© Abdel Ross Wentz ed., The Adoration of the
Sacrament, vol. 36, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959),
pp. 277-98.

01a.43 The Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology ©

In the first place, we have often said that the chief and foremost thing in
the sacrament is the word of Christ, when he says: “Take and eat, this is my
body which is given for you.” Likewise also, when he took the cup, he said:
“Take and drink of it, all of you, this is the cup of a new testament in my
blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. As often as you do
this, do it in remembrance of me.” [Matthew
26: 26-8]

Everything depends on these words. Every Christian should and must know them
and hold them fast. He must never let anyone take them away from him by any
other kind of teaching, even though it were an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8].
They are words of life and of salvation, so that whoever believes in them has
all his sins forgiven through that faith; he is a child of life and has overcome
death and hell. Language cannot express how great and mighty these words are,
for they are the sum and substance of the whole gospel. This is why these words
are far more important than the sacrament itself, and a Christian should make it
a practice to give far more attention to these words than to the sacrament. But
as a matter of fact the situation everywhere is just the reverse of this because
of the false teachers. They have depreciated these words in the eyes of the
people, hidden them securely besides, and called attention only to the
sacrament. The result is that faith has been lost and the sacrament has been
turned into a purely external work devoid of faith.

Now, in accord with this distinction between the words and the sacrament, and
in view of the greater worth of the words, one must also measure the honor that
is to be bestowed on the sacrament. If you accord less honor to the words than
to the sacrament itself, it is a sure sign that you do not properly understand
the sacrament. For example, if you bow or kneel before the sacrament, and do not
do so even much more before the words of the sacrament, especially in your
heart, you are really inverting the honors. For that reason it is highly
important to lead the people back from the sacrament to the words, and to
accustom them to pay much more attention to the words than to the sacrament;
then it would be easy to preach about honoring the sacrament. But where this is
not the case, no other kind of preaching will help; there will continue to be
nothing but an outward dissembling with respect to the sacrament, with bowing,
bending, kneeling, and adoring, but without any spirit or faith.

But the honor which is to be accorded the Word is of two kinds. One kind is
external, as when a person writes [its] words with big, beautiful, glowing gold
or silver letters, lays it away in beautiful silk cloths, and carefully
preserves it. It is external honor also when one cries them aloud and sings them
in stately fashion—or out of respect keeps them secret, the un-Christian
practice that formerly prevailed. But God and his Word do not care about such
childish external honor.

The proper way to honor the Word is to fix it in your heart. The heart is its
real gilded ciborium. You accord the Word more precious honor with your heart,
than if you were to build a ciborium for the sacrament out of pure gold or the
most costly jewels. For it is certainly true that you can have life,
righteousness, and salvation without the sacrament, but you cannot have life,
righteousness, and salvation without the Word, even though you were to receive
the sacrament not only three times a day (as the priests do at Christmas) but
even three times an hour.

Now when I say that you should fix the Word of God in your heart I do not
mean merely that you should know it and meditate on it. That is nothing. I mean
rather that you should regard and esteem it as it ought to be regarded and
esteemed. That is, you should hold it to be a living, eternal, all-powerful Word
that can make you alive, free from sin and death, and keep you so eternally;
that brings with it everything of which it speaks, namely, Christ with his flesh
and blood and everything that he is and has. For it is the kind of Word that can
and does do all these things, and therefore it should be so regarded. That is
its own proper honor. It is not satisfied with any other kind of honor. In
short, the proper honor for the Word is nothing else than a genuine faith from
the bottom of one’s heart, a faith that holds the Word to be true, that trusts
it and stakes its life upon it for eternity.

That is what we have believed and still believe about this sacrament. But in
order that we may better understand and grasp it, let us treat the matter more
fully and show how so many wanton spirits have taken offense at it. In this way
we will see how impossible it is to stay on the right track when the Word is not
held in the highest esteem and when faith in it is not exercised.

