8
Exegesis of This Word of Christ: “This Is My Body, Which Is Given for You. This Is My Blood, Which Is Shed for You,” Luke 22
Against the Single and Two-fold Papists, Who Use These Words to the Destruction of Christ’s Cross
(October 1524)
Like the previous pamphlet, Karlstadt’s Auszlegung dieser wort Christi . . . Wider die einfeltige vnnd zweyfeltige papisten / welche soliche wort / zuo einem abbruch des kreützes Christi brauchen was published only twice, the first time by Johann Bebel in Basel (VD16, B6111; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 129) in October of 1524 and the second time by Johann Prüss in Strasbourg in 1525 (VD16, B6112; Barge and Freys, “Verzeichnis,” no. 130). There are no modern editions. I have used the Basel imprint (Köhler, Flugschriften, 1446, no. 3833) for my translation.
[a1v] This word of Christ, “This is my body, which is given for you,” stands boldly and clearly against all sophists and papists, old and new,1 who say that Christ with these words brought himself into the sacrament or into bread and wine; especially against the current priests and mass-holders who by the power of these words undertake to consecrate the body and the blood of Christ in the sacrament, as they call the Lord’s Supper.
THIS WILL BE EXAMINED
First, the above-mentioned words of Christ oppose the blind sophists because no papist can remain by such plain words or accept these words as they sound, but instead he adds something so he can maintain his own fantasy and understanding from his own brain, disregarding that the sense and meaning of this Christian statement is changed and destroyed by such additions. Namely, no one says that Christ’s flesh is bread made from wheat or that Christ’s blood is the wine harvested from the vine (which Christ’s words would allow and contain if Christ had signified and spoken the pronoun “this” with reference to bread and wine, “This is my body, this is my blood”). They say instead, “The body of Christ is under the bread, the blood under the wine,” or “The body of Christ is in the bread, or in the form of bread, the blood in the cup or wine.” And so with great wickedness and willfulness the papists add an “in” or “under” to the Latin words, against the command of God, who says, “You should add nothing,” Deuteronomy 4[:2], 12[:32]; Revelation 22[:18]. And what Christ said in the nominative case, they turn into the ablative, which is destruction and a devastation of a [a2r] Christian statement.
See, if I say, “This is my body,” and point to the bread (as Christ says, John 6[:35], “I am the bread,” and you say, “Your body is in it” or “Christ is in the bread”), you would rebuke me, for it follows without contradiction that my body is not that which contains it. When my body is in a room, you would conclude from this, “The room isn’t your body and your body isn’t the room.” In the same way it follows that if Christ is in the bread, then Christ isn’t the bread. Now as Christ says, John 6[:51], “My flesh is the bread.” By this he said the same thing, although in a concealed way, as “My flesh is not in the bread,” for then the flesh wouldn’t also be the bread. Accordingly, it must also follow that Christ wouldn’t be in the sacrament if Christ is supposed to be the sacrament. For if one of these meanings or statements is proved, then the other must necessarily be nullified and pass away.
I’ll give you another example by asking how these statements can both be true: on the one hand, “The wine is in the barrel,” and on the other, “The wine is the barrel.” If the latter is true, then the first must be false. If the wine were the barrel, it must be everywhere where the barrel is and can’t be in the barrel any more than the barrel can be in itself. Now it’s impossible that a barrel can be in the barrel which it itself is. So it is with Christ’s body and bread, which are both material. If the body of Christ were in the bread made from grain, then Christ’s body couldn’t be the same bread. If the papists spoke rightly when they said, “Christ’s body and blood are in the bread and wine,” then Christ would be wrong when he said, “The bread is my body, the cup is my blood.” The twofold papists attribute this to Christ, saying “Christ pointed to the bread when he said, ‘This is [a2v] my body.’” If Christ’s words say and mean this, “The bread is the body, the cup is the blood,” and if they are thus understood as true, then you sophists are certainly lying when you say, “The body of Christ is in the bread, the blood of Christ is in the cup.” Your interpretation has as much scriptural basis as hell being in heaven or as I’d be right to say, “Christ is the upper room in which he ate the supper.”
Thus the new blind guides, the fanatics, must proceed with great willfulness when they undertake with their additional and patched-together inventions and words to compel and force the pious Waldensians2 to this understanding: that Christ’s body and blood are in their fictitious and anti-Christian and soul-murdering sacrament.
They will say, “See, faith does this.” I answer, “Dear John, why do you boast of clear, bright, and strong words? You don’t have God’s word with which you can force and compel anyone. If you don’t have God’s word, I’ll immediately state that faith has its testimony in scripture, Romans 10[:11]. If God has granted divine knowledge, you should still show me the same word in scripture, for what God writes in the hearts of his disciples is contained in the law, Jeremiah 31[:33], Isaiah 8[:16], 51[:7]. If you want to boast of a faith that tells you what no scripture does, then you have already fallen away from the true faith. If you want to speak so lightly about faith, then magicians, soothsayers, and devils will also stand firm.”
For this reason I won’t regard your faith before you set forth the word of true faith. But that word fails you through which you might prove that Christ’s body is in the sacrament. Thus you have no faith, however much you may boast of your faith.
[a3r] Second, know that Christ never said that the bread which he broke and gave to his disciples was his body or the cup was his blood, much less that his body was hidden in the bread or in the form of bread. Instead he said simply, “This is my body, which is given for you.” And Christ spoke this verse, “This is my body,” not so that we would understand from it that the baker’s bread (which he held in his hand) was his body or that his body should be in that same bread or that Christ therefore wanted to give his body to the disciples in the bread (note these three different statements), but rather for the sake of the following verse, which says, “which is given for you.” Accordingly, Christ’s words state, “This is my body, which is given for you.” Christ didn’t say that the bread was his body, for this would be against the manner of the Greek and Latin languages. It would also be against the twofold new papists, as said above. And it would be against all prophecies that prophesy the suffering of the Messiah and against what Christ himself preached when he preached to his disciples about his suffering.
