Finitum capax infiniti: Luther's radical incarnational perspective.

Hendel, Kurt K.

The Word and the sacraments were crucial aspects of Martin Luther's biblically-normed and experientially-informed theology. The Reformer viewed these means of grace as the unique gifts of God to the church through which the Holy Spirit creates and nurtures faith. They are, therefore, the constituent elements of the church's life and mission. The Eucharist, in particular, captured Luther's attention because it was one of the great causes of dissension between the evangelical movement and the Church of Rome, as well as among the varied expressions of the Reformation. It was particularly in his conflict with fellow reformers, those to whom he referred in a derogatory manner as the sacramentarians, that Luther became an ardent defender of the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament. The notion of finitum capax infiniti was a central aspect of that defense and manifests the Reformer's radical incarnational perspective. The purpose of this essay is to explore Luther's literary debate with the Swiss reformers, especially Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Johannes Oecolampadius (1482-1531). That debate marks the high point of Luther's theological defense of the real presence and in it the emphasis on finitum capax infiniti becomes readily apparent. In addition to highlighting the theological significance of this notion, 1 will also suggest some practical implications of this sacramental emphasis for the Lutheran movement's attitude toward and participation in contemporary society.

As I have already noted, Luther's eucharistic thought was developed in an intensely polemical context. In the early 1520s the Reformer addressed the medieval church's sacramental theology and practices. In the course of his conflicts with the Church of Rome he rejected five sacraments and affirmed only baptism and the Eucharist. He militated against the notion of ex opere operato and stressed that faith is necessary for the efficacious reception of the sacraments. He dismissed the doctrine of transubstantiation as a philosophical explanation of a divine mystery and a misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy. He also advocated the distribution of both kinds in the eucharistic celebration and bitterly criticized the church's insistence that the sacrament is a sacrifice and a meritorious work. (1) By the middle 1520s, however, his major sacramental opponents were no longer the Roman theologians but the Swiss Reformer Huldreich Zwingli and his supporters, especially Johannes Oecolampadius. (2) The focus of the debate among the Reformers was the doctrine of the real presence. On the basis of his biblical interpretation, his humanist and rationalist tendencies and his own creative theological impulses, Zwingli proposed and defended a symbolic interpretation of Christ's eucharistic presence. While Oecolampadius, Andreas von Karlstadt (1480-1541), Martin Bucer (1491-1551) and others formulated their own particular formulae in conceptualizing the eucharistic mystery, they all stood at Zwingli's side in his conflict with Luther. Luther emerged as an ardent and inflexible defender of a materialistic understanding of Christ's presence in his debates with the Swiss, even though he continued to reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. He, therefore, found himself much closer to the Roman side with regard to Christ's eucharistic presence than he did to his fellow reformers.

Luther and his opponents addressed a variety of issues in their sacramental writings, including the proper understanding of the words of institution, the meaning of the biblical concept of the right hand of God, the notion of ubiquity and the relationship of the two natures of Christ. I will focus particularly on their debate regarding the meaning of Christ's words in John 6:63. It is in his interpretation of this passage, which was central to the Swiss argument, and in his response to the Swiss position, as he understood it, that Luther formulated a highly positive understanding of the spiritual significance of created matter.

Prior to exploring the meaning of John 6:63 Luther made an important point regarding physical matter while addressing the Zwinglian interpretation of the right hand of God' and defending the scholastic notion of ubiquity. The Reformer noted that the biblical phrase "the right hand of God" does not denote a specific location or place but, rather, Gods power. It is by means of this mighty power that God " ... creates, effects, and preserves all things ... "(4) Because it is Gods work, all of creation is good and, therefore, neither condemned nor rejected by God. (5) As creator and preserver, God is also immanently present in all things. Luther is quite insistent:

Therefore, indeed, he himself must be present in every single creature in its innermost and outer-most being, on all sides, through and through, below and above, before and behind, so that nothing can be more truly present and within all creatures than God himself with his power. (6)

While God is present everywhere and in everything, it is also crucial to recognize that God is not circumscribed by any part of or even by the whole creation. After all, the divine "... Majesty is so great that neither this world nor even a thousand worlds could embrace it and say, 'See, there it is!'"(7) Although he is careful to avoid the charge of pantheism, Luther insists that all material things are God's good creation in which God is intimately present. There is a creative and salvivic relationship between the infinite and the finite. Obviously, this assertion was crucial for Luther's defense of the real presence. It also serves as one of the theological explanations for his positive view of matter.

Both Zwingli and Oecolampadius, who were Luther's chief sacramental antagonists, agreed with him that Scripture must be the ultimate source and norm of the church's teachings. Indeed, they attacked Luther by citing scriptural texts and drawing particular sacramental implications from them. Thus Luther and the Swiss theologians agreed on what the norm of their theological positions should be. However, significant differences and disagreements emerged in their inter-pretations of that scriptural norm. In addition to the eucharistic passages and Eph 1:20 (8), John 6:63 was a pivotal text in the sacramental debates between the Lutherans and the Swiss.