In the first place, there have been some who have held that in the sacrament
there is merely bread and wine, such as people otherwise eat and drink. They
have taught nothing more than that the bread signifies the body and the wine
signifies the blood of Christ, just as if one were to take a figure from the Old
Testament and say: the bread from heaven which the Jews ate in the wilderness
signifies the body of Christ or the gospel, but the bread from heaven is not the
gospel or the body of Christ. It is as if I should say of baptism: baptism is a
washing of the soul; that is, baptism does not actually wash the soul but merely
signifies the washing whereby the soul is washed with the Word of God in faith.
Those who teach this view have accorded similar honor to the sacrament by
saying: the body of Christ is not there; it merely signifies the body like a
symbol.

Now beware of such a view. Let go of reason and intellect; for they strive in
vain to understand how flesh and blood can be present, and because they do not
grasp it they refuse to believe it. Lay hold on the word which Christ speaks:
“Take, this is my body, this is my blood.” One must not do such violence to the
words of God as to give to any word a meaning other than its natural one, unless
there is clear and definite Scripture to do that. This is what is done by those
who without any basis in Scripture take the word “is” and forcibly twist it to
mean the same as the word “signifies.” They sneer at Christ’s statement: “This
is my body,” and say it is equivalent to: “This signifies my body,” and so
forth. But we should and will simply stick to the words of Christ—he will not
deceive us—and repel this error with no other sword than the fact that Christ
does not say: “This signifies my body,” but “This is my body.”

For if we permit such violence to be done in one passage, that without any
basis in Scripture a person can say the word “is” means the same as the word
“signifies,” then it would be impossible to stop it in any other passage. The
entire Scripture would be nullified, since there would be no good reason why
such violence should be valid in one passage but not in all passages. In that
case one could say: That Mary is a virgin and the mother of God is equivalent to
saying that Mary signifies a virgin and the mother of God. Likewise: Christ is
God and man; that is, Christ signifies God and man. Likewise Rom. 1 [: 16]: the
gospel is the power of God and so forth; that is, the gospel signifies the power
of God. See what a horrible mess this would lead to. Therefore, since such
violence cannot be allowed in other passages of Scripture, it cannot be allowed
here either, that Christ’s body is signified by the bread; because the words
stand there clear, unadorned, and plain: “This is my body”—unless one can adduce
clear and definite passages to prove that the word “is” should mean “signifies.”

But they may quote the passage in I Cor. 10 [:4], where Paul says: “They all
drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual Rock which
followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” And they may argue: Paul here says
Christ was the Rock even though it is clear that Moses struck a physical rock
from which they drank [Exod. 17:6]; if then it can be said in this passage that
the Rock is Christ (which surely can mean nothing else than that the
rock signifies Christ, because Christ cannot be a natural rock) it can
also be said here that this bread signifies my body, where the text
says: “This is my body.”

If they argue in that way, one should answer that their reasoning contains
two great fallacies. The first is that what they attribute to the statement in
St. Paul is not true. St. Paul does not say that the rock which Moses struck is
Christ. His words say very plainly: They ate of the same spiritual food of which
we eat, and they drank of the same spiritual drink of which we drink, and so
forth. Now we certainly do not eat the physical bread from heaven and neither do
we drink of the natural rock of which the Jews ate and drank in the wilderness.
On the contrary, it is the spiritual bread from heaven and the spiritual rock
which are identical for both them and us. Paul makes this clear himself later on
when he says: “They drank from the spiritual Rock which followed them, which
Rock was Christ” [I Cor. 10:4], as much as to say: “I am not speaking of the
physical rock but of the spiritual Rock who had yet to come, and by this
expression I mean Christ; he is the true Rock, of whom they have eaten as well
as we, because they too have believed in him as well as we.”

So you see, they have been wrong in citing Paul's statement on behalf of
their error. For it is true that St. Paul says: “Christ was the Rock.” He does
not say that Christ is signified by, but that Christ himself actually
is, the spiritual Rock—the one signified by that physical rock. That is
why Paul was careful to add the word “spiritual” to the word “Rock,” so that no
one could ever construe it to mean that physical rock. Moreover, he says it was
a Rock which was yet to come, from which they drank spiritually; this too cannot
be construed to mean the rock in the wilderness. Still it has not helped that
St. Paul speaks so clearly and specifically about the spiritual Rock. That is
the rock of which the Lord says in Matt. 16 [:18]: “On this rock I will build my
church.” Now certainly the Christian church cannot be built on a physical rock,
but upon Christ himself through the gospel. There it will prevail against all
the gates and powers of hell.