Before his death and suffering, Christ had to proclaim the highest promise that is contained in holy scripture, and to speak clearly and understandably what Moses earlier had said in a figured and darker way and what the prophets said, some like Moses and some with clearer words. And in this his sermon, Christ not only had to proclaim a more joyful promise than all of the prophets proclaimed, but in addition also to surpass John the Baptist (for which I’ll soon present good evidence), who was himself more and greater than any prophet when he pointed to the Messiah with words and fingers, when he spoke of Jesus of Nazareth to his disciples and said (when he saw Christ) [a3v], “This is the one of whom I spoke,” etc., “This is the lamb who bears the sins of the world,” etc. [John 1:29–30]. This was a much greater message, which pointed to someone in the present, than that of the prophets, who promised someone in the future. But Christ surpassed this message and promise, for he spoke not of another, as John the Baptist [did], but of himself. He also didn’t say, “He is the one,” like John; he didn’t say, “That one will bear our sins in his body on the way of the cross,” but instead, “This is my body, which is given for you. This is my blood, which is shed for your sins.” With this he proclaimed this thought, “You shouldn’t imagine that there was another body before me or that another will come after me or that there is now present another body besides my body that is given for you, which you should also well know and discern. It is my body alone, about which Moses and the prophets wrote before and to which John the Baptist pointed, that is given for you in the highest obedience. It is my flesh that is given for the life of the world, John 6[:51]. You should neither hope in nor look for any other flesh or body. My body will be given for you and for many,” Luke 22[:19].
Accordingly, it is clear that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body,” so that his disciples should pay attention to the following words, “which is given for you,” and know that Christ’s body and no one else’s would be given for them and for many, which they didn’t earlier understand, although Christ often spoke of his suffering that he would be given for them, as the evangelists testify.
And now we are obliged to consider earnestly that Christ has given his body since Christ [a4r] said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” For all of us who desire to eat the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup worthily and without condemnation must have a strong and thankful remembrance that Christ gave his body for us and will no longer give it. What Christ announced to the disciples as a promise in the future tense—namely, that Christ would give his body for us—the apostles and evangelists proclaim to us as something that has happened, as a fulfilled promise, Acts 13[:28–39].
Thus we must hold not to the written promise (for in this way we would be like the Jews who denied Jesus of Nazareth), but to the true, pure, and perfect gospel, namely that Christ has already given his body, as he has already died, and will no longer give his body, just as he will not die again.
And so we must hear these words of Christ, “This is my body,” and understand that Christ gave his body. In this manner all the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, write about Christ’s body, how Christ gave his body into the hands of evildoers and to the cross and into death, as Paul says to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and in other epistles, and especially to the Hebrews, and Peter [says] in both epistles, teaching diligently how one should discern the Lord’s body, which I will speak more about below.
Third, I hold it as a heretical and perverse statement if these words, “This is my body,” are applied to the bread and are understood as if the bread (which Christ held in his hands and gave to the disciples) is the body of Christ. I know that this is a false statement, not only for the above-mentioned reasons, but also for this reason, which comes from faith and holy scripture [a4v] and can explain the dark words. This is because it is against all prophecies and it is not only wrong to hold but also to think that the body of our savior and messiah, which at that time was still to be given and now has been given, was or should be bread baked from flour.
All prophets prophesied about the natural body and blood of the Son of man who would be true God and man, and said that the same God-man would give his true natural body and shed his true natural blood for his elect. But the papists belie this fundamental argument of Christ when they say that Christ’s body is the bread, which Christ was not born into but is instead an alien created thing. For if it is true that Christ’s body was the baker’s bread, it must follow that this same bread was given for us when the body of Christ was given and that at the time when Christ spoke such words, a bread baked in the oven would be given for sins, since the clause, “which is given for you,” follows and refers to “the body,” and all that one can say about “This is the body of Christ” may be applied to it.
Thus all the sophists’ imaginings firmly oppose all prophecies, gospels, and epistles of holy scripture. From this spring the mockery and insults that they might want to say. What do the prophets say of Christ’s great suffering? It isn’t that his body was a baked bread that has no soul and can’t feel anything. Why did Christ say, “My soul is sorrowful to the point of death,” if at the time Christ’s body (which would be given) was bread made of wheat, ground, kneaded, made into dough, and then baked [b1r] in the baker’s oven? If the text and words of Christ mean what the sophists say, then the Antichrists have sound reasons to blather about the body of Christ. This should be well noted. For if Christ said these words, “This is my body,” about the bread and thereby wanted it to be understood that the bread that was set before him was his body, then Christ would have said, “My natural body will not suffer, but this bread will suffer and be given, for my body that will suffer for you is a baked bread that will be tortured and crucified.” This is clearly heretical and anti-Christian and against all prophecies written about the death of the Messiah, against all gospels and apostolic teaching written about the surrendering and suffering of Christ. It follows strongly from this explanation, position, and twisted understanding of the papists that the body of the Messiah must be this kind of body. For if the body of Christ, which was given for the sin of the world, is a bread grown out of the ground and baked in a baker’s oven, then it follows that the natural and fleshly body of Christ, born from Mary, did not suffer nor was it given for us. Isn’t that heretical?
It doesn’t help the twofold papists if they quibble and say, “Christ isn’t the bread, but he gave himself for the world in the bread.” For they don’t have a single letter [of scripture] nor can they show that Christ is in the bread or was crucified in it. He wasn’t nailed to the cross in the bread nor did he die for us sacramentally or secretly, but instead he died publicly.
