for the nourishment and strengthening of my faith.  Lord Jesus Christ, I am absolved and loosed from my sins in Your name.  Therefore nothing evil can befall me, nor can I be lost; as little as God’s Word can fail or be false.  Because God Himself is to me a refuge and fortress through His Word.  Amen.

What is the Benefit of This Eating and Drinking? Wednesday after Reminiscere, 2015

The_Lords_SupperWednesday after Reminiscere

St. Peter Lutheran Church

Catechism: “What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?”

March 4, 2015

Iesu iuva

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed fervently on the night He had instituted the Sacrament of the Altar. He told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death,” and He asked them to stay awake and watch and pray with Him. As He prayed, His sweat poured on the ground mixed with blood and He was in agony. What was Jesus so afraid of? He prayed, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me.” What was the cup Jesus’ Father had given Him to drink?

It was the cup of God’s wrath and judgment against all the sins of the world. The Father in heaven did not merely forget about all the sins of the world—Adam’s sin, yours and mine. He forgave it. But the forgiveness of our sins came at a cost. If we are not to be punished for our sins, someone else must pay the penalty for us. And that is what Jesus had begun to do. That was the cup He had begun to drink—the cup of God’s just judgment against all the sins of the world. It was the cup you and I had earned the right to drink. But Jesus received this cup and drank from it all the sufferings that followed—from His anguish in Gethsemane to His betrayal by Judas, from His false condemnation by the priests to His being handed over to Pilate, from His mockery, flogging, and crown of thorns to His crucifixion and death.

But Jesus has not given us this cup to drink, the cup of God’s judgment. He has given us a different cup. “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” Last week we talked about what we receive in the bread and cup of the Lord; we receive from Him not simply bread and wine but the true body of Christ which was crucified and His true blood which was shed on the cross. This week we deal with the second question of the catechism on the sacrament of the altar: “What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?”

What benefit, what blessing, do we get from eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood? Jesus tells us in the same words with which He instituted the sacrament: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” The benefit of eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood is that we receive the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus is saying that in all that happened in His passion He was giving Himself utterly for us, handing Himself over for us, to earn for us the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins was neither easy nor cheap. It cost the body and blood of the innocent and righteous One. He gave Himself over when He agonized in Gethsemane. He gave Himself utterly, knowing His body would be bruised and torn and spit on and that his blood would be poured out for us. He knew all that was coming for Him. He knew that Judas the betrayer would soon come with his false kiss and that He would be led bound before the chief priests and elders. He knew that they would sentence Him to death. He knew that while He was being accused Peter would deny Him. He knew that the priests would hand Him over to the Roman governor Pilate. Pilate would have Him flogged with whips by His soldiers and then they would mock Him, putting a purple robe over His bloody shoulders and pressing down a wreath of thorns onto His head. Bloodied and put to shame He would be led out in front of the people and they would scream, “Crucify! Crucify!” Then Pilate would give Him over to their will. He would stumble with the weight of the cross on His lacerated back out to the hill of Calvary. Then they would stretch out His hands and feet on the timber and drive nails through them into the wood. They would lift Him up to hang naked, to bleed and to thirst between two highwaymen until He breathed His last and His heart was pierced with a spear.

All this Jesus knew when He said, “Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you.” And the benefit of this eating of Christ’s body and drinking His blood is that we receive what He was earning by His suffering—the forgiveness of sins. He had no sin of His own for which to make atonement. By His suffering He was paying the debt of our sins.

So when we eat Jesus’ body and drink His blood we receive forgiveness of sins. It’s not that we don’t have forgiveness of sins apart from the Lord’s Supper. We have forgiveness through Jesus’ body and blood constantly by faith in Him. We spiritually eat His body and drink His blood by faith at all times. But in the Sacrament He gives us His body and blood as a pledge that we can see and taste that we have the forgiveness of our sins.

Forgiveness of sins means that our sins are remitted. They are no longer reckoned to us. They are taken away. Instead of sin we have righteousness and purity before God. Instead of His wrath we have His good pleasure and friendship. This is what Jesus’ suffering and death brought about for us. This is what the shedding of His blood got for us—not further anger, but God’s satisfaction. Our sins—all of them—were paid for before God. This is what Christ pledges to us when He gives us His body to eat and His blood to drink. It is a pledge of God’s favor, a pledge of peace with God.

“Forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.” Along with forgiveness of sins comes life and salvation. Jesus gives us life with His body and blood. Where sins are forgiven, there is no more death. In our sins, we are captives to death. We are sentenced to death by God. But in giving His body into pain and death and His blood to be spilled, Jesus removed the sentence of death from us. For us death is no longer the beginning of eternal death but the end of death and the entry into eternal life.

Life is given us in the sacrament; not only the pledge that we will have everlasting life when we die, but life itself is given to us now. The eternal life that Jesus died to give us is ours now. Baptized into Him our old Adam was crucified with Him and a new man—Christ in us—was born. That new man lives before God in righteousness and purity forever and begins to live now in this world doing the works of the Father, which are works of love according to the ten commandments. The body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament gives us the forgiveness of sins and at the same time strengthens the new life of Christ in us so that we become stronger in faith and more active in love.

Yes, Jesus gives us life in body as well as in soul in His body and blood. For where the soul is helped, the body is helped also. We should never look at the Sacrament as a poison from which we should run away, says Luther in the Large Catechism, but as a precious remedy that heals us in both soul and body. That’s why it is silly to worry about germs in receiving the Lord’s Supper. Jesus isn’t giving out disease and death in His body and blood, but rather the remedy for death and all its symptoms. He is giving us eternal life.

Finally, the benefit of eating and drinking Christ’s body and blood is salvation. The body and blood of Jesus saves us from the devil’s kingdom and from eternal death. Every evil that could harm us is stripped of its power by Jesus’ body and blood. The devil only has power to harm and condemn through sin. But through Jesus’ body and blood sin is taken out of the way. When we eat Jesus’ body and drink His blood we eat and drink not mere bread and wine but salvation from our sins and from Satan’s power to hurt us. No harm can come to us. Jesus pledges and gives this to us in His body and blood. The only pain that will come to us is that which the Lord who suffered for us deems profitable for our salvation. Those pains that drive us to repentance and to Jesus do not harm us but work for our good, because they strip away the old Adam that was crucified with Jesus in Baptism and help us to put on the new man, the glorious image of Christ that we will wear forever in heaven.

Forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us as a free gift in the Sacrament of the Altar as we eat Jesus’ true body and drink His true blood. All of this is for you, Jesus says—my body and my blood, all I am and all I have. How could God have decided to show us such mercy?

The peace of God that passes understanding keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.


Soli Deo Gloria

Maundy Thursday 2014 + In Remembrance of Me + 1 Corinthians 11:23-32

el greco the-last-supperMaundy Thursday + St. Peter Lutheran Church, Joliet, Illinois +

1 Corinthians 11:23-32 + April 17, 2014 +

“In Remembrance of Me”


Iesu Iuva

In your house you probably have a box of memories.  Maybe it has letters and pictures from your spouse when you were first falling in love.  Maybe it has pictures from your childhood.  Maybe it has fingerpaintings and other art work from your kids when they were little.


These are not treasures that anyone would pay much for.  They are valuable to you because you treasure the memory of your first child who made you the picture, because you love the person whose hand wrote the letter, whose image is caught in the photograph.  And because of this they are worth more than money.


God also had boxes like that.  One was the ark in which He put Noah and the animals.  He was sorry He made the world and He got rid of all the people in it.  But He wanted to keep Noah.  So He put him in the ark, and after the earth had been destroyed, He brought Noah out of the box.  And when Noah came out he made a sacrifice, and the Lord smelled the pleasing smell and promised never again to destroy the earth with a flood, even though man was evil from his youth up.


God had another box like this—the ark of the covenant.  And there God kept some mementos of when He had taken the people of Israel to be His people.  He wanted to keep them for the same reason you keep the baby photos of your first born child stored in an album or in a box in the closet.


That box with your kids’ memorabilia in it has significance.  You keep it treasured away because they are in your heart.  As long as you have such a box, it’s a fair bet that the firstborn child has a claim on your heart.