The second fallacy in their reasoning is this: Even if they had demonstrated
that in this passage of St. Paul or anywhere else the word “is” means the same
as “signifies” (which they nevertheless cannot do), they still would not have
proved anything. For if one does find that a word has a particular meaning in
one passage, that is no reason arbitrarily to impose that same meaning on the
word in all other passages. For example, the fact that Christ in Matt. 16 [:18]
calls himself a rock would be no warrant for me, every time I find a rock in the
Scriptures, to make Christ out of it. Again, it is not proper, merely because
Moses struck a rock in the wilderness [Exod. 17:6], for me to make a physical
rock out of the rock in Matt. 16 [:18]. How then should one proceed?

One should proceed thus: Every single word should be permitted to stand in
its natural meaning; no deviation should be allowed unless faith compels it.
Thus the word “rock” in Matt. 16 [:18] I ought to let stand in its natural
meaning, that it denotes a physical rock. But faith will not permit that; it
forces me away from such a natural meaning and compels me to understand a
spiritual Rock. For faith will not permit me to build Christendom upon a
physical rock. Therefore when I say in this passage: “Christ is the Rock,” the
word “is” cannot mean the same as “Christ is signified by the rock.” It
must mean he himself actually is the Rock. Furthermore, when I refer to
Moses’ rock in the wilderness [I Cor. 10:4] and say: “Christ is the physical
rock in the wilderness,” here faith compels me to understand the word “is” as
“signifies,” so that it means: “Christ is signified by the physical rock of
Moses.” For faith does not permit us to hold that Christ, who is a person, is a
natural stone.

Likewise with reference to the sacrament. If they want to say that the bread
is not Christ’s body but merely signifies it, they should indicate
wherein it is contrary to faith for the bread to be the body of Christ and the
wine to be his blood. For we also find the same kind of twofold existence in the
world of nature. We say properly concerning a red-hot iron: “The iron is fire,
and the fire is iron.” We do not say: “The fire signifies iron, and the iron
signifies fire.” In the same way we say also concerning Christ: “The man is God,
and God is the man,” and not “God signifies the man, or the man signifies God.”
Since therefore faith permits it and nowhere contradicts it, that the bread is
the body of Christ, one should let the word “is” stand in its own natural
meaning, and under no circumstances retreat from that position, but hold fast to
God’s word that the bread is truly the body of Christ.

The second error involves the perversion also of the two phrases, “my body”
and “my blood.” Indeed, it gives the whole passage a different meaning. It does
this by claiming that when Christ says: “This is my body,” he means: If you take
this bread and wine you will have a share in my body. Thus the sacrament is
nothing else than a participation in the body of Christ, or, better, an
incorporation into his spiritual body. To implement this process of
incorporation he presumably instituted this bread and wine, as a sure sign that
the spiritual incorporation is taking place and that the spiritual body is being
realized. This is a clever sophistry. It is based on the fact that the
Scriptures ascribe to Christ two kinds of body: one a natural body, which was
born physically of Mary, just as all other men have bodies; the other a
spiritual body, which is the whole Christian church, of which Christ is the
head—just as husband and wife are one body and the husband is the head of the
wife, of which Paul writes in Rom. 12 [:5] and in I Cor. 12 [:27] and in many
other passages.

So they try then to refer Christ’s words to the participation in his body.
When he says: “This is my body,” that is taken to mean: “This is the
participation in my body.” And they cite for support the statement of Paul in I
Cor. 10 [:17], “We who are many are one loaf and one body, for we all partake of
the same loaf.” Likewise at the same place [I Cor. 10:16] he says: “The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” They
think St. Paul has here elucidated Christ’s words. When Christ says: “This is my
body,” that is supposed to be the same as saying: “This is the participation in
my body.” That is, he who eats the bread eats not “my body” but “the
participation in my body”; along with the others he appropriates the benefits of
my body (which is not in the sacrament, but was given for you elsewhere and is
now in heaven). By the eating of this bread he has a share in everything that my
body has and does and suffers—not by virtue of the bread or the eating, but by
virtue of God’s promise. It works like the water of baptism, which cleanses the
soul not by virtue of the water but by virtue of God’s promise, that he who
receives baptism with water shall be saved, and so forth.

Such ideas do seem quite attractive to the reason—if you want to let them
interpret the words of Paul and of Christ as they please! But this is not
Christian teaching, when I intrude my own ideas into the Scripture and compel
Scripture to accord with them. On the contrary, the Christian way is to make
clear first what the Scriptures teach and then compel my own ideas to accord
with them. And who can tolerate it with good conscience when Christ’s statement:
“This is my body, which is given for you” is interpreted to mean: “This is the
participation-in-my-body, which is given for you”? For this interpretation has
no basis in Scripture. “My body” is a very different expression, a very
different thing, from “the participation in my body.”

Since, therefore, the words of Christ: “This is my body which is given for
you” stand so clearly in the way and so directly contradict such an
interpretation, we should by no means follow this understanding of the
sacrament. For even Paul himself, after he has spoken in the tenth chapter [I
Cor. 10:16] about the participation in the body, nevertheless in the eleventh
chapter [I Cor. 11: 23-24] comes back to the words and speaks just as Christ
himself spoke, and says: “I have delivered to you what I have received, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, gave thanks, broke it
and said: ‘Take and eat, this is my body which is given for you; do this in
remembrance of me.’” Here the words are plain and clear, that it is not the
spiritual body of Christ which is present, but his natural body. For the
spiritual body was not given for us. It was his natural body that was given—on
behalf of his spiritual body, which body we are! And it is not proper in this
passage for us to make of the word “body” a “participation-in-the-body,” and
thus arbitrarily, without any basis in Scripture, to proceed in contradiction to
such clear words.

The third error is that in the sacrament no bread remains but only the form
of bread. Of course, this error is not very important if only the body and blood
of Christ, together with the Word, are not taken away—though the papists have
earnestly contended and still contend for this their new doctrine. They label as
heretic anyone who does not agree with them that it is a necessary truth, that
no bread remains there—that monastic fantasy buttressed by Thomas Aquinas and
confirmed by the popes. But while they insist so strongly upon this, and that
out of pure arbitrariness and without any foundation in Scripture, we shall defy
them and hold to the contrary that real bread and wine are truly present along
with the body and blood of Christ. We are glad to be labeled heretic by such
imaginary Christians and naked sophists. For the gospel calls the sacrament
bread. It says that the bread is the body of Christ. We shall stand by that. We
are sufficiently certain, contrary to all the dreams of the sophists, that what
the gospel calls bread is bread. If it deceives us, we shall take our chances.

The fourth error is the worst of all and the most heretical. It was invented
by the Antichrist, the pope and his followers. This error consists of the fact
that they have made of the sacrament a sacrifice and a good work and thereby
have deceived everybody. On this error they have built a multitude of
endowments, cloisters, churches, and the entire spiritual estate. This has been
a commercial fairground for the papists, at which they have sold that work and
sacrifice to the whole world, and have claimed to set everything straight with
masses and to make satisfaction for everyone. It was not for any good purpose
that the devil let the papists retain the body and blood of Christ in the
sacrament. On the contrary he has caused them on their commercial fairground to
deal with Christ as the Jews dealt with him that night in Caiaphas’ house when
he had been betrayed into their hands [Matt. 26:57-68]. There would not have
been so many and such terrible sins if the sacrament had been entirely
renounced, just as those who did not crucify Christ did not commit such great
sins as the Jews did who seized him and put him to death.

