Worship can be livestreamed, but communion can't?

[Keith Falk]

I have no certain knowledge of when any of the New Testament books were written.  But that really does not matter: all of them are God's Word.  So, if only Matthew's Gospel connects forgiveness with communing, so what?  God has said it.  And once is enough for me.  How about you?

But you're certain that God said "for the forgiveness of sins" even though Mark, Luke, and Paul didn't seem to hear God speak those words. When Paul and the Didache write about benefits of the sacrament, forgiveness of sins isn't mentioned.


I believe that God does forgive sins in the sacrament, but I also believe that God is doing much more than that in the sacrament.

What do you mean here?

Steven indicated that what Matthew wrote are: "God said it." If that's what God said in the Upper Room, why didn't Mark, Luke, or Paul also report those words from God? One suggestion, they didn't hear it. That's why they didn't record it like Matthew.


The other option is that Matthew added it, since forgiveness within the community is one of his emphases, e.g., Matthew 18. Matthew indicates that Jesus knows Judas will betray him (Matt 26:25). There's no indication that Judas leaves, but is present to hear the words of forgiveness and receive the bread and wine of the sacrament. It's a word and meal of forgiveness shared with all the apostles who will abandon Jesus in the garden. Forgiveness is offered to Judas and Peter and all the rest; like we are to do with fellow believers who sin against us. The point of the forgiveness is reconciliation and the restoration of the community as one body. Judas wasn't willing to trust the forgiveness of the disciples. A scene found only in Matthew: Judas repented to the chief priests and elders and returned the money; but he hadn't sinned against them. He didn't receive forgiveness. He hanged himself.

They (Mark, Luke, Paul) didn't hear it (the part about forgiveness) - didn't hear it from whom?


"Matthew added it" as in, Matthew included in his writing a detail the others did not, or Matthew added it as in there was nothing actually said about forgiveness during the historical event, and so Matthew added it as an embellishment/explanation/narrative license in order to emphasize forgiveness?

[readselerttoo]

I have no certain knowledge of when any of the New Testament books were written.  But that really does not matter: all of them are God's Word.  So, if only Matthew's Gospel connects forgiveness with communing, so what?  God has said it.  And once is enough for me.  How about you?

But you're certain that God said "for the forgiveness of sins" even though Mark, Luke, and Paul didn't seem to hear God speak those words. When Paul and the Didache write about benefits of the sacrament, forgiveness of sins isn't mentioned.


I believe that God does forgive sins in the sacrament, but I also believe that God is doing much more than that in the sacrament.

What do you mean here?

I think the "much more" is life and salvation.  Forgiveness of sins, life and salvation:  the big three benefits mentioned by Luther in the section on Holy Communion in his Small Catechism:

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

[readselerttoo]

I have no certain knowledge of when any of the New Testament books were written.  But that really does not matter: all of them are God's Word.  So, if only Matthew's Gospel connects forgiveness with communing, so what?  God has said it.  And once is enough for me.  How about you?

But you're certain that God said "for the forgiveness of sins" even though Mark, Luke, and Paul didn't seem to hear God speak those words. When Paul and the Didache write about benefits of the sacrament, forgiveness of sins isn't mentioned.


I believe that God does forgive sins in the sacrament, but I also believe that God is doing much more than that in the sacrament.

What do you mean here?

Steven indicated that what Matthew wrote are: "God said it." If that's what God said in the Upper Room, why didn't Mark, Luke, or Paul also report those words from God? One suggestion, they didn't hear it. That's why they didn't record it like Matthew.


The other option is that Matthew added it, since forgiveness within the community is one of his emphases, e.g., Matthew 18. Matthew indicates that Jesus knows Judas will betray him (Matt 26:25). There's no indication that Judas leaves, but is present to hear the words of forgiveness and receive the bread and wine of the sacrament. It's a word and meal of forgiveness shared with all the apostles who will abandon Jesus in the garden. Forgiveness is offered to Judas and Peter and all the rest; like we are to do with fellow believers who sin against us. The point of the forgiveness is reconciliation and the restoration of the community as one body. Judas wasn't willing to trust the forgiveness of the disciples. A scene found only in Matthew: Judas repented to the chief priests and elders and returned the money; but he hadn't sinned against them. He didn't receive forgiveness. He hanged himself.