Is there any way that could change?  Probably not.  You’re always going to love that child who made the finger painting.


But what if the kid who made the finger paint landscape and the play-doh sculpture of a rabbit that looks like a warthog—what if that kid breaks faith and turns into someone else?


They come into your house high on drugs and try to use their relationship with you as a way to get money out of you?  They try to make a deal?


You’d still probably treasure the fingerpaintings, but you’d be angry at them for trying to use that child’s memory as a claim on you.  Because it would be false.  They would no longer be your child making beautiful, terrible art because they love you.  They would be someone pretending to still be that child in order to con you.


The child made the fingerpainting because they loved you and you loved them.  But the child who has broken faith is just using your relationship to get something else they love more than you.


Read more…

Do I have true faith? Thoughts on Announcing For Communion, Self-Examination, and Infant Communion

June 28, 2012 8 comments

Yeah, yeah, I know; you told me I wasn’t the fairest of them all 30 years ago when I was confirmed. But since I stopped looking at you I feel much prettier!

A couple of different American Lutheran groups have put out a “Beichtspiegel”–“confessional mirror.”  These apparently were fairly common in Lutheran Germany, at least at one time.  They are generally questions applying the ten commandments to one’s life which a person can use in examining himself before going to confession and Holy Communion.

At one time you generally didn’t go to communion, if you were a Lutheran, without first going to private confession and absolution.  Even in America we still had the custom into the 1970’s or so where a person would “announce” before going to communion.  Originally, at least as I understand LCMS practice, that is started out not necessarily as “private confession” per se, but when you came into the pastor’s office and said, “I want to commune,” he would ask you a variety of questions to ensure and assure that you were ready to receive Christ’s body and blood.  By the time they phased it out it had essentially devolved into a phone call to the pastor on Saturday night.

At seminary they advocated the attempt to restore practices that American Lutherans had lost–weekly communion, individual absolution, chasubles…but I never heard a single professor suggest that we might want to bring announcement back.  I found an article about the practice of “announcement” in an old German “Lehre und Wehre” and I kind of think it would be an interesting topic to research.

If we were able to reinstate announcement in a non-legalistic way, I think it ultimately could be very consoling to people, and it would help to assuage people’s concern that if we have the sacrament too often people will abuse it.  This complaint does have a certain validity.  What does the Augustana say?  “No one is admitted to [Sacrament of the Altar] unless they have first been examined and absolved.”  Luther says the same type of thing either in the Smalcald Articles or one of the Catechisms…we don’t intend to give the Sacrament to people who can’t tell you what it is or why they want to receive it.  Well, that would also help us with teaching people what the ministry really is–namely an office set apart to represent Christ in preaching His Word, absolving, baptizing, giving the sacrament, exhorting, rebuking, etc.

Originally I started this post because I translated part of the old LCMS “Gebets-Schatz” Beichtspiegel, except it’s not called that in the Gebets-Schatz.  They’re called Pruefungsfragen, rougly translated “self-examination questions” or “proving questions.”

Sometimes I think if I had had access to questions like these in response to my anxiety about salvation when I was confirmation age, and if I had had a pastor with whom I could have talked and who could have examined me in this way, I would never have fallen away.

Sometimes Lutheran laymen get very passionate about how private confession is unlutheran and they’re free in Christ not to do it.  I think the reason I’m so passionate about it in the other direction is that I think in part that I fell away from Christ because although I knew private confession existed for Lutherans, I just thought that to go to it meant you were somehow failing as a Christian.

As a final point…I remember debating with about three men at seminary who were smarter than me about infant communion.  As on most things at seminary, I gave sort of the standard dead orthodox Missourian Lutheran response: well, don’t people need to examine themselves before communion?  To which one guy (who, along with the other guy, is a pastor in the LCMS) said, “They’ve already examined themselves and desire it!”  I left the discussion feeling stupid and angry because I was silenced in the argument.

Later, I asked Prof. John Pless about it and he said, “Paul is clearly talking about a noetic self-examination in 1 Corinthians.”  I liked that answer because saying, “Noetic” has a way of making people circumspect about arguing further.