Although I have dealt many a sharp thrust against this kind of error,
nevertheless I am obliged on this occasion also to say a few things about it. To
protect yourself against this abominable error you should hold fast to the word
that says: “Take and eat, this is my body.” This word is the whole gospel. You
will observe and understand that it says nothing about a sacrifice or a good
work but about a present and a gift, which Christ offers and gives to us, and
which we should receive and with faith appropriate and hold fast. He tells you
to take and keep, and would you make an offering of it and give it away? How can
you say to God: “I give you your Word”? Neither can you say to another person:
“I am offering God his Word on your behalf.” On the contrary, you should say:
“Dear Lord, since you say that you freely give it to me, I receive it with
gratitude and joy.” Just as you cannot make out of the gospel a sacrifice or a
work, so you cannot make a sacrifice or a work out of this sacrament; for this
sacrament is the gospel.

Therefore, in this matter no one can achieve anything for another person.
Each one must believe for himself, just as I must believe all the Gospels for
myself. I cannot hear or believe or keep for any one else so much as a single
letter of the gospel even as I cannot be baptized for any one else. But a good
work I can always do to another person and for another person. Indeed, I have to
do them for somebody else or they are not good works. For example, I can pray
for you, serve you, work for you, suffer for you, and so forth. There is a great
difference between faith and good works, just as vast as the difference in value
between the tree and the fruit. Fruits disappear and return each year, but the
tree remains always. Faith also remains always, but works disappear. In such a
shameful way have they misled and deceived us that we go looking for good works
and fruits when we should be looking for faith and the tree.

Be careful, therefore, to stay on the track. Don’t let anyone pull you away
from the Word through any statement of man, be it Augustine, Jerome, Bernard, or
even an angel [Gal. 1:8]. “The elect will be led astray,” says Christ [Matt.
24:24]. Therefore we cannot build on the mere word of one of the elect saints,
without Scripture. Christ has warned us faithfully enough, and our own
experience has probably taught us, that saintly men can make mistakes and have
made mistakes. If our opponents complain that we have degraded and dishonored
the sacrament because we have not let it become a sacrifice, then answer that we
have not let the sacrament become a sacrifice for the very reason that we do not
want to degrade and dishonor it as they do. It is a great degradation of the
sacrament when a person ascribes nothing more to it than he ascribes to a good
work. No good work can free us of our sins or give us grace or life or
salvation. But this sacrament does give life, grace, and blessedness, for it is
a fountain of life and of blessedness.

This is enough about the errors in the interpretation of this sacrament. Now
we come to the subject at hand, the adoration of the sacrament.

The Adoration of the Sacrament

In John 4 [:20-24], the Samaritan woman asked the Lord where one should
worship. Jesus answered her: “Woman, I tell you, the hour is coming when neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what
you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But
the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father
spiritually and truly, for the Father also seeks such worshipers. God is a
spirit, and he who worships him must worship him spiritually and truly.”

From these words we understand that there are two kinds of worship: one
outward and physical, the other inward and spiritual. It is outward worship when
you choose outward places and gestures to express it, as when in the church or
before the altar or the sacrament you prostrate yourself, kneel, bend your body,
bow your head, look up toward heaven, speak with your mouth and do similar
things that can be done outwardly and are signs by which you outwardly
acknowledge your God or overlord. But in this passage Christ rejects such
worship if it takes place with the idea that it is pleasing to God and is enough
in itself without any inward spiritual worship, as the Jews maintained. But
where the inward worship accompanies it, it is well and good, as the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, and all the saints have done.

For when Christ says here: “Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will
you worship” [John 4:21], he certainly rejects all outward places, but in such a
way as to make all places free. His intention is to set consciences free. It is
as if he were to say: “I desire that henceforth no outward place shall be
regarded as necessary for worship, as when you say that one must worship in
Jerusalem or on this mountain, but that all places shall now be free for
worship, as has hitherto not been the case. If the spiritual worship is present,
you may worship also outwardly, whether you be in Jerusalem or on this mountain,
in the house or out in the field, in Persia or in Greece. But hitherto one could
worship only in Jerusalem, or at least facing Jerusalem, no matter what part of
the world he was in.”

Now where outward worship is all alone, there is downright hypocrisy and
actual mockery of God. There our Lord receives the same kind of honor as that
which the Jews gave him when during his Passion they knelt before him and said:
“Hail, King of the Jews” [Matt. 27:29]. For when there is no spiritual worship,
it cannot be meant earnestly and it does not come from the heart. And if it does
not come from the heart, it is certainly a mockery of God. Alas, this kind of
worship fills the whole world today in all its corners. The mockery is now in
full swing which the Jews began during Christ’s Passion when they called him the
“King of the Jews.” For there are so many churches and services of divine
worship on every hand, and yet there is scarcely one in a thousand who honor God
with spiritual worship. Instead they all mock him with the outward, hypocritical
worship. And this mockery of Christ takes place especially in all the masses and
in the monstrance at Easter and on Corpus Christi day. For at those times he
receives great outward honor, but it is pure mockery because it is without
faith.

Therefore, where there is no faith and spiritual worship, it is better to
stay far away. And one should not celebrate mass where there are no real and
genuine Christians. Until such Christians are present one should abandon the
monstrances and the Corpus Christi processions, because there is no need for
them; they serve no useful purpose and they only dishonor the sacrament with
gross hypocrisy and mockery. Moreover, the monasteries and foundations of
charity should be provided with believing priests and monks, or else they should
be dissolved. For their chief work is mere outward worship and they think they
have accomplished their purpose if they do a lot of outward kneeling, bending,
and bowing. And the pope has assigned indulgences to such processions and
honoring of the sacrament and so has filled the world with Jews who worship
Christ in mockery [Matt. 27:29].

The second kind of worship is true and spiritual. It is free in all external
matters, so that it does not require the worshiper to use special places or to
employ special gestures. For every man can engage in this kind of worship
wherever he may be or go or stay, even in the field, or sick in bed, or captive
in prison; and not only in the churches or chapels, before the altar, or on his
knees. But I suppose there are in reality many people who do not know what is
meant by the word “worship” and do not see any difference between praying
[beten] and worshiping [anbeten]. Let us therefore first
clarify this distinction; then it will be easier to instruct concerning true
worship.

Worship [anbeten] is not a matter of the mouth, like praying,
petitioning, and pleading. For to pray [beten] is really to repeat the
words of a prayer such as the Psalms or the Lord’s Prayer. But to petition
[bitten] is to accompany such a spoken prayer with one’s own special
need and indicate it by name, just as the Lord’s Prayer contains seven such
petitions, and so forth. To plead [flehen] is to go beyond the petition
in one's prayer and to admonish God through something that He prizes very
highly, such as his mercy, name, honor, truth, or through Christ, and so forth.
In addition there is also intercession for others, and praise and thanksgiving.
All of this is a work of the mouth.

Worship [anbeten] is nothing of the sort. It is not a function of
the mouth but of the whole body. It is to bow the head, bend the body, fall on
the knees, prostrate one’s self, and so forth, and to do such things as a sign
and acknowledgment of an authority and power; just as people bow in silence
before secular princes and lords, and just as popes, bishops, abbots, and people
generally, have themselves honored and adored [ehrbieten] by bowing and
kneeling, and so forth. Such outward adoration [ehrbietunge] is what
the Scriptures really mean by worship [anbeten]. It is out of a
complete misunderstanding that the little word adorare is translated
“worship” [anbeten], because the latter has too strong a connotation of
praying with the mouth. Were It not such a common usage, it would still be a
good thing if we were to say “adoration” [ehrbieten] —or “bowing”
[neygen] as the Hebrew has it—instead of “worship” [anbeten].
We read in the Scriptures that worship [anbeten] or adoration
[ehrbieten] is rendered outwardly both to God and to kings without
distinction, just as bowing and kneeling are still rendered outwardly both to
God and to men.

From this understanding of outward worship you will also understand what
Christ meant by true spiritual worship. It is the adoration or bowing of the
heart, so that from the bottom of your heart you thereby show and confess
yourself to be his subordinate creature. For from this you see that true worship
can be nothing else than faith; it is faith’s sublimest activity with respect to
God. For no one is capable of such heartfelt confession, adoration, bending, and
bowing (or whatever you want to call it) before God in his heart, unless he
unwaveringly holds God to be his Lord and Father, from whom he receives and will
receive all good things, and through whom, without any merit on his part, he is
redeemed and preserved from all sins and evil.

