|
Holy Communion: Forgiveness or Assurance? There is no doubt whatsoever that our
Catechism and Confessions teach that in the Lord’s Supper, when Christ gives
his body and blood, he intends to give and actually does convey the forgiveness
of sins to penitent sinners. While some in Lutheran circles have recently
contended this teaching, their argument I believe has arisen due largely to an
unfortunate and unintentional separation of ‘forgiveness’ and ‘assurance’ of
forgiveness, as though these two things were mutually exclusive. It is my
purpose in what follows to look first at the teaching of the Lutheran
Confessions, and then to ask the important question whether this is also what
holy Scripture teaches, or whether, as has been implied, the Confessions here go
out on a limb on their own. Let us start with the summary
of the Christian faith, the Small Catechism. In the article on the Sacrament of
the Altar, in answer to the question, ‘What is the benefit of such eating and
drinking?’, we learn: The benefit of this sacrament
is pointed out by the words, ‘Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Through these words the remission of
sins, life and salvation are given us. And a little further on, echoing our
Lord’s promise given in such passages as Mark 11:23-24 and Matthew 8:13, it
adds, ‘Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say and declare,
namely, forgiveness of sins.’ This point is amplified in the
same section in ‘the laymen’s Bible’, the Large Catechism. ‘We go the sacrament
because we receive there a great treasure, through and in which we obtain the
forgiveness of sins’ (Tappert 449.22). Christ’s body and blood, under the bread
and wine, are coupled with Jesus’ words which indicate the purpose and
intention of the sacrament. ‘These [words joined to the body and blood], and no
other, are the treasure through which forgiveness is obtained’ (Tappert
449.28-29). It goes on: ‘Therefore it is absurd to say that Christ’s body and
blood are not given and poured out for us in the Lord’s Supper and hence that
we cannot have forgiveness of sins in the sacrament. Although the work was
accomplished and forgiveness of sins was acquired on the cross, yet it cannot
come to us in any other way than through the Word’ (Tappert 450.31). In the
sacrament Christ ‘offers and promises forgiveness of sins’ (Tappert 450.34).
‘For here in the sacrament you receive from Christ’s lips the forgiveness of
sins’ (Tappert 454.70). Then in the explanation to the
third article of the Creed in the Small Catechism, we confess, ‘In this
Christian church day after day he fully forgives my sins.’ The words ‘day after
day’ translate the German ‘täglich’ – daily (Latin: quotidie). Daily God
forgives my sins and those of all believers. But this does not simply take
place through the air, as it were, but ‘in this Christian church’, that is, in
the concrete fellowship of faith where the word is purely preached and the
sacraments rightly administered. God conveys his grace, justifies the ungodly,
and forgives sins not directly but through means – the means of grace or ‘the
means of the Holy Spirit’, as they are sometimes called. In response to the above
someone might here ask: but the Lord’s Supper is not given ‘daily’ in our
congregations, so what do we do for forgiveness for six days a week? Does sin
‘build up’? In answer one might first point out that it is likely that the
sacrament was given ‘daily’ in the churches of the Reformation. But we must
also remember that the Lord’s Supper is only one of the means of grace instituted
by our Lord. The Smalcald Articles reminds us that forgiveness of sins, which
is the content of the gospel, is given not only through the Lord’s Supper, but
also through the spoken word of God (which includes the read and prayed words
of Scripture), through baptism (and the application of its benefits through
‘daily’ repentance and faith), through ‘the power of the keys’ (that is,
through confession and absolution, both private and public), and finally
through ‘the mutual consolation of the brethren’ (SA III.IV). Somewhere[1]
Luther also refers to the petition ‘forgive us our sins’, which Christians pray
‘daily’, as an effective means of grace and a necessary plea for divine
absolution, ‘for we sin every day and deserve nothing but punishment.’ It is
true that only faith can receive divine forgiveness, and that God’s objective
forgiveness precedes faith. But such faith must have something to latch onto.
