Dr. John Stephenson describes The Venerable and Adorable Eucharist by Tom G.A. Hardt as an “intellectual marathon” (xiv). His description is apt. While any survey of historical theology risks antiquarianism and generalization, Hardt does not take the challenge lying down. His interaction with the primary sources from Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, Hunnius, and others is impressive, as well as his broad acquaintance with secondary literature. Neither does he show blind loyalty to any school or theologian. While dedicating his book to Hermann Sasse, he is not afraid on that account to disagree with Sasse (52, 82). While Hardt’s book is thorough and scholarly, it is not on that account irrelevant to the parish pastor. Any treatment of the consecration and duration of the sacramental union properly belongs to what an altar guild should know. Hardt’s book contains detailed treatments of the repletive and definitive modes of presence (79), how nominalism’s doctrine of omnipresence affected later Lutheran descriptions of the personal union (41), and how liturgical ceremonies demonstrate the propriety of adoring Christ present in the Holy Communion (202–203). His central thesis is that there is a fundamental disagreement between Luther and Melanchthon on the meaning of the Verba, and as such, on the consecration and accompanying adoration. Luther’s mode of speaking was “the bread is the body,” and that this occurs as the direct result of the consecration (190). Melanchthon preferred to locate the “foundational factor” of the Sacrament in the action, and specifically the completion of the action (198). Such a difference is the well-documented source of the debates in Lutheran circles surrounding the beginning and duration of the sacramental union.
In chapter 1, Hardt treats philosophical and theological presuppositions of Aquinas, Ockham, Biel, and Luther. Hardt notes that the nominalism of Ockham and its accompanying notion of concrete presence “laid the theological foundation for the visible reality of the eucharistic miracle of transformation” (13). Ockham’s view is crucial to understanding Luther’s own, according to Hardt, for Luther holds with Ockham, against Thomas, that Christ is not merely present in the Supper “modo substantiae” (18). Rather, Luther holds a total and complete identicalness of Christ’s heavenly and eucharistic body (21).
In chapter two, Hardt deals extensively with Luther’s Christology. According to Hardt, Zwingli’s opposition to Luther’s adoration of the Sacrament stemmed not from the disagreement on the Lord’s Supper, but from Zwingli’s christological convictions that forbade worshipping the body of Christ inside or outside the Sacrament (55). This chapter spends more time refuting kenotic Christology than arguably is necessary, spending nine pages on Kjell Nilsson’s view alone (65–74). Additionally, footnote 182 contains an odd objection to the Formula of Concord’s interpretation of Luther’s Christology (endnote 1). Hardt maintains that the Formula “confessionalizes” (185), and seems to say that this distinction was introduced in Orthodoxy via Chemnitz’s Repetitio sanae doctrinae. The problem remains that the Formula of Concord says this distinction is present in Luther. This demonstrates a recurring tendency in Hardt’s text. He often labels any caution of adoration or emphasis on the entire action of the Supper as Melanchthonian and therefore sees a large gap between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy.
This tendency reappears in chapter 4, where Hardt claims that Luther positively and “unabashedly” picked up and used the term “impanation” to describe his doctrine (149). This is not entirely accurate, as the reference cited by Hardt in WA 26:434.39 does not establish that Luther unabashedly endorsed this term. Luther simply used it because his adversaries accused him of it (endnote 2). While Hardt acknowledges that Luther takes this term from his enemies, he also seems to believe that it accurately describes Luther’s doctrine, namely that “it is the body of Christ through impanation” (149). Later Lutherans rejected impanation as another philosophical explanation of the sacramental union that demands local inclusion of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine (endnote 3).
Hardt’s words against Edward Peters likewise reveal this unbridgeable gap he sees between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy. In chapter seven he says that Peters shows “an irrational desire to harmonize different opinions with Lutheranism on this point (of adoration)” (271, footnote 174). This desire is not entirely irrational. It simply recognizes that the emphasis on the use and the action of the Supper was not entirely rejected even by the most orthodox theologians after Luther. For example, Hardt claims that Chemnitz’s “solidarity with Luther is obvious” (213). Nevertheless, Chemnitz says in both quotations cited by Hardt on the topic of adoration that it takes place in the “action” of the Supper (309, 311). Furthermore, Hardt claims that Johann Gerhard is distinctly Melanchthonian (298), but concedes that Gerhard also accepts the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament in a certain sense (298, footnote 306). There are certainly different emphases between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy. An emphasis on the entire action combined with Aristotelian causality gave birth to receptionism. Yet, those who emphasize the entire action can still affirm the efficacy of the consecration, the enduring presence of Christ, and approve of adoration shown to Christ that only an Arian would forbid.
Neither Tom Hardt’s weighty scholarship nor the above minor criticism should deter the aspiring reader from The Venerable and Adorable Eucharist. Tom Hardt contends mightily and convincingly for the consecration as the beginning of the sacramental union and the enduring presence of Christ. His text provides a thorough overview of primary and secondary sources related to Luther and the Sacrament of the Altar. This English translation of his work makes a fantastic addition to books such as Bjarne Teigen’s The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz and Edward Peter’s STM dissertation “The Origin and Meaning of the Axiom- Nothing has the Character of a Sacrament Outside of the Use, in Sixteenth and Seventeenth- Century Lutheran Theology.” Although an English translation of Venerabilis et Adorabilis Eucharistia has come into print after these works, it is equally foundational for regaining the biblical and confessional emphasis on the consecration and appropriate adoration of Christ wherever he is present. Furthermore, what comes through in the volume is a love and piety toward the Holy Communion, something which is profoundly Luther-an.
Joseph Greenmyer
Pastor, Faith Lutheran Church and St. Peter Lutheran Church
Parkston and Emery, SD
Endnotes:
- Specifically, Hardt argues that Lutheran Orthodoxy introduced the genus majestaticum within the communicatio idiomatum. On page 74, following a critique of Nilsson, he writes, “Orthodoxy, of its own accord, introduced the participation of the attributes of majesty under the communicatio idiomatum but, unaware of certain difficulties in the definitions, retained the existence of special groups.” In footnote 182 commenting on this statement, Hardt says, “When the Formula of Concord appeals to WA 54:49.33ff [cf. AE 15:293] for the communicatio idiomatum in the sense of the genus majestaticum, this is incorrect. Luther speaks there only about the actual assuming of the human nature into personal union with the divinity: ‘That God is man’” (74, footnote 182). Citations of Luther are from Luther’s Works, American Edition, vols. 1–30, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955–1976), vols. 31–55, ed. Helmut Lehmann (Philadelphia/Minneapolis: Muhlenberg/Fortress, 1957–1986), vols. 56–82, ed. Christopher Boyd Brown and Benjamin T. G. Mayes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009–), 15:293 (hereafter cited as AE) (= D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Schriften], 73 vols. [Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009], 54:49.33 [hereafter cited as WA]).
- The text reads, “Einbrödunge des Leibs Christi (wie sie reden). . .” That Luther uses “wie sie reden” (“as they say”) demonstrates that he does not mean to take up the term impanation (Einbrödung) for himself, but rather to use the term which his adversaries have used to accused him. The American Edition of Luther’s works reflects this by putting the term in quotation marks (AE 37: 290). Although the editor of Hardt’s book listed page 292 in footnote 110 as the corresponding reference, Hardt’s citation in the Weimar Edition corresponds to AE 37: 290.
- See for instance the entry “Impanation,” in The Concordia Cyclopedia, ed. Ludwig Fuerbringer, Theodore Engelder, and Paul E. Kretzmann (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1927), 349–350.