In a word, where there is none of this heartfelt trust and confidence that
comes from a true and living faith, concerning which I have spoken so often,
there can be no true worship, because there God is not recognized with the
heartfelt confidence of faith. Therefore it is also impossible for him to be
confessed, honored, and adored. For although people may with their mouths call
him God and Father and outwardly adore him, nevertheless the heart is faithless
and the result is lies and hypocrisy. But where worship is offered from the
heart, there follows quite properly also that outward bowing, bending, kneeling,
and adoration with the body. For this reason it is not possible to maintain a
distinction in the New Testament between the worship [anbeten] of God
and that of a man. For people bow, bend, and kneel before both alike; only with
respect to God they lift their eyes and faces to heaven. But inwardly in the
heart the difference is greater than that between heaven and earth; for the
heart holds God to be God, but the prince it holds to be a man.

Now to come back to the sacrament: he who does not believe that Christ’s body
and blood are present does well not to worship either with his spirit or with
his body. But he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it
ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and
blood of Christ without sinning. For I must always confess that Christ is
present when his body and blood are present. His words do not lie to me, and he
is not separated from his body and blood. And when he lay dead in the grave, he
was still Christ and worthy of his honor, even when there was no longer any
blood in him. Moreover, we must honor and adore one another, as Paul teaches in
Rom. 12 [:10], for the sake of Christ, who dwells in us spiritually through our
faith.

It is, of course, true that there is a distinction between Christ sitting on
high in heaven, and being in the sacrament and in the hearts of believers. For
certainly he ascended to heaven so that men should and must worship him there
and confess him to be the Lord, mighty over all things (Phil. 2 [:10-11]). But
he is present in the sacrament and in the hearts of believers not really because
he wants to be worshiped there, but because he wants there to work with us and
help us; just as he also came to earth in the flesh not that men should worship
him, but to serve us, as he himself said: “I have not come to be served but to
serve and to give my life for many” [Matt. 20:28].

But from this it does not follow that one should not worship him. For many
people worshiped him when he was upon earth and he accepted it too, such as the
three kings at the manger [Matt. 2:11], the blind man [John 9:38], and many
others. Nevertheless, his state at that time was not yet the state of his honor
and glory, for which nothing but worship and adoration is fitting. There had to
be freedom to worship or not to worship, because no definite command had been
given to worship him before he was glorified. That is why he allowed himself to
be worshiped at times, and at other times not to be worshiped. Likewise, here in
the sacrament and in all believing hearts it should be left a matter of freedom,
in order that we may be assured that he gave no command about worshiping him in
the sacrament or in believing hearts. Moreover, that is not the reason for his
presence there. Nevertheless, one should not withhold from him such worship and
adoration either; but freely give it, if the proper time and occasion presents
itself, or omit it.

For that reason we say now that one should not condemn people or accuse them
of heresy if they do not adore the sacrament, for there is no command to that
effect and it is not for that purpose that Christ is present. Just as we read
that the apostles did not adore the sacrament since they were sitting and eating
at table [Matt. 26:20, 26]. On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse
of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not
commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it
must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity.
Therefore both parties are to be blamed when they take a stand on either of
these two sides and quarrel over this matter and condemn one another, and both
of them miss the middle way. The first group would like to compel people not to
adore the sacrament, as if Christ were not there at all; and the other group
would like to compel people to adore it, as if Christ’s state of glory were in
the sacrament as it is in heaven.

With this kind of quarreling they both get off the track, so that they
emphasize the sacrament and neglect the words. The sacrament then becomes a mere
work and faith perishes. For while they busy themselves trying to decide how
they may properly honor Christ and do him abundant service, they never do get
around to considering what he does for them in the sacrament and why he is there
and what they are supposed to receive from him, just as if he were there solely
for the sake of their worship and service. We have it backwards when in the
sacrament we think only of the works that we ourselves might do and accomplish
for the sacrament, and pay no attention to the works that the sacrament is
supposed to do and accomplish for us.

And so I repeat what I have said above, that a person should note carefully
these two things in the sacrament: first, the Word; and second, the bread and
wine. The words teach you to give thought and attention to why Christ is
present; they will cause you to forget your work and to wait only upon his. For
a sacrament is a matter of faith, because in it only the works of God proceed
and are effected—through his Word! Therefore, those who consider the sacrament
to be thus in the Word will forget both worship and adoration. That is what the
apostles did at the Supper [Matt. 26:26] and yet without any doubt they were
most acceptable and did him the proper honor. They acted just as one does when
he hears the gospel the Word of God—to which the highest honor is nonetheless
due because God is nearer in it than Christ is in the bread and wine. Yet no one
thinks of bowing before the gospel; instead everyone sits still and in listening
gives no thought whatever to the kind of honor he will do to the Word.

Bread and wine, or the body and blood of Christ, regarded without the words,
will teach you to give thought and attention to your own works. They will drive
you away from pondering God’s work and the reason why he is present, so that you
will be quite anxious to do a lot for him, and will not let anything be done for
you. Thus the sacrament becomes purely a matter of works. But if you first
exercise faith rightly, at the most important point, namely, with respect to the
words, then the adoration of the sacrament will afterwards follow beautifully in
its own place; and if it did not follow, that would be no sin. But where faith,
the most important thing, is not right and is not exercised with respect to the
Word, there one cannot teach anybody properly to worship, even if he were to
write the world full of books.

Now, therefore, let me describe in order four groups of people. The first are
those whose entire interest is in the words of this sacrament, so that they feed
their faith; they receive the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ
as a sure sign of that Word and of faith. These are the most secure and the
best. They probably seldom descend so low as to bother themselves about
worshiping and adoring, for they pay attention to the work God does to them and
forget about the works they do for the sacrament.

The second group are those who exercise the right sort of faith, and then
descend to their own works and worship Christ spiritually in the sacrament. That
is, they bow inwardly with their hearts and confess him as their Lord, who does
all things within them; and they prove their inward worship by outwardly bowing,
bending, and kneeling with the body.

The third group are those who worship him inwardly only. The fourth group are
those who worship him outwardly only. These last are completely worthless, and I
have already said enough about them. Nevertheless, you can see that adoration of
this sacrament is a dangerous procedure if the Word and faith are not
inculcated; so much so that I really think it would be better to follow the
example of the apostles and not worship, than to follow our custom and worship.
Not that adoration is wrong, but simply because there is less danger in not
adoring than in adoring; because human nature tends so easily to emphasize its
own works and to neglect God’s work, and the sacrament will not admit of that.
But what more should I say? For this sacrament and for every work of God there
must be Christians. Where there are no Christians, it will be done wrong, please
God, whether they adore or not.

There have also been many who have been concerned about how the soul and the
spirit of Christ, and thereby the Godhead, the Father and the Holy Spirit, is in
the sacrament. It is a wonder they have not included in their concern the angels
also and finally the whole world. All these are the thoughts of idle souls and
empty hearts, who forget the words and works of God in this sacrament and give
themselves over to their own thoughts and words. The more simply you stick to
the words of the sacrament the better it will be for you. So let go of their
dreams: “concomitantly,” “through concomitance,” and other things like that And
hold fast to these truths:

First, that you lay hold on the words: “This is my body which is given for
you,” and so forth. Eat and drink there, and nourish your faith. Then take also
the body and blood as tokens of these words of God. And say to yourself: I am
not commanded to investigate or to know how God, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit, or how the soul of Christ is in the sacrament. For me it is enough
to know that the Word which I hear and the body which I receive are truly the
Word and body of my Lord and God. Let the subtle and unbelieving sophists
inquire about such secondary matters and employ their magic to bring deity into
the sacrament.

The body which you receive, the Word which you hear, are the body and Word of
him who holds the whole world in his hand and who inhabits it from beginning to
end. Let this be sufficient for you.

Back to
Top of Document

Return
to Theologians' Reformation: Luther case-study