They (Mark, Luke, Paul) didn't hear it (the part about forgiveness) - didn't hear it from whom?


"Matthew added it" as in, Matthew included in his writing a detail the others did not, or Matthew added it as in there was nothing actually said about forgiveness during the historical event, and so Matthew added it as an embellishment/explanation/narrative license in order to emphasize forgiveness?

My question to Pr. Stoffregen as well.

[Dan Fienen]

The emphasis that Pr. Stoffregen brings that Communion is communal is salutary. We are brought together in one body in the meal. That is, I think, part of the reason that Lutherans rejected the private communions of priests celebrating the Mass for themselves alone. It is also part of why I am quite dubious of the remote consecrations of individuals or families having their own communion with a recorded or live streamed consecration over the TV or computer.


Where I disagree with Pr. Stoffregen is that he seems to not consider unity of faith to be a part of our unity in Christ. Communion is to be communal, but belief is apparently to him quite individualistic. Everybody can believe whatever and however they please and that is fine. Perhaps there is some minimal belief formula that all should adhere to, such as the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds (but not, heaven forfend, the Athanasian Creed), but unity of faith is not needed or perhaps even desired.


There is not unity of belief between Pr. Stoffregen and I, and I suspect most of Missouri Synod. Despite pointing to the fellowship that was at one time in place between the ALC (of which he was a part) and the LCMS, since discontinued and ultimately void since the ALC no long exists, that we both have some sort of formal subscription to the Creeds and Lutheran Confessions (although that common subscription is quite limited since he really dislikes the Athanasian Creed and limits his subscription to the Formula) he himself has claimed that the typical faith of Missouri Synod is different from his since he believes that we have departed from the true Gospel faith and become legalistic. Whether or not we have forfeited the Gospel and become legalists is a topic for another discussion on another day. But the fact remains that even in Pr. Stoffregen's comments, we are not unified in faith. We believe that matters.


So, is what people believe truly something of indifference, something that doesn't matter? We believe that it does matter.

[peter_speckhard]

Today's update concerning our first attempt at remote worship.

Lenten greetings to the St. Paul's family,

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14

[Jesus said] "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:51

We should thank God for the technology that allows us to stay connected somewhat during a time a separation. As we temporarily try to worship together without being together "in the flesh," so to speak, we rejoice at the gift of electronic communication. But I want to highlight the importance of the physical and some of the pitfalls of online worship, so that we all get the most out of the opportunity to worship remotely without falling into any spiritual snare.

Most obviously, watching worship is not the same thing as worshipping. Please don't tune in to our services the same way you would to a tv show. This will be harder than it seems. Speak the words of the creed, don't just listen to them. Pray, don't just listen to the prayers.  Sing the hymns and liturgical parts aloud, don't just have them in the background like a radio. (Again, make sure you have a hymnal in your home—you can check one out from church.) It will seem strange doing this out loud in your house, especially with other people sitting on the couch or across the room. But so be it. Unlike watching a movie, in worship, you are a participant, not an observer. In fact, making a point of this will help us all even when we can be back in church, because we all have a tendency to lapse back into the role of observer even when we're sitting in the pews.

More importantly, doing things remotely can give us the mistaken impression that the Church is an abstraction, a mere idea, rather than a concrete reality. If we mistakenly believe that worshipping remotely is the same thing, basically, as worshipping in person, then we're missing out on one of the great mysteries and gifts of Christianity. In the Church, you, that is, your flesh and blood, are being incorporated (note the root of that word!) into the Body of Christ and therefore God.

Consider God for a moment. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We confess, "I believe that God has made me..." How? Did he just imagine an idea of you? No. He made you a flesh and blood thing, and used physical means. Spoiler alert for any young children who may be reading this, but there was icky, physical contact and biology involved in God's work. Babies are not abstractions, nor are they begotten in the abstract. Yet we confess that the making of every human being is/was a holy act of the Creator with eternal, spiritual ramifications.