Justifying faith is not faith in faith, nor faith in the idea of God’s
forgiveness, but faith in the objective word and promise of God that he will
forgive us for Christ’s sake, a word and promise actually spoken and concretely
fulfilled for us aurally and visibly in the various means of grace. This is
clearly shown in the Augsburg Confession, where immediately following (nb!) the
article of justification by grace for Christ’s sake through faith we read (AC
V.1-4): To obtain such [justifying]
faith, God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the gospel
and the sacraments. Through these, as through
means, he gives the Holy Spirit who works faith when and where he pleases….
To which it solemnly adds: Condemned are [those] who
teach that the Holy Spirit comes to us through our own preparations, thoughts,
and works without the bodily word
(ohn das leiblich Wort) of the gospel. Since we are bodily people, faith needs
‘the bodily word.’ The means of grace supply it. In attaching itself to and
accepting this bodily word as true, faith receives what it ‘embodies’ and
conveys: forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Luther also teaches
consistently with the Confessions on this matter. In his 1525 treatise ‘Against
the Heavenly Prophets’, the Reformer wrote against those who want to have the
Holy Spirit and his gifts of forgiveness, life and salvation apart from the
divinely instituted means of grace. The self-appointed false prophets of the
time argued that since forgiveness was accomplished on the cross, it could not
also be given in the sacrament. Luther’s response deserves careful attention
(LW 40.213-214): We treat of the forgiveness of
sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is
distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true.
But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the
supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as
also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once for all on the
cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from
the beginning to the end of the world. For inasmuch as he had determined once
to achieve it, it made no difference to him whether he distributed it before or
after…. [So] if now I
seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it
given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt
trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But
I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents,
offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross. There are no doubt many other passages in
the Confessions we could investigate further, but by now there should be no
question that they clearly ‘believe, teach and confess’ that forgiveness of
sins is offered and actually conveyed in the Lord’s Supper to those who believe
in the word of Christ. The question we must now ask is this: is such a doctrine
taught in the Scriptures? Before we answer, it is
important to mention one or two points about the nature of God’s word. Unlike
human words, which in our times often do little more than convey information,
God’s word is powerful and effective. It doesn’t simply convey information. It
achieves what it says. God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light.
When Jesus said, ‘be healed’, people were healed. In fact the Hebrew term for
‘word’ (dabar) also means ‘event’ or
‘happening’. When Jesus speaks, something happens. This is vital for us to
remember as we try to understand what is going on in the means of grace. Scripture distinguishes
between the objective, universal justification or reconciliation of the world
achieved by ‘God in Christ’, and the subjective application of that
justification through the apostolic ‘message of reconciliation’ (2 Cor 5:19).
On the one hand we have what God has perfectly accomplished, once for all,
through Christ on Calvary (‘It is finished!’). On the other hand we have the
ministry of the gospel in which the benefits achieved by that perfect work on
the cross are distributed and applied to individual human beings in time and
space. The ‘faith alone’ that receives the forgiveness won on the cross can
only be generated and sustained ‘by hearing the message’, that is, through the
word of Christ (Rom 10:17). That message doesn’t simply convey the information
about Christ’s death and resurrection. Being a divine word, a powerful word, it
makes the dead alive, brings faith into being, delivers from sin and guilt, and
actually gives what it promises. Returning now to the Lord’s
Supper, we learn that in giving his body and blood Christ wants to give
forgiveness of sins. ‘This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins’
(Matt 26:28). The content of the ‘new covenant’ Jesus instituted and bequeathed
to his Church is, according to Jeremiah, the reality that ‘God will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more’ (Jer
31:34). Jesus binds that reality to his body and blood given in the sacrament,
directing us to find it there as he has promised. Since it is Jesus’ express
command that we receive his body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins, we
would do well simply to accept him at his word and leave the argument at that.[2]
Yet the Holy Spirit speaks further about this new covenant in the letter to the
Hebrews (8:1 – 10:18). In this section the new covenant is contrasted with the
old, which came into effect when Moses took the blood of calves and applied it
to the people (Heb 9:18-20; see Ex 24:4-8). Such a covenant, however, could
never of itself bestow true forgiveness, ‘because it is impossible for the
blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ (Heb 10:4). This then raises the
question as to the meaning of the sentence, ‘without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness’ (Heb 9:22). Does it refer to what happened under the
old covenant with Moses? Or does it refer to what happens in the new covenant
with Christ? If it refers to what happened with Moses, why is it in the present
tense, and why does it connect forgiveness with the shedding of blood, if the
blood of animals was powerless to effect forgiveness? Because this is such an
important question, and relates directly to the new covenant instituted in the
Lord’s Supper, it seems wise to examine this sentence further. The Greek word translated in
the NIV as ‘the shedding of blood’ is haimatekchysia,
a compound made up from the words haima (blood)
and ekcheo (to pour out or splash).
In its verb form it can mean two things. First, it can mean ‘to murder’ or ‘to
take someone’s life’. An example of this meaning is found in the Greek Old
Testament in Genesis 9:6: ‘Whoever sheds
the blood of man, by man shall his blood
be shed.’ Secondly, it can mean ‘to pour out blood’ or ‘to apply blood’ in
some kind of ceremony. An example of this meaning is found in Leviticus 4:7:
‘The rest of the blood he shall pour out
at the base of the altar.’ Looking at the context of
Hebrews 9:22, one could plausibly argue that the word haimatekchysia is being used in the first sense as referring to death or the taking of life.
Just as a will comes into effect only at death, so the old ‘will’ or testament
came into effect only with the death of an appropriate sacrificial animal, a
death proved by Moses’ use of the blood (see Ex 24:4-8). Such ratification of
the covenant in turn points typologically to the new ‘will’ or testament
instituted by Jesus and brought into effect by his death. However, given that Hebrews
9:22 speaks of forgiveness in the present tense, and that Hebrews 10:4 asserts
that animal blood can never take away sins, it seems more appropriate to
conclude that it is the second meaning of the word haimatekchysia that is chiefly in mind, namely, the pouring out or application of blood, and that not just of animal blood, but of
Jesus’ blood. Notice that in the immediately preceding verses (Heb 9:19-21) it
is not the death of the sacrificial victim that is emphasised but what is done
with its blood. In this respect the sentence surely points to Christ - of
course presupposing his death but especially directing us to his high priestly
ministry in which he applies the saving fruits of his death. Just as Moses
entered into the earthly tabernacle and ‘sprinkled’ its furnishings with the
blood of animals (Heb 9:21), so now Christ, having offered his body in
sacrifice once for all on the cross, has entered the heavenly tabernacle with
his own blood, where he pours it out or applies it to cleanse not external
things but the very hearts and consciences of those who draw near in faith (Heb
9:14). The words of institution confirm that this ongoing priestly ministry of
Christ in the heavenly sanctuary actually takes place in the Lord’s Supper by
the use of a closely related word also meaning ‘to pour out’ (ekchyno): ‘This is my blood of the
covenant which is [here and now!] being
poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins’ (Matt 26:28; cf. Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20). We may now conclude by
returning to the original question: is Holy Communion about forgiveness or
assurance? Here I would suggest it is not a matter of either/or, but both/and.
With our Lord so clearly stating that in the sacrament he gives his blood for
us to drink ‘for the forgiveness of sins’, it is impossible to deny that the
forgiveness of sins is at the very heart of the sacrament without doing grave
violence to the very word of Christ, undermining the authority of Scripture,
and robbing troubled consciences of necessary consolation. If our reason
protests by asking how it is possible to receive forgiveness for sins that, by
virtue of faith in the justifying action of God in baptism, are forgiven
already, I would simply encourage folk to subject their reason to the word of
God. Adam G. Cooper St John’s, Geelong Easter 2004 [1] LW 21.150-152. [2] ‘Both in their private
deliberations on this question and in their arguments with opponents, students
should direct their eyes and hearts to these words with which the Supper was
instituted and which have come down to us from Christ; they should lean upon
them, and they should not allow themselves to be turned aside or led away from
them by any persuasive argumentation.’ David Chytraeus, 1569. |