The sixth chapter of John, especially verse 63, was of particular importance as the Swiss theologians addressed the question of Christ's presence in the sacrament and the manner and significance of the believers' sacramental eating. The passage reads: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.'"' Jesus' discourse in John 6 regarding the bread of life, his comments about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the spirit/flesh dialectic which he develops and especially the phrase "the flesh is of no avail" in verse 63 raised important questions for the Swiss theologians and significantly shaped their understanding of the Lord's Supper, especially Christ's presence in that Supper. They argued that since the flesh is of no avail, the bodily, physical presence of Christ in the sacrament is neither necessary nor beneficial. Secondly, they stressed the flesh/spirit dichotomy and lauded the spirit while denigrating the flesh. Thirdly, they maintained that spirit and flesh are such radically different entities that they cannot be united. Finally, they focused on spiritual and physical eating and noted that the spiritual eating was much more crucial than physical eating. Luther devoted a substantial portion of his two major eucharistic treatises, "That These Words of Christ, 'This is My Body,' etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics" of 1527 and his "Confession Concerning Christ's Supper" of 1528, (10) to his own interpretation of the sixth chapter of John. In doing so, he examined and rejected the sacramental implications drawn by the Swiss theologians on the basis of these passages. What follows highlights crucial aspects of Luther's argument.

Since Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail, Zwingli and Oecolampadius concluded that Christ's flesh would not be sacramentally efficacious and is not present in the sacrament." Luther responds that this passage is not applicable to Christ's flesh and, therefore, has no implications for the sacrament. He points out, first of all, that Christ says that "flesh is of no avail," not "my flesh is of no avail." (12) Thus, if the Swiss want to apply the passage to Christ's flesh, they must offer scriptural warrant for doing so. Of course, he implies that they are unable to provide such scriptural support. Secondly, Luther argues that Christ's flesh is not "fleshly" but spiritual. He notes that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the second part of John 3:6, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," applies to Jesus' flesh, not John 6:63. (13) Luther also recalls the promise of the angel to Mary that her child "...will be called holy, the Son of God." (14) Thirdly, he warns that denigrating Christ's flesh will lead to dualism and docetism, as has happened in the past. (15) Finally, Luther points out the devastating implications of the Swiss assertion for the incarnation and for soteriology. He asks:

If the flesh of Christ is not spirit, and therefore is of no avail since only the Spirit is profitable, how can it be profitable when it was given for us? How can it be useful if it is in heaven and we believe in it? If the reasoning is correct and adequate, that because Christ's flesh is not spirit it must be of no avail, then it can be of no avail on the cross or in heaven either! For it is quite as far from being spirit on the cross and in heaven as in the Supper But since no spirit was crucified for us, therefore Christ's flesh was crucified for us to no avail. And since no spirit, but Christ's flesh ascended into heaven, we believe in an unprofitable flesh in heaven. For wherever Christ's flesh may be, it is no spirit. If it is no spirit, it is of no avail and does not give life, as Zwingli here concludes." (16)

The point is clear. If Christ's flesh is not beneficial in the sacrament, it is also not beneficial on the cross or even in heaven. Then the gifts of forgiveness, life and salvation have neither been won for us by Christ nor are they dispensed in the eucharistic celebration. Luther hoped that his readers would follow his logic, recognize both the error and danger of the Swiss position, reject the biblical interpretation proposed by his opponents and conclude with him that Christ clearly did not refer to his own flesh when he proclaimed that the flesh is of no avail. In light of his incarnational and soteriological perspective, Luther argues that the flesh is, in fact, essential since it is in the flesh and by means of flesh that Christ has accomplished God's redemptive work. Hence the passage from John cannot be used to justify a rejection of the real presence, according to Luther. It also does not warrant a negative understanding of flesh or of created matter in general.

The Reformer clarifies his thinking further as he examines the spirit/flesh dialectic in greater depth. He notes that when flesh and spirit are placed in opposition in Scripture, flesh always refers to out sinful nature which is born of the flesh (John 3:6). (17) On the other hand, all that comes from the Spirit or is used by the Spirit for spiritual purposes, including flesh and other material things, is spiritual. (18) Luther summarizes his argument in the following passage:

... we do not call "flesh" that which can be seen by the eye or touched by the fingers, as the fanatics do when they call Christ's body useless flesh; but ... all is spirit, spiritual, and an object of the Spirit, in reality and in name, which comes from the Holy Spirit, be it as physical or material, outward or visible as it may; on die other hand, all is flesh and fleshly which comes from the natural power of the flesh, without spirit, be it as inward and invisible as it may. (19)

Because the Holy Spirit works in and through the Word of God and faith, everything that is connected with them is spiritual as well, no matter how physical or material it may be.

