Sermon Tone Analysis

Purpose Statement.

Last week we were able to consider the fact that the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper promotes unity within the body of Christ, and next week we will look more closely at how the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper protects the church from judgment.

This week we will consider how the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper proclaims the significance of Christ’s work on the cross and his ongoing spiritual presence with his people.

Introduction

Luther firmly admonishes Zwingli, “You're being obnoxious!”

Zwingli excitedly returns with equal fervor, “Don’t you believe that Christ was attempting in John 6 to help those who did not understand?”

Having already addressed the issue of John 6, Luther says, “You're trying to dominate things!

You insist on passing judgment! . . .

It is your point which must be proved, not mine.

But let us stop this sort of thing.

It serves no purpose.”

“It certainly does!

It is for you to prove that the passage in John 6 speaks of a physical repast.”

Repast being a meal.

The conversation makes no headway as Luther says to Zwingli, “You express yourself poorly and make about as much progress as a cane standing in a corner.

You're going nowhere.” “No, no, no!

This is the passage that will break your neck!” Luther replies, “Don't be so sure of yourself.

Necks don't break this way.

You're in Hesse, not Switzerland.”

Preface to “Transcript of Marburg Colloquy.”

It was a fall morning in Marburg, not quite daylight.

The valley of the Lahn lay shrouded in the half-light of early dawn, and the castle loomed faintly on the hill above.

People were awakening to another day in a small town in Hesse, little aware of the drama unfolding in the castle as two men confronted each other in the private quarters of Landgrave Philip.

Flanked by a few friends, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were seated at opposite ends of a long table placed before a handful of guests.

Not more than fifty or sixty people were present in all.

Twelve years had passed since Luther's posting of his Ninety-five Theses.

For the great reformer they had been troubled ones, years to be sure of successful defiance of papal authority and reformation of the church in Germany, yet ones of almost continuous strife and controversy. . . .

Across the table sat his most noted challenger.

Ulrich Zwingli was, like Luther, a man of learning and leadership, a student of Christian antiquity, and a preacher . . .

who had inspired defiance of papal authority in his native Switzerland. . . .

Beside Zwingli sat John Oecolampadius, a native of south Germany . . . he had established himself with Zwingli's encouragement as leader of the reform movement in Basel.

Beside Luther sat Philip Melanchthon, trusted confidant and scholar of Christian antiquity.

It was to reconcile this basic difference over a fundamental sacrament that the two sides had been brought together in the castle overlooking Marburg.

Neither side had requested the meeting, and Luther especially had agreed to come only with great reluctance.

Their meeting had been arranged in response to a crisis . . . the preceding spring, when the Catholic majority voted to support the demand of Emperor Charles V to proceed against the alleged Lutheran heresy.

Lutheran princes had drafted and signed a vigorous protest to the emperor . . .

and had begun to prepare for the Catholic onslaught.

One of their leaders, Philip of Hesse, had then persuaded Luther and Zwingli and their respective followers to meet and examine their major theological difference over the Lord's Supper.

If the difference could be resolved, political union among the Protestants of Switzerland and Germany would be the next step.

Then perhaps the resurgence of Catholic power could be checked and peaceful countrysides like the one in the valley below might escape destruction.

Views of Communion

The Roman Catholic View.

According to the Roman Catholic view, when the priest raises the bread up and says “this is my body” the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Each time mass is performed the sacrifice of Christ is repeated.

The Catholic church acknowledges that these sacrifices are different than Christ’s literal death, but they do believe each mass to be another sacrifice.

One issue with this view is that they fail to see the symbolism in Christ’s statement, “this is my body.”

Christ used analogous language often when speaking of himself.

In John 15:1 he says, “I am the true vine.”

He says, “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the bread” in John 6:41.

We will discuss this issue more in depth in a moment.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Catholic view fails to understand the clear New Testament teaching concerning the finality of Christ’s sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:25–28 (ESV) Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.

But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

To say that Christ’s sacrifice continues to be repeated in each mass is, to Protestants, one of the most objectionable teachings of the Catholic Church.

We find great encouragement in the fact that our sins are paid for and that there is no further need for additional sacrifices.[1]

SPROUL.

One final note with respect to the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

They believe that the Mass represents a repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ every single time it is celebrated.

Christ is, as it were, crucified anew.

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there’s a difference between the original sacrifice that Jesus made at Calvary and the way the sacrifice is rendered in the Mass.

The difference is this: At Calvary, the sacrificial death of Jesus was one that involved real blood.

It was a bloody sacrifice.

The sacrifice that is made today is a sacrifice without blood.

Nevertheless, it is a true and real sacrifice.

It was that aspect, as well as the doctrine of transubstantiation, that caused so much of the controversy in the sixteenth century because it seemed to the Reformers that the idea of a repetition of any kind does violence to the biblical concept that Christ was offered once and for all.[2]

The Lutheran View.

In, With, and Under.

While Luther rejected the Catholic idea of the mass being a re-sacrifice of Christ, he did retain quite a bit of the mystery in the Lord’s Supper.

When Zwingli argued with him over the inability for a physical body to be in two places, he responded, “I do not question how Christ can be God and man and how the two natures can be joined.

For God is more powerful than all our ideas, and we must submit to his word.”[3]

Luther did not deny that there was a spiritual aspect to the bread and wine, but he couldn’t allow himself to see the statement “this is my body” in any other way than literally.

LUTHER.

It is written, "Take, eat, this is my body," and for this reason one must do it and believe it at all costs.

One must do this!

One must do this!

Otherwise I could not be baptized, I could not believe in Christ! . . .

If he were to command me to eat dung, I would do so, assured that it were good for me.

The servant doesn't brood over the wish of his lord.

One must close his eyes.[4]

Luther did not believe that the bread and wine become the physical body of Christ, but that in some way, Christ was physically present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.

In the same way that a sponge is not the water that surrounds it but the water is present everywhere alongside of the sponge, Christ’s body was not the bread and wine but was “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.

There are a couple of challenges in Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper.

First, he as well failed to see the symbolism in the Lord’s Supper.

We have already mentioned a number of declarative statements that Christ made concerning himself: I am the vine, the bread, the door, etc. Let’s consider another passage to help us better understand this perspective.

In John chapter 6, Jesus feeds the five thousand.

Following this event, in the synagogue in Capernaum, he says some really challenging statements that result in a lot of people being confused.

He begins by explaining how he is the bread from heaven, given by the Father.

They struggle with this, knowing that he was the son of Joseph.

John 6:49–63 (ESV) 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. . . .

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them . . .