And consider Jesus. He came in the flesh. That is of crucial (literally) importance for the faith. There is no Jesus apart from flesh and blood. God became a Man. We don't put our trust in the abstract idea of God being nice and loving and merciful. We put our faith in the concrete, fleshly manifestation of the Truth. Countless ancient heretics have tried to get around the Incarnation, the enfleshment of God, but to no avail. There is no Christianity or Church without it.

So far so good. But now consider the Holy Spirit. How does He work to create faith and give us new life? In purely spiritual ways unconnected to the flesh? No! He works through means. One of those means, the spoken or written Word, can be communicated remotely via electronic media to flesh and blood eyes and ears. But that is not the extent of the Spirit's activity. C.S. Lewis, in his famous book Mere Christianity expressed the gist of the idea this way:

   "And let me be clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean something simply mental or moral. When they speak of being "in Christ" or of Christ being "in them," this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts—that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps this explains one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like Baptism and Holy Communion.  It is not merely the spreading of an idea; it is more like evolution* [*meaning gradual transformation, not the theory of origins]—a biological or super-biological fact. There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not. He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

This is why we treat our bodies as Temples of the Holy Spirit. This is why St. Paul says any individual Christian's sexual immorality is a sin against the whole Body of believers. This is why we put so much emphasis in funerals on the resurrection of the body, not just souls going to heaven. This is why Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the Life Together book we went through last fall, said Christians in isolation quite rightly long for the physical presence of other Christians, who bring with them in their person the presence of Christ. This is one reason the writer to the Hebrews instructed Christians not to stop meeting together. This is a big part of the problem with Christians trying to be "spiritual but not religious." This is the main reason we bring communion to the homebound even though they can worship regularly via some electronic format. Christians have long struggled to understand how Christ can offer us His body and blood in the Sacrament, but it has always been obvious that the real presence of our own body and blood is a prerequisite for receiving that spiritual gift.

So, again, we give thanks for the opportunity to be fed with a Service of the Word via electronic media. It is a huge blessing, especially on a temporary basis in a time of necessity. But it can never be the ideal, or even a an adequate solution in the long term. Our efforts will remain a work in progress. Every way of doing this – Facebook, Youtube, Zoom, etc.—has its pros and cons. There are copyright issues, sound quality issues, access issues (e.g. not everyone uses Facebook), etc. So please be patient as we find our way, and please help one another participate. And really participate, don't just watch.
We look forward to the day when we can gather as God's family in this place and receive all the gifts He has for us. Until then, let us receive the Word gratefully and resolve to be Christ to our neighbor however God enables us.

In Christ, Pastor Speckhard 
     

[Dave Benke]

Today's update concerning our first attempt at remote worship.

Lenten greetings to the St. Paul's family,

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14

[Jesus said] "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:51

We should thank God for the technology that allows us to stay connected somewhat during a time a separation. As we temporarily try to worship together without being together "in the flesh," so to speak, we rejoice at the gift of electronic communication. But I want to highlight the importance of the physical and some of the pitfalls of online worship, so that we all get the most out of the opportunity to worship remotely without falling into any spiritual snare.

Most obviously, watching worship is not the same thing as worshipping. Please don't tune in to our services the same way you would to a tv show. This will be harder than it seems. Speak the words of the creed, don't just listen to them. Pray, don't just listen to the prayers.  Sing the hymns and liturgical parts aloud, don't just have them in the background like a radio. (Again, make sure you have a hymnal in your home—you can check one out from church.) It will seem strange doing this out loud in your house, especially with other people sitting on the couch or across the room. But so be it. Unlike watching a movie, in worship, you are a participant, not an observer. In fact, making a point of this will help us all even when we can be back in church, because we all have a tendency to lapse back into the role of observer even when we're sitting in the pews.

More importantly, doing things remotely can give us the mistaken impression that the Church is an abstraction, a mere idea, rather than a concrete reality. If we mistakenly believe that worshipping remotely is the same thing, basically, as worshipping in person, then we're missing out on one of the great mysteries and gifts of Christianity. In the Church, you, that is, your flesh and blood, are being incorporated (note the root of that word!) into the Body of Christ and therefore God.

Consider God for a moment. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We confess, "I believe that God has made me..." How? Did he just imagine an idea of you? No. He made you a flesh and blood thing, and used physical means. Spoiler alert for any young children who may be reading this, but there was icky, physical contact and biology involved in God's work. Babies are not abstractions, nor are they begotten in the abstract. Yet we confess that the making of every human being is/was a holy act of the Creator with eternal, spiritual ramifications.

And consider Jesus. He came in the flesh. That is of crucial (literally) importance for the faith. There is no Jesus apart from flesh and blood. God became a Man. We don't put our trust in the abstract idea of God being nice and loving and merciful. We put our faith in the concrete, fleshly manifestation of the Truth. Countless ancient heretics have tried to get around the Incarnation, the enfleshment of God, but to no avail. There is no Christianity or Church without it.

So far so good. But now consider the Holy Spirit. How does He work to create faith and give us new life? In purely spiritual ways unconnected to the flesh? No! He works through means. One of those means, the spoken or written Word, can be communicated remotely via electronic media to flesh and blood eyes and ears. But that is not the extent of the Spirit's activity. C.S. Lewis, in his famous book Mere Christianity expressed the gist of the idea this way:

   "And let me be clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean something simply mental or moral. When they speak of being "in Christ" or of Christ being "in them," this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts—that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps this explains one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like Baptism and Holy Communion.  It is not merely the spreading of an idea; it is more like evolution* [*meaning gradual transformation, not the theory of origins]—a biological or super-biological fact. There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not. He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

This is why we treat our bodies as Temples of the Holy Spirit. This is why St. Paul says any individual Christian's sexual immorality is a sin against the whole Body of believers. This is why we put so much emphasis in funerals on the resurrection of the body, not just souls going to heaven. This is why Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the Life Together book we went through last fall, said Christians in isolation quite rightly long for the physical presence of other Christians, who bring with them in their person the presence of Christ. This is one reason the writer to the Hebrews instructed Christians not to stop meeting together. This is a big part of the problem with Christians trying to be "spiritual but not religious." This is the main reason we bring communion to the homebound even though they can worship regularly via some electronic format. Christians have long struggled to understand how Christ can offer us His body and blood in the Sacrament, but it has always been obvious that the real presence of our own body and blood is a prerequisite for receiving that spiritual gift.

So, again, we give thanks for the opportunity to be fed with a Service of the Word via electronic media. It is a huge blessing, especially on a temporary basis in a time of necessity. But it can never be the ideal, or even a an adequate solution in the long term. Our efforts will remain a work in progress. Every way of doing this – Facebook, Youtube, Zoom, etc.—has its pros and cons. There are copyright issues, sound quality issues, access issues (e.g. not everyone uses Facebook), etc. So please be patient as we find our way, and please help one another participate. And really participate, don't just watch.
We look forward to the day when we can gather as God's family in this place and receive all the gifts He has for us. Until then, let us receive the Word gratefully and resolve to be Christ to our neighbor however God enables us.

In Christ, Pastor Speckhard 
     

Well done.

What we're finding in the Facebook option is that people feel free to comment, bring prayer requests and other thoughts in real time, so we set aside a time to hear those and respond as a way to acknowledge the community beyond the sanctuary - lots of feedback.

Dave Benke

[Brian Stoffregen]

They (Mark, Luke, Paul) didn't hear it (the part about forgiveness) - didn't hear it from whom?

Steven said that God said it, so they didn't hear it from God from that point of view.


From my point of view, they didn't hear it from the oral tradition that they used to write their gospels.

"Matthew added it" as in, Matthew included in his writing a detail the others did not, or Matthew added it as in there was nothing actually said about forgiveness during the historical event, and so Matthew added it as an embellishment/explanation/narrative license in order to emphasize forgiveness?

Assuming that Matthew had a copy of Mark when he wrote his gospel, as I do; then, yes, "Matthew added it" to the tradition that he had. If it were part of the oral tradition handed down from the time of Jesus, it would have been part of the other accounts of the words of institution.