Thus, all that our body does outwardly and physically, if God's Word is added to it and it is done through faith, is in reality and in name done spiritually Nothing can be so material, fleshly, or outward, but it becomes spiritual when it is done in the Word and in faith. "Spiritual" is nothing else than what is done in us and by us through the Spirit and faith, whether the object with which we are dealing is physical or spiritual. Thus, "Spirit consists in the use, not in the object," be it seeing, hearing, speaking, touching, begetting, bearing, eating, drinking, or anything else. For if a person serves his neighbor and does in physically, it is of no avail of him, for the flesh is of no avail. But if he does it spiritually, i.e., if his heart does it out of faith in God's Word, it is life and salvation. (20)

The Holy Spirit, the Word and faith thus determine whether an object or a deed are spiritual or not, not the object or deed itself.

It is important to note that a basic perceptual and theological difference between Luther and the Swiss reformers is emerging here, namely, how they respond to the critical question of whether the finite is or is not a vehicle of the divine (finitum est capax infiniti or finitum non est capax infiniti). The fact that the two sides gave different answers to this central question largely explains their different sacramental theologies, especially with regard to Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Their answers also had crucial implications for their attitude toward and perception of the material.

It is with these definitions of flesh and spirit, or of the fleshly and spiritual, in mind that Luther also addresses the Swiss claim that it is not fitting that Christ's body and blood are present in bread and wine. (21) Here the issue of the finite holding the infinite comes to the forefront. Karlstadt had apparently set the stage for this debate in the following statement attributed to him by Luther: "My friend, you will not persuade me that God is in the bread and wine.'' (22) Oecolampadius also raised this central issue when he rejected the notion that Christ "...is enclosed in the loaves and falling crumbs on many altars,..." (23) The Basel Reformer challenged Luther particularly by referring to the God of the Lutherans as a baked God, a bread-God, a meat-God and other similar terms. (24) From the Swiss perspective it was not consistent with Christ's divine glory to be physically present in the sacrament. Hence, they argued that it is neither fitting nor necessary that Christ's physical body and blood be in the bread and wine. (25) Luther retorted that if this is true then the incarnation and Christ's other saving acts are also not fitting or reasonable. And so he writes:

To this first point I might say equally well that it is not reasonable that God should descend from heaven and enter into the womb; that he who nourishes, sustains, and encompasses all the world should allow himself to be nourished and encompassed by the Virgin. Likewise, that Christ, a king of glory [Ps 24:10], at whose feet all angels must fall and before whom all creatures must tremble, should thus humble himself below all men and allow himself to be suspended upon the cross as a most notorious evil-doer and that by the most wicked and desperate of men. And I might conclude from this that God did not become man, or that the crucified Christ is not God. (26)

Questioning the reality of God's presence in and use of the material thus has dire consequences for the very heart of the Christian message and puts the salvation of humanity into doubt. The Swiss did not intend or envision such consequences, but Luther insists that these are precisely the implications of their eucharistic theology.

With regard to the Swiss contention that it is not necessary that Christ's body and blood are physically present in the sacrament, Luther cautions that they should let God decide what is necessary and what it not. If we start questioning God regarding Christ sacramental presence, we might well question why Christ was necessary at all since God could easily have overcome the power of sin by simply speaking a word. We could also assert that it was not necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin or that he be God since God could have enabled a human being to save us. This is what happens when people do not trust and believe God's clear word and draw conclusions about God's will and activity on the basis of their own reason. "Therefore," Luther insists, "one must close mouth, eyes and all the senses and say: 'Lord, you know better than I."' (27)

The Swiss asserted that Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament was neither fitting nor necessary because they considered it to contradict Christ's glory. (28) Informed by his theology of the cross, Luther instructed his opponents what Christ's glory truly is. Christ's glory does not consist of sitting at the right hand of God "...on a velvet cushion...," (29) insists Luther. Rather, his glory is manifest precisely when his body and blood are present in the Supper, when he permits the learned to become offended and hardened by his foolish words and works, when he makes the wise fools so that they are blinded precisely where they desire to be most wise. It is also Christ's glory to be so concerned about poor sinners and to show them such love that he is not only present among them but gives them his own body so that their bodies might have eternal life. Thus the glory of God "...is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our bosom; moreover, for our sakes he allows himself to be treated ingloriously both on the cross and on the altar, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 11 [:27], that some eat the bread in an unworthy manner." (30) It is once again crucial to note Luther's incarnational perspective and his emphasis on the material as a means of God's immanence and of God's saving activity.

While Christ's eucharistic presence contradicts his glory according to the Swiss, Luther believes that his surprising, foolish, offensive divine glory is manifest particularly as he takes on flesh, suffers for us, is present in the sacrament and nourishes us with his own flesh and blood. The Reformer was so adamant and certain about this not only because of his theology of the cross but also because he was convinced that the physical and the spiritual, the material and the divine, are not irreconcilable opposites but are intimately yoked in God's saving and life-giving work. While the Swiss had difficulty imagining and, therefore, believing that the body could be in the bread, Luther insisted that God has specifically chosen to be present in and to work through the material. Hence, the Reformer can make the radical assertion that the Holy Spirit cannot be present with believers "...except in material and physical things such as the Word, water, and Christ's body and in his saints on earth." (31) He also points out that God's word, which makes objects and works spiritual, is always accompanied by the physical or the material. Luther gives the examples of Abraham to whom God gave Isaac together with the word, of Noah to whom God made a promise and sent the rainbow and of the Supper where the word is accompanied by Christ's crucified body. And so he concludes: "You find no word of God in the entire Scriptures in which something material and outward is not contained and presented." (32) Luther presses his point even further and asserts that, as is the case with the Holy Spirit and the Word, faith, too, is always connected to a physical object. (33)

The philosophical law of identical predication, which stated that two differing substances cannot be united, had long challenged sacramental theologians as they sought to reconcile the presence of bread and wine as well as of body and blood in the Eucharist. The medieval scholastics resolved the problem posed by identical predication through the doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserted that the substance of bread and wine is replaced by body and blood. Hence, only body and blood are present in the sacrament. During the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe rejected transubstantiation, spoke of the elements as signs, suggested that Christ's body and blood are present "sacramentally," not physically, and argued that the sacramental elements remain bread and wine. (34) Not surprisingly, Zwingli, who also agreed with the law of identical predication, (35) cited Wycliffe in support of his rejection of the real presence. (36) Luther not only disagreed with the scholastics, as well as with Wycliffe and Zwingli, but he also argued that the law of identical predication is irrelevant to the sacramental discussion. While reason and philosophical principles suggest that two diverse substances cannot become one, Luther argued that this is clearly a possibility, indeed, a reality, in divine matters. He points particularly to the incarnation in support of his position that bread and body and wine and blood, which are obviously distinct and different substances, can be united in the sacrament. While the physical elements are relationally changed by the sacramental union, they are not transubstantiated or destroyed. Body and blood as well as bread and wine are, therefore, present in the Eucharist and together they are a new sacramental substance.

For even though body and bread are two distinct substances, each one existing by itself, and though neither is mistaken for the other where they are separated from each other, nevertheless where they are united and become a new, entire substance, they lose their difference so far as this new, unique substance is concerned. As they become one, they are called and designated one object. It is not necessary, meanwhile, that one of the two disappear or be annihilated, but both the bread and the body remain, and by virtue of the sacramental unity it is correct to say, "This is my body," designating the bread with the word "this." For now it is no longer ordinary bread in the oven, but a "flesh-bread" or "body-bread," i.e. a bread which has become one sacramental substance, one with the body of Christ. Likewise with the wine in the cup, "This is my blood," designating the wine with the word "this." For it is no longer ordinary wine in the cellar but "blood-wine," i.e. a wine which has been united with the blood of Christ in one sacramental substance. (37)

According to Luther, then, the law of identical predication simply constitutes another fallacious argument in support of a denial of Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament. Divine truth obviously transcends philosophical principles. Hence, identical predication is irrelevant in divine matters and does not necessitate either a scholastic position, which rejects the presence of bread and wine, or a Zwinglian position, which denies the presence of body and blood. It also cannot be cited as justification for arguing that the divine and the material cannot be united.

While the Swiss continued to celebrate the Eucharist and expected the people to participate in that celebration and partake of the sacrament, their sacramental theology caused them to emphasize spiritual, rather than physical, eating as the essential sacramental action of the believer. (38) Such spiritual eating, or faith, does not necessitate Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament. They also feared that the Lutheran stress on the real presence and on the physical eating and drinking of Christ's physical body and blood would lead to what was termed "Capernaitic eating." Indeed, they accused Luther and his followers of this error. (39)

In response to these assertions and concerns of his opponents, Luther defended the value of physical eating. Such eating, when done in faith, is, in fact, spiritual. Because Christ's body is eaten, the promise of forgiveness is also fulfilled through such spiritual physical eating. (40) Furthermore, as it partakes of the everlasting food which is the body and blood of Christ, the human body is also assured that it will live forever. (41) For Luther, then, the Eucharist is not only spiritual food for the soul but also bodily nourishment which literally assures everlasting life to the body. Physical eating is, therefore, essential and beneficial, but it is not sufficient. Those who partake must also eat spiritually. As they eat the bread and drink the wine physically, they must also believe that they are eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. (42) Both physical eating and spiritual eating, or believing, are necessary if the sacrament is to be beneficial to both body and soul. Luther explains his position concretely:

The mouth eats the body of Christ physically, for it cannot grasp or eat the words, nor does it know what it is eating. As far as taste is concerned the mouth surely seems to he eating something other than Christ's body. But the heart grasps the words in faith and eats spiritually precisely the same body as the mouth eats physically, for the heart sees very well what the uncomprehending mouth eats physically. But how does it see this? Not by looking at the bread or at the mouth's eating, but at the word which is there, "Eat, this is my body." Yet there is only one body of Christ, which both mouth and heart eat, each in its own mode and manner. The heart cannot eat it physically nor can the mouth eat it spiritually. So God arranges that the mouth eats physically for the heart and the heart eats spiritually for the mouth, and thus both are satisfied and saved by one and the same food. (43)

