The Wittenberg Concord
/The Wittenberg Concord was a sacramental confessional statement agreed upon by Lutheran and Reformed theologians in 1536, including Martin Luther and Martin Bucer. It was a good-faith effort to unite the various parties of the Reformation in the hope of advancing the Kingdom of Christ together. Here is a snippet from Jensen's work about the section on the Lord’s Supper:
The first part of the Concord addresses Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the altar. The South German statement accepted by the Lutherans begins with a reference to Irenaeus’s distinction between earthly and heavenly things, which provided Bucer and his colleagues with “a stable foundation” for the sacramental union between the earthly elements of the meal and the body of Christ. It was on this basis that Bucer could argue that in the elements the body of Christ is “truly and substantially present, offered, and received” (adesse, exhiberi et sumi).
While the translations of these three words do not fit nicely into English language formulas, these words were crucial to the Lutheran and South German interpretation of Christ’s presence in the meal. Moreover, these three words were the focus of discussion in Kassel in December 1534 and in the 1535 Augsburg Articles.
The second Latin word in the formula "exhibere" is the key word in understanding the debate over the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and the depth of the agreement found in the Wittenberg Concord formula. However, the use of the word exhibere is also problematic, simply because it carries so many meanings. Nevertheless, in Luther’s December 17, 1534 “Thoughts,” he deliberately included this word in order to address four problematic teachings concerning the sacrament of the altar, and it shows up again in the Wittenberg Concord.
(1) First, the word “offered” (exhibere) provided for Luther a deliberate counterbalance to the Swiss theologians, who understood it to mean “shows,” “signifies,” or “points to.” In discussing the words of institution, Zwingli insisted that “This is my body” should be understood as “signifies” or “points to.” Zwingli states,
“This verb “is,” then, is in my judgment used here for “signifies.” Yet this is not my judgment, but that of eternal God; for we cannot boast of anything which Christ wrought not in us, Rom. 15:18; and it has been abundantly shown above that since faith is from the unseen God, it points to the unseen God and is a thing absolutely independent of all sense. For whatever is body, whatever is an object of sense, can in no way be a matter of faith.”
The Lutherans, however, felt that this treated the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, something pointing a person to the cross but that in and of itself was not important. In addressing the same interpretation by Oecolampadius, Luther wrote:
"The sacrament or act, and the words which one speaks concerning it, are two different things. The sacrament or act must indeed be a sign or figure of something else, but the words in their simplicity must signify nothing else than what they say. For example, Moses’ paschal lamb must indeed prefigure and signify Christ. But the words which Moses uses in speaking of the paschal lamb must express simply this same paschal lamb, and nothing else. Again, circumcision must indeed prefigure the slaying of [the old] Adam. But the words which Moses uses in speaking of circumcision must refer literally to the physical circumcision. Again, baptism must signify the drowning of sins, but the words used to describe baptism must express simply the plunging into the water. So, too, the sacrament of the Supper must indeed prefigure and signify something, viz. the unity of Christians in one spiritual body of Christ through one spirit, faith, love, and the cross, etc. But the words used in connection with this sacrament shall and must express with simplicity what they say. But my friend Oecolampadius blindly hits upon a true Zwinglian alloeosis, switches madly in the dark to a figurative meaning and makes out of a form of a thing a figure of speech, in this manner: ‘The object is figurative, therefore words pertaining to figurative objects are figurative!’ You know, this gives all the appearance of a good old simpleton of a priest who has innocently stumbled into this debate, and would better have remained outside!"
Zwingli and Oecolampadius both insisted that forgiveness itself cannot be found in the sacrament; the source of forgiveness is the cross alone. However, in article 10 of the Apology, Melanchthon interpreted the term exhibere as “offered” or “distributed” and not simply as showing or pointing to something else. In article 24 of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon states that it is not enough to point to, or remember, the history, which is all a memorial understanding can do. People need the sacrament of the altar to console them and grant forgiveness in their lives in the present time. As Melanchthon states:
“For to remember Christ is to remember his benefits and realize that they are truly offered to us; and it is not enough to remember the history, for the Jews and the ungodly can also remember this. Consequently, the mass is to be used to this end, that the sacrament is administered to those who have need of consolation.”
People need Christ’s forgiving presence in their lives to be consoled. A memory is not enough. This is why Christ’s presence in the Supper is so important. Forgiveness is distributed where it is needed.
(2) Second, Luther insisted that the word exhibere (translated as “distributed”) challenged the Swiss theologians’ separation of the cross event from the Lord’s Supper, rendering the meal non-efficacious. For example, Zwingli had asserted:
“I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or [distribute] it.”
Zwingli’s claim led Sasse to state, "The sacrament for Zwingli is not part and parcel of the Gospel. It is an ordinance of Christ, to be performed by Christians. This performance may have some effect on the soul of the faithful, in so far as the “sign” makes the Word of God clearer. But the sacraments can never be a means of grace in the strict sense. They only signify the grace that has been given without them."
For Zwingli, the most that the Supper could do was to point to the source of God’s grace and forgiveness: the cross. It could not give forgiveness, however. In response to their concerns, Luther clarified the Lutheran position in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper:
"[Zwingli] does not know that the merit of Christ and the distribution of merit are two different things. . . . Christ has once for all merited and won for us the forgiveness of sins on the cross; but this forgiveness he distributes wherever he is, at all times and in all places, as Luke writes, chapter 24[:46–47], 'Thus it is written, that Christ had to suffer and on the third day rise (in this consists his merit), and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name (here the distribution of his merit comes in).' This is why we say there is forgiveness of sins in the Supper, not on account of the eating, nor because Christ merits or achieves forgiveness of sins there, but on account of the word through which he distributes among us this acquired forgiveness, saying, “This is my body which is given for you.” . . . Hence there is distributed here the forgiveness of sins, which however was obtained on the cross."
Luther is not content, however, to argue only that Christ’s presence in the meal is the channel through which he distributes forgiveness. He also claims that forgiveness is distributed whenever the gospel is proclaimed:
“But we know that Christ has died for us once, and that he distributes this death through preaching, baptizing, the Spirit, reading, believing, eating, and in whatever way he wishes, wherever he is, and whatever he is, and whatever he does.”
The crucial point that he wanted to make was that if the forgiveness obtained at the cross by Christ cannot be distributed, then his sacrifice on the cross is a historic, rather than salvific, event.
(3) Third, the translation of exhibere as “distribute” allowed the Lutherans to join with the South Germans in rejecting the teaching of transubstantiation or impanation, or local inclusion.
In the First Confession of Basel, the Swiss took a strong stance against this when they stated, “we do not confine the natural, true, and substantial body of Christ, [that was] born from a pure virgin, suffered for us, and that ascended into heaven . . . in the bread and wine of the Lord.”
In the Wittenberg Concord, the Lutherans observed of the South Germans:
"And although they do not hold to transubstantiation, nor do they hold that the body and blood of Christ are locally or spatially enclosed in the bread or in any other way permanently united with it, outside of the partaking of the sacrament, they nevertheless acknowledge that through sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ; that is, they hold that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present and truly offered."
In the First Helvetic Confession, agreed to by the Swiss only a few months earlier, the Swiss evangelicals had pointedly rejected the idea that “the body and blood of the Lord are either joined naturally to the bread and wine, or included locally in them, or placed in them by any carnal presence.”
Taking any other stance would be enough for them to completely reject the Lutheran overtures, as presented by Bucer. Moreover, the Swiss Reformers rejected transubstantiation as an explanation of Christ’s localized presence in the bread and wine, and not just at the cross, for that would mean that one could obtain Christ’s forgiveness of sins in a place other than the cross.
This was not what the Lutherans argued, however. While they rejected transubstantiation as an explanation of how bread and wine became Christ’s body and blood, they insisted that Christ’s forgiveness in the meal was not obtained independently of the forgiveness won on the cross. Instead, the crucified Christ distributes the forgiveness won on the cross in the elements, to everyone in need. The forgiveness obtained at the cross in a past event is distributed to the gathered community in the present. The distribution of the body of Christ was, for Melanchthon, the antidote to transubstantiation or local inclusion. As Fraenkel notes,
“Its place [exhibere] in the Augustana is no doubt also due to the role it played in the Wittenberg Concord and indeed in all of Melanchthon’s dealings with Bucer, ever since 1530 in Augsburg, when after interviewing Bucer in the matter of the Sacraments, he reported to Luther that the Strassburger denied both Transubstantiation and a local inclusion of Christ.”
On this point, Bucer and the Lutherans agreed. Bucer reflects the Lutheran use of “distributed” in article 6 of the 1534 Constance Articles and again in article 8 of the 1535 Augsburg Articles. The focus should be on the “distribution” and “use” of the sacrament, rather than Christ’s presence in the bread and wine, in and of itself.
After the Wittenberg Concord was signed, Melanchthon continued to insist that “Christ is truly present in the Sacrament but avoided precise definition of the manner of Christ’s presence, not mentioning Christ’s body and blood, and emphasizing above all the sacraments’ function.” The sacrament of the altar is a means of grace, not because Christ’s essential and substantial presence is put on display (shown), but only as it is distributed, received, and eaten. As the Wittenberg Concord notes, “outside of the partaking . . . [we] do not hold that Christ’s body is present.”
(4) Fourth, the Lutherans emphasized the word “distributed” because the very action of distributing Christ’s real presence is a proclamation of the word. This word proclaims the gospel: the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Making Christ present through the transubstantiation of an objective substance is replaced with Christ’s objective, real presence being distributed in the life-giving word, given “for us and our salvation.”
Apart from the distribution of the word, the meal is nothing but bread and wine, just as “without the Word of God, the water is plain water and not a baptism.” Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Luther says,
“These words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament, and whoever believes these very words has what they declare and state, namely, ‘forgiveness of sins.’”
Outside of this partaking, even though a person “sets the bread aside and keeps it in tabernacles or carries it around and displays it in processions,” it is of no avail unless Christ is distributed and eaten. Only when Christ himself is distributed can the sacrament be “for us and for our salvation.”
The words, “given for you,” are extremely important for a penitent seeking life and salvation. In the sacrament, the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given or distributed.
The nuances in the interpretation for the word “exhibere” posed a real challenge for the negotiators in Wittenberg. Debates continue on whether the South Germans and Wittenberg theologians agreed on the meaning of “distributed.”
Nevertheless, the next generation of Lutherans were satisfied with what the Wittenberg Concord said in this matter, since they readily quoted from the Concord in their 1577 Formula of Concord. As it states, “with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed and received.” This was what mattered
The Wittenberg Concord: https://www.amazon.com/Wittenberg-Concord-Creating-Dialogue-Quarterly/dp/1506431569