Altlutheraner

CTSFW Prof. David Scaer, in a 2014 essay, after admitting that Luther flatly denies that John 6 says anything about the Sacrament of the Altar, then most dishonestly refers, as though Luther contradicted himself, to the last verse of Luther’s Easter hymn Christ lag in Todesbanden (KELG 99):

Wir essen und leben wohl in rechten Osterfladen,
der alte Sauerteig nicht soll sein bei dem Wort der Gnaden.
Christus will die Koste sein und speisen
die Seel allein, der Glaub will keins andern leben.
Halleluja!

Looking at the words of the verse, one has to see that here, too, with the words “der Glaub will keins andern leben,” Luther refers this “feeding” to faith. Scaer’s interpretation of this hymn as eucharistic because it refers to John 6 in its common English translation is therefore merely a result of his own preconceived notion that John 6 must be eucharistic. Now, let us see Scaer’s arguments for “Rethinking John 6,” which he presents after complaining that Luther’s insistence on deriving doctrine from the sedes doctrinae “deprived Lutheran theology” of Scaer’s brilliant (in his own estimation) exegesis.

David Scaer’s mind reading

His first, chief, and “perhaps the most convincing” argument runs thus: John, commenting on the previous Gospels, reverses the order of the words of institution. Here, Scaer hopes that the reader will not notice that John does not use the words of institution in any order. However, even if he did, Scaer’s attempt at reading the apostle’s mind — he wants to avoid the question of what the text actually says, instead opting to inform us that David Scaer, the wisest of men, knows that John intended to comment on Matthew and thus “provide a full eucharistic theology” — reeks of exegesis of the worst kind, i.e., that which refuses to simply follow the text.

Scaer’s ignorance of Luther

Scaer makes the following claim:

Luther’s opposition to the eucharistic interpretation, which set the tone for Lutheran theology after him, surfaced in his Marburg debate with Zwingli in October 1529. His exegesis of the biblical texts usually employed a radical sacramentality. His non-sacramental approach in John was uncharacteristic of his exegesis, which can be seen as reaching an apex in his Lectures on Genesis, which were delivered in the last ten years of his life (1535-1545). Genesis was not even a New Testament book, yet Luther found the sacraments everywhere.

Scaer here confuses Luther discussing the Sacraments with Luther “finding the sacraments everywhere.” He continues:

The Lutherans were cutting their losses, sacrificing their legions, and determining to fight the battle on the Synoptic and Pauline battlefields.

Scaer, a professor at a place calling itself a seminary, reproaches Luther for staying with the words of institution, the sedes doctrinae of the Lord’s Supper, in his writings, and thus Scaer takes his side with the modernists of all ages against Scripture.

Scaer again makes Luther a contradictory mess of doctrines with the following words:

Even after Luther had adopted his non-eucharistic interpretation of John 6 in 1520, he used the language of John 6 in his referring to the Lord’s Supper as the “medicine of immortality.” In his 1527 treatise against Zwingli, This Is My Body, Luther used the language of John 6:63 in holding that Christ’s body is the same imperishable food, for “whether it enters the mouth or the heart, it is the same body.” Luther showed a similar inconsistency in citing the epistle of James after he [?] had ejected it from the canon.

Scaer now sounds just like your standard Papist scholar, claiming that Luther “ejected” James from the canon. Now, according to Scaer, it was “inconsistent” for Luther (and later Chemnitz) to quote such works as, e.g., James, Hebrews, Maccabees, Sirach, etc. Would he also forbid us from quoting the works of profane writers such as Josephus, lest we incur the charge of “inconsistency”? Or does this charge only apply when we read works that have been assumed by some to be Scripture?

That the Christ who, as is made extremely clear in John 6, is received in the heart by faith, is the same Christ who is received in the mouth in the Sacrament, does not in any way result in John 6 referring to the Sacrament.

Scaer against the necessity of the Sacraments

The dear professor makes the claim that the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation “should be kept out of theology proper.” Dear God! Here comes a man that cannot affirm that every Sacrament is necessary for salvation¹ — and he calls himself a Lutheran!