Luther clearly rejects the Swiss accusation that the Lutherans stress physical eating and neglect spiritual eating, and he also ardently denies the charge of Capernaitic eating. Although the Lutherans insist that the body and blood of Christ are physically present in the sacrament, they do not teach or envision a materialistic devouring of Christ's flesh in the eucharistic partaking, nor does their theology imply or lead to such a false understanding of the sacramental action. Luther explains, therefore, that when Christ's physical body is eaten physically in the Supper it is not torn into pieces, divided, corrupted, destroyed, chewed or digested. Christ's body is blessed, divine and incorruptible flesh which is unlike any other food. It is not consumed by the one who eats it, but it transforms that person into what it is, namely, something " ... spiritual, alive and eternal; ... " (44) The charge that the Lutherans are Capernaites or that their eucharis-tic theology implies Capernaitic eating is both false and unfair, protests Luther.

In responding to the Swiss assertion that the flesh is of no avail and that it would be inconsistent with Christ's glory to be present in bread and wine, Luther formulated a theology of creation and incarnation which affirms matter as God's good creation, which emphasizes God's immanent presence in all created things and which maintains that God accomplishes God's saving work precisely through material means. The Reformer thus clearly differentiated himself from his sacramental opponents by insisting that the finite is capable of holding the infinite, finitum est capax infiniti.

As has become apparent, this crucial affirmation is informed by and confirms central themes in Luther's theology. The confession that God is the creator and preserver of all that is; the crucial importance of Christ's incarnation for God's self-revelation and God's saving acts; a conscious affirmation of Chalcedonian Christology, with a particular emphasis on the unity of the two natures; a focus on the means of grace and a physical, material understanding of Christ's eucharis-tic presence all reflect and necessitate his positive view of created matter and his insistence that the divine and the material are intimately and necessarily related. Luther was, therefore, an ardent proponent of the sacred, spiritual nature of the material, not only as God's good creation but also as the unique means of God's intimate presence in the world and as the instrument of God's redemptive and justifying activity. The Reformer's soteriological perspective obviously necessitates an intimate relationship between God who is Creator and Redeemer and the creation. While he strives diligently to avoid pantheism and panentheism, he also rejects all dualistic and iconoclastic tendencies which have, too often, manifested themselves within the Christian tradition. The Reformer's stance has crucial implications for God's nature and work. Luther's God is a relational, immanent God, and this God works through means, the material means of God's creation. The notion that the finite is a vehicle of the divine also necessitates a particular attitude toward and relationship with the material and has very practical implications for the life and ministry of people of faith. For illustrative purposes I will note two such implications, one from the Lutheran historical heritage and one which suggests that the church should assume a leadership role in addressing one of the great challenges faced by our world today.

Luther's notion that the finite is a vehicle of the divine clearly shaped the Lutheran community's attitude toward and use of the arts. From its very beginning, the evangelical movement did not promote or tolerate iconoclasm. (45) Although the side altars, used primarily for the celebration of votive masses, were often removed, the churches which became Lutheran houses of worship were not stripped of their art work. Even when new evangelical churches were built, they did not differ significantly from already extant structures except that the pulpit was often located in the midst of the congregation. Quite obviously, this architectural feature reflected Luther's theological emphasis on the centrality and efficacy of the living Word and, hence, of proclamation in Christian worship. In light of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and his insistence that the sacrament was Christ's gift to the whole community, not a possession of the clergy, Luther also advocated that the altar should be moved away from the wall and that the priest should face the people during the sacramental liturgy. (46) In spite of its theological warrant, this innovation was generally not implemented among Lutherans until more modern times. With these minimal changes, Lutheran church buildings looked very much like those of the Roman church and retained the traditional artistic expressions, although these were informed by evangelical theology. Any fear of idolatry was transcended by the conviction that the material could be used to express a spiritual message and to celebrate God's saving acts.

The visual arts, especially woodcuts, were promoted by the Lutheran reformers, although primarily for didactic rather than aesthetic purposes. (47) The Bible, which was translated into German by Luther and his colleagues and was first published in 1534, (48) was not only an important theological, devotional and literary accomplishment. It also had artistic merit with its illuminated initials and 124 woodcuts, some in color. (49) The Scriptures themselves, which were to have a central place in the church's life, thus became a means of affirming and promoting artistic endeavors, especially the visual arts. Luther's German Bible concretely demonstrated the Reformer's contention that the word pictures in Scripture are quite naturally formed into mental pictures by the believer and, in turn, foster the artistic depiction of biblical themes and scenes. (50) Woodcuts were also prevalent in the pamphlet literature of the time. This literary genre became a popular means of communicating Lutheran theological insights to the general public. The woodcuts portrayed the central message of the pamphlet in pictorial form. Thus, both the learned and those who could not read were taught the essentials of the faith. Albrecht Durer and his school were particularly adept at this specific artistic medium. Unfortunately, the polemical and scatological use of pamphlets and of woodcuts also became quite popular during the Reformation period. It must be noted, however, that pamphlets, with their woodcuts, were often effective didactic and communication tools, even when they were employed in negative ways, and that they had an important impact on the culture and society of the time.