I don’t know who reads this blog.  But if anyone from my church read it, I would feel bad now if I used words or arguments that made them feel stupid, as though you have to be a genius to come to the right answer in theological questions.  Prof. Pless wasn’t doing that because he was talking to a seminary student and not to a congregation.  But, it might be a good thing for seminarians to practice as they argue theology–not only learning theology by debating, but also how to discuss it with someone who disagrees with you without trying to make them feel stupid, since that is a completely destructive tendency when you actually start shepherding souls.

Actually this debate is fairly easy to understand.  The guy who told me that “babies have already examined themselves and desire the sacrament” was referring to Lutheran baptismal theology.  We don’t say that babies are baptized in their parents’ faith, or the sponsors’ faith, or the church’s faith.  We believe that they have their own faith…either before Baptism or after receiving it.  This is why one of the prayers in the LCMS alternate rite for Baptism (I’m pretty sure from Luther) says something like: “we bring this child to you, desiring the forgiveness of sins.  Open to him knocks, grant that he who seeks finds…etc.”

(This is also connected to the paragraphs from Bugenhagen I translated a few weeks ago about what happens to babies who are not baptized because they die before they can be…)

So, my colleague was saying, “Babies have living faith in Christ…they are baptized into Christ.  Therefore” [I think this was his argument], “since they have real faith in Christ, they also examine themselves and desire all of Christ’s gifts, including the Lord’s Supper.”

On the other hand, Prof. Pless was saying that when Paul talks about self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere, he is talking about a conscious self-examination.

I think the passages from Paul become nonsensical if they aren’t interpreted the way Prof. Pless does.  Also, it’s simply impossible to square a different reading with the Lutheran Confessions.

Luther’s theology about right reception of the Lord’s Supper is this:  What makes you worthy is:  1.  believing that it

Luther communing John the Steadfast.

Luther communing John the Steadfast. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

is Jesus’ body and blood.  2.  hunger and thirst for the benefits conferred in the Lord’s Supper, namely forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.  3.  This presupposes contrition–i.e. fear of God’s wrath.  It presupposes also the desire for the forgiveness of sins and comfort and faith that Jesus gives or will give me what I desire in the Lord’s Supper.  4.  Finally, Luther teaches that Christians should examine themselves to see whether or not they will receive the supper worthily.  Even more he insists that people need to be examined by the pastor to see whether they are ready.

I frankly believe that our present practice of examining people once, at confirmation, is a bad practice, out of step with our theology.  There are many members of our congregation who come to church regularly enough not to get dropped from membership.  Yet they come so seldom that one is forced to conclude that they are either extremely ignorant about the nature of saving faith, or else they simply despise God’s gifts.  Yet they are never examined, because people have come to think that reception at the Lord’s table is a right conferred forever by virtue of your confirmation.  People tend to think this even after they or their children have left the church and become Baptist.  But if they’re still on the books at an LCMS congregation, people don’t think anymore question should be raised.

I guess the conclusion is this, and then I’ll post the examination questions (it may have to be later this evening now.)  If there are still high church confessional Lutherans who sympathize with infant communion, this should not be coddled by LCMS confessionals simply because they’re our type of guys and they agree on the liturgy.

Infant communion is an attack on the article of justification, and therefore an assault on the pure Gospel and the heart of the Lutheran Church.  If I’m goring your ox, I probably don’t know who you are, so I don’t say this with anger against you, but out of concern that Satan doesn’t play little games in the backyard of those who want to see the pure Gospel alone confessed in the Missouri Synod.

It’s an attack on the article of justification because while faith can be living and can justify while a person is not conscious of it, and while it is true that true faith in Christ believes against the feelings and perceptions of the old Adam, it is also true that we are able to “test ourselves” to see whether we are in the faith.

The tendency that leads toward infant communion–it seems to me–teaches falsely about the nature of saving faith.  While faith that saves is not “faith in faith,” and while saving faith can exist in those who aren’t aware of it (people who are sleeping; people in a coma; people with Alzheimer’s; babies), we are also commanded in scripture to “test ourselves” and “to make our calling and election sure.”  It is certainly not the case that Christians are being presumptuous when they are assured of their salvation or of being in a state of grace.

This assurance is not always felt; the assurance is found in God’s promises.

Yet experience plays a role in this.  Does it matter if my heart doesn’t feel love for God, doesn’t feel like praying, doesn’t really care whether it receives the Sacrament?  Of course it does!  It’s sin that I don’t desire the sacrament very much, or don’t feel like praying, or would rather watch TV than hear God’s Word.

That awareness of the sin that lives in me is the very thing that should direct me to my need for Christ and what He gives me in the Holy Supper–his true body and blood.  And if I feel that I am not sufficiently repentant or hungry, then I should mourn over that and go to communion asking God to renew my sick heart.  But I shouldn’t say, “Oh well, it isn’t necessary to feel anything to be a good Christian.  After all, babies have faith even though they don’t act like it.  Our spirit prays even when our lips and minds are doing something else.”

No, instead I should go mourning the ungodliness of my flesh, that it despises God even after all that He’s done for me.  But with assurance I should go to the altar with the horrible wickedness of my heart, because Jesus receives sinners there and gives them His body and blood.

All around in Lutheranism, among laity and pastors, you see this idea that we can be Christians and agnostics at the same time.  It is true that we doubt.  My life is a big billboard of that.  Christians doubt and are weak in faith. That’s because sin still lives in us.   And yet Christianity is marked by certainty, assurance, because the Spirit works in us by the Word.  I think in Pieper I remember reading that faith “IS assurance.”  or “The assurance of

English: Franz August Otto Pieper

English: Franz August Otto Pieper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

salvation is faith.”  I didn’t like that at the time, because I didn’t understand it.

When I get out of the pulpit, how do I know that I preached God’s Word and not my own?  Should I just say, “Ah, whatever…it could be I preached God’s word, it could be I just poisoned everyone who heard me–whatevs”?

How do I know that when I am judged God will receive me?  I know because His Word tells me.  How do you know that You rightly interpret His Word?  I know because the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scripture unfolds it, and He has revealed it to me.  It’s not that I always feel it or that I don’t doubt.

But like the hymn says:

God’s Word is all-sufficient

It makes divinely sure

And trusting in its wisdom

My faith shall rest secure.   Erdmann Neumeister, “I Know My Faith is Founded.”

Or like my favorite hymn says:

And to this our soul’s salvation

Witnesses Your Spirit, Lord,

In Your Sacraments and Word. 

There He sends true consolation,

Giving us the gift of faith

That we fear not hell nor death.  Johann Olearius “Oh, How Great is Your Compassion”

How is it that people who want to be confessional Lutherans could get this confused?  In our efforts to avoid the subjectivism of the evangelicals, some of what is called “Confessional Lutheranism” sounds an awful lot like removing faith from the article of justification.

Where did this come from?

Again, to reiterate: faith can exist where someone is unconscious of it.  But the person who’s worried about whether or not he is really a Christian doesn’t need to hear, “Don’t worry about it.  It’s not necessary that you feel anything.” Instead they need God’s law and gospel applied to them.  If they are really troubled  because they are willfully sinning, then they need to hear that repentance does not include hanging on to sin but wanting to be free of it.  (Then proclaim the Gospel).  If they are troubled because of their ongoing struggle with sin and lack of sanctification, they need to be told that is the reason why the Lord’s Supper was instituted–not for those who have already overcome sin, but for those who are burdened by it and fear that they will be damned because of it.

That kind of certainty would be more common, I think, if instead of the protestant “every man his own priest”, we recovered the Lutheran understanding of the Church as the “communion of saints” and the “mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren” as a means of grace.  I think assurance of salvation is tied to confession of sins before men–whether or not that is done formally.  When church people don’t deal with one another as lost sinners who need the other members of the body…and when we hide our sins from each other, it causes the whole church to lose the joy of salvation.

“Restore to me [and all Lutheran congregations] the joy of Your salvation, and grant [us] a willing spirit…”

%d bloggers like this: