The Eucharist as testament or covenant

In his writings on the Eucharist, Martin Luther held that the Eucharist is ‘testament’ (Lt. testamentum), from Gk. diathḗkē. This, Luther took from the institution narrative, where Christ says (in Luther’s rendition from his Small Catechism), “Take, and drink of it, all of you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”¹ But what does this term mean in the institution narrative? Being a Lutheran priest, I am in agreement with Luther in many things, but here I diverge, though not completely.

The term can mean different things. It can mean a ‘testament’ (or a ‘will’) in which a person, before his death, grants certain promises to certain people. There are elements of this here, when Christ says “Take, eat; this is my body” and “[d]rink from (this cup] all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant (Gk. diathḗkē), which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).² This is how Luther uses the term. Christ gives a promise and the Eucharist is, so to speak, the will or testament He gives us. For Luther, then, ‘testament’ is the proper translation of diathḗkē. While I disagree with him on that, he is not entirely wrong. There is an element of promise here, of testament, but it is secondary, I think, to the covenant, which is also what the word can mean.³ Now, to understand what this means, I think we need to as: At whom is the institution narrative directed?

For Luther, these words are first and foremost directed towards the congregation. Though they consecrate the bread and wine, when uttered by the priest, they are principally words of promise to the people present. We can see this expressed in Luther’s own mass settings, the Formula Missae (1523) and Deutsche Messe (1526),⁴ and also in the former Eucharistic liturgies of the Church of Norway and the current Eucharistic liturgies of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), to take two examples.⁵ There, and particularly in the LCMS liturgy, when the words of institution are uttered by the priest, they are directed towards the congregation and function as ‘words of promise’ in which what is signified by the promise happens there and then, by Christ becoming truly present under the species of bread and wine, and subsequently distributed to the congregation for their consumption.⁶ We see the direction of the words of institution especially in the fifth service of the LCMS, where, right before uttering the institution narrative, the priest says: “In the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, at His command, and with His own words, we receive His testament.”⁷

For an interesting presentation, you can read From Conflict to Communion (FCC), a document issued in connection with the Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. There, we read:

Luther understood the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a testamentum, the promise of someone who is about to die, as is evident from the Latin version of the words of institution. At first, Luther perceived Christ’s promise (testamentum) as promising grace and forgiveness of sins but, in the debate with Huldrych Zwingli, he emphasized his belief that Christ gives himself, his body and blood, that are really present. Faith does not make Christ present; it is Christ who gives himself, his body and blood, to communicants, whether or not they believe this. Thus, Luther’s opposition to the contemporary doctrine was not that he denied the real presence of Jesus Christ, but rather concerned how to understand the »change« in the Lord’s Supper.⁸

In the Catholic liturgical tradition, however, represented for instance by the Roman Canon (the Extraordinary Form) and the Eucharistic prayers of the Ordinary Form,⁹ and all Eucharistic prayers in the Church of England’s Common Worship,¹⁰ the words of institution are not primarily directed towards the congregation. In fact, they are not directed towards anyone in particular, but function as a narrative within the Eucharistic Prayer as a whole. And this prayer is primarily directed towards God the Father. As we read in the first Eucharistic prayer of the Ordinary Form: “On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing…”¹¹ Or, to choose Eucharistic prayer B from Common Worship: “…who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread and gave you thanks; … he took the cup and gave you thanks…” ¹²

Now, if we examine the words in the New Testament, what do we see? In Lukan-Pauline tradition, we see Christ doing different things: He takes bread, he gives thanks, he breaks it, he distributes it, saying “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24), he takes wine, he gives thanks, and he distributes it, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Apart from the distribution, which in neither Luke nor Paul is followed by a commdandment to eat, the direction is clearly towards God. And this has been maintained in every ancient liturgy.¹³

Luther, however, was very preoccupied by the word testamentum. But it seems to me that he misunderstood the point. There is a truth to it; Christ did attach certain promises to the Eucharist. But it seems to me that the word covenant better captures the point, and that the promise flows from this, particularly since the direction of the liturgy seems to be towards God. The focus is not first and foremost on us, but on Christ, instituting the new covenant with God, on our behalf. As our representative, and as a divine person, He gave himself to God, and he gave us the means to go into this covenantal relationship, and all the promises that entails.

Like Luther, I agree that Christ gives us promises through the institution of the Eucharist. But unlike Luther, I do not see this as the main or first point. The main point is the intra-divine act, the offering of Christ to the Father on our behalf, restoring the covenant. But through this act, we can be drawn in and we can be assured through the promise and testament of Christ. Both interpretations of diathḗkē – covenant and testament – are true and central but the former logically precedes and is the condition of the latter. In many ways, this is a question of Christology. The covenant is not an extrinsic arrangement or deal but kinship. Christ is the covenant between God and man to the fullest extent and He has promised that through the sacraments, he is there for us.

The Eucharist, then, is a gift given to us by God through which our covenantal relationship with God – our incorporation into Christ given in baptism – is strengthened and nourished. This is not principally our own work but that of God. Like we see in theurgy, it is first and foremost a divine act into which we can be drawn. This divine act is directed from God to God, but we are taken up into it.

To draw on the theurgic tradition, this can be understood as the divine communicating with the divine.¹⁴ And in both Christian and non-Christian Platonic thought, we cannot do anything except through the divine act. St. Paul says that we cannot boast, for we have all been given everything for free (1 Corinthians 4:7; Ephesians 2:8-9) and Christ says: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Yes, apart from Hin, we can do nothing. But in Him, we can do anything, as St. Paul notes in Philippians 2:12-13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

So again, the Eucharist is both covenant and testament but always in that order.

Notes:

1. Martin Luther, Small Catechism, V, 4. For the English translation of the Lutheran confessions, see The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, eds., Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000). Kolb and Wengert notes (p. 362, n99) that this is a “conflation of texts from 1 Corinthians 11:23–25; Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19f.” For a critical edition of the Latin and German texts, see Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, vollständige neuedition, ed., Irene Dingel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).

2. If not otherwise noted, all quotations of Scripture follow The Holy Bible: The New Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition, Anglicized (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press, 1995). For the Greek, see Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed, eds. E. Nestle and K. Aland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).

3. For some reflections on the different meanings of diathḗkē, see these articles by Scott Hahn, all found here): “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22” (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66:3, 2004), 416-436; “Covenant Oath and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15-18” (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67:1, 2005), 79-100; “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Hebrews 9:15-22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods — New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Leiden: Brill 2005), 65-88; and “Canon, Cult and Covenant: The Promise of Liturgical Hermeneutics,” in Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 7: Canon and Biblical Interpretation, eds., Craig G. Bartholomew et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2006), 209-235.

4. Luther’s Works (commonly abbreviated LW), 53:5-40.51-90, eds., J. Pelikan and H.T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia/Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1955-1986), cf. Frank C. Senn, “Martin Luther’s Revision of the Eucharistic Canon in the Formula Missae of 1523” (Concordia Theological Monthly 44, 1973), 101-118.

5. Gudstenestebok for Den norske kyrkja, part 2 (Oslo: Verbum, 1996), 66-81.283-286.290-297.301-307; Lutheran Service Book, pew ed., prepared by The Commission on Worship of LCMS (St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 160-163.177-181.194-199.208-210.216-218.

6. See art. X in Confessio Augustana and its Apology, as well as art. VI in Luther’s Small Catechism, cf. Sverre Aalen, “Das Abendmahl als Opfermahl im Neuen Testament” (Novum Testamentum 6, 1963), 128-152 (esp. 137-138.142); Sverre Aalen, “Nattverden som offermåltid i Det nye testamente” (Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 35, 1964), 193-213 (esp. 201.205); Carl Fr. Wisløff, “«Des Sacraments ym Wortt warnemen». Svar til biskop Bjarne Skard” (Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 26, 1955), 160-173 (esp. 164-165).

7. Lutheran Service Book, 217.

8. From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, report of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity (Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius, 2013), 141.

9. Messeboken – Missale Romanum. Latin og norsk (Oslo katolsk bispedømme, 1961); The Order of Mass in Latin and English, New English Translation (London: CTS, 2011), 29-81.

10. Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England (London: Church House, 2000), 184-205.

11. The Order of Mass in Latin and English, 35 (emphasis added).

12. Common Worship, 189 (emphasis added).

13. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1978), 193-199.211-216.440-455. Also see Mike Aquilina, The Mass of the Early Christians, 2nd ed. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2007), esp. 113-114.190-191.204-205.215-216. The usage of ‘likeness’ on pp.204-205 is most likely meant in a ‘literal’ sense, where words like ‘likeness’ and ‘symbol’ has a more ‘realistic’ usage than in modern times (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 212-213).

14. We can see this from the concept of the ‘One of the soul.’ See Crystal Addey, “The Role of Divine Providence, Will and Love in Iamblichus’ Theory of Theurgic Prayer and Religious Invocation,” in Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, eds., Eugene Afonasin, John Dillon, and John F. Finamore (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 133-150, esp. 136-140. For my reflections on this from a Christian or Dionysian and Thomist perspective, see Kjetil Kringlebotten, “Christian theurgy and divine indwelling” (Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology, 31 March 2023).