A Reader�s Edition of the Book of Concord
A Partial Review
by Rev. A. J. Loeschman

The exuberant reviews of this Concordia Publishing House continue to emanate from those who examine this newest contribution to Lutheranism along with at least one outlandish and personal attack. This edition certainly deserves the accolades it is receiving for its gathering of many resources for those beginning the study of these historic confessions of Christ and His faith. Others have noted the affordable and useful helps included with the text of the Confessions themselves.

No book other that the original text of the Bible is perfect, so we should pay attention to and be aware of less than accurate terminology being used in the explanations and historical remarks. It seems, by the way, that a better way of making the distinction between the text of the Confessions and editorial remarks could have been used. Italics or a different font would have improved the reader�s awareness of the difference far more than the mere lack of a paragraph number in the margin.

However, that is a minor inconvenience. What is not so minor is the intrusion of a modern use of terminology that gives an erroneous impression of the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ�s body and blood in the bread and wine of His Supper. Certainly, most of the editorial comments are quite good and unambiguous.

The description of the disagreement between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy on page 48 is accurate when it concludes quoting the Marburg Articles: �We are not agreed as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine.� �Bodily� here obviously describes the presence of the �substance� of Christ�s body and blood, not the presence of the entire Christ in His body. Zwingli spoke often about the �presence of Christ� in the sacrament, but Luther always wanted to keep the subject the �substance� of the body and blood of Christ literally �on the table.�

The introduction to Article X of the Apology on page 179 is also clear. It emphasizes the substantial presence of Christ�s body and blood, the reception of that body and blood by both the repentant and believing worthy and the unbelieving unworthy and the gracious purpose for which Christ causes His body and blood from the cross to be present in His Supper.

Article XXIV of the Apology on the Mass also is simple, clear and plain: �While we do receive Christ�s true body and blood in the Sacrament, the priest does not re-sacrifice Christ in the Mass.� We receive the already sacrificed body and blood of Christ. He does not need to be sacrificed again as if He were present in the bread and wine as the divine and human promised Savior.

Likewise, the introduction to Part 5, The Sacrament of the Altar, of the Large Catechism on page 457 is very clear as to what Christ offers in the Supper; His body and blood.

However, there are a number of places where confusion about what is offered and received in the Sacrament is introduced. Perhaps it would not be noticed by many because since World War II it has been acceptable terminology in Lutheran circles, particularly the more liberal and ecumenical branches.

The introduction to the Holy Supper of Christ on page 505 surrounds a misstatement with good Biblical theology. �All who commune receive Christ�s body and blood....� and �When it comes to the Lord�s Supper, the clear Word of God must take captive our human reason.� The misstatement is this: �Reformed Christians, deriving their theology form the teachings of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, deny that Christ is truly present in, with and under the bread and wine.�

This last sentence implies that Lutherans believe �that Christ is truly present in, with and under the bread and wine.� But real Lutherans don�t believe that according to the �clear Word of God� that takes �captive our human reason.� We believe that �All who commune receive Christ�s body and blood....� To assert that Christ is truly and really present �in, with and under the bread and wine� when the Bible does not say it is letting reason, logic and speculation take us captive.

In fact this is exactly what the Roman Catholics do when they develop from reason and inference the doctrine of Concomitance; that Christ is wholly and entirely present in the host and chalice after the transubstantiation worked by the priest. That Christ �must be where His body and blood are� is the inference this doctrine is named after. But this claim stands in opposition to what Jesus says in the clear Words of Institution, as historic Lutherans have pointed out over the centuries.

�However, what must be made perfectly clear is that Lutheranism does not assert the biblical teaching of Christ�s presence in His Supper on the basis of philosophical arguments, or on the basis of the doctrine of the two natures. These points, though true and valid, are all marshaled to defend the chief and foremost foundation of the reality of the Lord�s presence in His Supper; the words of Christ Himself. When the Reformed or others deny that the Lord means what He says, �This is My body,� Lutherans point first to Jesus� words. In fact, this is what Luther meant at the Marburg Colloquy when he said, �It is written.�

This paragraph from page 530, describing the Controversies of the Confessional age, shows the difficulty of the problem. Whichever editor wrote this does not see the contradiction he has written. He blindly claims that the words �This is my body� mean something more than the obvious. He thinks that in addition to His body, �the Lord� Himself is present in the element of bread. The Real Presence, however, is not a �presence of the Lord,� but of the Lord�s body and blood. This is Jesus� plain, simple and clear Word. �My body� in, with and under the bread and the �blood of the New Testament� in, with and under the wine.

Not only this, but the Missouri Synod Lutherans who promote and defend (See �Good News� latest issue.) the �real presence of Christ in the Sacrament� doctrine most frequently use, as the Roman Catholics do, the doctrine of the two natures to assert this Concomitant doctrine. It was because of the doctrine of Concomitance that held as the Council of Trent says, the body is �. . . under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy (logical inference) whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul.�
8 DS 1640; Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html (Italics and bold emphasis mine)

It is not clear if the editorial introduction to the Augsburg Confession�s Article X on page 61 is a powerful defense of the biblical doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ�s body and blood or merely a proper admonition not to inquire into the �how� of Christ�s presence. Putting the best construction on this requires the former conclusion. But to be more direct and faithful to the Bible and the Confessions, the better thing to say would be something like: �Lutheranism has no theory or philosophical explanation of how Christ is present because it do not teach that Christ is Himself wholly and entirely present in the earthly elements. Rather, Lutherans insist on answering the what of the Lord�s Supper.� This certainly squares better with Jesus, Paul, Luther, Chemnitz and Pieper (Vol. III, pp. 355 ff.)

This edition of the Book of Concord is indeed more than worth the price, for which we must thank Concordia Publishing House. Certainly, the issue should continue to be printed. But in subsequent printings, a few changes could be made to bring the terminology into consistent, unambiguous, historical and more accurate form.