Artists, particularly Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger, not only provided posterity with portraits of the reformers and of contemporary ecclesiastical and political personalities, but they also produced religious art. (51) The altarpieces in St. Mary's Church, the city church of Wittenberg, and in St. Peter and St. Paul Church in Weimar are prime examples of evangelical sacred art. Important theological themes, such as the priesthood of all believers and the centrality of Word and sacraments, were presented in pictorial form by these artists. For example, in one of the panels of the altarpiece in St. Mary's Church, Philip Melanchthon, who was a layperson, is depicted baptizing one of his children. While the scene has no historical basis, it was a striking and effective visual depiction of Luther's doctrine of the universal priesthood which asserted that all the baptized have sacramental authority. (52) Artistic endeavors and visual images were affirmed by the evangelicals on the basis of Luther's theology, and they became integral parts of the worship spaces and worship experiences of Cod's people. The finite was clearly viewed and used as a vehicle of the divine.

The celebration and implementation of this theological principle was perhaps most readily apparent within Lutheran circles in the composition and use of sacred music as an essential part of worship, as an effective means of spiritual expression and as an important catechetical resource. (53) The long and illustrious tradition of Lutheran church music ranges from the popular hymns of Luther during the sixteenth century to the Christo-centric and spiritually moving hymnody of Paul Cerhardt in the seventeenth century to the majestic compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach in the eighteenth century, particularly his cantatas, organ preludes, passions, short masses and Mass in B Minor. These compositions proclaim the central themes of Luther's biblical message and reflect his theological and spiritual conviction that the material can be used for spiritual purposes.

The church no longer dominates society and culture as it did in medieval Europe or in the time of the Reformation. Theology no longer defines the contemporary world view nor does it play a major role in inspiring and shaping artistic expressions. Yet, the church continues to be a community which is called to be of service to the world. Christians continue to confess their faith and express that faith in worship, theological documents and practical witness. The church's theology thus continues to be a resource to the Christian community as it seeks to be the body of Christ in any particular time, place or culture. The confession that God is Creator, that God has taken on human flesh, that the creation is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and that God remains immanently present and active through such material means as water and bread and wine continues to enliven people and bring them hope. Therefore, these crucial theological affirmations which are so intimately related to the notion of finitum capax infiniti can still inspire the church to be an agent of cultural critique, transformation and expression. It will be precisely that when it again becomes a catalyst for artistic endeavors, whether sacred or secular, and when it opposes all forms of dualism which denigrate the material and justify its neglect and abuse. This last point brings me to the second implication which I want to highlight.

In addition to fostering artistic expression, and even more importantly, the church catholic and surely the Lutheran community should provide leadership in contemporary efforts to address the greatest and most fundamental challenge facing our world today, namely, the ecological crisis. There can be very little doubt that two centuries of industrial and economic activity has affected the earth in profoundly negative ways. God's wondrous gift of creation which has sustained life in its diverse complexity for so long has been compromised so radically that its very existence and, hence, the existence of life as we know it are endangered. Of course, Luther did not envision the contemporary ecological crisis nor does he address specific aspects of that crisis. However, because of his theology of creation, incarnation, redemption and the means of grace, the Reformer was profoundly respectful of all material things, and his love for the beauties of nature is readily apparent in his writings. The heritage which he articulated in such creative and passionate ways gives Lutherans a sound theological basis and serves as obvious inspiration for ecological consciousness and commitment. We are called to care for God's creation, not only for our sake and for the sake of future generations but also for God's sake. After all, the material continues to be a vehicle of the divine, and God continues to take simple water, connects it to God's Word and transforms it into life-giving water. Christ continues to add his promises to bread and wine and offers us his body and blood to nurture the gift of life within us. The Holy Spirit continues to be present in the means of grace and uses them to create and strengthen faith. When we respect and preserve the material world around us, we are stewards of the material vehicles of the divine. From a Christian perspective, the ecological movement is ultimately not a matter of political correctness, of practical necessity or of an altruistic sense of morality. It is a spiritual matter, a matter of faith, a divine matter, and we are reminded of this every time we come to the table, take the bread and wine and are assured that we receive Christ himself. Finitum capax infiniti.

A version of this essay will also be published in Seminary Ridge Review, Vol. 10, 2 (Spring 2008). The SRR is a publication of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, where the essay was presented at the 2007 Luther Colloquy.

(1) See Luther's "Babylonian Captivity of the Church," in Luther's Works, 55 vols. (ed. Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan; Philadelphia; Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-1986). vol. 36, pp. 3-126. Hereafter referred to as LW.

(2) The most important scholarly discussions of Luther's conflicts with the Swiss theologians are Walther Kohler, Zwingli mid Luther: Ihr Streit uber das Abendmahl, 2 vols., Quellen and Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, vols. 6-7 (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1924 and Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1953) and Hermann Sasse, This is my Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1959).