What explanation do you give for why Mark, Luke, and Paul do not mention "forgiveness of sins"? (Were you even aware that they don't mention it before this discussion?)


To be clear, this is a discussion about biblical exegesis; not about the benefits of the sacrament, that include forgiveness of sins as our confessions state.

[readselerttoo]

The emphasis that Pr. Stoffregen brings that Communion is communal is salutary. We are brought together in one body in the meal. That is, I think, part of the reason that Lutherans rejected the private communions of priests celebrating the Mass for themselves alone. It is also part of why I am quite dubious of the remote consecrations of individuals or families having their own communion with a recorded or live streamed consecration over the TV or computer.


Where I disagree with Pr. Stoffregen is that he seems to not consider unity of faith to be a part of our unity in Christ. Communion is to be communal, but belief is apparently to him quite individualistic. Everybody can believe whatever and however they please and that is fine. Perhaps there is some minimal belief formula that all should adhere to, such as the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds (but not, heaven forfend, the Athanasian Creed), but unity of faith is not needed or perhaps even desired.


There is not unity of belief between Pr. Stoffregen and I, and I suspect most of Missouri Synod. Despite pointing to the fellowship that was at one time in place between the ALC (of which he was a part) and the LCMS, since discontinued and ultimately void since the ALC no long exists, that we both have some sort of formal subscription to the Creeds and Lutheran Confessions (although that common subscription is quite limited since he really dislikes the Athanasian Creed and limits his subscription to the Formula) he himself has claimed that the typical faith of Missouri Synod is different from his since he believes that we have departed from the true Gospel faith and become legalistic. Whether or not we have forfeited the Gospel and become legalists is a topic for another discussion on another day. But the fact remains that even in Pr. Stoffregen's comments, we are not unified in faith. We believe that matters.


So, is what people believe truly something of indifference, something that doesn't matter? We believe that it does matter.

Part of this seems to fall under the category of the close-d communion and open communion issue.  Individuals believe and corporate confession of faith testifies to the unity that is shared by individual believers as they assembly for word and sacrament.  The older confessions (ie. Nicea, etc.) as originally presented began with the words:  "We believe..." and not " I believe).  Although I suspect that each person baptized would have given a personal confession of their belief.   The Formula of Concord presents the affirmative statements as "We believe, teach and confess..." which again testifies to the unity of the gathered fellowship as it publicly confesses the Gospel.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Part of this seems to fall under the category of the close-d communion and open communion issue.  Individuals believe and corporate confession of faith testifies to the unity that is shared by individual believers as they assembly for word and sacrament.  The older confessions (ie. Nicea, etc.) as originally presented began with the words:  "We believe..." and not " I believe).  Although I suspect that each person baptized would have given a personal confession of their belief.   The Formula of Concord presents the affirmative statements as "We believe, teach and confess..." which again testifies to the unity of the gathered fellowship as it publicly confesses the Gospel.

I applaud the LCMS's emphasis on unity of faith. It captures some of the corporate nature of the sacrament that I think Paul is talking about. However, I disagree that the sacrament is only a sign of our unity; that agreement of faith needs to happen before receiving the sacrament together. Just as the words "This is ..." transforms bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, so also the words, "We are one body" (1 Cor 10:17) transforms the gathered people into one body. The image given in the Didache is of wheat that is gathered from many different places comes together into one loaf of bread, so we who come from many different places come together as one body. (One could say the same thing about many different grapes coming together for the wine in the cup.)


While the original Greek of the Nicene Creed has "We believe" (Πιστεύομεν εἱς ἕνα θεόν,) the Latin version has "I believe" (Credo in unum Deum).


While the Confessions are about what "we, believe, and teach," that is a human unity created by agreeing with what's in the Confessions. I believe that the unity that God creates and gives us is broader: it is like the many different parts of a human body. The foot is not the same as the ear. A skin cell is not the same as a heart cell. Yet, with all the thousands of different parts, we are one body - able to live and breath and move and think and act. That's the image Paul gives of the church.