Our twofold papists don’t understand that it says and means the same thing when Christ says, “I give you my body,” and “I give my body for you.” These may indeed seem [b1v] to be two different statements, but at base they have the same meaning and understanding. These subtle sophists should understand this from their own statements, since they commonly say to those to whom they claim they give the body and the blood in their sacrament, “Take the body of the Lord”; “May the body of the Lord grant or increase in you to eternal life.” For when they say to someone, “I give you the body of Christ,” they want to be understood that it is to salvation, comfort, and eternal life. Thus it’s all one thing if they say, “Take the Lord’s body,” and “Take the Lord’s body unto salvation.” And so it means the same thing to say, “Christ gives you his body,” and “Christ gives his body for you.”
As scholars of scripture, they should also know this from these words of Christ, John 6[:51], where Christ said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh that I will give for the life of the world.” Because it means the same thing [to say] “to give” as “to give for someone,” they should also know that Christ gives and has given his body at that time and for those [people], when and for whom he gives himself.
If Christ gave his body to the disciples in the bread, then Christ also gave his body in the bread for his disciples and further, will give his body in the future for all those to whom he should give his body today in the sacrament. But this is anti-Christian, for it would be as if to say that Christ was crucified and died for us in the bread [and] Christ shed his blood in the cup. It would also follow that Christ must die as often as a priest gives him to a Christian in the sacrament. This would be against Peter and Paul, who say that Christ will die no more. If it is unchristian, then the tree [b2r] is also evil and unchristian from which this branch grows. The tree is this statement, “Christ gives himself in the sacrament,” or “Christ allows himself to be given in the sacrament for salvation and consolation, for redemption and eternal life.”
The explanation that I have just given of these words, “the body of Christ given” and “given for you,” flows from true faith and the surrounding words of holy scripture, from which these words, “the bread that I will give,” become understandable and clear, which are otherwise hard to understand and difficult, or are signified and explained by the anti-Christians against Christ’s cross and glory.
On this basis of faith and their context in scripture we can and ought to explain these words, “the cup, the new testament in my blood,” which sound as if the cup were in the blood. We can say without harm that Christ didn’t speak these with the intention that we should believe that the Lord’s cup is in Christ’s blood, just as little as it was Christ’s intention that the earthly bread that Christ broke and gave to his disciples was his body or that his body was in that same bread, even though the text says this on the surface, since then all other clear and obvious texts that speak of the giving of Christ’s body must fall away.
Fourth, if someone says that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body,” because Christ gave his body and blood to the disciples with the bread before he was given into suffering, this opposes the entire text of Christ, since Christ in the night and hour when he gave the disciples his bread and cup said, “The body is given for you, my blood is shed for you.” Now this would be given in the future, or would first be given in another form after Christ [b2v] gave the bread; it had not yet been given when Christ gave the bread. The blood also was still to be shed when Christ gave the cup; Christ didn’t give it when he gave his cup. If it is the same thing and intention to shed blood for someone and to give him the blood, as said above, then these words masterfully resist the papists. For with his words, Christ spoke about future things or signified another giving of his body and announced that his body would be given for his disciples later, after the Supper.
Here someone might say, “See, do you want to twist Christ’s words or make words signifying present things into words about the future?” Answer: Now let me propose that these words, “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you,” are not promises nor are they words that promise or signify future things (which the literal meaning of the Greek language also supports), but these words of Christ stand powerfully against the fictitious and dreamed-up sacramental giving of the body and shedding of the blood of Christ for the reasons discussed above. Because it is clear as day that Christ didn’t redeem us in the sacrament and that he didn’t die in it. And Christ must atone and pay for our sins through his death on the cross. Thus no one can deny that Christ didn’t give himself in any way in the sacrament.
It wasn’t Christ’s intention that his words about the present giving of the body and shedding of his blood be understood about the sacrament as if it should happen when the Lord held his Supper and spoke the above-mentioned words. [b3r] This can be proven for many reasons, which follow here.
Scripture has a customary way of speaking about future things through words that signify present things or even past times and things gone by. Even the new and crafty papists in this case have gone horribly astray, who speak constantly of this promise, “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you,” and daily preach or write that faith and such a promise forgives sins. For if it weren’t Christ’s intention to speak of future things, he wouldn’t have proclaimed such a promise because each promise must have words that signify future things. Where would your German be?
For this reason it should be noted that Christ’s will and intention was that his body would be given later, after the Supper and not in the Supper, and much less in the sacrament, which would make Christ’s later death superfluous and useless since Christ would give himself for their salvation as often as he gives himself to them. From these words that Christ speaks about his shed blood, you can well understand that Christ gave neither his body nor his blood in the Supper, but that he gave and shed them afterwards, and for this reason it follows that Christ spoke of a future giving and shedding.
For the Lord’s words about the Supper say, “This is my blood, which is shed for you.” I ask whether Christ shed his blood then when he spoke such words or if the Lord shed his blood after the Supper on the cross and not in the house in which [b3v] they held the Supper. They will answer, “The Lord shed it afterwards, on the cross.” Then I will ask, “Was it then the Lord’s intention through such words to speak of the future shedding of his blood?” We should hold and speak in the same way about the giving of his body. Here we must translate and understand the Lord’s words according to the Lord’s intention and will, and know that the words should serve the will.
For this reason I say that Christ preached the highest promise of his body and blood before his death and so spoke of future things. You can understand this, my brothers, from the fact that Christ would not have brought any people to himself nor increased among that people if he had not died and been glorified. If Christ had not fallen to the ground and died, he would have borne no fruit and drawn no one to himself, and the giving of his body and shedding of his blood would have remained fruitless without his death and dying. For Christ said, “If a grain of wheat falls to the earth and doesn’t die, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit.” Likewise, “When I am raised up, I will draw all people to myself,” John 12[:24, 32].
From this it is clear that Christ speaks of the giving of his body and shedding of his blood, which can bear fruit in the elect. But this happened only on the cross. For where the Lord gives without death, he remains alone, and where he is not raised up, he draws no one to himself. On the cross and in obedience, Christ has become a perfect prince and king of his people, and for the sake of his obedience on the cross, God has raised him up over all things and given him a name over all names, so he is rightly called Jesus, Philippians 2[:9], that is, a savior of his people. For this purpose [b4r] Christ wanted to give his body and shed his blood, which not only the scripture but also the history of Christ’s death proves.
Therefore, compelled by other scriptures, we must say that Christ’s intention was to preach one or two promises, and to speak of future things and not of past or present things. Thus Christ said, “This is my body, which will be given in the future,” and not “which is given now.” Likewise concerning his blood, “This is my blood, which will be shed,” and not “which I shed now.”
Paul’s statement supports this: “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat the Lord’s bread and drink from his cup” [1 Cor. 11:26]. For Paul’s account helps us understand that Christ spoke these words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” [referring to] the same time when he would give his body into death, and that Christ would shed his blood on the cross and didn’t shed it in the Supper when he said, “This is my blood that is shed,” etc.
1 Peter 2[:24] agrees, saying that Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross. From this it follows that we all must understand Christ’s word, “This is my body, which is given for you,” as that Christ wanted to and would give his body on the cross for us, which was in the future when Christ held his Supper. But I think that Christ didn’t use words that signify present things in vain, perhaps because his bitter and acknowledged suffering was already present in Christ’s soul, and that Christ perceived and felt the pains of death when he held his Supper. [b4v] Because before his Supper (which the papists call a sacrament), Christ said, “My soul is sorrowful,” etc. Likewise, “The hand of the betrayer is with me at the table,” which Matthew 26[:23] describes. He also tells, in the same chapter [26:14–15], how Christ was betrayed by Judas before the Supper. The same suffering and knowledge of Judas’s betrayal affected Christ in his soul and spirit, John 13[:21].
And Christ saw it as so important and bitter that he called it a glorification or revelation of the Son of man, although he would be glorified more highly and gloriously later, John 13[:31–32], Hebrews 2[:9] and 5[:5], Song of Solomon 3[:11]. I think that for the sake of such suffering and the testing of the cross Christ said, “Now is my body given and my blood shed; realize now that the hour is at hand.” But the body must still rightly be given and the blood poured out later, after the Supper was held and the words spoken. When? When Christ went to the cross and in free will became the most high priest who alone is fitting to offer the most pure, innocent, righteous, and wisest sacrifice on the cross, when he surrendered and commended his spirit to God his father in his fatherly love and prayed for his persecutors, the poor people, which is fitting for Christ as the one eternal priest. But this was a giving of his body, when he gave himself for the world and offered himself to his father. In the same temple and at the same time, Christ destroyed the devil’s kingdom and cast the prince of the world out of the world when in great obedience he presented himself in our stead, in which we were bound and imprisoned by the devil, and had the devil caught, bound, and scorned for us, John 12[:31] and 14[:30–31]. For this, Christ wants to and must give himself, and Christ spoke of this giving of his body. From this you can again note [c1r] that Christ’s intention was to speak of the future giving of his body when he held his Supper. Accordingly, no Christian can say that these words, “This is my body, given for you; this is my blood, shed for you,” signify a giving and shedding that happens in the Supper as soon as Christ speaks such words.
It is also anti-Christian and devilish when one says that Christ is supposed to have spoken about the giving of his body and shedding of his blood in the sacrament. You won’t find a single line in any of the books of holy scripture that say this. Thus it should be enough to conclude that Christ promised and that he spoke of future things, namely, about the giving of his body that would happen on the cross.
But I will willingly and without their asking give this comparison to the God-fearing who desire examples. John the Baptist said, “Behold, this is the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,” John 1[:29]. This statement sounds as if Christ the lamb of God at that time bore the sins of the world when John pointed to him and spoke of him, as just said. But the scripture testifies everywhere that Christ paid for our guilt, debts, and sins on the cross through his death and reconciled us through the cross to his father, Ephesians 1[:7] and 2[:16]. Thus John’s statement must be understood as Christ is the lamb who goes to his death without rebellion and who will pay for the pains and sins of the world, Isaiah 53[:7]. Thus the words in the present tense must be understood as future tense.
Another example concerning Christ: Christ says to the sons of Zebedee, “You will be baptized with [c1v] the baptism that I receive,” Matthew 20[:22], Mark 10[:38]. Christ wasn’t speaking of the baptism that he had previously received from John in the Jordan, but about his suffering with which Christ would in the future be baptized, and he speaks of such baptism through a word that signifies a present baptism, namely, baptizor. But it was Christ’s intention that one would understand his future baptism through this word, and not the past and present baptism. Christ had this way [of speaking], that through words signifying present things we should understand future things, especially when the intention and desire, as well as the context of scripture, require this, as we can easily recognize from the chapter just cited. For Mark wrote using words that signify present things. In the same way, Matthew described with words that clearly show a future thing (which wasn’t present but that would happen in the future); namely, Mark says that Christ said, “Can you drink the cup that I drink?” Here Mark used a word that means to drink in the present, which is expressed in Latin through the word bibo and that we say as “I drink,” and he used the same word again when he writes, “Christ says, ‘You will drink from the cup that I drink.’” But Matthew uses for this word, “which I drink,” a word that means the same as “which I will drink,” and the same word means not to drink in the present but to drink in the future. Christ’s statement also supports this, when he was taken captive and said to Peter, “Will I not drink the cup that my father has given me?” John 18[:11]. For with this Christ shows that he will experience death in the future and his suffering, which was still [c2r] to come.
Thus we may happily say without harm that Christ’s intention (when he held the Supper and said, “This is my body, which is given for you”) was to speak of the future giving of his body. For we are compelled to this by God’s word, faith, and the context of scripture. Christ also had such a manner of speaking from the nature of the language that Christ spoke, which wasn’t Greek but was a mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, or Chaldaean.
Therefore the papists fall short when they help themselves with such words and want to give Christ’s body in their sacrament. It will also follow that Christ didn’t give his body afterwards unto death or shed his blood on the cross for us. This would be nothing other than to deny what even Christ’s enemies must confess and to overturn that on which our faith is grounded.
If Christ our Lord and savior had said, “Take, eat, this is my body, which I now give you in the bread; take, drink, this is my blood, which I now pour into the cup,” then our sophists would have a way to the prize, and they’d fight for and win the prize if Christ had said, “My body is in this; take this in the bread and eat it. Likewise in the cup is my blood that I pour out, and so take the cup and drink my blood.” But Christ said nothing of the sort, and so the papists run along the way and lead their followers away from the merit of the bitter suffering of Jesus Christ if they seek in the sacrament for the body given and the blood shed.
[c2v] Fifth, they not only lack scripture, but they run as enemies of the truth against scripture. For it is against the gospel, John 6, if one says that Christ gave his body or his flesh as food in the sacrament, or what is even worse, that a sinful, impure priest who is mortal can give this innocent, most pure, and eternal food in the sacrament, especially since it belongs to Christ alone to give the bread and flesh of life. That it is contrary to scripture to say that Christ gave his body as food and his blood as drink in the sacrament can be proven from Christ’s statements in John 3[:14–15], 6[:51], 12[:32], and other chapters, that he will give his flesh as food on the cross. I will briefly summarize the arguments that prove that the sacrament in which Christ is supposed to be is not the food of life.
Christ speaks in John 6[:33–35, 51] of how he is a heavenly bread come down from heaven, a true bread of life, a flesh that will be given for the life of the world, and that all those who eat his flesh will live and remain in Christ. The sacramental bread is an earthly bread that grows up from below, which cannot give life. Christ wants us to understand that he will give himself as the flesh of life on the cross through his death, where he renders the highest obedience and love to his father, and where he is our grace that cannot be rejected, the cause of our eternal blessedness, our perfect prince and Lord, Hebrews 2[:14–15] and 5[:9]. He has been exalted above all things and won the highest name of all, Philippians 2[:9], and has become the most high priest, Hebrews 9[:11–12] and 10[:21].
Christ’s words also show this, where Christ [c3r] often spoke of his flesh and his blood, John 6[:53–56], from which he would be completely separated on the cross on which Christ suffered and died. Thus on the cross Christ’s flesh and blood are recognized as a food and drink of life. The Son of man must be raised up so that he is raised up on the cross and redeems from destruction those who believe in him, John 3[:14–15]. Because the body of Christ is to be a flesh or food of life and Christ’s blood a drink of life, so must his flesh be raised up and his blood shed from the height of the cross. Anyone who desires to draw life from Christ’s flesh and blood must seek in spirit the raised up Christ as a food and drink on the cross and not in the sacrament. But anyone who seeks Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament and wants to eat and drink [them] in it, he rebukes Christ who said, “The Son of man must be raised up,” John 3[:14].
It is also proven and well founded through a prophecy of David how Christ gave his body or flesh as food only on the cross and wanted to give it after his Supper. For David prophesied thus: “God has made a remembrance of his miracles, he has given a tereph to those who fear him” [Ps. 111:4–5].3 A tereph was a living creature that was torn apart and killed by wild animals. According to his humanity, Christ was this same living creature, for he was torn apart and slain by mad princes and tyrannical priests and ferocious crowds. Scripture calls such people the wild animals of the earth, namely, lions, bears, wolves, griffins, eagles, and the like. Such animals sharpened their teeth, claws, and nails, cross and cursing, and slew Christ and left him, but God gave Christ [c3v] as the tereph not to these, but only to those who fear God.
Now I ask whether Christ the tereph was in the sacrament or also in the Supper, or only on the cross? It’s clear that his flesh wasn’t a tereph in the Supper. For this reason it is even more clear that Christ’s flesh isn’t food in the sacrament. This reveals the lies of the sophistic papists who claim that Christ’s body or flesh is food in the sacrament.
But now I must provide an excursus for those who don’t understand, for it occurs to me that some may take offense at the writings of the prophets and consider it as wrong to say that the prophet David called Christ’s murdered flesh a tereph, since the law calls every tereph unclean and common and forbids the people to eat it, and it considered unclean those who ate flesh killed in this way. But this opposes Christ’s worthiness and overlooks the entire chapter of John 6.
Therefore I give this response, that it was a new and miraculous food about which David prophesied and Christ spoke. His flesh is our food, and it would be very good to write about food offerings and this matter at sufficient length, which I must now omit for the sake of brevity. I say now that Christ has become such a common food through our sin, when he innocently and in his holiness and purity truly grasped and took our sins upon himself. And the blessed one laid our curses and condemnation upon himself as he hung on the cross and became accursed before God and before man, Deuteronomy 21[:23]. The Lord Christ willingly submitted to the curse of the law and blessed us, Deuteronomy 27[:26], Galatians 3[:10]. [c4r] The Lord through his obedience paid for our disobedience, Romans 5[:6–8]. Christ hung between two murderers and was counted with them, and bore our shame, pain, and evil and was despised by the people as one whom God had rejected, Isaiah 53[:3–5].
In the same form and manner, the murdered flesh of Christ became a common and unclean food that only the God-fearing eat, according to what David says, “He has given a tereph to the God-fearing.” From this it follows that God doesn’t give this same food to the godless and unrepentant. But in this way it is impossible that Christ is now a food in the sacrament or was such food, for on the cross, as he hung over the earth and suffered all weakness, as the wild animals killed him, he became at that time an eternal food and tereph of the God-fearing. And he himself became a bread and flesh of life in which the righteous live, as Paul says. Isaiah also said this, who masterfully depicted the Messiah, Christ our Lord, hanging on the cross and numbered with the iniquitous, and says that the righteous one, known in the same poor and wretched form, justifies many through his knowledge [Isa. 53:11]. This knowledge is the faith and life of the righteous, which is poured into the soul through the revelation of the Father, to those whom the Father reveals his son, the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. This is what Christ said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him, and he has eternal life” [John 6:54].
Christ cannot be such food in the sacrament, for his flesh is a bread of life and those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have true divine life. And anyone who eats or drinks has an internal and spiritual life. But if Christ [c4v] were a food in the sacrament, then all who receive the sacrament would live through reception of Christ’s body and blood. But this isn’t true, since Judas the betrayer ate the Lord’s Supper and his soul was not made alive, but if Judas ate the Lord’s flesh he would have been made alive in Christ and remained, John 6[:51], and not gone out and been corrupted.
The godless, who have no fear of God, can neither receive nor eat Christ’s flesh. Thomas Aquinas writes that both the good and the evil receive it,4 but this is a lie and against the prophet David, Psalm 100[Ps. 101:7], and Christ, John 6[:63]. But the evil can truly take and eat the Lord’s bread to their judgment, 1 Corinthians 11[:29].
It is true that evildoers can take and slaughter the body of Christ, as Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and other murderers did. But they don’t eat the food that David called a tereph and Christ called his food. They slaughter the prey and mock it and then go away. But only the God-fearing accept Christ, see the internal goods of Christ, eat his flesh and drink his blood, and find in him life and blessedness, and their hearts are firmly assured that God is true, John 3[:18–21], 6[:47–51], and that Christ is truly the one who refreshes the burdened and sorrowing.
The sacrament strengthens like the manna with which God fed his people for forty years. Thus we must judge and differentiate between the sacrament and the bread that is Christ’s flesh, as Christ distinguished the manna from his flesh that is the bread of life. It is also completely impossible that the text, John 6, speaks of the sacrament. [d1r] For the sacramental bread has grown up from below and is made by human hands and is not the bread of heaven, like the bread that is Christ’s body or flesh.
Now what Christ said about his flesh and blood, John 6[:53–58], is briefly summarized in these words (Luke 22[:19–20], 1 Cor. 11[:24–25], “My body is given for you; my blood is shed for you”). And Christ briefly renewed his precious sermon about his person as the redeemer with these words. Thus it is absolutely impossible that Christ thought about the giving of his body and shedding of his blood that is supposed to happen in the sacrament. Christ said nothing about this, and his prophets and apostles also said nothing about Christ giving his body in the bread and his blood in the cup as a food and drink. It is pure willfulness that the sophistic papists set forth their own words as divine words and reject scripture through their own additions, as if it were insufficient.
And so these words of Christ boldly resist the old and new papists and overturn their papist sacrament, since these words openly refute this dream from which they say that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament, along with this, that such words not only speak of the giving of the body and shedding of the blood that happened after Christ’s Supper was held and finished, but also that they speak of a different giving of the body and shedding of the blood apart from anything done through or in the sacrament, as shown and described above.
Thus the papists should know that they are judged and handed over by these words, that they have no more help [d1v] or excuse for their idolatry, and that they should be avoided as subtle enemies of Christ’s cross. And I want to say to the world that the devil has brought no greater hidden harm to Christendom throughout the world than what he introduced through the papistic sacrament. But although he presents himself as an angel of light [2 Cor. 11:14], and clothes and hides his own with cloaks of righteousness, God will uncover them and reveal the dishonor that they have offered to Christ’s most high friendship. I well know that you will trot out and cite the holy [church] fathers, but I point to the sole word of God to which all of the fathers are subject, just like you and me.
Someone might ask, “I see that the Lord’s bread is simply that and nothing more than bread. But why did Paul consider the misuse of such bread as so important and dangerous? What caused him to say that whoever eats the Lord’s bread unworthily is guilty of Christ’s flesh and of judgment?” [1 Cor. 11:27–29].
I answer that this should not seem strange to anyone, for God is the Lord and he wants to be feared in all his ordinances as the Lord, and so God says, “I am the Lord, where is my fear?” Malachi 1[:14]. Thus Moses says, “Guard yourself before the holy things of God,” Leviticus 25 [22:2], although the holy thing was an unreasoning created thing. God doesn’t want us to speak of or transgress against what is his. God punished the sinners who misused his holy things, burning Nadab and Abihu who offered a foreign fire, Leviticus 10[:1–2], and otherwise commanded that his people should root out the sinners who didn’t deport themselves properly with his created things, even though those things were unreasoning. Thus God also commanded, under pain of death, [d2r] that no oil of anointing should be used for or sold to a foreigner, Exodus 30[:32–33]. We have many examples of similar things in scripture, Numbers 19[:1–22]. Each one should use the things God has established in the way that God has ordained. Now in and of themselves such things are no better than other things. Thus it should not seem strange that someone can misuse the Lord’s bread, although it is nothing more than bread, and make himself guilty of judgment. We learn from Paul’s teaching that we shouldn’t act in any other way, either with baptism or with the bread, than as God has ordained.
Ignorance will also excuse you somewhat in that you won’t be so strictly punished as those who knowingly act against the Lord’s will. But you won’t be wholly excused, for God wants to have an understanding people who first hear and learn, and then do and carry out what pleases God, as Moses says over thirty times in his book.
And so we answer like Paul, that they are guilty of judgment who eat the Lord’s bread unworthily and who don’t rightly know or discern the Lord’s body [1 Cor. 11:29]. I fear that all papists have received and still receive the Lord’s bread unworthily and to their condemnation. For all those who discern the sacrament and seek the body of Christ in the sacrament, when they should seek in the cross or in Christ’s crucified body, forget the passion and death of Christ and so don’t discern the Lord’s body. In discerning the sacrament or the Lord’s body in the sacrament, they act as unreasoning donkeys and horses that have no understanding and that do not serve God [Ps. 32:9], but act against the Lord’s will, some knowingly and some from blindness, and so they fall into judgment. [d2v] God gave his people a high and wise word, Deuteronomy 4[:1–2]. Whoever doesn’t have it is foolish and can do nothing before God; as it is written, “The people honor me with the teachings of men,” etc. [Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8–9], and, “Every plant that my father has not planted will be rooted out” [Matt. 15:13]. Now the papists have not a letter of divine wisdom. What they say about the body of Christ in the sacrament all comes from human emptiness and droning. The papists seem to me like a big herd that follows the lead ox that goes through mists and swamp, always following the leader even though it could follow a better path. There was some horned bishop who out of exaggerated holiness wanted to honor the body of Christ in the sacrament and his church followed him.
Paul did not say that we should discern—that is, recognize seriously and well—the Lord’s body in the sacrament, but he spoke from the knowledge of Christ’s passion at the time when Christ died. For when Paul wanted to show the Corinthians their evil abuses and bring them to the correct use, he showed them the discerning of the body and blood of Christ with a few words, i.e., “Christ, in the night when he was betrayed,” etc. This was the first; the second, Christ said, “This is my body, which is broken for you; eat in remembrance of me.” The third, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death as often as you eat of the Lord’s bread and drink of his cup” [1 Cor. 11:23–26]. Through these three statements Paul tells how we should discern the Lord’s body, what we should look to and think about when we want to discern the Lord’s body. If Paul had said nothing more than only this, “You should proclaim the Lord’s death,” [d3r] we would be satisfied and discern the Lord’s body on the cross where Christ died out of his all-surpassing love of God and the world. Now Paul explained further to the Corinthians and us, and he began his statement, “In the night when Christ was betrayed,” etc. The Corinthians came together and wanted to partake of the Lord’s Supper without serious consideration of the Lord’s death, moved by the fact that in the apostles’ times the Lord’s bread was held to be pure bread and nothing more than bread. But Paul says, “When you come together to eat the Lord’s bread, you should know when and why Christ instituted his Supper. For in the night when the Lord was betrayed, he took bread (the same that you want to eat) and said, ‘Eat; this is my body that is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ See, in the night when Christ was betrayed, when he sorrowed for your sake, at that same time the Lord established and gave his Supper. This is the time you should remember.”
His reason: “Eat in remembrance of me.” Thus the remembrance of the Lord should move you. Christ didn’t hide what this remembrance should consist of or what we should note, for he said, “The body is given for you. You should remember this in the future, after I have died and risen again, that I gave my body for you.” From this it is good to note that we must well consider and discern the Lord’s body if we want to receive his Supper without harm.
Whoever wants to discern and judge rightly the Lord’s body must truly and diligently learn what is written especially about Christ’s body, and judge from this [how] to recognize Christ’s body rightly. Now the characteristics of Christ’s body are so many that I am thinking about writing a separate pamphlet [d3v] and showing through verses or as theses what scripture says.5 But now for the sake of brevity I will remind you that Paul calls the Lord’s bread a sign or figure of our body of which Christ is the head, and he says, “Are not we many one bread?” [1 Cor. 10:17]. With this he says in a concealed way that those who come together to eat the Lord’s bread must also judge themselves as Christians and as the body of Christ, and understand and examine themselves to find the powerful love, unity, peace, and heartfelt society [that should exist] among them as members of one body. This can clearly be proven from Christ’s words, especially in the Gospel of John. Thus the communicants must know and have a genuine divine and brotherly love among themselves as members of one body. Without such love they do not rightly judge the Lord’s body and so eat the Lord’s bread unworthily.
Thus communicants should examine themselves well before they eat of the Lord’s bread, so that they correspond to the figure of the external bread among themselves in their body. This love of the figured body, through which we are members of each other, flows from the genuine and loving knowledge of Christ’s all-surpassing love for his church, which he purified through his shed blood and placed as blameless before God’s eyes. The almighty God grant that we encounter such powerful love through his son. Amen.
CONCLUSION
Here, dear brothers, you have three arguments from this verse and statement of Christ, “This is my body which is given for you,” that strongly stand against all papists.6 And they conclude that Christ was not and cannot be in their sacrament. These are the three arguments. The first: Where Christ pointed to the bread and said, “This is my body,” it clearly follows that it is impossible that the body [d4r] of Christ is in the bread. For we do not have in nature or scripture any similitude of bodily things where one thing can be the other that contains it.
Second: If Christ said of the bread, “This is my body, which is given for you,” then all the prophecies, gospels, and the books of the apostles would be false in which the clear suffering of the natural body of the Messiah is described.
Third: Because it was the Lord’s intention in the Supper to speak of the future giving of his body, which would happen after the Supper was held, it follows that Christ did not give his body in the Supper nor did he want to give it in the sacrament when he said, “My body is given for you.” This means the same as, “My body will in the future and after this Supper be given as a food on the cross and not in the sacrament.” Thus these words stand bravely against all papists, old and new, and they bring such words with them to their own defeat, just as Goliath brought his sword and was killed by David with his own sword [1 Sam. 17:50–51].
These wicked people try to do more than they are able, just as Moab gave advice and then was justly mocked. For Christ did not bring his body into the sacrament nor did he command anyone after him to undertake to bring him into the sacrament, much less to give anyone the Lord’s body as a food, whether outside or within the sacrament. For he said, “The bread that I give,” etc., John 6[:51], and through this cut off from them any power to give him as a bread or food to anyone. This is a great presumption of the papists, and it is not only their own willfulness but [also] destructive harm to all Christendom [d4v], which they lead on a line into the trap of idolatry and cause them to adore bread, which is nothing more than bread, so that all recipients of the Lord’s bread make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ together with judgment and damnation, as Paul says. For the whole world must hear that up until now they have received the Lord’s bread to the destructive harm of their souls, as I’ve said above. And he is blessed who now recognizes this, takes the path of righteousness, forsakes his errors and henceforth will eat the Lord’s bread in the proper remembrance of the Lord, of his death, and in the discernment of his body. Then, as a true and faithful servant of God who does only his Lord’s will, he will guard himself against the devilish idolatry of the papist sacrament. Idolatry is always and without contradiction a great and horrible sin that arises from this, which Christ forbade to the highest degree when he said, “It is written, you shall worship God your Lord and serve him alone” [Matt. 4:10]. And Paul said that idolaters will not enter the kingdom of God [Gal. 5:10–21]. Thus it is necessary that the world circumcise its tough foreskin and chop out the obstruction of its heart (which made this old and well-established abuse). They must earnestly and anxiously pray to God that through recognition of the truth he make them free and clear of such devilish bonds of this and all kinds of idolatry, so that henceforth they do not forfeit heaven and merit God’s wrath, as happens the most when they hurry and desire to approach as quickly as possible to God’s kingdom.
They overthrow and abandon Christ’s cross when they think they partake of Christ’s passion in the best way, of which they should eternally console themselves and boast, as Paul says, “It is far from me to boast of anything other than the cross of Jesus Christ” [Gal. 6:14]. Yes, Paul speaks to you, [d5r] “May I know nothing other than Jesus the crucified” [1 Cor. 2:2]. Did Paul speak anywhere of the sacrament as you are accustomed to speaking? The cross of Christ actually comes into scorn, or at least into neglect, as often as you seek something in the sacrament or in the body of Christ as he is supposedly in the sacrament. Seek where you should seek, where Christ was hung, raised up, died, and gave himself as our food and the bread of our life, there where he revealed his highest love, obedience, wisdom, innocence, strength, grace, and similar benefits, and distributed them to all who know him.
Paul for himself did not want to disdain or lose this great grace of Christ. Why then do you want to lose such grace or be enticed away to where you should neither seek nor find such grace? I ask, what grace is Paul speaking about? Hear his words, who says, “I live through faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not reject this same grace of God,” Galatians 2[:20–21]. Here Paul says that he will not lose the grace of Christ on the cross, that his life consists in this, that in faith he knows the love of the Son of God who gave himself for him. What will the foolish world bring? Why doesn’t it flee to the grace of Christ on the cross, which Paul doesn’t want to lose? Why doesn’t it seek redemption, forgiveness of sins, strength of soul, and assurance of the heart in the cross? That is where all grace and redemption is. I want to say to you, beware of your condemnation, for the abomination and anti-Christian manner of the papistic sacrament have been revealed to me so that I may admonish you about the true gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, so that you do not put the cross of Christ to shame and do not build on the good and valuable ground (which God has produced through [d5v] thankless and greedy and insolent men) with wood, hay, rubbish, or manure (which will all be burned away) [1 Cor. 3:12–13].
Now see that you do not lay the cornerstone as an offense and opposition, and reform through knowledge of the truth, the sooner the better, so that you do not hunt after your own damnation. The most prominent should have told you this, but the poor patrons of idols have become blind, deaf, and dumb, like the idols that they love and protect. Although they have good eyes, they do not see the light and the clear truth so that they can teach others whose students they must still be. If they use these blasphemous idols against God’s will, then God holds them in great blindness so they grope in the light of truth like blind people in the night. Thus God drives those who want to be acclaimed as great leaders of the church to distort and overturn the true gospel.
And so beware the papist sacraments and idols, follow the truth, which (praise God, against the command and will of the new sophistic papists) mightily breaks forth and returns with fruit to God. But if you follow him, God will also leave you stuck in the error in which this hairsplitting sophist sticks (up over his ears). And it is possible that you, like him, will remain and continue in your old life and error. But you should be judged only according to your teaching (over which he will not endure any teacher so that he can keep his reputation as learned7) and not according to your works.
I fear that he is a late-born friend of the Antichrist, who has spread precious silver and gold (that is, much good and blameless doctrine) and now through this reputation and the praise he has obtained, like the devil he wants to lead us onto sheer ice so that in the future we knowingly and against God’s will hold to and use the idols and sacrament and [d6r] all kinds of evil works that we held to and did before out of blindness and ignorance of the truth. His teaching is that one should vanquish opponents with salutary words. But his actions are to chase someone who is both unheard and undefeated out of the land.8 I had hoped that the truth would come to light without insults and that he would dispute with me or tolerate me without harming me, which he offered with a handshake and a promise. But now he aims his gun at me and with his letter he shoots me out of Saxony, to my insurmountable harm. And so I must be silent so that he doesn’t shoot me out of the whole world, which he would gladly do if he could and God were dead. But I do not fear death, for death cannot harm me. I’ll sit in one place, lurk and lie in ambush to see how this jolly, slippery, and lovely sophist (who chops up scripture) will make his papistic Lord God into a food of life and source of Christian grace. But to the God-fearing, I hope that they will not believe either D. M. L.9 or me, which I truly desire, but will hunt for the truth and find out which one rightly teaches divine truth or not.
Similitudes in scripture:
You are Peter. And on this rock I will build my church. [Matt. 16:8]
Take the bread, etc. This is my body given for you, etc.