(3) Note, for example, Oecolampadius' assertion: "The nature of a body is to be in one place. That body which can be in many places at the same time will not be considered to be a true body. A body has one location, unless it can be taught otherwise from Scripture." "Reasonable Answer to Dr. Martin Luther's Instruction Concerning the Sacrament," in Johann Georg Walch, ed.. Dr. Martin Luthers Samtliche. Schriften, 2nd ed., 23 vols. in 25 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1880-1910), 20:603. Hereafter referred to as St. Louis edition. Zwingli noted:" ... this word [until] binds him to the right hand of God until the predetermined day, so that we may easily understand that he will never be any where else than at the right hand of God until the judgment is completed ... " "Reply to the Letters of Theobald Billican and Urban Rhegius," in Emil Egli, Georg Finsler, Walther Kohler and Oskar Farner, eds., Huldreich Zwinglis Samtliche Schriften, vol. 4 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1982), p. 907. [reprint of Corpus Refarmatorum, vol. 4], Hereafter referred to as Zwingli's Samtlichen.

(4) LW 37:57.

(5) LW 37:237.

(6) LW 37:58.

(7) LW 37:59. .See also LW 37:228: "He is a supernatural, inscrutable being who exists at the same time in every little seed, whole and entire, and yet also in all and above all and outside all created things. There is no need to enclose him here, as this spirit dreams, for a body is much, much too wide for the Godhead; it could contain many thousand Godheads. On the other hand, it is also far, far too narrow to contain one Godhead. Nothing is so small but God is still smaller, nothing so large but God is still larger, nothing is so short but God is still shorter, nothing so long but God is still longer, nothing is so broad but God is still broader, nothing so narrow but God is still narrower, and so on. He is an inexpressible being, above and beyond all that can be described and imagined."

(8) The passage' speaks about Christ sitting at the right hand of God.

(9) John 6.63 (RSV)

(10) These two writings arc the content of LW 37.

(11) Zwingli insisted: "The flesh of Christ profiteth very greatly, aye, immeasurably, in everyway but ... by being slain, not eaten. Slain it has saved us from slaughter, but devoured it profiteth absolutely nothing." "Commentary on True and False Religion," Clarence Nevin Heller, ed., The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Heidelberg Press, 1929), p. 209. Hereafter referred to as "Commentary," LWZ 3. He articulates the same argument in his "Reply to the Letters of Theobald Billican and Urban Rhegius": "The flesh of Christ is of no avail if it is eaten. Therefore those words of Christ, 'This is my body,' cannot he understood as if through them the flesh of Christ is eaten." [Translated in LW 37:130, footnote 225]. Zwinglis Samtliche Schriften, 4:898.

(12) LW 37:79.

(13) LW 37:98-99; 236-237.

(14) Luke 1:35 (RSV)

(15) LW 37:99

(16) LW 37:246-247. See also LW 37:85.

(17) LW 37:95.

(18) LW 37:94-95.

(19) LW 37:99.

(20) LW 37:92.

(21) Zwingli claimed: "She [the church] will not even brook the question whether the body of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in actual, physical, or essential form.'' "Commentary," LWZ 3:212.

(22) LW 37:52. Luther asserts that Karlstadt said these words to an unidentified person, presumably someone who affirmed the doctrine of the real presence.

(23) Quoted in LW 37:65, Footnote 108.

(24) I.W 37:52-53. See also LW 36:336; LW 38:29, 293, 295, 305. Oecolampadius argued that his description of his opponents as gostfleischesser and gotsblustsauffer and of their God as brotenen and gebachnen was defensible. See his "Reasonable Answer to Dr. Martin Luther's Instruction Concerning the Sacrament," St. Louis edition 20:582ff. Zwingli, too, argued that Lutheran sacramental theology suggested that God should be described in terms such as "edible," "impanated," "baked," "roasted" and "ground-up." "Si autem esculents deus, impanatus, coctus, frixus, aut pistus nusquam est. " "Reply to Letters of Theobald Billican and Urban Rhegius," 1526, Zwinglis Samtliche Schriften, 4:934

(25) LW 36:338. Oecolampadius asked: "What need have we of his body to be in that bread? I do not see what benefit accrues to us from this." [Translated in LW 37:127, footnote 216] "Reply to Willibald Prickheimer on the Subject of the Eucharist," D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 60 vols. (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1883-), 23:315. Hereafter referred to as WA. He notes further: "Moreover, the bodily presence of Christ is not necessary. As our adversaries themselves admit, the soul receives this [strengthening of faith] as often as the Word is preached in the gospel and received with faith." [Translated in LW 37:138, footnote 236] "Reasonable Answer to Dr. Martin Luther's Instruction concerning the Sacrament," St. Louis edition, 20:633. Oecolampadius notes further: "Moreover, we do not at all need the bodily presence of the Lord in order to receive the spiritual gifts...." "Reasonable Answer to Dr. Martin Luther's Instruction concerning the Sacrament," St. Louis edition 20:603.