[readselerttoo]

Part of this seems to fall under the category of the close-d communion and open communion issue.  Individuals believe and corporate confession of faith testifies to the unity that is shared by individual believers as they assembly for word and sacrament.  The older confessions (ie. Nicea, etc.) as originally presented began with the words:  "We believe..." and not " I believe).  Although I suspect that each person baptized would have given a personal confession of their belief.   The Formula of Concord presents the affirmative statements as "We believe, teach and confess..." which again testifies to the unity of the gathered fellowship as it publicly confesses the Gospel.

I applaud the LCMS's emphasis on unity of faith. It captures some of the corporate nature of the sacrament that I think Paul is talking about. However, I disagree that the sacrament is only a sign of our unity; that agreement of faith needs to happen before receiving the sacrament together. Just as the words "This is ..." transforms bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, so also the words, "We are one body" (1 Cor 10:17) transforms the gathered people into one body. The image given in the Didache is of wheat that is gathered from many different places comes together into one loaf of bread, so we who come from many different places come together as one body. (One could say the same thing about many different grapes coming together for the wine in the cup.)


While the original Greek of the Nicene Creed has "We believe" (Πιστεύομεν εἱς ἕνα θεόν,) the Latin version has "I believe" (Credo in unum Deum).


While the Confessions are about what "we, believe, and teach," that is a human unity created by agreeing with what's in the Confessions. I believe that the unity that God creates and gives us is broader: it is like the many different parts of a human body. The foot is not the same as the ear. A skin cell is not the same as a heart cell. Yet, with all the thousands of different parts, we are one body - able to live and breath and move and think and act. That's the image Paul gives of the church.

The statement from the Formula of Concord is not simply that we believe and teach (as that also is what "we" do.)  But to omit the act of confession in those phrases indicates a lack of understanding as to why confessing is unique and as important as believing and teaching.  The act of confessing in a public manner brings out the kerygmatic and proclamatory aspect of belief (belief which is fundamentally an interior act before God), and teaching the content of faith in the doctinal elements eg. the Small Catechism.  Confessing comes from the Greek word meaning same-saying or same-word.  Homologia (confession) of faith means that as we confess faith in God,  God is at the same time making a confession and affirmation of his people under the Gospel.  "We believe in God"..."God believes in us".    Similarly in the confession of sin we confess that we are sinners alone before God as God same-says that back to us ie. that God recognizes us as sinners and the way toward truth is open for us before God in light of Christ's death and resurrection for his people.  Remember the unity that is spoken of here is not just the unity between members of the church but also unity of the members with their head, Christ (Christ is head of His Body which is the Church).  So in some sense the unity of faith which is played up in the LCMS adds a dimension which ELCA seems to lack evidentially, imo.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Steven indicated that what Matthew wrote are: "God said it." If that's what God said in the Upper Room, why didn't Mark, Luke, or Paul also report those words from God? One suggestion, they didn't hear it. That's why they didn't record it like Matthew.

The other option is that Matthew added it, since forgiveness within the community is one of his emphases, e.g., Matthew 18.

On what basis to you argue (and then base your further arguments) that there are only these 2 options? 

Pax, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

Steven indicated that what Matthew wrote are: "God said it." If that's what God said in the Upper Room, why didn't Mark, Luke, or Paul also report those words from God? One suggestion, they didn't hear it. That's why they didn't record it like Matthew.

The other option is that Matthew added it, since forgiveness within the community is one of his emphases, e.g., Matthew 18.

On what basis to you argue (and then base your further arguments) that there are only these 2 options? 

Because I've not heard of others (that made any logical sense to me). I asked for other explanations of why the three do not talk about forgiveness of sins. I don't recall any others being posted.


I suspect that you would present the opinion that Matthew was written first and he has an accurate presentation of the Upper Room words; but that doesn't explain why the others do not have it.

[Keith Falk]

They (Mark, Luke, Paul) didn't hear it (the part about forgiveness) - didn't hear it from whom?

Steven said that God said it, so they didn't hear it from God from that point of view.


From my point of view, they didn't hear it from the oral tradition that they used to write their gospels.

"Matthew added it" as in, Matthew included in his writing a detail the others did not, or Matthew added it as in there was nothing actually said about forgiveness during the historical event, and so Matthew added it as an embellishment/explanation/narrative license in order to emphasize forgiveness?

Assuming that Matthew had a copy of Mark when he wrote his gospel, as I do; then, yes, "Matthew added it" to the tradition that he had. If it were part of the oral tradition handed down from the time of Jesus, it would have been part of the other accounts of the words of institution.


What explanation do you give for why Mark, Luke, and Paul do not mention "forgiveness of sins"? (Were you even aware that they don't mention it before this discussion?)


To be clear, this is a discussion about biblical exegesis; not about the benefits of the sacrament, that include forgiveness of sins as our confessions state.

Why does it need to be explained why they didn't include it?  It seems to strain credulity that every writer of the events of the life of Jesus would include each and every detail.  John even addresses that in his Gospel.


As to the parenthetical, yes, Brian, I was aware of the differences of the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper.  Every single year I taught First Communion, we read through the telling of the story and talk about it - including the similarities and differences.  Quite frankly, it is an insulting question to ask of another Lutheran pastor.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Steven indicated that what Matthew wrote are: "God said it." If that's what God said in the Upper Room, why didn't Mark, Luke, or Paul also report those words from God? One suggestion, they didn't hear it. That's why they didn't record it like Matthew.

The other option is that Matthew added it, since forgiveness within the community is one of his emphases, e.g., Matthew 18.

On what basis to you argue (and then base your further arguments) that there are only these 2 options? 

Because I've not heard of others (that made any logical sense to me). I asked for other explanations of why the three do not talk about forgiveness of sins. I don't recall any others being posted.

I suspect that you would present the opinion that Matthew was written first and he has an accurate presentation of the Upper Room words; but that doesn't explain why the others do not have it.

Well, that's one possibility.  And the perspective that Matthew was written earliest is one that, indeed, I hold.

But an option I was thinking is that, unlike Mark, Luke, or Paul, Matthew was actually there.  Or, to put it more in tune with your perspective, "Matthew" is the only one purported to have been there.

Pastor Falk offers a couple more logical possibilities.  I can't help but note that you yourself are one who has often been quick to note (both in discussion and in your word studies) that when there are multiple witnesses to an event, rarely do they all say exactly the same thing.

I would also note that, no matter how early or late one thinks Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul put their Gospels/epistles to parchment (papyrus, paper, or whatever), Christians were gathering together to "do this."  You yourself know that it was typical of written accounts of that time to put down only the beginning (or "title") of some well known longer piece that was likely said in more extended, or even complete, form.  For instance, when Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" as he hung on the Cross, many (I don't recall off the top of my head, but perhaps you yourself, and if not, I'm almost certain you have at least mentioned the possibility) hold that those in his presence at Calvary would have heard him say the entire psalm.  In the LBW's recension of Hippolytus, the Verba don't include "for the forgiveness of sins."  I daresay, though, that many worshipers "hear" it nonetheless.  As would many reading/hearing Mark, Luke, and Paul.

So that's 7 options so far.

And then, as we have seen once again

To be clear, this is a discussion about biblical exegesis; not about the benefits of the sacrament, that include forgiveness of sins as our confessions state.

there is your propensity on this forum to introduce one detail, engage in an argument around that one detail, and then deny that you were actually making a significant theological/pastoral point in the first place.  Which may explain how, though not why, you'll have 40,000 posts on this forum by the end of this week.

Pax, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

Why does it need to be explained why they didn't include it?  It seems to strain credulity that every writer of the events of the life of Jesus would include each and every detail.  John even addresses that in his Gospel.

Because that's what exegetes do.

As to the parenthetical, yes, Brian, I was aware of the differences of the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper.  Every single year I taught First Communion, we read through the telling of the story and talk about it - including the similarities and differences.  Quite frankly, it is an insulting question to ask of another Lutheran pastor.

1. I had a Lutheran pastor proudly state that he hadn't opened a commentary since he left seminary. (I was reading two new ones on the primary gospel each year.)


2. I've had other Lutheran pastor express surprise when I've pointed out that "wine" is not mentioned in any of the words of institution. There are some who do not study the biblical texts. Even more who do not do synoptic studies.