David Scaer: Ein wahrer Sasse-Anhänger

Scaer endorses Sasse, who, much like Scaer, “tried to overcome the old scheme of the Orthodox fathers,” many times throughout his essay, e.g., in his polemic against sola fide. But it is to be expected, for Scaer has elsewhere put forth Sasse’s lie that the Brief Statement “does not even reference the Lutheran Confessions once” as representing his own opinion, which he would undoubtedly present as correct. And in this essay just mentioned, he was rather crass in his Romanizing leading up to this quotation, which explains why, instead of humbling himself before God, he humbles himself before Sasse in his hypercritical judgment of Walther (p. 39), who was, it must be said, infinitely his better.

David Scaer’s quite active imagination

Scaer invokes the power of his mind to make associations where they do not, rightly considered, exist. That is the only reason why he would make the following argument:

Not incidentally, John’s statement “The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world” (6:51) strikingly resembles Luke’s “This is my body given for you” (22:19). In Matthew, blood sacrificially poured out for many (26:28) corresponds to John’s bread, which is Christ’s flesh given for the life of the world (John 6:51).

Scaer on the nature of the Gospels

Against a most convincing argument, Scaer scribbles:

Another favorite exegetical argument against the eucharistic interpretation is that the sacrament had not been instituted. We are as much amused as we are baffled at this objection, for at least two reasons. First, Jesus, like the Old Testament prophets, consistently provided explanations of events before they happened. …

Secondly, the view that the evangelist could not be writing about the Lord’s Supper assumes that the material in the Gospels is arranged chronologically like diaries. … Gospels are not diaries but post-resurrection, interpretative, theological commentaries on what Jesus said and did (John 2:22; 12:16; 21:25). All four evangelists, and not just John, wrote their Gospels after and in the light of the resurrection within the real-life church situations in which the authors found themselves. With the exception of the birth, death, and resurrection narratives, the Gospels are theologically arranged, not necessarily according to time sequence, but according to topics. Topics progress in an ascending order, so that at the conclusion of the Gospel the catechesis of the believer culminates with Baptism and Eucharist, a participation in the great mysteries of Jesus’ death and resurrection. …

Early on, John leaves obvious clues that those who heard his Gospel were already acquainted with the concluding events in the life of Jesus (2:22; 6:70-71). This is as true for Christ’s death and resurrection as it is for Baptism and the Eucharist. Gospels are not missionary but catechetical documents. Early Christians were acquainted with the Supper, which certainly had been instituted by the time the Fourth Gospel was written. The argument that John 6 is not eucharistic because the Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted exposes a remarkable ignorance about what the Gospels are. The real fallacy behind this objection is that we cannot speak of the Sacrament at all unless we speak of the words of institution. [!!!]

While this nonsense is not worth much of a refutation (and who can stop the mouth of a fool?), I will note that behind the reasons for Scaer’s “eucharistic interpretation” lies the unchristian rule: articles of faith are not to be derived from the sedes doctrinae alone, which rule results in all kinds of raving nonsense, which Scaer pretends to oppose.

Faith is a most violent action

Scaer says that “eating flesh as a metaphor for faith is problematic, since eating someone’s flesh is a metaphor for a hostile action.” One can easily conclude, then, that the faith of Scaer is incapable of violently snatching the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 11:12); that his faith is incapable of, as that faith which is based on the Gospel, the “higher Word,” does, annulling the Law of God; that it (if he be here believed) is a mere fides historica.

Is the “interpretation” of Luther and the Formula of Concord Zwinglian?

Multiple times throughout his worthless essay, Scaer accuses those who oppose his “eucharistic interpretation” of “giving Zwingli’s principle a Lutheran hue” and being influenced by Reformed scholars; however, he then reproaches us for ignoring the “concessions” of the same Reformed scholars. It would be very helpful if Prof. Scaer would stay consistent in his arguments against the Lutheran “interpretation” of John 6. It is, however, to be expected, for Scaer has elsewhere (Pro Ecclesia 14 [2005] pp. 143-60) made the false claim that the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, as taught by, e.g., Heshusius, was likely a result of Calvinist influence. And because of these relentless attacks on Scripture, which run through most of Scaer’s essays, I have to ask: Does Scaer’s “faith” even rise to the level of fides historica?

While I could spend more time addressing Scaer’s real and imagined reasons for his “exegesis” in the worst sense of the term, this article has become longer than intended. I may, if circumstances warrant, address this subject in the future; however, for the time being, I am finished.

1. That the sacraments, viz., Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are necessary for salvation does not in the least imply that they are absolutely necessary, that one cannot be saved without Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, that there are believers in hell, etc.