(26) LW 36:338.

(27) LW 36:343-345.

(28) Oecolampadius cautioned: "If Christ is in the bread, then wherever the bread is placed or carried, it will be necessary for the body also to be carried to the same place, for it is bread; and one will be at liberty to play with it, so that it will be borne up and down, forward and backward in the bread, according to the whim of the administrant." "Reply to Willibald Pirckheimer on the Subject of the Eucharist," d 1; quoted in LW 37:65, footnote 108. Oecolampadius rejected the notion that Christ is "...enclosed in the loaves and fallen crumbs on many altars" or that bread is a "wrapping" for Christ. See his "Genuine Exposition of the Words of the Lord, 'This is my Body,' According to the most Ancient Authors," E 7, A v; quoted in LW 37:65, footnote 108. Oecolampadius also stated the position of the Swiss concisely in his "Apologetics ": "Scio bodie gloriosorum Christum, quam ut ah Mis vel tangi vel edi carnaliter sinat." "I know today a more glorious Christ than one who permits himself to be touched or carnally eaten." [Translated in LW 37:71, footnote 118]; "Apologetics," H 8 in WA 23,303.

(29) LW 37:70. Luther suggests that the implication of Oecolampadius' position is that Christ's glory consists of sitting "...at the right hand of Cod on a velvet cushion ...."

(30) LW 37:72.

(31) LW 37:95.

(32) LW 37:135-136.

(33) LW 37:292.

(34) LW 37:294ff.

(35) "The saying, 'this is bread and is, additionally, my body,' has no safeguard at all, either in God's word or in philosophy, for two substances cannot be one thing." "Friendly Reminder," St. Louis edition 20, 1111.

(36) "I hear (to mention this first) that Wycliffe earlier held and the Waldensians today hold this view, that 'is' was put here for 'signifies,' but I have not seen their Scripture basis for it." "Commentary on True and False Religion," LWZ 3, 224.

(37) LW 37:303.

(38) Martin Bucer speaks in Christ's stead as he interprets John 6:63: "If faith and hence my spirit are lacking, you will not receive life, and the eating of my flesh will be of no avail. I have been speaking of that spiritual and life-giving eating of myself." "Apology," 18. Quoted in LW 37:84, footnote 144.

Occolampadius stressed: "We exhort to faith ... rather than to the eating of bread." "Reply to Willibald Pirckheimer on the Subject of the Eucharist," c 2. Quoted in LW 37:86, footnote 146.

(39.) Oecolampadius asserts: "They are Capernaites, who promise themselves a fleshly table, as if the flesh of Christ were contained in the bread." [Translated in LW 37:93, footnote 153]; "Genuine Exposition of the Words of the Lord, 'This is my Body,' According to the Most Ancient Authors," A 6; WA 23, 308. Zwingli rejects any notion of physical eating: "That the symbolic bread is the flesh of Christ is so abhorrent to the mind of all believers that no one of us has ever truly believed it ... This idea of mangling the flesh the mind so rejects that one would not dare to chew but would spit it out of one's mouth." "Rearguard or Supplement Concerning the Eucharist," Zwinglis Samtliche Schriften, 4:493.

(40) LW 38:46-47.

(41) LW 37:71, 87, 93-94.

(42) LW 37:85.

(43) LW 37:93.

(44) LW 37:100.

(45) See the eight sermons Luther preached when returning to Wittenberg from the Wart-burg, LW 51:70-100. See also Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols. The Reformation and Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). This is a fascinating study which compares the responses of the various Reformation movements to images. The author explores the different attitudes of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions and suggests that those differences are explained by their disagreement over the question of whether the finite holds the infinite.

(46) LW 53:69.

(47) The best and most thorough discussion in English of the German Reformation's use of and impact on artistic expression is Carl C. Christiansen, Art and the Reformation in Germany, Studies in the Reformation, Vol. 2 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1981).

(48) The New Testament was translated by Luther in eleven weeks during his stay at the Wartburg. The first edition was published in September, 1522 and is generally known as the "September Testament." However, the whole Bible was not published until 1534 when it also appeared in a Low German version. For insights into Luther's work as a translator of Scripture see Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965). Both the 1522 and 1534 Bibles, the latter with hand-colored woodcuts from the studio of Cranach, are part of the rare books collection of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.

(49) Harold J. Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, second edition (New York: Mac-millan Publishing Company, 1973), p. 186.

(50) LW 40:99-100.

(51) A fine collection of Cranach art is exhibited in the castle museum in Weimar, Germany.

(52) LW 44:127-130; LW 36:112-113, 116; LW 40:18-35.

(53) For Luther's and Lutheranism's contributions to sacred music see Paul Nettl, Luther and Music (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Publishing House, 1948) and Patrice Veit, Das Kirchenlied in der Reformation Martin Luthers: Eine Thematische und Semantische Untersuchung (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, 1986).

Kurt K. Hendel

Bernard, Fischer, Westberg Distinguished Ministry Professor of Reformation History Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago