Professor Thomas A. Von Hagel wrote an article entitled "A Eucharistic Interpretation of the Synoptic Apocalypse" in Logia. Vol. VIII, No. 3. This appears to be going at the pastoral work of interpretation backwards. "The Lord's Supper in the Synoptic Apocalypse" would be a much more profitable study for the average minister in the parish to have at hand. Whenever an "interpretation" is preceded by some modifier other than "biblical", it is suspicious; even if it a worthy topic in and of itself, such as "christological," "eucharistic," "incarnational," "baptismal," "escatological," "ecclesiastical" or "post-modern."
One of the prime directives of Lutheran interpretation is that "the Bible interprets itself." All interpretation ought to be first and foremost "biblical," drawing directly from the plain and clear words of the Scripture what God says. Arranging meaning about various topics relating to our justification before the Father through the living, dying and rising again of the Christ is the work of theology or systematics.
The ordinary approach is to ask a question like: "What does God say about the Lord's Supper in His Synoptic Apocalypse that will be helpful to my people's faith in Christ and participation in His body and blood?" An approach that endeavors to examine these Scriptures with "eucharistic colored glasses" is forcing the issue. "In light of the Lord's Supper, this article will interpret the signs of nature that Jesus delineates in the synoptic apocalypse." Should not this effort be to discover if the "signs of nature" say anything about the Lord's Supper, rather than assuming "in light of the Lord's Supper" that they do? This approach leaves too much latitude for the views of the interpreter to enter into the conclusion of the interpretation. It is that very thing that has been done in the latter part of the body of this article.
In fact, the author states the results of his inquiry in the middle of his article and then goes on to buttress it and restate it at the end. "Not only do the signs of nature that Jesus prophesied in the synoptic apocalypse correspond to the Creator's numerous advents to his creation in the Old Testament and the singularly momentous advent in the Incarnation, but also in the repeated advents of Jesus to his creation in his Supper." (p. 23) This is adding significantly to what the "bare words" of the "synoptic apocalypse" say and are worthily and accurately summarized in the first sentence of the paragraph from which the above quotation comes: "In the synoptic apocalypse Jesus clearly delineates the signs that precede and foretell his second Advent." Amen!
After this Von Hagel reviews the views of C. H. Dodd and Adrio Koenig, both of whom posit a "realized eschaton," that is, that the end of the age arrived already when Jesus was incarnate in our world. This is rightly called by the author God's "principal advent to his creation," and he mentions that their conclusion "does not directly address a eucharistic interpretation of the signs of nature in the synoptic apocalypse . . ."
This the author attempts to do.
But this effort is not what attracted my attention to the article in the first place. It was the novel terminology he employs to describe the "Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine," to use the classical, confessional definition of the Sacramental Presence.
But first, a brief excursus regarding the contrast that Von Hagel sets up between the Reformed and the Lutherans. His description of the Reformed position is accurate. They were indeed misunderstanding the Lutherans' position and terminology. The Lutherans did occasionally speak of the "bodily presence of Christ" in their disputations and Confessions. But did they mean thereby the Roman position that was encouraged on them at Augsburg, that "Christ is wholly in each kind?" This was rejected at Augsburg, and not merely because of liturgical reasons of desiring to have both kinds in the Sacrament. It was rejected because even the early doctrine of the reformers was the simple words of institution: the bread is the body of Christ and bread remaining and the wine is the blood the wine remaining, with neither or both of them being the whole and entire Christ, body and soul.
The Reformed were accusing the Lutherans of Romish doctrines; that is, that Christ was giving Himself personally, wholly and completely, body and soul, in the bread and wine. The Lutherans were not claiming that at all. They were insisting that Christ was the host of the meal offering the body and blood with which He obtained forgiveness by His death on the cross of Calvary. The definitive descriptions of the Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Confessions never use "Christ's presence" or "Christ Himself" or "Jesus Himself" or even "bodily presence," but always "the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the bread and wine." AC X, S. Cat., SD VII
Obviously the Lutherans use of the term "bodily presence of Christ" indicated the "presence of the true body" rather than the "physical presence of Christ Himself" in the bread, the wine or both. The same goes for the two times when similar terminology appears in the Formula.
The first is in SD 105 where they are speaking of the modes of presence: "When Dr. Luther or we use the word "spiritual" in this discussion, we have in mind the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper. . . " This, they say "is not the gross, carnal presence which the Sacramentarians ascribe to . . . our churches. . ."
The second is in SD 126 where the Lutherans reject the adoration of the elements. "Of course, no one but an Arian heretic can or will deny that Christ himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when it is rightly used, should be adored in spirit and truth. . ." Our theologians wanted to emphasize and introduce the subject (SD VIII) of the mystical union of the divine and human natures of Christ that the Reformed had had to deny in order to defend their perception of the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Supper; that is that Jesus was offering the Real Presence of Himself personally in the bread and wine. One can readily see that this passage is saying the same thing as SD 113 and should be understood in its light: "The assertion that the words of institution are not to be simply understood in their strict sense, as they read, concerning the true essential presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, . . ."
The term " present in the Supper" is akin to the phrase "Christ is present with His body and blood" in SD 122 et al. The words "mit" and "cum" indicate clearly that Christ Himself is present and He has His body and blood with Him to distribute to the communicants. "With" does not mean He is "in" His body and blood. His divine and human body and blood are "in" the bread and wine. His own words indicate that He personally is apart from the elements He serves. This also casts light on the above passage "Christ himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when it is rightly used," cited above. "Present in the Supper" means "present in the right use of the Supper." The right use of the Supper is, in part, "recognizing the body," not recognizing Christ's physical, carnal, personal presence in the bread and wine.
Von Hagel seems to react to the Reformed erroneous reading of the Lutheran's position by positing the opposite of the Reformed position as the true Lutheran one. The Reformed deny the substantive and local presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. So, he claims, we Lutherans must affirm the substantive and local presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. But the Lutherans were not claiming the substantive and local presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper at all, but rather the substantive and local presence of Jesus' body and blood in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.
He says: "In the Lord's Supper, the Creator concretely comes to his creation as both the server and the one who is served." It is as if he understands the words of our Lord to say, "Take, eat, this is Me." He has no problem with "is" meaning "is" apparently, but he imagines "my body" means "Me Myself as the human and divine Person." Hermann Sasse in "The Lord's Supper in the New Testament" (1941) from the We Confess Anthology says: "Also untenable is Otto's (Rudolf Otto, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, p. 214) further assumption that the words 'This is my body,' in Aramaic den hu gufi, should mean nothing more than 'This is I Myself.'" (p. 60) He continues, "And so the understanding of 'body' in the sense of 'person' enjoys great popularity in our day," (p. 71) referring to the 1940s when this terminology was becoming frequent in Europe and in the LCA and ALC. Sasse concludes that "the church has always taken 'body' to be the actual body and 'blood' to be the actual blood of the Lord. . ." p. 73.
What novel terminology does Prof. Von Hagel introduce to this discussion?
Obviously, Prof Von Hagel has adopted the "Jesus' local presence" or "Christ present" terminology that was so popular in liberal circles in the past. It is clear that he understands the Words of Institution to mean that Jesus Himself is in the bread and wine. This is not merely novel terminology, but old, defensive Roman theology Zwingli was reacting against and falsely accusing the Lutherans of holding.
While Von Hagel quotes the Verba and Luther with the correct expression of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine, he never expresses this orthodox and confessional view in his own words. The editors of this journal of Lutheran theology should have picked this up. I have the ELCA's Affirm Catechism that does the same thing. It quotes the Words of Jesus "This is My body" and blithely claims that this means "Jesus is present," not that His body is present.
The Advent terminology used in this article is confusing. While the author is careful to clarify that he means "Jesus' advent in his Supper," this has no classical or confessional meaning with which we can identify. It almost seems that he wants to start another terminology fad with this new phrase.
We all understand and celebrate Jesus' first advent into the flesh. We have biblical, historical and liturgical support for His coming into the flesh. But where, certainly not in the signs of nature, are the clear and simple words with which to nourish our faith in Him? As we have seen, the whole concept of Christ coming personally to us in the bread and wine of His Supper is not from the Words of Institution, but from the mind of rationalizing men. The only way we can possible "baptize" this term is to define it contrary to the intention of the author of the article.
"Jesus' advent in his Supper" could be rightly understood in the same sense as "Christ is present with His body and blood" in SD 122. In this way we could understand that Jesus personally is spiritually present, but "concretely" (to use the term of the author) represented by His Minister who serves the Sacred Meal. Jesus, therefore, comes to us in His Supper as one who serves up, not Himself for eating and drinking, but His actual body and blood with the bread and wine. But this is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with Von Hagel's assertion: "In the Lord's Supper, the Creator concretely comes to his creation as both the server and the one who is served."
The reference to Christ as the Creator and the "creation" in relation to His Supper is also confusing and novel. Perhaps it is forced on the author because of the nature of his topic and the incarnational, christological, eucharistic hermaneutic he is using, but it just does not seem to echo the sound of a clear trumpet of biblical thematic. If you are looking through that many glasses, you must see something relating to the creation, the unity of the Godhead and the Lord's Supper in the texts under consideration. So, let it be, even if the texts don't speak of these matters.
The pastor in a confessional congregation who begins to refer to the Lord's Supper in these ways had better be able to explain himself better than Von Hagel does. They will ask, as the Sunday School teachers in South Dakota did to the Vicar from the St. Louis seminary in the early 1960s who was spouting off the latest historical critical drivel: "But, Vicar, where is that in the Bible?"
Perhaps this was written for more etherial folks than parish pastors, but the basic thrust and conclusion of the article describing the creation as falling apart and reacting violently to the Creator's advent in the Lord's Supper, seemed to cast the Sacrament in a primarily Law and judgement role. Perhaps this is so for the unbeliever and impenitent; but for the humble sinner who comes at the invitation of His Savior and Redeemer, the Sacred Meal is pure Gospel, grace, forgiveness and righteousness. To receive the actual body and blood that atoned for the sins of the world on the cross is to embrace all that Jesus is and has done to bring us into the presence of the Creator. Who cares if the world is decaying? He is building you up. Who cares if the creation is groaning? He is giving you cause for singing psalms of praise.
Perhaps the question is open to the criticism of being simplistic, but what is wrong with interpreting the Lord's Supper with a biblical hermaneutic? This is the same, then, as a eucharistic interpretation. What is wrong with approaching the eschaton with a biblical hermaneutic? The result is an eschatological interpretation. Explain the incarnation of Christ biblically, and you get an incarnational locus of theology. Forcing the conclusions of one area of interpretation leads to conclusions such as Prof. Von Hagel and others appear to have come regarding the Real Presence; that the classical and confessional expressions are not adequate for the church of today. It might even lead to revamping our catechism to teach the advent of the Creator in the Lord's Supper as the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament of the Altar.
See also "REAL PRESENCE" OR "CHRIST'S PRESENCE" - TERMINOLOGY THAT REFLECTS THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE by Rev. Loeschman
